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

[Kindred]

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.

Actually you still have to come up with excuses and assumptions for how he couldn't realize the window was open. "He didn't care the window was open" is actually probably the simplest

 

[mheido67]

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.

I'm still not convinced any of the video evidence definitively shows his head going out the window. So starting with the assumption he didn't realize the window was open is still the simplest explaination for why he placed her where he did.

 

[mheido67]

Actually you still have to come up with excuses and assumptions for how he couldn't realize the window was open. "He didn't care the window was open" is actually probably the simplest

But you really don't. You're adding an assumption about his mental state that is not required. If you're just trying to explain why he placed CW in the position he did assuming he simply did not realize there was no glass is the simplest explaination for his actions. Why he didn't observe the window to be open (assuming he did not) is another question entirely.

 

[Kindred]

But you really don't. You're adding an assumption about his mental state that is not required. If you're just trying to explain why he placed CW in the position he did assuming he simply did not realize there was no glass is the simplest explaination for his actions. Why he didn't observe the window to be open (assuming he did not) is another question entirely.

Not really. Him not caring simply recognizes that open or not he was probably going to lift Chloe up and put here there on the rail/ledge anyway. Whereas not realizing it means that he would have acted differently if had known. But there is no real indication of that.

 

[mheido67]

Not really. Him not caring simply recognizes that open or not he was probably going to lift Chloe up and put here there on the rail/ledge anyway. Whereas not realizing it means that he would have acted differently if had known. But there is no real indication of that.

I understand your point but your argument disregards SA's own words. He claims to not have known the window was open. So by assuming he didn't care that the window was open you're also assuming he lied about not knowing it was open. So that adds an additional layer of complexity not required if one accepts him at his word which would be the simplest explaination.

Clearly we could argue this all day. Not sure it's really relevant.

 

[neesaki]

IMO the simplest explanation is, he went to that window because he saw that it was open, he wanted to look out at the pier, and he wanted to put Chloe out the window . He did all of these things. No accident, he simply wanted to do it and he did. Occam's razor. MOO

 

[In vino veritas]

Today is the status conference call. I fervently hope that we hear news of the lawsuits dismissal. If not today, then by the end of the week.

Based on my readings of the motions and replies, MW has not proven at all any negligence on RCL’s part in the death of CW. He cannot cite any precedence because none exists, building codes he references are relevant to apartment dwellings.

Even his assertion that RCL did not have warning decals on the windows is moot because the windows had railings, tinting and handles.... more than adequate safety measures, especially when height of windows/ railings and distance from railings to window are also considered.

Given the high cost of continuing this process to a jury trial in the face of such weak presentation by the plaintiffs, and a guilty plea by SA, IMO the only reasonable action would be dismissal by the Miami court.

 

[RoadToSerfdom]

IMO the simplest explanation is, he went to that window because he saw that it was open, he wanted to look out at the pier, and he wanted to put Chloe out the window . He did all of these things. No accident, he simply wanted to do it and he did. Occam's razor. MOO

Agree. There was even a man at that window while they stopped and SA squatted down and talk to her. Then the man walked a way and they walked to the same window that man was looking out of. What was it about the window that they had to wait for that one rather than go to a window the man was not in front of? Either he saw it was open from afar and waited for the man to leave or it is some coincidence.

 

[HRH Phoebe Cat]

dbm

 

[Midwestmom2019]

I understand your point but your argument disregards SA's own words. He claims to not have known the window was open. So by assuming he didn't care that the window was open you're also assuming he lied about not knowing it was open. So that adds an additional layer of complexity not required if one accepts him at his word which would be the simplest explaination.

Clearly we could argue this all day. Not sure it's really relevant.

There’s nothing to argue about. But it is relevant.
Wait for the RCCL proprietary software so you can get a better view. If you can’t see it then, something’s wrong.

 

[mheido67]

There’s nothing to argue about. But it is relevant.
Wait for the RCCL proprietary software so you can get a better view. If you can’t see it then, something’s wrong.

Something's wrong with what?

 

[RoadToSerfdom]

I don't think believing the main witness is telling the truth is necessarily the "simplest explanation". For example if I walk up to a man holding a gun and see a bleeding man on the ground next to him, and he says that a circus truck drove by and a monkey jumped off it, ran up, grabbed the gun, shot the man, and then the monkey tossed the gun to him as the monkey grabbed a rope dangling off a helicopter that took it away, which is why he is standing there holding the gun. The simplest explanation would be the man shot the bleeding man himself.

"I thought there was glass" is SA's monkey story IMO.

I am not addressing the 'did not care' vs 'did not know' the window was open because I think he did care, he wanted an open window. I think the simplest explanation is he went to the window because it was open in order to look out with the clearest view and perhaps to get some breeze.

Looking at some of the pictures at night of the windows or even daytime still pictures from certain angles and distances, without imagining actually being there, makes "I thought there was glass" plausible on the surface. But the still pictures remove sound, smell, sense of breeze, and the spatial nature of 3D vision while moving around. I have not been on a huge ship like that but I have been on boats, docks, peers, beaches, and in a sunny afternoon the sense of being 'outside' vs inside is very obvious and strong. That sense of the outside would exist next to a huge open window like that. The video of the YouTuber walking the ship best demonstrates this as he holds the video camera to the open window. There is even an acrophobia feeling just from the video when at the window. Imagine the video camera is your head and you are actually there how scary that would be to look down. How would it be possible not to notice that.

That is why I hope if it does go to trial the jury visits the ship as part of the trial. Or hold the whole trial on the ship like this (maybe not practical for a civil trial):

I think it would be a lot harder for SA to testify that he thought there was glass while on the ship in the afternoon with everyone able to walk up and look out the actual window.

 

[neesaki]

Agree. There was even a man at that window while they stopped and SA squatted down and talk to her. Then the man walked a way and they walked to the same window that man was looking out of. What was it about the window that they had to wait for that one rather than go to a window the man was not in front of? Either he saw it was open from afar and waited for the man to leave or it is some coincidence.

I think he was waiting, why else squat down and lean against they column. Waiting for that open window. IMO

 

[neesaki]

I don't think believing the main witness is telling the truth is necessarily the "simplest explanation". For example if I walk up to a man holding a gun and see a bleeding man on the ground next to him, and he says that a circus truck drove by and a monkey jumped off it, ran up, grabbed the gun, shot the man, and then the monkey tossed the gun to him as the monkey grabbed a rope dangling off a helicopter that took it away, which is why he is standing there holding the gun. The simplest explanation would be the man shot the bleeding man himself.

"I thought there was glass" is SA's monkey story IMO.

I am not addressing the 'did not care' vs 'did not know' the window was open because I think he did care, he wanted an open window. I think the simplest explanation is he went to the window because it was open in order to look out with the clearest view and perhaps to get some breeze.

Looking at some of the pictures at night of the windows or even daytime still pictures from certain angles and distances, without imagining actually being there, makes "I thought there was glass" plausible on the surface. But the still pictures remove sound, smell, sense of breeze, and the spatial nature of 3D vision while moving around. I have not been on a huge ship like that but I have been on boats, docks, peers, beaches, and in a sunny afternoon the sense of being 'outside' vs inside is very obvious and strong. That sense of the outside would exist next to a huge open window like that. The video of the YouTuber walking the ship best demonstrates this as he holds the video camera to the open window. There is even an acrophobia feeling just from the video when at the window. Imagine the video camera is your head and you are actually there how scary that would be to look down. How would it be possible not to notice that.

That is why I hope if it does go to trial the jury visits the ship as part of the trial. Or hold the whole trial on the ship like this (maybe not practical for a civil trial):

I think it would be a lot harder for SA to testify that he thought there was glass while on the ship in the afternoon with everyone able to walk up and look out the actual window.

That’s a fascinating case, thanks for the video. Interesting they had purchased a life insurance policy on the victim. I wonder if the parents or SA had purchased a life insurance policy on Chloe.

 

[mheido67]

I don't think believing the main witness is telling the truth is necessarily the "simplest explanation". For example if I walk up to a man holding a gun and see a bleeding man on the ground next to him, and he says that a circus truck drove by and a monkey jumped off it, ran up, grabbed the gun, shot the man, and then the monkey tossed the gun to him as the monkey grabbed a rope dangling off a helicopter that took it away, which is why he is standing there holding the gun. The simplest explanation would be the man shot the bleeding man himself.

"I thought there was glass" is SA's monkey story IMO.

I am not addressing the 'did not care' vs 'did not know' the window was open because I think he did care, he wanted an open window. I think the simplest explanation is he went to the window because it was open in order to look out with the clearest view and perhaps to get some breeze.

Looking at some of the pictures at night of the windows or even daytime still pictures from certain angles and distances, without imagining actually being there, makes "I thought there was glass" plausible on the surface. But the still pictures remove sound, smell, sense of breeze, and the spatial nature of 3D vision while moving around. I have not been on a huge ship like that but I have been on boats, docks, peers, beaches, and in a sunny afternoon the sense of being 'outside' vs inside is very obvious and strong. That sense of the outside would exist next to a huge open window like that. The video of the YouTuber walking the ship best demonstrates this as he holds the video camera to the open window. There is even an acrophobia feeling just from the video when at the window. Imagine the video camera is your head and you are actually there how scary that would be to look down. How would it be possible not to notice that.

That is why I hope if it does go to trial the jury visits the ship as part of the trial. Or hold the whole trial on the ship like this (maybe not practical for a civil trial):

I think it would be a lot harder for SA to testify that he thought there was glass while on the ship in the afternoon with everyone able to walk up and look out the actual window.

Again, I understand. I think we've taken the Occam's razor conversation as far as necessary here.

But your assumption about why SA went to the open window completely ignores a major fact. SA followed CW over to the windows. He went where she went. So saying he chose the open window is not supported by the evidence.

I completely agree that I find it hard to understand how he could possibly have not realized the window was open. Perhaps as he walked to it and initially leaned on the railing to look down at CW below at his feet. Perhaps. If his attention was solely on CW he might not have noticed the open window. But once he lifts her up and they are both facing the opening together, for half a minute? I just can't see it. (no pun intended)

 

[neesaki]

Again, I understand. I think we've taken the Occam's razor conversation as far as necessary here.

But your assumption about why SA went to the open window completely ignores a major fact. SA followed CW over to the windows. He went where she went. So saying he chose the open window is not supported by the evidence.

I completely agree that I find it hard to understand how he could possibly have not realized the window was open. Perhaps as he walked to it and initially leaned on the railing to look down at CW below at his feet. Perhaps. If his attention was solely on CW he might not have noticed the open window. But once he lifts her up and they are both facing the opening together, for half a minute? I just can't see it. (no pun intended)

His attention apparently wasn’t solely on Chloe, as he went directly to the window and put his head out looking down at the pier, for several seconds. He knew the window was open or he couldn’t have done that. It was only after this that his focus shifted to her when he bent down and picked her up.

 

[RoadToSerfdom]

Good point about CW going first to the windows. He seems to be talking to her when squatting down to her before she goes over to the windows, so I kind of think he told her to go that way, but there is no way to know what he said to her. Also when he picks CA up she is on his right and he is at the open window so not sure if she went right to that specific window (maybe she went to the next window on the right) but he did go to the open window and bend over the railing.

If they were both waiting for the man to leave that explains why she walked in that direction to that window or near it when the man finished.

Also neesaki posted while I was typing I agree SA went straight to that specific open window which was not necessarily exactly where CA was. He looked out it by himself. Only after that did he turn down to find CA off to the right the side of him and pick her up.

Another possibly importation thing is in the act of picking CA off the floor he turns his body to the right to face her, so his nose is point at the side camera. As he picks her up over his head he rotates his nose (and body) toward the open window. Why not pick her up and step with her to the next window over that she had been more in front of. Seems like he is picking her up and pulling her back (slightly) to his position to that specific window.

Video for reference:

 

[Midwestmom2019]

I think he was waiting, why else squat down and lean against they column. Waiting for that open window. IMO

Did SA think the other windows didn’t open? Or was too tired/unable/didn’t want to make the effort/insert any other reason here, to slide one open by himself?

 

[Midwestmom2019]

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.

No, the most appropriate explanation is that he intentionally put her in harm’s way, and intent takes the least number of assumptions.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

I'm still not convinced any of the video evidence definitively shows his head going out the window. So starting with the assumption he didn't realize the window was open is still the simplest explaination for why he placed her where he did.

If he didn’t realize the window was opened, he’s challenged in the mental faculty department. But we know he’s in IT. He walks, talks, has a job, which uses mental faculties. Fishes on a boat, clearly knows about large bodies of water, drives, gets tickets. Does that point to mental faculty limitations? He has a budding acting career. Convinced D.Begnaud he should audition for a role in the upcoming made for media trial of Weigand v. RCCL.