You have it slightly backwards. The investigation is to determine the nature of the accident, whether a crime has taken place, and to collect all evidence thereof.
hmmmmm. I know this is a counterpoint to the bashing the family us taking but that “grainy” video still makes a hell of a lot more sense than the claims of being colorblind and not being able to see there was no window.
It’s not an either/or proposition. I don’t have to be satisfied with either party’s version of events in full. Neither side is necessarily interested in presenting us with the full and unadulterated truth. Both parties have chucked, shall we say, “truth grenades” into the public discourse. At least one of them will blow up as being untrue. They might both. So why the rush to jump on the grenade thrown by the cruise line? Why not be good skeptics, stand back (stand way back), and evaluate the evidence dispassionately as it becomes available?
It may be that in the end we never know quite what was in the grandfather’s head. If he knew the window wasn’t there that would make it an even worse error in judgement, sure, but even a “minimal facts” approach to this (that is, let’s not assume he knew things that we can’t say for certain he knew and could not possibly have been mistaken about) certainly doesn’t exonerate him in my mind. As I have said repeatedly, I’m fine seeing him charged just for dropping a baby out a window that he didn’t sufficiently verify was in place and sufficient to arrest the baby’s fall if he lost his grip (which he did—lose his grip).
I just don’t see why we have to—or even would want to at this juncture—take the cruise line’s word that a grainy video is showing us what they claim it’s showing us when the geometry of the window and the obstructed view of the camera (even graininess aside) don’t actually show us that clearly. This is how conspiracy theories get started: people lending too much weight to evidence that is hardly substantial enough to arrive at the conclusion they have, just because some party has put that evidence forth with a vaguely plausible explanation for how it fits their theory, and no one else has come forth with (or the people in question aren’t aware of) a competing explanation.
I’m curious as to what type of monitor you watched the video on. Because the first couple times I viewed it was on my phone & ipad and I found it hard to see what was going on. But later, I watched it on my desktop, which has a 43" (huge) monitor, and it was clear as day that grandpa leaned his head and upper torso way out of the window for 8 seconds, then reached down, picked up the toddler, and stuck her entire body up over the guard rail, then out the window. Then about 35 seconds later you see commotion and every other guest running over to the window.
If I hadn’t seen it on a huge monitor, I would still have doubt. But even though the video is grainy, even on the big screen, and you don’t see precise detail, it is still very obvious that he stuck his head out that window, then stuck the granddaughter out and either dropped her intentionally or lost control and dropped her accidentally. Either way, he is at fault. When this case first emerged, I thought he should absolutely Not be charged, but after seeing the video up close, I think criminal charges are appropriate.
All that said, I very much appreciate your skepticism, as that is the only way to get at the truth.
Yeah - I had initially assumed he lifted the kid up so that she could STAND on the railing and pound on the glass. (Pretty damned inexcusable IMO, but w/in SOME bounds of understandable. But this fucker didn’t have her standing on the railing. Instead, he lifter her way OVER the railing. And the, what happened for the 35 seconds or so? At what point did the idiot realize the kid was not pounding on the glass that wasn’t there?
We don’t have to fall in love w/ the cruise line’s line, to accept that the grandfather’s story is complete BS.
Your post would make a hell of a lot more sense if this had just happened, but it didn’t. There have been months of speculation and investigation and the family decided during that time that they would blame and sue the cruise line. There is no “either party’s version of events.” There is video evidence and there is Grandpa’s version, which as been proven to be a lie. Your dismissal of the video evidence is what borders on conspiracy theory territory.
I have viewed it now on my desktop (previously it was on my iPad) and remain unclear as to just far forward he leans. For reference, I viewed this version of the video (the youtube version posted up-thread, rather than the news organization version with freeze frames and arrows).
The video evidence DOES NOT show us anything that contradicts the grandpa’s story.
If you haven’t already, take a look at this picture someone posted a few comments up. Specifically how, going from inboard to outboard, you have (1) vertical metal columns, then (2) the wooden rail, then (3) the windowsill–which is also a few inches below the level of the railing and one might have to lean over the rail to set something on–and (4) the window, which slopes out and up (that is, it’s not vertical).
With that picture in mind, then take a look at the video. You see him lean forward and past (1) the vertical columns, yes, but you can’t even SEE (2) the wooden rail where he is because of how far away and the angle the camera is at. The vertical metal columns LOOK like the inside of the window, but as you can see in the picture, there is still quite a bit of room to lean forward and look down without necessarily going past the plane of the window which, again, is neither vertical nor visible on the camera because of how the vertical metal columns (which are not the frame) obstruct the view.
All the video shows us clearly is that grandpa got pretty close to the widow as he looked out. Which is exactly in keeping with what he has claimed. It does not show clearly that he poked his head out past where the glass should have been.
You are correct. But when e clearly got to within inches of the aperture for several seconds, and then held the kid up to within inches of the aperture for approx. 1/2 minute (quite a long time - check it on your watch now) it affects the credibility/plausibility of his story. I don’t even know that there is a “reasonable” probability of his story being true, let alone if you start trying to calculate contributory or comparative negligence.
This is a serious question, not at all meant to be flippant: given we seem to agree that the video doesn’t necessarily show him protruding past the plane of the window, which part of his account does the video contradict?
He may not have protruded past the plane of the window- but the fact that he was leaning past the vertical columns makes his story that he didn’t know the window was open less plausible than it would be if his entire body was behind the columns. The closer he is to where the glass would have been , the harder it is to believe that he thought the glass was closed. And if he was really holding her there to bang the glass like she did at hockey games, one would think it would take less than 30 seconds to notice her hands weren’t hitting any glass.
The idea that he didn’t notice the window was open is neither more nor less dubious to me after viewing this video. The idea that he might have spent some time holding the baby over the rail, then standing on the windowsill, then maybe edging forward to shift some of her weight onto the “glass” and loosing his grip (perhaps because he expected the glass to take up some of the weight) and that that all took ~30 seconds makes his story neither more nor less dubious to me.
To me, this is like a vehicle running over a pedestrian. One side is claiming that the driver must have seen the pedestrian, the other side is claiming that he didn’t. Why didn’t he? Well, maybe his vision was so bad he shouldn’t have been driving in his condition, maybe he was drunk (not that he’s admitted to that). And now what we’re getting is video from an ATM down the street that clearly shows the car the driver is driving—has admitted to driving—plow right into this other guy as he walks down the middle of the street. And one side is showing the video and saying “See! This video clearly proves that the driver must have known the victim was crossing the street in front of his car, and must have been looking right at him. It’s there plain as day.” Except the video doesn’t show us what the driver was looking at, let alone what they saw and took note of. Indeed it’s impossible to make out the driver during critical portions of video due to window glare and graininess and such, and really all it shows us is that whoever was driving that car (and the accused has at least admitted to being there with his hands on the wheel) hit the person crossing the street. Which is NOT IN DISPUTE. We already KNEW that. While it may look like no one could “possibly” fail to see the guy smack in the middle of the street, surely we can all agree that some people genuinely do fail to see pedestrians and hit them on accident, due to some kind of impairment or distraction, right?
So, again, I see the video. I see the old many in the video. I don’t see anything that explains why he thought it was a good idea to lift the baby up and position it as he did (not that we can clearly see how the baby was positioned). So I don’t see how the video, in spite of one sides interpretation of it as “clear proof” for their position, actually helps to resolve any of the factors in dispute.
And just as I would be fine with charging a driver who was at best distracted or impaired and killed a pedestrian with some kind of homicide, I remain fine with seeing the old man charged for somehow managing to drop a baby out a window, even if he totally thought there was a window there.
You are correct - the film does not indisputably “prove” anything one way or the other. But I suggest you are expecting a somewhat unrealistic - or at least extreme - degree of proof.
It is quite unusual to have indisputable “proof” of just about any human action/interaction. If not conducted under controlled, clinical conditions, just about any video is subject to varying interpretation. And it can be essentially impossible to definitively rule out EVERY conceivable possibility.
But not many instances require such irrefutable, indisputable proof. Most criminal actions require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil actions require less - either a preponderance (50%+), or other more complicated calculations if contributory negligence or comparative fault is at issue.
So you might wish to discuss what this video does or does not show in terms of those legal standards.
I - and most other posters - seem to feel the film is sufficient to establish that the grandfather was VERY - in fact, primarily - responsible for this, and comes pretty close to eliminating just about any reasonably possible explanation other than that the GF - at least - fucked up. You are fair to view it differently.
You’re missing the point (at least I think). I’m not arguing for any particular standard of proof, only that this video doesn’t seem to show anything that hasn’t already been stipulated by either party. That is (what it shows):
-The grandfather got within inches of the window before he dropped a baby out of it.
Well, yeah. Of course he did. He said he was holding the baby up to it. Did he know the glass wasn’t there? Well, if the video showed that he stuck his head out the window, then I would say that there is very clear evidence of that, and I would have to agree: he knew the glass wasn’t there. BUT the video doesn’t show that. I can see how people might think it shows that, seeing as how he leans forward so far he disappeared from view, but as I said upthread, the angle of the window and the spacing between the vertical columns, the wooden railing, and the windowsill leave plenty of room to bend forward out of view and still not break the plane.
So we come back to “the video shows clear evidence that he got to within inches of the window opening and held a baby to it” (my description of events in quotes). Which, I say again, was never in dispute.
No, I really don’t. I’m satisfied he got to within inches of an open window, which he may or may not have thought was closed somehow, in spite of being within inches of it, and held a baby to that opening, possibly expecting there to be glass there that would support all or part of the baby’s weight. And even then, with the most charitable interpenetration (that he thought the window was shut and he thought the glass would support all or part of the baby’s weight) I think he’s an idiot, and ought to be prosecuted.
But I don’t view it differently. I just question how some posters seem to have reacted to this video as if it settles some facts in dispute when, in my view, it does not.
those are both dangerous, but don’t affect anyone else. Banging the glass at a hockey game probably isn’t very dangerous. But it’s rude af. That’s incredibly bad child-care to teach your kid that no one else matters.
Yeah. I’ve never been in one of these cruises, but if I did, and I discovered I was kept trapped in a box the whole time and could never get a breath of fresh air I would feel cheated. I’ve always assumed there were placed on the ship to get “outdoors”, can and ways to catch a breeze. And that the guard rails would be tall enough that if I tripped I wouldn’t tumble over. Looking at the video, there’s no way anyone could accidentally fall out those windows. They should be perfectly safe. Unless you do something stunningly ill-advised.
Yeah, the problem isn’t that there aren’t safety measures in place, it is that he deliberately bypassed the safety measure.
I don’t think he has to break the plane of the pane, as it were, but rather that he is clearly over where the window would be.
Remember, he’s holding a toddler in his arms. He’s either holding her the whole time or he sets her on the window sill. If he sets her on the sill, then he has to notice there isn’t a window. If he’s holding her in his arms, he’s trying to hold a 32 inch girl (average height) above the window.
In this interview with CBS he demonstrates (at 2 min 42 seconds) how he claims to be trying to tap the window with one hand while holding the girl in the other, and because he couldn’t reach it (as he demonstrates in the video) he says he he leaned out further. If he’s leaning over, as he was, then his arms would extend beyond the plane of the pane.
Have you ever picked up a child? I don’t know if you are a parent or not, but unless the guy was drunk, then his story simply doesn’t add up.
I’m really not following you. I don’t see how the video put out by the cruise line clarifies any facts in dispute. So I come back to, we either believe he saw the glass wasn’t there or he didn’t. But there’s nothing to show clearly that he must have physically passed through the window with any part of his body. I don’t see how his interview with CBS has him relating events in anyway incompatible with what’s on the video. You would have to lean forward quite a bit given the spacing between the railing and the window and the way the window is angle up and out. Of course you shouldn’t try to lean over a railing like that, but again I don’t see where it’s in dispute that he would have done that in trying to put the baby to the window.
His head didn’t necessarily pass through where the window pane would have been - but when he says he couldn’t reach the glass, in ordinary speech, that would mean that he fully extended his arm and didn’t touch the glass. It couldn’t have been when he was kneeling next to the standing child, as the railing wouldn’t interfere ( and in truth, I can’t she why she couldn’t reach it standing on the floor) and it couldn’t have been when he lifted her up, because although I wouldn’t want to bet whether the railing was six inches from the glass or twelve, it’s obviously not three feet away. As it happens, the family’s lawyer says that grandpa couldn’t have put his head out the window, because the railing is 18 inches from the window. Ok, so grandpa couldn’t have leaned over the railing with his feet on the ground and gotten his head past where the window would be. I will totally buy that - what don’t buy is that he couldn’t reach the window below the railing and that’s why he held her up. That’s what he said in the CBS interview - and also that even after he lifted her, he still couldn’t reach the glass and therefore leaned further forward. I notice that in the reenactment, the arms were not ever shown fully extended and that the average adult’s arm+ hand is more than two feet long so his hand absolutely would have broken the plane of where the window would be if he was truly trying to reach the window.
I don't think the man deliberately dropped his granddaughter. I think that for whatever reason, he decided to hold the girl up to get a better view and is making up the whole business about banging on the glass. But the one thing I'm absolutely certain of is that he's lying when he says that he couldn't reach the window that according to the family's lawyer was 18 inches past the railing.
I’ve already been asked if I’ve ever held a baby before… and of course this was an 18 month old bordering on a toddler, so… how much do those weigh? Is it practical to hold one with arms straight out and horizontal? I mean, is it something one would want to do, or would it get pretty tiring pretty quickly. I myself have only held comparable weights in comparable positions under physical training conditions I’d only half-jokingly call …just sort of torture." Which is perhaps why the family’s reenactment has precluded an “arms outstretched and horizontal” posture. If anything, it seems like the difficulty of holding a child in such a position does more to support the “he didn’t extend to the point to where he’d have had physical contact with the window” side than the “of course he had to have been holding the baby out of the window, either doubled over or with arms outstretched” side. Especially since it appears someone his height wouldn’t be able to “double over” with the height of the railing relative to the waist.
I would not be the least bit surprised to learn (as the family alleges) that the cruise line is withholding other camera angles. On general principle, as a matter of holding industry accountable regardless of how much blame the grandfather bears (and he does bear the bulk of it IMHO, whether he knew the window was open or not), I hope the family is at least successful in requiring the cruise line to make all the footage available, not just the footage that makes it appear that grandfather did something he apparently (going off the re-enactments) couldn’t have done (stick his head out the window).
And for anyone is confused as I’ve been the last half hour or so, this is the article that includes the photo that suggests the grandfather couldn’t have put his head out the window: Royal Caribbean accused of lying about toddler's fatal fall
Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to find an article that has all or even more than a couple of the photos from the family’s lawyer’s re-enactment, which seem to paint a much clearer picture, both literally and figuratively, of the geometry involved than wha the cruise line has released.
ETA: And I don’t know what you mean about not being able to reach the lower window. Or at least I don’t know what you mean to suggest the grandfather or his attorney or the family or whichever mouthpiece got quoted for ten seconds in a news clip meant when they said that he said that he couldn’t reach the lower window. It’s confusing enough without everyone rushing to pre-judge what exactly happened based on video evidence that’s been claimed (by the cruise line) as showing us things that it cannot, or at least does not clearly show us (referring here again to the posters who—quite understandably given the camera angle, I’ll grant—concluded that the video showed the grandfather sticking his head out the window).
You are obviously making a point far finer than most of us can appreciate.
I’m not sure where the “stuck head out the window” idea came from. The photos certainly show that the window was within easy reach of a person standing at the railing - even without leaning, the guy with the tape measure does not have his arm fully extended. Grandfather clearly was not leaning. Whether his head touched the window or came w/in inches of it, how was he unable to discern whether the window was there? What was the purpose of his leaning, if not to check whether the glass was there and strong enough to pound on? Was he leaning forward without extending his arms in any way?
Then, the article says, “in an instant, she was gone.” Bullshit. He held the kid for approx 30 seconds before there was any commotion.
You are questioning whether the video proves some specific fact (I’m not sure what fact, and why that fact is relevant." It does not prove many number of facts - other than (IMO) that the GF acted reprehensibly irresponsibly, and was responsible for this occurrence.