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

[fabvab]

Alright I couldn't get the doc to upload here but here is a link to where I've uploaded it to DocDroid

PLAINTIFFS’MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PRODUCEALL VIDEO FOOTAGE AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS UPON PRODUCTION OF VIDEO FOOTAGE
Wiegand vs RCCL CASE NO. 19-CV-25100-DLG filed 1/17/20

demand for all videos.pdf

Highlights include where Winky claims "Plaintiffs’ counsel(who is nearly identical in height and torso to Sam Anello)could not lean “out of the window frame” due to the distance between the railing and the window frame." but doesn't give any numbers for what SA or his own "height and torso" are. As well as the photo of Winky putting the Chloe doll ON THE WINDOW FRAME basically admitting SA did same.

The re-enactment with the doll makes me even more certain that he had Chloe out the window! This person also looks like their head is out the window when they lean over the rail!
it seemed like SA was taller than this person, especially because I don’t think SA would have leaned over the rail looking out for as long as he did if he had to stand on tip-toes Luke this pic shows.

 

[oviedo]

I agree. This isn't RCCL's first rodeo with MW. He makes a point of filing these lawsuits very quickly after an incident in hopes that the cruise line will agree to settle quickly to escape bad publicity. MW convinced his clients that they would receive a big payout because RCCL wouldn't want bad press about the death of a toddler on one of their ships. Once criminal charges were brought against SA, the case ceased to be an unfortunate "accident" for which RCCL would have likely compensated the family. The criminal charges put a damper on the lawsuit, and that's probably why Chloe's parents were against SA having any responsibility for what happened to their child.

I can’t agree with this more - those charges impacted his litigation strategy IMO

 

[jeena]

The re-enactment with the doll makes me even more certain that he had Chloe out the window! This person also looks like their head is out the window when they lean over the rail!
it seemed like SA was taller than this person, especially because I don’t think SA would have leaned over the rail looking out for as long as he did if he had to stand on tip-toes Luke this pic shows.

Holding a child standing on the rail is so dangerous a doll is used to stand in for Chloe in the re-enactment instead of a real toddler, but a real person standing in for SA is secure and safe behind the rail, like SA was.

 

[they'll get you]

Holding a child standing on the rail is so dangerous a doll is used to stand in for Chloe in the re-enactment instead of a real toddler, but a real person standing in for SA is secure and safe behind the rail, like SA was.

It’s far too dangerous to use a REAL toddler.
Try using a real toddler Winkleman.

 

[al66pine]

'Assign' % Liability to SA in Civil Case?

Could the judge in the civil case assign some percentage of fault and/or liability to SA even if he isn’t named?

@justbreathe
So when case is tried, (hypothetical) jury verdict =
----- negligence of RCL (the only named defendant) sole cause of Chloe's death.
----- damages award to plaintiff/parents, $5,000,000.
Then you want/are asking for the judge to "assign" certain % of fault/responsibility to SA (not named as def.) & judge to order SA to pay X % of $5,000,000?

Or maybe I'm not following your question?

 

[FactFinder3000]

This is Chloe's fault, of course. SA was just trying to make her happy, by accommodating "her" wish to "bang on glass".

Ugh! Let's blame a dead child for being dead. Not the adult charged with her care.

SA's pathetic story never made sense anyway. There is a whole wall of glass to bang on. Why does he choose the one panel that just happens to be an open window? Because he knows darn well it is open and they can see better. Just absolute pure carelessness. I sure hope he gets time in jail for killing that precious child.

 

[Forever Young]

I'm not seeing his feet as his legs seem to be obscured by the table. What it does establish is that he was bent over while given that we know he was bent over, Winkleman's claim would only be demonstrating further criminal negligence by showing SA's feet were off the floor when he was bent over in the video.

That's not how I'm taking it, IMO. It is being shown that he could not have reached outside the window frame "even if" he'd had his feet on the ledge. In other words, there was no way for him to breach the pane.

They aren't denying that he held her on the ledge. They are denying that he knew there was no glass there.

They aren't denying the "homicide" part. They are denying the "negligent" part.

 

[Forever Young]

Toddlers are top heavy, have very little core strength and are just getting the hang of coordination and balance to be able to walk. So why would he think it was a good idea to stand her on a railing?

He thought it would be OK to do so, because he thought there was glass there.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

He thought it would be OK to do so, because he thought there was glass there.

If SA was that out of it, he never should have been entrusted with Chloe.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

I’m sure they have concrete evidence. We’ve seen the videos. This lawsuit will take forever, unless they now choose to drop it, with Winkleman trashing them dishonestly, so from a bottom-line standpoint, the cruise line needs to let the public know that this is a frivolous lawsuit IMO.

There's "concrete" evidence, for sure Grandpa held little Chloe up to and out of an open window 11 stories above the "concrete" dock below. Due to Grandpa's reckless actions, the tiny toddler fell to her death on the "concrete" pier.

 

[al66pine]

Splitting Hairs, the Atty Way?
I join the many others here in thanking @Kindred for linking the civil case pleadings, motions, etc. Links plus analysis! Glad we have you on board @Kindred.

Just one point to others re Winkleman's "response" yesterday. From Kindred's link, Doc is titled:
"PLAINTIFFS’MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PRODUCEALL VIDEO FOOTAGE AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS UPON PRODUCTION OF VIDEO FOOTAGE" ? ? ?
^ is not Plaintiff's Response to RCL's Mo/Dis, IIUC, but W's motion asking court -
--- To order RCL to produce vids from more cameras. Not unexpected, imo.
--- For more time for plaintiff to file response to RCL's Mo/Dis. Not a big surprise,imo

So even tho yesterday Winkleman spilled a bunch digital ink w ^, it's my understanding he' s going to be splattering more ink for his actual "Reponse" to RCL's Mo/Dis.
More reading for us to look forward to?

(I may be misunderstanding/misinterp'ing something, so feel free to jump in, correct or clarify. Pls ).

 

[Forever Young]

This is Chloe's fault, of course. SA was just trying to make her happy, by accommodating "her" wish to "bang on glass".

Ugh! Let's blame a dead child for being dead. Not the adult charged with her care.

Why did he keep trying to reach her farther and farther out? To bang on the glass!

I still think this is negligent homicide. It was extremely negligent to lift her on the railing. But I am really starting to believe that he really did think there was glass there, at that moment in time.

I have been saying for a long time that I thought this "defense" (of not being able to get past the window opening) was what they would go for. I have done the measurements on myself, and I could not lean over a 4 foot high railing and forward 18 inches, then past that.

I brought it up in comment on the La Comay reenactment. They stated that the 18 inches referred to was not correct, so they did not use that measurement - because at 18 inches, it was impossible for <modsnip> to get his head outside the window.

One of the "legs" of negligent homicide is to be aware of a dangerous situation. They are saying that SA was not aware of any danger, (thus not negligent) because he thought there was glass there. And since he himself could not have reached to where the glass began, they cannot prove that he knew there was no glass.

 

[MeadowMuffin]

Another thing when he squats down by that piller as Chloe toddles through to bar I wondered if he was too hot or tired but hubby says is a stress position restricting your blood flow people often do this when under the influence.

Yes! Small children with heart defects will often squat while they are participating in an activity because it helps to relieve the stress on the heart.

 

[al66pine]

The Re-Enactor's Identity Revealed?

I think the guy in the re-enactment is SA's Puerto Rico lawyer. That is not Winkleman in the photos.

@Forever Young. I could not identify, but per page 5 in link:
"As evidenced above, Plaintiffs’ counsel, who, again,is the same height as Mr. Anello, could not even reach the window when he was leaning on the railing..." bbm
{{ETA: After reading post by the fast-on-the-feet @Kindred
Maybe not W, after all. Maybe another atty w lipcon.com.
Here's gallery: Our Attorneys | LMAW, P.A.
Not sure who, now.}}}
If it is W, more gray hair than Dec. 11, just 5 wks ago, at media conf. to announce filing suit???
ETA 2: Nov 2019

Dec 12, 2019

^ from lipcon.com.
Tab...................... Our Firm,
Drop down box .... TV Appearances.

 

[FactFinder3000]

Why did he keep trying to reach her farther and farther out? To bang on the glass!

I still think this is negligent homicide. It was extremely negligent to lift her on the railing. But I am really starting to believe that he really did think there was glass there, at that moment in time.

I have been saying for a long time that I thought this "defense" (of not being able to get past the window opening) was what they would go for. I have done the measurements on myself, and I could not lean over a 4 foot high railing and forward 18 inches, then past that.

I brought it up in comment on the La Comay reenactment. They stated that the 18 inches referred to was not correct, so they did not use that measurement - because at 18 inches, it was impossible for "Rocky" to get his head outside the window.

One of the "legs" of negligent homicide is to be aware of a dangerous situation. They are saying that SA was not aware of any danger, (thus not negligent) because he thought there was glass there. And since he himself could not have reached to where the glass began, they cannot prove that he knew there was no glass.

He wasn't learning forward to look at the floor between his feet and the glass. He was leaning forward to look directly down below the ship. The same reason he puts her further and further out. What is so interesting down there I do not know. But that's my take on what I saw.

There's a whole wall of glass to bang on. Why there, at the open window? Because he knows it's open.

 

[Forever Young]

He wasn't learning forward to look at the floor between his feet and the glass. He was leaning forward to look directly down below the ship. The same reason he puts her further and further out. What is so interesting down there I do not know. But that's my take on what I saw.

There's a whole wall of glass to bang on. Where there, at the open window? Because he knows it's open.

Or, because it was clear.

I always thought he knew it was open, too, and wanted Chloe to see how little everything looked down below. And that may be the real story. But the defense story they are going with does fit in with video evidence and as to why he kept moving her forward.

 

[Forever Young]

I wonder, too, about the photo on the ship where the guy is standing the doll on the inside window ledge. I thought they always denied that and said she was only on the railing and never on the ledge?

That particular photo is damning for what they are trying to say.

She still could have been on the railing and fell forward 18 inches, much easier, IMO, than him holding her out 18 inches.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

It’s far too dangerous to use a REAL toddler.
Try using a real toddler Winkleman.

The "doll" that is used in the reenactment video/photos is offensive. What were they thinking? Chloe was a toddler - not a teen with a budding bosom wearing a bikini. The "doll" has longer legs than a toddler, and the weight distribution is just so wrong.

I'd also like to point out that the height and weight of the "actor" are not similar to Grandpa. SA has a noticeable belly that protrudes much further forward than the model.

 

[FactFinder3000]

Or, because it was clear.

I always thought he knew it was open, too, and wanted Chloe to see how little everything looked down below. And that may be the real story. But the defense story they are going with does fit in with video evidence and as to why he kept moving her forward.

The defense story does not make sense, though. If Chloe wanted to bang on the glass there was no reason for him to lift her up at all. She could bang away right from the floor.

And SA swears he couldn't tell the open window was any different than any other panel because he is color blind. But he returns to that same open panel.

 

[Forever Young]

Alright I couldn't get the doc to upload here but here is a link to where I've uploaded it to DocDroid

PLAINTIFFS’MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PRODUCEALL VIDEO FOOTAGE AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS UPON PRODUCTION OF VIDEO FOOTAGE
Wiegand vs RCCL CASE NO. 19-CV-25100-DLG filed 1/17/20

demand for all videos.pdf

Highlights include where Winky claims "Plaintiffs’ counsel(who is nearly identical in height and torso to Sam Anello)could not lean “out of the window frame” due to the distance between the railing and the window frame." but doesn't give any numbers for what SA or his own "height and torso" are. As well as the photo of Winky putting the Chloe doll ON THE WINDOW FRAME basically admitting SA did same.

Not only that, but the one photo shows a tape measure down at his feet, but none showing that the distance to the window was 18 inches.