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.
neesaki said:
Lol, they promote their propoganda as always... according to them, a 51 y/o man is a geriatric man barely able to even walk... perhaps almost bed bound.

But isn’t it strange how this elderly“ feeble old man ” found the strength to lift this trusting baby up and over the railing , outside the window to drop her to her death?

I don’t know about you, but IMO, what he did wasn’t all that easy... what he did took a great deal of effort... and determination. Especially for such a a “feeble old grandfather”.

The big question is, why did he do it?
Click to expand...
I was involved in a court case several years ago. The defendant, a 50 year old woman, came clattering into court on a walker. She had never even used a cane before yet she made a grand entrance on a walker, stopping every few steps to gather the energy to walk a few more steps. She made a great deal of noise with the walker, and had come in late, so she definitely had the eyes of everyone on her, to see how “disabled” she was.
 
DOCUMENT DROP!

Hello my clever sleuths! Got some more civil documents for perusal. I have to say I'm really digging using DocDroid for some of these massive files.


For the plaintiffs :

PLAINTIFFS’NOTICE OF FILING PRELIMINARY AFFIDAVIT OF RANDALL JAQUES
CASE NO. 19-CV-25100-DLG
WIEGAND VS RCCL
filed on 1/23/20

notice of affidavit.pdf

short and sweet 2 page doc identifying their recreation expert before filing his affidavit. nothing really special.

PRELIMINARY AFFIDAVIT OF RANDALL JAQUES
filed on 1/23/20

affidavit of expert randall jaques.pdf

Mr. Jaques introduces himself to the court, explains why he's an 'expert', and then gives a rundown of their little trip to the ship and what he was doing/what he believes he has proved with his investigation. This includes the full 100something page inspection previously filed, so the new stuff is the first 4 pages.


PLAINTIFFS’REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PRODUCE ALL VIDEO FOOTAGE
filed on 1/27/20

further motion to compel.pdf

3 pages. Winkleman admits that RCCL has already voluntarily produced video from 10 cameras between the filing of the motion to compel and this one, but basically states this isn't good enough. The thing that confuses me about this document is that they don't ask for any kind of remedy or what they still want the court to actually compel the defense to do at this point, they just kind of... gripe and moan.



Defense documents:

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION
filed 1/29/20

RC response to plaintiff 1-29.pdf

10 pages. RCCL not backing down. Continues to argue that the Wiegands have no case and tears apart the staged photos from the plaintiff's inspection.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’MOTION TO STRIKE VIDEO FOOTAGE
filed 1/31/20

RC response to motion to strike video.pdf

For some reason this might be my favorite one of the bunch. Possibly because RCCL points out that Winkleman was told before filing and before the court granted permission for the conventional filing that this was happening and had no objection at the time. Basically RCCL says "no-take-backsies"

Happy reading/debating!
 
Thank you Kindred.... you always come through!!
I only looked at Mr Jacques affidavit. Read all 4 pages. Essentially a reiteration of MWs response to RCL Motion to Dismiss. IMO, he has not proven anything. Furthermore, if he’s an expert in ship safety, as stated, why did he not mention anywhere in the affidavit whether or not the railings were compliant with maritime standards???
One final comment: all the assertions about the physical impossibility of Margulies being unable to touch/reach the window just hurts their case.... as we’ve all stated on WS.
 
Wow wow wow!!! I’ve now read RCL’s responses... both to the plaintiff and re: the video removal.

RCL attorneys are incredibibly succinct and compelling on their arguments. Have clearly demonstrated how weak the plaintiffs case is. the gloves are definitely off now.

Either this case will be dismissed, or it will go to trial, where, IMO, RCL attorneys will tear MW to shreds. NO WAY this will be “settled” by RCL.... nor should it be.
 
Kindred said:
DOCUMENT DROP!

Hello my clever sleuths! Got some more civil documents for perusal. I have to say I'm really digging using DocDroid for some of these massive files.


For the plaintiffs :

PLAINTIFFS’NOTICE OF FILING PRELIMINARY AFFIDAVIT OF RANDALL JAQUES
CASE NO. 19-CV-25100-DLG
WIEGAND VS RCCL
filed on 1/23/20

notice of affidavit.pdf

short and sweet 2 page doc identifying their recreation expert before filing his affidavit. nothing really special.

PRELIMINARY AFFIDAVIT OF RANDALL JAQUES
filed on 1/23/20

affidavit of expert randall jaques.pdf

Mr. Jaques introduces himself to the court, explains why he's an 'expert', and then gives a rundown of their little trip to the ship and what he was doing/what he believes he has proved with his investigation. This includes the full 100something page inspection previously filed, so the new stuff is the first 4 pages.


PLAINTIFFS’REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PRODUCE ALL VIDEO FOOTAGE
filed on 1/27/20

further motion to compel.pdf

3 pages. Winkleman admits that RCCL has already voluntarily produced video from 10 cameras between the filing of the motion to compel and this one, but basically states this isn't good enough. The thing that confuses me about this document is that they don't ask for any kind of remedy or what they still want the court to actually compel the defense to do at this point, they just kind of... gripe and moan.



Defense documents:

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION
filed 1/29/20

RC response to plaintiff 1-29.pdf

10 pages. RCCL not backing down. Continues to argue that the Wiegands have no case and tears apart the staged photos from the plaintiff's inspection.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’MOTION TO STRIKE VIDEO FOOTAGE
filed 1/31/20

RC response to motion to strike video.pdf

For some reason this might be my favorite one of the bunch. Possibly because RCCL points out that Winkleman was told before filing and before the court granted permission for the conventional filing that this was happening and had no objection at the time. Basically RCCL says "no-take-backsies"

Happy reading/debating!
Click to expand...
I love this footnote:

“As RCL has noted, two of the “cameras” were not even cameras but turned out to be audio speakers.“

Ha ha! It’s as if the Keystone Cops decided to try practicing law. (Hope at least some of you are old enough to get the reference.)
 
Kindred said:
DOCUMENT DROP!

Hello my clever sleuths! Got some more civil documents for perusal. I have to say I'm really digging using DocDroid for some of these massive files.


For the plaintiffs :

PLAINTIFFS’NOTICE OF FILING PRELIMINARY AFFIDAVIT OF RANDALL JAQUES
CASE NO. 19-CV-25100-DLG
WIEGAND VS RCCL
filed on 1/23/20

notice of affidavit.pdf

short and sweet 2 page doc identifying their recreation expert before filing his affidavit. nothing really special.

PRELIMINARY AFFIDAVIT OF RANDALL JAQUES
filed on 1/23/20

affidavit of expert randall jaques.pdf

Mr. Jaques introduces himself to the court, explains why he's an 'expert', and then gives a rundown of their little trip to the ship and what he was doing/what he believes he has proved with his investigation. This includes the full 100something page inspection previously filed, so the new stuff is the first 4 pages.


PLAINTIFFS’REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PRODUCE ALL VIDEO FOOTAGE
filed on 1/27/20

further motion to compel.pdf

3 pages. Winkleman admits that RCCL has already voluntarily produced video from 10 cameras between the filing of the motion to compel and this one, but basically states this isn't good enough. The thing that confuses me about this document is that they don't ask for any kind of remedy or what they still want the court to actually compel the defense to do at this point, they just kind of... gripe and moan.



Defense documents:

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION
filed 1/29/20

RC response to plaintiff 1-29.pdf

10 pages. RCCL not backing down. Continues to argue that the Wiegands have no case and tears apart the staged photos from the plaintiff's inspection.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’MOTION TO STRIKE VIDEO FOOTAGE
filed 1/31/20

RC response to motion to strike video.pdf

For some reason this might be my favorite one of the bunch. Possibly because RCCL points out that Winkleman was told before filing and before the court granted permission for the conventional filing that this was happening and had no objection at the time. Basically RCCL says "no-take-backsies"

Happy reading/debating!
Click to expand...

This part of RCL’s response shows they are preparing for MW’s claim that video does not PROVE that SA’s head breeched the window frame. RCL basically says that whether his head was fully out the window or just a few inches from the window doesn’t matter, either way his head was close enough that he had to have known the window was open:

“2Even if one were to accept Plaintiffs’ allegations as accurate, Mr. Anello was eye-level to the open window and, at most, a few inches away from the window frame before he picked up Chloe and placed her mere inches from the outside of the ship. Plaintiffs do not dispute that Mr. Anello placed his head over and beyond the railing, which was inches from the window frame. Similarly, they do not dispute that Chloe fell, not between the railing and the window frame, but outside of the window.“
 
IceIce9 said:
I was involved in a court case several years ago. The defendant, a 50 year old woman, came clattering into court on a walker. She had never even used a cane before yet she made a grand entrance on a walker, stopping every few steps to gather the energy to walk a few more steps. She made a great deal of noise with the walker, and had come in late, so she definitely had the eyes of everyone on her, to see how “disabled” she was.
Click to expand...
I would have pointed to the floor behind her and exclaimed "Is that a mouse?" just to see how fast she would run.
 
Kindred said:
DOCUMENT DROP!

Hello my clever sleuths! Got some more civil documents for perusal. I have to say I'm really digging using DocDroid for some of these massive files.


For the plaintiffs :

PLAINTIFFS’NOTICE OF FILING PRELIMINARY AFFIDAVIT OF RANDALL JAQUES
CASE NO. 19-CV-25100-DLG
WIEGAND VS RCCL
filed on 1/23/20

notice of affidavit.pdf

short and sweet 2 page doc identifying their recreation expert before filing his affidavit. nothing really special.

PRELIMINARY AFFIDAVIT OF RANDALL JAQUES
filed on 1/23/20

affidavit of expert randall jaques.pdf

Mr. Jaques introduces himself to the court, explains why he's an 'expert', and then gives a rundown of their little trip to the ship and what he was doing/what he believes he has proved with his investigation. This includes the full 100something page inspection previously filed, so the new stuff is the first 4 pages.


PLAINTIFFS’REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PRODUCE ALL VIDEO FOOTAGE
filed on 1/27/20

further motion to compel.pdf

3 pages. Winkleman admits that RCCL has already voluntarily produced video from 10 cameras between the filing of the motion to compel and this one, but basically states this isn't good enough. The thing that confuses me about this document is that they don't ask for any kind of remedy or what they still want the court to actually compel the defense to do at this point, they just kind of... gripe and moan.



Defense documents:

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION
filed 1/29/20

RC response to plaintiff 1-29.pdf

10 pages. RCCL not backing down. Continues to argue that the Wiegands have no case and tears apart the staged photos from the plaintiff's inspection.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’MOTION TO STRIKE VIDEO FOOTAGE
filed 1/31/20

RC response to motion to strike video.pdf

For some reason this might be my favorite one of the bunch. Possibly because RCCL points out that Winkleman was told before filing and before the court granted permission for the conventional filing that this was happening and had no objection at the time. Basically RCCL says "no-take-backsies"

Happy reading/debating!
Click to expand...
Your favorite is also mine. RCCL is basically saying that the Wiegands had no objections to their filing the videos but now that they've seen what the videos show, they want them removed. Doesn't work like that. And if you are going to object to the production of evidence, you had better have some sound legal reasons for your objection - you can't object on the ground that the evidence is not favorable to your case.
 
I would really like to see that higher-resolution video.

I’ve got a few thoughts on a couple of subjects, so here it goes.

Regarding the “elderly” thing:
  1. 51 is not elderly
  2. Elderly can imply weak. A weak person couldn’t lift Chloe up and over the railing with such ease, as he does.
  3. Elderly could imply not there cognitively. If so, then it was Chloe’s parents’ responsibility to not leave her in the care of someone that is cognitively impaired.
  4. Thus, I see no benefit to that argument by the plaintiff. I really don’t know where they are going by trying to paint SA as elderly.
Regarding the refusal to take a blood test for alcohol/drugs:
  1. If he had taken the test and was impaired by alcohol served on the ship, that could actually HELP the plaintiff’s case, IMO. If the plaintiff can prove that SA was over-served, I would think RCCL could be have some liability, just as a restaurant/bar can have liability for over-serving a patron who then gets into an accident.
  2. OTOH, if SA was impaired by something else, it would hurt the plaintiff’s case as the parents left Chloe in the hands of someone who was impaired.
 
al66pine said:
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
Click to expand...

Looking over the 101 pages of the “Wiegand Prelim Response to Dismiss 3.pdf :
Despite that most of the so-called reenactment pictures were taken of a practically empty deck - notice o_O how many REFLECTIONS are on all un-opened windows! And where window are open there is a stark absence of reflections! How could SA be sooo oblivious/reckless?!?!? :eek::mad: On page 19 SA’s lawyers eyes are merely 8 inches from the window opening :rolleyes: Then on page 26 see the lawyer’s “reenactment” where he puts that demo doll’s feet touching the window ledge and both his hands placed midway between the rail & ledge... Well by his own measurements on page 67 that distance is JUST 10.5 inches!! o_O So that puts his hands only about 5 measly inches from the perceived window glass/actual void! (for what we now know is 34 seconds.) We all know how curious and squirmy toddlers can be :oops: Either blame CW (ludicrous) or RCCL (ridiculous) or fittingly SA -who NEVER in any universe should have hoisted her over that railing :confused: There is only 1 scenario that would garner millions of dollars. Such unbridled greed is beyond shameful :( ...IMO
 
Last edited:
Kindred said:
DOCUMENT DROP!

Hello my clever sleuths! Got some more civil documents for perusal. I have to say I'm really digging using DocDroid for some of these massive files.


For the plaintiffs :

PLAINTIFFS’NOTICE OF FILING PRELIMINARY AFFIDAVIT OF RANDALL JAQUES
CASE NO. 19-CV-25100-DLG
WIEGAND VS RCCL
filed on 1/23/20

notice of affidavit.pdf

short and sweet 2 page doc identifying their recreation expert before filing his affidavit. nothing really special.

PRELIMINARY AFFIDAVIT OF RANDALL JAQUES
filed on 1/23/20

affidavit of expert randall jaques.pdf

Mr. Jaques introduces himself to the court, explains why he's an 'expert', and then gives a rundown of their little trip to the ship and what he was doing/what he believes he has proved with his investigation. This includes the full 100something page inspection previously filed, so the new stuff is the first 4 pages.


PLAINTIFFS’REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO PRODUCE ALL VIDEO FOOTAGE
filed on 1/27/20

further motion to compel.pdf

3 pages. Winkleman admits that RCCL has already voluntarily produced video from 10 cameras between the filing of the motion to compel and this one, but basically states this isn't good enough. The thing that confuses me about this document is that they don't ask for any kind of remedy or what they still want the court to actually compel the defense to do at this point, they just kind of... gripe and moan.



Defense documents:

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION
filed 1/29/20

RC response to plaintiff 1-29.pdf

10 pages. RCCL not backing down. Continues to argue that the Wiegands have no case and tears apart the staged photos from the plaintiff's inspection.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’MOTION TO STRIKE VIDEO FOOTAGE
filed 1/31/20

RC response to motion to strike video.pdf

For some reason this might be my favorite one of the bunch. Possibly because RCCL points out that Winkleman was told before filing and before the court granted permission for the conventional filing that this was happening and had no objection at the time. Basically RCCL says "no-take-backsies"

Happy reading/debating!
Click to expand...

Thanks so much, Kindred! Very interesting reading. I especially like this part (Pg. 9) from ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION
filed 1/29/20

Go RCL!
BBM
Nevertheless, as compared to the staged and carefully cropped photographs manufactured by Plaintiffs’ counsel during their ship inspection, the contemporaneous video footage of the incident submitted by RCL speaks for itself. 7

7 As can be plainly seen from the staged photographs included in Plaintiffs’ Response, Plaintiffs’ counsel—who has now improperly interjected himself in to this case as a fact witness—appears to intentionally and deliberately position his body as far back and upright from the railing and window as possible. See Response, ECF No. 18-2, pp.16-20. Case 1:19-cv-25100-DLG Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2020 Page 9 of 10
Click to expand...
 
neesaki said:
Thanks so much, Kindred! Very interesting reading. I especially like this part (Pg. 9) from ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION
filed 1/29/20

Go RCL!
BBM
Click to expand...

Love it. Cannot be both counsel and fact witness at the same time. Maybe this is MW’s way of withdrawing from a loser case?
If not, it’s still a big problem. How is he going to get around this?
 
I expect MW to file a motion for leave to amend their complaint if in fact they are in error (RCL and their failure to state a cause of action) if they don’t and go to hearing that’s a huge gamble IMO we shall see
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 74 more.
Total: 267 (members: 75, guests: 192)

Online statistics

Members online
75
Guests online
192
Total visitors
267
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,711
Messages
18,244,455
Members
234,435
Latest member
ProfKim
Back
Top