Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community
ATC cruiser

Toddler Death Law Suit Update

Recommended Posts

The authorities have been trying and trying for Grandfather to take the deal but , $$$$$$$ and to blame RCI is there only purpose.  Now he should sit in jail and think about a one year old asking to be dangled out a 11 story window at a bar area .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, TNcruising02 said:

I am shocked that the parents filed the lawsuit when they had to have known from the video that he put their child outside the window frame.

In their defense, I don't think anyone from the family (or their lawyer) had seen the video before they filed the case.  

 

However, the video's been out for 30 days, and I think the lawyer has had it for longer.  Why the civil case is still progressing baffles me. 

Edited by S.A.M.J.R.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the one year old was in the kids club we would not be here , duty of care was not one of the parents concerns as they kicked back and let a incompetent person be in control/out of control of their 0ne year old .

Share this post


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

In their defense, I don't think anyone from the family (or their lawyer) had seen the video before they filed the case.  

 

However, the video's been out for 30 days, and I think the lawyer has had it for longer.  Why the civil case is still progressing baffles me. 


Since the grandfather admitted guilt at first, then it seems like the family would at least have waited to get all of the facts before blaming the cruise ship.  I think they have an entire year to file a suit.  I think all of them would have been better off it they had accepted that it was a horrible thing to happen and then walked away.  Now they all just look greedy and dishonest.

Share this post


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

In their defense, I don't think anyone from the family (or their lawyer) had seen the video before they filed the case.  

 

However, the video's been out for 30 days, and I think the lawyer has had it for longer.  Why the civil case is still progressing baffles me. 

No they did not view the video and one person already knows what he did , a one year old did not ask her step grandfather to pick here up and dangle and then drop her out the window. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm waiting for CBS and David Begnaud to do their follow up interview with the GF after the first one where he's weeping about being color blind; show him the video clips right there while he's on the CBS camera and ask him to explain what he's seeing and describe what he was doing. 

 

My guess is I'll be waiting a while for that.

Share this post


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

In their defense, I don't think anyone from the family (or their lawyer) had seen the video before they filed the case.  

 

The attorney had the video before the lawsuit was filed. The version that he showed to CBS wasn't accurate but he had...something. Whether the attorney or his group doctored the video is unknown. What is known is that CBS had the unedited version before the lawsuit was filed. The attorney blamed "software issues" for the discrepancy. 🙄

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Inconspicuous said:

I'm waiting for CBS and David Begnaud to do their follow up interview with the GF after the first one where he's weeping about being color blind; show him the video clips right there while he's on the CBS camera and ask him to explain what he's seeing and describe what he was doing. 

 

You do know that "I'm color blind..." will turn into "I'm legally blind..." if CBS tries to show him the video, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Two Wheels Only said:

 

The attorney had the video before the lawsuit was filed. The version that he showed to CBS wasn't accurate but he had...something. Whether the attorney or his group doctored the video is unknown. What is known is that CBS had the unedited version before the lawsuit was filed. The attorney blamed "software issues" for the discrepancy. 🙄

 

 

 

I'm curious about the "doctored" video. I haven't been able to find it online. How was it edited?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, tonit964 said:

I noticed in this video, on the way to the window, the GF stops at that pillar and crouches down for several seconds, it appears he has his head in his hands. I wonder what that was all about, like was he planning on doing this? Weird.

I agree with you on that one. It does look totally intentional and deliberate on his part. That is what I kept thinking. The only thing holding me back is seeing the toddler run up to that area first and he follows. He stuck his head and upper body right out that window first and then picked her up and held her right out there.

 

If I were a conspiracy theorist I would be thinking maybe the toddler had some terminal medical condition that couldn't be cured and they planned it from the beginning to do it and then claim millions in a lawsuit. However that just doesn't even add up either. There is absolutely no logic to the way he behaved at all.

 

I work with children during school terms and as others have said previously if it were a nanny or guardian then they would not be so quick to protect them. I have seen how parents behave when their child is slightly hurt. They are very concerned for their children above anything else. Even as an uncle I still cannot get my head around any logical explanation at all.

 

The only one thing I know for sure is that the man definitely had most of his upper body out that window first and it looked like he made an effort to put it out. It happened so fast that not even a warning sign would have been seen by him. Its terrible to think about but from the video it does definitely look deliberate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, luckybecky said:

I'm curious about the "doctored" video. I haven't been able to find it online. How was it edited?

 

It was never online, AFAIK.

 

Before anyone had seen/reported anything about a video, the attorney showed a video to CBS. In that version, Anello looks out of the window for "about a second" then lifts the child up and about 5 seconds later, she is gone.

 

About a week later, CBS somehow got a hold of the full video. Begnaud then explained that what was originally reported wasn't correct and that Anello looked out of the window for more like 8 seconds before picking the child up and that he held the child out of the window for more than 20 seconds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the one year old was in the kids club we would not be here , duty of care was not one of the parents concerns as they kicked back and let a incompetent person be in control/out of control of their 0ne year old .
It was day one when people board the ship and the kids clubs are not available.

They were in the kid's pool area which is also next to a bar that serves healthy drinks as well as drinks with alcohol.

Have you been on the Freedom Class?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, PhoenixCruiser said:

It was day one when people board the ship and the kids clubs are not available.

They were in the kid's pool area which is also next to a bar that serves healthy drinks as well as drinks with alcohol.

Have you been on the Freedom Class?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 

No I have not been on the Freedom Class 

I do not see other step grandfather sober/ or intoxicated hanging one year old over the ship railing,  but have seen sight impairment people navigate around the ship with no assistance... over a hand rail ...certain death if you cross ...if blind you know say but I'm colour blind but he e just leaned out ...three years is not even the starting  point for what is for him .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, boscobeans said:

But what if the client drops the case, could the lawyer ask for payment??  If not there could be a lot of shady settlements between the parties...

 


I was a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit against a contractor. Our contract was lawyer fees only. Our lawyer did not get any other payment. When we won the lawsuit, we had to get a different lawyer for the actual collections since it was a different state. That lawyer’s contract was 1/3 of what is recovered, minus difference in fees. If we had dropped the case in the collections, my lawyer would still have been paid in fees which was just court fees (paperwork). We did not pay him a per hour fee. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Brisbane41 said:

However that just doesn't even add up either. There is absolutely no logic to the way he behaved at all......  I still cannot get my head around any logical explanation at all.


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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2020 at 11:49 AM, S.A.M.J.R. said:

My thought...

 

Chloe runs to the window.  GF goes over also and looks out the window.  GF sees all the sights and sounds.  GF picks Chloe up with "Here Chloe, let me get you a better view" (and it's easier for him to stand vs crouching at her level to see out the window).  

 

I do not think he had any nefarious intent in picking her up and holding her outside the window.  He simply did not think.  

I'm sorry, the video shows otherwise.  You see him squatting down talking to Chloe and then he walks to the window with her. Again the family said that the open window was in a child's play area, trying to get more sympathy from the unknowing public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Two Wheels Only said:

 

It was never online, AFAIK.

 

Before anyone had seen/reported anything about a video, the attorney showed a video to CBS. In that version, Anello looks out of the window for "about a second" then lifts the child up and about 5 seconds later, she is gone.

 

About a week later, CBS somehow got a hold of the full video. Begnaud then explained that what was originally reported wasn't correct and that Anello looked out of the window for more like 8 seconds before picking the child up and that he held the child out of the window for more than 20 seconds. 

 

I didn't realize Begnaud had already done a follow up on his original report/interview.  I watch CBS quite a bit - they definitely teased the original interview with the GF quite a bit but I guess it shouldn't surprise me that they likely tucked a correction/update into a larger segment since it wasn't nearly as salacious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Junkhouse said:

I'm sorry, the video shows otherwise.  You see him squatting down talking to Chloe and then he walks to the window with her. Again the family said that the open window was in a child's play area, trying to get more sympathy from the unknowing public.

When he originally gets to the window, he is NOT holding Chloe.  He looks out the window for a while, then bends down and picks her up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Two Wheels Only said:

 

The attorney had the video before the lawsuit was filed. The version that he showed to CBS wasn't accurate but he had...something. Whether the attorney or his group doctored the video is unknown. What is known is that CBS had the unedited version before the lawsuit was filed. The attorney blamed "software issues" for the discrepancy. 🙄

 

 

You're right.  

 

The accident happened July 7.

Winkleman retained on July 8.

Grandfather charged October 28.

Grandfather CBS Interview November 26.

Civil Lawsuit filed Dec. 11.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, PhoenixCruiser said:

I have no interest in looking at the pictures or videos.

 

It is a horrible situation and my heart aches for the family.

There's nothing graphic or heart stopping in the video. Just know, it pretty much exonerates Royal Caribbean 100% of any wrong doing. To me, it looks almost intentional, no accident. Horrible to say, but that's how blatantly stupid the GF's actions were.

Edited by rusty nut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Brisbane41 said:

It does look totally intentional and deliberate on his part.

Him picking up Chloe and holding her over the railing was intentional and deliberate.  I hope you're not implying that he intentionally let her go. 

Share this post


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

In their defense, I don't think anyone from the family (or their lawyer) had seen the video before they filed the case.  

 

However, the video's been out for 30 days, and I think the lawyer has had it for longer.  Why the civil case is still progressing baffles me. 

 

Welcome to the U.S. legal system. Blame others. When evidence is presented to show you are wrong. Still blame others. 

Share this post


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

I am by no means an expert, but just reading some fiction (John Grisham comes to mind), that's how I would expect a contract to be done... contingency PLUS expenses.  Which still means if they lose the case, the lawyer gets nothing and the client is out no money.

 

But would it be "normal" for a contract to be written so the client has to pay for lawyer's expenses if they decide to drop the case?  

It is pretty common. The attorney actually trying to get reimbursed if they drop is probably uncommon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, tonit964 said:

He could refuse to take the case based on morals alone. While this is horrible, blaming someone else and trying to get a payday is just wrong.

This literally happens 20,000 times a day in this country. You just don't read about them.

Share this post


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
      • 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
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...