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

[SuziQ]

The part that's the most chilling in the video is when SA leans his head outside of the window and looks downward.
As if he was gauging the distance to the concrete dock below.

Purposeful, and not in the least 'confused and befuddled'.... " I thought there was glass..." He said in the video, slapping his knee several times for emphasis.

This is what got me. He looks down and sees how far up he is, then proceeds to put her up there anyways!

That absolutely blows my mind and took it to a dark place. I guess there really are people out there that are that stupid. Wowza!

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

Why did SA even think Chloe would want a better view of the dock than she had? She might want a better view of another ship or to look at the water. But the dock?

I really doubt if "a view" was what SA was thinking about. Chloe was 18 months old. I don't think she would have really appreciated a view either. The video clearly shows SA picking Chloe up and dumping her out the window. For whatever reason, or no reason. It is what it is. I have just been trying to fathom a reason, judging by what has transpired after this crime was committed. JMOO And as far as being so enamored of her, cherishing her SO MUCH as his "best friend" it sure doesn't seem so watching how far SA let her run ahead of him in that crowded bar area. If you love and care for someone, you do not play fast and loose with their safety. MOO

 

[MsMarple]

Lifted to Rail or Not? Does It Matter, or Collateral Point?
@MsMarple bbm sbm. Pls, bear w me for a couple hypotheticals.
Hypothetical #1.
Let's say vids shot from 2, 4, or 6 angles (more if you want) show events in perfect focus and color.
--- Let's say SA told PR LE that Chloe wore a navy-color sundress w matching hat, said same in (hypo) MSM interviews, and posted it on his (hypo?) facebook page, etc. In civil trial, SA repeats same.
However all vids show Chloe wore a pink/lavender swimsuit and white hat, and also showed SA put his head & shoulders out window, then after that held Chloe out side window and she dropped, fell to ground.
Does discrepancy between SA's description of piece of clothing & color versus the vids' depiction of clothing & color matter? Does it matter/is it relevant to civil lawsuit or crim case? No, not if vids show him putting head (and shoulders?) out/thru the window and then holding her outside the window. The particular piece of Chloe's clothing and its color are collateral to issues of both the civil & crim cases. Does not matter whether she wore sundress, swimsuit, or Notre Dame hockey uniform. It's a collateral point.

Hypothetical #2.
---Now let's say vids shot from 2, 4, or 6 angles are in perfect focus and color, like above. Vids show that SA did not lift her to rail, did not sit her on rail, did not stand her on rail. However vids show SA put his head (& shoulders?) out window, then after that he held Chloe out side window and she dropped, fell to ground. Does this discrepancy between allegations in civil complaint and the vids matter? Again, a collateral point.

So, would having a clearer video showing whether SA did or did not sit her or stand her on rail (or even SA or Chloe doing an Irish jig on rail?) clarify SA's culpability re her death? No, immaterial as to allegations in civil Complaint. Ditto crim case.
jmo, could be wrong.

I don't quite follow your hypothetical #1 - of course a blue swimsuit vs. pink is irrelevant.

However, in your hypothetical #2 IMO there is relevance. I tried and failed to explain properly so far and I apologize and will try one more time.

In the civil complaint Winkleman writes that SA sat Chloe on the railing. If that is a lie then there's a problem. By signing the complaint, he (and the family) are certifying that to the best of their knowledge they have vetted what's contained in the complaint as truthful. Duty of candor.

I'm not talking about the hyperbole as that's expected. I'm addressing a bald-faced lie where the attorney saw SA put Chloe outside the window and not on the railing. Or that SA dangled, threw or pushed Chloe, whatever.

The court has power to sanction the attorney and his clients if it feels fraud has been committed. It may not impact the family so much, at worst they may have to pay RCCL's attorney fees. But Winkleman could conceivably end up with a temporary revocation of his license that could last years. At worst he could be disbarred.

Why an attorney from a large firm would risk that over one case is hard to understand. I'm not saying he didn't do exactly that but if he did then he's a terrible lawyer and deserves to have his livelihood taken away. That's why IMO I believe the railing is relevant.

So I'm *not* saying the negligence would be any more or less. I'm saying: If clear video proves the family (by way of their attorney) deliberately lied about the circumstances in order to gain money then the court has the legal power to punish all of them. So what does Winkleman gain by bald-faced lying?

 

[neesaki]

Ugh it all sucks from all sides.....

I think he picked her up high to get her legs over the railing to touch the glass (no reasons are good) and then released one hand to do whatever and boom.



I truly hesitate and hate to say this but as loving as my own dad is/was with my kids, I can see how something like this could happen (I never let my kids alone as young ones because....) a split moment terrible decision when one thinks they doing something "fun" etc.

Ugh.

He stuck his head out the window though, so he knew it was open.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

I don't quite follow your hypothetical #1 - of course a blue swimsuit vs. pink is irrelevant.

However, in your hypothetical #2 IMO there is relevance. I tried and failed to explain properly so far and I apologize and will try one more time.

In the civil complaint Winkleman writes that SA sat Chloe on the railing. If that is a lie then there's a problem. By signing the complaint, he (and the family) are certifying that to the best of their knowledge they have vetted what's contained in the complaint as truthful. Duty of candor.

I'm not talking about the hyperbole as that's expected. I'm addressing a bald-faced lie where the attorney saw SA put Chloe outside the window and not on the railing. Or that SA dangled, threw or pushed Chloe, whatever.

The court has power to sanction the attorney and his clients if it feels fraud has been committed. It may not impact the family so much, at worst they may have to pay RCCL's attorney fees. But Winkleman could conceivably end up with a temporary revocation of his license that could last years. At worst he could be disbarred.

Why an attorney from a large firm would risk that over one case is hard to understand. I'm not saying he didn't do exactly that but if he did then he's a terrible lawyer and deserves to have his livelihood taken away. That's why IMO I believe the railing is relevant.

So I'm *not* saying the negligence would be any more or less. I'm saying: If clear video proves the family (by way of their attorney) deliberately lied about the circumstances in order to gain money then the court has the legal power to punish all of them. So what does Winkleman gain by bald-faced lying?

I really don't know. IMOO, Winkie doesn't make a whole lot of sense. He keeps repeating "children's play area" and "bang on glass" like it's going to make sensible people buy that crap? Smoke and mirrors? Maybe he was hoping RCCL would just settle to make this whole debacle go away?

 

[neesaki]

Appearance? Not Relevant imo
@beatrixpotter

Appearance was beside the point, imo. <--- Point of my earlier post, so will try to move past this topic.

If ppl want to continue discussing her appearance (non-issue, imo), they are free to do so.

Agree, need to move on.

 

[IceIce9]

One of the donation accounts set up does specifically state funds to help pay for medical bills.

Thanks for that information, I knew I had seen somewhere that Chloe had medical problems, but I couldn’t remember where I read that.

 

[IceIce9]

Why did SA even think Chloe would want a better view of the dock than she had? She might want a better view of another ship or to look at the water. But the dock?

Were there windows on the other side where she could have seen water? I agree, why would he want to give her a better view of the dock?

 

[LietKynes]

Were there windows on the other side where she could have seen water? I agree, why would he want to give her a better view of the dock?

Ita.

A child that age wouldn't have 'appreciated' the view; fgs.

 

[IceIce9]

He stuck his head out the window though, so he knew it was open.

Look at the turn this case has taken. For months most of the discussion here revolved around why SA didn’t realize the window was open. Remember the countless posts about color blindness?

I confess that from the start I have believed what the very first reports said, an act of games, he held her outside the window, he exposed her to the void, and even that he dangled her.

No discussion about colorblindness, Parkinson’s, dementia, macular degeneration, ALS or anything else that had been discussed here swayed me from the fact that he knew the window was open.

Now we can all see for ourselves that he knew the window was open when we view the videos and see him leaning outside. The reason he put her outside the window is unknown, and unfathomable.

 

[IceIce9]

Ita.

A child that age wouldn't have 'appreciated' the view; fgs.

Right, but maybe SA had thought she would.

 

[IceIce9]

I really don't know. IMOO, Winkie doesn't make a whole lot of sense. He keeps repeating "children's play area" and "bang on glass" like it's going to make sensible people buy that crap? Smoke and mirrors? Maybe he was hoping RCCL would just settle to make this whole debacle go away?

That is what I think, he was looking for a quick cash settlement and the video never would have been shown.

 

[IceIce9]

I really doubt if "a view" was what SA was thinking about. Chloe was 18 months old. I don't think she would have really appreciated a view either. The video clearly shows SA picking Chloe up and dumping her out the window. For whatever reason, or no reason. It is what it is. I have just been trying to fathom a reason, judging by what has transpired after this crime was committed. JMOO And as far as being so enamored of her, cherishing her SO MUCH as his "best friend" it sure doesn't seem so watching how far SA let her run ahead of him in that crowded bar area. If you love and care for someone, you do not play fast and loose with their safety. MOO

I doubt if she “asked” to be lifted up to the window too. If she wanted to see out she would have looked out the lower window that she could reach. If she wanted to bang on the glass she would have banged on the lower window.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

Right, but maybe SA had thought she would.

Wouldn't Chloe have appreciated going to the real children's play area instead of the bar area anyway?

 

[Lilibet]

Were there windows on the other side where she could have seen water? I agree, why would he want to give her a better view of the dock?

He was clearly letting Chloe take the lead and following her. She ran to those windows. So that means he wasn’t trying to show her the view or do much of anything but keep an eye on her (sort of).

I really doubt if "a view" was what SA was thinking about. Chloe was 18 months old. I don't think she would have really appreciated a view either. The video clearly shows SA picking Chloe up and dumping her out the window. For whatever reason, or no reason. It is what it is. I have just been trying to fathom a reason, judging by what has transpired after this crime was committed. JMOO And as far as being so enamored of her, cherishing her SO MUCH as his "best friend" it sure doesn't seem so watching how far SA let her run ahead of him in that crowded bar area. If you love and care for someone, you do not play fast and loose with their safety. MOO

The way I see the video (and I could be wrong), he may have been holding her out the window as if she was flying (“an act of games”). There seems to be some kind of movement back and forth before he falls to the floor. But I haven’t seen the video speeded up to “real time” so it may appear more like he “dumped” her out the window when seen that way. Either way, he showed “depraved indifference” toward her safety as I posted awhile back. I don’t think it was intentional, but his carelessness caused her death, no matter how anyone tries to spin it.
JMO

 

[Kakidoll]

The kids water play area is part of that deck. Its not all or nothing with that. Winkleman saying it was in the kids area was not true, but the kids area can be seen from there... all areas kind of run together on ships. On one deck you have 10 different 'things' going on. Bars, food, buffet, pools, seating areas, etc. You wander from one to another. They were only on the ship maybe 2 hours. Muster (Safety)drill hadn't happened yet, that happens right before you sail. I'm sure people were still boarding.

Its obvious he looked out before lifting her up and he lied about the open window. There is NO way to fall out unless its purposeful or negligent behavior, child or adult.

The size of her head was brought up because RIGHT after it happened SOMEONE mentioned her having medical issues. That then 'disappeared'. Toddlers are 'top heavy' so if she 'flung' herself from someone holding her, it is an awkward weight distribution. She may have done that as she was scared of what he was doing with her/game of 'oopsie' and he lost control.

ALL of these can be part of what happened and not be ruled out. Thus being talked about is not 'disrespectful' of Chloe. It could have a bearing on what happened and just being talked about to understand. JMO

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Thanks for that information, I knew I had seen somewhere that Chloe had medical problems, but I couldn’t remember where I read that.

The only information that I've seen regarding Chloe's medical issues are included in her obituary. There is no indication that Chloe had residual medical problems after she was released from NICU.

...She was born Dec. 13, 2017, in South Bend, Indiana, weighing merely 4 pounds, 6 ounces, and was cared for by Beacon Children's Hospital, Newborn Intensive Care Unit. Even at birth, Chloe was a true fighter, overcoming every medical obstacle she faced...

View Chloe Wiegand's Obituary on kpcnews.com and share memories

 

[BeachSky]

He stuck his head out the window though, so he knew it was open.

Yes THIS!

 

[IceIce9]

Does anyone know where SA currently lives? I have seen mentioned in various reports Indiana cities Valpo and South Bend as well as Michigan. South Bend is near the state line between Indiana and Michigan.

 

[MsMarple]

I really don't know. IMOO, Winkie doesn't make a whole lot of sense. He keeps repeating "children's play area" and "bang on glass" like it's going to make sensible people buy that crap? Smoke and mirrors? Maybe he was hoping RCCL would just settle to make this whole debacle go away?

I agree - smoke and mirrors. Like saying that stuff will magically make it true. Not surprising though and it's not uncommon to see a complaint exaggerate. It's only if/when he crosses the line and lies outright about the provable facts that he's cruising for a bruising by the court.

Like others have said, if the civil suit goes to court I hope the jury will be allowed to take a field trip to the ship to see the "play area" for themselves and check out the "panes of glass" that magically become windows when someone pulls the handle. SMDH.

At this point I doubt RCCL will even bother to offer a settlement. MOO.