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

[MsBetsy]

there's video....best witness on the planet (or ship) is video...

Is the camera on the inside of the ship or outside facing the window? What angle did the camera show?
We also don't know how clear the image is.
Video evidence is great but an eyewitness is also direct evidence so it may be helpful too.
The video may not have captured what he was saying, either.

Imo

 

[max99]

Is the camera on the inside of the ship or outside facing the window?

I don't know but my best guess is it's good enough to successfully prosecute or charges would not have been brought forth. No one wants to inflict additional harm in this tragic situation but this must have been egregious enough that PR officials felt a need to prosecute..and the fact that the family is trying to sue RCCL to absolve an idiotic move on a family member's part...smdh

 

[max99]

The video may not have captured what he was saying, either.

Imo

bbm:

say what?

are you closely connected?

 

[MsBetsy]

Also, the rail is round. A child could not sit on the rail without support. And from what I understand, the rail is about 12 inches from the window. Also the cruise safety rules explicitly state the purpose of the rail and rules about the rails.

I think (moo) that the GF was with Chloe alone walking around the area to just see the ship in general. The window is about 5 feet off the ground. You can see this from the photos that the window comes up chest level on an adult. That's really high up.

Oh, wow, I must be a terrible judge of height because I thought it looked like the window was only about 3 1/2 feet from the floor. Imo

 

[MsBetsy]

bbm:

say what?

are you intimately connected?

A witness can relay what the grandfather was saying to the child.
If he was saying things like, "Uh- oh! "Don't fall," while rocking her or in some way indicating he was playing a game with her that would indicate reckless behaviour.
If she asked him to pick her up to look out the window and he picked her up to let her bang on the glass that would indicate he was being truthful.

Imo

 

[sl222]

About that open window; I'm curious if S.A. opened that window himself.
The Sec. footage should show that.
Pretty damning evidence if he did.

Weeks ago, there was a commenter on the Elvocero article stating that the GF opened the window. That may not be true; but it did make me wonder, because the comment was detailed and about what happened. But the comment is no longer there because the former comments are no longer on the articles because they replaced the comments with a Facebook comments plugin. I wish I had taken a screenshot of the comment. But as we can see it's very obvious if a window is open or not, no matter how it got open. And it's common for some windows to be open.

It certainly makes sense that the reports are true, that the GF held Chloe outside the window putting her at risk, and this is why he is being charged.

They made so much of the idea that Chloe liked to bang on glass so people were given the impression that he put her up there to bang on glass and she leaned forward to do so. But even if so, he didn't hold on to her. Even the attorney said in this context "he let go of her" in one of the quotes.

I believe the police reports because they have been consistent and they are based on what the films show.

 

[max99]

A witness can relay what the grandfather was saying to the child.
If he was saying things like, "Uh- oh! "Don't fall," while rocking her or in some way indicating he was playing a game with her that would indicate reckless behaviour.
If she asked him to pick her up to look out the window and he picked her up to let her bang on the glass that would indicate he was being truthful.

Imo

gotcha...thanks!

 

[max99]

Weeks ago, there was a commenter on the Elvocero article stating that the GF opened the window. That may not be true; but it did make me wonder, because the comment was detailed and about what happened. But the comment is no longer there because the former comments are no longer on the articles because they replaced the comments with a Facebook comments plugin. I wish I had taken a screenshot of the comment. But as we can see it's very obvious if a window is open or not, no matter how it got open. And it's common for some windows to be open.

It certainly makes sense that the reports are true, that the GF held Chloe outside the window putting her at risk, and this is why he is being charged.

They made so much of the idea that Chloe liked to bang on glass so people were given the impression that he put her up there to bang on glass and she leaned forward to do so. But even if so, he didn't hold on to her. Even the attorney said in this context "he let go of her" in one of the quotes.

I believe the police reports because they have been consistent and they are based on what the films show.

I think a lot of peoples problems with "she likes to bang on the window" is she could have easily done so from the floor. She did not need to be held up on a rail to "bang on a window."
they need to give it up...not doing any good for anybody to drag this out...SA F'd up clearly.

 

[sl222]

Is the camera on the inside of the ship or outside facing the window? What angle did the camera show?
We also don't know how clear the image is.
Video evidence is great but an eyewitness is also direct evidence so it may be helpful too.
The video may not have captured what he was saying, either.

Imo

It's been said that they have multiple videos from different angles.

 

[sl222]

I agree with the folks here saying, if this was clearly a tragic freak accident, no charges would have been filed. Instead it was a lot worse.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

I'm referring to the current defense attorney who has made a living off suing cruise ships by twisting and creating scenarios which video will either refute or confirm (thank god). Perhaps, I misunderstood the context of #734 post? No matter, if civil or criminal defense lawyer, in this case, video will rule - and in ways, that will not help the family heal. IMO

The current lawyer is a personal injury lawyer. Generally, PI lawyers work on a contingency fee basis. They win, they receive a percentage of winnings. They lose, they do not receive anything.
He has said that he will sue the cruise line. He has nothing to do with the criminal charges.
And it’s civil.

The arrest will be handled by a criminal lawyer. That lawyer will DEFEND grandpa.

The difference is huge. A completely different set of legal rules apply.

Your “ambulance chaser” is the civil guy. Already hired.

As far as we have heard, no criminal lawyer has been named. Although, I bet there has been a defense lawyer retained. FYI, defense lawyers get paid a fee. Not a percentage.

Hope it helps you and others on this thread.
It’s a HUGE HUGE difference.

edited to add:
yes, of course, videos are critical in either case.

 

[Lilibet]

The current lawyer is a personal injury lawyer. Generally, PI lawyers work on a contingency fee basis. They win, they receive a percentage of winnings. They lose, they do not receive anything.
He has said that he will sue the cruise line. He has nothing to do with the criminal charges.
And it’s civil.

The arrest will be handled by a criminal lawyer. That lawyer will DEFEND grandpa.

The difference is huge. A completely different set of legal rules apply.

Your “ambulance chaser” is the civil guy. Already hired.

As far as we have heard, no criminal lawyer has been named. Although, I bet there has been a defense lawyer retained. FYI, defense lawyers get paid a fee. Not a percentage.

Hope it helps you and others on this thread.
It’s a HUGE HUGE difference.

edited to add:
yes, of course, videos are critical in either case.

At the moment, since the arrest, their civil attorney is still the attorney speaking for the family and complaining about the arrest, so it gets confusing. I expect that the defense attorney would like to muzzle him!

 

[Midwestmom2019]

Also, the rail is round. A child could not sit on the rail without support. And from what I understand, the rail is about 12 inches from the window. Also the cruise safety rules explicitly state the purpose of the rail and rules about the rails.

I think (moo) that the GF was with Chloe alone walking around the area to just see the ship in general. The window is about 5 feet off the ground. You can see this from the photos that the window comes up chest level on an adult. That's really high up.

OK. He had to sit her on the rail or the sill facing out for her to bang on the glass. Right? Or lean forward with her in his arms so she could reach the glass.
If he sat her on the rail, her legs would be either between the wall under the sill and the rail she was sitting on, or over the sill. It’s 12 inches wide between the rail and wall according to another post. And from a picture posted, rail is higher than sill.
If she leaned forward from sitting on rail, her legs would have been caught between the wall and rail. If she leaned forward from rail if feet across sill, grandpa would have been aware that there was no window.
If she was sitting on sill, even worse for grandpa not realizing no glass.
So his “didn’t realize no glass” is impossible. No matter where she was seated.
She wasn’t sitting facing in bc the idea was to pound on the glass. Can’t pound glass backwards. At least not at that age.
With these videos, pictures etc, it’s very obvious the “didn’t realize no glass” explanation is useless. Who ever made up that excuse, didn’t think through the dimensions. It was a lie from the get go.
So videos and eye witnesses will be able to tell us the truth.
I hope that the jurors can choose to view the videos with out the actual contact on the dock.
I’ll bet he will plea out the charge. I do not believe that this will go to a criminal trial.
As for the civil lawsuit, who knows. It may never get filed. It could get filed and settle. It could go to trial.

 

[al66pine]

Brainstorming?

I realize it's Saturday night, but your posts ars usually so... logical? I dont follow...

@Safeguard Lemme try this.
Soon after Choe's death G'father said - I dropped her, I thought there was a window.
Mom & Dad said on MSM, cruise line at fault.
Now G'father charged w NegHom.

Brainstorming ---
- for defense in PR crim procedure, to show G'father is not guilty of NegHom and
- in (threatened) civil action, a hook for blaming cruiseline for Chloe's death,
^ What can help w both ^? How 'bout:
- G'father Got Bumped by cruise employee? Helps both.
- G'father Got Bumped by someone other than employee. Helps only w crim defense.

Except neither works coming out now, because should have surfaced back then.
That, plus vid(s) may not support or even hint at a bump.

@Safeguard, hope ^ helps.
So time for more brainstorming. Anybody got ideas {{{ETA: for more lame defense ideas?}}}

 

[Lilibet]

Brainstorming?

So time for more brainstorming. Anybody got ideas? Workable or not?

Are you sure you want to brainstorm ideas for the defense to use? (Looking over my shoulder for spying defense attorneys.)

 

[Midwestmom2019]

Brainstorming?
@Safeguard Lemme try this.
Soon after Choe's death G'father said - I dropped her, I thought there was a window.
Mom & Dad said on MSM, cruise line at fault.
Now G'father charged w NegHom.

Brainstorming ---
- for defense in PR crim procedure, to show G'father is not guilty of NegHom and
- in (threatened) civil action, a hook for blaming cruiseline for Chloe's death,
^ What can help w both ^? How 'bout:
- G'father Got Bumped by cruise employee? Helps both.
- G'father Got Bumped by someone other than employee. Helps only w crim defense.

Except neither works coming out now, because should have surfaced back then.
That, plus vid(s) may not support or even hint at a bump.

So time for more brainstorming. Anybody got ideas? Workable or not?

Heat. humidity. sunscreen. slippery skin. I posted that way back.
All great except if he was dangling her through the window. As reported by LE.
It’s the dangling through the window part that cannot be explained away.

Edited to add: any excuse now is useless. He had her outside of the opening. But for that fact, there could have been an explanation. IMO, nothing can over come that fact.

 

[MsBetsy]

OK. He had to sit her on the rail or the sill facing out for her to bang on the glass. Right? Or lean forward with her in his arms so she could reach the glass.
If he sat her on the rail, her legs would be either between the wall under the sill and the rail she was sitting on, or over the sill. It’s 12 inches wide between the rail and wall according to another post. And from a picture posted, rail is higher than sill.
If she leaned forward from sitting on rail, her legs would have been caught between the wall and rail. If she leaned forward from rail if feet across sill, grandpa would have been aware that there was no window.
If she was sitting on sill, even worse for grandpa not realizing no glass.
So his “didn’t realize no glass” is impossible. No matter where she was seated.
She wasn’t sitting facing in bc the idea was to pound on the glass. Can’t pound glass backwards. At least not at that age.
With these videos, pictures etc, it’s very obvious the “didn’t realize no glass” explanation is useless. Who ever made up that excuse, didn’t think through the dimensions. It was a lie from the get go.
So videos and eye witnesses will be able to tell us the truth.
I hope that the jurors can choose to view the videos with out the actual contact on the dock.
I’ll bet he will plea out the charge. I do not believe that this will go to a criminal trial.
As for the civil lawsuit, who knows. It may never get filed. It could get filed and settle. It could go to trial.

Yeah, I'm thinking it won't go to trial either. I guess it depends on what the evidence shows.
I don't know about the lawsuit. I hope the family decides not to file.
Imo

 

[Safeguard]

Heat. humidity. sunscreen. slippery skin. I posted that way back.
All great except if he was dangling her through the window. As reported by LE.
It’s the dangling through the window part that cannot be explained away.

Edited to add: any excuse now is useless. He had her outside of the opening. But for that fact, there could have been an explanation. IMO, nothing can over come that fact.

 

[Safeguard]

All great except if he was dangling her through the window. As reported by LE.
It’s the dangling through the window part that cannot be explained away.

That's 100% what I think the facts will show. Sadly!
Otherwise, why Neg. Homicide and not Manslaughter?

 

[al66pine]

s

Are you sure you want to brainstorm ideas for the defense to use? (Looking over my shoulder for spying defense attorneys.)

Well, I was thinking more along the lines that everything anyone comes up w will be pretty darn lame.
@Lilibet Good point. Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of defense attys? I edited my post. Hat tip to Lamont Cranston.


The Shadow - Wikiquote