Grandpa from Cruise ship tragedy charged

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My god, isn't inadvertently killing his own granddaughter punishment enough??

I don't think he needs to be put in jail over this!!

It was a horrible fluke tragedy.

But why do they have to sue then??

probably because they are deep in grief and lashing out in anger.

Doesn't mean they will win. A judge could toss it out as being frivolous.

Also doesn't mean he should be charged with a crime or put in jail.

We don't know all the facts. Something must have come up during the investigation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My god, isn't inadvertently killing his own granddaughter punishment enough??

I don't think he needs to be put in jail over this!!

It was a horrible fluke tragedy.

I felt the same way, until they tried to sue Royal Caribbean, and tried to shift blame. So either it was a fluke tragedy, or someone is at fault. The family can’t have it both ways.

[Anonymous]

This story was really terrible and hit me more because we went on a cruise right after it happened. We were on Disney and I looked around to see what might have happened. A couple things...

- on the deck around the pool on Disney (the equivalent of where this happened), there is a block of windows that can't be opened. So maybe the family had something in blaming RCL for having windows that could open in that area. That said... if some were open and some weren't it should have been VERY obvious to the grandpa.
- I did notice when I walked around the promenade deck - there was an area with open portholes. That was somewhere that I could see assuming there was a window and doing something stupid (there were pretty big rails over it so you'd have to climb up to fall out... or a kid would have to be set up there by an adult). So I could sort of kind of see how a similar accident could happen there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My god, isn't inadvertently killing his own granddaughter punishment enough??

I don't think he needs to be put in jail over this!!

It was a horrible fluke tragedy.

I felt the same way, until they tried to sue Royal Caribbean, and tried to shift blame. So either it was a fluke tragedy, or someone is at fault. The family can’t have it both ways.

Agreed, but that’s the American way......don’t take accountability for your actions and find somebody to sue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And it wasn't a mistake. It was willful negligence

Up to the judge to decide. Willful means deliberate. Did he deliberately place her on ledge knowing the window was open or did he not realize the window was open? I believe he claimed the latter. Either way, open or closed, he overestimated her safety as an older grandpa who kept her safe prior to this horrific (insert whatever you'd like to call it).

He did not willfully intend to kill his granddaughter. He is already serving a life sentence, imo. The judge should order therapy or this man will harm himself.

You appear to be using willful as a synnym for intent, which is not the charge. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Calm down Connie, was replying to a different poster. To another angry poster, judge will decide sentencing based on jury verdict. Tragic and sad no matter the outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My god, isn't inadvertently killing his own granddaughter punishment enough??

I don't think he needs to be put in jail over this!!

It was a horrible fluke tragedy.

I felt the same way, until they tried to sue Royal Caribbean, and tried to shift blame. So either it was a fluke tragedy, or someone is at fault. The family can’t have it both ways.

This.

[Anonymous]

Did he have her on the interior rail or literally sitting on the window pane? How exactly did she fall? Did his arms giveaway or did he leave her there alone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did he have her on the interior rail or literally sitting on the window pane? How exactly did she fall? Did his arms giveaway or did he leave her there alone?

If you scroll down, the third image explains it.

https://amp.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/missing-piece-that-will-solve-how-baby-chloe-plunged-to-her-death/news-story/ef75a969590006252f485312aec1cf7c

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if he propped her up, got distracted by something, and accidentally let her go or turned from her and she fell. There is no way he didn't know the class wasn't opened. It's just not possible

I think something along that too. Initially he set her in front of a closed window to let her "walk" along the railing with his hand on her back to keep her falling backwards. Maybe he stepped back to take a picture or turned his head to tell a family member how cute she looked and that is when she got to the open window.

[Anonymous]

https://boards.cruisecritic.com/topic/2677831-freedom-of-the-seas-opening-window/

This one shows the open window in daylight as it was during the accident. Plain to see the open window, it’s a completely different color.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there would be a lot more sympathy for the grandfather's fatal error if he and the family didn't put out false information and blatantly lie, in their re-telling of the story. If he simply came out as "I just wasn't thinking and lost my grip" as a tragic accident, I'd think less harshly.

But the family seems so deep in the denial of his responsibility and blame that it's hard to not think grandpa should be charged.

Which was what?

That lies it was (1) a child's play area, and (2) the grandpa lifted the little girl up so she could tap on the glass like at hockey games. The glass was floor to ceiling, and the little girl could have tapped on the glass (or look outside) from the floor. There was no reason he needed to lift her up, except because he wanted to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m glad he was charged because of the lawsuit the family filed.

And likely that’s why they had to file charges. Had they not sued the cruise ship company LE likely wouldn’t have resorted to charging him to prove he was responsible.

Yep. They brought this on themselves by suing the cruise company and refusing to take any ownership over what happened.

Np. I don't think the grandpa should be criminally charged. The family isn't pressing charges and this situation is so specific that it's unlikely to have any deterrent effect on the public at large.

And LE shouldn't be filing criminal charges in order "prove" his responsibility in connection with the civil lawsuit the family brought. That isn't the role of LE. We're talking about two different court systems here - criminal and civil- that have different rules and different burdens of proof. It's a huge problem if we have LE bringing criminal charges in order to affect or influence civil matters. I'm not saying that's what happened here - I don't know if any of us can actually know that - but that's typically not how things go. The family's civil suit shouldn't have any effect over whether LE believes a crime was committed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m glad he was charged because of the lawsuit the family filed.

And likely that’s why they had to file charges. Had they not sued the cruise ship company LE likely wouldn’t have resorted to charging him to prove he was responsible.

Yep. They brought this on themselves by suing the cruise company and refusing to take any ownership over what happened.

Np. I don't think the grandpa should be criminally charged. The family isn't pressing charges and this situation is so specific that it's unlikely to have any deterrent effect on the public at large.

And LE shouldn't be filing criminal charges in order "prove" his responsibility in connection with the civil lawsuit the family brought. That isn't the role of LE. We're talking about two different court systems here - criminal and civil- that have different rules and different burdens of proof. It's a huge problem if we have LE bringing criminal charges in order to affect or influence civil matters. I'm not saying that's what happened here - I don't know if any of us can actually know that - but that's typically not how things go. The family's civil suit shouldn't have any effect over whether LE believes a crime was committed.

No one is certain that is what LE is doing. And this does rise to the level of criminal negligence IMO. The man who accidentally killed the baby in his stroller in Lansdowne was really really sorry and felt terrible. Does that mean his driving wasn’t negligent? Of course not. It’s a lesser charge for a reason, but still criminal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My god, isn't inadvertently killing his own granddaughter punishment enough??

I don't think he needs to be put in jail over this!!

It was a horrible fluke tragedy.

I felt the same way, until they tried to sue Royal Caribbean, and tried to shift blame. So either it was a fluke tragedy, or someone is at fault. The family can’t have it both ways.

This.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My god, isn't inadvertently killing his own granddaughter punishment enough??

I don't think he needs to be put in jail over this!!

It was a horrible fluke tragedy.

I felt the same way, until they tried to sue Royal Caribbean, and tried to shift blame. So either it was a fluke tragedy, or someone is at fault. The family can’t have it both ways.

This.

+1000

I don’t think the family is very smart, and they are being led around by their slimy, not bright lawyer.