Jump to content

Toddler Death Law Suit Update


Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Two Wheels Only said:

 

RCCL released the videos (2 camera angles) a month after the same 2 videos were leaked and broadcast.

 

 

It's like a replay in football. If camera A shows the runner stepped out of bounds and cameras B & C don't clearly show the runner's foot, why show B & C?

This isn't football, this is real life and everything should be considered.

 

Not necessarily. The other cameras probably either don't show anything relevant (B & C) or might show something graphic (Chloe impact).

That's not up to RCL to decide, it's up to the court.

What's strange is the family wanting the video removed from public record.....

Maybe it's unbearable to watch and they want to move on when it's over.

 

Why exclude the video of what happened but allow Winkleman's "reenactment" photos?

If RCL reveals all the videos, then it should stay, it's all or nothing. I didn't mention Winkleman's reenactment photos. If accurate it lays the foundation for reasonable doubt. It would be very easy to verify it.

 

The videos released are RCCL's response to the civil lawsuit against them. The criminal case against Anello is separate.

 

If RCCL can get the case against them thrown out by releasing video, they will.

Any court that would throw it out based on just the video should find a different occupation.

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. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, grandgeezer said:

 

Have they reached the deadline to turn over discovery?  If not, then you can't say they're hiding anything.

Do you know they HAVEN'T given the videos to Anello's attorney?  He's not the one trying this case in the media.  That's Winkleman, the family's lawyer.  HE'S the one who gave edited footage to CBS.  HE'S the one paying for the reenactment.

 

The public isn't entitled to any videos.  But someone leaked them, then RCI put the two that were already leaked in their motion to dismiss which makes it available to the public.  

 

If there are other videos showing the Anello and Chloe, I have confidence they will be released to Anello's defense AND Winkleman at the appropriate juncture.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, grandgeezer said:

This isn't football, this is real life and everything should be considered.

 

Then WHY does the family want the actual event video removed?

 

27 minutes ago, grandgeezer said:

That's not up to RCL to decide, it's up to the court.

 

Only if the court requires that RCCL provide the videos. 

 

27 minutes ago, grandgeezer said:

Maybe it's unbearable to watch and they want to move on when it's over.

 

How does "move on" and "civil lawsuit" go together?...unless the family simply wants a settlement in order to move on. 

 

27 minutes ago, grandgeezer said:

If RCL reveals all the videos, then it should stay, it's all or nothing. I didn't mention Winkleman's reenactment photos. If accurate it lays the foundation for reasonable doubt. It would be very easy to verify it.

 

Winkleman is NOT trying to prove reasonable doubt. Winkleman is not Anello's attorney. 

 

27 minutes ago, grandgeezer said:

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. 

 

In your situation, you wanted all information in order to make an informed decision. I respect that. However, Winkleman wants information REMOVED from the public record and wants to insert his own "reenactment". 

 

First, Winkleman shows Begnaud an altered version of the video.

Then, Winkleman says that it was "software issues" that made 8 seconds into 1 second and 34 seconds into 5 seconds. 

Next, Winkleman wants the full video removed from record.

Then, Winkleman inserts his own reenactment with a shorter, stiffer, non-extending arm actor who just happens to be another attorney who works with Winkleman. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Edited by akcruz
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Two Wheels Only said:

Winkleman says that it was "software issues" that made 8 seconds into 1 second and 34 seconds into 5 seconds.

 

Maybe he used the special Rose Mary Woods yoga pose (called "Tape-Erasure" for you mat afficianados) that enabled her to accidentally erase more than 18 minutes of Nixon tapes-- and to do it twice in one stretch. (I remember her being describes as having a magnetic personality.) (Sorry.)

Rose_Mary_Woods.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep reading about how RCCL has not released all the video.  How do we know there is more?  I mean, how do we really know?  I see what happened coming from both sides, through two cameras.  Would there actually be more?  That to me seems like over kill but I don't know how they run things.  It's not like they would have five different views of the same thing would they?

It's just a question that keeps going through my mind and maybe someone has an answer for me. 

I would love to hear but only if you know for sure and not an educated guess.  Guessing only adds to the confusion.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, tinkertwo said:

Would there actually be more? 

 

51 minutes ago, tinkertwo said:

It's not like they would have five different views of the same thing would they?

 

51 minutes ago, tinkertwo said:

How do we know there is more?  I mean, how do we really know?

 

51 minutes ago, tinkertwo said:

only if you know for sure and not an educated guess.

 

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.

Edited by mayleeman
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eagerly been following all of the threads comments.   But---------

 

 

What is the latest news on the court front?

He said, she said.

This video that video.

Admissible evidence, non admissible evidence.

Calling witnesses. 

 

Just trying to figure out what is going on there.

 

 

So any help appreciated.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, tinkertwo said:

I keep reading about how RCCL has not released all the video.  How do we know there is more?  I mean, how do we really know?  I see what happened coming from both sides, through two cameras.  Would there actually be more?  That to me seems like over kill but I don't know how they run things.  It's not like they would have five different views of the same thing would they?

It's just a question that keeps going through my mind and maybe someone has an answer for me. 

I would love to hear but only if you know for sure and not an educated guess.  Guessing only adds to the confusion.  

NO one knows that there is more (at least no one posting here).  According to the attorney, there are 13 cameras "in the area".  Personally, I totally believe that.  If nothing else, it depends on how you define "area".   I find it hard to believe 13 cameras would ALL have a view of any given point in space.  3-4?  Sure.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lionesss said:

Eagerly been following all of the threads comments.   But---------

 

 

What is the latest news on the court front?

He said, she said.

This video that video.

Admissible evidence, non admissible evidence.

Calling witnesses. 

 

Just trying to figure out what is going on there.

 

 

So any help appreciated.

 

Thanks

Anello (the GF) is scheduled back in court Feb 24 and it's expected they'll assign the trial date at that point.  

 

The civil case from the family against RCI has been filed and RCI has filed a motion to dismiss.  

 

Or are you asking for a summary of what has happened since July? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 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.

The reason I wanted only to hear from people who know for sure was so there would not be speculation.  If someone answers the question without knowledge they are speculating.  If someone in fact knows the answers, say someone who worked/works for RCCL, then they would not be speculating.  

So no, all of my questions are not asking for speculation.  What I wrote is not contradictory.  

 

Thank you @S.A.M.J.R., that is exactly what I was asking.  The attorney has exaggerated on several things, as we can see from the photos, so I will hold judgement on how many cameras there actually are.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question.  Where were the parents?  If Grandpa is so old and feeble, and coloured blind, why was he charged with taking care of toddler?  So the question stands...Where were the parents?  Also, have we heard from Grandma about this? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, tinkertwo said:

Thank you @S.A.M.J.R., that is exactly what I was asking.  The attorney has exaggerated on several things, as we can see from the photos, so I will hold judgement on how many cameras there actually are.  

The number of cameras really doesn't matter.  It's how many cameras actually show the area of the incident.  I'm assuming there's an exterior one that shows whether he actually held her outside the window or not.  I'm not surprised that one wouldn't be released.  Given to the attorneys?  Sure.  

 

I will say I don't think the two videos released definitively show him holding her outside the window.  I'm guessing he had her feet either on the railing or on the window sill.  What I do think the videos show is he leaned over the rail far enough to put his head at the level of the window frame at least, if not fully through the frame (looking down at the pier).  Then he picks Chloe up and holds her over the rail (but you can't tell how far).  I *THINK* I see her arm out to grab onto the window frame.  The next thing you know, she's gone.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Magicat said:

I have a question.  Where were the parents?  If Grandpa is so old and feeble, and coloured blind, why was he charged with taking care of toddler?  So the question stands...Where were the parents?  Also, have we heard from Grandma about this? 

From what I remember, the parents were in the WJ.  I don't think anyone has said he was old and feeble, just "elderly", and that's coming from the Daily Mail, not the family.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

From what I remember, the parents were in the WJ.  I don't think anyone has said he was old and feeble, just "elderly", and that's coming from the Daily Mail, not the family.  

The step GF was 51 years old when this incident happened and IMHO that isn't elderly.

I'm 20 years older and don't consider myself elderly for that matter.

I believe it was reported  that parents were at Guest Services concerning a problem they were having with their reservation.

 

Edited by robtulipe
Link to post
Share on other sites

As for where the parents were, Mitsugirly posted this from the lawsuit:

"On or about July 7, 2019, at approximately 1:15 p.m., the family boarded the vessel in San Juan, Puerto Rico for a 7-night Southern Caribbean cruise. Upon boarding, the family went to the Windjammer Café for lunch. After lunch, Mrs. Schultz-Wiegand and Chloe changed into swimsuits, and at approximately 2:40 p.m., they began to play in the pool(s) aboard the ship.
At or around 3:50 p.m., Mrs. Schultz Wiegand needed to go help with an issue related to the cruise, and as such, Mr. Anello came up to the H2O Zone on Deck 11 of the vessel to supervise Chloe, his 18-month-old granddaughter, as shown below.
At all times material, Mr. Anello was closely supervising Chloe as she played in the
kids’ water park."


____________

 

It seems to me that since the mother was in the play area with her daughter, then she would have seen the open windows.  If she saw them, then it seems reasonable that she would have warned her stepfather about them if she thought they were a danger to her daughter.

Edited by TNcruising02
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2020 at 8:48 PM, hazence said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7922419/Doctor-cruise-ship-recalls-finding-toddlers-body-grandfather-dropped-her.html
 

The pictures in this article seem to support the parents case. I hadn’t 

seen these before with the re-enactment with the doll.

The pictures in this article actually support RCI's case. The reenactment man was not leaning forward enough at the waist like the GF did. The GF's upper torso from his waist is completely gone from view because he was leaning so far forward. The reenactment does not have the guy leaning so far forward. The reenactment guy didn't even have his arms extended enough to prove anything. The child was dropped out of the open window. The dummy in the reenactment photos would have fallen inside the ship between the railing and where the wall of windows is.

 

The reenactment was not accurate at all and does not vindicate the GF at all. My opinion but it surely is easy enough to visualize.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2020 at 7:47 AM, xpcdoojk said:

 

I think this sea lawyer wants the ship completely enclosed with a glass dome.  There should be a company employee then following every single passenger all of the time to make sure they don’t do anything to hurt themselves or anyone else.  It would be a perfect Utopia, that no one could afford or want to participate in.

 

jc

Not too far from a possibility this may happen. Look at baseball fields today. Too many people were hit with foul balls because they weren't watching and paying attention to the game so now there is net which protects the public from injury. Same can be said for ice hockey arenas. There are huge nets to protect the spectators.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2020 at 2:33 AM, compman9 said:

I can't believe this is still being debated

 

A man lifted a child up to or out of a window and dropped her

 

End

Yes, the GF lifted Cloe up to the window. Did the toddler squirm and GF lost his grip of her? Is that a possibility?

Anello has said he lifted her up so she could "bang on the glass like she does at her brother's hockey games". Is it feasible that it takes at least 30 seconds for Anello to realize THERE IS NO GLASS? Something just doesn't ring true here. I honestly feel this family has no case at all. How can their attorney possibly defend this man's actions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • SPECIAL EVENT: Q&A with Barbara Muckermann, CMO Silversea Cruises
      • ICYM Our Cruise Critic Live Special Event: Explore the Remote World with Hurtigruten!
      • Q&A with the Quark Expeditions Team: New Ship Ultramarine
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...