IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #2

[oviedo]

They should, because it's important. I've said it before in other posts, and at the risk of repeating myself--- WHEN STORIES CHANGE, THAT'S A HUGE RED FLAG. It happened one way, not all kinds of different ways. SOMEONE'S not telling the truth.

Chloe Wiegand: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com

Snipped from one of the early articles BBM
Port Authority spokesman Jose Carmona told CNN that the girl was in the dining hall playing with her grandfather on deck 11 of the ship when the tragedy occurred. Carmona said one window pane to the hall was open and Wiegand’s grandfather sat the girl in the window. He lost his balance which caused Wiegand to fall. Carmona said, “Sadly, she died on impact.”

When speaking to Primera Hora, Elmer Roman said that Wiegand hit an awning after she fell before landing on the pavement.
——
I had forgotten this early article - if he sat her in the window using only one arm to hold her and this is clear on the video - yikes ! And no way he did not know there was glass of this is true - now I wonder what the family strategy will be - is it more important to keep him out of jail or not have him convicted through a trial ? The trial IMO will be a huge gamble but I guess it’s possible some may be swayed by his statements that he thought there was glass and ignore what he did which clearly may conflict with video evidence ?
If a plea is in the works there is no leaks so far
JMO

 

[oviedo]

Here are 2 photos of SA holding Chloe, in both cases, to me, it looks like she's being held a little awkwardly. In the second one, he's holding her from underneath her. In the first one, she is seated on him but he has one arm around her also awkwardly. Maybe this is just a brief second but really from at least the photo where he's standing, she could fall. This is probably too picky of me. But I noticed this from the start because they put the new stories showed these photos from the beginning.

For the sleuther who wondered if this was the hold he used at the window - I think you are right - sadly
JMO
ETA I just saw where @jeena wondered about the windows - they open from the inside of the ship - sliding open and closed left to right
IMO

 

[justice4allnow]

I do think Winkleman has been used to assuage their guilt, but that doesn't necessarily go toward helping SA. Winkleman is a civil lawyer who doesn't appear to have ever practiced any criminal law, yet he's doing things that directly impact the criminal case. When this first happened the cop and prosecutor parents had SA not make a statement and not submit to anything, but now that they apparently know what's on the video they're undoing the smart legal steps they initially took to protect SA. They've now put him in a legally precarious position doing stuff with Winkleman who doesn't represent him. It's not like Chloe's parents are the Griswolds ignorant of criminal law, so KW has got to know exactly what's she doing to SA by having him work with but not be represented by Winkleman while making video statements that can be used against him in the criminal trial. Also SA is raising his own money to pay for legal and travel as the family fundraise for legal and travel apparently excludes him.

When you say that SA is raising his own money, what do you mean? I've seen the Fundly for Chloe's parents, which says that any money not used will go to an education fund for their children. How is Sam rising money? Thank you.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

When you say that SA is raising his own money, what do you mean? I've seen the Fundly for Chloe's parents, which says that any money not used will go to an education fund for their children. How is Sam rising money? Thank you.

Um...I'm just *smh* on that one. AFAIK, this family is not low income and/or destitute. MOO

 

[neesaki]

When you say that SA is raising his own money, what do you mean? I've seen the Fundly for Chloe's parents, which says that any money not used will go to an education fund for their children. How is Sam rising money? Thank you.

I just checked it out and it states for funeral, travel and legal expenses. Are the only legal expenses being incurred for SA’s defense?

Then it states the following:
All donations will be provided to the family to help with:

• Funeral expenses
• Travel expenses for the family
• Unpaid medical bills
• Any funds collected in excess of the above will be used to provide educational resources for Chloe's siblings

Unpaid medical bills? Would these have been for Chloe?

 

[Aydrianna523]

I think it's wrong to charge the grandfather. To me, anyways, it's clear it was an accident.
You could easily get distracted with what's going on in a cruise ship, or even just talking to someone nearby... and not even realize the danger. And if you don't have super good eyesight. Perfect storm.
They're (LE) are charging him just so they (the cruise ship) doesn't have to pay out imo.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

I just checked it out and it states for funeral, travel and legal expenses. Are the only legal expenses being incurred for SA’s defense?

Then it states the following:
All donations will be provided to the family to help with:

• Funeral expenses
• Travel expenses for the family
• Unpaid medical bills
• Any funds collected in excess of the above will be used to provide educational resources for Chloe's siblings

Unpaid medical bills? Would these have been for Chloe?

Does anyone know who or what exactly paid for the funeral expenses? And was there or wasn't there a sizable insurance policy on Chloe? IMOO these could be important facts...

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

I think it's wrong to charge the grandfather. To me, anyways, it's clear it was an accident.
You could easy get distracted with what's going on in a cruise ship, or even just talking to someone nearby and not even realize the danger. And if you don't have super good eyesight. Perfect storm.
They're (LE) are charging him just so they (the cruise ship) doesn't have to pay out imo.

I most respectfully disagree. MOO We all have our own opinions.

 

[neesaki]

Here are 2 photos of SA holding Chloe, in both cases, to me, it looks like she's being held a little awkwardly. In the second one, he's holding her from underneath her. In the first one, she is seated on him but he has one arm around her also awkwardly. Maybe this is just a brief second but really from at least the photo where he's standing, she could fall. This is probably too picky of me. But I noticed this from the start because they put the new stories showed these photos from the beginning.

The way he holds her is downright scary. I’m surprised he hadn’t dropped her before, and find it hard to believe no one ever set him straight on how to safely carry and hold a toddler. Or, just not allow him to hold her at all. Instead he appears to have held her a lot.
Something seems so off here. JMO

 

[neesaki]

I think it's wrong to charge the grandfather. To me, anyways, it's clear it was an accident.
You could easily get distracted with what's going on in a cruise ship, or even just talking to someone nearby... and not even realize the danger. And if you don't have super good eyesight. Perfect storm.
They're (LE) are charging him just so they (the cruise ship) doesn't have to pay out imo.

You've got to be kidding.

 

[iluvmua]

I think it's wrong to charge the grandfather. To me, anyways, it's clear it was an accident.
You could easily get distracted with what's going on in a cruise ship, or even just talking to someone nearby... and not even realize the danger. And if you don't have super good eyesight. Perfect storm.
They're (LE) are charging him just so they (the cruise ship) doesn't have to pay out imo.

Why should the cruise ship pay out?

It's a big window, no way he didn't know the window was open.

He needs to be charged and found guilty.

 

[fabvab]

Yep, that's the photo of them, thx for posting it, I couldn't find it again. I thought the same as you regarding the other photos, he doesn't seem to know how to handle a toddler properly. I wonder if he ever had kids of his own. Anyway, I agree, he does look younger and a bit slimmer in the airport photo. If he is found guilty provided this goes to trial, 3 years is nothing compared to Chloe getting a death sentence. I've been a caregiver for children, and it's difficult enough keeping them safe without placing them in a dangerous situation.

I noticed he looked slimmer in the airport photo too. I wonder if he lost weight because he was too upset to eat.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

When you say that SA is raising his own money, what do you mean? I've seen the Fundly for Chloe's parents, which says that any money not used will go to an education fund for their children. How is Sam rising money? Thank you.

This is what the Fundly says about the Chloe fundraiser that was set up months ago: "We are raising money to help the family with funeral, travel, and legal expenses." While only recently since around the time the video was turned over a new raise on FundRazr came out that among other things says: "Sam is a hard worker of modest means and needs help with legal and travel expenses to fight being prosecuted for a devastating and horrific accident." Curious how SA now apparently isn't apparently considered part of the family so has to pay for his own legal defense notwithstanding the $20K already raised for legal and travel expenses for the family. This is why amongst other reasons why I think Chloe's parents on some level want to see him convicted - or at least wouldn't mind if he was - even if they don't say so publicly.

 

[MsBetsy]

Crim Trial re G'pa. What is Admissible & Not?
@MsBety bbm sbm in your post, pasted below. No, not saying a judge would rule any evidence suggesting that another party is at fault inadmissible.

Let's say, cruiseline sec/surv cam vid shows G'pa holding Chloe at window, when close by a random passenger moves deck chair and KAPOW, he bumps chair into G'pa, causing Chloe to fly out of his arms, thru the window? Yes, imo, that could be presented as evd. in civil or crim trial as to whether G'pa (or someone else) is liable for her death in a civil suit or guilty of NegHom. Tends to show G'pa not guility.
Or
Let's say, sec/surv cam vid shows ship at dock, both G'father & Chloe stand on Deck 11 floor; underwater volcano/tsunami erupts, causing ship to lurch violently; they are both thrown into the air. From standing w both feet on floor, Chloe is tossed 4 1/2 feet up thru open window, falls 100+ ft to her death. Yes, imo, that could be presented as evd. in civil or crim case as to whether G'pa is liable for her death in a civil suit or guilty of NegHom. Tends to show G'pa not guility.
Or
Let's say, cruiseline sec/surv cam vid shows G'pa holding Chloe dangling her (partially or totally) out the window, when he loses grip of her, causing Chloe to slip thru the window. Yes, imo, that could be presented as evd. in civil or crim case as to whether G'pa is liable for her death in a civil suit or guilty of NegHom. Tends to show G'pa is guility.
^ Just one of many factors for a judge or jury to consider. jmo.

Re: Possibly Using Settlement Agreement Doc, as Evd of Cruiseline Liability?
Not going to repeat my post #1105, so anyone can back up & read.

Inviting any verified atty's to throw in their 2 cts, to clarify or correct ^. jmo

Well, yes, I'm sure they will use any video or witness evidence that is available, including first responders and LE who can testify to his mental state and whether or not he had alcohol on his breath.

But I specifically was referring to the lawsuit, and only if the Cruiseline was found to be at fault.
I don't think they have a case, but if the Cruiseline was found to be at fault I still am not sure why it would not be admissible in Court.

They consulted a lawyer very quickly after the accident, so I'm thinking they were hoping it would be settled before the grandfather went to trial.
I don't understand why, even if the document was not made public and all parties were prohibited from discussing it, they could not use it as evidence to support his innocence in a courtroom.

Wouldn't it be up to the judge to decide? Can't the defense lawyer ask the judge to allow evidence that would strongly suggest that Chloe fell due to some fault on the part of the ship?

By "any" evidence I meant any and all evidence that would help to prove his guilt or innocence. I didn't mean any evidence at all. Evidence is what tells the story, and I would think that a document that shows that someone else is at fault would be very strong evidence.

Again, I'm not talking about a scenario in which they do not win the lawsuit and there is not a settlement, which is what I'm assuming will happen.
I'm only talking about a scenario in which the Cruisline is found to be negligent, such as a faulty window or some other violation.
I believe at one point the lawyer said something about a broken window.

I still think, even if they don't end up with a settlement, that the family hired the lawyer to sway public opinion. After all, hasn't the lawyer done several interviews getting the word out that the grandfather is not to blame? The grandfather just appeared in an interview crying, "Fix the ship!"

So even if they can't use it as evidence, they still have been very successful in getting the word out that it is the ships fault that the accident happened.

So even if the lawsuit was not intended to sway public opinion and support the grandfather's innocence, it would seem that its happening anyway.

It reminds me of the Dulos case and the lawyer who came up with the "Gone girl" scenario. Every statement he and his client make is intended to make people doubt his guilt.

Imo

 

[mickey2942]

The best defense is a strong offense.

I do a lot of test development, and what is put into multiple choice test questions is usually an answer we call a "distractor", which means, just enough information to confuse the test taker to choose the wrong answer. And distract them from the actual answer. I think that it is bs, but they don't pay me for my personal opinion.

Anyway, the business about the window, is the "distractor" in this situation. The real answer is that SA was exceptionally careless with Chloe.

 

[jeena]

Yes, if he ‘presented her’ to the open window, in the same way he is ‘presenting her’ to the ‘Charlie Brown’ ice-hockey figure, she must have felt very scared when she looked ahead/down.

In this particular picture, he doesn’t even have an arm around her...it looks as if she is ‘riding’ on his forearms ( although I do note it appears that his hand is gripping firm hold of her leg ).

SA does the same thing in the chair photo with her sitting up tall, she is resting on his left arm while he holds her leg with the same arm.

 

[justbreathe]

Even if the settlement documents themselves are never made public, the very fact that the cruise line agreed to settle, on whatever terms, makes it appear that the cruise line admitted some responsibility. I think the reason MW is pushing so hard for a settlement now, without having filed a lawsuit, is because he knows that he has a very weak case and would most likely lose at trial. The only way he'd win is if the jury felt very sorry for the parents and decided to make the big, rich cruise company compensate them for their loss.
However, the jury members might be horrified at SA's actions in the video - especially if they're parents themselves - and come to the conclusion that the cruise ship's safety measures were adequate and that the baby died just because someone decided to circumvent the safety measures. MW is almost certainly working on a contingency basis so if the family gets nothing, he gets nothing.

I can’t imagine the cruise line settling under any circumstances while the criminal charges are pending. Why would they? Better to just wait out the criminal trial.

If an adult stood or sat on the handrailing and fell overboard, it would be considered their own fault. I don’t see why an adult putting a baby in that circumstance would be any different. You don’t sit or stand there, period.

 

[PaulR]

I think it's wrong to charge the grandfather. To me, anyways, it's clear it was an accident.
You could easily get distracted with what's going on in a cruise ship, or even just talking to someone nearby... and not even realize the danger. And if you don't have super good eyesight. Perfect storm.
They're (LE) are charging him just so they (the cruise ship) doesn't have to pay out imo.

I think it's more likely that this was going to be viewed as a tragic accident until the family (and specifically the attorney) started calling attention to it, which both got the police involved, and the cruise line looking closely at the footage.

 

[jeena]

Chloe Wiegand: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com

Snipped from one of the early articles BBM
Port Authority spokesman Jose Carmona told CNN that the girl was in the dining hall playing with her grandfather on deck 11 of the ship when the tragedy occurred. Carmona said one window pane to the hall was open and Wiegand’s grandfather sat the girl in the window. He lost his balance which caused Wiegand to fall. Carmona said, “Sadly, she died on impact.”

When speaking to Primera Hora, Elmer Roman said that Wiegand hit an awning after she fell before landing on the pavement.
——
I had forgotten this early article - if he sat her in the window using only one arm to hold her and this is clear on the video - yikes ! And no way he did not know there was glass of this is true - now I wonder what the family strategy will be - is it more important to keep him out of jail or not have him convicted through a trial ? The trial IMO will be a huge gamble but I guess it’s possible some may be swayed by his statements that he thought there was glass and ignore what he did which clearly may conflict with video evidence ?
If a plea is in the works there is no leaks so far
JMO

 

[ilovewings]

I think it's wrong to charge the grandfather. To me, anyways, it's clear it was an accident.
You could easily get distracted with what's going on in a cruise ship, or even just talking to someone nearby... and not even realize the danger. And if you don't have super good eyesight. Perfect storm.
They're (LE) are charging him just so they (the cruise ship) doesn't have to pay out imo.

Surely you jest!!!! i guess if people on a cruise ship were that easily distracted
while holding children, there would be accidents all over the place, but there arent---
a parent or anyone watching a child has a duty to pay great attention to that child in order to provide a safe environment--they dont have the luxury of being easily distracted