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

[Snoods]

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.

The first thing I thought when looking at the photo was how it looked like he was holding her up in a “Superman” position, flying her through the air outside the window.

 

[Snoods]

DBM Sorry double post again.

 

[TDoc72]

Security is very tight when ships are in port. I'm sure there is exterior video from the ship or other surveillance cameras at the pier. Perhaps the video that was filed in the dismissal is deemed sufficient proof at this juncture.

Maybe any dock footage (if it exists) isn’t owned by RCCL?

I gasp every time I see how HIGH he lifted Chloe up and out the opening! Why, why would he do that!?

He had* to lift her high for her feet to clear the rail. I think of it like putting a toddler in a crib (not a pack-n-play/portable crib as those tend to be low). You need to lift them much higher than the rail of their feet will catch on it b/c they don’t know to raise their feet.
*Not had to, he should’ve left her on the ground.

 

[Lawsmygame2]

In the motion for a protective order filed on January 7th, MW says that RCCL has never produced the videos to the plaintiffs. Later in the motion it states MW obtained/viewed the copy of the videos from SA’s criminal offense attorney. Although technically RCCL had not provided the video (I am unsure whether RCCL was under any obligation to share until or even after PR investigation was complete), MW obviously has/had a copy of it because he spoke with DB on or about November 21 and showed him the video. Further, during DB interview with SA on November 26, DB and SA discuss the video. So, in my mind, SA has/had seem the video too and possibly KW/AW has/had also.

I find it curious that after seeing the video, the attorney for the Wiegands still filed suit on December 12, 2019 and still maintained the “in a child’s play area,” “wall of glass,” “thought the window was closed,” and “lifted Chloe to bang of the glass” stories. Just ridiculous.

Another thing I found strange was the motion stated “Plaintiff counsel advised RCCL on July 9, 2019 (2 days after the subject incident) that it represented Plaintiff, that a claim was being made against RCCL, and that Plaintiff demanded the preservation of evidence.” Yes, we all knew he was employed within 2 days but wow...still hard to imagine “thinking in these terms” so quickly after the tragic accident of your daughter.

One other thing...I wish the court could use MW statements in the criminal trial. (Lol...I know they can’t). One of my favorites (stupid and telling statements) is when DB asked MW, “ why did he lean forward with her...” to which he answered, “it’s obvious why he leaned forward with her...to get a better view.” Not that she wanted to “bang on the glass”..the absurd story they have presented.

 

[katydid23]

In the motion for a protective order filed on January 7th, MW says that RCCL has never produced the videos to the plaintiffs. Later in the motion it states MW obtained/viewed the copy of the videos from SA’s criminal offense attorney. Although technically RCCL had not provided the video (I am unsure whether RCCL was under any obligation to share until or even after PR investigation was complete), MW obviously has/had a copy of it because he spoke with DB on or about November 21 and showed him the video. Further, during DB interview with SA on November 26, DB and SA discuss the video. So, in my mind, SA has/had seem the video too and possibly KW/AW has/had also.

I find it curious that after seeing the video, the attorney for the Wiegands still filed suit on December 12, 2019 and still maintained the “in a child’s play area,” “wall of glass,” “thought the window was closed,” and “lifted Chloe to bang of the glass” stories. Just ridiculous.

Another thing I found strange was the motion stated “Plaintiff counsel advised RCCL on July 9, 2019 (2 days after the subject incident) that it represented Plaintiff, that a claim was being made against RCCL, and that Plaintiff demanded the preservation of evidence.” Yes, we all knew he was employed within 2 days but wow...still hard to imagine “thinking in these terms” so quickly after the tragic accident of your daughter.

One other thing...I wish the court could use MW statements in the criminal trial. (Lol...I know they can’t). One of my favorites (stupid and telling statements) is when DB asked MW, “ why did he lean forward with her...” to which he answered, “it’s obvious why he leaned forward with her...to get a better view.” Not that she wanted to “bang on the glass”..the absurd story they have presented.

"Another thing I found strange was the motion stated “Plaintiff counsel advised RCCL on July 9, 2019 (2 days after the subject incident) that it represented Plaintiff, that a claim was being made against RCCL, and that Plaintiff demanded the preservation of evidence.”

Yes to the above statement. Two days later their attorney is announcing to RCCL that they are bringing a lawsuit? I would have thought the parents would have been in fetal positions under the covers for the first 48 hours. Not making their minds up about legal strategy already. It is surprising, IMO.

 

[they'll get you]

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

I’m thinking Winkleman was taking information, photos etc from his clients as he couldn’t gain access to view the scene.

 

[they'll get you]

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.

The roof on deck 11 serves as a walking track on deck 12.

 

[Lawsmygame2]

MW files this pleading in the lawsuit:

“21. An inspection of the scene after the subject incident revealed that all the glass panes around the single open pane of glass were closed and that this was the only single pane, among dozens of panes, that was slid completely open.”

IMO The videos indicate otherwise. Because he had already viewed the video before he filed the lawsuit, he blatantly misrepresented the facts. Further, one picture (may be others too) filed with the suit is not a true representation of the area at the time of the incident. Who closed all the windows (even the one Chloe fell out on)? This picture was taken while the “caution do not enter” tape was still roping off the area. I assume this was the police tape? And who took these pics?

https://www.lipcon.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/DE-1-Wrongful-Death-Complaint.pdf

 

[oviedo]

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.

Yep

 

[oviedo]

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.

Perhaps even tossing her up and catching her?? I’ve said it before I don’t think this was the first time he did this with her IMO

 

[oviedo]

MW files this pleading in the lawsuit:

“21. An inspection of the scene after the subject incident revealed that all the glass panes around the single open pane of glass were closed and that this was the only single pane, among dozens of panes, that was slid completely open.”

IMO The videos indicate otherwise. Because he had already viewed the video before he filed the lawsuit, he blatantly misrepresented the facts. Further, one picture (may be others too) filed with the suit is not a true representation of the area at the time of the incident. Who closed all the windows (even the one Chloe fell out on)? This picture was taken while the “caution do not enter” tape was still roping off the area. I assume this was the police tape? And who took these pics?

https://www.lipcon.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/DE-1-Wrongful-Death-Complaint.pdf

Devastated grandfather of toddler who died falling from his arms on cruise ship arrives in Chicago | Daily Mail Online

The window on the far left is the one Chloe fell through on Sunday while being held against the railing by her grandfather. The others appear to have handles which allow them to be slid open This photograph was taken by Chloe's father after the accident

snipped -BBM

 

[Lawsmygame2]

Devastated grandfather of toddler who died falling from his arms on cruise ship arrives in Chicago | Daily Mail Online

The window on the far left is the one Chloe fell through on Sunday while being held against the railing by her grandfather. The others appear to have handles which allow them to be slid open This photograph was taken by Chloe's father after the accident

snipped -BBM

Yes. Thanks. Looks totally different then the pic I referenced that were filed with law suit.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

I gasp every time I see how HIGH he lifted Chloe up and out the opening! Why, why would he do that!?

Um, to chuck her out that very window, perhaps?

 

[Only4Justice]

I think SA will maintain that he thought there was glass there. But if the Wiegands themselves could not have anticipated that he was color-blind and couldn't see glass, how could RCCL have anticipated that?

Perhaps that line of thought will get the Wiegands' civil case tossed out. SA can still pursue his claim of no negligence.

AND Chloe is still DEAD. Geez, this case makes me sick.

 

[Only4Justice]

Um, to chuck her out that very window, perhaps?

@SaguaroSpirit I now think you have been right all along that this was intentional. There's no other way to explain his crazy actions!

 

[justbreathe]

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

I do not. I think if they were able to prove intent they would have upped the charges.

In the absence of the proverbial “smoking gun” - emails or conversations or letters about wanting her gone - I’m not sure they could prove the necessary elements for a murder charge, much less a conviction. Imo.

 

[justbreathe]

Does this mean there are really only 2 videos that captured SA’s actions? That’s what RCCL seems to say in their motion to dismiss but I find that a bit hard to believe... How could a billion dollar ship only have 2 videos which captured SA’s actions?

I think it very specifically says two cameras inside. There may be outside views, too. No one is leaking that horrific thing.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

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

Exactly! Not to mention also that the glass on the uppermost decks of the ship is generally clear - not tinted. Those decks are intended to provide guests with optimum sun and sea breezes. Exterior areas of the upper decks generally have only railings around the perimeter of the vessel. Who's to say that Grandpa would not have lifted Chloe to let her peer over the railing at the passing sea? Regardless of where SA was on the ship, and regardless of the window/glass variations and/or railings, Chloe was in danger in his "care". The man was careless and reckless and had no concern whatsoever for little Chloe's safety. Shame on him!

 

[justbreathe]

@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?

They are giving them time to withdraw or settle the suit.

Courts hate to make decisions. They like people to make their own decisions.

 

[justbreathe]

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

Even though 2 windows down is another open window.