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

[katydid23]

I think our breathalyzer expert @IceIce9 said earlier that wasn’t true.

Yes, I see his/her post saying Albuterol has no alcohol. That is a relief because I use mine before I drive because my asthma is sometimes triggered by toxic fumes like gasoline. Glad to know it is not a false positive.

 

[Wehwalt]

This post was very informative so thank you. It is certainly nice to get a lawyer’s perspective on this case.

May I ask why you are of the opinion that RC will fight this all the way as opposed to settling at some point?

Because, again, this case is being fought in the court of public opinion. RCL has taken whatever hit it's going to take from fighting the case. If you settle, it's seen by the public (not by the courts) as an admission of liability.

And personally, I think the parents are going to lose on the 12(b)(6) motion (the motion to dismiss). Given the videos, I just don't see a case to be made that RCL was negligent. If RCL loses on the motion to dismiss, I think RCL would join SA as a third-party defendant under Rule 14.

 

[Kindred]

Is it fair to say that RCCL is probably the one who "leaked" the video to La Comay?

I assume LE has all 13 camera views from RC. Only 2 views were leaked. These are the same 2 views that RC chose to use in their motion to dismiss.

Here's the thing. Winklemans inspection counted 13 cameras and posted pictures of them. Thing is, we have no idea what those cameras actually point at. Some are probably perimeter cameras of the open part of the deck and splash pad, random lounge chairs, pointed at a bathroom door, etc. Some are probably pointed the other direction down that walkway. I imagine RCCL is going to be quite happy to give them 13 copies of video that show nothing of the scene and post stills in their response showing why these views were not included and how this motion to compel is a waste of the courts time.

It's a nice sound bite for the plaintiffs, but they may not actually have a point. And again, by only using the two that are already publicly available, the defense hasn't done anything wrong because they haven't reached a part of the case that they would have been legally obligated to turn over all evidence yet.

 

[Lawnguylander1964]

If you look at RCCL's stock, it's not suffering. The Q3 investor call transcript doesn't ask about safety or the case directly. All investors care about is bookings, revenue, gas costs, capex/remodeling and impact on bookings and hurricane losses.

This case is not hurting RCCL's business or the cruise business in general. It's not like tens of thousands of people cancelled their cruises when this accident occurred.

As long as RCCL continues to be respectful of the family and stick to the facts, they will come out of this fine.

I bet if you poll 1000 people, 950 of them couldn't tell you what cruise line this happened on. And 25 of those 50 would probably guess RCCL right 50% of the time.

 

[IceIce9]

What? ....I hope that's not true.

Correct, it is not true. I explained it in an earlier post.

In short, any medication inhaled or injected that could show a trace amount of alcohol on a breathalyzer test would be completely gone in usually one minute and definitely less than five minutes. And very few medications contain alcohol anyway.

If a breathalyzer shows any alcohol it immediately begins a countdown to 30 minutes. Then a second breathalyzer test is performed. This is to rule out any medication, hand sanitizer, mouthwash, etc. that could have shown up on the first breathalyzer.

 

[Wehwalt]

Here's the thing. Winklemans inspection counted 13 cameras and posted pictures of them. Thing is, we have no idea what those cameras actually point at. Some are probably perimeter cameras of the open part of the deck and splash pad, random lounge chairs, pointed at a bathroom door, etc. Some are probably pointed the other direction down that walkway. I imagine RCCL is going to be quite happy to give them 13 copies of video that show nothing of the scene and post stills in their response showing why these views were not included and how this motion to compel is a waste of the courts time.

It's a nice sound bite for the plaintiffs, but they may not actually have a point. And again, by only using the two that are already publicly available, the defense hasn't done anything wrong because they haven't reached a part of the case that they would have been legally obligated to turn over all evidence yet.

I'd expect an area by a bar, which this is, to be well covered by cameras.

Regarding the motion for video, I don't understand what's in dispute and why this is not by agreement. I would expect RCL to be falling all over itself to give them the video, especially since they opened the door to it by bringing it up in the motion to dismiss. I don't believe that RCL would have put it in the motion if one of the other camera angles showed something that would greatly help the plaintiffs.

It is entirely reasonable, though, for the plaintiffs to make sure they have all the video. My guess is some dispute on the details, possibly to make sure graphic detail doesn't wind up on YouTube.

 

[Kindred]

Is it fair to say that RCCL is probably the one who "leaked" the video to La Comay?

I assume LE has all 13 camera views from RC. Only 2 views were leaked. These are the same 2 views that RC chose to use in their motion to dismiss.

Nope, no sarcasm.

CBS News does not have a copy of the video, but the family let "CBS This Morning" lead national correspondent David Begnaud view it to see what happened.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cruise-ship-death-sam-anello-
offered-plea-deal-in-death-of-granddaughter-chloe-wiegand-after-video-leaked/

Editor's note: The Wiegand family's attorney allowed a reporter and senior editor for the IndyStar, which is part of the USA TODAY Network, to review the Royal Caribbean surveillance footage that shows toddler Chloe Wiegand's fall. IndyStar and USA TODAY have not obtained a copy of the video, nor is it being published on our platforms.

Snipped for brevity and BBM

We already know that Winkleman got his copy that he was showing around from the PR defense attorney. If there were 13 other views of the fall, LE would indeed have them, meaning the defense would have them, and that Winkleman would already have them as well.

In the emergency motion for the protective order that was later withdrawn it states on page 5:

"e. Based on Plaintiff counsel’s review of CCTV video of the incident provided by
Puerto Rico to Salvatore Anello’s criminal defense attorney in Puerto Rico, "

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

But it doesn't state in the motion to compel anything about having viewed any other footage that RCCL isn't providing to this court that was given to the criminal defense. RCCL has absolutely no reason to withhold anything from the PR investigators. By law, the prosecution has to turn over whatever evidence they had access to the defense, regardless of if they plan to use it or think it's worthless. So if he knows/has seen the other views why isn't he saying so in this document?

Because he already knows the other views are bogus and this is just an attempt to waste the courts time and drag out any chance of it getting dismissed.

I still think that other than any possible exterior footage, those two views are the only two views that you can actually see anything on. It's not a coincidence that those same views are leaked, they're just the only views.

 

[Kindred]

I'd expect an area by a bar, which this is, to be well covered by cameras.

Regarding the motion for video, I don't understand what's in dispute and why this is not by agreement. I would expect RCL to be falling all over itself to give them the video, especially since they opened the door to it by bringing it up in the motion to dismiss. I don't believe that RCL would have put it in the motion if one of the other camera angles showed something that would greatly help the plaintiffs.

It is entirely reasonable, though, for the plaintiffs to make sure they have all the video. My guess is some dispute on the details, possibly to make sure graphic detail doesn't wind up on YouTube.

It is well covered. We have two publicly released very clear views that cover the entirety of it. And if there are more wouldn't you expect them to be pointed at the bar and not at the window?

 

[Chikkamma]

Texas has similar provisions.


Simple logic. Reverse the burden of proof.
We’ve been trying to turn into pretzels when there is no need. If you stand straight by the railing, inside the ship, you can’t reach the window or the outside of the ship. Railing doing it’s job. Keeping idiots from bending over, stretching their arms out while playing drop the kid.
I get it. Occam’s Razor.

edited to add I don’t know how these two got combined. Sorry.

No disrespect, but what you are saying is simply not true. I’ve been on this ship and it is very easy (for any adult) to stick their hands outside of the window. There is even a youtube video of the same deck showing a guy pointing to something with his forearm outside of the window.

The only thing up for debate is whether a person can stick their head out when they lean over.

 

[WiseGuy]

If RCL loses on the motion to dismiss, I think RCL would join SA as a third-party defendant under Rule 14.

Could you please explain that? RCL and Sam Anello on the same team, against KW & AW? How and why would that work? Thanks.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

No disrespect, but what you are saying is simply not true. I’ve been on this ship and it is very easy (for any adult) to stick their hands outside the window. There is even a youtube video of the same deck showing a guy pointing to something with his forearm breeching the window.

The only thing up for debate is whether a person can stick their head out when they lean over.

Let me try to clarify what I think Forever Young was trying to say and how I understood the explanation.
Ok, you CAN reach outside. I took it to mean cannot reach outside to dangle Chloe if standing straight up behind railing.
I wasn’t focused on the reach out part of the statement bc I filled in reach out of the window to dangle her. So will withdraw that part of observation.
FY but I, certainly, understood that if you are behind the railing, you cannot reach out of the window that far to play with the baby (dangle her) by standing straight. You’d have to be bent over someway to get out that far. If you can’t dangle her outside of the window while standing straight up, then it’s the opposite. I think that might have been FY point. It certainly is mine.
It’s one or the other. So if a=b, then b=a.
You can stand straight up and dangle Chloe, or can’t. If you can, no need to be a pretzel. If you cannot stand straight up to dangle Chloe, then it follows that you have to be a pretzel.
That’s my point. If you can prove something one way, there is no need to prove it the other way.
I hope explaining it a different way helps to understand the logic.

Edited grammar.

 

[they'll get you]

It certainly does show he had to know it was open.

First of all, if the window was closed, there'd be no way that baby could have been perched on that ledge. The glass , when closed, is right up where her toes would have been. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS there was no glass there.

Most people board before noon and adventure when they first board a ship, they look around before their rooms are ready.
So what did they do between noon and 4:30?

Who’s to say he hadn’t been up on level 11 before? Mum and Chloe were there chilling by the pools so they had been to their rooms to change. I’d bet the farm by 4:30 pm the family had a good look around to look out open windows as everyone does.

 

[jeena]

It might be significant that SA first stands CW up on the railing to his right, then he switches her to his left side sitting on the railing or window ledge, or holding her with one arm.

Did SA initially think the window was closed so CW could stand and bang on the glass while he held her?

Did SA finally realize the window was open while CW was standing, so he switched her to his left while holding or seating her so she could have a better view while pushing her forward?

When SA switched CW to the left, didn't he see the window handle, frame and glass section of the partially closed window? He had to position CW so she would be in between the open and closed sections of the window so she could see out.

 

[jeena]

Just curious about the last photo of CW standing up by the pool. Was her back facing the window, so all she had to do was turn around and walk to it? Or, was she facing the window frontally while overlooking the pool, so she had to walk around either side of the pool to get there?

 

[redabby]

Just musing does it matter if it was SAs head out of the window or just his arms, hands etc as at the end of the day part of his body was outside that window so he must have known it was open and did he not wonder why the poor little baby wasn't kicking on or touching glass if he thought it shut. Plus this silly colour-blindness issue is really annoying me as with colour blindness you still see some version of colour just different from what most people see. My son is colour blind and has been on Ships and says he can easily differentiate between an open or shut window.
So SA seems to be saying he some sort of perception issue , I'm assuming with such a condition his wasn't allowed to drive etc.

​

 

[Chikkamma]

It might be significant that SA first stands CW up on the railing to his right, then he switches her to his left side sitting on the railing or window ledge, or holding her with one arm.

Did SA initially think the window was closed so CW could stand and bang on the glass while he held her?

Did SA finally realize the window was open while CW was standing, so he switched her to his left while holding or seating her so she could have a better view while pushing her forward?

When SA switched CW to the left, didn't he see the window handle, frame and glass section of the partially closed window? He had to position CW so she would be in between the open and closed sections of the window so she could see out.

Keep in mind that the window was only 2/3 open. 1/3 was still in the frame along with the handle.

Again, SA would have had to be completely oblivious to all of his surroundings and his basic senses (sight, sound, touch) altogether failing him to not realize the window was open. Who believes this?

 

[WiseGuy]

Keep in mind that the window was only 2/3 open. 1/3 was still in the frame along with the handle.

Again, SA would have had to be completely oblivious to all of his surroundings and his basic senses (sight, sound, touch) altogether failing him to not realize the window was open. Who believes this?

Good point, I agree with you and have been saying all along, that we don’t need to know if his body ever breeched the window opening or not. We simply need to establish what the “reasonable person” would have known.

With the tinting, wind, half open pane, the standing there for thirty-plus seconds, any and every reasonable human definitely would know the window was open.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Good point, I agree with you and have been saying all along, that we don’t need to know if his body ever breeched the window opening or not. We simply need to establish what the “reasonable person” would have known.

With the tinting, wind, half open pane, the standing there for thirty-plus seconds, any and every reasonable human definitely would know the window was open.

IIRC, SA waited to approach the window while another passenger took a photo. If the window hadn't been open, the man would likely have sought an open window for a clearer view for a photo. Grandpa knew the window was open because he was probably hot and sweaty on the open deck and wanted some fresh air and a breeze.

ETA: If SA's approaching the "wall of glass" was really about letting Chloe bang on the glass like she did at hockey games, they could have gone to any of the windows,including windows at eye-level for little Chloe. Grandpa specifically chose an open window.

 

[mickey2942]

Was SA wearing sunglasses in the video?

I think that the "color blindness" is not a factor, but the issue of glare could be more of an issue for the defense to use.

If I was the defense attorney here, the goal is to somehow get the jury to understand why SA did something that seems so incredibly stupid to the rest of the world, and make RCCL at fault...

How is the defense going to do this? The video evidence is absolutely horrifying to me. (SA should thank Comay skit, that the actor in the skit didn't drop the doll during the skit out the window, and leave the baby doll on the floor for the rest of the discussion!). (Note, totally loved how the actor in the skit tenderly kept the doll with him, sitting her on the sofa next to him!).

Okay, there is no way to exclude the video evidence, is there? Chain of custody? Could the video evidence somehow be excluded?

If SA doesn't testify, he can't explain why he did something that seems so incomprehensible.

Does the defense call KW to the stand? To figure out why she thought SA would be such a great babysitter...

I think that the defense really has an uphill battle here.

 

[ARE]

I've watched the videos many times now and I think I've figured out a different possible explanation for what we're seeing. On the side view he reaches his arms out in from of him as he approaches the window. What if he reached out and grabbed the window sill? He could have supported himself with his hands on the windowsill. From the rear view the elbows do not go under him, they go out to the side. Also, the head goes way down. It looks very much like he looks out the window. He reaches out, and grabs the window sill to pull himself forward and ducks his head down to look over the edge. That's what it looks like to me.

This is exactly what it looks like to me as well.

Even if his head didn’t breach the plane of the window frame, I believe this would have pulled his head close enough to the opening to use other (Non visual) clues such as air temperature, flow, sounds, etc to know there was nothing in front of him.

(my opinion only)