Grandpa from Cruise ship tragedy charged

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article says he is color blind so he didn’t see the tint on the closed windows.

Which is quite a change from their original claim, which is that there was no way to tell the difference between closed and open windows. Only when it was pointed out that the windows were tinted did this claim come out.

Note they didn’t mention what type of colorblindness he has, perhaps because the variety he has wouldn’t have affect his ability to discern the tinted glass.

Didn't one article say he reached out to see if he could touch the glass from the rail but couldn't, so figured it was safe. Wouldn't he be able to feel a breeze or something?!

Another claim that makes no sense. The rail was about a foot away from the window. The window is angled outward at that point so his reached to the window would have been a little more than 12”, but definitely within arm’s reach so he would have known here was no glass.

My guess is he knew the window was open and thought it would be neat to lean out and look down, not giving a thought to Chloe’s safety and whether she might fall.

[Anonymous]

This guy is either a completely reckless person or a complete idiot. One of the two. Neither one is good. Poor little Chloe..

[Anonymous]

So maybe he couldn't see the tint color (I have my doubts, but let's grant it). He could certainly see that this one window was different from all the others.

1. He went straight to that one window.
2. Someone else who has been on one of these ships recently posted here on DCUM that although the windows on their deck were not tinted, you could clearly see the difference.

So did he think the rest of them were open, and this was the only closed one? Or what?

Makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article says he is color blind so he didn’t see the tint on the closed windows.

Which is quite a change from their original claim, which is that there was no way to tell the difference between closed and open windows. Only when it was pointed out that the windows were tinted did this claim come out.

Note they didn’t mention what type of colorblindness he has, perhaps because the variety he has wouldn’t have affect his ability to discern the tinted glass.

Didn't one article say he reached out to see if he could touch the glass from the rail but couldn't, so figured it was safe. Wouldn't he be able to feel a breeze or something?!

Another claim that makes no sense. The rail was about a foot away from the window. The window is angled outward at that point so his reached to the window would have been a little more than 12”, but definitely within arm’s reach so he would have known here was no glass.

My guess is he knew the window was open and thought it would be neat to lean out and look down, not giving a thought to Chloe’s safety and whether she might fall.

Besides colorblindness, he is cursed with stubby arms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So maybe he couldn't see the tint color (I have my doubts, but let's grant it). He could certainly see that this one window was different from all the others.

1. He went straight to that one window.
2. Someone else who has been on one of these ships recently posted here on DCUM that although the windows on their deck were not tinted, you could clearly see the difference.

So did he think the rest of them were open, and this was the only closed one? Or what?

Makes no sense.

Not only is he colorblind, he is value blind. Light is dark and dark is light. In certain situations. Sometimes. When convenient.

[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.

The lawyer. Again. What a disgrace to the profession.
If he altered this video, he should be disbarred. Stat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article says he is color blind so he didn’t see the tint on the closed windows.

Still makes no sense why he would lift the girl up, when there was glass on the bottom/floor pane. She could look out for herself safe on the ground.

Excellent point. Unless he lifted her up at those hockey games?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The lawyer. Again. What a disgrace to the profession.
If he altered this video, he should be disbarred. Stat.

The article says this is the version the prosecutor’s office provided. Not saying the lawyer isn’t awful. But I don’t think he edited the video.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The lawyer. Again. What a disgrace to the profession.
If he altered this video, he should be disbarred. Stat.

Lol...disgrace to the profession? The profession is an utter disgrace to humanity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article says he is color blind so he didn’t see the tint on the closed windows.

Still makes no sense why he would lift the girl up, when there was glass on the bottom/floor pane. She could look out for herself safe on the ground.

Excellent point. Unless he lifted her up at those hockey games?

Nope. There’s a pic of her standing on the floor in front of the glass at her brother’s hockey game.

[Anonymous]

There is something so weird about this whole thing. No way was this an accident in any sense of the word. Yet, there is no motive for a trusted grandparent to do this. It does strike me as some weird, random, impulsive impulse on the grandfather's part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So maybe he couldn't see the tint color (I have my doubts, but let's grant it). He could certainly see that this one window was different from all the others.

1. He went straight to that one window.
2. Someone else who has been on one of these ships recently posted here on DCUM that although the windows on their deck were not tinted, you could clearly see the difference.

So did he think the rest of them were open, and this was the only closed one? Or what?

Makes no sense.

I was the one who posted that not only was I on a Royal Caribbean's ship, but I was on THIS very exact ship that this tragedy occurred on, not 30 days prior to this.

Let me clear something up... the windows are definitely marked clear and then tinted, clear and then tinted & so on... the differences are very, very obvious -- like night and day.

My father in-law has color blindness, in fact he has the rarest color blindness in the world called Tritanopia, which makes it very difficult to distinguish blues & yellows and even HE could tell which windows were locked and which were open... so that theory could never hold water & I'll tell you why.

It couldn't be color blindness because those that are color blind have been color blind their entire lives, which means they've ALWAYS seen colors the way it looks to them, which means their eyes have always adapted to view colors that way -- whatever they're seeing looks normal to them... the tint included.

I could see this argument standing up if the grandfather was normal sighted his whole life and then all of a sudden one day became color blind (which is impossible, btw), then sure, if this were possibile he may have had confusion.

However, the way he sees blue tint is the way he's always seen blue tint for his entire life, so this looks normal to him... nothing would be confusing.

I hope I'm making sense?

Lastly, and I've started this before... even if the man were 1000% legally blind, there's no possible way that he could have mistaken an open window from a window that never opens, because there are trade winds that rush through the window spitting salt water directly on your face as if you were standing directly in front of a running fan. This occurs from the moment you enter the ship (while being docked in port) throughout your entire journey.

If you've ever been on this very ship (as I have), it's absolutely infuriating to hear this lawyer talk about this being a "children's play area" (fyi, it's anything BUT a play area! This is a high traffic foot/walking area that is a constant pathway to get to and from entertainment areas (bar/pools/food/tables, etc) & it would be one of the very last places I'd ever put a baby down to play, for fear of them getting stepped on/run over). That in addition to this whole window theory are just ridiculous.

I don't care what this so-called "video" shows, I know the exact location this tragedy occurred and this lawyer's story doesn't add up AT ALL.
I honestly can't see a jury feeling anything but INSULTED that they he thinks they're stupid enough to believe the BS that he's peddling.

I really can't believe the lengths he/they will go through just to pin this entire tragedy on the cruise ship company.

[Anonymous]

* stated not started.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So maybe he couldn't see the tint color (I have my doubts, but let's grant it). He could certainly see that this one window was different from all the others.

1. He went straight to that one window.
2. Someone else who has been on one of these ships recently posted here on DCUM that although the windows on their deck were not tinted, you could clearly see the difference.

So did he think the rest of them were open, and this was the only closed one? Or what?

Makes no sense.

I was the one who posted that not only was I on a Royal Caribbean's ship, but I was on THIS very exact ship that this tragedy occurred on, not 30 days prior to this.

Let me clear something up... the windows are definitely marked clear and then tinted, clear and then tinted & so on... the differences are very, very obvious -- like night and day.

My father in-law has color blindness, in fact he has the rarest color blindness in the world called Tritanopia, which makes it very difficult to distinguish blues & yellows and even HE could tell which windows were locked and which were open... so that theory could never hold water & I'll tell you why.

It couldn't be color blindness because those that are color blind have been color blind their entire lives, which means they've ALWAYS seen colors the way it looks to them, which means their eyes have always adapted to view colors that way -- whatever they're seeing looks normal to them... the tint included.

I could see this argument standing up if the grandfather was normal sighted his whole life and then all of a sudden one day became color blind (which is impossible, btw), then sure, if this were possibile he may have had confusion.

However, the way he sees blue tint is the way he's always seen blue tint for his entire life, so this looks normal to him... nothing would be confusing.

I hope I'm making sense?

Lastly, and I've started this before... even if the man were 1000% legally blind, there's no possible way that he could have mistaken an open window from a window that never opens, because there are trade winds that rush through the window spitting salt water directly on your face as if you were standing directly in front of a running fan. This occurs from the moment you enter the ship (while being docked in port) throughout your entire journey.

If you've ever been on this very ship (as I have), it's absolutely infuriating to hear this lawyer talk about this being a "children's play area" (fyi, it's anything BUT a play area! This is a high traffic foot/walking area that is a constant pathway to get to and from entertainment areas (bar/pools/food/tables, etc) & it would be one of the very last places I'd ever put a baby down to play, for fear of them getting stepped on/run over). That in addition to this whole window theory are just ridiculous.

I don't care what this so-called "video" shows, I know the exact location this tragedy occurred and this lawyer's story doesn't add up AT ALL.
I honestly can't see a jury feeling anything but INSULTED that they he thinks they're stupid enough to believe the BS that he's peddling.

I really can't believe the lengths he/they will go through just to pin this entire tragedy on the cruise ship company.

You’d think. But a “good” lawyer can absolutely flip this script. Add in sympathetic defendant and suddenly he’s getting money from the cruise line. Really disheartening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article says he is color blind so he didn’t see the tint on the closed windows.

Which is quite a change from their original claim, which is that there was no way to tell the difference between closed and open windows. Only when it was pointed out that the windows were tinted did this claim come out.

Note they didn’t mention what type of colorblindness he has, perhaps because the variety he has wouldn’t have affect his ability to discern the tinted glass.

Didn't one article say he reached out to see if he could touch the glass from the rail but couldn't, so figured it was safe. Wouldn't he be able to feel a breeze or something?!

Another claim that makes no sense. The rail was about a foot away from the window. The window is angled outward at that point so his reached to the window would have been a little more than 12”, but definitely within arm’s reach so he would have known here was no glass.

My guess is he knew the window was open and thought it would be neat to lean out and look down, not giving a thought to Chloe’s safety and whether she might fall.

Yes, it wasnt baby's curiosity wanting to look out the window, it was HIS. Baby was probably terrified and squirmed wanting down and away from window. Baby probably didn't like the wind in her face either. I doubt she was getting a thrill standing on a rail over an open window! You can't convince me during the process of lifting her up he didn't realize the window was open.