Midwestmom2019
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2019
- Messages
- 2,440
- Reaction score
- 20,812
Was the video filed with the Motion to Dismiss? Was it sealed?
I know. Morbid, but I have to see how he could be so incredibly careless.
IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #6
- Thread starter IceIce9
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
- Status
Was the video filed with the Motion to Dismiss? Was it sealed?
I know. Morbid, but I have to see how he could be so incredibly careless.
BetteDavisEyes
Fasten your seatbelts...
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2010
- Messages
- 35,817
- Reaction score
- 82,040
When I looked at the court documents w/photos today, I noticed once again how far Grandpa allows Chloe to get away from him on her way to the "wall of windows" 
It's difficult to judge from the photo, but it looks like Chloe could be 8-10 feet ahead of Grandpa as she toddled into the Squeeze bar! Chloe was in danger before Grandpa lifted her up and held her outside the window 
It's difficult to judge from the photo, but it looks like Chloe could be 8-10 feet ahead of Grandpa as she toddled into the Squeeze bar! Chloe was in danger before Grandpa lifted her up and held her outside the window 
neesaki
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2007
- Messages
- 16,064
- Reaction score
- 49,611
Same here, it’s truly incomprehensible.
BetteDavisEyes
Fasten your seatbelts...
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2010
- Messages
- 35,817
- Reaction score
- 82,040
Yes, I believe the video has been filed/transmitted. Only photos (stills from video) appear in the actual court documents that have been posted.
SaguaroSpirit
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2016
- Messages
- 1,943
- Reaction score
- 19,380
ALMOST like he was hoping someone would trip over her or something? Chloe's safety was surely far down on SA's list of priorities, it seems. Apparently keeping her safe was just not important to anyone in her life...glass banging, being taken to a pro hockey game very soon after being released from the hospital, etc. Even just standing by the glass at a hockey game is just not all that of a great idea, as pucks have been known to shatter that glass JMOO.When I looked at the court documents w/photos today, I noticed once again how far Grandpa allows Chloe to get away from him on her way to the "wall of windows"
"then held her by and out of the open window for thirty four seconds before he lost his grip and dropped Chloe out of the window."
this is from the section with the photos:
"6. Mr. Anello stays in front of the open window and exposes Chloe to the open window, which was 11 decks high off the ground, with nothing but a concrete pier below, for approximately 34 seconds at which time she unfortunately fell."
Exposed could mean anything from he set her on the rail in front of, set her on the window frame in front of, or flat out held her suspended outside of the window. The wording is very particular. They are covering all bases by saying that he had her "by and out" because he did both things but the exact length of time he actually held her out of the window is hard to determine from the angles of the camera.
But for the civil complaint, it isn't really relevant how long he actually held her outside, it's the plain fact that he is the one who put her in the window, and that she never would have been able to put herself in that position in the first place counter to the claims of the Wiegands attorney.
Yellowbeak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2019
- Messages
- 86
- Reaction score
- 582
I am curious as to why it takes the courts so long to hear motions etc.
It says they will have a phone meeting on March 11th. Why does it take so long?
It says they will have a phone meeting on March 11th. Why does it take so long?
SugarPlumLairy
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2019
- Messages
- 11
- Reaction score
- 105
Wow, V. Interesting reading, thank you Kindred.
So having read the motion to file video, it appears they only have those two angles? Would they not have to include any other cctv footage they want to rely on in defence or indeed have access to whether it proves their point or not?
Good to see them standing their ground on this.
So having read the motion to file video, it appears they only have those two angles? Would they not have to include any other cctv footage they want to rely on in defence or indeed have access to whether it proves their point or not?
Good to see them standing their ground on this.
There is no motion to seal anything. Everything is publicly accessible if you have a PACER account, but the video is not accessible with the documents because there is no way to electronically file it through the courts system. AKA probably just an unsupported file type given that they are providing proprietary software so it can be viewed. That's what the "motion to conventionally file" is. It just asks permission/provides notification to the judge that this is something physical that can/will be provided to the court for their consideration with their electronically filed documents.
Basically, if you were hoping I could get my hands on their good copies of the videos the answer is no, but it's not because it was sealed lol.
@Kindred or anyone else who can help me out.... I am a bit confused.
Is this Motion to Dismiss a request that the Weigand’s entire civil lawsuit against them be thrown out?
If that is a real possibility, why is there a status conference for the civil suit set up for March 11?
For Federal court, two months isn't bad.
I personally don't know if they would HAVE to provide all of their footage for the civil case just for the motion to dismiss. As stated in the motion:
"While the video clearly demonstrates the factual misstatements in the Complaint, it is not necessary for the Court to address these since Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. More precisely, Plaintiffs’ claims must fail because:
1. Plaintiffs’ injury was caused by Mr. Anello’s irresponsible and reckless act of holding Chloe out of a window he knew to be open, and not any purported negligence on the part of RCL.
2. No facts are alleged that would show RCL knew or had reason to know there was any dangerous condition that would result in Chole’s death.
3. RCL owed no duty to warn Plaintiffs of the open and obvious danger associated with putting a child through an open window. Such reckless actions require no warning. Individuals merely need to use their basic senses to appreciate the obvious nature of the danger.
And: 4. Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently allege that any of RCL’s purported acts or omissions was the proximate cause of the incident or that they owed a duty to prevent the unforeseeable and irresponsible acts of Chloe’s step grandfather."
At this early stage of the game the video is just gravy. The complaint already is pure drivel, the video just shows that even if they had a legitimate claim, there is nothing they could have done or anticipated what SA did and ultimately HE is the reason that Chloe fell to her death. It could be there are more videos but those two are the best angles of what happened. It could be that any other angles were completely obscured and useless. Who knows? If the case isn't dismissed there is always the standard discovery period where all evidence must be turned over, so if there are actually any more it would probably come out then.
Yes, RCCL is requesting the entire civil case be thrown out WITH PREJUDICE, meaning that they would be barred from attempting another suit on this matter. And yes it is a very real possibility that it might be. The status conference is just that, a status conference. The judge wants to talk to both legal teams to discuss the merits of the case. It's standard and doesn't really mean one side has an advantage over the other.
BetteDavisEyes
Fasten your seatbelts...
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2010
- Messages
- 35,817
- Reaction score
- 82,040
Photos are included in the dismissal document. See Kindred's post #437. Court document is PDF file. The photos are stills from the video that we've seen previously.
Motion To Dismiss starting on page 4
Attachments
neesaki
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2007
- Messages
- 16,064
- Reaction score
- 49,611
I found them, didn’t realize I hadn’t downloaded that document with the photos. Thanks!
Thank you too, Kindred!
Opportunity to Inspect Ship. Short Notice?
@Kindred
Thanks for posting these motions, in post 437. https://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachments/request-for-protective-order-pdf.226028/ . Enlightening.
.
1) The request claims January 3 is RCL's "first ever contact" * w law firm re refurbishment, thus the short notice made inspection difficult to schedule or suggest is almost impossible.
<<< Yeah, the refurb & dry dock was such a big, deep, dark secret
, that Fr/Seas webpages announced the refurb months before Jan 3. And Winkleman insinuated RCL's refurb was a scheme to intentionally destroy evd that would make the parents' case, as if refurb's sole purpose was preventing inspection. Sarc. >>>
2) Motion states Winkleman suggested RCL bring ship to Miami, so they could conduct inspection.
<<< Boy, oh, boy. That shows Winkleman's spirit of cooperation in trying to resolve the issue without seeking court order.Ask a 154,000+ gross ton ship (w berths for 4500+ guests & 1300+ crew) to leave San Juan home port, head to Miami, a distance 1,033 miles (1662 km, one way, okay, <--- that's flying but still approx). Why, no bother at all for RCL . Much easier than Winkleman flying ~10 ppl from Miami, & elsewhere in US, to San Juan. Sarc. >>>
3) Motion continues re possible inspection dates, & dangers in travel to PR, the earthquakes, aftershocks, etc.
<<< Gee, the nerve of that RCL causing earthquakes. That company will stoop to any low, just trying to slither out of letting Winkleman's posse inspect ship. Sarc >>>
@Kindred
Thanks for posting these motions, in post 437. https://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachments/request-for-protective-order-pdf.226028/ . Enlightening..
1) The request claims January 3 is RCL's "first ever contact" * w law firm re refurbishment, thus the short notice made inspection difficult to schedule or suggest is almost impossible.
<<< Yeah, the refurb & dry dock was such a big, deep, dark secret
, that Fr/Seas webpages announced the refurb months before Jan 3. And Winkleman insinuated RCL's refurb was a scheme to intentionally destroy evd that would make the parents' case, as if refurb's sole purpose was preventing inspection. Sarc. >>>2) Motion states Winkleman suggested RCL bring ship to Miami, so they could conduct inspection.
<<< Boy, oh, boy. That shows Winkleman's spirit of cooperation in trying to resolve the issue without seeking court order.
Ask a 154,000+ gross ton ship (w berths for 4500+ guests & 1300+ crew) to leave San Juan home port, head to Miami, a distance 1,033 miles (1662 km, one way, okay, <--- that's flying but still approx). Why, no bother at all for RCL . Much easier than Winkleman flying ~10 ppl from Miami, & elsewhere in US, to San Juan. Sarc. >>>3) Motion continues re possible inspection dates, & dangers in travel to PR, the earthquakes,
aftershocks, etc. <<< Gee, the nerve of that RCL causing earthquakes.
That company will stoop to any low, just trying to slither out of letting Winkleman's posse inspect ship. Sarc >>>
Last edited:
BetteDavisEyes
Fasten your seatbelts...
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2010
- Messages
- 35,817
- Reaction score
- 82,040
RCCL had the trump card, and they knew it. I suspect this isn't RCCL's first rodeo with Mr. Winkleman. They are sticking it to him and letting him know that they're onto him and his money-grubbing.
No they actually filed a motion to admit the video because you can’t e-file media - we had video as evidence and had to bring the thumb drive to the hearing - they are offering to provide a laptop according to the motion - I expect MW will file a motion to seal if the order is entered
JMO
- Status