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

[mheido67]

DBM double post

 

[Chewy]

As far as I can recall, SA is the only one who ever claimed he yelled "I thought there was glass" after she fell, and that was only after hooking up with Winkleman. The only (currently) available witness statement we have from the doctor says that his words after "I dropped my baby" were "I thought the window was closed" which makes an important distinction, IMO. Thinking the window was closed implies he knew very well that it was a window and he never assumed it was a wall of glass like Winkleman keeps trying to paint it out to be, as opposed to a statement like 'I didn't know it opened'.

BBM

That is exactly my point. I thought I wasn't explaining it right. (Sometimes people overthink the basics when they are confronted with research and study but it's usually pretty simple.)

If he honestly thought there was a "wall of glass" he would have continued into that mindset for at least a few more minutes. He would have thought the "glass fell out." He would not have said this. Compound that with the incredible amount of stress he was under........not possible. He shouted out a defense of something he already knew not to be true.

I feel horrible for him. I know some people don't. But I used this example before. He reminds me of the dad that tries to take a kid on a ride on a lawnmower to teach him some cool skills and winds up tragically wounding the child. Sometimes even killing them. There is no way the guy didn't know it was risky. He just didn't think it would happen.

 

[mheido67]

Just an example of what I mean about cognitive processing and neurological error and shock overload.


Very simple experiment that anyone can do. The brain can typically only process 3-4 bits of information at a time.

So turn to anyone in the room right now and ask them this.

"I am going to tell you my social security number, please repeat it back to me."

Then tell them the number. (Make one up if you want.)

Most people will have about a 90-100% accuracy rate of recalling the numbers because of the way it is broken down.

Next turn to the same people and say "I am going to tell you my credit card number and I want you to repeat it back to me" (again make up a number if you need to)

The majority of people in a study will repeat with a 90-100% accuracy rate of the three digits of the SS number. The majority of people with CC# will do this:

They will repeat ONLY the first four digits of the card number and forget the rest. Note this. It's not as if they only remember the first two sets of numbers and forget the rest. They typically can ONLY remember the first four digits. This is because you added ONE more digit and ONE more set of numbers. It wipes it out.

Cognitive processing in a stressed moment reverts to a sort of "chunking" method. (this is why they use this in schools to prepare for tests)

So three bits of information

First set "I am holding this child"
Second set "I lost my grip and she fell"
Third set "She is going to die." (at this point the emotional overload would wipe out any of the other information.)

First set "She is banging on the window"
Sedond set "I lost my grip and she fell"
Third set " She fell out the window"


Try the credit card example and you will see. It is cognitively impossible for his reaction to have been "I thought there was a window" if he previously honestly thought there was a window.

(Again this is based on people saying he immediately dropped to his knees and said "I dropped my baby out the window" and "I thought there was a window." And again eyewitness testimony is often flawed.)

What happened is that he knew there wasn't a window and lifted her up to look out because there wasn't a window pane there and dropped her. Completely careless mistake. Horrifying mistake.

But the idea that he didn't know there was a window there is not borne out by the evidence.

Hope this helps. Try the experiment. And to emphasize. Ask the person who forgot the rest of your credit card number to repeat it again. And right when they start to do it SCREAM in their face. They won't remember any of it.

What is the point? Stress overload wipes it all out. He dropped his granddaughter to her death. 3 seconds of processing all this while also gutted with the worst stress any of us could imagine? Impossible.

Three bits of information and then what? It all depends on EXACT timing, right? A matter of seconds. After that all bets are off?

Also, had SA believed there was glass out of a lack of observation would there be any difference than if he believed he had positively seen glass? He admitted in his statement today that his attention was totally on Chloe. So he wasn't really paying attention. He had no reason to believe there was glass other than that he had assumed there was.

 

[In vino veritas]

As far as I can recall, SA is the only one who ever claimed he yelled "I thought there was glass" after she fell, and that was only after hooking up with Winkleman. The only (currently) available witness statement we have from the doctor says that his words after "I dropped my baby" were "I thought the window was closed" which makes an important distinction, IMO. Thinking the window was closed implies he knew very well that it was a window and he never assumed it was a wall of glass like Winkleman keeps trying to paint it out to be, as opposed to a statement like 'I didn't know it opened'.

And THAT distinction is crucial in the civil trial, IMO. His acknowledgement it was, in fact, a window. No “hidden danger”. A WINDOW, which a reasonable person should be able to discern fairly easily was opened or closed by visual observation or tactile observation(touching it, feeling breezes, hearing sounds).
I truly believe that this case will be dismissed by the judge , in part because of my comment above, and by the sound arguments RCL presented in their re-filed Motion to Dismiss. Oh! And let’s not forget the guilty plea!

 

[Chewy]

Three bits of information and then what? It all depends on EXACT timing, right? A matter of seconds. After that all bets are off?

Also, had SA believed there was glass out of a lack of observation would there be any difference than if he believed he has positively seen glass? He admitted in his statement today that his attention was totally on Chloe. So he wasn't really paying attention. He had no other reason to believe there was glass other than that he had assumed there was.

No absolutely it doesn't depend on exact timing. That you would even ask this shows that you have no idea what you are talking about and I feel like we are derailing the thread.

It has nothing to do with exact timing. It has to do with HOW THE BRAIN PROCESSES INFORMATION especially under duress. When I'm asking people to repeat the numbers they are not under duress. The stress in this situation came as a result of him dropping Chloe, not him walking up to a window. (That's why I said the only way it would be correct is if he regularly dropped kids out windows). The cognition of the window being open would have happened PRIOR to Chloe being dropped. It is not an "after the fact" issue. He stated he thought the window was closed. His behavior and reaction in duress indicates otherwise. That's all I'm saying.

I prefer not to continue this conversation. But thanks for the opportunity for a discussion. I just feel like it's rude to the rest of the people trying to have a conversation about the actual case.

Cheers!

 

[mheido67]

BBM

That is exactly my point. I thought I wasn't explaining it right. (Sometimes people overthink the basics when they are confronted with research and study but it's usually pretty simple.)

If he honestly thought there was a "wall of glass" he would have continued into that mindset for at least a few more minutes. He would have thought the "glass fell out." He would not have said this. Compound that with the incredible amount of stress he was under........not possible. He shouted out a defense of something he already knew not to be true.

I feel horrible for him. I know some people don't. But I used this example before. He reminds me of the dad that tries to take a kid on a ride on a lawnmower to teach him some cool skills and winds up tragically wounding the child. Sometimes even killing them. There is no way the guy didn't know it was risky. He just didn't think it would happen.

Okay, so what we're actually dealing with here is an after the fact claim by no one other than SA?

As far as him saying "I thought the window was closed." to the doctor in the elevator that was clearly more than several minutes after the fall. As you recall the doctor went from the ship , to the pier and back onto the ship and up to deck 11. That's where he encountered SA and rode the elevator back down. The doctor has no knowledge of what SA said or did prior to that time. So following the fall SA would have been near the windows and would have observed, now that he was aware of his surroundings that there were indeed operable window sections. So by the time he was with the doctor would it still be unreasonable for him to say "I thought the window was closed'?

 

[mheido67]

No absolutely it doesn't depend on exact timing. That you would even ask this shows that you have no idea what you are talking about and I feel like we are derailing the thread.

It has nothing to do with exact timing. It has to do with HOW THE BRAIN PROCESSES INFORMATION especially under duress. When I'm asking people to repeat the numbers they are not under duress. The stress in this situation came as a result of him dropping Chloe, not him walking up to a window. (That's why I said the only way it would be correct is if he regularly dropped kids out windows). The cognition of the window being open would have happened PRIOR to Chloe being dropped. It is not an "after the fact" issue. He stated he thought the window was closed. His behavior and reaction in duress indicates otherwise. That's all I'm saying.

I prefer not to continue this conversation. But thanks for the opportunity for a discussion. I just feel like it's rude to the rest of the people trying to have a conversation about the actual case.

Cheers!

Well, I'm pretty sure whether he actually thought the window was closed or not would have been pretty central to his criminal defense case so I don't really feel like this is derailing the thread.

Seeing as we seem to have established at this point that there isn't really any evidence that he made comments about the window in the immediate seconds following CW falling I guess it's a moot point.

Cheers to you too!

 

[katydid23]

The whole "End this Part of the Nightmare" is a false narrative. It will not end the nightmare as long as they have the civil suit still happening.
BBM

moo

And how can that end the nightmare? Isn't the real nightmare the fact that their sweet baby died a brutal death? That will never end.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

And how can that end the nightmare? Isn't the real nightmare the fact that their sweet baby died a brutal death? That will never end.

IMHO Chloe is kind of an afterthought
.

 

[loveandhugs]

I have several issues with SA's statement from this morning.

He goes out of his way in a fairly short statement to recount the stories of other people who experienced the tragic deaths of their child who told him how horrible it would have been if they had been prosecuted. Then immediately says he continues to only think of Chloe! If he was only thinking of Chloe he wouldn't have included anything about how hard the prosecution is on family members.

Also, at the end he comes pretty close to liabling RCCL, no?

"There are clear safety measures that the cruise line has demonstrated they know are necessary by implementing them on other ships but have neglected on this one."

This is a clear accusation that RCCL had prior knowledge of a dangerous condition existing and neglected to do anything about it. Did MW write this statement?

Changing the design of perimeter windows on subsequent ship builds does NOT equal implementing safety changes to a known hazard.

I seriously doubt this statement was by SA, I am sure he was coached as to what to say. Okay, so a baby died in a supermarket cart. I put my children in a supermarket cart all the time, they were never in danger because I was always right there, never walked away from the cart, they would have not lost their lives because I would have been there for them. So how does a child die in a supermarket cart if the parent is with the child all the time. If I needed an item on a shelf, the cart was with me, I did not walk away. No sympathy from me regarding this. Why bring this up at all, oh so we will feel sorry for SA. No!!!!! I feel sorry for Chloe!!!!!

This was all about SA and oh at the end he mentioned Chloe. I am so angry by all of this. JMO

 

[loveandhugs]

And how can that end the nightmare? Isn't the real nightmare the fact that their sweet baby died a brutal death? That will never end.

Yes, that is how I feel. The nightmare is Chloe's death, I do not feel any sympathy for SA since he will not take responsibility for her death. Even in his statement, he is defending his actions.

 

[sl222]

Any Explicit Admission of SA's Negligence or Guilt in Causing Death?
@mheido67 bbm sbm Re bbm: imo, yes. Team Winkleman's fingerprints are all over it, imo. Ticking boxes to help w the civil action? Does he accept blame?
--- "Apologizes" for seeming to be rude.......................... (Any apology to or about Chloe?)
---- Outpouring of sympathy from ppl-on-the-street in PR & IN.
--- Proclaiming to speak out when others advised against it.
--- Supportive letters from around the world.
--- Prayers & bible verses (from others).
--- Other children's deaths, w no crim prosecution.
--- Only thinks of Chloe.
--- "Tell you what I experienced."....................................(Not admitting he caused her death.)
--- "I was so horribly wrong about our surroundings.".... (Not admitting he caused her death.)
--- Notre Dame hockey rink barriers.
--- "Glass firmly affixed preventing accidents" at his place of employment.
--- "Wasn't drinking."
--- "Wasn't dangling her out of a window."
--- "in charge of keeping my [g'dau] safe and I failed."...(Cd/have been said about a skinned knee).
--- Taking "plea deal" to help family end nightmare........ (Now anticipating no prison time, stay in IN)
--- "Justice for Chloe" inc's new safety measure by RCL...(<---RCL negligent, at fault for her death)

SA's stmt dances up to the edge of admitting his negligent actions were the proximate cause of Chloe's death, then pirouettes to pin all the blame on RCL. jmo.

* Man will plead guilty in granddaughter's cruise ship death to "end part of this nightmare"

Spot on. Great breakdown of his statement. Like you point out, his very first point is the apology for not speaking to people in the hall? That starts the doubt-alarms ringing for people with experience in analyzing statements. Like I said yesterday, if he had simply made no statement, he would have garnered a modicum of respect for the perception that he was taking a semblance of responsibility, but instead he's just playing the good guy who made a tragic error in perception, when in fact at that moment he was a horrible person who did the unthinkable with a helpless baby. He may be a gregarious person most of the time but something happened during these 40 seconds that makes no sense without some kind of explanation such as intoxication or mental health lapse.

 

[loveandhugs]

Any Explicit Admission of SA's Negligence or Guilt in Causing Death?
@mheido67 bbm sbm Re bbm: imo, yes. Team Winkleman's fingerprints are all over it, imo. Ticking boxes to help w the civil action? Does he accept blame?
--- "Apologizes" for seeming to be rude.......................... (Any apology to or about Chloe?)
---- Outpouring of sympathy from ppl-on-the-street in PR & IN.
--- Proclaiming to speak out when others advised against it.
--- Supportive letters from around the world.
--- Prayers & bible verses (from others).
--- Other children's deaths, w no crim prosecution.
--- Only thinks of Chloe.
--- "Tell you what I experienced."....................................(Not admitting he caused her death.)
--- "I was so horribly wrong about our surroundings.".... (Not admitting he caused her death.)
--- Notre Dame hockey rink barriers.
--- "Glass firmly affixed preventing accidents" at his place of employment.
--- "Wasn't drinking."
--- "Wasn't dangling her out of a window."
--- "in charge of keeping my [g'dau] safe and I failed."...(Cd/have been said about a skinned knee).
--- Taking "plea deal" to help family end nightmare........ (Now anticipating no prison time, stay in IN)
--- "Justice for Chloe" inc's new safety measure by RCL...(<---RCL negligent, at fault for her death)

SA's stmt dances up to the edge of admitting his negligent actions were the proximate cause of Chloe's death, then pirouettes to pin all the blame on RCL. jmo.

* Man will plead guilty in granddaughter's cruise ship death to "end part of this nightmare"

My first thought when I read the statement. This is not written by SA. He is not taking responsibility, and never will. Chloe doesn't matter, only saving himself and protecting the family, too bad he didn't protect Chloe the same way.

 

[Chewy]

Well, I'm pretty sure whether he actually thought the window was closed or not would have been pretty central to his criminal defense case so I don't really feel like this is derailing the thread.

Seeing as we seem to have established at this point that there isn't really any evidence that he made comments about the window in the immediate seconds following CW falling I guess it's a moot point.

Cheers to you too!

BBM

A person already posted SA's exact comments as he dropped to his knees. He stated himself he said it and there were witnesses who also heard him say it. (I am not talking about his comments in an elevator many moments afterward)

Again maybe all of them got it wrong. But if he dropped to his knees stating " I dropped my baby" and "I thought the window was closed" in a matter of 3 seconds (based on the video footage of her falling and him dropping to his knees) then there is no way he didn't know the window was open.

That's what I'm pointing out. If he honestly thought the window was open and she fell out the window he would have thought the glass fell out of the window with her. He wouldn't have had enough time to realize otherwise. He knew the window was open. He made a stupid mistake.

I think what upsets a lot of people is that the way he made it sound and the way he promoted himself as an "elderly grandfather with colorblindness" who walked up to a window with his toddler granddaughter and held her up to the window" was something that could happen to anyone. That's the kind of thing RCCL should be mindful and responsible about. Some people have poor vision or other physical impairments. No person should be at risk for accidentally dropping anything out a window (let alone a baby) because they are old or infirm.

So, many people had sympathy for him.

But when you actually watch and analzye the video it changes everything. He knew the window was open and played a risky game with his granddaughter and killed her.

In this litigious world we're tired of people suing companies because of personal stupidity. And in this case it's even worse because a baby died. It's exactly like the example where the mother lifted her son over the barrier at the Painted Dog exhibit at the Pittsburg Zoo where she then dropped her child to be mauled by the wild dogs and then tried to sue the zoo.


Cheers again!

 

[Wicked Strong]

Focusing on the lawsuit, does MW keep SA away from the court since he is not a partner to the suit? IMO SA would be a distraction from the window safe argument, and he might have to then explain his actions. It would appear that RCCL has enough evidence in the form of video cams and the copy of the ships rules to defend the case without SA testifying.

Another thought, is the lawsuit subject to both a verdict decision, and also an award of damages? Aren't they 2 separate actions? I'm sorry that I don't know how to put that in words, but could the jury find that the window are not safe enough, but find there should be no dollar amount given. Maybe only ask RCCL to paste a small notice that this window can be opened? After all, isn't this what Wiegand's originally wanted to warn people.

I am not for lawsuits of this nature, and I'm not happy with SA getting off any sort of punishment. I only hope that when everything is done, he starts to think about what he did. And it's quite possible that it will tear this family apart, because I can't imagine the other grandparents have complete sympathy for SA, or can easily forgive him for denying them the chance to see their granddaughter grow up.

MOO

 

[mheido67]

BBM

A person already posted SA's exact comments as he dropped to his knees. He stated himself he said it and there were witnesses who also heard him say it. (I am not talking about his comments in an elevator many moments afterward)

Again maybe all of them got it wrong. But if he dropped to his knees stating " I dropped my baby" and "I thought the window was closed" in a matter of 3 seconds (based on the video footage of her falling and him dropping to his knees) then there is no way he didn't know the window was open.

That's what I'm pointing out. If he honestly thought the window was open and she fell out the window he would have thought the glass fell out of the window with her. He wouldn't have had enough time to realize otherwise. He knew the window was open. He made a stupid mistake.

I think what upsets a lot of people is that the way he made it sound and the way he promoted himself as an "elderly grandfather with colorblindness" who walked up to a window with his toddler granddaughter and held her up to the window" was something that could happen to anyone. That's the kind of thing RCCL should be mindful and responsible about. Some people have poor vision or other physical impairments. No person should be at risk for accidentally dropping anything out a window (let alone a baby) because they are old or infirm.

So, many people had sympathy for him.

But when you actually watch and analzye the video it changes everything. He knew the window was open and played a risky game with his granddaughter and killed her.

In this litigious world we're tired of people suing companies because of personal stupidity. And in this case it's even worse because a baby died. It's exactly like the example where the mother lifted her son over the barrier at the Painted Dog exhibit at the Pittsburg Zoo where she then dropped her child to be mauled by the wild dogs and then tried to sue the zoo.


Cheers again!

Not to belabor the point but I just want to restate my points.

"A person already posted SA's exact comments as he dropped to his knees. He stated himself he said it and there were witnesses who also heard him say it. (I am not talking about his comments in an elevator many moments afterward)"

A commentor noted that he was observed saying repeatedly "I dropped my baby!" I believe it was you who then offered that he also said at that time "I thought there was glass."

"Again maybe all of them got it wrong. But if he dropped to his knees stating " I dropped my baby" and "I thought the window was closed" in a matter of 3 seconds (based on the video footage of her falling and him dropping to his knees) then there is no way he didn't know the window was open."

I pointed out that there is unlikely to be a witness who could state with certainty that he said both these things as he fell to the floor in the 3 seconds after he dropped her since there hasn't been any talk of a witness who actually saw him fall to the floor. How would they know he said it while falling if they didn't see him falling. Could have said it after he fell but that wouldn't be within a few seconds. Which brought me to my point about timing. After a few seconds his brain could have processed more than 3 bits of information, no?

"That's what I'm pointing out. If he honestly thought the window was open and she fell out the window he would have thought the glass fell out of the window with her. He wouldn't have had enough time to realize otherwise. He knew the window was open."

Assuming you meant closed here. This is why I asked about him just believing there was glass because he was unobservant versus if he truly thought he had positively seen glass. Sorry if that distinction isn't clear. But again, I'm assuming this didn't happen in the 3 seconds it took for her to fall but at some point after he was on the deck.

"He made a stupid mistake."

Agreed.

"But when you actually watch and analzye the video it changes everything. He knew the window was open and played a risky game with his granddaughter and killed her."

I don't think the grainy low resolution video is clear enough to make that definitive statement.

Cheers!

 

[Chewy]

Focusing on the lawsuit, does MW keep SA away from the court since he is not a partner to the suit? IMO SA would be a distraction from the window safe argument, and he might have to then explain his actions. It would appear that RCCL has enough evidence in the form of video cams and the copy of the ships rules to defend the case without SA testifying.

Another thought, is the lawsuit subject to both a verdict decision, and also an award of damages? Aren't they 2 separate actions? I'm sorry that I don't know how to put that in words, but could the jury find that the window are not safe enough, but find there should be no dollar amount given. Maybe only ask RCCL to paste a small notice that this window can be opened? After all, isn't this what Wiegand's originally wanted to warn people.

I am not for lawsuits of this nature, and I'm not happy with SA getting off any sort of punishment. I only hope that when everything is done, he starts to think about what he did. And it's quite possible that it will tear this family apart, because I can't imagine the other grandparents have complete sympathy for SA, or can easily forgive him for denying them the chance to see their granddaughter grow up.

MOO

Excellent points. I mentioned this earlier as well. If the whole point of the Weignand's lawsuit is to "protect other children" then a mandate in changes on the way windows are designed for cruise ships would be the way to go. But if they are asking for a pay out, doesn't that actually hurt the ability of the cruise ship to make improvements? They would be taking money out of the budget.

I can see the argument that windows that high up should not be able to be open that wide without a window guard in place. Here in NYC the landlords in buildings are required to install window guards on all the windows if a child lives in the apartment. They are often removed by tenants because people tend to use window style air conditioners in the summer. (This has led to the deaths of several children who crawled through the gap between the width of the window and the air conditioning unit)

New York

Keeping Kids Safe in NYC Rentals with Window Guards : New York Habitat Blog

I don't see why gaping open windows are allowed on a moving vessel like this. But changing that policy wouldn't result in a multi million dollar pay out to the family.

 

[Wicked Strong]

Excellent points. I mentioned this earlier as well. If the whole point of the Weignand's lawsuit is to "protect other children" then a mandate in changes on the way windows are designed for cruise ships would be the way to go. But if they are asking for a pay out, doesn't that actually hurt the ability of the cruise ship to make improvements? They would be taking money out of the budget.

I can see the argument that windows that high up should not be able to be open that wide without a window guard in place. Here in NYC the landlords in buildings are required to install window guards on all the windows if a child lives in the apartment. They are often removed by tenants because people tend to use window style air conditioners in the summer. (This has led to the deaths of several children who crawled through the gap between the width of the window and the air conditioning unit)

New York

Keeping Kids Safe in NYC Rentals with Window Guards : New York Habitat Blog

I don't see why gaping open windows are allowed on a moving vessel like this. But changing that policy wouldn't result in a multi million dollar pay out to the family.

The windows that open are allowing air movement. Many people who take cruises are posting their opinions on other sites that it would be impossibly hot without open windows. As far as guards, why? You have a railing in place to keep people safely back.

I'm not talking about changes in the way windows are designed. If a jury determines anything needs to be done, then (according to the Wiegand's in an interview) print a few stickers to plaster on the windows that open, such as a circle with a child dangling out the window with a red slash over it). Even then, it wouldn't help the SA's in the future because he wouldn't pay attention to it.

MOO

 

[Chewy]

The windows that open are allowing air movement. Many people who take cruises are posting their opinions on other sites that it would be impossibly hot without open windows. As far as guards, why? You have a railing in place to keep people safely back.

I'm not talking about changes in the way windows are designed. If a jury determines anything needs to be done, then (according to the Wiegand's in an interview) print a few stickers to plaster on the windows that open, such as a circle with a child dangling out the window with a red slash over it). Even then, it wouldn't help the SA's in the future because he wouldn't pay attention to it.

MOO

I know it's not funny but the idea of a sticker suggesting "don't dangle babies out windows" is amusing. And you're right. People like SA would ignore it anyway.

I think that's the main issue for many people as well. How much personal
responsibility can we expect people to take. At the same time from a practical standpoint "people are stupid" "people are clumsy" and people often make mistakes without being stupid or clumsy.

The issue I would take is that the enormity of the vessel is trying to pack in as many people as possible to maximize profits. And they also are keeping alcohol flowing because that is a huge profit margin as well. If the ability to keep the boat flowing with cool air can only be done by keeping windows open where items (not babies) could be thrown out easily (imagine you can drop a can of beer out the window and it lands on someone's head 7 floors down) then basically what the RCCL is doing is deciding that the profits they would make off this design are worth the risk it would take to customers.

We can all get hurt by random strangers in our lives. But the world doesn't generally set up a situation of a "perfect storm" for such an event to happen.

But again MOO and this is why I would never go on a cruise. Just the idea of bacteria from such a large number of people is gross to me.

 

[SoCalDavidS]

I don't see why gaping open windows are allowed on a moving vessel like this. But changing that policy wouldn't result in a multi million dollar pay out to the family.

Fact is that most cruise ships have windows that open, so it's not like RCCL has ships more dangerous than other cruise lines. Millions of people around the world travel on these ships day after day, and this is the only case I've heard where someone "accidentally" lifted an infant up over a railing and dropped them out an open window which they thought was closed. It's not like there has been a groundswell of anger that RCCL should have known about this danger, and were therefore responsible for the lack of safety enhancements.

I'd be willing to bet any amount of money that the family is far less concerned with whether every cruise ship retrofits their vessels to have windows that cannot open, and more focused on getting a settlement out of RCCL. Winkleman is not doing his song & dance for nothing. If the family wanted an industry wide change, their efforts would be directed towards other avenues, rather than a lawsuit against RCCL.