Community Chat

[jellyBEAN]

On the Evening News tonight w/Lester Holt they showed a brief re-enactment of the incident put together by the plaintiff's attorneys.  It focused on the amount of space between the railing and the open window and that the grainy video released by the cruise line was deceptive, because there was no way that the grandfather could have leaned out the window w/half his body.

Well he may not have had his body halfway out the window but he had to be holding the baby out of the window in order for her to fall down to the pier.  Why would he be holding her way out in front of him instead of just letting her nestle against him while they looked out the window?  Just doesn't make any sense.  His arms were certainly long enough to be outstretched grasping the baby, and then she starts the motions of banging on glass that isn't there?  Yikes.

[NYC Susan]

---

@mousiegirl wrote:

---

@KingstonsMom wrote:

The cruise line filed a motion to dismiss the civil lawsuit against them, saying that it's obvious from the video and witness statements, that he DID know the window was open because he leaned out of the window for several seconds, bending at his waist, before he lifted her up and dangled her our of the window.

Witnesses say that he held her outside of the window and 'pretended' he was dropping her, for about 30 seconds, before he ultimately did drop her.

The judge will make a decision on dismissing the civil suit at the next hearing in March. 

---

@KingstonsMom   How insane is that!  He is totally to blame.  Hopefully, she passed before hitting the water, how horrific!

---

There was no water there.  I wish there had been. Still awful, of course, either way.

[NAES1]

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

I have no idea if he is actually a psycopath and did it deliberately.  I have always believed, however, that he very deliberately lied about his actions.

I know that some on these posts will never believe the cruise line is not at fault - even given this latest evidence.  

Sad

---

                @Isobel Archer , hello ~  "...for myself to be actually and have total knowledgeable one hundred percent, I feel compelled not to contribute, since I did not view any film, video, or know of this horrific death of a little child, until lately".

  BUT!

     "I have always found your posts,

      your observations,

      your overview,

      quite understandable". 

     "My heart aches to have read, yet, another very gripping event for anyone's child dying under investigations to suspicions.

           I value your input quite heavily.

  For over two years, I have known of you not to post without some degree of ( --and I believe you have-- ) extraordinaire innate qualities to say exactly as posted".

 What an unbelievable story, and as you expressed, "sad".

January 24th

2020

[Cakers3]

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

---

@Cakers3 wrote:

You can clearly see in all the pics of those windows throughout all these threads that there is no other window.

You have one set of windows, not two.  So even if he tried to say he leaned out and didn't realize another window was opened - that is nonsense.

There is only one set of windows.

I've been on RC and I know exactly how those windows are set up.

If he could bend at the waist, and he is much taller than I, then he had a clear view of the area.

100% responsible.   Yet I don't want jail for Anello.  The plea deal is satisfactory because the parents are not asking for severe punishment as would happen if Anello was not a family member.

The PR prosecution is being very generous and I believe drew up the plea with compassion for Anello.

---

No - the parents are asking for money from the cruiseline.

---

@Isobel Archer   I understand that.  It wasn't my point.

My point was about the deal the prosecution offered Anello.  Since the parents are not pressing for punishment for HIM the prosecution had more leeway to offer the deal.

Had this been somebody other than family, the parents would be looking for severe punishment for that person and most likely seek $$ from RC, too.

[Johnnyeager]

The Wiegand's attorney, Michael Winkleman on Sunday criticized the "false narrative" being presented by Royal Caribbean.  He conducted an inspection of the ship with photos of a "reenactment."  He says that Anello leaned over the railing in the video presented, but did not lean out the window.  

He wants access to all of the video that Royal Caribbean may have.

I'm not sure what to think, except that he should not have lifted the girl up.

[Bird mama]

@Johnnyeager are the notations around the photos yours or the lawyers?  The reason I ask is the notation 'head just touching the window'.    

[Johnnyeager]

These were photos published in various newspapers so I believe that any notations are from the attorney.

[Bird mama]

@Johnnyeager  thanks for responding.  Honestly this lawyer is talking out of both sides of his mouth.  If the old man leaned forward enough to bump his head on the window then the old man had to know the window was open.

Frustrating for sure.

[cherry]

I thought there was witnesses to what had happened?

[GrailSeeker]

I think the point they are trying to illustrate is that "this is what he would have had to do" to touch the glass with his head,not what he actually did.

Royal Caribbean says he had his entire upper body through the window, so knew the window was open.

The attorney is saying that he did not have his upper body outside the window and it would have been impossible for him to do that. They are adamant that he did not know the window was open.

If he did not know the window was open, he was unaware of the danger.  If he was unaware of the danger, he cannot be accused of being negligent. Being aware of the danger is part of the definition of being negligent.