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

[mjkacmom]

and this may be their mindset on why they are continuing to purse this even in the face of new evidence. the thing is-the lawyer they have makes his money off cruise line settlements, not off design changes a cruise line might agree to do. he takes cases on a contingent basis and probably, if the parents are truly doing this to get changes made, sold them on doing this case the way it's proceeding b/c 'the only way you will get the cruise line to make changes is to hit them where it hurts most-in their pocketbook; when they do a big payout the won't want to do it again and will make those changes to save money'.

reality is-even if the parents start to see/accept what most of us viewing the video believe, they may be unable to drop the lawsuit. contingency attorneys commonly have it written into their client contracts that if the client decides to drop a case they are on the hook for all the accumulated expenses plus billable hours. you look at how much time that attorney is spending with the media alone-it's got to be a massive dollar total. if they continue on and the courts dismiss the case then it's no money out of their pockets, just a financial loss for the attorney. unless they are stinking rich they may get to the point where there's no turning back on cooperating with the attorney on the case despite any level of reality about the circumstances of their child's death that they've privately reached.

Plus, if they drop it, the cruise line can go after them for their costs.

 

[Searc]

and this may be their mindset on why they are continuing to purse this even in the face of new evidence. the thing is-the lawyer they have makes his money off cruise line settlements, not off design changes a cruise line might agree to do. he takes cases on a contingent basis and probably, if the parents are truly doing this to get changes made, sold them on doing this case the way it's proceeding b/c 'the only way you will get the cruise line to make changes is to hit them where it hurts most-in their pocketbook; when they do a big payout the won't want to do it again and will make those changes to save money'.

reality is-even if the parents start to see/accept what most of us viewing the video believe, they may be unable to drop the lawsuit. contingency attorneys commonly have it written into their client contracts that if the client decides to drop a case they are on the hook for all the accumulated expenses plus billable hours. you look at how much time that attorney is spending with the media alone-it's got to be a massive dollar total. if they continue on and the courts dismiss the case then it's no money out of their pockets, just a financial loss for the attorney. unless they are stinking rich they may get to the point where there's no turning back on cooperating with the attorney on the case despite any level of reality about the circumstances of their child's death that they've privately reached.

Thank you for this. It was not something I had even considered.

 

[fly girl]

and this may be their mindset on why they are continuing to purse this even in the face of new evidence. the thing is-the lawyer they have makes his money off cruise line settlements, not off design changes a cruise line might agree to do. he takes cases on a contingent basis and probably, if the parents are truly doing this to get changes made, sold them on doing this case the way it's proceeding b/c 'the only way you will get the cruise line to make changes is to hit them where it hurts most-in their pocketbook; when they do a big payout the won't want to do it again and will make those changes to save money'.

reality is-even if the parents start to see/accept what most of us viewing the video believe, they may be unable to drop the lawsuit. contingency attorneys commonly have it written into their client contracts that if the client decides to drop a case they are on the hook for all the accumulated expenses plus billable hours. you look at how much time that attorney is spending with the media alone-it's got to be a massive dollar total. if they continue on and the courts dismiss the case then it's no money out of their pockets, just a financial loss for the attorney. unless they are stinking rich they may get to the point where there's no turning back on cooperating with the attorney on the case despite any level of reality about the circumstances of their child's death that they've privately reached.

Thank you for this. It was not something I had even considered.

Me either. Great point! I'd feel very sorry for them if that is the case, however by their last press conference I didn't get that impression. However, things certainly can change.

Plus, if they drop it, the cruise line can go after them for their costs.

I know I may be in the minority on this, but I would be upset with RCCL if they did that. They have every right to, but this lawsuit isn't putting them in financial turmoil. Seems like a low blow move. Don't go after a grieving family no matter how wrong their interpretation of the events may be.

 

[tzolkin]

Well, if they truly think he only put her on the railing, they really have to have an explanation of what exactly he was doing when he leaned. I mean it really boggles the mind what their explanation for that is.

This is what I keep wondering as well. I'm certain they will show the video in court, probably multiple times. What exactly are they going to narrate/explain to counteract what the people in the courtroom are seeing with their own eyes?

Most of us who watched the video were shocked when he made a beeline for the window and leaned way out and then gasped when he nonchalantly grabbed her up and put her far enough out that she's not even in view. I just can't imagine what the defense is going to be saying while the video is playing. (while leaning half his body out) "How could he possibly have known the window was open?" (while tossing her up over his shoulder) "He's just an elderly grandfather" (while adjusting/barely using one arm) "He was being so careful. He certainly couldn't have anticipated that she might slip out of his grip"

 

[fly girl]

Even when they interviewed the man, it made MORE questions for me, not less. Like him saying, he nor the child could reach the bottom windows.

Well, if they truly think he only put her on the railing, they really have to have an explanation of what exactly he was doing when he leaned. I mean it really boggles the mind what their explanation for that is.

We all know his statement about Chloe not being able to reach the glass was inaccurate.

The parents lawyer (Winky, not his defense attorneys) was asked why Anello leaned over with her and he said, "of course, to get a better view." Which clearly contradicts the banging on the glass scenario. The story changes and shifts to fit the questions asked. Granted, we don't know what his attorneys explanation will be, but they stated in an interview they felt the video proved his innocence. Which blows my mind.

 

[sam_gordon]

I wonder if we could convince CourtTV to broadcast the trial.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Do they do civil trials?

 

[sam_gordon]

Do they do civil trials?

I was thinking the criminal one.

 

[fly girl]

I wonder if we could convince CourtTV to broadcast the trial.

You know it would get ratings. This case is has been in the spotlight.

 

[mjkacmom]

You know it would get ratings. This case is has been in the spotlight.

Has it? I haven’t heard anything about it outside of message boards.

 

[ronandannette]

Has it? I haven’t heard anything about it outside of message boards.

That's true for me too, actually, since the initial news coverage at least. In a way, that makes it a little more concerning - outside "special interest groups" perhaps like this one, is the entire world still buying the narrative the lawyer/family originally spun.

 

[fly girl]

Has it? I haven’t heard anything about it outside of message boards.

I haven’t seen a lot on TV, but I have in print and social media.

Not a lot since the video footage came out, and the parents held the press conference, but considering some of the cases Court TV has this one has had more attention.

 

[Dznypal]

I cant seem to find the lastest interview--when was it done and where and how can I find it

thanks--this whole deal still doesnt make any sense--stories changing--some vedeos not being released--I still cant see how the video showing the grandpa sticking way out the window and still staying he didnt know it was open--with the lawyer? saying that he would have to be 7 inches off the floor to be able to go that far out the window--so wouldnt that mean that the railing was keeping him back from going to far out the window--saying that the railing is there to keep people back from the windows--

also I still cant see why everyone let the little girl bang on windows--she likes doing it--does every parent let their kids do everything they like to do--my guess is no--many times my kids werent happy with me when I said they couldnt do something the wanted to do--its life to teach your kids they cant always do everything they want--sort of a stretch but what happened if she was allowed to bang on a window that had a weakspot and it broke cutting her pretty bad--maybe even going through her tendor little veins--would the parents go after the building it happened in--windows are made to look through not bang on

I feel so bad for the family but its time to start rebuilding your life

 

[mjkacmom]

That's true for me too, actually, since the initial news coverage at least. In a way, that makes it a little more concerning - outside "special interest groups" perhaps like this one, is the entire world still buying the narrative the lawyer/family originally spun.

I’m guessing the entire world hasn’t even given this situation a second thought since July.

 

[ronandannette]

I’m guessing the entire world hasn’t even given this situation a second thought since July.

Right, of course, and end-of-the-day, public opinion shouldn't be what makes the difference.

 

[mjkacmom]

Right, of course, and end-of-the-day, public opinion shouldn't be what makes the difference.

It shouldn’t, but I don’t think the cruise industry is going to take a dive do to this case.

 

[ronandannette]

It shouldn’t, but I don’t think the cruise industry is going to take a dive do to this case.

It hasn't so far. The idea that, taken to it's farthest and hopefully most unlikely conclusion, RCCL is found negligent for the opening windows, will have an impact on the entire industry though. Every single ship at sea has something similar. I'm not even sure what an American court could order the foreign-registered ships to do, but if changes are required, they will be required industry-wide.

 

[laceltris3]

Plus, if they drop it, the cruise line can go after them for their costs.

Under US law, unless there is a specific statute or contract that is applicable, each side pays their own litigation expenses. This is in contrast to the English rule under common law, where the loser paid.

RCL cannot go after them for the defense costs.

 

[Searc]

It hasn't so far. The idea that, taken to it's farthest and hopefully most unlikely conclusion, RCCL is found negligent for the opening windows, will have an impact on the entire industry though. Every single ship at sea has something similar. I'm not even sure what an American court could order the foreign-registered ships to do, but if changes are required, they will be required industry-wide.

None of the ships are American-flagged (to mainly get around American labor laws) so I doubt the American courts have any kind of jurisdiction to order any changes be made.

 

[TheIncredibles!]

How many of you - even if the window was closed - would put your toddler up on a handrail on the 11th story of a cruise ship? She did not belong up there period and nobody needs a sign saying that the windows open OR a sign saying that children do not belong on the handrails. I bet when they walk into rooms they don't walk up to tables and stand on them or stand on the chairs. Common sense and life in general lets people know you sit on the chair - at the table. Had somebody decided to stand on the table instead, because somehow they had no flipping clue that people just did not do things like that, and they fell and were killed.... who is at fault? The people that owned that table for not having a sign on the table saying that you should not sit or stand on it? Or the ******* that decided they wanted to stand on the table?

I don't care hold old kids are, people should know not to put their babies on handrails in front of a window on the 11th floor of a cruise ship, even if the damn window was closed. And if they want the windows modified dear lord what will need to be done on all the open floors with just railings and no windows or the room balconies?!?!?