Grandfather sentenced for death of granddaughter

[BecciBoo]

On 2/10/2021 at 5:46 AM, sparks1093 said:

"Wanton disregard" is the term you are probably referring to, but I have seen hundreds of similar cases with similar results in my lifetime. Let's say someone gets behind the wheel of a car while drunk and runs over a two year old. That could be perceived as depraved indifference by most people. Here in my state here is the penalty:

 

If I were on the jury and shown pictures of  the exact window (which by the way I have stood at) I could never find RCCL liable under any circumstances.  They made the opening of the window inaccessible to children and even an adult would have to climb onto a chair to hoist himself out unless he wanted to throw someone out of the window which would take considerable strength, just as this idiot did with his own grand daughter.  The simple fact of the matter is, he was the negligent party, and he simply dropped her. Period.  I even know there are signs in the pool deck areas that warn about leaving children unattended, maybe even a sign that says, "do not lean on windows"  not sure but believe I've seen some signage to that effect.  At the cabin balcony doors for sure.

[BecciBoo]

3 hours ago, Vagabondvoyager said:

I think this whole incident was a tragic accident.  That poor grandfather did nothing wrong.  It was an accident.  The cruise line did nothing wrong.  It was an accident.  I can't believe charges were brought against that grandfather.  That family had gone through enough misery.

Sorry your paradigm is so out of touch with reality.  Let a drunk driver hit your child and murder it and I bet your paradigm would immediately change.  This was stupidity at its worst.  You are obviously not a parent, no parent except maybe a lunatic celebrity would do something so dangerous. Yes, it was an accident, he dropped her, the point is she should never have been up there...do you not get it????

[BecciBoo]

2 hours ago, coffeebean said:

Even if all Anello can see is greys, the open windows would be LIGHT grey and the closed windows would be DARK grey. That is a pitiful excuse and not believable at all.

Makes no difference whatsoever...he leaned out the d--- window himself...he knew full well it was an open window 150ft above the dock that he was putting this child out.

[BecciBoo]

2 hours ago, livingonthebeach said:

 

I agree with her assessment.  There could be a settlement if RCI deems it would be bad publicity to proceed with a trial.  

I have already written as a stock holder and given them my opinion not to settle, may not be worth a flip, but I feel better.

[BecciBoo]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

That section of USC you reference mainly deals with crimes, and things like door peepholes.  The really only structural safety measure it mentions is having handrails at least 42" high.  This is already a SOLAS requirement, and is merely window dressing to appease the "man overboard" lobby.  As a signatory nation of SOLAS, we agree that we cannot enact any stricter regulations, except for ships of our own flag.  This is why I say this is window dressing, as SOLAS requires us to pass "enabling legislation" that copies the SOLAS convention terms into US law, which was done back in the 70's.

 

So, the safety code requirements are those set out by SOLAS, in statutory terms, and by the various classification societies that the IMO recognizes as competent to interpret, implement, and inspect those safety construction requirements.  Nothing in US law, other than the terms of SOLAS, can be applied to a foreign flag ship.  And, having dealt with SOLAS for 4 decades, I can say that there are no requirements for screens or limited window openings on any ship, and the use of a handrail inside those windows, at the SOLAS prescribed 42" is the only structural safety measure that affects this case.  Now, whether SOLAS needs to be modified to protect US morons is a different discussion, and one that requires input from 162 sovereign nations.

Again, I bow to your knowledge Master!

[grapau27]

3 hours ago, coffeebean said:

That is not how I took what Anello did. He held Chloe up to an open window so she would have a non obstructed view. He held his head out of the window for several seconds before he picked her up. That is very clear on the security video. There should be no doubt what "Grandpa" did.

Absolutely agree.

After watching the video I find it incredible the family don't blame the man who caused their daughters death. 

[livingonthebeach]

48 minutes ago, BecciBoo said:

I have already written as a stock holder and given them my opinion not to settle, may not be worth a flip, but I feel better.

 

As an RCI stockholder I don't want my small stake in the company profits going towards this either, and I sure hope the Florida Federal Court judicial resources don't go towards a trial for this case -- it would be such a waste. 

 

Hopefully there will be mediation and be settled and done with.  They could agree to no monetary awards and RCI placing warning stickers on the railing stating that the windows may be open.  But no, the family wants millions plus the toddler's future earnings...such greed. 

[florida eagle]

4 hours ago, Vagabondvoyager said:

I think this whole incident was a tragic accident.  That poor grandfather did nothing wrong.  It was an accident.  The cruise line did nothing wrong.  It was an accident.  I can't believe charges were brought against that grandfather.  That family had gone through enough misery.

Lost in this is what is the man like? Is he an arrogant obnoxious person? His background in employment and other things could be a clue. Self entitlement is strong these days. The man is experienced in life. There could be a relationship to his way of living.

[beerman2]

4 hours ago, Vagabondvoyager said:

I think this whole incident was a tragic accident.  That poor grandfather did nothing wrong.  It was an accident.  The cruise line did nothing wrong.  It was an accident.  I can't believe charges were brought against that grandfather.  That family had gone through enough misery.

Holding a child outside a window 150' above a concrete pier wasn't done accidentally . The grandfather did do "something wrong" that caused the death of the child.

 

It's their (family) lawsuit that is prolonging the misery.

[Two Wheels Only]

11 hours ago, Bailey & Sophie said:

When we have gotten on and off the ship there is quite a large expanse of water to bridge over. If she just fell, wouldn't she land in the water? How did she end up on the pier?

 

 

I put the black boxes there myself because the images of the covered body might disturb some. I didn't want the images to get deleted, the thread locked, or deleted. 

 

 

This is the view from the lowest of the 3 windows. Chloe could easily see outside and "bang on the glass" from ground level. You can also see the awnings that many have mentioned. It is still unknown if Chloe struck anything on the way down and I can't see any evidence of impact on the awning or frame. The cameraman isn't at the exact window that Chloe fell from (that area was blocked off by police) but it gives an idea of what the window structure/view is like. 

[Two Wheels Only]

5 hours ago, Vagabondvoyager said:

I think this whole incident was a tragic accident.  That poor grandfather did nothing wrong.  It was an accident.  The cruise line did nothing wrong.  It was an accident.  I can't believe charges were brought against that grandfather.  That family had gone through enough misery.

 

If you saw a staff member pick up a child, lift that child over the safety railing, extend the child past that safety railing, and hold the child out of the window with one hand,  do you think that the staff member would be fired even if the staff member safely brought the child back down? How would you react if the company said "...the staff member did nothing wrong..."?

 

Even if Anello had brought Chloe back down safely and the family enjoyed the rest of the cruise, Anello would still have done something wrong. 

Edited February 11, 2021 by Two Wheels Only

[tinkertwo]

1 hour ago, livingonthebeach said:

 

Hopefully there will be mediation and be settled and done with.  They could agree to no monetary awards and RCI placing warning stickers on the railing stating that the windows may be open.  But no, the family wants millions plus the toddler's future earnings...such greed. 

Where did you see this?  Is it conjecture or is it posted in the lawsuit somewhere?  I didn't think there was a number.  

[livingonthebeach]

5 minutes ago, Two Wheels Only said:

 

If you saw a staff member pick up a child, lift that child over the safety railing, extend the child past that safety railing, and hold the child out of the window with one hand,  do you think that the staff member would be fired even if the staff member safely brought the child back down? How would you react if the company said "...the staff member did nothing wrong..."?

 

Even if Anello had brought Chloe back down safely and the family enjoyed the rest of the cruise, Anello would still have done something wrong. 

 

Especially since grandpa, despite being only 50 yrs old, was unfit, overweight and had health issues.  At the point the toddler fell, it was reported he was holding her with only his left hand, which is like holding a 20 pound squirming object with your non-dominant arm over a railing suspended in mid-air.  That has to be the epitome of the most stupid, wanton, reckless and negligent behavior on a cruise ship ever.  

 

I fully understand the parents' and family's grief as losing a child, especially in that manner, has to be the most horrific thing anyone could endure, and my heart goes out to them, but the blame here is severely misplaced.  

 

[livingonthebeach]

6 minutes ago, tinkertwo said:

Where did you see this?  Is it conjecture or is it posted in the lawsuit somewhere?  I didn't think there was a number.  

 

The future earnings demand is in the lawsuit complaint in writing and the demand for millions was mentioned in another forum written by a poster who quoted the mother as having said that in a media interview.  I'll try to find that link.  The lawsuit complaint is on the attorney's website. 

[BecciBoo]

If there was a sign saying do not “put” things outside the window, it may have resolved RC in this matter. 

 

But there are signs, saying do not put anything over the side of the ship.  Remember Save the Waves, its on every trash can.  Of course it's intended for trash, but it works for anything.  They also mention that on the announcement system as you come aboard.  Let me repeat...No Excuse, No Excuse, No Excuse and if you don't understand English...sin excusas

Edited February 11, 2021 by BecciBoo

[sparks1093]

4 hours ago, tonit964 said:

I would think it would have to be a pattern where this has happened more than once in order to be a design flaw that need to be rectified so to speak. In all the years these windows have been on these class of ships, this is the only time this happened. It's not like she was running, tripped and fell out of the window. I know you know but the sole reason this happened was he lifted her UP over the safety railing and OUT of that window.

Yes, those are certainly points that will be raised if the case isn't dismissed.

[sparks1093]

3 hours ago, BecciBoo said:

If I were on the jury and shown pictures of  the exact window (which by the way I have stood at) I could never find RCCL liable under any circumstances.  They made the opening of the window inaccessible to children and even an adult would have to climb onto a chair to hoist himself out unless he wanted to throw someone out of the window which would take considerable strength, just as this idiot did with his own grand daughter.  The simple fact of the matter is, he was the negligent party, and he simply dropped her. Period.  I even know there are signs in the pool deck areas that warn about leaving children unattended, maybe even a sign that says, "do not lean on windows"  not sure but believe I've seen some signage to that effect.  At the cabin balcony doors for sure.

If I were a juror I would probably conclude the exact same thing.

[livingonthebeach]

1 hour ago, tinkertwo said:

Where did you see this?  Is it conjecture or is it posted in the lawsuit somewhere?  I didn't think there was a number.  

 

Found it.  This report states they are seeking tens of millions.  That is consistent with this particular law firm in cases involving cruise lines.  

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7778743/Parents-Chloe-Wiegand-sue-Royal-Caribbean-death.html

 

As I mentioned previously, the demand for the toddler's future earnings is on the complaint which can be found on the attorney's website.  

[JanNSteH]

2 hours ago, livingonthebeach said:

 

As an RCI stockholder I don't want my small stake in the company profits going towards this either, and I sure hope the Florida Federal Court judicial resources don't go towards a trial for this case -- it would be such a waste. 

 

Hopefully there will be mediation and be settled and done with.  They could agree to no monetary awards and RCI placing warning stickers on the railing stating that the windows may be open.  But no, the family wants millions plus the toddler's future earnings...such greed. 

I’m not an RCI stockholder and I also don’t want to see RCI profits go towards this ridiculous lawsuit. Clearly, Royal is not at fault and should not be held accountable.  The grandfather picked up the child and held her out passand over the railing through an open window.  The grandfather is negligent.  
 

As stated in one of the other posts, the grandfather picked up the toddler to give her an unobstructed view.  If the toddler stood on deck level, based on some of the previous pictures and from what I recall, there are no obstructed views and all the glass windows at ground level are clear. The toddler should have been able to see pretty well from that view point.

 

[coffeebean]

6 hours ago, tinkertwo said:

I've wondered about this since the beginning.  He says he is color blind but has that been proven?  It's easy to say but to prove is another matter.  It would/should be on record somewhere if true.  

Being color blind has nothing to do with the ability to see depth of color. As I already said, even if all Anello could see are greys, open windows would be light grey and closed windows would be dark grey due to the window tinting.

[coffeebean]

6 hours ago, robtulipe said:

Here are the windows in that area in B&W.

I agree it is easy still to see which windows are open especially since the closed portion  now has two layers of tinted glass so is now much darker than the open window beside it.

I rest my case.

[JanNSteH]

5 minutes ago, coffeebean said:

I rest my case.

Also if the toddler stood on ground level, there is no obstructed view.  She would’ve been able to see fine.  There was no need to lift the child up over the railing to see.  

[logan25]

3 hours ago, grapau27 said:

Absolutely agree.

After watching the video I find it incredible the family don't blame the man who caused their daughters death. 

I imagine it is absolutely easier for them to blame others than the step-grandfather.  It must be beyond them to consider him so capable of negligence and bad judgment and the event entirely avoidable..  One has to wonder if the family would be so forgiving if a nanny, childcare provider, etc., had been the responsible party.

Edited February 11, 2021 by logan25

[grapau27]

1 minute ago, logan25 said:

I imagine it is absolutely easier for them to blame others than the grandfather.  It must be beyond them to consider him so capable of negligence and bad judgment and the event entirely avoidable..  One has to wonder if the family would be so forgiving if a nanny, childcare provider, etc., had been the responsible party.

Exactly.

[Another_Critic]

1 hour ago, JanNSteH said:

The grandfather picked up the child and held her out pass and over the railing through an open window.  The grandfather is negligent.  

And he accepted that when he plead guilty to negligent homicide.  So, that is a fact on record.