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

[they'll get you]

I'm also betting the newly refurbished ship addresses the play area/open window safety issue.

JMO

I’ll be going on the newly refurbished Voyager in 6 weeks so I’ll see if there are any new safety signs.

I’ve been on this ship twice before so I’ll note any differences.

 

[Safeguard]

What do we know about little Chloe?

She loved her family. She loved to Garden. She was sports fan!
She was 18 months old and had a corresponding curiosity about the world...

She had an older brother who so loved her, he stated that he wished he was there because he would have "jumped out and saved her"... ( God. My heart is breaking just typing that!).

She was here, she existed. Her life mattered. People loved her, and she loved them.

Her whole point of being was about love. Not retribution. Not litigation. Not punishment, not fault finding...

Imo everyone could take a page from her book.

Rest In Peace, will not be possible for her, (IMO!), if her family is not comforted and supported.

 

[Safeguard]

Me too, yet apparently SA thought it was so funny to scare baby Chloe like that. IMO, it should be considered child abuse even if he hadn’t dropped her. I really hope he gets jail time for this.

How do you know he, "thought it was funny to scare" her? Just curious. Do you have a link? It, never in a million years would have occurred to me that he wanted to "scare" her. I think he loved her and he wanted to impress her.

 

[borndem]

People can be forcefully sedated if necessary just for 'losing it' and hysterically causing a ruckus.
The video might show how he acted before and after; and whether he knew the windows were open or closed.
Was he shouting at the staff, accusing them of opening a window purposefully just as he put Chloe through it, or on the ledge ?
SA's having to be sedated doesn't tell us very much ; imo.

Everything about this case stinks and overloads the hinky meter.
Why is the family pursuing a settlement when they know it was no one's fault except themselves ?

Yes,of course it may have been an accident.
But you don't accuse people you know did nothing wrong.
And the more you attack without cause (in this case the cruise line), the worse it makes you look.
Imo.

People have also killed for far less than what an imagined settlement from RCC would be.
It would be of interest to know what amount the family is seeking.
30 mil. ? 80 mil. ?

Does anyone know if RCC can counter sue for defamation and libel if nothing else ?

bbm
I don't think they would want to create any more press than they've already had -- a pretty little toddler who was on their cruise ship died. Just lie low and hope everything quiets down, and keep on filling those staterooms, etc. JMHO.

 

[LietKynes]

bbm
I don't think they would want to create any more press than they've already had -- a pretty little toddler who was on their cruise ship died. Just lie low and hope everything quiets down, and keep on filling those staterooms, etc. JMHO.

Thanks @borndem !
If the parents hadn't decided to sue and are still going ahead with the help of Michael Winkleman, it's possible none of this would've happened.

 

[LietKynes]

What do we know about little Chloe?

She loved her family. She loved to Garden. She was sports fan!
She was 18 months old and had a corresponding curiosity about the world...

She had an older brother who so loved her, he stated that he wished he was there because he would have "jumped out and saved her"... ( God. My heart is breaking just typing that!).

She was here, she existed. Her life mattered. People loved her, and she loved them.

Her whole point of being was about love. Not retribution. Not litigation. Not punishment, not fault finding...

Imo everyone could take a page from her book.

Rest In Peace, will not be possible for her, (IMO!), if her family is not comforted and supported.

LBM

Lol, we can agree to disagree.

A 'sports fan' at 18 months old who loved to garden... that could be -- but it'd be rare at that age. Imo.
She was basically an older baby just beginning her life and discovering the world.

Chloe may have loved the activity at a hockey game but to say she was a fan might be stretching it a bit.
But I get the gist of your statement and that was that we need to remember how much life she had in her.
And that she deserved to LIVE, and not dropped or dangled until she fell to her death.
Hopefully it was instantaneous and she felt nothing.
That would be a small mercy.

Her parents allege that she wanted SA to pick her up and hold her to the window to bang on the glass.
I realize this information didn't come out until after the lawyer was hired to spin this story.
"Banging on glass" is already a foolish decision made by the parents and could result in serious injury-- as another member here pointed out in their post about cuts from glass affecting nerves and tendons.

A child is dead and the person who dropped her needs to answer for his idiotic actions.

That is the purpose of this thread and of Websleuths to sleuth and read about (and sometimes add information where applicable ) crimes.
That is why this thread was graciously posted by @IceIce9 in "Crimes against children".

If this was my child I'd be furious and wanting some answers.
Litigation is not necessarily retribution, as sometimes the offender gets a slap on the wrist.
Or nothing at all.
It's a manner in which civilized countries hold wrongdoers to account.

Is it possible if the parents stop trying to sue that this could be settled with a fine against SA and everyone goes on their way ?
Maybe.

But SA needs to answer as he was the one holding the baby when she was let go to her death.
Most parents would be horrified and angry at the offender.
Not defending him with every breath.
Her family needs to know what happened and the one responsible held and charged to the fullest extent of the law.
That should be the scenario.
Most families want justice and for the offender to pay for his/her actions.

This was a crime and the PR gov't. and RCC lines are treating it as such.
It's possible they know something the rest of us do not-- as they've viewed the evidence.
We will know more on Nov. 30th when SA stand trial.
Nov. 30th can't come quickly enough.
Most of us want justice for this child whose life was cut off.

 

[borndem]

^^^The other poster was referencing a different member and not myself ; they explained this.

Has LE ruled anything out ?
If the PR LE rule this an accident then that's all it was.
I have no problem with that.


It looked like case this was a non-issue and then what happened ?
Why charge him now ?
It seemed like SA would've been charged as soon as the video was viewed....and if just an unfortunate accident, why not leave the family (incl. SA) alone ?
What do you think ?

I would think that PR LE has to investigate every death that is due to "non-natural" causes on cruise ships.
I have no idea, but IMO a death such as this would require LE and an ME to get involved no matter where in PR it happened. People die with heart attacks, strokes, etc., on ships in port - how are those treated by LE -- if at all? People are murdered on cruise ships, too, I feel sure.

Seems to me that at least an MD's Death Certificate or perhaps an ME's report would be required, on any death on board.
That may well be why they got involved in this tragedy.

 

[LvsAMystry]

I don’t buy the she wanted to be picked up to bang on the glass for one glaringly obvious reason: the lower level of glass was her height, and all with closed windows not allowed to open. She could have banged on those to her hearts content. Safely.

 

[MsMarple]

IMO if the parents are being truthful in saying they are suing RCCL in order to prevent an accident like this happening again then it's not likely they'll settle the suit unless RCCL agrees to make some sort of change regarding the windows.

And RCCL may settle just to avoid further negative publicity. Otherwise, if the suit goes to trial then the parents must show that RCCL was aware that the open window could cause a fatality if a child stood on the rail. I don't think RCCL was obligated to anticipate that particular risk. IOW the circumstances in Chloe's fall was impossible to anticipate beforehand. Not unlike a person climbing on a deck rail to take a selfie.

Of course a sympathetic jury could still decide RCCL was at fault but even then logically they would probably also assign some blame to the grandfather. In the end it would come down to the percentages of blame each party is responsible for. And that's how the money gets decided in civil suits. All MOO.

Now as far as the criminal case goes I'm at a loss. Until we learn what evidence the prosecution has it's all up in the air IMO. Do I agree that the grandfather should be charged? I really don't know since we don't know what's on the video. Negligent homicide means he should have known he was putting Chloe at risk by standing her on the rail in front of an open window and decided to do it anyway. But the prosecution has to prove he knew the window was open and I'm not sure that's possible.

So in the end I think if the grandfather honestly didn't know the window was open or if the prosecution can't prove he knew it was open then he shouldn't be charged. IOW the prosecution would need some compelling evidence to show he acted recklessly.

There's a difference between being legally wrong and morally wrong. IMO the grandfather should have been more careful and I have to wonder if he has a neurological or visual impairment that prevented him from correctly assessing the situation. I wouldn't let him near my kids or grandkids. But was he legally negligent? I guess we'll learn more in November. All MOO.

 

[neesaki]

I actually don't want to see him punished. I think Natural Consequences already did a thorough job of that. Third rule of Physics: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction".

We all know our actions have consequences, you can't safeguard everyone, from everything. People who spill hot coffee on themselves will get burned. They shouldn't be allowed to sue McDonalds. Common sense is a "thing".

The only reason I wanted to see charges brought is because I didn't like the fact that Dad is a cop and Mom is a lawyer, so this family would get a pass, when sleep deprived parents in Hot Car deaths are charged with murder/Neg Hom. all the time now. ( These Hot Car deaths escalated with the introduction to new car seat laws. Car seat laws either brought out the murderer in thousands of parents, or many cases were accidents).

I really though this act of gross negligence, on the part of Grandpa, was just going to go away, (like Epstein's murder!), due to preferential treatment. And that's unacceptable. imo.

Hey Safegard, I totally respect your opinion. However, Regarding the bolded, I’m not sure what the point is of charging and indicting someone for a crime is if not to convict and punish. IOW, I’m genuinely curious as to why someone would be charged with negligent homicide, if there wasn’t some amount of expectation of punishment, incarceration being, I’m assuming, at the top of the list as far as the DA’s office is concerned. Otherwise, what would be the purpose of going through all the legalities and a potential trial, which is not only demanding of the staff but expensive for tax payers.

Please believe me when I say I am not arguing, only am asking for a bit more clarification. As it seems there’s a conflict in wanting someone arrested and tried, but not convicted of the crime.

Perhaps one of our verified attorneys, or even non verified (?) could weigh in on this, would be much appreciated. TIA

 

[neesaki]

How do you know he, "thought it was funny to scare" her? Just curious. Do you have a link? It, never in a million years would have occurred to me that he wanted to "scare" her. I think he loved her and he wanted to impress her.

I guess we will find out, when the video comes out. And a 5os year old man wants to “impress” a baby? How does that work?

 

[Safeguard]

Hey Safegard, I totally respect your opinion. However, Regarding the bolded, I’m not sure what the point is of charging and indicting someone for a crime is if not to convict and punish. IOW, I’m genuinely curious as to why someone would be charged with negligent homicide, if there wasn’t some amount of expectation of punishment, incarceration being, I’m assuming, at the top of the list as far as the DA’s office is concerned. Otherwise, what would be the purpose of going through all the legalities and a potential trial, which is not only demanding of the staff but expensive for tax payers.

Please believe me when I say I am not arguing, only am asking for a bit more clarification. As it seems there’s a conflict in wanting someone arrested and tried, but not convicted of the crime.

Perhaps one of our verified attorneys, or even non verified (?) could weigh in on this, would be much appreciated. TIA

My point would be, charge all or charge none. What indeed, "would be the purpose of going through all the legalities and a potential trial, which is not only demanding of the staff but expensive for tax payers."

Yet some equally culpable parents are spared, and others with less evidence to show negligence are prosecuted to the fullest. Why is that?

In this case. His son was a cop, his daughter in law a lawyer, one might be tempted to speculate that there could be some "professional courtesy " involved.

It does happen. All the time.

 

[Safeguard]

Thanks @borndem !
If the parents hadn't decided to sue and are still going ahead with the help of Michael Winkleman, it's possible none of this would've happened.

I disagree. They sued to try and save Grandpa, but I think he was going to be charged eventually and all of "this" was inevitable.

 

[LietKynes]

My point would be, charge all or charge none. What indeed, "would be the purpose of going through all the legalities and a potential trial, which is not only demanding of the staff but expensive for tax payers."

Yet some equally culpable parents are spared, and others with less evidence to show negligence are prosecuted to the fullest. Why is that?

In this case. His son was a cop, his daughter in law a lawyer, one might be tempted to speculate that there could be some "professional courtesy " involved.

It does happen. All the time.

Agreed Re. the bolded.
Makes some more interesting ideas concerning this case come to mind.

 

[borndem]

It's hard to say. Most of the released pictures of the scene were taken at night and it's hard to tell in the dark which ones are open and which ones are not from the glare and angles.

Great pics -- very helpful!
Thanks, @Kindred!

 

[neesaki]

My point would be, charge all or charge none. What indeed, "would be the purpose of going through all the legalities and a potential trial, which is not only demanding of the staff but expensive for tax payers."

Yet some equally culpable parents are spared, and others with less evidence to show negligence are prosecuted to the fullest. Why is that?

In this case. His son was a cop, his daughter in law a lawyer, one might be tempted to speculate that there could be some "professional courtesy " involved.

It does happen. All the time.

You make some good points, I agree with you here.

 

[BeachSky]

I disagree. They sued to try and save Grandpa, but I think he was going to be charged eventually and all of "this" was inevitable.

I agree. It’s pretty transparent IMO.
What if the (negligent) caretaker had of been a Nanny (say hired through an agency ) that they brought on the cruise. Would they not hold the Nanny & the agency accountable? Or would they only go after the cruise line to spare the Nanny a criminal charge (because she thought the window was closed)?

MOO

 

[al66pine]

...
Is it possible if the parents stop trying to sue that this could be settled with a fine against SA and everyone goes on their way ?
Her family needs to know what happened and the one responsible held and charged to the fullest extent of the law....

@LietKynes sbm and Others

Issue 1: "Her family needs to know what happened" What can parents do to learn?
(1) Ask SA what happened, how/why Chloe was dropped. When he tells them, they may believe him or not, up to them. Ditto for any fam member present at the time. Believe or maybe not. Pretty darned obvious thing to so - ask the person who dropped her. Is it possible they have not done this? Or that they did not like the answers he gave them?
(2) Sue cruiseline, and use discovery process to learn more. LE interviews w employee witnesses, passenger witnesses, cruiseline vids, passenger vids. Parents' atty presents lots of info about cruise ship design, and how the window design, operation, & placement was defective, inherently dangerous, lack of warnings/signage, etc. Not an effective way for parents to learn anything, imo. In cross exam of SA, cruiseline defense team will insinuate SA. was alcohol or drug impaired, had some physical/mental illness, neuralgeia (sp?), either diagnosed or undiagnosed, suffered from dementia, was delusional, <--- all making him prone to trip over his own feet, drop whatever he was holding, or all the above, so notwithstanding boat design/lack of signage, SA caused the death. imo.
(3) Follow criminal proceedings & trial of SA, which presents some of same evd - interviews and vids - as civil suit. If SA testifies in his own defense, what can he say other than he was trying to be very. very, very careful as he always was w his granddaughter. Doubtful anything to help parents' learn 'what happened' imo.

Issue 2: "Most families want justice and for the offender to pay for his/her actions."
If these parents really, truly want the 'offender' to pay for his actions, is suing/threat of suing cruiseline going to make that happen? Or might the 'offender' pay for his actions by facing the PR criminal trial? and whatever consequences follow?

Issue 3: "Is it possible if the parents stop trying to sue that this could be settled with a fine against SA and everyone goes on their way ?"
Seems like above question is conflating parents' threatened civil suit against cruiseline with PR's criminal charges against SA. Each is independent of the other.

 

[Safeguard]

Issue 3: "Is it possible if the parents stop trying to sue that this could be settled with a fine against SA and everyone goes on their way ?"
Seems like above question is conflating parents' threatened civil suit against cruiseline with PR's criminal charges against SA. Each is independent of the other.

Great post, (respectfully snipped for brevity).

The criminal charges were inevitable imo. The amazing swiftness of the lawsuit always seemed to me, that the family was well aware of how this was going down, and hastened to prove blame lay elsewhere so that could be used in the criminal trial, to mitigate SA's culpability.

For a while I though they just might have gotten SA off by hook or by crook. It looks like they tried, but were not successful.

 

[LietKynes]

@LietKynes sbm and Others

Issue 1: "Her family needs to know what happened" What can parents do to learn?
(1) Ask SA what happened, how/why Chloe was dropped. When he tells them, they may believe him or not, up to them. Ditto for any fam member present at the time. Believe or maybe not. Pretty darned obvious thing to so - ask the person who dropped her. Is it possible they have not done this? Or that they did not like the answers he gave them?
(2) Sue cruiseline, and use discovery process to learn more. LE interviews w employee witnesses, passenger witnesses, cruiseline vids, passenger vids. Parents' atty presents lots of info about cruise ship design, and how the window design, operation, & placement was defective, inherently dangerous, lack of warnings/signage, etc. Not an effective way for parents to learn anything, imo. In cross exam of SA, cruiseline defense team will insinuate SA. was alcohol or drug impaired, had some physical/mental illness, neuralgeia (sp?), either diagnosed or undiagnosed, suffered from dementia, was delusional, <--- all making him prone to trip over his own feet, drop whatever he was holding, or all the above, so notwithstanding boat design/lack of signage, SA caused the death. imo.
(3) Follow criminal proceedings & trial of SA, which presents some of same evd - interviews and vids - as civil suit. If SA testifies in his own defense, what can he say other than he was trying to be very. very, very careful as he always was w his granddaughter. Doubtful anything to help parents' learn 'what happened' imo.

Issue 2: "Most families want justice and for the offender to pay for his/her actions."
If these parents really, truly want the 'offender' to pay for his actions, is suing/threat of suing cruiseline going to make that happen? Or might the 'offender' pay for his actions by facing the PR criminal trial? and whatever consequences follow?

Issue 3: "Is it possible if the parents stop trying to sue that this could be settled with a fine against SA and everyone goes on their way ?"
Seems like above question is conflating parents' threatened civil suit against cruiseline with PR's criminal charges against SA. Each is independent of the other.

LBM

The "Her family needs to know what happened..." post was made in reference to another poster who feels that the ship isn't being forthcoming with the safety issues that they believe weren't being met.

And "Most families want justice..." As SA's charges are criminal negligence this was more than a simple accident.
To be fair-- not every family is the same, and Chloe's parents may feel that the step-grandpa is being unfairly targeted.
Hence the "Most families".
Sorry if that wasn't clear ; but thanks for addressing the questions.

Agreed with your post, esp. the bolded. Thank you for clearing that up for myself and others with whom I've been conversing.
If the parents want to know the truth, they can view the security footage.
For some reason they've refused thus far.

And yes it's possible they didn't like the answers SA gave them.
Speaking about the parents : But that has nothing to do with their lawsuit which they refuse to drop.
They know this wasn't the ship's fault. Both are educated people and even the simplest minds would understand that the person holding the baby out the window dropped her.
It's not rocket science and Chloe's parents have known that part of the truth from the start.

Thanks again for clarifying Issue #3. It'll be interesting to see how each case is handled.