Toddler Death Law Suit Update

[Gwendy]

Please remember a little girl died.  Her family will never be the same.  Leave all assumptions alone and let the courts sort it out.  I hope none of the family or friends ever see this thread.

[TNcruising02]

I'm not sure why people who don't want to discuss the topic post about silencing people who do. I have seen that happen in other threads.  Somebody doesn't like the discussion, so they want to shut it down instead of simply closing the thread and moving on.

 It's important for the truth to come out because the little girl's parents are promoting a false scenario and making people who have never cruised before believe something isn't safe when it is.  Discussion is a good thing.  It helps people come to terms with something and it may prevent someone from behaving in an unsafe way.

[NLH Arizona]

48 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

That's not how I see it at all. If the child was placed on the window frame, that proves Anello knew THERE WAS NO GLASS in the frame. It looks like, to me, the re-enactment does not work in Anello's favor at all. Grandpa did the most incorrect thing that could be done. Do the photos/video show Anello placed Chloe's feet on the window frame? If that is what it shows, then Anello's goose is cooked.

It works more in his favor then the video of what happened.

[voyager70]

Anello is guilty as hell.  Period. So sorry for the parents. As a father of 2 I can't even imagine...

 

 

[BeachChik]

2 hours ago, cruisinfanatic said:

Time to close this thread!

Really? I find this to be one of the most obnoxious statements. Because you don’t like it someone should close it? No one is forcing you to click on it and read it. 

[brillohead]

1 hour ago, coffeebean said:

Do the photos/video show Anello placed Chloe's feet on the window frame?

The video is from behind/to the side, and it shows Anello's belly squashed up against the railing and his back bent forward so his shoulders are past the railing.  

Looking at the family's attorney's re-enactment photos, they portray none of that -- they show the doll above the railing in one of the photos, or the doll between the railing and the window with the feet on the windowsill.

 

 

 

However, if the re-enactor were bent over the railing (as is seen in the videos and is roughly portrayed in the photo below), it's obvious that there is no room between the railing and the window for the baby's body, as Anello's head/shoulders were in that space, so the only possible place for Chloe's body to be would be either sitting/standing directly on the windowsill, or hanging outside the window.

 

 

 

And even if he "only" placed her on the windowsill (who in the heck does something like that?) instead of actually through the window, that still shows that he knew there was no glass in the window frame -- he held her there for well over 30 seconds --  which blows away his whole entire argument ("I thought there was glass, I held her there to bang on the glass").  

So, since he obviously knew there was no glass in the window, that also blows away the family's greedy money-grubbing reason for a lawsuit -- they claim to want the ship design fixed so that nobody thinks there's glass there when the window is open.  Newsflash -- even Anello knew there was no glass in the window, as have millions upon millions of people who have been on ships with these same exact designs, therefore there is no basis for the lawsuit, because even Helen Keller herself wouldn't have fallen out that window.  

 

 

 

[BeachChik]

1 hour ago, Gwendy said:

Please remember a little girl died.  Her family will never be the same.  Leave all assumptions alone and let the courts sort it out.  I hope none of the family or friends ever see this thread.

You know no one is forcing you to read this thread right?
 

Of course it’s full of assumptions since no one but the grandfather knows what really happened. That doesn’t mean no one is allowed to discuss it. This has been a pretty civil discussion considering the topic.

[brillohead]

4 hours ago, kearney said:

One of the issues I have with this statement is that the distance between the edge of the railing and the window is between 12 - 15 inches.... this child was a toddler.... why did he think it was a good idea to place a child on the railing and have her lean that distance against distance to bang on the glass. The risk of falling between the railing and the window was substantial... she can barely walk.. This makes no sense. And if his intent was to stand her against the window sill... that sill is quite narrow... no real room... again makes no sense. Photos of the girl banging glass at hockey game, show her standing on the ground doing so... Absolutely no reason she couldn't have done so on the ground. I am not sure why he did what he did... but none of it makes common sense. Perhaps there is some cognitive impairment involved....

The statement you're referencing is pretty much a complete fabrication, other than the part about Chloe falling to her death.  It's not a clear-glass enclosed play area, and he didn't put her on the railing, and she didn't lean forward to bang on glass because she couldn't see any glass to bang on because there wasn't any. 

I could *almost* wrap my brain around it if he had sat her up on the railing and then held her in a hug from behind, but he didn't even do that -- he put her over and beyond the railing, and dangerously close to (or even beyond) the open window.  

My personal belief is that he did stand her on the (obviously open) windowsill, because he appears to be holding her with just one hand at times in the videos.  It's unlikely he'd be able to support her body dangling in the air with just one hand, which would coincide with the hypothesis that her body weight was supported by the open windowsill, and he was just steadying her with one hand when she slipped from his grasp.  That scenario is just unconscionable to me, but it's the one that best fits with the evidence we've seen so far.  
 

[cruisinmeme]

On 2/9/2020 at 2:40 PM, coffeebean said:

What about Anello holding Chloe up to an open window. That is very odd behavior. Why didn't anyone notice?

As I watched the video over and over i never saw a soul stopping to stare.

 

On 2/9/2020 at 3:25 PM, S.A.M.J.R. said:

I'm not sure I would consider that "odd".  Unsafe, yes.  But I don't know that I'd approach someone holding a child up on the railing or near the window.  I'd assume they'd have a death grip on the child and who knows what kind of response you'd get from them. 

Had anyone said anything i think his reaction would of been more of a mind your own business rather than “thank you for your advice, this is very careless and stupid of me” people today cant stand to be told to wake up.

[Coralc]

I don't think it is related to this incident, but we disembarked Majesty on Saturday....there is only ONE operating window on the pool deck (starboard side). The rest of them are bolted shut with L brackets. 

 

The reason that I am speculating that it is unrelated, is because the brackets look like they have been there for a long time.  Majesty is an older ship and the one operating window was very difficult to open/close, so maybe they decided it was too much trouble. 

 

But I would hate to see them bolted closed on other ships. Taking an occasional photo through a dirty window is no fun. 

[emdia43]

I didn't know the gun was loaded....

[nadinenurse1]

So, how will the legal proceedings evolve, is it like ours where there is a jury of “peers” a judge decision, ? have no idea of the laws , and what do you all think is the possibility that Royal, in the end, will cave, I hope they dont this event appears so oblivious to all except the family

[brillohead]

6 minutes ago, nadinenurse1 said:

and what do you all think is the possibility that Royal, in the end, will cave, I hope they dont this event appears so oblivious to all except the family

I don't think Royal is going to back down at this late date -- if they were going to settle with the family to make it go away, they would have done it at the very beginning.  

I sincerely hope they take this all the way to the end -- these ships are NOT unsafe, and the world needs to hear about it after the outrageous accusations this family has spewed. 

[cruisinfanatic]

3 hours ago, BeachChik said:

Really? I find this to be one of the most obnoxious statements. Because you don’t like it someone should close it? No one is forcing you to click on it and read it. 

There is no more to be said. Same opinions and guesses as to what happened for days now.

[Another_Critic]

27 minutes ago, cruisinfanatic said:

There is no more to be said. Same opinions and guesses as to what happened for days now.

 

Yet you still click on the thread.  Why?????

Edited February 11, 2020 by Another_Critic

[Two Wheels Only]

58 minutes ago, nadinenurse1 said:

So, how will the legal proceedings evolve, is it like ours where there is a jury of “peers” a judge decision, ? have no idea of the laws , and what do you all think is the possibility that Royal, in the end, will cave, I hope they dont this event appears so oblivious to all except the family

 

There are 2 cases. 

1 in Puerto Rico against Anello

1 in Miami against RCCL. 

[PhoenixCruiser]

There is no more to be said. Same opinions and guesses as to what happened for days now.

Please just stop following this thread

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Bloodgem]

9 hours ago, Gwendy said:

Please remember a little girl died.  Her family will never be the same.  Leave all assumptions alone and let the courts sort it out.  I hope none of the family or friends ever see this thread.

Have you thought that some of the friends and family may have doubts about the family's version of events?

By reading this thread the ones with doubts may find some comfort knowing that others doubt the family's version of events

[Casino Comp Chick]

10 hours ago, cruisinfanatic said:

Time to close this thread!

Why? 
The family went public on live tv more then once., almost immediately I might add.  They put their story out, why shouldn’t people discuss it and poke holes in said story? 
 

[xxHadleyxx]

11 hours ago, Gwendy said:

Please remember a little girl died.  Her family will never be the same.  Leave all assumptions alone and let the courts sort it out.  I hope none of the family or friends ever see this thread.

I don't think anyone is forgetting that a child died or that this conversation is all due to a tragedy.

 

If the family's statements after the tragedy had been simply asking for privacy while they grieve, I'd see your point.

 

The fact of the matter is that the family kept this in the news and created the desire for this discussion and others like it by very publicly blaming the cruise line, giving extremely misleading statements on television, etc. They, themselves, made this very public. 

 

I absolutely feel for them that they lost a child. But they are doing a lot to make sure her death is publicized and in the news, so it's rather ridiculous to chide people for discussing it.

[BeachChik]

7 hours ago, cruisinfanatic said:

There is no more to be said. Same opinions and guesses as to what happened for days now.

Well when you run your own message board you can make that decision. Until then feel free to skip the threads you don’t like. 

[coffeebean]

12 hours ago, NLH Arizona said:

It works more in his favor then the video of what happened.

I'm trying to understand why the re-enactment is more in Anello's favor and I still don't see it that way.

 

This is how I see it:

• Anello claims he did not know there was no glass in the window, so he placed Chloe up to the window so she could bang on the glass.
• According to the re-enactment photo by the family attorney, Anello places Chloe's feet on the window frame. That would be impossible to do if there was actually glass there.
• If there were glass in the window frame, Anello would not have been able to place anything in the window frame, including Chloe's feet.
• As the re-enactment shows the doll with the feet on the window frame; that only shows THERE WAS NO GLASS in the window frame. How could there be? Two things could not occupy the same space at the same time (glass and child's feet)

Am I simplifying this too much? It seems so cut and dry to me.

Edited February 11, 2020 by coffeebean

[Casino Comp Chick]

13 hours ago, Gwendy said:

Please remember a little girl died.  Her family will never be the same.  Leave all assumptions alone and let the courts sort it out.  I hope none of the family or friends ever see this thread.

The family let Pandora out of the box.

I am sure the family ate up all the “poor family” posts on the GMA pages after their interview. Just like the weather, they cannot control peoples opinions.
 

Sometimes things backfire on you and this just proves it.

 

They should have taken a page from Queen Elizabeth, never complain, never explain.

Edited February 11, 2020 by Casino Comp Chick

[coffeebean]

11 hours ago, brillohead said:

The video is from behind/to the side, and it shows Anello's belly squashed up against the railing and his back bent forward so his shoulders are past the railing.  

Looking at the family's attorney's re-enactment photos, they portray none of that -- they show the doll above the railing in one of the photos, or the doll between the railing and the window with the feet on the windowsill.

 

 

 

However, if the re-enactor were bent over the railing (as is seen in the videos and is roughly portrayed in the photo below), it's obvious that there is no room between the railing and the window for the baby's body, as Anello's head/shoulders were in that space, so the only possible place for Chloe's body to be would be either sitting/standing directly on the windowsill, or hanging outside the window.

 

 

 

And even if he "only" placed her on the windowsill (who in the heck does something like that?) instead of actually through the window, that still shows that he knew there was no glass in the window frame -- he held her there for well over 30 seconds --  which blows away his whole entire argument ("I thought there was glass, I held her there to bang on the glass").  

So, since he obviously knew there was no glass in the window, that also blows away the family's greedy money-grubbing reason for a lawsuit -- they claim to want the ship design fixed so that nobody thinks there's glass there when the window is open.  Newsflash -- even Anello knew there was no glass in the window, as have millions upon millions of people who have been on ships with these same exact designs, therefore there is no basis for the lawsuit, because even Helen Keller herself wouldn't have fallen out that window.  

 

 

 

I surely wish Royal Caribbean's defense includes many issues which have been spoke about in this thread. In fact, I wish this thread were monitored by the RCI defense team.

[coffeebean]

9 hours ago, Coralc said:

I don't think it is related to this incident, but we disembarked Majesty on Saturday....there is only ONE operating window on the pool deck (starboard side). The rest of them are bolted shut with L brackets. 

 

The reason that I am speculating that it is unrelated, is because the brackets look like they have been there for a long time.  Majesty is an older ship and the one operating window was very difficult to open/close, so maybe they decided it was too much trouble. 

 

But I would hate to see them bolted closed on other ships. Taking an occasional photo through a dirty window is no fun. 

We are just off Mariner and all the windows were operational on the pool deck. Business as usual on Mariner OTS.