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

[bdcp]

She was found guilty of three counts of reckless homicide just last week:

https://www.indystar.com/story/news...ent-jury-deliberating-fatal-crash/3995912002/
21+ year maximum sentence.

I think the difference here is that she drove past a stopped school bus which goes beyond negligence to me. Some people intentionally don't stop for buses.

 

[Kaleidodad]

I think the difference here is that she drove past a stopped school bus which goes beyond negligence to me. Some people intentionally don't stop for buses.

That's what made her crimes "reckless" homicide, as opposed to this grandfather's charge of negligent homicide.

 

[bdcp]

But why would they let the thread continue when the incident happened but delete it now? I think there were maybe 5 replies this morning.

No idea. I guess because now that the grandfather has been charged, the mods, when they got on this morning decided to get rid of it. I had posted on that thread. What pisses me off the most is all the people who have never been on a cruise, or on that ship posting replies on news stories, etc and repeating what the family's lawyer has said, without having a clue what they were talking about. We have been on Freedom and I know exactly where it happened and the family's story just isn't correct. The lawyer has made statements that just aren't true about the ship.

 

[sam_gordon]

No idea. I guess because now that the grandfather has been charged, the mods, when they got on this morning decided to get rid of it. I had posted on that thread. What pisses me off the most is all the people who have never been on a cruise, or on that ship posting replies on news stories, etc and repeating what the family's lawyer has said, without having a clue what they were talking about. We have been on Freedom and I know exactly where it happened and the family's story just isn't correct. The lawyer has made statements that just aren't true about the ship.

I agree. We've been on the ship also. I thought it was funny when those who were critical of the cruise line were asked "have you ever been on that ship?", the answer was "No, but... <insert how things SHOULD be>." There was also a video that someone had done walking out of the WJ onto the deck that showed the open vs closed windows VERY well.

 

[ronandannette]

No idea. I guess because now that the grandfather has been charged, the mods, when they got on this morning decided to get rid of it. I had posted on that thread. What pisses me off the most is all the people who have never been on a cruise, or on that ship posting replies on news stories, etc and repeating what the family's lawyer has said, without having a clue what they were talking about. We have been on Freedom and I know exactly where it happened and the family's story just isn't correct. The lawyer has made statements that just aren't true about the ship.

Agree completely. We went over and over it all here on this thread when the incident took place and it was mind-boggling how easily people (who had never been on a ship) bought the lawyer's narrative. Also notable was how unwilling they were to give any credence to those who did offer first-hand knowledge.

 

[Myothername]

I've never been on a cruise or this ship so tell me what is different from what the family attorney is saying. Not wanting to start an argument. I am really curious. Also, as a parent and a grandparent there is no way I let my child bang on any window that high up unless I have a death grip on them. If the window had been closed, what if it broke or came open? Why take a chance?

 

[cabanafrau]

Isn't the bolded exactly what a court case would determine? I don't think anyone is saying GF had any kind of intent of this accident happening. That doesn't mean he wasn't negligent.

Potentially it could be a question of fact for a jury in a trial.

In order to bring the charge the Prosecution should be able to establish probable cause that he either did know, should have known (a reasonable person should have known), or had the capability to know that the risk existed. That's the type of thing that will likely be the lynchpin of the argument at a preliminary exam, where a court will decide if enough probable cause has been shown to allow the case to proceed. It seems likely to me that at that stage a deal is likely to be struck. (Just my opinion) I think a lot of the arguments in the case would eventually boil down to, how familiar was grandpa with the situation and surroundings, as in did he grasp the scope of the location and the physical circumstances? It has to be considered in the shoes of someone of his experience, his age and his physical abilities, along with any distractions at that time that might have caused him to overlook factors that raised the danger. It cannot simply be viewed in the light of, I've been on that ship/ships like this before and it's apparent to anyone. You or I might walk into that location and immediately recognize that what he did was out of line, even if we've never been there before.

Are there any circumstances that you or I would ordinarily walk in and understand the risk, yet another time be in a situation where the immediate distractions of the surroundings/circumstances of travel and/or any potential medical conditions that have been thrown out of whack by changes in diet, routine, rest, etc. cause us to miss the cues that there is great risk here or that I can't handle a squirming toddler quite as much as I assumed because I didn't recognize my stamina, balance or focus are not up to par? Maybe you or I are just enough younger, fitter, healthier that we wouldn't be distracted, thrown off kilter by the circumstances and make the same choices he did, but does that mean it's impossible for everyone else? Is it absolutely, 100-percent a certainty that there is no way that someone could be a little off their game, for lack of a better way to express a potential physical issue, the physical circumstances be compounded by distractions causing someone to misunderstand what they're looking at, and then the physical issues combine with the distracted belief of the surroundings and the person makes an unknowingly risky choice that leads to tragedy?

Seems like if grandpa had a history of being careless with the baby or careless in general at least one of the parents would be out for blood. If grandpa had been an onlooker 10 feet back or simply was in the area longer is there a possibility he may have read the surroundings differently and understood the risk? I wouldn't be surprised if the Prosecution doesn't know the answers to a lot of this, especially if the family departed before extensive interviews could be conducted (not media). If the Prosecution only has immediate, raw reactions from grandpa he understandably may not have been in a state to answer things fully either. Unrelated bystanders were likely traumatized and could have had trouble providing thorough answers and information also. Video footage might reveal some things, potentially not have a vantage point of other things, and even what seems to be very clear, very damning behavior could be less clear viewed in complete context.

The fact time has passed doesn't automatically mean an investigation has led to absolute conclusion, case closed. It may or may not be that the Prosecution hasn't thoroughly investigated the evidence in the light that's not favorable to their conclusion. Good investigation does that. If justice is truly being sought that's a necessary part of an investigation. In order to get a lot of the necessary answers it would be necessary to interview one source for sure, grandpa. That would have been much easier before filing charges and triggering fifth amendment protections. The court of public opinion tends to pay zero attention to the fact that invoking fifth amendment protections can't be used against you, something officials understood very well. Was that a strategic choice? If so, what is the actual aim of the Prosecution? What does justice demand for the loss of this little one? Maybe grandpa was knowingly reckless and should answer for it.

I'm merely providing some counterpoint to the idea that things are cut and dry, black and white as headlines and emotions make it seem. Especially when situations are so tragic it's really important that we get it right, we really work hard for real justice. That's why it's important that we take great care in how we go about pursuing it and don't allow it to be co opted by high emotion OR dollars and cents.

 

[Hikergirl]

I don't believe the PR DOJ would make a statement that the grandfather negligently exposed the child to the window if they did not have direct evidence of that, no matter what the family was doing or saying.

Also, there has always been a phantom thread on the NCL board at CC. The threads are being deleted from the RC board.

I assume the direct evidence is that he himself said he put her up in front of what he thought was a closed window. That in itself is negligent, isn't it? He didn't make sure it was closed before doing it, he assumed it was and it resulted in her death.

 

[mjkacmom]

No idea. I guess because now that the grandfather has been charged, the mods, when they got on this morning decided to get rid of it. I had posted on that thread. What pisses me off the most is all the people who have never been on a cruise, or on that ship posting replies on news stories, etc and repeating what the family's lawyer has said, without having a clue what they were talking about. We have been on Freedom and I know exactly where it happened and the family's story just isn't correct. The lawyer has made statements that just aren't true about the ship.

All posts regarding this incident were removed from the RCL CC board right when it happened too. However, there have been some on the NCL board and they weren’t deleted. 100% of the posters believe that RCL is not at fault.

 

[fly girl]

I've never been on a cruise or this ship so tell me what is different from what the family attorney is saying. Not wanting to start an argument. I am really curious. Also, as a parent and a grandparent there is no way I let my child bang on any window that high up unless I have a death grip on them. If the window had been closed, what if it broke or came open? Why take a chance?

A LOT!!

1. They keep calling it a child's play area. It is the pool deck. The H2O splash zone is in the middle of the deck, not on the side where windows are. Lounge chairs, tables, and table tennis are along the windows. They make it sound like an open exposed window was in an area dedicated for children which it is not.

2. They say that Grandpa didn't know the window was open. There is a huge difference in appearance with open and closed windows. (Look at my posts on this thread around #100-110) you will see pictures of the deck with the open windows. You will see the difference. And the windows all have sea splash on them. You can tell not only by air flow but by clarity an open or closed window.

3. The railing. I think it is a page or two after my pics but look for the YouTube video on the railing. You will see there is at least a 6" gap from rail to window. Placing a child on that tiny wood rail doesn't make sense even if the widow was closed. It is dangerous either way. It makes zero sense to have her bang on that versus banging on the windows that are at her height. (The wall is a wall of windows.)

The lawyer is making it sound like RCCL took no preventative measures to protect passengers, especially the littlest of ones. That is simply not true.

 

[Searc]

I've never been on a cruise or this ship so tell me what is different from what the family attorney is saying. Not wanting to start an argument. I am really curious. Also, as a parent and a grandparent there is no way I let my child bang on any window that high up unless I have a death grip on them. If the window had been closed, what if it broke or came open? Why take a chance?

It was covered ad nauseum earlier in the thread.

 

[Myothername]

A LOT!!

1. They keep calling it a child's play area. It is the pool deck. The H2O splash zone is in the middle of the deck, not on the side where windows are. Lounge chairs, tables, and table tennis are along the windows. They make it sound like an open exposed window was in an area dedicated for children which it is not.

2. They say that Grandpa didn't know the window was open. There is a huge difference in appearance with open and closed windows. (Look at my posts on this thread around #100-110) you will see pictures of the deck with the open windows. You will see the difference. And the windows all have sea splash on them. You can tell not only by air flow but by clarity an open or closed window.

3. The railing. I think it is a page or two after my pics but look for the YouTube video on the railing. You will see there is at least a 6" gap from rail to window. Placing a child on that tiny wood rail doesn't make sense even if the widow was closed. It is dangerous either way. It makes zero sense to have her bang on that versus banging on the windows that are at her height. (The wall is a wall of windows.)

The lawyer is making it sound like RCCL took no preventative measures to protect passengers, especially the littlest of ones. That is simply not true.

Thanks. I saw some talk about the windows being tinted and that alone would be enough. Plus hadn't really thought about it but there would have had to have been a breeze through the window which would be the second clue it was open.

 

[ronandannette]

I've never been on a cruise or this ship so tell me what is different from what the family attorney is saying. Not wanting to start an argument. I am really curious. Also, as a parent and a grandparent there is no way I let my child bang on any window that high up unless I have a death grip on them. If the window had been closed, what if it broke or came open? Why take a chance?

First of all, the area was not a "children's play area". It was an area on the pool/recreation deck with tables & chairs against the hull, where the windows are located. The children's splash pool is in the middle of the ship (the deck is 100' wide) separated from the hull by walkways and these seating/eating areas on either side.

Secondly, the windows are 3.5' or maybe 4' off the floor and there is a wooden rail all the way around that protrudes about 1' inwards from the windows. It's almost impossible for even a grown adult to fall out a window by accident; one would need to lean their top-half out the window and propel their bottom-half up over the rail and through. The risk of a small child doing this by accident is simply non-existent. The "narrative" had the GF holding the little girl up and standing her on the rail.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, anybody at all in control of their faculties would be able to tell the window was open, as opposed to the adjacent one that would be closed. (The windows slide one behind the other and the openings alternate.) IRL it's just impossible to believe he couldn't tell from up close, where he and the baby were, even if one might not discern it immediately from a distance.

ETA: @fly girl and I were typing at the same time and are 100% on the same page with this.

 

[cabanafrau]

I have no way of proving it obviously, but there seems to be some grace, or discretion that comes into play with these heart wrenching cases. Whoever mentioned the hot car deaths, that is a reasonable comparison. So often, the parents are not prosecuted, or found not guilty. I really think if the family had not gone on the offensive, the authorities might have reacted differently.

Is "going on the offensive" something that should carry a legal liability? That's basically saying the bottom line is the image and financial implications associated with tourism and/or the negative impact on a cruise line. That should have no bearing on a charging decision for negligent homicide.

 

[sam_gordon]

All posts regarding this incident were removed from the RCL CC board right when it happened too. However, there have been some on the NCL board and they weren’t deleted. 100% of the posters believe that RCL is not at fault.

Actually I remember a long thread on the RCL CC board, AND that thread was updated last night/this morning.

 

[msjprincess]

But why would they let the thread continue when the incident happened but delete it now? I think there were maybe 5 replies this morning.

Which board was it on? The RCCL board was deleting all threads about it at the time. Maybe they missed one until it was resurrected today. The threads were allowed to remain on other boards. I think there was a long one on the NCL board.

 

[mjkacmom]

Actually I remember a long thread on the RCL CC board, AND that thread was updated last night/this morning.

I remember them getting deleted left and right, just the one on the NCL board remained. I think there was discussion on that thread about how the ones on RCL kept getting deleted.

 

[kirstenb1]

Is "going on the offensive" something that should carry a legal liability? That's basically saying the bottom line is the image and financial implications associated with tourism and/or the negative impact on a cruise line. That should have no bearing on a charging decision for negligent homicide.

Not so much that it should carry legal liability, but rather, in the hot car deaths, remorse seems to play a huge part in whether the parent is given the grace/discretion that law enforcement seems to grant on occasion. In the cases where they seem to show genuine remorse, the consensus is often, well they've been punished enough.

In this case, the family didn't offer remorse, or accept any responsibility. Instead they tried to blame the cruise line and hired a lawyer. I'm splitting hairs, but I don't think it's so much "going on the offensive" carrying legal liability, but their lack of responsibility or remorse impeding the grace/discretion.

Look, this is an unimaginable tragedy. I feel very sorry for the family. I just think if they had acted differently, law enforcement might have as well. Maybe not, who knows?

 

[sam_gordon]

I remember them getting deleted left and right, just the one on the NCL board remained. I think there was discussion on that thread about how the ones on RCL kept getting deleted.

I must be misremembering.

 

[sam_gordon]

For those who haven't been on the ship, here's the tour video of the pool deck...