tinkertwo

Just now, Another_Critic said:

You can get closure without accepting a multi-million dollar settlement.  The correct thing to do is to decline any settlement money if they win the case. 

I really doubt they will win but they may just give any settlement money away in the name of Chloe.  Don't know.  

All I'm saying is they need to blame someone.  If they blame the Grandfather then they have to blame themselves for leaving her with him.  That could, mentally, be hard to do.  This might be how they are coping.  Not saying it's the right way, saying it could be their way. 

I hope it's not about money.

Just now, loman said:

All i can say is... what a pathetic family trying to profit on the death of their child.

I think it's more trying to come to an understanding.  Trying to put the blame where they can move on.  Yes, there is money involved but I think it's more to give them closure.  It's not right but I really think it's for personal feelings, not personal gain.  

JMO.

3 minutes ago, HicksRA said:

His biggest punishment will be living the rest of his life knowing he killed an innocent toddler. 
 

His statement doesn’t hold water as they have video of him hanging the child out the window. He knew there was an open window there. 

I want to disagree with this statement.  He has to feel the guilt, accept it, before it will be a punishment to him.  From what he has written in his statement he seems to still want people to fault RCL and not him.  

That is so sad.  Three years probation SMH.  That child lost her life.

As far as I know the probation will just be staying out of trouble and reporting in to a probation officer or, depending on where he lives, reporting to a police station.  

Wonder what ever became of the lawsuits the parents were filing.  

6 hours ago, ace2542 said:

What about people who get Covid in the future suing the cruise line the way these all inclusive resorts in Egypt get sued. Okay proving where you caught it might be a problem. And as long as the CDC says that 1 case means the whole ship locks down putting the next cruise at risk which it would. Masks will be worn and the CDC might say that forever.

😎 couldn't find the rolly eyed emoji. 

Think what you will but that is never going to happen.  A year, maybe two, but forever?  Nope.  

How does tipping work for this?  Do you just leave some cash at the table?  

On 12/12/2020 at 9:17 AM, ace2542 said:

Will you tell people to wear the mask properly and get your head kicked in for doing it?. That could cause a lot of trouble and security are not paid enough to deal with it. Particularly when people are drinking or taking drugs. There were a lot of drugs in bliss on NCL gem at Christmas 2017. Security didn't care. Not paid enough too I suppose. They are not making what for instance nightclub doormen are making on land even the ones not needing to wear bullet proof vests.

There is a HUGE difference between security caring about drinkers and caring about masks.  One is a pain in the ass for cruise lines but not a big consequence to it.  The other could have the CDC close the line down, big loss of money.  

I think security/staff will be monitoring this like they never have anything before.  It's going to be the difference between keeping business going and closing down again.  Be interesting to see what Royal Caribbean Dude thinks.

And masks are not going to be forever, not sure why you think that.  Some may choose to continue but lots will toss them with a sigh of relieve when this is all over and governments okay it.  The time will come.

1 hour ago, Ourusualbeach said:

The border is open for flights, its only closed for driving

The caveat for that though is when you return to Canada you have to do a 14 day quarantine.  That could be hard for some.  I don't see it going away till the borders are completely open either.  

Some will be able to do this, some not.  

Got mine with in hours of doing the L and S.  

Your going to get many responses and feelings on this so I thought I would throw in mine.  I'm a non smoker who loves to play the slots.  Even thought they set aside a non smoking section that only means you will not have a smoker beside you.  In reality it is all one big room and smoke drifts.  There is no getting away from the smell.  

Having said all that, I did not find it a problem but I'm not one of those who say they can't be around it because it makes them sick or whatever.   Yes, you know there are smokers in the room however with the ventilation they use the smoke itself dissipates rather quickly.  Smell is always there, it has seeped into everything.  Once I'm done in the casino I toss anything I was wearing into the laundry.  

4 hours ago, Midwestgal said:

There are no fees the family is needing to pay for the lawsuit. The lawyers will get a percent of what they are awarded and other fees will come out of that money also, things like expert witness and such . 
The GF will definitely have to come up with money for his defense as these are two different things. Don’t be surprised if he is found innocent that he then sues RC for mental stress and loss. 
I know someone argued to the fact when I said the family was probably approached by many law firms before they even got home wanting to jump on the case .

they are call ambulance chasers for a reason. 

I think what was being said was if they DROP the lawsuit then the family would probably have to come up with the cost of legal fees.  It is pretty well known that the lawyers expect a large chunk of what they pull in and that would pay for their time but if the couple drop the suit then the lawyers would be out that expense and probably bill the clients for wasting their time.  

Did anyone notice that Gofund me page was set up by someone in Charlotte, NC?  Do they have family there?  I wonder if it is in fact not a legit funding page.  Sad if someone would use this for personal gain.  

10 minutes ago, Another_Critic said:

 

Unless this was a prior discussion between mom/pop and GF, I don't think this discussion could have happened immediately after the incident since it's been reported that GF was kept apart from mom/pop during the initial questioning.

I would be surprised if they didn't have time to talk before GF being questioned by anyone with the authority to ask for a test.  Again, just my thought but I'm sure GF wasn't whisked off at that very minute.  It would have taken time for everyone to figure things out, what to do next.  He probably would have asked for the son/daughter and would most likely have been allowed to speak with them.  

13 minutes ago, TNcruising02 said:

I wonder why the decision was up to him. Is it up to someone if they drive drunk and kill someone? I don't understand why the decision for the testing was up to the grandfather. Of course someone under the influence of something is going to refuse a test if that person is given a choice. It's really hard for me to believe he wasn't under the influence of something or didn't have some type of medical issue impairing him. And I'm not taking about being color blind.

I would bet that it would be on the advice of the mother and father.  She's a DA and he is a police officer if I'm correct.  That would probably be advice they would give knowing the legal system.  They may not have felt he was impaired but testing over the limit would be held against him.  Or even if he were taking meds for say cholesterol and mixed it with a drink that would be a reading they may not want in evidence.  That's just my thought, could be totally off the mark.  

One of the best compliments I ever received was from a co-worker.  After hearing about our vacations for years and how I looked/got the best deals she said 'your not cheap, your thrifty!'.  That I am, that I am.  

I have never found the Next Cruise agents to be helpful at all.  The few times I have tried to speak with them they acted like they were doing me a favor by just letting me sit down.  I had one agent roll their eyes at me for asking a simple question, apparently it was to simple to get a direct answer.  We don't bother talking with them now, nothing they can offer would entice me back to them.  JMO.                                                                                                                                                                                                         

2 hours ago, Two Wheels Only said:

 

The first video is an old CBS video. CBS has already corrected themselves after it was revealed that the video given to CBS by Winkleman wasn't accurate.

 

 

The 2nd video is a phone video taken of what was broadcast on PR TV. There are several versions of the same thing. What is recorded by phone and what is on YouTube isn't as high quality as the actual broadcast video. Even in low quality, you can see what Anello did.

What is this second video from a phone?  I have seen a second video but from one of their cameras.  It is of the GF' left side walking over to the window.  

7 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

Cruise ships have had cameras below the bridge wings that show the whole side of the ship for decades.  And most cruise ships do not have man overboard motion detectors.

So there!  Lol.  Okay, I did say I could be wrong.  

San Juan does not have a port webcam.  

Edited to correct error

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.  

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.  

25 minutes ago, bobmacliberty said:

 

Settlement with no admission of guilt and agreement that neither Royal nor the family will disclose the details.  No precedent set.  No additional protective activities required by Royal.  Simplest, cheapest way for Royal to get this behind them with no further consequences.  Do I like it?  No.  Will it happen?  That would be my bet.  Will we ever know the details of the outcome?  Probably not.

 

 

I think that would be a wrong statement.  It would be reported, and make no mistake it will be if that happens, that the case was settled with a non disclosure clause.  That in itself sets a precedent.  It tells everyone its open season on Royal.  They will have a ton of law suits for frivolous things.  Royal will not allow that to happen if they are not 100 percent at fault.  It's not like someone who slipped on a wet floor.  That would be settled.  

Now that's just my thought and it's no better than yours.  Only time will tell but my money goes towards Royal not settling.  

3 minutes ago, Two Wheels Only said:

 

The mother blaming Anello makes sense.

The mother blaming herself is understandable.

The mother blaming RCCL is ridiculous.

Could not agree more!

Having said that, it is still fresh for the mother so I'm sure she is reaching out to try and make sense of it all and blaming RCCL is just part of the grieving process.  She will get there, it just may take some time.  

I am not excusing anyone's behavior, just trying to understand from her point of view.  GF is at fault, no doubt.  Maybe she just can't handle it at the moment.  

27 minutes ago, BeachChik said:

 

I'm sorry but no.

 

The mother doesn't have to live with guilt that she didn't watch her child, she has to live with the fact that a horrible accident occurred and her child is no longer here. Her daughter was being watched by someone she trusted and he made a terrible decision which resulted in the child's death. His bad choice to put her on the railings is not the mothers fault.

For this mother, I would live with the guilt that I didn't watch my child.  I would feel that guilt as if it was I who put her in that danger.  Sadly, I would carry that with me forever regardless of who my child was intrusted to.

Others may feel differently though and I understand.  Just wanted to make the point that the mother may hold onto that for a very very long time.  

5 hours ago, twodaywonder said:

I am just about sure their attorney is doing it on a percentage basis. He does not want it to go away or he gets nothing.

Sorry, my comment was about a different case.  I quoted it above my comment.  Sorry for the confusion however this case is ridiculous as well.