Grandpa from Cruise ship tragedy charged

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The more grandpa talks the more I get the feeling it was accidentally on purpose. And that somehow the tape proves it. Like he’s not innocent AT ALL. Just a feeling I have.

Interestingly, for the charge against him, it doesn’t even matter how “accidentally ===>>purposely” he acted. A defendant can be found guilty of negligent homicide even if it was an full on freak accident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more grandpa talks the more I get the feeling it was accidentally on purpose. And that somehow the tape proves it. Like he’s not innocent AT ALL. Just a feeling I have.

Interestingly, for the charge against him, it doesn’t even matter how “accidentally ===>>purposely” he acted. A defendant can be found guilty of negligent homicide even if it was an full on freak accident.

That is incorrect. If it had been a true “freak accident,” such as if she were leaning against a glass window while he was holding her and the glass fell out of the frame, he wouldn’t have been charged. Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate care, like leaning a toddler out an open window 11 stories up and relying her not slipping from your grip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more grandpa talks the more I get the feeling it was accidentally on purpose. And that somehow the tape proves it. Like he’s not innocent AT ALL. Just a feeling I have.

Interestingly, for the charge against him, it doesn’t even matter how “accidentally ===>>purposely” he acted. A defendant can be found guilty of negligent homicide even if it was an full on freak accident.

That is incorrect. If it had been a true “freak accident,” such as if she were leaning against a glass window while he was holding her and the glass fell out of the frame, he wouldn’t have been charged. Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate care, like leaning a toddler out an open window 11 stories up and relying her not slipping from your grip.

Wrong. You’re changing the scenario. You’re making the case for zero negligence and therefore no charge. In this case there were facts sufficient to support the charge. He’s been charged. He can be found guilty of negligent homicide regardless of how accidental to purposeful his actions were.

[Anonymous]

I’m currently on the Celebrity Summit cruise ship. The pool deck has windows that open similar to the ones in this situation. But on the ship I’m on there is no tint on the windows at all. And there is still absolutely no way to miss that a window is there and that it is open. Seriously no way, even without tint. Grandpa hung her out that open window on purpose because he’s a complete idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more grandpa talks the more I get the feeling it was accidentally on purpose. And that somehow the tape proves it. Like he’s not innocent AT ALL. Just a feeling I have.

Interestingly, for the charge against him, it doesn’t even matter how “accidentally ===>>purposely” he acted. A defendant can be found guilty of negligent homicide even if it was an full on freak accident.

That is incorrect. If it had been a true “freak accident,” such as if she were leaning against a glass window while he was holding her and the glass fell out of the frame, he wouldn’t have been charged. Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate care, like leaning a toddler out an open window 11 stories up and relying her not slipping from your grip.

Wrong. You’re changing the scenario. You’re making the case for zero negligence and therefore no charge. In this case there were facts sufficient to support the charge. He’s been charged. He can be found guilty of negligent homicide regardless of how accidental to purposeful his actions were.

No. An element of the crime that just be proven is that he was negligent in his actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more grandpa talks the more I get the feeling it was accidentally on purpose. And that somehow the tape proves it. Like he’s not innocent AT ALL. Just a feeling I have.

Interestingly, for the charge against him, it doesn’t even matter how “accidentally ===>>purposely” he acted. A defendant can be found guilty of negligent homicide even if it was an full on freak accident.

That is incorrect. If it had been a true “freak accident,” such as if she were leaning against a glass window while he was holding her and the glass fell out of the frame, he wouldn’t have been charged. Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate care, like leaning a toddler out an open window 11 stories up and relying her not slipping from your grip.

Wrong. You’re changing the scenario. You’re making the case for zero negligence and therefore no charge. In this case there were facts sufficient to support the charge. He’s been charged. He can be found guilty of negligent homicide regardless of how accidental to purposeful his actions were.

No. An element of the crime that just be proven is that he was negligent in his actions.

Which could be proven by the facts that he hoisted the child onto a railing and lost his grip on her and she fell to her death. Whether he meant to or not.
Why are you making this so hard? It’s a simple and small point regarding grandpa’s intent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more grandpa talks the more I get the feeling it was accidentally on purpose. And that somehow the tape proves it. Like he’s not innocent AT ALL. Just a feeling I have.

Interestingly, for the charge against him, it doesn’t even matter how “accidentally ===>>purposely” he acted. A defendant can be found guilty of negligent homicide even if it was an full on freak accident.

That is incorrect. If it had been a true “freak accident,” such as if she were leaning against a glass window while he was holding her and the glass fell out of the frame, he wouldn’t have been charged. Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate care, like leaning a toddler out an open window 11 stories up and relying her not slipping from your grip.

Wrong. You’re changing the scenario. You’re making the case for zero negligence and therefore no charge. In this case there were facts sufficient to support the charge. He’s been charged. He can be found guilty of negligent homicide regardless of how accidental to purposeful his actions were.

No. An element of the crime that just be proven is that he was negligent in his actions.

Which could be proven by the facts that he hoisted the child onto a railing and lost his grip on her and she fell to her death. Whether he meant to or not.
Why are you making this so hard? It’s a simple and small point regarding grandpa’s intent.

DP. The act of lifting a toddler into an open window 11 stories up was negligent, precisely because of the risk that you might lose your grip on the child. It wasn’t a freak accident, it was a foreseeable risk.

[Anonymous]

Re: his interview. What did you all think of his demeanor/affect? To be honest, I felt he appeared to be pretending more emotion than he felt. Did you feel he seemed sincere?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Re: his interview. What did you all think of his demeanor/affect? To be honest, I felt he appeared to be pretending more emotion than he felt. Did you feel he seemed sincere?

I haven’t watched but read articles about it. The part that felt really off to me was how he kept saying that he didn’t care what happened to him next because the worst had already happened, so nothing else matters now. If that were true, he wouldn’t be off on the pity tour, trying to drum up public sympathy.

[Anonymous]

I also read that the video the family’s lawyer showed to CBS was doctored to make it seem like the whole incident took only 6 seconds, when in reality it was 25-30 seconds.

There is something very shady going on with this family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also read that the video the family’s lawyer showed to CBS was doctored to make it seem like the whole incident took only 6 seconds, when in reality it was 25-30 seconds.

There is something very shady going on with this family.

This is my reading as an attorney. Remember the grandparents who dropped their grandchildren from the overhead pedestrian walkway at Tyson's? Why could that not be happening here? And what about the fact he held her for 25 Second over the window, just like Michael JAckson did, and how does color-blindness event come into play? I thought this was suspicious from the beginning. Now I think Dad did it deliberately for whatever emotional reason and the family is trying to clean up (esp. with mom as a prosecutor).

[Anonymous]

Where are pps coming up with the Michael Jackson-type dangle out the window?

[Anonymous]

I bet Blanket will be in therapy for the rest of his life trying to understand why his dad did that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I bet Blanket will be in therapy for the rest of his life trying to understand why his dad did that.

Mainly he'll be in therapy for having the name "Blanket."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where are pps coming up with the Michael Jackson-type dangle out the window?

"Grandfather holds her up over the railing for 25 seconds". Unfortunately, we don't have access to that video but the judge did which explains everything. https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/26/us/grandfather-opens-up-about-toddler-fall/index.html