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

Keep in mind CBS got the video from the lawyer. Anyone willing to bet that he edited the video before letting them see it? It seemed pretty plain to me that he didn't "stand a window for a second", but LEANED OUT the window before picking up Chloe. If he didn't edit it and that was still in the video, that CBS reporter needs to go back to Journalism 101.

It was clearly not a second. It clearly wasn't 5 seconds. He leaned over for 6-8 seconds before picking her up. He had her on the railing or over it for at least 30-45 seconds. This was NOT in an instant. Anyone who sees the videos clearly know that isn't true.

And I would put money that Winkleman edited the video! I read that after LaComay aired, and CBS learned what they saw was edited, Winkelman said it was a software issue. Software, yeah that's it. :rolleyes2

Also, I find it very odd in Winkelman's interview when asked why they leaned forward, he said without hesitation to get a better view. A better view? That is not in line with the banging on the glass story you have been spinning since the beginning.

Not buying what you're selling Winky. You are a snake.
 
He's a cop and she's a former prosecutor. They're not naive prey.

Yep, and no doubt they have complained in the past about defendants refusing to accept responsibility for their actions. Yet the second one of their family members is negligent they change their tune and look to put the blame elsewhere. I'll repeat what I said about the parents soon after this incident happened: screw them and their grief.
 
Yep, and no doubt they have complained in the past about defendants refusing to accept responsibility for their actions. Yet the second one of their family members is negligent they change their tune and look to put the blame elsewhere. I'll repeat what I said about the parents soon after this incident happened: screw them and their grief.
What a vile thing to say.
 


Yep, and no doubt they have complained in the past about defendants refusing to accept responsibility for their actions. Yet the second one of their family members is negligent they change their tune and look to put the blame elsewhere. I'll repeat what I said about the parents soon after this incident happened: screw them and their grief.

You may not agree with them, and you may not like them. I understand that.

However, they did just lose their child in a horrific manner. And add to the fact they had to see their baby dead on the concrete, that is beyond anyone's worst nightmare. This family has made decisions I may not like or understand, but they are not monsters. Not having one ounce of compassion for that is really sad imho.
 
They have a perfect point: They were not prey.

You specifically asked "Do you really think they contacted a lawyer?" and the answer is, as a cop and former lawyer they undoubtedly have friends who are lawyers, and when being contacted by lawyers that prey on people would be smart enough to instead turn to someone they know they can rely on. Why pick a seedy lawyer when you have access to some of the best prosecuting lawyers out there, simply by having been one yourself? It makes absolutely no sense to choose a stranger, not even when you're grieving. If anything, if I were grieving, I'd probably rather have someone I know helping me.

I DO believe the moment the police wanted to interview the Grandfather beyond taking his initial statement as to what happened, especially as they have it on record that he initially said he held Chloe out the window, the police officer father and former prosecutor mother knew the "interview" was not going to be a "casual" interview and they advised the grandfather to get an attorney before talking further to the police.

I have to wonder however, if that's as far as they advised him. This lawyer is the grandfather's (only) lawyer, right? He doesn't represent the family? Anyone know? If the grandfather actually admitted that he held/dangled Chloe out the window, or held her near enough to an open window that he KNEW was open, so that she fell through, I would think a police officer father and former prosecutor mother, even through their grief, would also know enough to legally distance themselves from him, once they learned he said that, and THAT might be the real truth. They know THEY may have their own case later, against the grandfather. Like a wrongful death lawsuit or something. Or their own case against RC, in which they need to be separate from him. Or at least, not be involved in his case. So, maybe, it be a conflict of interest to then advise him on who to get for an attorney? So, the grandfather may have chosen this attorney on his own.

A PP mentioned we haven't really heard a peep out of the parents, other than initial interviews. I actually saw the tail end of one where the mother, was asked if she had finally seen the videos? The interview was shown after the videos had publicly come out. Since I missed the beginning, I don't know if it's old footage the re-aired or if it was after the videos were out and it clearly contradicts the grandfather's account. She had said no, she didn't see it. That of course, it would be too hard to watch.

But, since the video does contradict the grandfather's "story" of what happened, I would think they'd definitely want to distance themselves from him. He, after all, WAS basically careless & thoughtless and caused her death. Unless they truly still are in denial and can't allow themselves to believe two accurate visual video accounts exist. Which, to me, contradicts all THEIR collective professional training & expertise. They weren't a police rookie and a law student, new at their professions.
 
Last edited:
I can’t believe the lawyer is actually saying there should have been a sign saying people shouldn’t SIT on the RAILING! How ridiculous! Should they also have signs plastered all over every other surface that is not expressly for sitting...the bar top, table tops, balcony railings, the zip line, slot machines, lifeguards? I mean, come on! Seriously?!!?
 


I think that's what bothered me most about that article/piece/whatever you call it--that the journalist clearly seemed to be buying what the lawyer was selling, without questioning it. Isn't it a journalist's job to get to the truth, no matter what? To dig in and question and consider different angles and whether people are pushing an agenda? Would a journalist be that trusting with, say, a politician or a company accused of polluting? I would hope not.
While you're right, I'm guessing what happened was Winkleman contacted CBS and said "I'll let you look at the security video and give you an exclusive interview." CBS bit, not knowing the video they saw was edited. They reached out to RCI, who had (as is standard), "no comment". IMO, the next call (before running the piece) should be to the prosecutor asking "why do you think this video shows he's culpable?"

I mean who would think the lawyer suing a company for millions of dollars would have an agenda? :rolleyes1
 
This lawyer is the grandfather's (only) lawyer, right? He doesn't represent the family? Anyone know?
There are two lawyers. The one in the CBS interview represents the family in their case against RCI.

There's also a defense lawyer representing the grandfather in the criminal case against him. The last I've heard was shortly after the security video was released and he said (paraphrasing) "it validates the grandfather's story."
 
While you're right, I'm guessing what happened was Winkleman contacted CBS and said "I'll let you look at the security video and give you an exclusive interview." CBS bit, not knowing the video they saw was edited. They reached out to RCI, who had (as is standard), "no comment". IMO, the next call (before running the piece) should be to the prosecutor asking "why do you think this video shows he's culpable?"

I mean who would think the lawyer suing a company for millions of dollars would have an agenda? :rolleyes1


You're probably right. And it's quite possible that the lawyer dictated the terms about what questions could be asked (again--this happens all the time with politicians). But it still seems to me that this is the most un-curious reporting that I've seen in a long time. I found the un-edited video online, with about 2 minutes of effort. The reporter couldn't? Or didn't look? It just annoys me--not just in this particular case, this is just an egregious example. But in this case, it seems that the narrative is "Big, Bad, Royal Caribbean, can't spring for a couple little "don't sit on the railing" signs, and now a little girl is dead." You can hate Big Corporation all you like, it doesn't make them guilty and liable in every tragedy.
 
While you're right, I'm guessing what happened was Winkleman contacted CBS and said "I'll let you look at the security video and give you an exclusive interview." CBS bit, not knowing the video they saw was edited. They reached out to RCI, who had (as is standard), "no comment". IMO, the next call (before running the piece) should be to the prosecutor asking "why do you think this video shows he's culpable?"

I mean who would think the lawyer suing a company for millions of dollars would have an agenda? :rolleyes1
A good reporter would still know the lawyer had an agenda and looked for external validation.
 
You're probably right. And it's quite possible that the lawyer dictated the terms about what questions could be asked (again--this happens all the time with politicians). But it still seems to me that this is the most un-curious reporting that I've seen in a long time. I found the un-edited video online, with about 2 minutes of effort. The reporter couldn't? Or didn't look? It just annoys me--not just in this particular case, this is just an egregious example. But in this case, it seems that the narrative is "Big, Bad, Royal Caribbean, can't spring for a couple little "don't sit on the railing" signs, and now a little girl is dead." You can hate Big Corporation all you like, it doesn't make them guilty and liable in every tragedy.
It’s classic sensationalism, this is not a big news story, no need to fact check. In the end, it will just go away, RCL knows this.
 
You're probably right. And it's quite possible that the lawyer dictated the terms about what questions could be asked (again--this happens all the time with politicians). But it still seems to me that this is the most un-curious reporting that I've seen in a long time. I found the un-edited video online, with about 2 minutes of effort. The reporter couldn't? Or didn't look? It just annoys me--not just in this particular case, this is just an egregious example. But in this case, it seems that the narrative is "Big, Bad, Royal Caribbean, can't spring for a couple little "don't sit on the railing" signs, and now a little girl is dead." You can hate Big Corporation all you like, it doesn't make them guilty and liable in every tragedy.
So true! And this case isn’t exactly like uncovering Watergate. :rolleyes: Wasn’t there one single person at that station that had ever been on a cruise ship and realized, like we did here, that their claims just didn’t make sense?

In the court of public opinion, many without first-hand experience are likely still buying the spin. The entire set of facts will undoubtedly be presented if a civil trial proceeds but I certainly hope RCCL doesn’t roll over and settle in the meantime.
 
So true! And this case isn’t exactly like uncovering Watergate. :rolleyes: Wasn’t there one single person at that station that had ever been on a cruise ship and realized, like we did here, that their claims just didn’t make sense?
That was the network, not a local station. BUT, there were probably only a dozen people who even knew the story was being worked on.

In the court of public opinion, many without first-hand experience are likely still buying the spin. The entire set of facts will undoubtedly be presented if a civil trial proceeds but I certainly hope RCCL doesn’t roll over and settle in the meantime.
That's exactly what the lawyer is counting on. He's trying to keep HIS version of what happened out there.

Does anyone remember... The "bar" folks see in the video... Is it truly a bar or a smoothie station? I want to say the bars on are the other end of the pools.
 
I can’t believe the lawyer is actually saying there should have been a sign saying people shouldn’t SIT on the RAILING! How ridiculous! Should they also have signs plastered all over every other surface that is not expressly for sitting...the bar top, table tops, balcony railings, the zip line, slot machines, lifeguards? I mean, come on! Seriously?!!?

Even if there WERE signs saying don't sit on the railing, the lawyer would be claiming they were inadequately placed. If the signs were every 20 feet, he'd say they should be every 10 feet. If they were every 10 feet, they needed to be placed every 5 feet.
 
That was the network, not a local station. BUT, there were probably only a dozen people who even knew the story was being worked on.


That's exactly what the lawyer is counting on. He's trying to keep HIS version of what happened out there.

Does anyone remember... The "bar" folks see in the video... Is it truly a bar or a smoothie station? I want to say the bars on are the other end of the pools.
It's been 10 years since I was on Freedom and 2 or 3 since I was on IOS. But from what I remember it was a juice bar that also served alcohol.
 
someone posted they found an unedited news video on what happened

where or how could I find that interview
 
https://www.crimeonline.com/2019/12...-ship-before-she-falls-150-feet-to-her-death/
It really looks like the grandfather leaned over the railing out the window before he picked the child up..... :(

He also had her up there much longer than the 5 seconds reported on CBS. It was closer to 40 seconds. Surely in that amount of time, the grandfather could tell he was in front of an open window. If not, then the parents are responsible for leaving their child in the care of someone quite limited.
 
Last edited:

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!






Top