Yes, because if the Cruise line is held liable for the accident, then it will be harder to prove neglect on the part of the grandfather.Civil Lawsuit and Crim Trial?
. @MsBetsyYou've got me scratching my head
again.
From you:"I think the only reason for the lawsuit is to keep the grandfather out of prison."
Could you pls explain how or why parents' civil lawsuit against cruiseline would keep g'fa out of prison? I must be missing something here. TiA.
I could not agree with this post any more than I do. Hit's the nail square on the head. Justice for Chloe!I am not sure it is venom. But I am disgusted with this man. I think it is much more than just 'holding up a child to look out a window. ' If one holds up a child to let them look out a window, they don't end up on the concrete 100 feet below, unless someone is incredibly negligent.
I don't see this as a freak accident. A freak accident doesn't involve criminal negligence on his part.
A freak accident is when he is holding his baby tightly, standing safely away from the window ledge, and a runaway rolling food court crashes into him from behind, hurling him forward and pushing his baby into the air. That is a freak, unavoidable accident.
My 'dislike' came from the description of him placing this little baby up upon the guard rail, mere feet away from an open window. I have been on a similar cruise line---you can easily tell if the windows are open or closed. Placing a very young vulnerable child in such a dangerous position is cruel and callous and abhorrently stupid. JMO
As for the long list of tickets---in my opinion it shows his stubborn and reckless nature. I got a ticket once for not wearing my seatbelt. I was 'wearing' it but I had both my arms outside of it because I was wearing a freshly pressed white linen shirt and about to get pictures taken at a family portrait place. lol
But did I repeat that poor decision and receive 4 more tickets for no seat belts? I don't know anyone who has that many infractions of the same law. WHY do that? Only a stubborn, obstinate person would continue to defy that safety law. IMO MOO
I found his refusal to take the breathalyser interesting as well. If he had ZERO drinks he probably would have taken one, to prove so, in my opinion.
I think he told the truth when he quickly uttered the words---" I dropped my Baby. "
If he had simply and accidentally dropped the baby, she wouldn't have landed outside on the pavement below. She would have fallen 5 feet to the floor, and probably suffered injuries she would have recovered from.
I watched the CBS interview once and don't care to watch again, but doesn't SA say something like, "They told me that could have been the reason" with regard to him being colorblind and why he might not have noticed the difference between tinted and open windows? It sure sounded to me like that notion had been planted and that he was supposed to present it as a viable reason for lifting Chloe to the railing. I get the impression that various family members and/or attorneys are providing several possibilities for the "accident" and are hoping the public will be influenced by at least one of them. "I dropped my child!" No excuses, lame or otherwise, needed to explain this man's careless, reckless actions with his grandchild.That doesn't sound reasonable at all to me. From the pictures I've seen, she could have easily gotten to the bottom row of windows. Just WHY WHY WHY was touching the *blankety blank* windows so very important??? I will just never understand. My DH thinks SA was trying to say that he thought there was for some reason glass outside the glass. HUH?
My surviving sister is 4.5 years younger than me but looks much older. She has smoked since junior high school and drank heavily in college and until she had children. These "vices" tend to age people.I think Grandpa is lying whenever his mouth is moving
@MsBetsy
Thank you for your response. Now, I see. Turns out I was missing something -- some unstated assumptions in reaching the conclusion in your post. jmo.
No, I was not assuming that they will actually file the lawsuit, and I was not assuming they will win. That would be impossible to know without seeing the evidence.From MsBetsy's earlier post: "I think the only reason for the lawsuit is to keep the grandfather out of prison."
From my response: "Could you pls explain how or why parents' civil lawsuit against cruiseline would keep g'fa out of prison? I must be missing something here. TiA." bbm
@MsBetsy
Unstated assumptions:
1) Parents/Winkleman will actually file suit against cruiseline (have not done yet) not just threaten.
2) Trial of parents' suit against cruiseline will/would occur before crim trial of G'pa.
3) Parents will/would prevail, win civil suit.
4) PR prosecutors will monitor civil trial evidence (I agree this is likely to happen).
5) Civil trial evd and verdict will lead them to think crim case against G'pa is not so solid as they thought at time of arrest.
6) PR prosecutors will move to dismiss crim charges against G'pa.
If ^ previously unstated assumptions actually happen, then yes, parents lawsuit will keep G'pa out of jail. But in and of itself, parents' & Winkleman filing civil suit does (virtually) nothing to keep G'pa out of jail. Not without all ^ things happening.
Again, thanks for taking time to explain further. Maybe you can see why I was confused
