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

[FactFinder3000]

The re-enactment would have to be preapproved by the court. It would have to be based on every fact entered into evidence during the trial, necessary to make the re-enactment factually correct.
Measurements. Calculations. Exact replicas of railings, window tracks. Height, weight of SA and Chloe. Distances from last picture at wading pool, between where he slumped onto a pole before walking towards Chloe to catch up with her. Most importantly, I think the judge would insist that the jurors all get close to the setup. Touch the railing. Look at the window colors. EVERYTHING POSSIBLE so the jurors would see it from SA perspective. Not a seat in the jury box.
It would be a big exhibit. But bc Winkleman insists it’s in a kids’ play area, RCCL would have their say as well.
And that’s if the judge agrees to set it up in court. It would be easier to go onboard. But to coordinate the logistics with the actual ship, would be difficult. If not impossible especially since they are renovating the ship.
I suppose they could design it like a Hollywood set and take jurors out there. But the winds through the window are critical. And the noise from the dock.
It would be really difficult to reenact when you realize how many facts go into describing the scene.
If film, different. But the winds, noise, all of that is so critical to defend themselves, maybe it would be too much to stage. At some point they would have to stop reenacting ties to all of the facts. I guess that point is up to the lawyers and judge.

There's just no way to recreate the winds through the window, though. You can't know exactly how windy it was and what direction it was blowing from.

Personally, if I'm on the jury, it comes down to whether or not they can prove any part of SA went out the window. I do think he put his hands on the window sill, but if he assumed there was glass there he could have put his hands down in a way that they would not go out the window. Grabbing the near side of the sill with his thumbs.

I will also say, though, that there are plenty of cues that that window is open. For him to have missed all of them does make me think he must have been very drunk. So does that help him, or hurt him? Isn't looking after a child while severely drunk negligence? I seem to recall a case where a caregiver was arrested for as much.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

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.

​

He’s like a kid who didn’t do his homework. Every excuse but the real one.

 

[Forever Young]

The re-enactment would have to be preapproved by the court. It would have to be based on every fact entered into evidence during the trial, necessary to make the re-enactment factually correct.
Measurements. Calculations. Exact replicas of railings, window tracks. Height, weight of SA and Chloe. Distances from last picture at wading pool, between where he slumped onto a pole before walking towards Chloe to catch up with her. Most importantly, I think the judge would insist that the jurors all get close to the setup. Touch the railing. Look at the window colors. EVERYTHING POSSIBLE so the jurors would see it from SA perspective. Not a seat in the jury box.
It would be a big exhibit. But bc Winkleman insists it’s in a kids’ play area, RCCL would have their say as well.
And that’s if the judge agrees to set it up in court. It would be easier to go onboard. But to coordinate the logistics with the actual ship, would be difficult. If not impossible especially since they are renovating the ship.
I suppose they could design it like a Hollywood set and take jurors out there. But the winds through the window are critical. And the noise from the dock.
It would be really difficult to reenact when you realize how many facts go into describing the scene.
If film, different. But the winds, noise, all of that is so critical to defend themselves, maybe it would be too much to stage. At some point they would have to stop reenacting ties to all of the facts. I guess that point is up to the lawyers and judge.

The bottom line is whether a juror can be convinced that SA thought there was glass there. All the noise and wind in the world can be simply answered, "no, I did not notice any wind, (which cannot be seen), or noise, (which cannot be seen)".

Maybe ALL of this is insignificant, as to how far his head or arms could reach past the opening, if you can't see an opening.

It's his word about what he was thinking, against everyone else's. Whose better to say what he was thinking than himself? Everybody else's thoughts about what he was thinking is speculation. He only has to convince one juror that he really did think there was glass there, no matter what the circumstances were.

From that point, the jury could proceed to determine that even if SA thought there was glass there, to what degree was his behavior still negligent. IMOO

 

[Midwestmom2019]

OK, that first post was an opinion, and a little cantankerous, but due to the fact that when the videos were first leaked I did not recall any major news network (CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX, etc.) showing the footage, though they all reported on it.

My assumption was that the family asked them not to, because I believe I remember David Begnaud stating that CBS would not air the leaked videos because the family had asked them not to. Some things on Twitter become increasingly hard to find, as time goes on, IMO.

My answer was in response to the question if it was fair to say that RCCL leaked the videos. I said yes, (I thought it was fair to do so IMO.) But you're right, it has not been proven, and I should have been more careful in my wording.

Part II was also an assumption because if one station agreed not to air the leaked videos on the family's request, I assumed the others followed suit. Deductive thinking on my part.

Why do we care who or what leaked the videos, as long as they are the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Ok, if they are early, there may be some liability for damages to someone. They were going to come out sooner or later. Winkleman showed them to enough news networks in an alleged software issue state that wasn’t fact based. To the contrary, all for his side.
I fail to see why the family has an issue with releasing UNALTERED videos. They like Winkleman’s version better?

 

[SpanishInquisition]

The bottom line is whether a juror can be convinced that SA thought there was glass there. All the noise and wind in the world can be simply answered, "no, I did not notice any wind, (which cannot be seen), or noise, (which cannot be seen)".

Maybe ALL of this is insignificant, as to how far his head or arms could reach past the opening, if you can't see an opening.

It's his word about what he was thinking, against everyone else's. Whose better to say what he was thinking than himself? Everybody else's thoughts about what he was thinking is speculation. He only has to convince one juror that he really did think there was glass there, no matter what the circumstances were.

From that point, the jury could proceed to determine that even if SA thought there was glass there, to what degree was his behavior still negligent. IMOO

It would take more than just one juror to think SA thought there was glass there. I see his actions as described by SA himself as inherently negligent even if there was glass there. Putting kids on railings and sills is asking for severe injury or death. The re-enactment itself shows how recklessly SA held Chloe where it shows being held by two hands on the windowsill but SA himself said it was one closed fist and clearly as Winkleman's own picture shows, such a grip on Chloe while on the sill would be extremely tenuous risking at a minimum her falling between the rail and the sill getting a potentially fatal rabbit punch to the back of the head.

 

[jeena]

I addressed this issue way earlier, but IIRC, I didn't get any replies, just likes. MW says passengers open the windows. Isn't doing so breaching the railing, especially if they have to lean in to grab the handle and slide it right to left? Do they go under the railing to open them, (even worse)?
When I first posted about this, I thought the railing and the window were much further apart, I was shocked to see how close the railing and window actually are from the photos! I don't believe SA didn't know the window was open being in such close proximity to it, especially since 1/3 of it was closed!
Did he move CW over to the left to bang on the closed section of the window but she missed it and went over when he let her go?

 

[justice4allnow]

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.

Thank you for such a clear, succinct explanation. It's exactly what I presumed as well.

 

[Andreee]

Could one of our members who is actually a lawyer enlighten me here? MW’s “re-enactment” - how would a judge react to this? Or was it even meant for the court to consider at all?

IMO his low-budget production is so amateurish it could have been the work of any high school drama club. Everyone knows that anything MW produces is biased, as is his job. RCL can just as easily film a re-enactment that supports their story, So what’s the point?

If MW tries to present this re-enactment as objective truth, wouldn’t that be so farcical as to insult the judge’s intelligence?

I don't understand why there is even a debate on the leaked videos. They were filed with the court, were they not? That means plenty of people have access. All it takes is for a reporter to know somebody, or bribe somebody, and voila. This happens all the time. The videos were filed, and then subsequently leaked. Those dots seem easy to connect. Absolutely no reason to assume RCCL did it.

Also, I do not think the tv companies would agree amongst them to release or not release anything. I think it is an individual CBS/ABC/NBC decision.

 

[Lawnguylander1964]

Speaking of the jury, during jury selection, is it appropriate to ask a potential juror's experience with cruising, RCCL specifically as a customer? I would think that RCCL would want jurors who have been on cruise ships and have that basic understanding of the wind/breeze/sea spray, windows, rails, etc. Like many of the posters here who have been on similar ships and this exact ship, does this help RCCL or hurt them?

 

[Montrealaise]

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.

If you compare a still of the man sticking his forearm out the window to the video still where SA is leaning forward from his waist, practically bent over the railing. there is no way SA's head was NOT out of the window.

 

[al66pine]

OK, that first post was an opinion...
My answer .... not been proven, and I should have been more careful in my wording.
Part II was also an assumption .... I assumed the others followed suit...

@Forever Young sbm
Most of us, including me, make assumptions from time to time. I think everyone appreciates it when a poster making assumptions makes that explicit. I try to, but know I've slipped up. My apologies, if it seemed over the top.

Anyway, glad you are here, offering thoughts & raising interesting points.

 

[jeena]

SA said the glass disappeared, but 1/3 of the glass was still there. If he didn't see glass attached to the frame and the handle, he has bigger vision problems than he is admitting to, IMO, or he is not telling the truth. Give him a polygraph!

 

[10ofRods]

Could one of our members who is actually a lawyer enlighten me here? MW’s “re-enactment” - how would a judge react to this? Or was it even meant for the court to consider at all?

IMO his low-budget production is so amateurish it could have been the work of any high school drama club. Everyone knows that anything MW produces is biased, as is his job. RCL can just as easily film a re-enactment that supports their story, So what’s the point?

If MW tries to present this re-enactment as objective truth, wouldn’t that be so farcical as to insult the judge’s intelligence?

MW isn't involved in the criminal trial, and laws for what's allowable in a civil suit vary from state to state. IANAL but I work closely with some of them, ha.

MW is trying to influence potential jurors in the civil case, in a clumsy, amateurish way. For the civil trial (which will never take place, IMO).

 

[LietKynes]

Why do we care who or what leaked the videos, as long as they are the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Ok, if they are early, there may be some liability for damages to someone. They were going to come out sooner or later. Winkleman showed them to enough news networks in an alleged software issue state that wasn’t fact based. To the contrary, all for his side.
I fail to see why the family has an issue with releasing UNALTERED videos. They like Winkleman’s version better?

Bbm
Bingo.

Would a person(s) lie if it meant they could get a payout that was estimated by the lawyer to be unlimited ?
Not saying anyone is.
But if they are wanting to conceal the truth --the cast of characters is a large one.
Putting out an altered video and claiming it's unedited sounds like lying.

 

[redabby]

SA said the glass disappeared, but 1/3 of the glass was still there. If he didn't see glass attached to the frame and the handle, he has bigger vision problems than he is admitting to, IMO, or he is not telling the truth. Give him a polygraph!

I would have thought they would have gone for undiagnosed Distorted Vision (Metamorphopsia) or perception Macropsia If they could have but then again tests would probably disprove hence the colour blindness. Although tests can give a good sign of whether you are colour blind or not as we found out when my son was about 10 or 11 at school.

 

[they'll get you]

There's just no way to recreate the winds through the window, though. You can't know exactly how windy it was and what direction it was blowing from.

Personally, if I'm on the jury, it comes down to whether or not they can prove any part of SA went out the window. I do think he put his hands on the window sill, but if he assumed there was glass there he could have put his hands down in a way that they would not go out the window. Grabbing the near side of the sill with his thumbs.

I will also say, though, that there are plenty of cues that that window is open. For him to have missed all of them does make me think he must have been very drunk. So does that help him, or hurt him? Isn't looking after a child while severely drunk negligence? I seem to recall a case where a caregiver was arrested for as much.

But surely mother wouldn’t have left him in charge if he was that drunk unless she gave him strict instructions to stay where she left him and Chloe.

 

[jeena]

I would have thought they would have gone for undiagnosed Distorted Vision (Metamorphopsia) or perception Macropsia If they could have but then again tests would probably disprove hence the colour blindness. Although tests can give a good sign of whether you are colour blind or not as we found out when my son was about 10 or 11 at school.

I had hearing problems at your son's age, I would get in trouble for not listening to my parents, but I couldn't hear them! Hearing tests at school detected it and the doctor fixed it. My mom is amazed I still hear so well in my 60's, she's 90 and can hear somewhat, be she needs aids now. I attach them to her earrings with a little wire and chain,they never get lost. Glad your son was diagnosed at school too!
Maybe SA has more than vision problems, maybe hearing too?
This incident is such a shame, never should have happened. I never let anyone watch my mom outside my house, I wouldn't trust them to watch her like I do so she doesn't lose her balance and fall. She had cataracts and got implants done, she sees better than me and without glasses!

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

Bbm
Bingo.

Would a person(s) lie if it meant they could get a payout that was estimated by the lawyer to be unlimited ?
Not saying anyone is.
But if they are wanting to conceal the truth --the cast of characters is a large one.
Putting out an altered video and claiming it's unedited sounds like lying.

So does changing the story. Red flags a-flappin'.

 

[they'll get you]

Is this what he was thinking after he put his head out?

 

[Andreee]

Speaking of the jury, during jury selection, is it appropriate to ask a potential juror's experience with cruising, RCCL specifically as a customer? I would think that RCCL would want jurors who have been on cruise ships and have that basic understanding of the wind/breeze/sea spray, windows, rails, etc. Like many of the posters here who have been on similar ships and this exact ship, does this help RCCL or hurt them?[/QUO

I would have thought they would have gone for undiagnosed Distorted Vision (Metamorphopsia) or perception Macropsia If they could have but then again tests would probably disprove hence the colour blindness. Although tests can give a good sign of whether you are colour blind or not as we found out when my son was about 10 or 11 at school.

This may sound silly, but was the grandfather wearing sunglasses at the time of the tragedy? I only ask because I wear various sunglasses (some darker, some lighter in lenses) and it makes a difference as to perception.