IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #5

[al66pine]

Graphics for Civil Case?

I noticed on Winkleman's website that they show examples of the graphics they produce for their trials.

Court Exhibits - LMAW, P.A.
I noticed this a week or so ago, and it crossed my mind at the time, what are the exhibits going to look like for this case?
Something like this?
View attachment 222744

@SouthAussie Thx for your post w graph & link.
The law firm graphics are quite colorful.
From your post's graphic "Children Overboard Through A Window" is it a hypo you created
(^ If you do not mind sharing)?
Or just ran across? Is the Y axis a ratio?
Of minor < 18 y/o children onboard? Or say < age 10 y/o?

 

[vallie]

I was thinking about why SA was holding her with 1 arm, could it be he was fishing his cellphone out of his pocket to get a selfie of Chloe "flying"?

I was also thinking about the other set of grandparents on the cruise--when this happened--I imagine them wanting an explanation and how could all be so sympathetic to the one who was in charge of their precious Chloe when she died.

 

[SouthAussie]

Graphics for Civil Case?
@SouthAussie Thx for your post w graph & link.
The law firm graphics are quite colorful.
From your post's graphic "Children Overboard Through A Window" is it a hypo you created
(^ If you do not mind sharing)?
Or just ran across? Is the Y axis is a ratio?
Of minor < 18 y/o children onboard? Or say < age 10 y/o?

Yes, I created the graph myself in Excel (it self-created the Y axis, because my input was either 0 or 1). Created out of sarcasm for Winkleman's lawsuit complaint statement ......

"While some who are uninformed may initially characterize this type of incident as a “freak accident,” it is, in fact, quite common."
Complaint - Wiegand vs Royal Caribbean Cruises LTD - LMAW, PA

I have been unable to find one incident of a child falling overboard out of a cruise ship window. I have looked on a couple of cruise ship incident statistical websites and trawled the internet.

 

[WiseGuy]

If the first time Chloe’s mom allowed SA to be the sole caregiver for a toddler was on a cruise ship I find that really odd.

And that might explain why mom was so quick and emphatic in supporting SA. If HE is not responsible, then SHE is absolved of responsibility as well.
Presumably the Wiegands were familiar with SA’s proclivity for irresponsible behavior. If mom chose SA to take over child care for her while she attended to other business over objections of dad or other family members, or even over her own doubts, then she would feel crushing guilt now. So she needs SA to be innocent as much as SA needs SA to be innocent, in order to keep living with herself. Thoughts?

 

[SouthAussie]

And that might explain why mom was so quick and emphatic in supporting SA. If HE is not responsible, then SHE is absolved of responsibility as well.
Presumably the Wiegands were familiar with SA’s proclivity for irresponsible behavior. If mom chose SA to take over child care for her while she attended to other business over objections of dad or other family members, or even over her own doubts, then she would feel crushing guilt now. So she needs SA to be innocent as much as SA needs SA to be innocent, in order to keep living with herself. Thoughts?

Yes, agree.

I think mum likely thought that Chloe would splash in those pretty fountains in her non-slip shoes and appropriate sunhat while she was away for a short while. And that SA would just stand close by and watch over Chloe while she splashed and enjoyed.

But that's not how it turned out. She didn't think that SA would let Chloe wander and would just follow her around. Likely because she wouldn't do that herself. It didn't cross her mind that she was leaving her little girl in peril. And now she feels a measure of responsibility herself.

 

[Safeguard]

And that might explain why mom was so quick and emphatic in supporting SA. If HE is not responsible, then SHE is absolved of responsibility as well.
Presumably the Wiegands were familiar with SA’s proclivity for irresponsible behavior. If mom chose SA to take over child care for her while she attended to other business over objections of dad or other family members, or even over her own doubts, then she would feel crushing guilt now. So she needs SA to be innocent as much as SA needs SA to be innocent, in order to keep living with herself. Thoughts?

She will feel crushing guilt forever anyway you slice it because... parents.

But yes, I've said as much before, the denial of his guilt, is the denial of her own.

 

[al66pine]

Graphics for Civil Case?

Yes, I created the graph myself in Excel (it self-created the Y axis). Out of sarcasm for Winkleman's lawsuit complaint statement ......
While some who are uninformed may initially characterize this type of incident as a “freak accident,” it is, in fact, quite common.

Complaint - Wiegand vs Royal Caribbean Cruises LTD - LMAW, PA

@SouthAussie. bbm <---I did not want to ASSume. I do think you used accurate data.

An idea to emphasize the actual circumstance of poor Chloe's death: edit the title (No sarc, it's true).
Children Overboard Through a Window, After Being Suspended in Mid-Air by Adult

 

[WiseGuy]

She will feel crushing guilt forever anyway you slice it because... parents.

But yes, I've said as much before, the denial of his guilt, is the denial of her own.

Ah, thanks for the confirmation. Plus, consider the mindset of our posters who find the parents’ pro-SA stance so weird/irrational that the only explanation is that they are all in on a pre-meditated murder. Our theory at least offers a more palatable motive than their macabre alternative. Makes more sense to me anyway.

 

[MsMarple]

When did SA say, "I dropped my child!", and who heard him say this? Was it other passengers or ship security personnel who came to the scene?

Confirmed it was Winkleman:
After Chloe fell out of the window, Anello drops to his knees, according to Winkleman, and he yelled out loud, "I just dropped my child. I thought there was glass! I thought there was glass!"
Video shows girl's final moments with grandfather before cruise ship death

I am not quite sure that I believe that the family didn't see the video. They were asking for it - via Winkleman and his company - before they even left PR.
So I wonder why they say they didn't view it (did they say they haven't seen it, or just that they declined the offers by Royal Caribbean and by the police?)

Perhaps they didn't take up the Royal Caribbean/police offers to view it, but I think they maybe gained legal access to a copy of it and viewed it elsewhere.

10 July 2019
Winkleman said one of his associates was in contact with the company.
He wants it to release surveillance footage of the incident to the family.
Police investigating death of Indiana tot who fell from cruise ship have not ruled out murder | Daily Mail Online

July 12, 2019
Winkleman also said the family hopes to obtain surveillance video from the cruise ship where Chloe fell.
Family of Toddler Who Plunged to Death on Cruise Ship Returns Home for Funeral

I believe the family did see the video. Fox59 in South Bend reported:

Surveillance video of the incident exists, and the family waited until they saw it to file the lawsuit. They aren’t showing the video to the public, saying they don’t want the last seconds of their daughter’s life to become scrutinized on the internet. They’re also trying to prevent Chloe’s older brother from seeing it.
Family files lawsuit against Royal Caribbean over Indiana toddler’s fatal plunge on cruise ship

I know other msm said they had not but it makes sense that they waited to see the video before making a decision to sue. I know, I know, it seems like the family would decide *not* to sue after seeing what happened but that doesn't have to be the case. We don't know how the parents interpreted the video - look at how many different thoughts we've had after viewing it - they may have decided SA appears to fail to see the window was open.

Or Winkleman may have suggested that RCCL might settle for some amount regardless in order to make the publicity go away. IOW we don't know what all is driving the suit.

 

[sl222]

And that might explain why mom was so quick and emphatic in supporting SA. If HE is not responsible, then SHE is absolved of responsibility as well.
Presumably the Wiegands were familiar with SA’s proclivity for irresponsible behavior. If mom chose SA to take over child care for her while she attended to other business over objections of dad or other family members, or even over her own doubts, then she would feel crushing guilt now. So she needs SA to be innocent as much as SA needs SA to be innocent, in order to keep living with herself. Thoughts?

I think it has something to do with Mrs. Wiegand's concern for how this impacts her own mother, SA's wife. Her mother has been married to SA for over 20 years, and I think that Mrs. Wiegand is very close to her mother. And like someone else just said above very wisely, the prospect of granddad going to jail affects her son, Chloe's brother, very much - that may be the number-one driving factor in many decisions here. That's understandable in a lot of ways since they've already lost one child and want to protect the other child who has already been traumatized as it is.

Maybe also Mrs. Wiegand has been trying to be forgiving and give SA the benefit of the doubt, because all she and Winkleman knew from the outset was what they were told by the grandfather.

 

[sl222]

Lawsuit or not, I agree these parents are tortured every single day by the "what ifs" and "if only" and they can't help but blame themselves even though this was not their fault. It's especially cruel IMO because I get the very strong impression that these two parents are loving, adoring, and extremely responsible parents who love being parents! It's not just losing their daughter, it's also all that they have to go through for years, if not for life. And worse, what their son has to go through. I do think the lawsuit is a way of dealing with this by parents in grief, but surely when they saw the videos they were horrified and they have to have tremendous rage against SA. They are keeping that private which is understandable but you know it has to be there.

What we will never know is the most important thing here - what was going through SA's mind when this happened. Even if he didn't have intention, it does look very close to intentional. I'm not saying it was, but it LOOKS that way. I don't understand how he would do something to risk this child's life so heinously, for 20-plus seconds. The chances of her falling were 80 to 100% - he did let go of her. That's the one and only thing that mattered, holding on to Chloe.

 

[Safeguard]

Even if he didn't have intention, it does look very close to intentional. I'm not saying it was, but it LOOKS that way. I don't understand how he would do something to risk this child's life so heinously, for 20-plus seconds. The chances of her falling were 80 to 100% - he did let go of her. That's the one and only thing that mattered, holding on to Chloe

Nice post.
I disagree that it looks intentional though. It doesn't look the least bit planned to me.

It looks like they were just looking around at everything aboard the ship, and he impulsively decided to let her look out the window.

I don't get the sense that he even thought much about it really. As odd and dangerous as we see that decision,

in the moment he doesn't seem to be considering anything more than a peek outside to me.

I have considered he may have been playing 'pretend I'm gonna drop' you', but after viewing every which way, far too many times, I just don't see anything that looks like he deliberately tossed her out. Not one thing.

A foolish decision & over confidence with a tragic outcome.

That's all I can be sure of, from what we have available.

 

[Safeguard]

Consider this picure of deck 11 and the one directly above it.

There are no windows at all on the deck above 11. just the safety railing.
Would Sam have held Chloe on or above that railing?

Only one story up, there is even less protection than a bank of windows. Would placing the child onto or over that railing still raise questions about RC's liability?

 

[al66pine]

The Other Grandparents?

.... I was also thinking about the other set of grandparents on the cruise--when this happened--I imagine them wanting an explanation and how could all be so sympathetic to the one who was in charge of their precious Chloe when she died.

@vallie sbm Yes, Seems like they would want an explanation.
Do we know if they are actually sympathetic to SA?
Maybe just being quiet?
Maybe maintaining a modicum of dignity?
IDK.

 

[MsMarple]

Another thing I found telling from the interview with Winkleman was where he says this :

"She's sitting on the wooden banister, why did he then lean forward with her?" Begnaud asked Winkleman.

"I think it's pretty obvious why they leaned forward, and that would be so that you could get a better view," Winkleman said."

What happened to," they leaned forward so she could bang on the glass?"

That statement has bothered me from the get go. I have to wonder if Winkleman is simply running with what SA and the parents have told him. The whole banging on the glass may even ring hollow to him but technically he's obligated to support his clients' story. Since KW is also a lawyer she and Winkleman may struggle a bit over how they proceed. JMO though.
Video shows girl's final moments with grandfather before cruise ship death

 

[sl222]

Nice post.
I disagree that it looks intentional though. It doesn't look the least bit planned to me.

I see a difference between planned and intentional. I am not saying that he planned it OR intended it. (I don't think he plotted this.) But what I did say was that it looks intentional. It looks like in the moments at the window, he knowingly took actions that would lead to her death. It is possible for someone to play the clown and make it look like an accident. The prosecutors had to explore it; they ruled that out.

The reason I say it looks intentional is basically "what else would he expect to happen if he holds a child outside of a ship, plays a game of some kind, swaying her, holding her loosely, and lets go of her?"

People do kill for no reason. I still won't go so far as to say I think he is one of them. But his actions don't line up with the positive things I assume about him not having the slightest intention for anything horrible to happen. It's a little hard to put this into words, it's my opinion.

 

[Safeguard]

Mom said something interesting to me as well:

“There was someone from Royal Caribbean who kept trying to stop me,” she continued. “And I just kept saying, ‘Take me to my baby. Where’s my baby? Take me to my baby.’ I didn’t even notice a window. I ran over there, and I looked over … and it wasn’t water down there, it was concrete.”

She knew the window was open right away then? Just glanced over and knew she was looking out and down?

Now I dont want to scrutinize too much, what mom said or did in that moment, but it did make me realize, I have never heard a single person say they also had trouble discerning if a window was open or closed.

None of the parties involved, or anyone in any forum, who have been on that ship, nor our faithful cruisers here at ws... Not one single voice have I heard reported to have said, "well yes, it can be hard to tell"...

In fact the closest I have come, are a few kind people saying something to the effect of, "well, I could see how someone might not realize do to the unusual curvature of those windows".

So the best they could come up with was SA is "color blind"? That's almost insulting!

 

[Safeguard]

The Other Grandparents?

@vallie sbm Yes, Seems like they would want an explanation.
Do we know if they are actually sympathetic to SA?
Maybe just being quiet?
Maybe maintaining a modicum of dignity?
IDK.

Or perhaps Chloe's parents implored them not to say anything that could negatively affect the up coming court cases? (and if you can't say something nice...
)

 

[neesaki]

Lawsuit or not, I agree these parents are tortured every single day by the "what ifs" and "if only" and they can't help but blame themselves even though this was not their fault. It's especially cruel IMO because I get the very strong impression that these two parents are loving, adoring, and extremely responsible parents who love being parents! It's not just losing their daughter, it's also all that they have to go through for years, if not for life. And worse, what their son has to go through. I do think the lawsuit is a way of dealing with this by parents in grief, but surely when they saw the videos they were horrified and they have to have tremendous rage against SA. They are keeping that private which is understandable but you know it has to be there.

What we will never know is the most important thing here - what was going through SA's mind when this happened. Even if he didn't have intention, it does look very close to intentional. I'm not saying it was, but it LOOKS that way. I don't understand how he would do something to risk this child's life so heinously, for 20-plus seconds. The chances of her falling were 80 to 100% - he did let go of her. That's the one and only thing that mattered, holding on to Chloe.

This, in bold, Is what I can’t get around. “Even if he didn’t have intention, it does look very close to intentional.”
That puts it all into perspective; to me, his actions appeared deliberate and with intent. I truly can’t fathom that anyone can have such horribly flawed judgment when it comes to the care of a child. I mean, would he have also let her run around in the street? Leave her home alone while he ran to the corner coffee shop? Let her ride in the car without her car seat? Leave her to die in a hot car? The list could go on.

He’ll never be at peace until he owns up to it.

 

[Safeguard]

That statement has bothered me from the get go. I have to wonder if Winkleman is simply running with what SA and the parents have told him. The whole banging on the glass may even ring hollow to him but technically he's obligated to support his clients' story. Since KW is also a lawyer she and Winkleman may struggle a bit over how they proceed. JMO though.
Video shows girl's final moments with grandfather before cruise ship death

Huh. I got the exact opposite impression. Sam originally told PR authorities that he accidentally dropped Chloe out the window.

Only after Winkleman gets involved, the story changes. In SA's televised acount, I feel like he almost sounded embarrassed and not authentic imo.

I think Winkleman saw the footage, and made up a (semi) plausible story, that he was able to match to that picture of Chloe at the hockey game, because in one part of the video, her arms/hands are outstretched very, very similarly to that photo.