IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #7

[al66pine]

Even If SA Did Not Read Guest Conduct Policy...? Or If No Policy? Or No Rail?

... It would be pretty ironic if KW or AW did the online contract acceptance for SA and he never read it or knew not to put things, or children, over the railings.

@mheido67 sbm Just jumping off your post.
Even SA did not read policy, does that exempt him (<--- not saying you think it does) for his negligence in holding Chloe by and outside window for 30+ seconds ( <---as RCL stated)?

To carry the thought further, let's say RCL had no Guest Conduct Policy; so SA's actions did not violate policy, and SA held her by & outside window. In crim trial, if SA/def atty want to premise part of defense on SA's having no notice from RCL about rail safety, so not knowing that leaning over rail was unsafe, does not seem imo, that would be persuasive to a jury. At least I hope not.

Ultimately, rail or no rail, imo, the issue/SA's negligence is holding Chloe by & outside window for 30+ seconds.

 

[al66pine]

Even If SA Did Not Read Guest Conduct Policy...? Or If No Policy? Or No Rail?

... It would be pretty ironic if KW or AW did the online contract acceptance for SA and he never read it or knew not to put things, or children, over the railings.

@mheido67 sbm Just jumping off your post.
Even SA did not read policy, does that exempt him (<--- not saying you think it does) from punishment for his negligence in holding Chloe by and outside window for 30+ seconds ( <---as RCL stated) as the vids show, at the very least by the window?

To carry the thought further, let's say RCL had no Guest Conduct Policy; so SA's actions did not violate policy, and SA held her by & outside window. In crim trial, if SA/def atty want to premise part of defense on SA's having no notice from RCL about rail safety, so not knowing that leaning over rail was unsafe, does not seem imo, that would be persuasive to a jury. At least I hope not.

Ultimately, rail or no rail, imo, the issue/SA's negligence is holding Chloe by & outside window for 30+ seconds. imo

 

[neesaki]

To be considered murder intent would have to be proven.

I’m glad you brought this up, IceIce... as it’s a subject that’s been weighing on my mind.

So maybe the cameras outside the ship didn’t show SA throwing Chloe out the window, but seemingly accidentally dropping her. That is, if they showed anything at all, perhaps not operational at that time?
I guess what I’m saying is, if the cameras showed that he “threw” her out intentionally, the charges would already be more than negligent homicide. Is this correct?

Or maybe not. Maybe the exterior cam shots are ambiguous, can’t be proven either way.

But, what if someone does intentionally throw a baby out a window to her death, does there have to be any more proof of a motive, if they did it?
- perhaps they have some sort of vendetta they want to take out on the child, perhaps towards the parents? Is there proof of that?
- there have been instances of child murders in which the child had chronic health issues and / or Special Needs. The parents / family couldn’t deal with it for some reason. Financial? Or? As sad and tragic as this sounds, it has happened.
- And sometimes people kill just because they want to, because they’re cruel and sadistic
- Of course the most likely motive is often monetary gain in some way. I find it interesting there have been several funding sites noted. And now, the civil suit. But, not proof.

The point being that in some murders, there isn’t always a clear or provable motive.
I guess that’s why the more I think about it, the more I wonder why they would need to prove motive or intent. If someone throws a baseball, that’s intentional. It didn’t just fly by itself across the field. If someone throws a baby out a window, the baby didn’t fly out the window by herself, she was thrown out.

If SA didn’t want Chloe to go out that window to her death, why did he put her out there in the first place, then drop her to her death? Or, did he throw her out?

Sorry to go of on a tangent, this has been bugging me a while now. And much thanks to IceIce for opening the door allowing me to vent.
Perhaps some of our attorneys here could weigh in on the intent / motive aspects? TIA

ETA: There’s also the depraved indifference / depraved murder theory introduced here by @Lilibet which I find to be equally interesting yet even more disturbing.

 

[Chikkamma]

I’m glad you brought this up, IceIce... as it’s a subject that’s been weighing on my mind.

So maybe the cameras outside the ship didn’t show SA throwing Chloe out the window, but seemingly accidentally dropping her. That is, if they showed anything at all, perhaps not operational at that time?
I guess what I’m saying is, if the cameras showed that he “threw” her out intentionally, the charges would already be more than negligent homicide. Is this correct?

Or maybe not. Maybe the exterior cam shots are ambiguous, can’t be proven either way.

But, what if someone does intentionally throw a baby out a window to her death, does there have to be any more proof of a motive, if they did it?
- perhaps they have some sort of vendetta they want to take out on the child, perhaps towards the parents? Is there proof of that?
- there have been instances of child murders in which the child had chronic health issues and / or Special Needs. The parents / family couldn’t deal with it for some reason. Financial? Or? As sad and tragic as this sounds, it has happened.
- And sometimes people kill just because they want to, because they’re cruel and sadistic
- Of course the most likely motive is often monetary gain in some way. I find it interesting there have been several funding sites noted. And now, the civil suit. But, not proof.

The point being that in some murders, there isn’t always a clear or provable motive.
I guess that’s why the more I think about it, the more I wonder why they would need to prove motive or intent. If someone throws a baseball, that’s intentional. It didn’t just fly by itself across the field. If someone throws a baby out a window, the baby didn’t fly out the window by herself, she was thrown out.

If SA didn’t want Chloe to go out that window to her death, why did he put her out there in the first place, then drop her to her death? Or, did he throw her out?

Sorry to go of on a tangent, this has been bugging me a while now. And much thanks to IceIce for opening the door allowing me to vent.
Perhaps some of our attorneys here could weigh in on the intent / motive aspects? TIA

ETA: There’s also the depraved indifference / depraved murder theory introduced here by @Lilibet which I find to be equally interesting yet even more disturbing.

Apparently, motive and intent are legally distinct...

1. In criminal law, the term intention is explained as the deliberate cause and known effort, to act in a particular manner which is not permitted by law. As against, the motive is defined as the implicit cause, which instigates a person to do or not to do something
2. The intention of a person can be determined by the use of particular means and the circumstances, that resulted in the criminal offence. Conversely, the motive is the reason, that drives a person to do an act or refrain from acting in a specific manner.
3. While the intention is the expressly defined purpose of the crime, the motive is hidden or implied purpose.
4. When the intention of a person, is the element for affixing criminal liability, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. On the contrary, the motive is not the primary element for affixing culpability, so it need not be proven. “”

Difference Between Intention and Motive (with Comparison Chart) - Key Differences

 

[Stinalyn]

I’m glad you brought this up, IceIce... as it’s a subject that’s been weighing on my mind.

So maybe the cameras outside the ship didn’t show SA throwing Chloe out the window, but seemingly accidentally dropping her. That is, if they showed anything at all, perhaps not operational at that time?
I guess what I’m saying is, if the cameras showed that he “threw” her out intentionally, the charges would already be more than negligent homicide. Is this correct?

Or maybe not. Maybe the exterior cam shots are ambiguous, can’t be proven either way.

But, what if someone does intentionally throw a baby out a window to her death, does there have to be any more proof of a motive, if they did it?
- perhaps they have some sort of vendetta they want to take out on the child, perhaps towards the parents? Is there proof of that?
- there have been instances of child murders in which the child had chronic health issues and / or Special Needs. The parents / family couldn’t deal with it for some reason. Financial? Or? As sad and tragic as this sounds, it has happened.
- And sometimes people kill just because they want to, because they’re cruel and sadistic
- Of course the most likely motive is often monetary gain in some way. I find it interesting there have been several funding sites noted. And now, the civil suit. But, not proof.

The point being that in some murders, there isn’t always a clear or provable motive.
I guess that’s why the more I think about it, the more I wonder why they would need to prove motive or intent. If someone throws a baseball, that’s intentional. It didn’t just fly by itself across the field. If someone throws a baby out a window, the baby didn’t fly out the window by herself, she was thrown out.

If SA didn’t want Chloe to go out that window to her death, why did he put her out there in the first place, then drop her to her death? Or, did he throw her out?

Sorry to go of on a tangent, this has been bugging me a while now. And much thanks to IceIce for opening the door allowing me to vent.
Perhaps some of our attorneys here could weigh in on the intent / motive aspects? TIA

ETA: There’s also the depraved indifference / depraved murder theory introduced here by @Lilibet which I find to be equally interesting yet even more disturbing.

Thank you for a well-written and very thoughtful post. I, too, have had many of the same thoughts and questions.
I wish I had the answers.

I think in a situation such as this, we have to look at every possibility, at least in theory, unless/until each possibility can be definitively ruled out.

I don't think we can rule out that this may have been intentional. And I also agree that it seems it was intentional, even if it was an "accident."
Great example with the baseball BTW. And yes, the notion of motive vs. intention seems unclear to me too with regard to legality.

In fact, like I said in an earlier post, the more time goes on, and the more I learn about this family and their behavior, it seems to me more and more likely that
something is just "not right" even if I can't put my finger on exactly what it is. I guess I just don't buy their story, and feel like I'm missing a huge part of what is really going on behind the scenes. I find myself leaning toward the "intentional" or "planned" scenario more and more. I just wish the truth would come out! JMO MOO

 

[katydid23]

I don’t expect anyone to accept anything they say without question but what does any of that have to do with how much they paid for their cruise vacation or how they managed to afford it or how their son raises money to pay for his sports trip?

I guess because it shows a kind of money grab mentality. And priorities that seem out of whack, imo.

 

[Wehwalt]

A prosecutor is called upon to show that the defendant committed the act he is charged with, and had the required "intent". "Motive" is not something you have to prove in court, generally. "Intent" is usually laid out in the statute or case law if it needs to be proven. Many crimes that require intent require "general intent" (the willingness to commit an act that is illegal) or "specific intent" that requires the intent to do a specific thing, such as, in higher-level homicide statutes (which this does not seem to be) the intent to kill, cause great bodily harm, etc.

The negligent homicide SA is charged with does not seem to need a specific intent. It most likely requires constructive intent, which really means "should have known better", and is the standard applied in DUI cases and such. It is usually a reckless act the consequences of which were foreseeable, even if no ill-will to any person is present.

I'm hedging a bit because I'm not licensed in PR, do not speak Spanish well enough to understand legalese in Spanish, etc. But it does not seem to be that the case will rise or fall on the question of SA's intent. Such statutes as he is charged with are meant to catch stupidity that results in great harm or death to human beings, and until a question is raised by SA's lawyer as to whether the statute covers SA's conduct, I'm assuming it applies here.

 

[Chikkamma]

I’ve watched the video over a dozen times but still can’t believe what I am seeing...

 

[katydid23]

I’ve watched the video over a dozen times but still can’t believe what I am seeing...

I can't get it to play...

 

[Chikkamma]

I can't get it to play...

Its just a screenshot from the video showing SA holding Chloe partially, if not completely, out of the window and into the void.

 

[katydid23]

I’ve watched the video over a dozen times but still can’t believe what I am seeing...

I searched you tube couldn't find it

searched CBS News website---they have a listing for it and a link, but when I click it goes to something else

 

[Jax49]

I searched you tube couldn't find it

searched CBS News website---they have a listing for it and a link, but when I click it goes to something else

Is it this one?

 

[Midwestmom2019]

I don’t expect anyone to accept anything they say without question but what does any of that have to do with how much they paid for their cruise vacation or how they managed to afford it or how their son raises money to pay for his sports trip?

Character.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

bbm. It is relevant because it speaks to their character. Are these the type of people who feel entitled to get for free via solicited donations what other people pay for themselves? Would these same type of people feel entitled to millions of dollars solely because their child dies, irrespective of cause?

Sorry. Posted my thoughts before reading all new posts. Absolutely.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

From MW's statements, it's obvious that he was expecting RCCL to just offer a generous settlement to make this case go away and take it out of the headlines - that also explains the never-ending publicity tour by MW and the family. They were hoping to put pressure on the cruise line to settle, thinking that people would feel sorry for the family and vilify RCCL. However, just the opposite has happened; the overwhelming majority of comments here and elsewhere show that people feel the cruise line is in no way responsible for Chloe's death. That also explains why the parents are so upset that SA has been charged and that the video of his actions has been leaked: it really torpedoes their narrative. MW must be dismayed that instead of getting the easy payday he expected, he actually has to prove his case in court - and if SA is convicted of negligent homicide, his case is that much more difficult.

IMHO it’ll be impossible. Criminal
proof is a higher standard. Harder to prove crime than civil. It’ll be a slam dunk in the civil case that SA was responsible.
Question will be if RCCL has any percentage of liability to share with SA. I doubt MW will be able to prove RCCL is at fault. On what basis? That RCCL had windows that open and close? Above the reach of any toddler? With a safety rail in front of it?
I wouldn’t be surprised if MW drops the case after criminal case concludes.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

Thank you so much. According to my calculation, that would be an average of $3,500 per couple (I imagine that alcohol, shore excursions and extras are not included, so it's about $4,000 per couple, or $12,000 for all six adults, plus a certain amount for the children).

I bet in South Bend, Indiana you could find a house to buy for $12,000.00.

 

[Montrealaise]

I’m glad you brought this up, IceIce... as it’s a subject that’s been weighing on my mind.

So maybe the cameras outside the ship didn’t show SA throwing Chloe out the window, but seemingly accidentally dropping her. That is, if they showed anything at all, perhaps not operational at that time?
I guess what I’m saying is, if the cameras showed that he “threw” her out intentionally, the charges would already be more than negligent homicide. Is this correct?

Or maybe not. Maybe the exterior cam shots are ambiguous, can’t be proven either way.

But, what if someone does intentionally throw a baby out a window to her death, does there have to be any more proof of a motive, if they did it?
- perhaps they have some sort of vendetta they want to take out on the child, perhaps towards the parents? Is there proof of that?
- there have been instances of child murders in which the child had chronic health issues and / or Special Needs. The parents / family couldn’t deal with it for some reason. Financial? Or? As sad and tragic as this sounds, it has happened.
- And sometimes people kill just because they want to, because they’re cruel and sadistic
- Of course the most likely motive is often monetary gain in some way. I find it interesting there have been several funding sites noted. And now, the civil suit. But, not proof.

The point being that in some murders, there isn’t always a clear or provable motive.
I guess that’s why the more I think about it, the more I wonder why they would need to prove motive or intent. If someone throws a baseball, that’s intentional. It didn’t just fly by itself across the field. If someone throws a baby out a window, the baby didn’t fly out the window by herself, she was thrown out.

If SA didn’t want Chloe to go out that window to her death, why did he put her out there in the first place, then drop her to her death? Or, did he throw her out?

Sorry to go of on a tangent, this has been bugging me a while now. And much thanks to IceIce for opening the door allowing me to vent.
Perhaps some of our attorneys here could weigh in on the intent / motive aspects? TIA

ETA: There’s also the depraved indifference / depraved murder theory introduced here by @Lilibet which I find to be equally interesting yet even more disturbing.

One of my friends is a criminal defense attorney and he says that the prosecutor does not have to show motive in order to get a conviction. However, the question of motive is usually brought up because jurors want to know why somebody did what they allegedly did - people are uncomfortable with the idea that the accused killed someone for no reason at all. Usually the motive is financial or other gain; some murderers, especially serial killers, kill because they enjoy the act of killing another person. Even people with serious mental illnesses have motives - a paranoid schizophrenic who kills the mailman because his delusions made him believe the mailman was actually a foreign agent sent to murder him has a motive. Jurors just want to know why and they will find it easier to convict if they know the motive.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

Character.

Or lack of.

 

[In vino veritas]

A prosecutor is called upon to show that the defendant committed the act he is charged with, and had the required "intent". "Motive" is not something you have to prove in court, generally. "Intent" is usually laid out in the statute or case law if it needs to be proven. Many crimes that require intent require "general intent" (the willingness to commit an act that is illegal) or "specific intent" that requires the intent to do a specific thing, such as, in higher-level homicide statutes (which this does not seem to be) the intent to kill, cause great bodily harm, etc.

The negligent homicide SA is charged with does not seem to need a specific intent. It most likely requires constructive intent, which really means "should have known better", and is the standard applied in DUI cases and such. It is usually a reckless act the consequences of which were foreseeable, even if no ill-will to any person is present.

I'm hedging a bit because I'm not licensed in PR, do not speak Spanish well enough to understand legalese in Spanish, etc. But it does not seem to be that the case will rise or fall on the question of SA's intent. Such statutes as he is charged with are meant to catch stupidity that results in great harm or death to human beings, and until a question is raised by SA's lawyer as to whether the statute covers SA's conduct, I'm assuming it applies here.

Question for you Wehwalt: what is the likelihood now, in your opinion, that the judge in Miami will dismiss this case, especially given all the absurd assertions and requests by MW and family?

Or that the Wiegands will drop the suit?

 

[Lawnguylander1964]

Did SA Read Cruise Line's Guest Conduct Policy?
@mheido67 bbm sbm
On first ^ point, agreeing that on face of Ticket Contract, if AW or KSW or someone else in the group completed online procedures, then seems SA was bound by Ticket Contract terms. Well, if enforceable.
Another paragraph of Ticket Contract incorporates. by reference RCL's Guest Conduct Policy** which prohibits "Sitting, standing, lying or climbing on, over or across any exterior or interior railings..."

Yes, would seem ironic if SA never read the Policy.
-------------------------------------------------------
Cruise/Cruisetour Ticket Contract
1. INTRODUCTION....
Purchase or use of this Ticket Contract, whether or not signed by the Passenger, shall constitute the agreement by Passenger, on behalf of himself and all other persons traveling under this Ticket Contract (including any accompanying minors or other persons for whom the Ticket Contract was purchased), to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Ticket Contract...."
"...d. Carrier may refuse to transport any Passenger, and may remove any Passenger from the Vessel or Transport at any time, for any of the following reasons:...
"...(iv) for failure to comply with Carrier's rules and procedures, including , for example, Carrier 's Guest Conduct Policy.... Carrier 's Guest Conduct Policy ... available online at http://www.royalcaribbean.com/content/en_US/pdf/Guest_Conduc t_Policy.pdf . bbm sbm
-------------------------------------------------------
**Guest Conduct Policy
"Unsafe Behavior
Sitting, standing, lying or climbing on, over or across any exterior or interior railings or other protective barriers ....or systems designed for guest safety is not permitted..." bbm sbm

Re Enforcement of Guest Conduct Policy

The article I posted from October said a passenger was banned for life from RCCL for standing or doing something dangerous on a railing.

I imagine they can also dump you off at a port somewhere if you are doing something serious. Similar to how planes land when a passenger needs to be arrested.