GUILTY IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #9 *NO JAIL*

[IceIce9]

Grandfather of toddler who died after falling from cruise ship window charged with negligent homicide

Several of us here on WS had discussed that the grandfather was negligent in holding little Chloe up to the open window

Media Thread

Thread #1 Thread #2 Thread #3 Thread #4 Thread #5 Thread #6 Thread #7 Thread #8

 

[CocoChanel]

MOD NOTE:
NEW thread is ready for discussion.
Please remember the TOS.
Please DO NOT reply to posts that obviously violate the TOS. Please report them instead.

Faithfully,
CocoChanel
Moderator

 

[Mommazz4]

18 month old Chloe Wiegand is the deceased victim here. I consider her brother a victim also; it is my hope and prayer that he is receiving the support and care he needs so this whole situation does not muck up his head for the rest of his life.

By their actions, JMO, KSW, AW, SA and PA have invited attention, scrutiny and, yes, suspicions upon them.

KSW and AW’s public unwavering support of the man who killed their daughter who would never, ever do anything to hurt their children. It’s all the big bad ship’s fault. And don’t ever forget that their suit is seeking claims for little Chloe’s future earnings along with everything else.

So much discussion on SA already.

PA, well, it appears she’s standing behind her man by sitting beside him at that December press conference. Nothing has been reported in the news they are separated or divorcing.

I consider AW’s parents tainted at this point. Yes, I do feel a bit sorry for them as among the collateral damage of SA’s killing Chloe and recognize and acknowledge they are in a proverbial “stuck between a rock and a hard place” situation. However, radio silence on what happened is a double edged sword.

But Chloe, the innocent victim, is dead; to me, her brother is also innocent victim. The only explanation given is that the ship and RCCL are at fault and responsible.

KSW and MW’s apparent efforts to try to win in the public court of opinion does invite closer scrutiny. And, please note, I find it significant that they have never, ever (as far as I know) given the public a brief but succinct summary of events. KSW and MW want attention. Well, they have it. But be careful for you wish for, folks.

Chloe and her brother are the real victims here. As for the adults, to me, what remains is who are (for lack of a better term, probably a better phrase but I couldn’t think of one) basically accessories/enablers after the fact by their denials and refusals to consider other evidence (the video) and who is collateral damage.

Just. My Thoughts. and Opinions.

Edit: change “accessories” to “accessories/enablers”

Is the civil suit seriously asking for Chloe's future earnings? WTF? How does KSW thinks she would be legally entitled to any income Chloe may have earned in her lifetime if she had lived? How is Chloe's future income related to the reason they filed the lawsuit? you know to ensure the cruise line protects it passengers from the dangers of open windows?
In the press conference where they just had to have it televised to the public that they filed a lawsuit against RCCL, KSW said that she didn't want Chloe's name or memory to be linked to a lawsuit because when you Google Chloe's name it mentions lawsuit. THEY are the ones that filed the lawsuit that Chloe's name would be forever linked to.
I wish that an FBI profiler would do an assessment this KSW, SA and AW I would love to hear a professional assessment on the actions that these people took from the moment they set foot on the cruise.

 

[In vino veritas]

Given that a joint motion was filed to grant an extension for filing the joint status report to 5:00pm today, I am assuming that neither party expects a dismissal of the lawsuit.. at least not before the status conference on Wednesday the 11th.

Again, if my assumption is correct, the status conference call should establish a timeline for moving forward. That is, presenting discovery, including witness lists and possibly scheduling a trial date.

Any opinions/ insights into this status conference? Has the HD video, which requires proprietary software , even been viewed by the federal judge and plaintiffs??

Any thoughts on feasibility of a dismissal after the status conference or the likelihood of this actually going to a jury trial??

 

[they'll get you]

I sincerely doubt RCL will settle on this lawsuit. Not after they re-filed the motion to dismiss AND made a strong reply in further support of their re-filed motion following the plaintiff’s rebuttal. I just do not see it happening.

Bbm. It seems the filing of a joint status report is a requirement for both parties by the court. I don’t think it has anything to do with a possible settlement.

“Within this Notice, the Court required the Parties to file a Joint Status Report at 5:00pm the Friday prior to the Telephonic Status Conference scheduled for March 11, 2020.”.

I sincerely hope RCC don’t settle as it would open up a shocking can of worms in the future. Imo they must fight this out now.

 

[Kindred]

NEW DOCUMENT

JOINT STATUS REPORT
CASE NO.: 1:19-25100-cv-DLG FILED 3/9/20 10 PAGES

joint status report 3-9.pdf

It's mostly boring procedural stuff, but it does answer a few questions people here have been asking. From Page 3:

"7. Any unique legal or factual aspects of the case requiring special consideration by the Court.

This case has received significant media attention, which may make selection of a jury more challenging. Furthermore, the majority of witnesses reside outside of Florida, which may require travel for depositions.

8. Status of any potential settlement.

The Parties have not discussed settlement. RCL contends it is not responsible for the death of Chloe Wiegand and that Mr. Anello is fully responsible."

From Page 4:

"JOINT CONFERENCE REPORT LOCAL RULE 16.1(b)(2)

a. A discussion of the likelihood of settlement: None at this time. See ¶8 supra.

b. A discussion of the likelihood of appearance of additional parties in the action: At this time, the Parties do not anticipate the appearance of additional parties in the action. "


Also included in this document is a proposed joint scheduling order setting the trial (if it gets that far) for the week of May 17, 2021.


So I'll say it loud and proud: RCCL HAS NO CURRENT INTENTIONS OF SETTLEMENT. Also it doesn't appear that RCCL will try to bring SA into the case as a third party, but there will be depositions from "witnesses" taken, and I'm pretty sure that he will be one of the people deposed.

**edit** just adding in that the Motion To Dismiss is still on the table. I'm sure it will come up during the conference call and a ruling will come out on it some time shortly after.

 

[Jewels53]

@Kindred I can't thank you enough for bringing us these documents.

I know I don't comment much on the thread, I do read read though.

I will be so glad when RCL is granted dismissal of these charges. The only one a fault is SA!

imo

 

[Kindred]

@Kindred I can't thank you enough for bringing us these documents.

I know I don't comment much on the thread, I do read read though.

I will be so glad when RCL is granted dismissal of these charges. The only one a fault is SA!

imo

To be honest, with SA trying to plead out of the criminal trial now, I have mixed feelings about a dismissal. On the one hand, this complaint is trash in my opinion and should be completely thrown out instead of giving the family more of a podium to keep harping from. On the other, SA has no protection from testifying here. There was no guarantee that he would have taken the stand in the criminal trial. He wasn't required to testify to defend himself if he didn't want to. But he doesn't have any such protection in the civil case. If he gets subpoenaed he will have to answer it. And if he tries to 'plead the 5th' RCCL can push to compel, because he already plead guilty and therefore couldn't be charged again for the same act. So he would have to sit and answer.

I want SA to be deposed. I want to see the video of him squirming and trying to answer real questions about what the eff he was doing putting her in that window. His fake tears won't help, because the lawyer will just sit and wait for him to stop and then ask him again. And again. And again until they get some kind of actual answer instead of "just fix the boat"

 

[Jewels53]

To be honest, with SA trying to plead out of the criminal trial now, I have mixed feelings about a dismissal. On the one hand, this complaint is trash in my opinion and should be completely thrown out instead of giving the family more of a podium to keep harping from. On the other, SA has no protection from testifying here. There was no guarantee that he would have taken the stand in the criminal trial. He wasn't required to testify to defend himself if he didn't want to. But he doesn't have any such protection in the civil case. If he gets subpoenaed he will have to answer it. And if he tries to 'plead the 5th' RCCL can push to compel, because he already plead guilty and therefore couldn't be charged again for the same act. So he would have to sit and answer.

I want SA to be deposed. I want to see the video of him squirming and trying to answer real questions about what the eff he was doing putting her in that window. His fake tears won't help, because the lawyer will just sit and wait for him to stop and then ask him again. And again. And again until they get some kind of actual answer instead of "just fix the boat"

Yes I agree especially to your last paragraph. I want to know WTH was he thinking by lifting her up and putting her over the railing towards the window open or closed. He should have checked the window before he even attempted to put Chloe up there. The man has no common sense at all. MOO!

 

[In vino veritas]

To be honest, with SA trying to plead out of the criminal trial now, I have mixed feelings about a dismissal. On the one hand, this complaint is trash in my opinion and should be completely thrown out instead of giving the family more of a podium to keep harping from. On the other, SA has no protection from testifying here. There was no guarantee that he would have taken the stand in the criminal trial. He wasn't required to testify to defend himself if he didn't want to. But he doesn't have any such protection in the civil case. If he gets subpoenaed he will have to answer it. And if he tries to 'plead the 5th' RCCL can push to compel, because he already plead guilty and therefore couldn't be charged again for the same act. So he would have to sit and answer.

I want SA to be deposed. I want to see the video of him squirming and trying to answer real questions about what the eff he was doing putting her in that window. His fake tears won't help, because the lawyer will just sit and wait for him to stop and then ask him again. And again. And again until they get some kind of actual answer instead of "just fix the boat"

Thank you , kindred, for all the legal updates!
I still think this case will be dismissed. And even though SA has changed his plea to guilty, it still requires a hearing before the PR judge, which is scheduled for the 19th.
The judge has to accept the plea and the terms of the deal, so it’ll be interesting to see if anything significant transpires.

What I’m uncertain about is whether or not the federal judges in Miami have seen the HD video on RCL proprietary software yet.

IMO, that video will be conclusive regarding SA’s culpability. Couple the video, with RCL’s refiled MTD and their reply to the plaintiffs comments, I’ve got to believe the judge will dismiss. As RCL attorneys stated , MW’s lawsuit did not prove any of the points they asserted regarding RCLs negligence in the death of CW.

 

[mheido67]

Personally, I'd be fine with a settlement if it included;

-No admission of liability on the part of RCCL.
-No cash damages award to the Wiegand family.
-RCCL agrees to afix warning labels to the sills of the operable windows which state "Caution - window may be open."

I think RCCL has a very very strong case in defense. No prior notice. The windows are not in violation of any binding codes or standards. SA pled guilty to negligent homicide. The windows are clearly identifiable when open.

RCCL will wind up putting warnings in place regardless since there is now prior notice that a potentially dangerous situation exists. They cannot do nothing. Making labels and installing them will cost them a few tens of thousands of dollars. The costs of discovery and trial will be much greater then that. This is what the Wirgand family has always maintained they want. RCCL should make the offer and let the Wiegands reject it if they want to. JMO.

 

[Lawnguylander1964]

Today's tweet:

Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A.
@cruiseshiplaw
·
7m
LMAW held a nautical themed fete to honor Attorney Lipcon’s milestone achievement as “Lawyer of the Year”. With over 100 family members, friends, colleagues and co-workers there to celebrate- it was a night to remember! #lawyeroftheyear #maritimelawyer Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A. Celebrates Founding Partner Charles Lipcon's Selection as Maritime "Lawyer of the Year"

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

Yes I agree especially to your last paragraph. I want to know WTH was he thinking by lifting her up and putting her over the railing towards the window open or closed. He should have checked the window before he even attempted to put Chloe up there. The man has no common sense at all. MOO!

IMHO SA knew exactly what he was doing and had an agenda.

 

[neesaki]

To be honest, with SA trying to plead out of the criminal trial now, I have mixed feelings about a dismissal. On the one hand, this complaint is trash in my opinion and should be completely thrown out instead of giving the family more of a podium to keep harping from. On the other, SA has no protection from testifying here. There was no guarantee that he would have taken the stand in the criminal trial. He wasn't required to testify to defend himself if he didn't want to. But he doesn't have any such protection in the civil case. If he gets subpoenaed he will have to answer it. And if he tries to 'plead the 5th' RCCL can push to compel, because he already plead guilty and therefore couldn't be charged again for the same act. So he would have to sit and answer.

I want SA to be deposed. I want to see the video of him squirming and trying to answer real questions about what the eff he was doing putting her in that window. His fake tears won't help, because the lawyer will just sit and wait for him to stop and then ask him again. And again. And again until they get some kind of actual answer instead of "just fix the boat"

I can see where you’re coming from. I’d like to see him put on the spot and answer the questions as well.

WTH were you thinking, what was your reason for putting Chloe up to that high window?
Did you think the window was closed?
How could you not know the window was open?
Were you under the influence of any mind altering substances?
Was it really an accident, or did you purposely drop Chloe to her death? (I know, but I can wish)
What was there to gain from her death , and were there others involved in the plan? (still wishing)

Would he continue the lies, or would he break down and finally tell the truth.

 

[Kindred]

I can see where you’re coming from. I’d like to see him put on the spot and answer the questions as well.

WTH were you thinking, what was your reason for putting Chloe up to that high window?
Did you think the window was closed?
How could you not know the window was open?
Were you under the influence of any mind altering substances?
Was it really an accident, or did you purposely drop Chloe to her death? (I know, but I can wish)
What was there to gain from her death , and were there others involved in the plan? (still wishing)

Would he continue the lies, or would he break down and finally tell the truth.

They probably wouldn't be questions like that. Depositions are truly mind-numbing and can last for hours or even days given the circumstances (probably not days in this case though). They'd probably start out asking really boring stuff about him. Who he is. What he does. About his community acting. What medications are you prescribed and what is each drug prescribed for. How often do you have to take each medication. What happens if you don't take these medications. Do you ever take other medications for any other reason like air travel anxiety or motion sickness... Blah blah blah. How much time he spent with Chloe before the trip. How often she was put in his care and so on. Probably after a while of mundane stuff they'd move on to the trip itself. What other places did they travel to before arriving in San Juan? What time did they leave? What time did they arrive. Who was driving? Did they stay in a hotel before coming to the port or fly in the same day? How many hours had he been awake by the time they got to the ship. What did he have for lunch once they boarded. Where were the staterooms. Did anyone bring any bottles of wine onboard with them. What did you do after lunch. Blah blah blah. Trying to needle out every. single. detail. that they can get out of him BEFORE even getting to how he ended up on deck 11 with Chloe.

And any time he protests or complains or resists answering anything just makes it longer. It'd be a long time before they get to the actual incident and what happened after it. I'm curious if he would get anyone to sit with him as counsel during the deposition since Winkleman isn't technically his lawyer.

 

[neesaki]

They probably wouldn't be questions like that. Depositions are truly mind-numbing and can last for hours or even days given the circumstances (probably not days in this case though). They'd probably start out asking really boring stuff about him. Who he is. What he does. About his community acting. What medications are you prescribed and what is each drug prescribed for. How often do you have to take each medication. What happens if you don't take these medications. Do you ever take other medications for any other reason like air travel anxiety or motion sickness... Blah blah blah. How much time he spent with Chloe before the trip. How often she was put in his care and so on. Probably after a while of mundane stuff they'd move on to the trip itself. What other places did they travel to before arriving in San Juan? What time did they leave? What time did they arrive. Who was driving? Did they stay in a hotel before coming to the port or fly in the same day? How many hours had he been awake by the time they got to the ship. What did he have for lunch once they boarded. Where were the staterooms. Did anyone bring any bottles of wine onboard with them. What did you do after lunch. Blah blah blah. Trying to needle out every. single. detail. that they can get out of him BEFORE even getting to how he ended up on deck 11 with Chloe.

And any time he protests or complains or resists answering anything just makes it longer. It'd be a long time before they get to the actual incident and what happened after it. I'm curious if he would get anyone to sit with him as counsel during the deposition since Winkleman isn't technically his lawyer.

Yes you’re right, depositions are long, tedious and in general quite boring. Would he have to retain his own counsel if he chose to have an attorney present? I’m not sure if Winkleman would represent him, as in could it be a conflict of interest?

 

[JerseySleuth17]

IMHO SA knew exactly what he was doing and had an agenda.

I agree - it is the most simple explanation for his behavior. Forget "I thought the window was closed" - that's ridiculous. So if he knew the window was WIDE open, since he stuck his head out of it, why would he hold CW by one hand in front of an open window? The only end result was that eventually she was going to fall out.

 

[Only4Justice]

I agree - it is the most simple explanation for his behavior. Forget "I thought the window was closed" - that's ridiculous. So if he knew the window was WIDE open, since he stuck his head out of it, why would he hold CW by one hand in front of an open window? The only end result was that eventually she was going to fall out.

Occam’s razor.

 

[mheido67]

Occam’s razor.

If you're going to invoke Occam's razor then "he didn't realize the window was open" is actually the most appropriate explaination as it requires the least number of assumptions.

 

[JerseySleuth17]

If you're going to invoke Occam's razor then "he didn't realize the window was open" is actually the most appropriate explaination as it requires the least number of assumptions.

Except he popped his head out the window the minute he walked up to it so we are starting with the base assumption he knew the window was open. And if he knew the window was open, and he held a toddler up to it only loosely holding her with one hand, the end result is going to be that she falls out the window.