Jump to content

akcruz

Members
  • Content Count

    6,126
  • Joined

Posts posted by akcruz

  1. 36 minutes ago, rusty nut said:

    I don't agree at all. Chloe fell (was dropped) on the starboard side of the ship, just forward of the deck 11 whirlpool, as seen in many, many photos. I don't know why everybody keeps mentioning the Squeeze Bar just because it's on the same deck. It was nowhere near the Squeeze Bar.

    The picture of the bridge camera above, in my opinion, would have captured the fall.

     

    i-j4cQMRL.jpg

     

    i-DMC5VSv-XL.jpg

     

    i-x2PCm38.jpg

     

    i-5KB4r2W-X2.jpg

     

     

    What!!!  I do hope your are joking with this comment.  Go back to any picture or the video.  They were at the H2O zone and walked thru the tables in front of the squeeze bar to the windows.   Where you have this happening is in the Solarium where she woukdnt even be allowed since she is under 16.  This is about the only thing all can agree about, until your post. 

  2. 4 minutes ago, mayleeman said:

     

     

     

     

    All of your questions are asking for speculation, but then you say you want no educated guesses, only answers from anyone who knows.

     

    No one here can know for sure how many cameras there are, how many videos of the incident there are, or how the parties might or might not use them.

     

    Per many of articles about the incident, the lawyers are saying there were 13 cameras in the vicinity, however nowhere have I seen how many were positioned to show anything more.  

  3. 44 minutes ago, grandgeezer said:

    Anello has to create reasonable doubt in the case against him.

    Agree, but he should be given all information available to do it, it's called full discovery. You would be surprised what is out there. Last year I spent eleven days on a jury, for a medical malpractice suit. If we just believed what we read in the papers, and saw on tv, we would have voted not guilty, which would have been completely wrong. It was the things that weren't made public that helped us get it right. 

     

    I think you answered your own question with this statement.  I would bet Royal will turn over any additional videos and whatever evudence they have when they are required to by the court.  The videos out there were leaked originally, not released by Royal.

  4. 47 minutes ago, twodaywonder said:

    Come on. If you ever walked by one of those open windows you could be blind and know they are open. The wind alone coming through them is enough. Royal having the window open is not the question. It is the stupidity of the GF.

     

    I agree with you, but saying you never know how a trial will end and what will be the repercussions of it.  People do stupid things all the time that cause silly warning statements.  I hope that doesn't happen here but can see it happening.

     

    33 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

    Let's say for the sake of argument, that wall is all glass, there are absolutely NO windows that open.  Would RCI still put a railing there?  Why would they need to?  The railing is the warning.  

     

    Here is a picture of the bridge from a different ship.  Full glass wall with hand rails, have seen many other places but this us the picture could easily find. 

    IMG_20191116_085147.jpg

  5. 41 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

    That actually makes a little bit of sense to me.  If you ignore WHY he was on the roof (because it could have been the home owner or a contractor), then should a sky light be able to support a man's weight?  That jury said "yes".  

     

    I don't think it's comparable to this case because there is no legitimate reason for someone to hold a child over the railing, whereas on the skylight issue, there are legitimate reasons for someone to be on the roof and potentially fall into the skylight.

     

    But that is my point, at first glance you would say how could they ever win that but once you dig a bit further it does make sense.  As I said I dont remember the details, but the resolution could have been to put a warning on the skylight stating don't step or stand on.  Similarly here it could be found to put a warning somewhere that window is/could be open and do not out anything thru or out it.  Again common sense is lacking and it seems many need to be told what they should or should not be doing.  Do I think we should absolutely not but it does seem necessary for far too many people.

  6. 22 minutes ago, rimmit said:

    Most people haven’t heard of the majority of lawsuits that set precedents but they are there and they are used in future trials.  The majority of law is based on legal precedents.  Once a precedent is set it tends to be used in the future.   The legal precedent at stake here is “Is it a businesses responsibility to protect people from a lack of common sense despite already taking appropriate safety precautions?”

     

    I worked at an insurance company for many years and one of the most frustrating claims I remember was someone attempting to break into a home when on the roof they fell through a skylight.  They sued the manufacturer of the skylight stating it wasn't built strongly enough to support his weight, guess what, he won.  I was not directly involved but heard about it from others that were so don't remember all the details, and yes there are many other such cases out there.   Common sense is severely lacking in today's society.

  7. 31 minutes ago, flamingos said:

     

     

    Oh my - I hadn't seen the full video.  It seems that he was holding her up for some time; he never noticed the wind in his face?

     

    What a terrible tragedy for all.  

     

    This is where I have an issue, whether he actually put his head or Chloe out the window, being that close and bending over like he did I don't see how he didn't feel the breeze, or even just nitice a difference in the air to know the window was open.  She did not need to be out the window to fall thru it, toddlers squirm and reach for things all the time which is why you don't put them anywhere near such a potential hazard. 

     

    I fear for the days we won't be able to get anywhere near the edge of a ship due to silly lawsuits such as this one.  Unfortunately we live in a society where very few take responsibility for themselves and need to be told things could be dangerous.

  8. There have been a few posts about the 2 day cruises lately, one had a number of replies.  Anyway, we did the 2 night Silhouette cruise last year.  Can't remember exactly the activities but there were quite a few.  As to evenings, we had only guest entertainers, different both nights, no production shows.  It definitely was not a normal Celebrity type cruise, lots more groups out to enjoy themselves on our sailing.

  9. 20 minutes ago, madiaka said:

    I think people are quick to judge because the family put themselves out there by accusing the cruise line of being unsafe and not having enough safety precautions for their passengers. I’ve been on similar ships and have seen those windows.  I am very sorry for their loss. But, I am also irritated that they are not willing to accept their role in what happened. He did it. He dropped her. And, if he didn’t see that it was open, he should have looked more closely.  That is the bottom line. And if I was he daughter, I would expect for him to accept that. As others have said, if the nanny or babysitter had done the same thing, this would be a totally different conversation - especially with the daughter being a lawyer and the son-in-law an officer

     

    My last comment on this, there is a big difference, at least to me, in placing blame on the grandfather, he made an unintentional mistake costing his granddaughters life, and accusing the grandfather of intentionally dropping her. 

     

    I agree Royal is not to blame and the ships are safe as designed for toddlers, kids, etc and I don't remember seeing anyone on this thread feeling differently.

  10. 6 hours ago, SRF said:

     

    HOW do you know that???????

     

    Most have stated that it is a POSSIBILITY.  Not that it was definite thing.

     

    You find it hard to believe, because you are a reasonable person.  There ARE some very bad people in the world.

     

     

    I did not say definitively but that I find it very hard to believe.  On the other hand, no I will not go back and find it, at least one said they believe it was intentional.  Yes there are bad people in this world but we do lve in an innocent proven guilty world.  I have seen nothing in any report except for a doting grandfather who made a horrible mistake.  If there was any indication of anything else I don't believe the family would be standing behind him.

     

    Put yourself in this families shoes, would you want people on the internet accusing, and yes people are here, of intentionally harming a child within your family.  It took me a  number of times seeing here before commenting.  Yes it is the internet, but we are talking about a small child's death, in my opinion (and yes I realize other don't care about that necessarily) it is not right to be making such accusations with NO evidence that is the case.  

  11. 8 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

    According to the poster I quoted, the lawyer is saying the ONE released is at a "deceiving" angle.  But there's been two released.

     

    I HIGHLY doubt there are 13 cameras that cover that corner of the deck.  There might be 13 cameras on the pool deck, or even in that 1/3 of the deck, but there's no way there are 13 cameras looking at the same space. 

     

    5 minutes ago, reallyitsmema said:

     

    There are cameras that record the outside of the ship from many different angles.  I do not know if 13 is the actual number of cameras that could have recorded this incident, but I am sure not all of them are looking at the corner of the deck, many are looking at the other side of this accident.

     

    https://nypost.com/2020/01/19/video-shows-grandfather-dangle-chloe-wiegand-before-fatal-fall-on-cruise-ship/

     

    This is one if the articles that references the 13 cameras.  Not saying I agree with the attorneys at all.  Agree they are just grabbing at straws trying to come up with anything at this point, time to let it all go and drop this silly lawsuit.

  12. For all those on this thread that are insinuating that in any way this was an intentional act by the GF, I strongly disagree and really dislike seeing such accusations.  While I do believe the GF is solely responsible for this child's death I find it very hard to believe there was anything intentional here.  

     

    I was one of those who said maybe heat got to him, after all he appears to be a larger man from Indiana and this incident happened in July in San Juan.  I am not sure when they arrived in San Juan but they may not have been used to the heat and humidity, hey I live in the south and it still gets to me certain days.  There are so many reasons why this could have happened including just plain poor judgement but we will most likely never know why.   I am not even sure the GF knows what happened, I am sure he has blocked a lot of it out as many do in such situations.  Honestly there is no reason for any of us to know, other than curiosity, and rightfully so since none of us are involved personally.  Hopefully we do find that Royal is cleared 100% of wrongdoing but I fear it will end up settled somehow and we will never hear.

     

    I do realize this hits some harder than others, I have grandkids of my own around her age, but maybe it's time for some here to step back away from this thread.  So far it's been mostly a friendly discussion, let's keep it that way so it doesn't get locked or deleted.

     

    One other comment that I have not seen mentioned, it appears the family/attorney is saying there are 13 security cameras in the area of the ship where this happened.  They are saying the one released is a deceiving angle and want the rest to show a different story.  Not sure how they would but seems they continue to grasp at straws in their defense.  Afraid this isn't going anywhere soon.

  13. 2 hours ago, A&L_Ont said:


    I wonder if the GF is in the the beginning stages a health issues that has not yet been determined, such as a brain tumour.  It can take months for it to be discovered but in the meantime it changes the actions of the individual even though they seem to be healthy.
     

     My father had one, which eventually cancer took his life.  It wasn’t until after it was discovered that we understand some of his uncharacteristic actions. He just wasn’t his serious self, he was joking and light hearted. The diagnosis helped to connect the dots for us.
     

    I know, it’s only as suggestion but I can’t think of any other semi-logical explanation. 

     

    I wonder if the heat was getting to the GF.  You can see him squat down before going over to the window.  Was he sticking his head out to find a breeze to cool off?  Did he pick up the granddaughter because he wanted the fresh air instead if squatting down by her?  I am pretty sure we will never know what truly happened that day.  Not sure the GF really knows either and since he's the only family member that was there it all just leads to speculation. 

     

    Bottom line is a child is no longer here and the family is hurting.  I hope they can see through their grief to realize Royal is not responsible in any way and by keep pushing this lawsuit it only makes them look money hungry.  Hopefully this is all over shortly and we can all move on.

  14. We were on Silhouette in November, our express pass did not show the beverage package until about a month prior to the cruise.  It was a perk, not purchased separately.  My opinion, if you are within a month of sailing and don't have it I would call, otherwise if it's earlier wait until closer to sailing to be concerned.

  15. I remember a few years back sailing out of southern California, no food was allowed outside until we were a certain distance from port.  Had something to do with fruit flies if I remember correctly.  Our usually routine was to get seats by the pool and then grab lunch from the buffet and eat by the pool.  We couldn't on that cruise.  So yes California dies have some different rules than other states.

  16. We did the 2 day on Silhouette, out of Ft Lauderdale, last year and yes it was different than your normal cruise but a good option if you live close.  The first night we did see many overly intoxicated individuals, along with a bachelorette group a few cabins down from us having a grand time.  The second night seemed to be a bit more sedate, guess they were still recovering from night 1.  For our cruise the beverage packages were full price and none were included in the fare but many did purchase.  The entertainment was all special acts, none on the regular production shows.  We were in concierge and are elite, the only perk we used wax lunch the first day, no wine in cabin, etc.  Would I do it again, absolutely but only if I lived close or was extending another cruise.

  17. 1 hour ago, Islandatty said:

    This would make some sense to me for a child..even a young child...who can sleep in a bed, and take up a space that could be sold to an adult. But at 9 months, the baby cannot sleep in a bed.  (At best he would have to be in a portable crib I guess, which they would carry along.)  So the helicopter analogy doesn’t work for me. If there is a total head count for the ship and allowing an infant to be with parents deprived them of the right to sell a third “bunk” to an adult in another cabin, I could understand that, but then they are so tough on adults traveling as solos, who should, by analogy, free up space to sell to others. Anyway, we will decide what to do.  

    Equate the helicopter to a lifeboat, there are only so many seats and far less than the beds available on the ship.  Quite often people are unable to book more than 2 in a cabin even though there are beds for more because lifeboat capacity has been maxed out, nothing to do with age of anyone but just overall capacity.  Cruising has many different "rules" than other vacations that many do not realize.  Maybe a cruise isn't the best choice right now for your family, only you can decide that.

  18. 2 hours ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

    OK, can someone explain this?  Where would they stop you?  Lets say you're flying in January and your PP expires in Feb.  When I've flown international, they've asked to see the PP at the check in desk and at the gate.  I guess they'd stop you IF you are flying to a country that requires 6 month validation (which the US does not).  Would the airline works know the PP requirements of a specific country? 

    I have a work associate who was stopped at the airport in the US before a trip to Europe because their passport was not valid for the 6 months so yes they do check.  They were not allowed to board the plane.

  19. We were on Silhouette earlier this month and heard a few times sorry we don't have any more of xxx wine available.  Only happened to us once, in the dining room and was the featured wine of the day, but heard it in a few different bars around the ship for others.  Not sure if it has anything to do with the upcoming dry dock or not.   Bottom line while you can look at a wine list before hand have a second and third choice handy as you never know what may or may not be available on your sailing.

×
×
  • Create New...