She vanished....and Celebrity ignored it

[Danno]

They talked about the situation. They said they had filed suit because Royal Caribbean wouldn't give them information or cooperate with them to try to find their daughter or what happened to her.

 

Bingo...nice to see that some good will come out of this...a lawyer will get a new BMW.

[wolfganghowell]

gypsea - I made the depression leap and I do not mean to imply that depression automatically leads to suicide. Without getting into details, I have dealt with people close to me who deal with and triumph over depression. I have also recently experienced a suicide of a friend's former family member who planned it without threatening in advance. Statistically, those who threaten are not planning to carry through - even their attempts are usually flawed and detected. It is those who are completely serious who plan very secretively and usually succeed with or without leaving a note. That is what APPEARS to have happened in this circumstance.

 

Did Celebrity mishandle the situation? Absolutely. Can they discuss it and defend themselves and release pertinent information? No - their lawyers won't allow that. That is how the legal system works. The person who directly mishandled the situation was fired. Is that good enough - probably not. But apparently suicides on cruise lines are not totally unusual and they need to institute a better policy on dealing with the situation.

 

The cruise line does track who is on and off the ship in port so they would have that info. Supposedly they also know when your keycard accesses your room.

[cechase]

I am troubled by many aspects of this story. As I understand, this woman talked on the phone with her daughter every day, with her daughter living in England. Because there was a divorce, we might assume that the daughter was living with her father. Yet, this woman did not tell either her daughter or her parents in Arizona that she was flying across the country and going on a cruise on Mercury.

 

She was issued a Sea Pass when she checked in with the Mercury personnel, and boarded the ship. Her photograph was taken at that time. She used the Sea Pass at least once - to gain access to her cabin to leave her luggage inside and presumably unpack. The room steward did meet her for the purpose of introducing himself. She also did a very peculiar thing - leaving $107.00 in cash under the room stewards metal name plate apparently either on the day of embarkation or in the morning of the next day.

 

Thereafter, if the facts that I have read are accurate, she never again used her Sea Pass to leave the ship or to make any purchases on the ship. And she was never again seen by the room steward.

 

There would seem to be only two alternatives to her disappearence. The first would be that she left the ship at sea, by either jumping over board, accidentally falling over board, or being thrown overboard. The second would be that she spent the entire cruise in another cabin and disembarked. [This latter alternative is in my opinion not reasonable, because she left all of her personal belongings and clothing in her assigned cabin.]

 

Because, she did not tell or talk to her daughter, did not inform her parents, and left a cash tip in an amount well in excess of that recommended by Celebrity on her first day or second morning aboard, it could reasonably be assumed that she had an agenda, and that agenda was suicide.

 

This scenaro places Celebrity in a very difficult position. The room steward certainly performed his duty by informing his supervisor of the fact that the cabin was not being used by the passenger, the bed not being slept in, and the fact that a substantial tip had been left contrary to the usual practice. The supervisor is the real culprit because he cut off the chain of information to the ship's officers.

 

Celebrity's fault in this matter has nothing to do with the disappearence and probable loss of this woman, but rather its fault is not carrying out its own procedures when a passenger is missing. The newspaper article is very one sided from the parents view point, and part of the fault for this is that Celebrity is being rather closed mouth about the entire affair and unwilling to explain its side of the story, probably because of the pending litigation.

 

I have trouble understanding what the basis is for this litigation. Certainly, Celebrity messed up, but it is pretty obvious that the damage [loss of the woman] had taken place before Celebrity started messing up.

 

Those are just my thoughts.

[Francisca_00]

We were on a Carnival cruise once and around 4 am a crew member jumped overboard. The ship made a quick turn that made me roll off my bed, all the things on our dressing table tumble to the floor. We thought the sihp was going down!! They did pull the guy out of the water. He wanted to commit suicide over a lover. But I think they put the passengers in danger when they turned so sharp like that. We were scared to death!!

[Danno]

Being scared, and being in danger are two different things....I'm sure the proper proceedures were followed when amking the emergency turn.

 

Also, it's all together different when you see someone jump....rather than just have them disappear.

[montgomeryfamily]

Originally posted by wolfganghowell

Did Celebrity mishandle the situation? Absolutely. Can they discuss it and defend themselves and release pertinent information? No - their lawyers won't allow that. That is how the legal system works.

 

Actually, that is not how the American legal system works. Unlike on television, in a civil trial there is required open discovery between the parties and exchange of information, so it is very rare that there is a surprise at trial. Depositions (like the one of the room steward) are required to be filed with the court in some states/localities to be used at trial and in other states or federal system, they may be filed. All of these filed depositions are public record (unless sealed by the Judge, which is unusal).

 

Many major corporations now release statements and questions/answers in regard to such types of situations, because those releases contain the facts they will assert at trial and that won't change AND they recognize that the negative public relations/image in regard to the situation will hurt their company, perhaps even more than the potential damages in the litigation. In addition, lawyers can't require their clients not to make such statements--they can only recommend. It is the client's/company's decision to make. Many lawyers work with their corporation clients to develop and release public statements relating to litigation.

 

So it isn't that Royal Caribbean can't release pertinent information or defend themselves under the legal system--they are choosing not to do so. It is possible that this is the recommendation of their lawyers and they are following that recommendation. It is possible that they are concerned that whatever they say will be used against them in litigation. That is their decision to make. But they also should recognize that there may be ramifications from taking that position such as negative publicity or inference.

 

Also, as I understood the situation from the Anderson Cooper program, the reason the parents say they filed suit is that Royal Caribbean would not give them information they had requested or cooperate with them to find infomation and witnesses. Now, I don't know whether this is true. But it is true that a court can order a corporation to give information and make witnesses available that still work for the corporation when litigation is filed and it is pertinent to the litigation. And it is difficult to force corporations to give information without litigation being filed--even court orders are difficult to get without litigation and the court orders are usually limited.

[newmexicoNita]

How can you defend the actions of the cruise line??:mad:

am not sure anyone is defending the actions of the cruise line, but what is being said by some: this is one sided, happened almost a year and 1/2 ago and none of us has any idea of what the real story is. NMnita

[newmexicoNita]

This story was also on CNN about four or five days ago, on Anderson Cooper. They had been advertising a story regarding the pirate ship attacking the Seaborne ship, so I was watching it for that. This story was on the same program. (They did show the story about the pirate ship--it was interviews with guests after the Seaborne ship had gotten to the Seychelles.) Anderson Cooper interviewed the father who said they were looking for passengers who had been on the sailing that might have seen or talked with his daugher. (The mother was on the program too). They talked about the situation. They said they had filed suit because Royal Caribbean wouldn't give them information or cooperate with them to try to find their daughter or what happened to her. They also showed a close up of a missing person bulletin of their daugher issued by the Alaska State Troopers.

 

Anderson Cooper talked about a deposition by the room steward who said he had reported the woman as being missing. Anderson Cooper said that CNN had asked Royal Caribbean for a statement and that they had released a very limited statement, saying that they could not discuss it because it was in litigation. They did say they had fired the room steward supervisor--that he had shown bad judgment. I remember when I heard the story how surprised I was that Royal Caribbean didn't say anything more about the situation than that--it certainly made them look bad.

 

That story on CNN was before the Arizona newspaper article. I hadn't seen the newspaper article until I saw it posted on CC. But I assume it was in the Arizona newspaper because that is where the father lives and would logically seem to be of interest to that community due to the local connection. I'm surprised that some have attacked the newspaper as tabloid journalism under those circumstances.

 

Royal Caribbean has had some opportunities, especially on CNN with Anderson Cooper, "to tell their side of the story" and dispute the family's claim and version of how Royal Caribbean handled the matter. But thus far they have not disputed the family's story and they even confirmed that the room steward supervisor was fired for poor judgment. If the situation is different than has been described by the family, or if there are facts that are being omitted that would show that the company has handled the situation properly, they should step forward with that information. They are getting negative publicity from this situation. Plus, if I understood Anderson Cooper correctly, he/CNN is going to continue to follow this story.

As I believe Danno said, no one is going to admit fault, if there is any: it's called sue, sue, sue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[trcori]

the $107 was on the dresser as a tip? just because it was under the steward's "name card' as the story put it? that could have been a paperweight.

 

I think assuming she committed suicide just because she was depressed/suicidal once before is totally a cop-out. I work in news media & have dealt with tons of missing-persons cases where investigators deemed someone a runaway or "voluntary" vanisher because of some past incident ... then it turned out to be foul play. Once, they didn't bother looking for a teenager because they decided she was a runaway ... she turned up barely alive in the wreckage of her car, which had crashed into a ravine the night she disappeared ... more than a week earlier.

 

Just sayin' ... keep an open mind ... TR

[debjac]

Most disturbing part of this story to me is the emergency information we all fill out was not used. Is it not required?

If it is required as I think it would be, I personally now have an uneasy feeling. Should we all assume that in case of a disappearance in port or at sea our contact person will not be notified????

[Bryon]

What an odd story. I agree that the cruiseline should have notified the parents (or whoever the emergency contact was), but that assumes that she gave valid emergency contact info.

 

One thing thing that strikes me is that the newspaper article didn't mention that identification or money was found in her possessions. If she just wanted to get off the boat in Vancouver and vanish, then maybe she gave false contact info.

 

If she killed herself, she may also not have wanted to give valid info for any number of selfish reasons.

 

I also think that we should consider the one-sidedness of the story. It sounds to me as if the cruiseline conducted an investigation and reached a conclusion. When the parents didn't like the conclusion, they went to the press and court to carry on their own investigation--thus the year and a half delay.

[deadzone1003]

We were on a Carnival cruise once and around 4 am a crew member jumped overboard. The ship made a quick turn that made me roll off my bed, all the things on our dressing table tumble to the floor. We thought the sihp was going down!! They did pull the guy out of the water. He wanted to commit suicide over a lover. But I think they put the passengers in danger when they turned so sharp like that. We were scared to death!!

 

Madam, if you had fell overboard, how fast would you want Carnival to turn around to pick you up?::rolleyes:

[AFT_LOVER]

and the story surfaces for info on what happened. Why not when she didn't show up at home? They are making it seem like she is a friend of the missing homeymooner. That case sure died out with the hurricanes showing........

 

Media loves bad press for successful companies. Bill Gates got a speeding ticket, paid over $15K to fight it in court & won! You'd think he murdered someone wth the media reporting.........

[canderson]

Irrespective of the issues for this family and it's particular circumstances, one thing that seems to be a common thread is the seeming inability of a cruise line to recognize a potential crime scene for what it is. It's about time that the security officers on board start explaining (especially to the cabin stewards) that when something seems seriously amiss as it was in this and other recent cases, NOTHING GETS TOUCHED. It's not like this happens frequently on a ship, and they need to learn to live without a cabin once in a while when such things occur until such time as the scene gets a professional look-over. That this isn't already the status quo is perhaps my biggest gripe with all of these cases.

[dkjretired]

Actually, that is not how the American legal system works. Unlike on television, in a civil trial there is required open discovery between the parties and exchange of information, so it is very rare that there is a surprise at trial. Depositions (like the one of the room steward) are required to be filed with the court in some states/localities to be used at trial and in other states or federal system, they may be filed. All of these filed depositions are public record (unless sealed by the Judge, which is unusal).

 

Many major corporations now release statements and questions/answers in regard to such types of situations, because those releases contain the facts they will assert at trial and that won't change AND they recognize that the negative public relations/image in regard to the situation will hurt their company, perhaps even more than the potential damages in the litigation. In addition, lawyers can't require their clients not to make such statements--they can only recommend. It is the client's/company's decision to make. Many lawyers work with their corporation clients to develop and release public statements relating to litigation.

 

So it isn't that Royal Caribbean can't release pertinent information or defend themselves under the legal system--they are choosing not to do so. It is possible that this is the recommendation of their lawyers and they are following that recommendation. It is possible that they are concerned that whatever they say will be used against them in litigation. That is their decision to make. But they also should recognize that there may be ramifications from taking that position such as negative publicity or inference.

 

Also, as I understood the situation from the Anderson Cooper program, the reason the parents say they filed suit is that Royal Caribbean would not give them information they had requested or cooperate with them to find infomation and witnesses. Now, I don't know whether this is true. But it is true that a court can order a corporation to give information and make witnesses available that still work for the corporation when litigation is filed and it is pertinent to the litigation. And it is difficult to force corporations to give information without litigation being filed--even court orders are difficult to get without litigation and the court orders are usually limited.

 

I beg to differ with you and agree completely with Wolfgang. They will release info that is carefully screened by their attorneys and will probably not have any spokesmen comment on TV shows such as Anderson Cooper unless it is a lawyer or high ranking official. The reason is cross examination at trial or in a depostion. They don't want someone to make some comment which can be torn apart or used by the defense. That is the way the legal system works in reality.

[cechase]

Posters are missing the fact that the Room Steward repeatedly reported to his supervisor the relevant facts. That supervisor for whatever his reasons cut the chain of communication from the Room Steward to the Officers of the vessel. Celebrity made its intial mistake when after debarkation, it did not secure the cabin, did not report the disappearance to the appropriate authorities, and instead collected the woman's belongings and disposed of some, and stored the remainder.

 

While many of you think that all of the records in civil litigation are public, that is not accurate. When a deposition is taken, the plaintiff's and defendant's attorneys receive a copy of the transcript which is retained in their office. The deposition reporter seals the original transcript and retains the same until directed by the proponent of the deposition to deposit it with the trial court. It remains sealed until the witness is sworn in, and reference is made to his or her deposition testimony. The judge at that point unseals the deposition transcript.

 

Written interrogatories and responses to the same, requests for admissions and response to the same, requests for production and responses to the same, repose in the files of the respective attorneys and do not become a public record until the attorney's lodge the same with the trial court.

 

I must assume from what I have read, that the attorney for the plaintiff parents disclosed portions of the room steward's deposition testimony to the reporter or other media. This is known in the legal profession as trying the case in the media. While retired now, I practiced law for 38 years, tried 45 jury trials and 100 court trials, and never made such information available to the media.

[wolfganghowell]

Charlie - thank you, you clarified what I meant much better than I. That's why you have the law degree and I don't <smile> My remark of "this is how the legal system works" meant exactly that - a giant corporation such as RCCL will not respond to the media in a situation such as this because of pending, current, or possible litigation. They rely on the corporate lawyers to guide them and sometimes what is perfectly acceptable legal practice becomes a publicity nightmare.

[montgomeryfamily]

I have been trying to keep an open mind about the case, but Royal Caribbean's handling of the situation is puzzling. Royal Caribbean acknowledges that the room steward reported the situation several times to his supervisor and the supervisor failed to submit these reports to the ship officers. It does cause me to question why the supervisor would not submit the reports--this certainly raises an issue about whether there was any involvement of the supervisor in this woman's disappearance. I am also concerned that Royal Caribbean's response was to fire the supervisor without letting the parents' private investigator interview him or at least let the police or FBI interview him.

 

I am even more concerned that the ship's staff apparently did not report the woman's disappearance, didn't secure the stateroom, and gave away some of her possessions. I remember that when we disembark at ports we have to "check out" with our sailaway card, but I thought we also did this when we disembarked. I have been trying to remember whether we did this on our last Celebrity cruise--the Millie in April. If this is the procedure, then the ship's security also knows who has not disembarked the ship-- so it wouldn't be just housekeeping who didn't follow through.

 

This situation raises a concern about the security procedures on the ships and how disappearances are handled. I would certainly like to hear Royal Caribbean's response about this situation.

 

I agree that the parents are, at least in part, "trying their case in the media" in that they are seeking and receivng media attention for their case (the attorney representing the parents was not on Cooper Anderson) The parents also contend they are trying to find out information about their daughter.

 

It is very common now for people (and their attorneys) to try cases in the media. This unfortunately is a fact of life now in the United States and many major corporations realize this and have changed their response accordingly.

 

It used to be several years ago that corporate counsel and outside counsel law firms hired by the company would advise their corporate client not to make any type of statements or comments when litigation was filed, but negative publicity would often become a "publicity nightmare" as Wolfganghowell says. This is even worse for a public company who has to answer to shareholders and a Board of Directors.

 

So now it is more often the practice for such companies to work with their in-house counsel and ouside counsel as well as their in-house public affairs (and any hired public relations firms) to create a response to these situations, usually in the form of a written statement and a list of questions/answers. There are even instances when a company representative is permitted to be interviewed.

 

So a company can defend themselves under the current American legal system by the release of these public statements and other responses. They do not have to have a representative to make the response--although they can do so--they can release written responses. Companies that do this do not worry about the statements being used against them at trial because these are the facts/information that they will use in litigation and at trial and also have may have already been used or will be used in response to the requests for admissions and responses to interrogatories.

 

Royal Caribbean has not chosen to make even such written responses-- instead limiting their written response made to Anderson Cooper/CNN to an acknowledgement that they had fired the room steward and claiming they could not make any further response due to the litigation.

Apparently their response to the Arizona Republic newspaper was similar.

 

The reason I made this point initially because several of the other posters were saying that the media information was one-sided and Royal Caribbean's side was not known--that Royal Caribbean couldn't say anything because of fear of being sued (Apparently they already have been sued, so this isn't a valid reason any longer) or because Royal Caribbean can't say anything under the current legal system. These posters were essentially excusing Royal Caribbean from having to respond. So I was pointing out that this is not in fact the case.

 

Apparently Royal Caribbean is choosing not to say anything and this may be part of their legal strategy. Royal Caribbean may want to rethink that legal strategy, especially if Anderson Cooper/CNN does intend to follow up on the story.

 

It was not my desire to set forth or compare credentials, but, in case it makes any difference, I too am an attorney, licensed to practice in several states and federal courts, and I have litigated numerous trials, being in practice over 25 years. I am also a corporate counsel for a major 100 Fortune company.

 

I don't want to debate legal procedure or get into legal technicalities (filing vs. depositing, documents used as exhibits or wth witnesses, and differences in various state courts and federal court procedures) as I think that sidetracks the thread. My point was that under the legal system with the required exchange of information between the parties, Royal Caribbean making a public statement or other response is unlikely to be revealing secret information that the Plaintiff's (parents) wouldn't otherwise obtain through the discovery process.

[Gypsea]

Had this woman been in the company of a family member to raise the alarm I can imagine there would have been a much different investigation. I cannot believe the things I am reading. It is too horrible. Removing her belongings, not reporting her missing, her possesions given away....wow! It looks very bad, unbelievable , really.

[cechase]

The room steward was not fired! He followed proper procedures and reported the unusual circumstances to his supervisor. The supervisor did not report these unusual circumstances, and it was the supervisor who was fired. Lets get our facts straight!