IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #6

[SaguaroSpirit]

Hello everyone! Been lurking for a while because with the family being silent since the video release and most of the arguments here becoming circular I was waiting for something to happen to rear my ugly head again. I did some poking back through to see what I missed and if anyone else brought this up yet but there's been some activity on the civil case.

Wiegands filed an emergency motion for a protective order to try and stop RCCL from the long planned and publicly announced refurbishment it's supposed to be going in for.

RCCL filed response requesting dismissal for failure to state a claim.

There's some other stuff but right now those are the two most interesting things in my opinion. The emergency motion gives an interesting timeline of communications with the civil lawyers and RCCL, and includes a transcript of an email from RCCL about why they won't give physical copies of the CCTV footage absent a court order (because they don't trust Winkleman and his continuing TV appearances) and have only allowed viewings. All occurring BEFORE the filing of the civil suit on Dec 12th. It also shows the family was offered access to the ship back in September to be able to do their own investigation but the legal team refused.

Part of me now wonders if this wasn't intentional. That the law firm decided to wait to file knowing that the refurbishment was coming up so that now they can claim that RCCL is "destroying evidence" with a renovation that was planned at least a year in advance of this incident. Not to mention the chance to disrupt RCCL plans and cost them money by forcing a delay in moving the ship/starting work.

I'll be uploading documents shortly.

***EDIT - Almost forgot, status conference in the civil suit is set for March 11th

I have thought this was intentional from the beginning. Hopefully the last few pieces of the puzzle will start falling in to place and there will be some measure of justice for Chloe!

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

WOW. Thank you so much for posting this Kindred! So RCCL is unequivocally stating that the video (esp. their HD version) shows SA holding Chloe OUTSIDE the window. The debate about whether he did so or not can finally be rested...

Original reports indicated this exactly! Then, MW took over and started spinning, and spinning, and spinning...

The lawsuit should be tossed, and SA should be convicted.

 

[justbreathe]

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION

CASE NO. 19-CV-25100 DLG WIEGAND VS RCCL

FILED ON 1/8/2020

also included in this upload is the accompanying

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONVENTIONALLY FILE VIDEO FOOTAGE REFERENCED IN MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION


Basically, RCCL isn't playing around. They're putting it right out there that there is no one to blame for this but SA

Thanks so much! What a mess this all is. Has it been confirmed if the parents have or have not viewed the video?

 

[WiseGuy]

Very interesting reading - thank you to those who did all the research.

So the motion to dismiss was filed one week ago today. Any idea how long it should take the court to respond?

Also, it's interesting that in their motion, RCL never mentions the warning in their standard passenger contract not to sit on railings. And I guess it's not really necessary, since they really hammer home the fact that no reasonable person would hoist a family member through an open window and drop her, and indeed no one ever has.

RCL comes just short of explicitly stating "this is a frivolous law suit". I wonder how close Winkleman came to violating ethical standards by filing such a meritless suit in the first place. Is it ethical to make a bunch of unsubstantiated accusations simply hoping something will stick, or hoping the defendant will pay a ransom to make the suit go away?

 

[oviedo]

Very interesting reading - thank you to those who did all the research.

So the motion to dismiss was filed one week ago today. Any idea how long it should take the court to respond?

Also, it's interesting that in their motion, RCL never mentions the warning in their standard passenger contract not to sit on railings. And I guess it's not really necessary, since they really hammer home the fact that no reasonable person would hoist a family member through an open window and drop her, and indeed no one ever has.

RCL comes just short of explicitly stating "this is a frivolous law suit". I wonder how close Winkleman came to violating ethical standards by filing such a meritless suit in the first place. Is it ethical to make a bunch of unsubstantiated accusations simply hoping something will stick, or hoping the defendant will pay a ransom to make the suit go away?

I don’t believe the court responds - the attorneys should set the motion to dismiss for hearing or else they could stipulate to a dismissal but that would end the lawsuit IMO so this is doubtful. Did RCCL file a counterclaim? I haven’t read through the documents yet but really appreciate the upload here

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Thanks so much! What a mess this all is. Has it been confirmed if the parents have or have not viewed the video?

Chloe's parents have claimed that they have not seen the video even though they were given the opportunity. It would seem that they filed the lawsuit against RCCL without knowing exactly what Grandpa did and how Chloe fell to her death due to his extreme recklessness. I think they're afraid of what they might see and would prefer to not know the truth.

 

[oviedo]

Chloe's parents have claimed that they have not seen the video even though they were given the opportunity. It would seem that they filed the lawsuit against RCCL without knowing exactly what Grandpa did and how Chloe fell to her death due to his extreme recklessness. I think they're afraid of what they might see and would prefer to not know the truth.

Well this is very damning to the W family IMO. RCL has two videos and included high res pictures of his actions - he held her for 34 seconds outside the window !! They filed a very well-plead motion to dismiss IMO and no counterclaim- it’s extremely detailed - they should prevail and I hope the today show and CBS morning shows pick up this Response and report on it but I doubt it
JMO

 

[oviedo]

Also I added the documents to the media thread

 

[sl222]

"What was unforeseeable to RCL was that a young child’s grandfather would engage in the reckless act of hoisting his granddaughter out of an open window..." Thanks, Kindred, for sharing this information. The attorneys have done a great job and I hope the lawsuit against RCCL is dismissed.

 

[oviedo]

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION

CASE NO. 19-CV-25100 DLG WIEGAND VS RCCL

FILED ON 1/8/2020

also included in this upload is the accompanying

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONVENTIONALLY FILE VIDEO FOOTAGE REFERENCED IN MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION


Basically, RCCL isn't playing around. They're putting it right out there that there is no one to blame for this but SA

Thanks very much @Kindred
This proves what many of us have speculated since July IMO
-34 seconds outside the window (from the motion to dismiss) no wonder she fell
JMO

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Grandpa KNEW the window was open! What was he thinking when he lifted Chloe up and held her outside the window for 34 seconds? Was he trying to frighten her? Was he "showing off"? WTF!?! Shaking my head...

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Thanks to those who shared the court documents. Definitely worthwhile reading for everyone who has followed this case. Justice for Chloe!

 

[oviedo]

Grandpa KNEW the window was open! What was he thinking when he lifted Chloe up and held her outside the window for 34 seconds? Was he trying to frighten her? Was he "showing off"? WTF!?! Shaking my head...

I really commend RCL that they sat silent all this time
IMO

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

"What was unforeseeable to RCL was that a young child’s grandfather would engage in the reckless act of hoisting his granddaughter out of an open window..." Thanks, Kindred, for sharing this information. The attorneys have done a great job and I hope the lawsuit against RCCL is dismissed.

I add my thanks, as well!

 

[oviedo]

I also like that RCL is offering a laptop to the court in its motion to file the video with their proprietary software installed to view the video - that IMO is going to be crystal clear - MW must have thought the public was stupid and would believe his spin
JMO

 

[drama_farmer]

Anyone catch the part of the document where the accused window says "It's an open and shut case?"

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

 

[Kindred]

Very interesting reading - thank you to those who did all the research.

So the motion to dismiss was filed one week ago today. Any idea how long it should take the court to respond?

I don’t believe the court responds - the attorneys should set the motion to dismiss for hearing or else they could stipulate to a dismissal but that would end the lawsuit IMO so this is doubtful. Did RCCL file a counterclaim? I haven’t read through the documents yet but really appreciate the upload here

snipped for brevity

No counterclaim filed. If you read through their response RCCL clearly puts the blame for the accident on SA, and the blame for the frivolous filing on Winkleman and his firm.

From the motion to dismiss:

"Unfortunately, RCL can no longer limit its expressions to those of sympathy and support. After months of bearing false and inaccurate accusations, from the Wiegands’ attorneys through the press, RCL now faces the legally mandated task of responding to a lawsuit the Wiegands’ attorneys did not file in good faith."

Basically sounds to me like RCCL is trying to politely say that Wiegand's legal team has been borderline unethical in not only the filing but the media parade they set up and possibly the advice they've been giving their client. There isn't really anything to counterclaim for, other than possibly to request sanctions against Winkleman.

The court has gone and scheduled a telephone conference between the parties for March 11th to discuss the status of the suit. I didn't post that document because the majority of it is instructions for the attorneys on how to access the phone conference system including specific codes that they should use in reference to this case. I didn't feel anything in that added anything to the discussion other than the date. But if anything I'm sure we'll find out then if this case is going to get tossed or if the court will proceed then.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Anyone catch the part of the document where the accused window says "It's an open and shut case?"

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

Thanks for the laugh A little levity never hurts when we are following these serious cases.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

I have thought this was intentional from the beginning. Hopefully the last few pieces of the puzzle will start falling in to place and there will be some measure of justice for Chloe!

Does anyone think there's a possibility that the prosecutor could revisit a murder charge?

 

[Kindred]

Thanks so much! What a mess this all is. Has it been confirmed if the parents have or have not viewed the video?

From my understanding of the documents, unless the DA or SA's criminal attorney sat them down and showed it to them, or Winkleman showed them the one he managed to get (I'm assuming from the criminal lawyer) no, it seems like they haven't seen it at all before the filing. The timeline given by the plaintiffs in their emergency motion show only their one lawyer (not Winkleman) agreed to a viewing with the cruise line, no one else.