- Joined
- Nov 11, 2013
- Messages
- 13,534
- Reaction score
- 89,186
Oh, and another thing from that December 11 article:
Surveillance video of the incident exists, and the family waited until they saw it to file the lawsuit. They aren’t showing the video to the public, saying they don’t want the last seconds of their daughter’s life to become scrutinized on the internet. They’re also trying to prevent Chloe’s older brother from seeing it.
Family files lawsuit against Royal Caribbean over Indiana toddler’s fatal plunge on cruise ship
BBM. Parents didn't want the public to see the video yet their own attorney showed it to msm reporters who in turn described in detail what they saw.
How does that prevent the video from being scrutinized on the Internet and how does that prevent Chloe's brother from seeing it when he can instead read the description as filtered through other people's eyes. It make no sense to me. Why didn't they forbid their attorney from showing the videos to reporters? Why did they do the interviews?
Surveillance video of the incident exists, and the family waited until they saw it to file the lawsuit. They aren’t showing the video to the public, saying they don’t want the last seconds of their daughter’s life to become scrutinized on the internet. They’re also trying to prevent Chloe’s older brother from seeing it.
Family files lawsuit against Royal Caribbean over Indiana toddler’s fatal plunge on cruise ship
BBM. Parents didn't want the public to see the video yet their own attorney showed it to msm reporters who in turn described in detail what they saw.
How does that prevent the video from being scrutinized on the Internet and how does that prevent Chloe's brother from seeing it when he can instead read the description as filtered through other people's eyes. It make no sense to me. Why didn't they forbid their attorney from showing the videos to reporters? Why did they do the interviews?