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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wiegand Prelim Response to Dismiss 3.pdf: Inaccuracy?
Not sure of possible significance, but imo there is a discrepancy btwn a photo and a line drawing of the windows. The line drawing moved the window-operating-hardware from left side of left window to the right side of right window.
Jmo and YMMV ;) but I'll give photo more credence as accurately depicting ship's windows.
Does this line-drawing change move the hardware (further?) out of SA's line of vision as he approaches windows?
Inadvertent mistake, or intentional misdirection? IDK. Anyone?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wiegand Prelim Response to Dismiss 3.pdf
Page 44: WINDOWS & FIXED GLASSM EASUREMENTS (FRONT)
Page 46: Both the line drawing/schematic & photo show six frames of windows, w 3 rows & 2 columns as well as the lower right side 'prison bar' window (or scupper or maint. hatch).
The window-operating hdw - a slider pull/ bar- is shown at different location in middle row windows.
Photo ------------- the pull-hdw is on right side of right window pane.
Line Drawing --- the pull hdw is on left side of left window pane.:confused:
 
In vino veritas said:
What issues of fact? The ones asserted by MW and family of the physical impossibility of SA being able to lean far forward as depicted in said photographs?
Unless that jury is stacked with people who loathe big corporations, or are as obtuse as SA, I honestly don’t see how the Wiegands can prevail. I would think the court system would not want to prolong what most perceive as a frivolous lawsuit, wasting time and tax payer dollars. Of course, MOO.
Click to expand...
I think it's funny that MW is trying to persuade everyone that SA was physically unable of leaning out as far as we see him leaning out in the photographs. Like, whom are you going to believe, your lying eyes 0r a lawyer who stands to get a big fat contingency fee?
 
Snoods said:
That particular Givememoney asked for $7,000 to pay for his lessons before the trip, accommodations, travel expenses, and the cost of the event itself. The family’s trip to Europe was scheduled for mid-August, a few weeks after they jetted home from Puerto Rico after their pricey cruise vacation. It’s expensive to be them!

Also, the original Givememoney started after Chloe’s death stated it was for travel expenses (they didn’t already have tickets booked for the flight home? Not an excessive cost to change the date. Plus no travel insurance?), funeral costs (she was cremated, she did not have a funeral), unpaid medical bills (what medical bills?), and a college fund for the son. (Why on God’s green earth should strangers pay for your son’s college education? These are two young, able-bodied, educated adults with good jobs and the ability to work for many more years.) Eventually it was changed to funeral, travel, and legal expenses and the original cap was upped after donations exceeded the asking price.

Don’t forget the $2000 memorial bench for Chloe fundraiser which raised $5,880, with the excess going to the family. That was eight months ago, I’m sure the generous people who donated would love an update with a photo of Chloe’s memorial bench.

Then of course SA’s fundraiser to pay for his defense costs.

Am I forgetting any? Of course the RCCL lawsuit, to make sure this doesn’t happen to any other family. (It hasn’t.) It’s not about money. (Except it is. A lot of money.)

This did not require any digging into their private lives at all, because these are public fundraisers. People who start fundraisers want people to find them easily, because they want people to donate. They don’t make them secret or hide them.
Click to expand...
I thought that RCCL covered the costs of the family's return home as a goodwill gesture. And if there were any medical bills, since both parents are civil servants, surely they would have a good medical insurance plan at work?
I would normally be extremely sympathetic to anyone who has lost a child, but the Wiegands are making it very difficult.
 
Wehwalt said:
The personal representative(s) of an estate have standing to sue on the estate's behalf. If there were none, and perchance they won, money would come into the estate and there would probably have to be one appointed. Chloe's estate contains choses of action, that is, rights to sue, against RCCI and IMO against SA. However, again IMO, this would not mean they could be forced to sue SA or are somehow neglectful in not pursuing it as the PRs are also the heirs-at-law and are under no obligation to pursue every case to maximize the value of the estate.

Re whether there are issues of fact, RCCI has submitted pictures and so has MW. Even though the photographs seem questionable, MW is saying to the court that whether or not something is impossible is the province of the jury and therefore plaintiffs should survive the 12(b)(6) motion. That IMO will be enough to get them by at this early stage of the proceeding.

Note that this only would get them to discovery, not to trial. Defendant would have another opportunity to ask the judge to dismiss the case after discovery is completed, called "summary judgment". I think they will have a better chance then. MW's questionable photographs won't get them by at later stages because the facts will have been better developed through discovery. Right now we are legally in a very early stage of the proceeding; defendant has not even filed an answer and grounds of defense yet.
Click to expand...
This case could go on for years. But they need to “grieve.”
 
JerseySleuth17 said:
The family could not institute a lawsuit on Chloe's behalf without being appointed as administrator of her estate, so opening up a probate process for CW to be appointed the administrators was a necessary first step in filing the lawsuit. If they "win" the proceeds are paid to CW's estate (as the plaintiff in the lawsuit) and then per intestacy law those proceeds would be paid to her parents as her surviving heirs at law. It sounds cold but this is the legal procedure necessary to sue on behalf of a child who has died. To me the more appalling piece is not the legal formality needed, but the fact that they began this probate process 8 days after she died!! Sometimes you have to wait longer than 8 days because the death certificate isn't even available yet! It's literally like the second they could file to become her administrator they did, only 8 days after her death. Btw there was no rush to do this, they literally could have waited months to open her estate and still have plenty of time within the statute of limitations to file a lawsuit. I'm not sure I would be able to get out of bed 8 days after my child died a horrific death, let alone already have an attorney and begin the process of suing RCCL. And on facts like this no less which it's clear (to me) it's SA's reckless actions that caused CW's death. The whole family seems off.
Click to expand...
Excellent post. The haste in which the family acted is unseemly. They hired a lawyer to sue the cruise line before the little girl's body was cold; then two weeks after her death, they went on a press tour, publicly blaming RCCL with the obvious intent to shame the company into offering a settlement. Then, when no offer was forthcoming, they filed their lawsuit.
 
Montrealaise said:
Excellent post. The haste in which the family acted is unseemly. They hired a lawyer to sue the cruise line before the little girl's body was cold; then two weeks after her death, they went on a press tour, publicly blaming RCCL with the obvious intent to shame the company into offering a settlement. Then, when no offer was forthcoming, they filed their lawsuit.
Click to expand...
And continue to ignore the horrifying video.

How could the parents not react like What the heck were you DOING??!!
 
al66pine said:
Wiegand Prelim Response to Dismiss 3.pdf: Inaccuracy?
Not sure of possible significance, but imo there is a discrepancy btwn a photo and a line drawing of the windows. The line drawing moved the window-operating-hardware from left side of left window to the right side of right window.
Jmo and YMMV ;) but I'll give photo more credence as accurately depicting ship's windows.
Does this line-drawing change move the hardware (further?) out of SA's line of vision as he approaches windows?
Inadvertent mistake, or intentional misdirection? IDK. Anyone?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wiegand Prelim Response to Dismiss 3.pdf
Page 44: WINDOWS & FIXED GLASSM EASUREMENTS (FRONT)
Page 46: Both the line drawing/schematic & photo show six frames of windows, w 3 rows & 2 columns as well as the lower right side 'prison bar' window (or scupper or maint. hatch).
The window-operating hdw - a slider pull/ bar- is shown at different location in middle row windows.
Photo ------------- the pull-hdw is on right side of right window pane.
Line Drawing --- the pull hdw is on left side of left window pane.:confused:
Click to expand...
Good eye! That goofy law firm screwed up I think. The windows come in pairs of columns, one column has the operable windows: handles on right side means window is closed, handle on left is open. The other column has the fixed glass. After depicting the 2 columns for “Subject window and fixed glass area” they only shifted to the right by one column to depict “Adjacent window and fixed glass area”. So they show one column twice: the right side column for “Subject Window and fixed glass area” is the same column as the left column for “Adjacent Window and fixed glass area”. The line drawing for the prison bar windows is wrong, perhaps a bad cut-paste job from the previous line drawing. The operable window is actually in the prison bar column but the line drawing shows a handle in the fixed glass column which is impossible. More proof that you can't trust anything those guys produce.
 
Montrealaise said:
I thought that RCCL covered the costs of the family's return home as a goodwill gesture. And if there were any medical bills, since both parents are civil servants, surely they would have a good medical insurance plan at work?
I would normally be extremely sympathetic to anyone who has lost a child, but the Wiegands are making it very difficult.
Click to expand...
I thought so too - quite generous IMO and I think the story is in the media thread
 
Inaccuracy in Window Drawing?
QUOTE="WiseGuy, post: 15773134, member: 257942"]Good eye! That goofy law firm screwed up I think.... The operable window is actually in the prison bar column but the line drawing shows a handle in the fixed glass column which is impossible. More proof that you can't trust anything those guys produce.[/QUOTE]

@WiseGuy sbm Yes, that's what my ^ post was getting at. Some data got lost in translation btwn Vice President, Tape Measurement Division and the line drawing. jmo
 
justbreathe said:
And continue to ignore the horrifying video.

How could the parents not react like What the heck were you DOING??!!
Click to expand...
Seriously, I’d be in total shock about losing my baby, but then also initially a second state of shock and horror as to SA’s actions. Can only imagine what I’d do and it wouldn’t be good.

Then a prone position and a state of catatonia for weeks, or months? It’s too horrible to even think about.
 
Pigey said:
Chloe's parents are disrespecting her life. Making the most out of a crisis. How does the lawsuit ease their grief?
Click to expand...

bbm
There is no way it can, IMO, but I think they wanted to hit or strike at somebody or something, so they picked the cruise line. Understandable, considering their horrible and permanent loss, but I would bet that they regret it now for a couple of reasons -- Their lawsuit may go on for quite some time, and that cannot possibly ease their pain, IMO. They could lose, and that would make it worse; and it may require them to return to PR and possibly the ship or at least see pictures/films of the ship, which would be really tuff on them. JMHO.
And one more thing,

Welcome to Weblseuths,
Pigey !! ​
 
oviedo said:
I posted my experience when I returned from my RCCL December cruise - and I will repeat it here -I was on deck 12 (fully open with railing - no windows) and I was steps away from a mom and another adult trying to get pictures of a 2 year old little girl - her back was to the railing so they could include the ocean and it was very windy as the ship was moving - I gave myself a count of 5 before I was going to approach them and tell them how dangerous it could be had she turned around and slipped over the railing - they grabbed her at 3 so I did not intervene - but I was ready
iMO
Click to expand...

We’re so proud of you! Thank you!
 
borndem said:
bbm
There is no way it can, IMO, but I think they wanted to hit or strike at somebody or something, so they picked the cruise line. Understandable, considering their horrible and permanent loss, but I would bet that they regret it now for a couple of reasons -- Their lawsuit may go on for quite some time, and that cannot possibly ease their pain, IMO. They could lose, and that would make it worse; and it may require them to return to PR and possibly the ship or at least see pictures/films of the ship, which would be really tuff on them. JMHO.
And one more thing,

Welcome to Weblseuths,
Pigey !! ​
Click to expand...

If they regret it now they would dismiss the civil lawsuit. They want the money. No matter who they have to trample over.
 
Midwestmom2019 said:
We’re so proud of you! Thank you!
Click to expand...
I think all of us on chloe’s thread would intervene knowing what we know now - I will say I felt reluctant for about a second and then the wind blew her dress up and I had no doubt I would move fast - the wind is so strong I cannot describe it adequately which makes his actions of holding her in that wind for 34 seconds all the more horrifying
JMO
 
THE Window. Which One?
It's been difficult for me (to try:confused:) to figure out THE window from which Chloe was dropped. One pic* of Squeeze bar gives decent perspective of windows, starting at right 1/3 of image (which is to viewer's right of Squeeze bar) & continuing toward (but not including) 'prison bar' window column.
In the pic, yellow tape measure on floor points to the fourth column of windows,
Page 75 states "H20 ZONE IS 43.33 FEET FROM SUBJECT WINDOW."

Does anyone think this is THE window, w yellow tape measure pointing at it? If not, why not?
Also, if not, can you pls link a pic you believe shows THE window? TiA.
----------------------------------------------------
* Pic on page 76 of Wiegand Motion to Dismiss. Sorry I could not paste pic here.
Wiegand Prelim Response to Dismiss 3.pdf
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 77 more.
Total: 3,621 (members: 78, guests: 3,543)

Online statistics

Members online
78
Guests online
3,543
Total visitors
3,621
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
603,143
Messages
18,152,853
Members
231,661
Latest member
raindrop413
Back
Top