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

[SouthAussie]

Their attorney states that there is no sign on the guardrail, indicating that it is "not a seat for children". Really.

RSBM

Oh, the attorney has mentioned the rail. I must have missed that. I was looking for his mention of why the safety rail was not honoured as a safety rail.

So ... signs on the windows, signs on the safety rails .... anywhere else? Maybe signs on each level saying "You are very high from the ground/water when you are here. Avoid all falls near the outer edges of the ship"?

 

[Midwestmom2019]

This was the first explanation we heard wasn’t it? Sounds like it came from an eye witness to me.

Police statement. It was in Spanglish. Finally translated. Many threads ago.
Although crew member(s) witnessed SA holding her outside of the window. Apparently, they were on the way to report sighting to supervisors when she fell.

 

[Area52]

Unfortunately, all the signs and warnings in the world will never be able to replace good old common sense. As I stated earlier, I remember many years ago, a woman tried to sue the company that manufactured her new microwave. It seems that after giving her cat a bath, she decided to dry it in the microwave. Well we all know how that ended! But then she tried to blame the manufacturer because her manual didn't say "DO NOT PUT YOUR CAT IN THE MICROWAVE OVEN" . Common sense should have prevailed, but you can't fix stupid! MOO

 

[Chikkamma]

Video shows girl's final moments with grandfather before cruise ship death

At 2:00 minutes, Winkelman says that if RC didn’t want people to stand on the railing, there should have been a sign essentially saying ‘Do not sit/stand kids up on the railing.’

Ha. I’m starting to like this guy. He would defend a toaster.

 

[SouthAussie]

Video shows girl's final moments with grandfather before cruise ship death

At 2:00 minutes, Winkelman asserts that if RC didn’t want people to stand on the railing, there should of been a sign saying “Do not sit/stand on the railing.”

Ha. I’m starting to like this guy. Comic relief.

Any mention of the ship's Guest Conduct Policy yet? Or the Ticket Contract? No? I wouldn't think so.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

Any mention of the ship's Guest Conduct Policy yet? Or the Ticket Contract? No? I wouldn't think so.

Can't wait til they read that aloud in the courtroom. GAME OVER.

 

[Chikkamma]

View attachment 220285
I agree he had to lean way over (consider his size when thinking of this effort) to have her in a position to drop her - I think the video will show him bending way over
IMO

I believe the video will show him bending way over as well (due to the laws of physics and all the reasons previously mentioned on this thread). So my question is what video were the journalist shown exactly?

We already know that Winkleman showed a doctored/altered video to the CVS This Morning journalist, David Begnaud (at 0:40s-

). Winkelman alleges the video was the “same format he received from prosecutors”. However, t is more likely he received it from SA’s criminal attorney (since Winkleman does not even represent Anello, and the Wiegands had not yet filed their civil suit at the time of this interview).

That being said, this ALTERED video appears to be the only one that the media has ever seen... and it was shown to them by Winkleman (not the prosecution, not Anello’s criminal attorney). The flow of the video goes... Winkleman—>Journalists.

1. Could Winkleman have cut parts of the video to make it more favorable to SA before showing it to media or or is it possible that he, himself, has never seen the entire unedited, real-time footage?

2. How did Begnaud and CBS This Morning come to learn that the video had been altered? It wasn’t Winkleman who told them.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

I believe the video will show him bending way over as well (due to the laws of physics and all the reasons previously mentioned on this thread). So my question is what video were the journalist shown exactly?

We already know that Winkleman showed a doctored/altered video to the CVS This Morning journalist, David Begnaud (at 0:40s-

). Winkelman alleges the video was the “same format he received from prosecutors”. But is more likely Winkelman received it from SA’s criminal attorney, because it would be odd for the prosecution send it to Winkleman, who is not even representing Anello.

That being said, this ALTERED video is the only one that was ever shown to journalists... and it was shown to them by Winkleman (not SA’s criminal attorney). I can’t help but draw certain conclusions from this.

I watched that interview again. I do not believe him at all.

 

[katydid23]

RSBM

Oh, the attorney has mentioned the rail. I must have missed that. I was looking for his mention of why the safety rail was not honoured as a safety rail.

So ... signs on the windows, signs on the safety rails .... anywhere else? Maybe signs on each level saying "You are very high from the ground/water when you are here. Avoid all falls near the outer edges of the ship"?

Maybe a sign on each dinner table: " WARNING-Don't eat the centrepiece---decoration only!

 

[katydid23]

Can't wait til they read that aloud in the courtroom. GAME OVER.

I wonder if the jury will get to make a field trip to see the ship or one just like it?

The defense will try hard to fight it, I am sure. But it would be great if the jury could see the windows, the guard rail and the dimensions for themselves.

 

[neesaki]

I believe the video will show him bending way over as well (due to the laws of physics and all the reasons previously mentioned on this thread). So my question is what video were the journalist shown exactly?

We already know that Winkleman showed a doctored/altered video to the CVS This Morning journalist, David Begnaud (at 0:40s-

). Winkelman alleges the video was the “same format he received from prosecutors”. However, t is more likely he received it from SA’s criminal attorney (since Winkleman does not even represent Anello, and the Wiegands had not yet filed their civil suit at the time of this interview).

That being said, this ALTERED video appears to be the only one that the media has ever seen... and it was shown to them by Winkleman (not the prosecution, not Anello’s criminal attorney). The flow of the video goes... Winkleman—>Journalists.

1. Could Winkleman have cut parts of the video to make it more favorable to SA before showing it to media or or is it possible that he, himself, has never seen the entire unedited, real-time footage?

2. How did Begnaud and CBS This Morning come to learn that the video had been altered? It wasn’t Winkleman who told them.

I don’t know, but you have the same thoughts as I do. I do not believe they were allowed to release the whole video to the media. In fact I say no way did they release the whole video, and it was most likely cut here and there so all they got was snippets, with some portions edited out. JMO
I’m quite sure the prosecution would also have to agree on what was released to media, but if a lawyer would weigh in on this would be nice. .

 

[lonetraveler]

I will never understand why SA had to lean over that far. I just cannot wrap my mind around this case.

IMO, but I think he leaned over that far to see outside of the window or in order to hold Chloe outside of the window during their game playing.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

I don’t know, but you have the same thoughts as I do. I do not believe they were allowed to release the whole video to the media. In fact I say no way did they release the whole video, and it was most likely cut here and there so all they got was snippets, with some portions edited out. JMO
I’m quite sure the prosecution would also have to agree on what was released to media, but if a lawyer would weigh in on this would be nice. .

I don’t think the prosecution released it to media. Seems to me Winkleman first released it, and then said that the video timing was attributed to some b s reason about the program errors.
So. Who gave it to Winkleman?
Defense lawyer’s only comment was that it did not contradict what his client told him.
Ok. We don’t know what the client told him. So that comment is useless, IMHO. (Actually, when I first read the comment the day of the hearing, after court appearance, I took that to mean SA was on video holding Chloe outside of the window, maybe even dropping her. He was not about to repeat any window banging, color blind, or other excuses that Winkleman was touting.)
Edited to add: it was all over media from the day in court in PR. Don’t ask me to hunt down the link.

Doubtful defense let it out.

So, who’s left? Family received it from SA. Bc family not entitled to it, either. It’s evidence for the criminal trial. But defendant would be entitled to review the evidence against him.
SA to family to Winkleman who edited out the bad parts. And released it to media. Self promoting agenda. I guess he wasn’t expecting the backlash from the public.
Left out a part while drafting. Don’t want to get snipped.

Even animals don’t sit their babies on high tree branches without holding on to them for dear life. Ever watch baboons or chimps? Parent and baby are stuck together with miracle glue. When they are on the ground, they MIGHT be allowed to play detached from protection.

 

[lonetraveler]

Common sense tips published 1/17/19 for child safety onboard cruise ships--none include sitting a toddler on the guard rail.

Can a Child Fall Overboard on a Cruise Ship?

link included in your article plainly states not to put a child on the railing. It's common sense really. Could You Fall Overboard During Your Cruise?

 

[lonetraveler]

Unfortunately, all the signs and warnings in the world will never be able to replace good old common sense. As I stated earlier, I remember many years ago, a woman tried to sue the company that manufactured her new microwave. It seems that after giving her cat a bath, she decided to dry it in the microwave. Well we all know how that ended! But then she tried to blame the manufacturer because her manual didn't say "DO NOT PUT YOUR CAT IN THE MICROWAVE OVEN" . Common sense should have prevailed, but you can't fix stupid! MOO

It's absolutely true that common sense isn't all that common any more.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

link included in your article plainly states not to put a child on the railing. It's common sense really. Could You Fall Overboard During Your Cruise?

Family was reported to have been on several Disney cruises. I believe Det. Wiegand stated that in his interview. Just don’t know if SA has cruised before. But in 51 years, I’m presuming SA has seen many windows, both opened and closed....

 

[SoCalDavidS]

Family was reported to have been on several Disney cruises. I believe Det. Wiegand stated that in his interview.

Do any Disney ships have windows that open? Since RC is the target, I would think that either the Family or RC's Defense Lawyers would want to make mention of comparisons with other cruise lines. If windows that can be open or closed are universal, or at least common across most ships other than those run by RC, it seems to me that would be quite a significant argument against RC having to pay a cent. Otherwise the Wiegand's might as well be indicting the entire cruise industry with their stupidity.

 

[neesaki]

I don’t think the prosecution released it to media. Seems to me Winkleman first released it, and then said that the video timing was attributed to some b s reason about the program errors.
So. Who gave it to Winkleman?
Defense lawyer’s only comment was that it did not contradict what his client told him.
Ok. We don’t know what the client told him. So that comment is useless, IMHO. (Actually, when I first read the comment the day of the hearing, after court appearance, I took that to mean SA was on video holding Chloe outside of the window, maybe even dropping her. He was not about to repeat any window banging, color blind, or other excuses that Winkleman was touting.)
Edited to add: it was all over media from the day in court in PR. Don’t ask me to hunt down the link.

Doubtful defense let it out.

So, who’s left? Family received it from SA. Bc family not entitled to it, either. It’s evidence for the criminal trial. But defendant would be entitled to review the evidence against him.
SA to family to Winkleman who edited out the bad parts. And released it to media. Self promoting agenda. I guess he wasn’t expecting the backlash from the public.
Left out a part while drafting. Don’t want to get snipped.

Even animals don’t sit their babies on high tree branches without holding on to them for dear life. Ever watch baboons or chimps? Parent and baby are stuck together with miracle glue. When they are on the ground, they MIGHT be allowed to play detached from protection.

Excellent point, perhaps that bond is what’s missing, for an adult caretaker such as a step grand parent.... to be so careless and reckless, to the point of endangering the life of the child.
I think we’ve seen many cases in which the child is treated like an object. So perhaps in this instance, she was treated more like a toy, an object, and there is an attention seeking GP who can gain attention by being the doting grandparent.

And in the case of a narcissist..... any enabler, including an innocent trusting child, can be the source of narcissistic supply for one of those sickos. JMO

 

[Midwestmom2019]

I watched that interview again. I do not believe him at all.

“Me doth thinketh she protests too much.”

Hamlet, I believe.

 

[Chikkamma]

I don’t think the prosecution released it to media. Seems to me Winkleman first released it, and then said that the video timing was attributed to some b s reason about the program errors.
So. Who gave it to Winkleman?
Defense lawyer’s only comment was that it did not contradict what his client told him.
Ok. We don’t know what the client told him. So that comment is useless, IMHO. (Actually, when I first read the comment the day of the hearing, after court appearance, I took that to mean SA was on video holding Chloe outside of the window, maybe even dropping her. He was not about to repeat any window banging, color blind, or other excuses that Winkleman was touting.)
Edited to add: it was all over media from the day in court in PR. Don’t ask me to hunt down the link.

Doubtful defense let it out.

So, who’s left? Family received it from SA. Bc family not entitled to it, either. It’s evidence for the criminal trial. But defendant would be entitled to review the evidence against him.
SA to family to Winkleman who edited out the bad parts. And released it to media. Self promoting agenda. I guess he wasn’t expecting the backlash from the public.
Left out a part while drafting. Don’t want to get snipped.

Even animals don’t sit their babies on high tree branches without holding on to them for dear life. Ever watch baboons or chimps? Parent and baby are stuck together with miracle glue. When they are on the ground, they MIGHT be allowed to play detached from protection.

I meant to say in my post that Winkleman (the Wiegand’s attorney) most likely received it from Anello’s defense attorney.

I think it’s entirely possible that Winkleman himself has never seen the unedited footage.