In fairness to the reporter, both Winkelman's quote and the video are from July.
Yes, I said it was too bad they repeated an old article for a new article. Repeating past articles without fact checking them is poor journalism. If you are putting your name to something, you need to do your own research to make sure you are stating facts rather than repeating misleading or fabricated information. The article might actually have been interesting and read worthy if they had done a bit of work and bring new light to the situation rather than regurgitate.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/grandfath...h-granddaughter-fell-cruise/story?id=66598409
This article left a really bad taste in my mouth. Between the attorney's statement which ultimately boils down to: I don't like these charges because they are inconvenient to my narrative and damage my case against RC, and the statement from the South Bend police organization calling the cruise line negligent. The point is that there is sufficient evidence that the grandfather "negligently exposed [his granddaughter] through one of the windows." per the PR DOJ and that he is a proximate cause in her death.
The lawyer also slightly mischaracterized the charge, as it is a misdemeanor, specifically punishable as a felony. You know the reason they did the full court PR press immediately is that they suspected this would happen and were trying to negotiate a settlement before that. It's the only strategy they had really. And the criminal trial should be over long before the civil proceeding even gets started. And even if he is not convicted, it may not hurt RC's defense that much. If the prosecutor can't meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, it doesn't mean that RC can't win on what the preponderance of the evidence shows.
PR certainly thinks they have a case, I don't think they'd go forward if they didn't think they did because of the bad publicity. Mom is an attorney and former prosecutor (and Dad police) so they are a fully informed family and likely have a game plan on this, I wouldn't put fully on their attorney. I agree, I think RCI was in a good position prior to charges, but now they are likely in much more control of the civil situation ... especially since most the support out there among the public (and the reason most companies pay off) is behind RCI.
It's appropriate to make a decision on whether or not to prosecute on the basis of what members of the family did in the aftermath re: television interviews and civil litigation? The person being charged with the crime has no part in either of those. I wouldn't want anyone deciding whether or not to charge me with a crime based on the actions of other people.
The same TV interview (that grandpa didn't participate in) that is being referenced above as a reasonable consideration in the decision to charge him very clearly includes references of statements allegedly made by the grandfather repeatedly blaming himself. If grandpa himself had gone on TV sobbing and blaming himself on camera would that be enough of a demonstration of remorse to negate the need to prosecute him? IMO the hardest people for grandpa to face and express remorse to have got to be the parents.
Prosecution and sentencing for crimes is supposed to achieve various aims for the good of society along with justice. Does grandpa need official discipline or punishment? I doubt this man will ever have another peaceful moment in his life purely on the basis of living with his own thoughts. Will convicting and punishing grandpa deter anyone from doing the same thing he did? What is the desired outcome to make the decision to prosecute in this case?
Whether the parents blame RCI and have filed lawsuits should have no place in the consideration of filing criminal charges against the grandfather, but it makes sense that there is incentive to do so. Cruise ships docking in Puerto Rico and the revenue the passengers bring to the economy are something officials have an incentive to maintain. The fact this criminal prosecution severely hampers, if not undercuts the civil litigation isn't insignificant
I hear you BUT all that likely does come in to play. In many court cases whether a person is charged can depend on the victims wishes, the circumstances around what happened, the location of where something happened or the need for precedent or answers.
The victim can't speak for herself, so it may be the judge has said ... since those involved have not taken responsibility or possibly because they refused to cooperate ... we need to get the facts on record to move forward no matter the end result. The family is pointing full finger at RCI as if they lifted her up themselves, and wanted the public to know that they had no responsibility in the end result ... that is not true. So yes, maybe if they didn't do all that trying to lay blame on others they would not be here.
Since the family has refused to acknowledge what happened, refused to cooperate, left PR and went straight to the televisions to get America on "their side" ... what does PR do? Take the bullying. Just say "oh well, these things happen." I think if the facts and video show clear negligence then yes they have to move forward with the negligent charge. If Grandpa was driving drunk and she was in car and killed would we say don't charge him because he's Gpa and is in pain? And let the family move forward with suing the grocery store that sold him the beer without any context of responsibility. I get it - it's awful, I hope I am never in a situation where they have found themselves - but sadly accountability comes in to play, especially when there are others with a finger pointed at them.
Just because Grandpa is the one who did it doesn't make it any less chargeable. Not charging him is saying what he did is okay. Given willful action preceded the accident, he has to answer to that. But I do hope the judge can bring a finality to it (who knows Gpa may not have wanted it handled like the family did) and whatever the ruling, not put in him jail. There is no jail any worse than his own mind.
Wow, I didn't see that coming. I wonder what evidence there is that would substantiate such a serious charge as well as such a large bond? This is just more grief and pain for an already tortured family and I'm just so sorry for everyone involved. I suppose though that this somewhat settles the unfair blame that was originally aimed at the cruiseline.
My guess is the tapes were the smoking gun to why they filed these charges. (and for the family, I still hope they refuse to watch them as it won't do anything but add more trauma.) I hope you are correct, and he won't see time. He is living his punishment, putting him behind bars isn't going to do a damn thing except cost tax payers money.
I truly hope that wasn't the case. Regardless, this was never, ever RCCL's fault. I agree wholeheartedly the parents should never have given all those interviews and that the media never should have run with it.
