IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #8

[BetteDavisEyes]

A complete stranger would probably have been a better choice.

Even Chloe's 10-year-old brother might have been a more responsible caregiver.

 

[neesaki]

A complete stranger would probably have been a better choice.

I bet the young son would have even been a better choice. Bet he wouldn’t have put her out that window. JMO

ETA: Looks like you beat me to it, BDE.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

I bet the young son would have even been a better choice. Bet he wouldn’t have put her out that window. JMO

ETA: Looks like you beat me to it, BDE.

Great minds, and all that

 

[Midwestmom2019]

A complete stranger would probably have been a better choice.

And if the stranger dropped Chloe, KW and AW would have sued the stranger.

 

[JulieBEMT]

A complete stranger would probably have been a better choice.

Even Chloe's 10-year-old brother might have been a more responsible caregiver.

Even letting her run around unsupervised would have been a better choice!

 

[neesaki]

Even letting her run around unsupervised would have been a better choice!

So true!

 

[Seattle1]

Thank you for this. I have sailed on RCCL approx 5 times and once on this particular boat. If I was given this, I didn't read it. But all those rules are common sense.

I can't imagine a family of 6? with 2 kids having time or the inclination to read this. The only thing everyone was absolutely forced to do by the cruise line was to go to a certain area in case of emergency and how to put on your safety vest.

Ok. I'm a bad person. But a realistic one.

Viewing the pictures in the above article, and the reconstruction of the accident, how did SA lean far enough over the hand rail to dangle Chole outside. Or to put his head out the window? The rail would have stopped him from being able to do that. And he had a big gut. And he has steadfastly said he put her on the wooden rail. And the videos of the incident aren't really clear. (Or not clear enough to charge this man with homocide imo). It would be great to see the additional video from all angles.

Had he taken the breathalyser, and if it showed he had alcohol in his system, he would have a better arguement against RCCL. Booze is how the cruiselines make money and it flows like crazy. Ever tried to get a Diet coke from the bar?

IMO, I think and I hope he is telling the truth. I will read the additional documents on this. But entering this thread with an unjaded eye and no preconceived ideas, I think he is telling the truth. According to the article above, his story hasn't changed since the accident happened.

I am sorry that I have disrupted the prevailing narrative that this may have been a planned homocide. But that is serious reaching and totally unbelievable.

Baby Chloe could not have fallen out the window to her death without the grandfather raising the child to the guard rail and/or window and for that, he is believed negligent and charged appropriately.

But planned homicide?

Not even the San Juan investigators or the prosecutor's office have ever made an allegation that the grandfather acted with malice.

The lesser charge of negligent homicide filed against the grandfather certainly doesn't reflect a planned, premeditated homicide. Technically, his charge is a misdemeanor.

MOO

 

[JulieBEMT]

Baby Chloe could not have fallen out the window to her death without the grandfather raising the child to the guard rail and/or window and for that, he is believed negligent and charged appropriately.

But planned homicide?

Not even the San Juan investigators or the prosecutor's office have ever made an allegation that the grandfather acted with malice.

The lesser charge of negligent homicide filed against the grandfather certainly doesn't reflect a planned, premeditated homicide. Technically, his charge is a misdemeanor.

MOO

I don't have both feet firmly planted on the premeditated side of the line. But, I still believe it's a good possibility. IMO, prosecutors bring the charges they know they can prove. Premeditated would be a much higher bar to reach.

 

[Chewy]

And if the stranger dropped Chloe, KW and AW would have sued the stranger.

This is my pet peeve about negligence that leads to the death of a child. If this wasn't a family member, they would expect the nanny to be prosecuted. Think about if this was an on boat day care worker who did this. They would fully put the responsibility 100% on the back of the company that hired the day care worker.

But whenever these things happen to family members people allow emotions to cloud the facts because we can only imagine how horrible we would feel ourselves. I tell you what I would do if I did something like this, I'd plead guilty. I'd actually need to do something to accept responsibility and create a sort of punishment to assuage a sense of guilt. I would not drag a court system or my family members through such a trial. I would not sue the cruiseline. I would demand precautions be put in place. (For example block the windows from being open more than 4 inches) I would advocate for parents to be more aware of the dangers on a cruise.

I would own what I had done. I would feel so horrified that I would basically feel like my life was over and now I was on a different path as a result of a stupid mistake.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Even letting her run around unsupervised would have been a better choice!

Chloe could have easily made her way to the wall of windows and peered out at activity on the dock below - through windows that were at her level. If she wanted to bang on the glass, she could have done that, too. She didn't need to be hoisted up on a railing and placed in front of - or outside - and open window to peer outside and/or bang on the glass. There were plenty of windows at eye level for the toddler.

 

[JerseySleuth17]

Baby Chloe could not have fallen out the window to her death without the grandfather raising the child to the guard rail and/or window and for that, he is believed negligent and charged appropriately.

But planned homicide?

Not even the San Juan investigators or the prosecutor's office have ever made an allegation that the grandfather acted with malice.

The lesser charge of negligent homicide filed against the grandfather certainly doesn't reflect a planned, premeditated homicide. Technically, his charge is a misdemeanor.

MOO

Not exactly - at one point the prosecutors said they were considering all charges, including murder. I agree with others that they charged SA with what they felt they could prove with evidence. That doesn't mean it wasn't intentional. I started out strongly thinking he was medicated and/or drunk. After watching the interviews, videos, etc. I am now leaning towards it was SA's intentional act.

 

[JerseySleuth17]

Chloe could have easily made her way to the wall of windows and peered out at activity on the dock below - through windows that were at her level. If she wanted to bang on the glass, she could have done that, too. She didn't need to be hoisted up on a railing and placed in front of - or outside - and open window to peer outside and/or bang on the glass. There were plenty of windows at eye level for the toddler.

Yes that exactly what she did, even SA admitted that. She wandered over to the windows and was looking out through the lower portion. SA could not reach down to those windows (allegedly) because the glass angles out, and he says that's why he lifted her up. I think his entire narrative was made up on the fly after the fact, it stuck so now he continues it. No one as far as I know in any interview has asked him any "hard" questions - in fact many times the interviewer simply answers for him! Don't ask the family "do you blame anyone?" As them "Why don't you blame SA as the direct cause? Chloe would be alive if he had not lifted her up, put her on a railing, held her with one hand, and then let go of her." I don't expect the press to play hardball but a prosecutor is going to.

 

[RoadToSerfdom]

And if the stranger dropped Chloe, KW and AW would have sued the stranger.

They might actually have backed a stranger as well for the money. There was a case in Minnesota 10 years ago where the family took the side of the stranger who killed their child. He ran the stop light at over 60 mph. History of bad driving if I remember correctly. Convicted. Later when the "sudden acceleration" claims were in the news "suddenly" the family realized they could make more money suing Toyota if the stranger was "innocent".

Jury divides responsibility of fatal crash: 60% Toyota; 40% driver

 

[Chewy]

I don't have both feet firmly planted on the premeditated side of the line. But, I still believe it's a good possibility. IMO, prosecutors bring the charges they know they can prove. Premeditated would be a much higher bar to reach.

I don't understand why anyone would think it was premeditated? Do you think the family teamed up to try to off their kid on a Cruise and was scouring the boat looking for an opportunity? I could see maybe one parent doing that ala Ross Harris but I can't see a whole family deciding to do that? How could they know that the window would be open? They would be better off letting her get hurt in one of the pools or falling down a flight of stairs, or cracking her head in the bathroom. They wouldn't even need to have killed her for that lawsuit to work. The cruise's insurance company would pay out.

 

[neesaki]

Not exactly - at one point the prosecutors said they were considering all charges, including murder. I agree with others that they charged SA with what they felt they could prove with evidence. That doesn't mean it wasn't intentional. I started out strongly thinking he was medicated and/or drunk. After watching the interviews, videos, etc. I am now leaning towards it was SA's intentional act.

He let her run around and get way ahead, then stopped and squatted against the post. Never attempted at that time to stop her and pick her up.

He then leaned over and appeared to say something to her while he was squatting down; then again, instead of picking her up, she headed to the windows ahead of him. I fully believed he sent her over there.

Then he got up, and follows a ways behind her again. He never once picked her up until after he looked out the window for several seconds, at the pier below. Only after that did he pick her up. And to what purpose? Because within seconds she’s out and gone.

For Pete’s sake, who holds onto a baby in a window with one hand if they’re trying to protect and prevent them from falling out the window?
No one !

His actions and the sequence of events alone raise strong suspicion, that this was far from an accident. IMO, It appeared to me to be a fully intentional act.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Yes that exactly what she did, even SA admitted that. She wandered over to the windows and was looking out through the lower portion. SA could not reach down to those windows (allegedly) because the glass angles out, and he says that's why he lifted her up. I think his entire narrative was made up on the fly after the fact, it stuck so now he continues it. No one as far as I know in any interview has asked him any "hard" questions - in fact many times the interviewer simply answers for him! Don't ask the family "do you blame anyone?" As them "Why don't you blame SA as the direct cause? Chloe would be alive if he had not lifted her up, put her on a railing, held her with one hand, and then let go of her." I don't expect the press to play hardball but a prosecutor is going to.

I don't know why Grandpa needed to reach/touch the angled lower windows, unless he planned to bang on the glass, too. At Chloe's height, she could easily move close to the glass without her head even touching the railing. SA could have stood or stooped beside her as she banged to her heart's content...or until other passengers became annoyed by the banging. I would have wondered what the he!! the child was doing and why

 

[al66pine]

And if the stranger dropped Chloe, KW and AW would have sued the stranger.

[SIZE=4]]@Midwestmom2019[/SIZE]
Or KSW & AW would have sued stranger and cruiseline both.[/FONT]

 

[al66pine]

A Family Conspiracy?

I don't understand why anyone would think it was premeditated? Do you think the family teamed up to try to off their kid on a Cruise and was scouring the boat looking for an opportunity? I could see maybe one parent doing that ala Ross Harris but I can't see a whole family deciding to do that?...

@Chewy bbm sbm Personally I doubt any 'whole family' conspiracy of intentional death, but have wondered whether two could have, repeat could have, planned and caused this intentionally.
Aside from a handful of demographics on a few members, we don't really know much about family dynamics or individual members' personalities, values, moral compasses, etc. Imo.

 

[Only4Justice]

Poor Chloe. RIP baby girl.

 

[Chewy]

A Family Conspiracy?
@Chewy bbm sbm Personally I doubt any 'whole family' conspiracy of intentional death, but have wondered whether two could have, repeat could have, planned and caused this intentionally.
Aside from a handful of demographics on a few members, we don't really know much about family dynamics or individual members' personalities, values, moral compasses, etc. Imo.

But what would indicate this to anyone? I mean of course anything is possible but you can't just say it was premeditated or that the family is conspiring and just pull it out of thin air. You need a motive or some reason to suggest this. Exactly we don't KNOW much about the family at all. Seems like a huge leap almost to the point of conspiracy theory to suggest such a horrible thing without any reason at all.