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

[PaulR]

Where is the notion coming from that SA was minding other children in the H2O Zone? Most reports I've read/heard indicate that only Chloe's (step) brother was on the cruise with other adult family members.

Part of his defense strategy. "I saw a squirrel and accidentally pushed Chloe out a window."

 

[justbreathe]

In many states refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test when pulled over can result in a suspended license, so LE would encourage the driver to comply. This doesn’t apply to passengers, so SA would fall into a gray area since he was not operating a motor vehicle.

I think it would have been very difficult in that horrible time to sort through the advantages and disadvantages of SA taking the test, so “when in doubt don’t” may have been good advice. It is possible to fail the test without drinking.

Foods That Can Cause A False Positive On A Breathalyzer Test

It’s the lawyers who give the sound advice to NEVER take the breathalyzer. If you are drinking,

The ship is owned by a corporation headquartered in the United States. A civil lawsuit is against the owner.

The post was wondering why the FBI wasn’t involved. The FBI doesn’t get involved with civil cases.

There are no US cruise ships. Our regulations are too stringent and they are all registered in another country.

I wasn’t talking about the civil suit.

 

[Lilibet]

Where is the notion coming from that SA was minding other children in the H2O Zone? Most reports I've read/heard indicate that only Chloe's (step) brother was on the cruise with other adult family members.

Part of his defense strategy. "I saw a squirrel and accidentally pushed Chloe out a window."

I don’t recall the “watching another kid or kids” story ever being mentioned by the family or attorney. It’s a member’s theory AFAIK.

 

[Sillybilly]

Stop the victom/non-victim arguing.

Regardless of their professions, these parents are victims until/unless LE indicates otherwise.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

And if there was water, would that have prevented the tragic death? NO.

Maybe Chloe's mom thought water wouldn't have been as lethal as the concrete dock. Adults who go overboard into the water can survive if someone sees them fall and tosses life-rings into the water.

At 18 months, Chloe was a fashionista, foodie, sports fan, etc. Maybe she could swim, too.

 

[Medstudies]

MOO: If a person needs a warning sign, telling them that it’s dangerous to sit a child on a HANDrail, half out an open window, 150 above the ground, then that person deserves their own sign to warn others that they are “an irresponsible and negligent idiot”.

Because, to most people, who have half a lick of common sense, the danger is completely obvious.

 

[justbreathe]

Does anyone know, is it possible for the civil lawsuit to be won in some amount, say holding the ship partially responsible and still going forward with charges against the grandfather. Or on the other hand, if the criminal trial is first and he is found guilty, can the family still go forward with a civil suit? Thanks, to all. What a sad, sad case. There are surely no winners here. Katt

Yes, both can go forward at their own pace and are not related. Except, that a finding of criminal negligence for SA would be able to be used as evidence in the civil trial that would weigh heavily against the cruise line bearing any responsibility. (Argh - forget the term, but basically if another judge in another court (any court) has previously determined something to be a fact, that fact cannot be disputed in another court.)

And it would be unreasonable to expect a defendant to incriminate themselves ahead of their criminal trial, in order to provide testimony in a civil trial.

So it would make sense the judge in the civil trial would want to see the outcome of the criminal trial before proceeding, as obviously whatever happens in the criminal trial will be relevant and used in the civil trial.

And as the judge in a civil case, you don’t want to possibly mess up the simultaneous criminal trial by insisting on things that could violate a criminal defendant’s rights.

And civil trials are so different. No right to a speedy trial. No right to not incriminate yourself. No beyond a reasonable doubt. No right to an attorney. Civil trial will wait.

 

[Area52]

My opinion about this case is really focused on the window child safety issue because of a tragedy I witnessed many years ago. Businesses who attract families as paying customers have a responsibility and a duty to address safety.

The civil case isn't all that complicated. Toddlers don't just bang on windows. They also like to look through windows. I think Chloe was seated on the railing very close to her grandfather with his arm around her waist. The railing would be bearing her weight rather than her grandfather's hand/arm/shoulder/back.

Toddlers don't wiggle a lot when they are fascinated at looking at something but if they are standing on the floor, they will wander away. I believe Grandpa was standing in order to see the family's other children in the water play area and whatever suddenly happened, Grandpa couldn't react in time.

<modsnip - off topic>

There was tabled seating near those cruise line windows. What if an older child decided to stand on a table or chair to get a better view out the window because the railing blocked his view? There should be no open windows accessible to children on a cruise ship just as there should be no live gators lurking in the water next to a children's beach. To me, it is common sense.

JMO

Actually common sense dictates if an older child stands on a chair or table in a dining room to look out the window, they should be admonished by their parents.! There window that go from the railing to the floor! Why in the world would someone hold a child in front of an open window. ??? Why would you need to notify an adult that this kind of action could result in injury or death? If I put my cat in the microwave to dry it after giving it a bath, is the microwave manufacturer at fault because that wasn't listed in the manual? Come on people, take responsibility for keeping your kids safe.!

 

[MsBetsy]

Always refuse the breathalyzer! They aren’t even accurate.

In many states you can actually have your license suspended for refusing the breathalyzer.
In most cases, it's not even needed.
A police officer can testify that the persons breath smelled of alcohol and they appeared inebriated and they don't need a breathalyzer test to prove it.

Imo

 

[Seattle1]

I just stayed in a hotel with balconies on high floors. I didn’t see anyone allowing toddlers to sit on the rails, bang on glass, or dangle over the edge.

Even Michael Jackson was called out for this!!

 

[Lilibet]

If I put my cat in the microwave to dry it after giving it a bath, is the microwave manufacturer at fault because that wasn't listed in the manual? Come on people, take responsibility for keeping your kids safe.!

Love this comparison! It all boils down to the fact that when some people cause harm to another they often look for someone to blame so they can live with themselves, rather than accept that they alone are responsible. Taking responsibility for their kids before the fact will prevent needing to absolve oneself of responsibility after the fact. But that’s too hard for some people to figure out, apparently.

 

[gitana1]

Nope. You have to watch the whole thing, or not at all. That apparently is the “rule” that cannot be broken. /s

<modsnip> Her attorney may be able to get a copy and edit it for Chloe’s loved ones to view. You’re not Chloe’s loved one so you wouldn’t know exactly when she is going to fall. So if you saw the video you’d see the moment she left his hands.

It almost seems like there’s a blood thirstiness here that supersedes the reality of what happened to this baby. Grandpa is being held accountable by the law for his negligence. But this little girl actually died. Some may be excited to see the evidence that vindicates their position. I am not.

 

[MsBetsy]

MOO: If a person needs a warning sign, telling them that it’s dangerous to sit a child on a HANDrail, half out an open window, 150 above the ground, then that person deserves their own sign to warn others that they are “an irresponsible and negligent idiot”.

Because, to most people, who have half a lick of common sense, the danger is completely obvious.

According to the report describing what was seen in the video, the child was not even seated on the ledge, and she wasn't banging on the window.

For LE to be confident enough to charge him with negligent homicide it has to be more than that. He would have had to have shown gross negligence or behavior that deviates greatly from ordinary care.

If he was rocking the child and she was sticking out of the window that is not only careless, but extremely reckless behavior. If he was intoxicated that only makes him more irresponsible.
It sounds to me like he was playing a dangerous game with her, like the games I've seen some people play pretending they are going to drop the child and then catching them to make them laugh.

Unfortunately his irresponsible and reckless behavior caused this child her life.

Imo

 

[Seattle1]

I've been reading about the child requesting to bang on the glass which never made sense to me. Finally, a reference that she did this before.

Grandfather charged in death of granddaughter who fell from cruise ship

Oct 29, 2019

"Chloe wanted to bang on the glass like she always did at her older brothers' hockey games," he said in a July statement. "Her grandfather thought there was glass just like everywhere else, but there was not, and she was gone in an instant."

[...]

Anello is being held on $80,000 bond and is scheduled to appear in court November 20.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/indiana-toddler-died-cruise-ship-fall-grandpa-thought/story?id=64212610

 

[SuziQ]

I think they were taking full advantage of the booze package as many do.
Because booze is free they go get their money’s worth.
The more I read the more I believe that he was comfortably numb.

There is something about free booze that can make a person who normally doesn't drink much start drinking like a fish. And then you add the vacation malady of leaving your brain at home.

 

[SoCalDavidS]

Yes, both can go forward at their own pace and are not related. Except, that a finding of criminal negligence for SA would be able to be used as evidence in the civil trial that would weigh heavily against the cruise line bearing any responsibility. (Argh - forget the term, but basically if another judge in another court (any court) has previously determined something to be a fact, that fact cannot be disputed in another court.)

And civil trials are so different. No right to a speedy trial. No right to not incriminate yourself. No beyond a reasonable doubt. No right to an attorney. Civil trial will wait.

This is true, although it doesn't always work out that way. Take the OJ case, for example. Not Guilty in the Criminal Trial, but that certainly did not help him in the Civil Trial. Unfortunately, he has had to pay very little of that Civil judgement, and is currently still "searching" FL golf courses for the real killer(s).

 

[SoCalDavidS]

There is something about free booze that can make a person who normally doesn't drink much start drinking like a fish. And then you add the vacation malady of leaving your brain at home.

There is no such thing as "free booze" on a cruise, unless you purchase one of the drink packages. Most people do not, unless they really plan on drinking it up, and you really need several drinks a day, Every day, to make it result in any savings. There has been nothing released saying he had a drink package, and even if he did not, that does not mean he did not drink that afternoon, or just prior to the incident.

If he did buy an unlimited drinks package, that would certainly be incriminating, against someone who they have stated was "not a drinker."

 

[justbreathe]

The lawsuit wasn't quickly filed. It has yet to be filed, according to the family's attorney. Why would the father's profession have any bearing on the case? The child was under the care of her grandfather at the time of her death and LE are supposed to base charges on the facts of the case, not on the profession of the parents, both of whom are considered victims in this case. They haven't been charged.
JMO

Family Stands by Grandfather Charged in Girl's Cruise Ship Death: 'Salt in Open Wounds,' Says Lawyer
Winkleman tells PEOPLE the family is preparing a lawsuit against Royal Caribbean but have not yet filed it because they have not yet accessed the CCTV footage that shows Chloe falling out the window.

The only reason the lawyer hasn’t filed is because he is afraid that the tape will make him look like damn fool, and could cause the whole suit to be thrown out because SA’s story that the suit is based on is a big fat lie.

 

[katydid23]

Where is the notion coming from that SA was minding other children in the H2O Zone? Most reports I've read/heard indicate that only Chloe's (step) brother was on the cruise with other adult family members.

Right. And he is 11. I doubt that he needed his grandpa to watch him from the lounge through a tiny window.

 

[SuziQ]

There is no such thing as "free booze" on a cruise, unless you purchase one of the drink packages. Most people do not, unless they really plan on drinking it up, and you really need several drinks a day, Every day, to make it result in any savings. There has been nothing released saying he had a drink package, and even if he did not, that does not mean he did not drink that afternoon, or just prior to the incident.

If he did buy an unlimited drinks package, that would certainly be incriminating, against someone who they have stated was "not a drinker."

You are correct. Free booze isn't the correct term. I should have said easy access and wanting to get your moneys worth.