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

[Midwestmom2019]

Hmmm, I wonder why it states fixed glass on 12. Maybe he thought they were fixed, but aren’t? Gonna go back and watch video.

ETA: You’re right, they do open, same as in 11.

Winkie Dinkie made a booboo.

 

[neesaki]

Winkie Dinkie made a booboo.

One of many?

 

[MsMarple]

JMO, trying to look at this the way an impartial judge or jury would -

The RCCL document, which was very well crafted, stating that SA held her out the window is only a document stating that, the same way almost everyone who has seen the video says. It did not PROVE that by measurement SA was out that window, or that the baby was outside the window until she fell forward.

Thinking about that, this may be where RCCL has stated something as a fact that is not known to be a fact, unless there is a video from outside the ship showing it.

As for Winkleman, he "represents" the Wiegands. IMO it is a little unfair to pin the misrepresentation all on him, when he is only acting as the voice of his clients and can only say what they have told him and approve of.

With all that said, IMO again, AW and SA knew from the beginning that SA was negligent here. SW made a statement to the police, AW supposedly made a statement to the press. It is KW that cannot accept what happened. The other two are deferring to her grief, and afraid to say "no".

Could be Winkleman also is deferring to her, since she is also an attorney, and he knows that if he didn't take the case, another attorney would.

You make some good points. My understanding is that Winkleman, as his clients' representative, is supposed to depend upon their statements as fact. However, if he later learns that his clients have misrepresented the facts or if they were honestly mistaken then he is bound to correct any mistakes. By signing the complaint he is verifying that the information in the complaint is true as far as he is able to verify such. If the court finds that he did not correct mistakes that he was made aware of then he is liable for sanction by the court.

But that doesn't mean he must accept RCCL's dispute of the facts. RCCL is basically claiming the facts are different from what was stated in the complaint. So yes RCCL must also present what they believe are the facts and if they are misrepresenting then the same holds for them.

I'm kind of surprised there isn't additional video that clearly shows what happened. I know ships have outside CTTV cameras to monitor man overboard instances. Are they active when in port? It seems not. So without further video from that or from the dock then what we currently know appears to be the total of videos that captured Chloe's fall. Currently we don't know what higher resolution video shows, only what RCCL claims.

But in the end, as you said it's clear SA was negligent. So the video may not play as important a role as we here feel it does. RCCL is in essence saying there is no standing to the Wiegand's claims and I agree.

 

[Forever Young]

Another factor that I have thought about possibly playing into this, is the difference between how a cop thinks and how an attorney thinks. If you do a YouTube search on "do not talk to the police" you will bring up many attorneys telling you why you do not have to and why you should not.

IMO, AW, as a cop, thinks that if a question is asked, you should answer honestly. SA, as a common citizen, also thinks like this. KW, as a attorney, knows that you never do yourself any favors answering questions from the police, even if you think you are entirely innocent. It can only be held against you.

 

[katydid23]

Just a guess.... maybe he wants to show that as there are the fixed glass windows on deck 12, why are there open windows on deck 11.

ETA: Which IMO is just more BS.

Deck 12 doesn't have a roof covering it, unlike deck 11. So who needs open windows when there is an open sky overhead?

 

[Forever Young]

Hmmm, I wonder why it states fixed glass on 12. Maybe he thought they were fixed, but aren’t? Gonna go back and watch video.

ETA: You’re right, they do open, same as in 11.

As I recall, Winkleman referred to Deck 11 as a fixed wall of glass, also, with only one opening in the entire wall.

 

[katydid23]

In the article it says he would mull over the offer.

“Perez said, though added his client would still mull over the offer, “

I think you can take a plea deal right up until the trial starts. I have no idea, JMO

Only if the plea deal is still on the table. But I am not sure this deal is still available.

 

[MsMarple]

Only if the plea deal is still on the table. But I am not sure this deal is still available.

I sure the hell hope not. SA needs to go to trial, especially if he is going to continue to insist that he didn't know the window was open because he's colorblind, that in his opinion he no longer blames himself for Chloe's death, that he believes RCCL is solely at fault, that RCCL just needs to "Just fix it. Just fix the boat."

Own it, dude, just own it.

 

[Lawsmygame2]

As I recall, Winkleman referred to Deck 11 as a fixed wall of glass, also, with only one opening in the entire wall.

Exactly. However, if I recall correctly, in the videos of the incident, there were clearly other open windows because the video show others looking out the windows to see what happened. IMO, Winkleman has made a number of false statements and allegations. I don’t know if it is because he failed to conduct an adequate investigation of the ship and/or incident or what but, IMO, it makes him look like he is not a very good attorney and gives the attorney profession a bad name.

 

[katydid23]

Maybe there should be no civil suits like this immediately following such a tragedy, and so early in the grieving process. A waiting period might be not such a bad idea. Oh well.

The family didn't need to bring suit so quickly. I wonder why they did. I tend to believe it was a legal strategy.

I think they wanted to rush bad publicity out there on tv and in the press, to force RCCL to make a quick settlement for cash. And that would help in any legal charges brought against grandfather.

Didn't work.

 

[Sweetsbeach]

Man...the RCCL still shots are truly baffling. It kind of reminds me of the time Michael Jackson held his baby over a balcony.

 

[Chikkamma]

IMO, SA’s decision to accept or reject a plea (if its even an option) will hinge entirely on if the civil suit is allowed to go forward or dismissed with prejudice. And it seems like we’ll know the status of the Weigands’ civil suit before SA’s criminal trial begins.

If the civil case gets dismissed with prejudice, I think SA’s talk of “clearing his name” will go out the window [so to speak] and he will be begging prosecutors for a deal.

If the civil case is allowed to move forward or dismissed without prejudice, I think SA will be heading to trial.

 

[Snoods]

"Here, common experience dictates that a person can fall through any open window, regardless of design, if they lean out too far, because a window is a purposeful opening in a structure for light and air. This is not a dangerous condition but an apparent and obvious feature of any window."

Omg, this is just too good...

BBM RSBM This paragraph from RCL’s motion oozes how they really feel about SA’s ridiculous claim and the family’s lawsuit against them. I’m so glad they are staying strong and not folding with a quick and easy settlement, like the family IMO expected.

Describing the purpose of a window and the danger of holding someone outside one like they were talking to a five year old is perfect.

 

[neesaki]

Deck 12 doesn't have a roof covering it, unlike deck 11. So who needs open windows when there is an open sky overhead?

Hmm, idk, I was just going by the video posted here, as it appears part of the area is under roof, similar to deck 11. And it showed windows with some open.

Odd though, the video of the area looked much like deck 11 to me. Does anyone know if the two decks are really that similar? TIA

 

[Snoods]

Jeeesus. The still shots of SA leaning out the window before heaving Chloe over his head and outside the window almost takes my breath away.



Innocent Chloe in her little white sun bonnet just moments before her death breaks my heart.

 

[Lawsmygame2]

Jeeesus. The still shots of SA leaning out the window before heaving Chloe over his head and outside the window almost takes my breath away.
View attachment 226251
View attachment 226252

So very sad. Poor innocent Chloe.

IMO, when the court presents the still shots from the video footage from the other angle (from behind), they will show even more horrifying images. Unfortunately, no pictures will help us to understand why he did what he did. Fortunately, they will help to get justice for Chloe.

 

[Snoods]

DBM

 

[Kindred]

JMO, trying to look at this the way an impartial judge or jury would -

The RCCL document, which was very well crafted, stating that SA held her out the window is only a document stating that, the same way almost everyone who has seen the video says. It did not PROVE that by measurement SA was out that window, or that the baby was outside the window until she fell forward.

Thinking about that, this may be where RCCL has stated something as a fact that is not known to be a fact, unless there is a video from outside the ship showing it.

As for Winkleman, he "represents" the Wiegands. IMO it is a little unfair to pin the misrepresentation all on him, when he is only acting as the voice of his clients and can only say what they have told him and approve of.

With all that said, IMO again, AW and SA knew from the beginning that SA was negligent here. SW made a statement to the police, AW supposedly made a statement to the press. It is KW that cannot accept what happened. The other two are deferring to her grief, and afraid to say "no".

Could be Winkleman also is deferring to her, since she is also an attorney, and he knows that if he didn't take the case, another attorney would.

1- It is not RCCL's job to prove that SA held Chloe out of the window. That is for the criminal court in PR to navigate. Their point with the video is that SA, a third party that the plaintiffs ARE NOT SUING is the one who put Chloe into the position that caused her death. He is the one who "exposed her" by placing her "by and out" of the clearly open window in an act that no one could have anticipated. The video reinforces this statement by showing him having to lift her up over his head to get her over the rail and into the window, whether outside of it or just on the ledge, his actions took her from safely inside to dead and outside. HE is the negligent party, not them, and therefore the lawsuit should be dismissed.

2- Winkleman may represent the Wiegands and have to present the facts that they give him, but this does not negate his own due diligence in investigating and ensuring that these are indeed facts. In their filing, the Wiegands insist that the incident occurred in a children's play area and made it out as if every child on board was at risk of falling out of one of these "hidden holes" just from being in a place that they were supposed to be able to safely play without a care. What do you think the judge would think to see the photos from the video and seeing not a play area filled with children but a bar filled with adults and little Chloe being the only child there?

3 - Speaking of "proving by measurement" the plaintiffs legal team also made the claims that the ship was in violation of industry standards and regulations without ever inspecting the ship. At first, it seemed like a reasonable argument but then it comes out that the defense doesn't actually know if the ship is in violation of any regulations. They filed without ever taking measurements or inspecting the windows/scene, even TURNED DOWN OFFERS to do so before filing. The source they are trying to cite as industry-standard states clearly and specifically it is for buildings, NOT cruise ships. That isn't a kind of claim that you would expect to come from a regular old joe client. That's the lawyer talking. And even if the client was the one who came to him saying "they don't follow saftey codes and this is a death trap", it's the lawyers job to verify this BEFORE filing the case or at the very least knowing the standards that were. Instead, Winkleman filed without knowing if they can even prove this.

As a lawyer there is a fine line between finding creative arguments to score a win for/defend your client and throwing anything that sounds good at the wall hoping something sticks. As the complaint stands now it is definitely the later, and to me makes it evident that that's why they pushed the media circus so hard. They wanted to try the case in the court of public opinion hoping to shame the cruise line into a settlement out of court because they know they have no case

JMHO

 

[MassGuy]

BBM RSBM This paragraph from RCL’s motion oozes how they really feel about SA’s ridiculous claim and the family’s lawsuit against them. I’m so glad they are staying strong and not folding with a quick and easy settlement, like the family IMO expected.

Describing the purpose of a window and the danger of holding someone outside one like they were talking to a five year old is perfect.

That statement is pure gold.

I just can’t get over the complete insanity of this family’s lawsuit. The only way this child was in danger, was if someone went out of their way to see to it.

That’s exactly what happened.

Cruise ships have windows. Windows can typically be opened.

It’s almost as if people on a cruise ship enjoy the ocean breeze or something.

Weird.

 

[Lilibet]

Jeeesus. The still shots of SA leaning out the window before heaving Chloe over his head and outside the window almost takes my breath away.
View attachment 226251
View attachment 226252

Innocent Chloe in her little white sun bonnet just moments before her death breaks my heart.

View attachment 226253

The caption under the photo of SA holding Chloe out the windows says he “exposed her to the open window” for 34 seconds before dropping her! That ties in well with the initial report by the crew that he was playing a game...I think from his movements in the video, he was “flying” her in the air. Poor baby.