IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #4

[BetteDavisEyes]

Has anyone seen any comments from the family or attorney since the video has been released? I mean, after their immediate condemnation of the release? Because it seems to me they have been unusually quiet.

Nada. Zip. Zilch. They're been caught in The Great Lie (Bette Davis movie title).

 

[they'll get you]

Has anyone seen any comments from the family or attorney since the video has been released? I mean, after their immediate condemnation of the release? Because it seems to me they have been unusually quiet.

 

[Only4Justice]

If you watch this video (the one from behind) you will see more of Chloe. There is some action on the guardrail for a few seconds. You can make out her white hat.

Scroll forward to start at about the 9 min mark through till about 7:50 min. (it is a video count back counter not a count forward counter)

The side-on video seems to have been sped up so that Chloe is not seen very much.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=754098988428111

WOW just WOW. It looks like her pushed her. Or can I not say that is my opinion? I couldn’t even watch the whole thing. Horrifying. IMO

 

[MsMarple]

snipped by me. switching to sarcasm font

But it's a WALL! Of GLASS!! Just LOOK at that WALL!! Ignore the fact that the windows are clearly all closed now and have been moved from the positions at the time of the accident. Just look at it!! Doesn't it look like a WALL OF GLASS?? I certainly don't see any indication there are openable windows there. Who knows what those handle looking things could be, all I see is a WALL OF GLASS!!

And don't forget - the windows are actually "glass panes." With handles. SMDH.

Call me a Grinch but my Christmas wish is that SA goes to trial and is found guilty. And the judge throws out the civil suit before it ever reaches a courtroom.
Complaint - Wiegand vs Royal Caribbean Cruises LTD - LMAW, PA

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

And don't forget - the windows are actually "glass planes." With handles. SMDH.

Call me a Grinch but my Christmas wish is that SA goes to trial and is found guilty. And the judge throws out the civil suit before it ever reaches a courtroom.

I'll be Grinching right along with you.

 

[Eevee Pie]

I've been on La Comay's Facebook site where their video is posted, along with many comments in Spanish. It only takes a few moments to use Google translate to read the comments in English and it is very interesting. One comment is that they are glad the incident happened in PR rather than in the US, because they believe that they value children's lives to a greater degree than in the US, and that Chloe will be more likely to get true justice there. And there are theories expressed about the case.

That is a very strange statement considering Puerto Rico is part of the USA. Puerto Ricans are Americans.

 

[al66pine]

Cruiseline, Name SA as 3rd Party Defendant?

.... the civil case. And the first thing I would do if I was RC would be to subpoena SA and haul him in for a deposition and put him on the stand as the first witness to answer for why exactly he thought it was a good idea to put her on the railing in the first place. Let's see what his story is when he doesn't have questions his lawyer gave him the answers to

@Kindred sbm
From civil procedure standpoint, now that parents' wrongful death claim has been filed against cruiseline, could cruiseline name G'pa SA as a third party defendant in impleader action?* Then the interests of the parents and the interests of SA would be directly adverse to one another.
What would downside for cruiseline be, in moving to implead SA as 3rd party defendant?

And is there is the possibility of joint and several liability among tortfeasors** in civil suit, i.e., meaning that court could hold that both cruiseline and G'pa SA both contributed to her death. Doubtful that's an outcome parents would want. Of course, cruiseline, not G'father, has the deep pockets to pay award.

------------------------------------------------
* Impleader is a procedural device before trial in which one party joins a third party into a lawsuit because that third party is liable to an original defendant. Using the vocabulary of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the defendant seeks to become a third-party plaintiff by filing a third party complaint against a third party not presently party to the lawsuit, who thereby becomes a third-party defendant. This complaint alleges that the third party is liable for all or part of the damages that the original plaintiff may win from the original defendant.... Common bases of contingent or derivative liability by which third parties may be impleaded include indemnity, subrogation,...." Impleader - Wikipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------
** ".... U.S. maritime law recognizes the concept of joint and several liability among tortfeasors ... Under joint and several liability, where two or more people create a single injury or loss, all are equally liable, even if they contributed only a small amount. A state court hearing an admiralty case would be required to apply the doctrine of joint and several liability even if state law does not contemplate the concept."**
** United States admiralty law - Wikipedia
"A state court hearing an admiralty or maritime case is required to apply the admiralty and maritime law, even if it conflicts with the law of the state, under a doctrine known as the "reverse-Erie doctrine."

 

[jeena]

More scene photos, again from the family's civil complaint. Red mark again added by me.

View attachment 221613 View attachment 221614

@Only4Justice....I'm not sure what I'm seeing in the window, but it looks like CW's white hat is off to the left side of SA, and a few seconds later the hat (CW) is gone. I assume SA is right handed because in his interview he uses his right hand to rub his face, he even rubs the left side of his face with his right hand. I assume he was holding CW at the window with his weaker left arm and dropped her.


Too bad the videos aren't as clear as these photos. If it was CW's idea to walk to the window area, maybe she was attracted to the bright colors on the Squeeze bar walls? The bar decor almost looks like an amusement park stand for games, or an arcade for video games, etc. Thx for posting the photos.

WOW just WOW. It looks like her pushed her. Or can I not say that is my opinion? I couldn’t even watch the whole thing. Horrifying. IMO

WOW just WOW. It looks like her pushed her. Or can I not say that is my opinion? I couldn’t even watch the whole thing. Horrifying. IMO

 

[mickey2942]

That is a very strange statement considering Puerto Rico is part of the USA. Puerto Ricans are Americans.

True. But honestly, I do think that in Puerto Rico, children are cherished. It is such a family oriented culture. Honestly, if this exact same scenario had happened in Miami, I seriously think that it would have been continued forever, and quite possibly, SA would not have been charged.

Look at the Nubia Barahona case, the defendants are in jail, the crime happened 9 years ago...and there still isn't a trial date set!

 

[Safeguard]

WOW just WOW. It looks like her pushed her. Or can I not say that is my opinion? I couldn’t even watch the whole thing. Horrifying. IMO

This is the version I saw first. My phone is AH-mazing for media and it was this front facing view that blew me away also. (The side view cemented that SA leaned way outside before he picks up Chloe. He was bent over to such a degree he was outside or he would have been up against glass.

In this front view, at 7:57 he lifts Chloe above his head.
At 8:02 she has her arms fully extended, straight out, fingers pointing up and (as one member noted earlier), the window is not completely open. perhaps 1/3 of the window is still closed. If you look through the closed portion, just to the left, of that window you can see Chloe's arm and hand.

How can you see her hand when you're looking OUT a closed window unless her arms are OUTSIDE?

That part chilled me to the bone. I don't know how they are going to explain that in court.

I wonder if the video was leaked on purpose so they could test the waters...

I bet it's sinking in that no one on the planet, seeing the video, is having an "OMG he IS telling the truth!" experience.

 

[SouthAussie]

And don't forget - the windows are actually "glass panes." With handles. SMDH.

Call me a Grinch but my Christmas wish is that SA goes to trial and is found guilty. And the judge throws out the civil suit before it ever reaches a courtroom.
Complaint - Wiegand vs Royal Caribbean Cruises LTD - LMAW, PA

One thing that really bugs me about this lawsuit claim (besides him citing an industry standard from the wrong industry etc etc etc) is the suit is mostly about compensating the parents for what Chloe would have earned if she had grown up and got a job/had a career.

Seems to me that Chloe would have used any earnings for living expenses for herself - to rent an apartment, buy a house, buy a car, raise children. Or she might never have worked and earned no money at all. And she would have likely outlived her parents - so, no inheritance to them.

Also seems to me that they now won't be paying for Chloe's education, clothing, food, expenses - things that may have entitled them to any inheritance.

I do get that it will be based on what a 'reasonable person' could expect, but how is it that her parents are now entitled to that? (rhetorical question, crazy laws)

And they want reimbursement for all of their expenses, even though I can see three different crowd sourcing projects that have raised $22,040 and $6,055 and $6,100 supposedly for those expenses.

 

[justice4allnow]

That is a very strange statement considering Puerto Rico is part of the USA. Puerto Ricans are Americans.

No offense was intended, apologies EeviePie, I was typing quickly. Some of the commenters on that site said that they were glad it happened in Puerto Rico, where they lived, rather than on the mainland US (is to ok to express it that way?), because they considered their culture to be more family and child oriented. I grew up in the deep south of the US and it is a very different place than for example New York or California.

 

[KR72]

Such a bizarre and and tragic story all the way around. You all have raised so many good points and it's like some of you have read my mind!

First, I question the family line of Chloe loving to bang on glass. Yes, I realize that Plexiglas at hockey rinks is shatter proof and that some people do bang on it, but that doesn't make it appropriate or a habit to be encouraged in a young toddler. What if she one day decided to bang on non-tempered glass? Why would SA feel it was appropriate for Chloe to go bang on glass on the ship? Did he not think that that behaviour might be annoying to others in the area, or did he simply not care if other people were irritated? You can bet that if I had been there and seen a child banging on glass in a public area I would have said something to the parent/guardian if it continued -it's not only annoying but also potentially dangerous.

Personally, I think the love of banging on glass was a thinly veiled excuse made up by the family to cover for gramps. Any sane person would have crouched down with a small child and pointed at things through the window, OR picked him/her up and stood a safe distance from an open window 11 stories high instead of holding a toddler through an open window. I don't think SA dropped Chole on purpose, but I think he's the type of person that's a scofflaw and thinks that rules don't apply to him, and because of that entitled attitude, poor Chloe lost her life.

One thing I wondered about, as many of you here have mentioned, is how incompetent SA was and what a poor choice to look after Chole (well, obviously very incompetent). When he crouches down and leans against the pillar, I wonder if it was because he simply couldn't keep up with her. Leaning against the pillar the way he was, it looked to me like he was physically exhausted, maybe out of breath. He's an older man and quite overweight, and if he'd been drinking at all it would be very difficult for him to keep up with a near two year old.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

Such a bizarre and and tragic story all the way around. You all have raised so many good points and it's like some of you have read my mind!

First, I question the family line of Chloe loving to bang on glass. Yes, I realize that Plexiglas at hockey rinks is shatter proof and that some people do bang on it, but that doesn't make it appropriate or a habit to be encouraged in a young toddler. What if she one day decided to bang on non-tempered glass? Why would SA feel it was appropriate for Chloe to go bang on glass on the ship? Did he not think that that behaviour might be annoying to others in the area, or did he simply not care if other people were irritated? You can bet that if I had been there and seen a child banging on glass in a public area I would have said something to the parent/guardian if it continued -it's not only annoying but also potentially dangerous.

Personally, I think the love of banging on glass was a thinly veiled excuse made up by the family to cover for gramps. Any sane person would have crouched down with a small child and pointed at things through the window, OR picked him/her up and stood a safe distance from an open window 11 stories high instead of holding a toddler through an open window. I don't think SA dropped Chole on purpose, but I think he's the type of person that's a scofflaw and thinks that rules don't apply to him, and because of that entitled attitude, poor Chloe lost her life.

One thing I wondered about, as many of you here have mentioned, is how incompetent SA was and what a poor choice to look after Chole (well, obviously very incompetent). When he crouches down and leans against the pillar, I wonder if it was because he simply couldn't keep up with her. Leaning against the pillar the way he was, it looked to me like he was physically exhausted, maybe out of breath. He's an older man and quite overweight, and if he'd been drinking at all it would be very difficult for him to keep up with a near two year old.

I believe he's 51...an old 51.

 

[IceIce9]

This is not a poor family. They live in Granger, Indiana, which is the wealthiest city in the area. Take a look at the comparison between South Bend and Granger median income.

I’ve worked quite a few times with the South Bend Fire firefighters, and they make jokes about Granger. “Firefighters are getting a raise, we’re all moving to Granger, lol.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

...Personally, I think the love of banging on glass was a thinly veiled excuse made up by the family to cover for gramps. Any sane person would have crouched down with a small child and pointed at things through the window, OR picked him/her up and stood a safe distance from an open window 11 stories high instead of holding a toddler through an open window. I don't think SA dropped Chole on purpose, but I think he's the type of person that's a scofflaw and thinks that rules don't apply to him, and because of that entitled attitude, poor Chloe lost her life...

I was actually cutting Grandpa some slack with lifting Chloe to a window instead of bending down to look out the window at her level until I saw the video. SA didn't seem to have any difficulty stooping beside the column to rest, catch his breath, or have a puff on a smoke (if he had one). I don't think Grandpa's intentions had anything to do with Chloe "banging on glass" like at her brother's hockey games. I think he wanted to feel a cool breeze on his hot face and body.

I grew up in a hockey household with my dad as a hockey player, referee, and coach, and both of my brothers playing club hockey. I don't recall ever being allowed or encouraged to bang on the glass at Dad's or my brothers' games. I think the family has milked that photo of Chloe standing at the glass for all it's worth as an excuse for Grandpa's careless and reckless behavior. Enough already!

 

[sl222]

Personal injury 101, I guess: keep the focus on the inanimate object. "Glass, window, boat."

 

[katydid23]

This is the version I saw first. My phone is AH-mazing for media and it was this front facing view that blew me away also. (The side view cemented that SA leaned way outside before he picks up Chloe. He was bent over to such a degree he was outside or he would have been up against glass.

In this front view, at 7:57 he lifts Chloe above his head.
At 8:02 she has her arms fully extended, straight out, fingers pointing up and (as one member noted earlier), the window is not completely open. perhaps 1/3 of the window is still closed. If you look through the closed portion, just to the left, of that window you can see Chloe's arm and hand.

How can you see her hand when you're looking OUT a closed window unless her arms are OUTSIDE?

That part chilled me to the bone. I don't know how they are going to explain that in court.

I wonder if the video was leaked on purpose so they could test the waters...

I bet it's sinking in that no one on the planet, seeing the video, is having an "OMG he IS telling the truth!" experience.

I don't believe the family wanted it leaked on purpose, to test the waters. I don't think they ever wanted it seen by anyone, if they had their way.

That's why they were so aggressive coming out of the gate, and so dishonest about the circumstances. They wanted a quick resolution with RCCL, so it would taint any upcoming trial against Grandpa. And they hoped to get the public on their side---which they did at first.

The pubic release of the video was a game changer. There is no room for 'color blindness' defense or 'open window' confusion after seeing that video.

They didn't want that video released. And they were probably going to fight it's admission into the trial, saying whatever legal excuses they could muster up. JMO

 

[Safeguard]

I love this pic. Poor little trusting baby girl.

 

[katydid23]

Personal injury 101, I guess: keep the focus on the inanimate object. "Glass, window, boat."

It's going to be impossible to keep the focus on the inanimate objects now.

I know juries can be crazy, and they also like to vote sympathetically and usually against the corporations, especially in a gruesome death of a child.

But if the prosecution has clear copies of 2 or more views of this tragedy---the jurors will clearly see him leaning out that window himself, then picking up the baby and up and over the guard rail, then holding her, fully outside the open window. .....They have no excuse for that.