This is just so sad,,and makes me ask WHY would someone do this?? I don't call it 'playing'??

[mummabear]

Interesting comment on the article:

Those who share the family view of RC responsibly for the accident had never been in a Cruise. Someone has to be blind to not notice the difference between open/closed window in the pool area.

They don’t have a case, but they have to try it anyway. The logic behind the legal action against Royal Caribbean is to avoid the charges of “involuntary murder” on the grand father. If they win the case against RC, the grand father is automatically “not guilty” of murdering the girl. If they lose the case, the grand father could go to jail for negligence and involuntary murder. It’s as simple as that.

 

[PaulaSB12]

Someone posted a video of Freedom of the Seas deck 11. One, the windows are tinted so you can see that some windows are open and some are shut. Two, go to 1.18 minutes you will see the person operating the camera putting it out of the window and turn as he turns you can see there is the bar and then a gap and the window ledge the child had to have been put over that bar to be on the window ledge sorry this is totally the grandfathers fault.

 

[sam_gordon]

U.S.
CRUISE SHIP WRITER SLAMMED FOR SAYING DEATH OF INDIANA TODDLER WHO PLUNGED FROM VESSEL'S WINDOW SHOULDN'T RUIN CRUISE EXPERIENCE: 'I THINK YOU HAVE A CHEEK WRITING SUCH A STORY'
By Brendan Cole On 7/26/19 at 6:56 AM EDT

Freedom of the Seas
The Freedom of the Seas cruise ship docked on April 24, 2006 in Hamburg, Germany. Officers investigating the death of an Indiana girl who fell 150ft from the vessel have not ruled out murder.
PHOTO: LUTZ BONGARTS/GETTY
U.S. ROYAL CARIBBEAN

A journalist has raised questions about how the cruise ship industry should respond to the death of an 18-month old girl who fell through an open window on a vessel.

The parents of Chloe Wiegand will sue Royal Caribbean after she plummeted from the 11th floor of the Freedom of the Seas while it was docked in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on July 7.

Police originally said the girl slipped from the grasp of her grandfather, Salvatore Anello, after he had held her up to the window.


But the family insists she accidentally fell through an open window that should have been closed securely and that Anello had placed the girl on the rail thinking there was glass behind it.

The child's mother, Kimberley Wiegand, told NBC's Today: "I never want another mother to have to experience this or to see what I had to see or to scream how I had to scream."


Following that interview, Bernadette Chua wrote in the publication, Cruise Passenger, that no questions were asked about the family's decisions that day or the actions of Chloe's grandfather.

She feared that such a tragedy could be met with an over-zealous response.

"While fingers have been pointed at the cruise line and its safety measures, when do cruisers take responsibility for their own well-being?" Chua wrote.

"Do we really want to lock every window on a cruise ship in case someone holds their child in a position where it can fall out? Do we want to turn these vessels into play pens or cells where no-one can do themselves any harm, however they behave?


Chua took issue with the family's account that it was the cruise line's responsibility to close the window.

"As many cruisers would know, cruise lines do leave the windows on the upper deck open for fresh air. These windows, which are above hip height, are tinted to show whether a window is closed or open.


"Do we really want to ruin the cruise experience by locking every door and window from the fresh sea air just in case?" Chua added.

Her editorial generated a strong response from readers below the line.

Paul Kemp wrote that cruise line did have a responsibility that all areas were safe, adding: "why you would have windows that open in a recreation area that is 11 stories high; its inexcusable,"



"I think your article is thoughtless," he wrote.

Meanwhile, Pamela McInnarney wrote that it was "disrespectful and also premature for you to write such a pathetic article and even worse for others to start pointing fingers."

"I think you have a cheek writing such a story" she added.

However, several did support Chua's position, with one reader, named as Leonard Smith, commenting that "there is no excuse for lifting a small child to the railing when she could see just fine at floor level and there is no excuse for not knowing the window was open."

RELATED STORIES
crusie
Cruise Company to Blame for Death of Toddler Who Fell From Window: Family
Freedom of the Seas
Death of Cruise Ship Toddler Who Fell out Window 'Could Be Murder': Police
Royal Caribbean cruise ship baby death
Tragic Cruise Baby Family Says Company Isn't Handing Over 'Critical' Video
Grant Wall wrote: "It is a tragic situation, BUT the family are solely responsible for their children. STOP trying to blame someone else for your stupid behavior and decisions."

In a statement earlier this week, a Royal Caribbean spokeswoman said: "We are assisting local authorities in San Juan, as they make inquiries after an incident aboard Freedom of the Seas. We do not have further information to share at this point

Link to the article?

 

[laceltris3]

Interesting comment on the article:

The problem with this explanation is in that the criminal matter, one has a right to a speedy trial and it will move very quickly. The problem is that civil cases can be strung out for years.

And while it would pay out to make it go away, I highly doubt that RCCL would admit to liability in the settlement, and it would include confidentiality provisions that would preclude its use in that way. The better strategy would have been to just try to plead down the charges. Negligent homicide is a misdemeanor, and you could probably negotiate no prison time in the plea.

Edited to add: But the plea bargain *would* be an admission of guilt, and would likely turn off the potential spigot of money from RCCL, so yeah, this all comes down to balancing trying to stay out of jail with a monetary payoff.

 

[gwynne]

Link to the article?

I was curious as well. I did a copy paste search, looks like it's probably a Newsweek article.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ne...-cruise-passenger-toddler-death-1451247?amp=1

 

[DLgal]

Interesting comment on the article:

That doesn't really make any sense. If the PR police decide to charge the GF with a crime, they will. It's not like they are going to wait out the results of this civil suit before determining that. And I have never heard of a civil suit erasing a criminal charge just by virtue of the results of the civil suit. Is that a thing?

 

[luvsJack]

Why? Why are you willing to take GF at his word and not others?


And this is what the lawyer/family were hoping for by appearing on thr Today show.


I think it is human nature to do so. I think it is a natural reaction to say "it wasn't my fault"


We are in agreement that I cannot understand up close standing right at the window you couldn't tell, sure 30+ feet away across the walkway area, sure possibly. But standing right at it, no I just dont think so.
I am not in agreement that the GF did not know it was open when he sat/stood her there.
And i guess it depends if he let go or lost hold really.
I am 100% sure he didnt mean for it to happen though.

and yet you take EVERYONE’s Word that has been quoted in these reports except the GF.

And with those in prison, there is the little detail of the fact they have had their day in court that makes a huge difference.

 

[luvsJack]

@luvsJack Still think those open windows aren't obvious?

For the 110th time. I believe HE didn’t realize it was open. For whatever reason.

 

[robinb]

@luvsJack Still think those open windows aren't obvious?

I originally posted that video. The windows are all slid open over the ones next to them, creating a pattern of darkened "double" windows and lighter open windows. If you know how that works, it's pretty obvious that all of the lighter windows are open. The accident was at 5:00 pm on departure day and they were supposed to sail at 8:30 so the family had just boarded (maybe an hour or two previous to the accident) and was not yet familiar with the ship. I totally could see where the grandfather saw the window pattern (dark/light/dark/light) and thought it was just a pattern of tinted and untinted windows. Of course, he would hold her up to one of the lighter windows which was tragically open.

 

[mnrose]

Once again. The question is whether the grandfather's judgment that the window was closed was REASONABLE. Not whether he *thought* it was closed, but whether a reasonable person would have thought it was closed (this is the standard that would be applied in an eventual civil suit, if such is filed). If grandfather made an UNREASONABLE decision, then that's on HIM. I'll just say that for the cruise line, the fact that this ship has sailed this way for YEARS with many tens of thousands of people passing by and standing next to those windows without incident is pretty compelling evidence that this situation was not an unreasonable risk. If this was the first time this ship had sailed, or maybe even the first YEAR the ship had sailed, there might be something to talk about. Given that this ship has been in operation (and has sister vessels with the same exact configuration) for many many years, I'd say it's the grandfather's ill advised decision which led to this tragedy. Human mistakes get made all the time. Sadly, this one had very tragic consequences.

Moreover, one could argue that EVEN IF the window was closed (as he apparently thought), lifting a toddler to "rest" on a ledge above the ground (and letting go) and in front of what he *thought* was a window was also pretty stupid. Just not a good choice.

 

[luvsJack]

Once again. The question is whether the grandfather's judgment that the window was closed was REASONABLE. Not whether he *thought* it was closed, but whether a reasonable person would have thought it was closed (this is the standard that would be applied in an eventual civil suit, if such is filed). If grandfather made an UNREASONABLE decision, then that's on HIM. I'll just say that for the cruise line, the fact that this ship has sailed this way for YEARS with many tens of thousands of people passing by and standing next to those windows without incident is pretty compelling evidence that this situation was not an unreasonable risk. If this was the first time this ship had sailed, or maybe even the first YEAR the ship had sailed, there might be something to talk about. Given that this ship has been in operation (and has sister vessels with the same exact configuration) for many many years, I'd say it's the grandfather's ill advised decision which led to this tragedy. Human mistakes get made all the time. Sadly, this one had very tragic consequences.

Moreover, one could argue that EVEN IF the window was closed (as he apparently thought), lifting a toddler to "rest" on a ledge above the ground (and letting go) and in front of what he *thought* was a window was also pretty stupid. Just not a good choice.

Looking at the post above you and at least one other from someone who has been either on the ship or another, sounds like it may could be seen as reasonable. That has been my point the whole time. It’s not whether you or I think it is. It’s whether the court does, if it goes that far.

Are the windows regular glass? Or are they thick glass that isn’t likely to break with pressure from a toddler?

I have an extreme fear of heights. I wouldn’t stand by a window like that myself much less hold a child close to it. But I know my fear isn’t even always reasonable.

 

[lanejudy]

The question is whether the grandfather's judgment that the window was closed was REASONABLE. Not whether he *thought* it was closed, but whether a reasonable person would have thought it was closed (this is the standard that would be applied in an eventual civil suit, if such is filed).

I disagree, I think the question is whether it was "reasonable" to pick the child up, stand/sit her on the rail, AND LET GO. I do believe the grandfather honestly *thought* the window was closed, or never considered that it might open - why he didn't realize it once he was in front of the window who knows, maybe too distracted by the excitement of the cruise, momentary brain-fart, or goodness knows what reason. But honestly, there was no reason to pick her up; he could just as easily have bent down (or sat in a chair) to look through the lower window with the child. It was a poor decision with tragic consequences.

 

[ronandannette]

Looking at the post above you and at least one other from someone who has been either on the ship or another, sounds like it may could be seen as reasonable. That has been my point the whole time. It’s not whether you or I think it is. It’s whether the court does, if it goes that far.

Are the windows regular glass? Or are they thick glass that isn’t likely to break with pressure from a toddler?

I have an extreme fear of heights. I wouldn’t stand by a window like that myself much less hold a child close to it. But I know my fear isn’t even always reasonable.

I'm not sure in the American system exactly how civil cases are heard. Is there a choice between judge and jury or judge alone, and if so, whose choice is it? If it's the defendant's call, well, all RCCL needs to do is make sure there is at least one cruiser on the jury, and/or make sure the evidence includes actually taking the jury to observe a real cruise ship.

He says he though the window was closed - fine - we can't disprove he though that. But nobody who has ever stood within a foot of one of those windows would "reasonably" say the same. From that vantage, nobody would say they couldn't tell - nobody. Even you. This poor, tortured family doesn't stand a chance in court, nor should they, really.

And as for the unfortunate Grandpa? I don't know what preponderance of evidence is required to convict on this "involuntary manslaughter" charge, but again, if the standard is what's "reasonable" in the minds of even a modestly objective jury, he's in big, big trouble.

 

[Cubbiecakes]

Regardless of any poster here and their opinion of the ship, the tragedy or any lawsuit, most have shown compassion toward the family. Your lack of ability to show compassion is astounding. And incredibly sad.

Compassion at the outset, sure, it is a terrible thing to lose a family member, especially at your own hand.

But we're well past the point where continued compassion—given the behavior of the family since the occurrence—makes sense.

 

[fly girl]

No, it wasn't a knee jerk reaction after the interview. I didn't watch it nor read any reports about it. I figured it would be a publicity stunt to garner sympathy from the sob sister element and based on many posters' impressions here, that's exactly what it was.

I was angry and lost sympathy two days after the incident when the parents went on the offensive and blamed the cruise line. People in their positions (police officer and former prosecutor) espouse others taking responsibility for their actions, yet failed to do so when it involved a family member.

I might show some sympathy again if they fire the scumbag lawyer, drop their threat of a lawsuit, and publicly state that the cruise line is not at fault. They don't have to lay any blame on the absent-minded grandfather, just acknowledge that the cruise line is NOT responsible. Heck, they can start a go fund me for the lawyer's time if they want.

Until that happens (I'm not holding my breath) I'll continue to bash the parents for their actions. Yep, screw them.

Well, that is how you feel. Can't change it.

Even though I don't like them hiring snake lawyer, blaming cruise line, or going on the Today Show - I am still sad that they lost their daughter in such a tragic way. Just knowing the mom saw her baby lying on the concrete is enough to make my heart sink. I can't even go to that place putting myself in her shoes.

I think a PP said it earlier, and I think there is validity to it. They have just experienced a huge loss. The human brain is trying to deal with this trauma. Psychologically, they are in a fog. To take in the fact that they have to blame their Dad for this is too much to handle. One thing at a time, or they would have a nervous breakdown. Blaming the cruise line is the remedy to that. It is on the outside, and easy to take pressure off the grandfather and their sanity. Also, I am sure the lawyer sought them out, not vice versa.

Does it make it right? No, because I don't think the cruise line is at fault. But can I try and understand why they would want to place blame on them. Yes, I can. I don't like it, but I get it. YMMV

 

[Summer2018]

I have no problem feeling compassion and empathy for the family. They are going through unimaginable pain. Clearly some don’t agree that they deserve empathy.

It’s easy to feel compassion for someone who is contrite. For all we know, the grandfather may have been apologizing through his tears in private with the family. He is probably asking himself, “What if?” I’m sure that he is out of his mind with regret and guilt. I’m also sure that he has not been allowed to express these feelings in public and to the press. Not expressing remorse makes him look bad to the public, but obviously he is being advised to keep his mouth shut.

Everyone has lapses in judgment. Everyone makes stupid mistakes. We should be thankful when our lapses and mistakes don’t end in tragedy.

I’m grateful that I am not walking in his shoes.

 

[mummabear]

Link to the article?

https://www.newsweek.com/royal-caribbean-wiegand-cruise-passenger-toddler-death-1451247And to the article it refers to:
https://cruisepassenger.com.au/chlo...y-into-a-reason-to-ruin-the-cruise-experience

Not expressing remorse makes him look bad to the public, but obviously he is being advised to keep his mouth shut.

It wouldnt if they were choosing to sue RCL.

 

[mnrose]

I feel compassion for the loss of their child. I feel no compassion for their ill-advised attempt to "blame" the cruise ship 100% Even if you believe the grandfather that he *thought* the window was closed, he bears at least SOME of the responsibility (I'd argue ALL responsibility, but there is no scenario under which he is blameless). He brought her up to the height of the window (no way she reaches that window on her own), AND then let her go (if only for a moment). Sorry that was ridiculously stupid and "but for" that action (which was NOT reasonable...it could NEVER be reasonable), she does not fall out that window. This is NOT a case where a toddler, on her own, finds and open window and falls out. THAT situation WOULD be the fault of the cruise line....but here, no. Just no. The lawyer who is bringing this case probably failed Torts 101, and is banking on the cruise line "paying something" rather than having to defend this. I hope they don't. Parents need to parent.

And, without knowing exactly what happened, anyone want to lay money that he was going to take a "cute" photo of her banging on the window (like the photo we've already seen of her "banging" on the hockey rink glass) and that is why he "let go." Why would you "let go" of a toddler 3-4 feet above the ground for ANY reason? Isn't the mind-boggling to those of us who are parents? Really? In what universe does that make sense? Toddlers are quick as lightening and have zero ability to balance themselves.

 

[sam_gordon]

Looking at the post above you and at least one other from someone who has been either on the ship or another, sounds like it may could be seen as reasonable. That has been my point the whole time. It’s not whether you or I think it is. It’s whether the court does, if it goes that far.

So did you watch the video posted 3 times now that shows someone walking along that deck?
If so, do you for one SECOND really believe as someone steps up to the window (I'm not talking looking from 30, 20, or even 10 feet away, I'm talking within 2' of the window) they would not be able to tell it's open? Noise? Smells? Wind?

Are the windows regular glass? Or are they thick glass that isn’t likely to break with pressure from a toddler?

It's been argued that the grandfather might not have been on a cruise ship before and therefore could be confused on what an open window looks like (didn't you make that argument?). But how can he be excused from knowing what an open window looks like because he's never been on a cruise, BUT be allowed to think the glass is thick enough to be allowed to be banged on? You can't have it both ways. Either he's familiar with cruise ship windows or he's not.

The other question I have... lets say for some strange reason, a toddler gets on a coffee table. Those are what, two feet off the floor? You think it's cute, so you're going to take a picture. If the toddler gets anywhere close to the edge of the coffee table, aren't you reaching for them? To either hold them or keep them from the edge? Isn't that the "reasonable" response? Then why in the hell is it ok to put a toddler on a railing that's 3-4' up AND LET GO? Isn't that what the GF said he did?

 

[HopperFan]

Are the windows regular glass? Or are they thick glass that isn’t likely to break with pressure from a toddler?

I have an extreme fear of heights. I wouldn’t stand by a window like that myself much less hold a child close to it. But I know my fear isn’t even always reasonable.

I've been on this ship. I've been right where this happened (NOT in a child's play area).

The glass is not regular glass like you would have in a house. It is very thick, likely a mix of plexi and glass. It is tinted a teal like blue and likely wouldn't match the sky. It is very scratched from the salt/sea. It is VERY clear where it is open and where it is closed. If he let her stand on the floor where she belonged she could lean or bang on the lower very thick glass, having a full view of everything through the window and remained perfectly safe.

The glass wall leans out to the ocean at an angle and then angles back up to the ceiling. The rail is at the top of the bottom section of glass and below the openable section of glass. If you were to approach the rail is actually about 6" or more further out than the deck floor. You really have to lean forward a bit and that visually is very obvious.

The story makes no sense to me that he lifted her to bang on the glass when she could have exactly replicated what she does at hockey games on the bottom half of the wall since it's all glass. What seems the most likely to me was he lifted her to deliberately be able to see out an open window without tinting and scratches. I like to take my photos out the open windows because through them was too blurry. Since the wall leans outward, the rail and window are about 6" or more past the floor. Perhaps when he lifted her to look out the open window, he didn't judge the distance and his foot hit the wall and he fell forward losing his grip.

So to answer your questions from personal experience on this exact ship (and like ones) and this exact location ... open vs closed windows are very clear. I too have an extreme fear of heights. I won't stand near any ledges unless there is substantial barrier between me and below. I have no issues standing at these on the ship. The stationary glass comes up past my waist. I would never lift anyone up to look out .... and there is no reason since the bottom half of the wall is glass.

I think everyone feels their extreme pain and what they must be going through. I can't imagine being that GF, he will never be the same again. He made a very bad decision, it resulted in this extreme loss. It is no different than if Grandpa was driving; maybe a bit too fast for a curve, had an accident and baby died. It's not his car company's fault, it's not the city where the curve is fault. There has been a couple of high profile celebrities who have had children drown under their supervision at someone's house. They didn't blame the pool - which is dangerous - they accepted that they lost track of their child and a horrible accident happened. Terrible accidents happen, but we as the keepers of our children have to accept responsibility for our choices.

I have three kids, I assure you if this was me (and I think most people) I would be sedated in bed and who knows when I would come out. I certainly wouldn't be on a television program two weeks later talking about it being someone else's fault and suing the deep pockets. I wouldn't be able to form words let alone put on my makeup, dress up and ... I don't know this wasn't someone begging for return of a child, or asking for help ... those are moments you have to pull yourself together. This was laying groundwork for a civil suit. I don't trust their motives here because honestly they could have filed a civil suit without the PR campaign. I think they know they have no case and they wrongly thought they could get public support by going on tv. The cruise community is not supporting them.

SO .... either they are looking for a huge payout OR this is groundwork to keep Grandpa safe in some way from PR laws. I also agree with poster that said PR is not going to to after RCI, especially post hurricane when the money is very much needed.

And don't forget their multiple online fundraisers for their other children's college educations ... monetizing her death for this purpose is quite sad. Again we empathize for their loss, we can't imagine the pain GF is dealing with ... but their instant and public monetizing of a situation that was in their control isn't a good look.