IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #3

[al66pine]

IIRC the fall took place close to 4:30pm. PICTURED: Indiana toddler who fell 150ft to her death from cruise ship | Daily Mail Online

@sl222 thx for this info, which indicates G'pa was watching her for more than 10 min. Too late for me to edit my post, but I'll ask a Mod to fix. TYVM.

 

[neesaki]

Grandfather charged in girl's cruise ship death says colorblindness may have been a factor In this inter view, SA states "So she's down at the — looking at the — out the window, and the glass. I bent down by her, and then we always, like, when you're — whenever we were at hockey games, we would bang on the glass, and it was fun, you know? So when I knelt down to be with her at that level, I couldn't reach the glass, really, with my fingertips, so I knew she couldn't. So that's when I decided I'd pick her up," he said. "So I, you know, was trying to stand her on the railing. And it happened in seconds."
How could Chloe not reach the glass down there?? SA is so full of crap. I hope he does the max amount of time in jail. He is just lucky that they're not charging him with murder. IMO

Oh yeah, wasn’t that a BS statement from hell. Interesting,
how he gave himself away. Doesn’t he realize, it would be easier on him if he would just tell the truth, admit his own culpability, and sincerely ask for forgiveness.
The fact is, no one likes a coward or a criminal. And people like both even less. Now, he is both.
Step up GP. For you’re own good, please.

 

[neesaki]

I keep thinking about whether or not SA was impaired in any way. I find it hard to believe none of the reporters at their press conference asked about that. They must have been told beforehand that certain questions were off the table.
I wonder why PR LE didn't insist on a blood test after this happened. Apparently they weren't able to compel him to take a breathalyzer so I guess a blood test was out of the question.
In the U.S. if there is a death caused by a motor vehicle accident I believe it is common for the LEO to require the driver to take a blood test. Too bad that wasn't the case here, although I recognize it is a completely different set of circumstances. But I wish a test had been given because then any doubt as to his sobriety would be eliminated.
Gramps could have been drinking, and hopefully that won't be hard to prove if so, based on bar receipts witnesses or if he smelled of alcohol when talking to the first responders on the crew. He also could have had any other number of substances in his blood stream, maybe he smoked a joint or who knows if he used any other substances, pain pills or prescription medication. I'm just speculating but if Gramps was stoned, it could have been a huge factor in this incident. Unfortunately it seems we will never know. It does seem unlikely but not impossible. MOO

Very legitimate points, and very possible, IMO.

 

[neesaki]

Quite in contrast to the '6 billion' people who think that the cruise ship is negligent, while a 'small group' think that it is not - according to Winkleman in the press conference.

I think he is trying to garner a mob mentality. 'Follow the mob (of an imaginary 6 billion people) ... think like them'.

Interesting observation... I do get the distinct impression he has a strong Entitlement mentality. As I also sadly get from Chloe’s parents.

Is this a generational thing? A Millennial thing? Who can say for sure, but whatever the phenomenon, in the least, it is quite troubling.

 

[neesaki]

After watching the video of the news conference the person that looks the most hurt by the loss of Chloe is her father. He almost looks like he wants no part of the lawsuit. He has said nothing as far as the suit goes. I just wonder if Chloes mom and Winkleman are running this show.
imo

I agree, it hurt watching him. He seemed like the only real one on the stage.

 

[ilovewings]

i have a question is SA the father of the husband or the wife?

 

[al66pine]

The Only Window Open?
From the Complaint:
"21. An inspection of the scene after the subject incident revealed that all the glass panes around the single open pane of glass were closed and that this was the only single pane, among dozens of panes, that was slid completely open." bbm

An inspection?..................... Who conducted? Cruiseline employee? Passenger? LE? Chloe's Dad?
After the subject incident..... When? 1 min, 10 min, 1 hr, 5 hrs? Next day? Two days later?
Did inspector take pix?......... If so, provided to whom? For what purpose?
Did inspector write rpt? ....... If so, provided to whom? For what purpose?

If pix were taken at time of ^ inspection, how do we know if those pix accurately depict the condition of the glass wall at the time of the incident? Is it possible someone closed other windows during interim between incident and inspection?
Without surv vid taken continuously from time of incident to time of inspection and capturing image of the entire glass wall, we do not know. Maybe cruiseline has such vid.? jmo

 

[sassyblue]

i have a question is SA the father of the husband or the wife?

Neither. He is the husband of the wife's mother.

 

[MsMarple]

"Chloe, who loved to go to her brother's hockey games and bang on the glass, as you Indiana folks would know better than I would, thinking that there's glass there. There's no glass there and she's gone," said the family's attorney Michael Winkleman

BBM. What does he mean “you Indiana folk” because I am Indiana “folk” and I don’t know, lol.

IMO it means spew a bunch of words and phrases and see what sticks against the "wall of glass," aka windows.

It seems like the more the mom and SA (and the attorney) speak to the public the worse they make themselves appear. Do they not "hear" what they're saying? And this bs about banging on the glass continues to irk me. If I was sitting nearby at a table trying to enjoy a drink and a snack it would drive me nuts listening to some kid banging against the glass. Not to mention it would scare me because it's always possible the glass could give way or break and the kid could, you know, plunge to her death. Sheesh.

 

[Seattle1]

I don't think the grandfather should be charged with anything in Chloe death. But I do wish they would stop blaming Royal Caribbean. This while unintentional was clearly the grandfather fault. They need to just go and heal on their own without looking to place the blame on anyone else.

One hopes to never see the pain and suffering the Wiengand's and their extended family must be enduring after losing their dear child at the hands of her grandfather SA.

Following this tragedy, we learned only recently that after reviewing the evidence (over more than 90 days), San Juan investigators and the prosecutor determined that there was no malice by the grandfather in Chloe's death, and SA was charged with the misdemeanor "criminal negligence" for his reckless actions that led to her death.

Given the lesser charge, I know many people agree with you that SA's probably suffered enough already, and why even charge him at all.

Speaking for myself, five months since the tragedy was sufficient to learn more about the defendant himself -- including that he appeared to be a very doting grandfather and no doubt of the mutual love between them. However, I am convinced that the criminal negligence charge against SA for the death of his granddaughter is well-founded.

I believe the negligence charge against SA is appropriate because I think there's a very defiant and reckless side to SA that greatly contributed to his granddaughter's death.

My opinion of SA's reckless demeanor is based on information provided in Indiana public records which include that SA has received not one but five (5) infractions for failure to wear his seat belt! [9-19-10-2/IFD: Failure of Occupant to Use Safety Belt].

The same records indicate SA has also received at least three (3) citations for speeding 70+ in 55 mph posted zones.
[9-21-5-3/IFC: Speeding - Exceeding Posted Speed Limit].

I believe the violations above are a reflection not only of SA's disregard for his own safety but also the safety of others.
I especially find the repeated violations for not wearing a safety belt inexcusable and offensive.

As a repeat offender of universal, reasonable safety standards, it's very clear to me how SA could proceed to violate the passenger safety rules of the cruise ship within hours of boarding the ship. I don't see it as complicated -- if SA doesn't think the rule important, it doesn't apply to him-- and damn any consequences for not complying.

I believe SA approached the cruise vacation with the same attitude when he not only encouraged but facilitated his granddaughter to approach the glass walls and/or windows on the ship and bang on them as if they were hockey rink plexiglass-- knowing full well that the Freedom of the Seas cruise ship is nothing close to a hockey rink.

I can't help but think how under SA's supervision, their presence on the ship was an accident waiting to happen. At this point, I think even if the ship windows were closed, what would have prevented SA from raising the child to the window and breaching the railing where they could have crashed the glass injuring them both.

Most importantly, I really believe that not holding people like SA accountable for violations or reckless behavior serves only to confirm in their mind the notion that rules don't apply to them, or in this case, that they're above the law. I think it leaves the door open to place you, me, or the next grandchild at risk.

Of course, there's no guarantee that the court action or penalty will serve as a wakeup call for SA but I have little doubt that SA would live to violate similar safety rules if he was not charged in this matter albeit a misdemeanor.

Please don't think I have no empathy for SA as I really do -- but I also have great concern about how he wants to blame others for this tragedy instead of acknowledging his own reckless actions that led to his granddaughter's death.

MOO

Indiana Supreme Court public access case search - MyCase

 

[SoCalDavidS]

The Daily Mail's article today is once again being moderated. Only 109 comments published. I wonder who would be interested in ensuring that there were not an enormous number of comments published that are unfavorable to the lawsuit.... earlier unmoderated articles clearly show most of the public supporting the cruise line.

Well, my comment, which was relatively tame, did not make the cut. I think I need to start paying more attention to when DM comments are moderated, because there's obviously an agenda on what gets posted and what doesn't, and it's probably not worth my time to read others' comments, let alone waste effort on making my own.

 

[MassGuy]

One hopes to never see the pain and suffering the Wiengand's and their extended family must be enduring after losing their dear child at the hands of her grandfather SA.

Following this tragedy, we learned only recently that after reviewing the evidence (over more than 90 days), San Juan investigators and the prosecutor determined that there was no malice by the grandfather in Chloe's death, and SA was charged with the misdemeanor "criminal negligence" for his reckless actions that led to her death.

Given the lesser charge, I know many people agree with you that SA's probably suffered enough already, and why even charge him at all.

Speaking for myself, five months since the tragedy was sufficient to learn more about the defendant himself -- including that he appeared to be a very doting grandfather and not a doubt of the mutual love between them. However, I am convinced that the criminal negligence charge against SA for the death of his granddaughter is well-founded.

I believe the negligence charge against SA is appropriate because I think there's a very defiant and reckless side to SA that greatly contributed to his granddaughter's death.

My opinion of SA's reckless demeanor is based on information provided in Indiana public records which include that SA has received not one but five (5) infractions for failure to wear his seat belt! [9-19-10-2/IFD: Failure of Occupant to Use Safety Belt].

The same records indicate SA has also received at least three (3) citations for speeding 70+ in 55 mph posted zones.
[9-21-5-3/IFC: Speeding - Exceeding Posted Speed Limit].

I believe the violations above are a reflection not only of SA's disregard for his own safety but also the safety of others.
I especially find the repeated violations for not wearing a safety belt inexcusable and offensive.

As a repeat offender of universal, reasonable safety standards, it's very clear to me how SA could proceed to violate the passenger safety rules of the cruise ship within hours of boarding the ship. I don't see it as complicated -- if SA doesn't think the rule important, it doesn't apply to him-- and damn any consequences for not complying.

I believe SA approached the cruise vacation with the same attitude when he not only encouraged but facilitated his granddaughter to approach the glass walls and/or windows on the ship and bang on them as if they were hockey rink plexiglass-- knowing full well that the Freedom of the Seas cruise ship is nothing close to a hockey rink.

I can't help but think how under SA's supervision, their presence on the ship was an accident waiting to happen. At this point, I think even if the ship windows were closed, what would have prevented SA from raising the child to the window and breaching the railing where they could have crashed the glass injuring them both.

Most importantly, I really believe that not holding people like SA accountable for violations or reckless behavior serves only to confirm in their mind the notion that rules don't apply to them, or in this case, that they're above the law. I think it leaves the door open to place you, me, or the next grandchild at risk.

Of course, there's no guarantee that the court action or penalty will serve as a wakeup call for SA but I have little doubt that SA would live to violate similar safety rules if he was not charged in this matter albeit a misdemeanor.

Please don't think I have no empathy for SA as I really do -- but I also have great concern about how he wants to blame others for this tragedy instead of acknowledging his own reckless actions that led to his granddaughter's death.

MOO

Indiana Supreme Court public access case search - MyCase

I couldn’t possibly agree more with your reasoning here.

Rules don’t apply to this guy, and when his back is against the wall, his reaction is to shift the blame.

He just doesn’t get it, and well all is said and done, I don’t think this will change a thing.

But there is a price to be paid here.

 

[LietKynes]

Well, my comment, which was relatively tame, did not make the cut. I think I need to start paying more attention to when DM comments are moderated, because there's obviously an agenda on what gets posted and what doesn't, and it's probably not worth my time to read others' comments, let alone waste effort on making my own.

What did you say ?
If you don't mind my asking.

 

[SoCalDavidS]

"Chloe, who loved to go to her brother's hockey games and bang on the glass, as you Indiana folks would know better than I would, thinking that there's glass there. There's no glass there and she's gone," said the family's attorney Michael Winkleman

Because, of course, in his fantasy world, there was obviously a hockey rink on the deck of that cruise ship. Or maybe it was just a hockey rink cleverly disguised as a "children's play area."

 

[sl222]

Oh yeah, wasn’t that a BS statement from hell. Interesting,
how he gave himself away. Doesn’t he realize, it would be easier on him if he would just tell the truth, admit his own culpability, and sincerely ask for forgiveness.
The fact is, no one likes a coward or a criminal. And people like both even less. Now, he is both.
Step up GP. For you’re own good, please.

Even if he did, the family would probably talk him out of it and still blame RCCL, but I agree with you.

I just wonder if the family thinks at all that he was in fact careless and negligent. I also wonder why he watched Chloe instead of someone else. There must be someone in the family (including the extended family) who is angry with him for his stupidity and recklessness. Maybe that's one reason they still aren't ready to see the video but they're going to hear the details anyway in at least one court. And being deposed in their money lawsuit is not going to be a picnic for anyone. It's a bad road to be going down for a lot of reasons IMO. I feel for them but every new interview makes me wish they would just stop making the media rounds (Inside Edition today) and grieve privately. I'm sure the Dr. Phil show has been calling...

 

[SoCalDavidS]

What did you say ?
If you don't mind my asking.

Can't recall exactly, but it was within a half hour of the article being posted. Pretty sure it said that the family was looking for a scapegoat and a payday, and this lawsuit satisfied both needs.

 

[sl222]

Well, my comment, which was relatively tame, did not make the cut. I think I need to start paying more attention to when DM comments are moderated, because there's obviously an agenda on what gets posted and what doesn't, and it's probably not worth my time to read others' comments, let alone waste effort on making my own.

Sometimes it takes a long time for comments to show up on DM. But even with the moderation, the comments I saw were mostly seeing things the way we do.

 

[jeena]

One hopes to never see the pain and suffering the Wiengand's and their extended family must be enduring after losing their dear child at the hands of her grandfather SA.

Following this tragedy, we learned only recently that after reviewing the evidence (over more than 90 days), San Juan investigators and the prosecutor determined that there was no malice by the grandfather in Chloe's death, and SA was charged with the misdemeanor "criminal negligence" for his reckless actions that led to her death.

Given the lesser charge, I know many people agree with you that SA's probably suffered enough already, and why even charge him at all.

Speaking for myself, five months since the tragedy was sufficient to learn more about the defendant himself -- including that he appeared to be a very doting grandfather and not a doubt of the mutual love between them. However, I am convinced that the criminal negligence charge against SA for the death of his granddaughter is well-founded.

I believe the negligence charge against SA is appropriate because I think there's a very defiant and reckless side to SA that greatly contributed to his granddaughter's death.

My opinion of SA's reckless demeanor is based on information provided in Indiana public records which include that SA has received not one but five (5) infractions for failure to wear his seat belt! [9-19-10-2/IFD: Failure of Occupant to Use Safety Belt].

The same records indicate SA has also received at least three (3) citations for speeding 70+ in 55 mph posted zones.
[9-21-5-3/IFC: Speeding - Exceeding Posted Speed Limit].

I believe the violations above are a reflection not only of SA's disregard for his own safety but also the safety of others.
I especially find the repeated violations for not wearing a safety belt inexcusable and offensive.

As a repeat offender of universal, reasonable safety standards, it's very clear to me how SA could proceed to violate the passenger safety rules of the cruise ship within hours of boarding the ship. I don't see it as complicated -- if SA doesn't think the rule important, it doesn't apply to him-- and damn any consequences for not complying.

I believe SA approached the cruise vacation with the same attitude when he not only encouraged but facilitated his granddaughter to approach the glass walls and/or windows on the ship and bang on them as if they were hockey rink plexiglass-- knowing full well that the Freedom of the Seas cruise ship is nothing close to a hockey rink.

I can't help but think how under SA's supervision, their presence on the ship was an accident waiting to happen. At this point, I think even if the ship windows were closed, what would have prevented SA from raising the child to the window and breaching the railing where they could have crashed the glass injuring them both.

Most importantly, I really believe that not holding people like SA accountable for violations or reckless behavior serves only to confirm in their mind the notion that rules don't apply to them, or in this case, that they're above the law. I think it leaves the door open to place you, me, or the next grandchild at risk.

Of course, there's no guarantee that the court action or penalty will serve as a wakeup call for SA but I have little doubt that SA would live to violate similar safety rules if he was not charged in this matter albeit a misdemeanor.

Please don't think I have no empathy for SA as I really do -- but I also have great concern about how he wants to blame others for this tragedy instead of acknowledging his own reckless actions that led to his granddaughter's death.

MOO

Indiana Supreme Court public access case search - MyCase

Usually members of a police officer's family don't get ticketed, the cops let them off the hook when they are stopped for violations and mention they are from a cop's family. I'm from a cop family, I obey the rules anyway but my sibling doesn't. He speeds, parks on the wrong side of the street, because he knows he can get away with it if caught by the cops.
Anyway, I wonder if SA ever had CW in his car without her car seat.

 

[sl222]

I'm confused about one point - this is a misdemeanor charge? I thought it was "negligent homicide."

Also, I have searched here regularly and it's helpful. Your browser will translate it most likely. Search

Now they use FB Plugin and the comments are not translated but those of you who speak Spanish can let us know of anything worth knowing from them. The previous translated comments, no longer there, were very informative. One person said he had seen SA on land after the accident and stated that he looks like a drinker; on DM a nurse also commented that she knows the effects of drinkers by looking at a person and that's what she saw in SA. I would not be surprised if he was also a pot smoker but I'm not making an accusation since so far that's never come into the record. Where was he shortly before Mrs. Wiegand had to go on her errand and he was asked to watch Chloe - laying down in the room after their meal? (Pure speculation) A person like him, weight 275 (see image) but only 51, is probably tired a lot of the day. Chloe was said by Winkleman on CBS to have "run" to the windows with SA following behind. Being out in the hot sun in the play area, etc., watching a toddler could be also tiring.

I was annoyed with Winkleman's term "helicopter grandparenting" because that's mandatory with an 18-month-old - watching them and hovering to make sure they are safe.

 

[Seattle1]

Usually members of a police officer's family don't get ticketed, the cops let them off the hook when they are stopped for violations and mention they are from a cop's family. I'm from a cop family, I obey the rules anyway but my sibling doesn't. He speeds, parks on the wrong side of the street, because he knows he can get away with it if caught by the cops.
Anyway, I wonder if SA ever had CW in his car without her car seat.

Thanks for reminding me.

Even worse is knowing that there's probably more safety violations in his life than the ones he's been cited for and public record!