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

[al66pine]

Who is Representing G'father in PR Crim Proceeding?

The current lawyer is a personal injury lawyer...
The arrest will be handled by a criminal lawyer. That lawyer will DEFEND grandpa....
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.

@Midwestmom2019 . bbm sbm
" The Weigands have retained criminal attorneys in San Juan who have thus far declined to speak to the media." bbm
^ Devastated grandfather of toddler who died falling from his arms on cruise ship arrives in Chicago | Daily Mail Online pub date July 11 & 12

When this ^ was reported. in early July, I wondered about it as G'father is not a Weigand. I thought there might be confusion - about who was representing who and in which arena, civil or criminal - confusion on part of
G'Father,
Mom & Dad,
PR J/Dept.
Reporter
Daily Mail or
Translation (software).
Or all the above?
IDK

ETA: Yes, I realize Mom and/or Dad may have engaged a crim atty for themselves back then.

 

[mjp1228]

I find that puzzing. No breeze at all, no sound? Smell of sea air... Even without the blue tint, not a hint of difference, between "open window" and closed?

So it was just tremendously bad luck, that he chose THAT particular window?

He won the "Bad Luck" Lottery then.

I think I worded that badly. IMO Grandpa would have to be blind not to be able to tell the difference.

 

[PaulR]

I'm willing to bet that the video shows grandpa held her outside the window. Not just resting on the railing.

 

[mjp1228]

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

Thanks. I thought it was just me I just didn’t see the point since in wasting the time in something that didn’t happen.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

Yes, I don't know why he just didn't request a blood test if he really wanted to prove he wasn't drinking. Imo

Maybe bc he couldn’t prove he wasn’t drinking. His family would not have told him to refuse alcohol test if he had nothing to drink. He’d have taken it voluntarily. He’d have been encouraged by his family TO take it to dismiss that possibility.

 

[al66pine]

Why Negligent Homicide, Not Manslaughter?

...Sadly! Otherwise, why Neg. Homicide and not Manslaughter?

@Safeguard sbm See PR Penal Code sections, below.
Per below, manslaughter is " when the murder occurs in circumstances of sudden heat of passion or rage...."
So no manslaughter for the facts of this case as the prosecutor sees them. FWIW, I agree.
I doubt G'father acted in sudden heat of passion or rage.

If anyone finds other info re applicable sections of PR statutes, pls chime in. TiA.
------------------------------------------------
PART I. Crimes Against the Person
Chapter 297. Crimes Against Life
Subchapter I. Murder and Homicide
§ 4733. Murder
Murder is to kill another human being with intent.
§ 4734. Degrees of murder
First degree murder is constituted by:
(a) Any murder committed by means of poison, stalking or torture, or with premeditation.
(b) Any murder committed as a natural consequence of the attempt or consummation of aggravated arson, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated burglary, kidnapping, child abduction, serious damage or destruction, poisoning of bodies of water for public use, mayhem, escape, and intentional abuse or abandonment of a minor.
(c) The murder of a law enforcement officer, school police, municipal guard or police officer, marshal, prosecutor, solicitor for minors’ affairs, special family solicitors for child abuse, judge or custody officer in the performance of his duty, committed while carrying out, attempting or concealing a felony.
Any other intentional killing of a human being constitutes second degree murder.
§ 4735. Penalties for murder
Any person convicted of murder in the first degree shall be penalized as established for a first degree felony.
Any person convicted of murder in the second degree shall be penalized as established for a severe second degree felony.

§ 4736. Manslaughter
Notwithstanding the provisions of § 4735 of this title, when the murder occurs in circumstances of sudden heat of passion or rage, the convict shall receive the penalty established for a third degree felony.
§ 4737. Negligent homicide
Any person who causes the death of another through negligence shall incur a misdemeanor, but shall receive the penalty established for a fourth degree felony.
[ed: rest of this section 4737 re motor vehicular deaths is not app to case at hand]. When the death is caused while driving a motor vehicle with wanton disregard for the safety of others, or while aiming and shooting a firearm at an undefined target, the offender shall incur a third degree felony.

When the death is caused while driving a motor vehicle under the influence of controlled substances or alcoholic beverages, as provided and defined in §§ 5001 et seq. of Title 9, known as the “Puerto Rico Vehicle and Traffic Act”, the offender shall incur a second degree felony.]
^ from Laws of Puerto Rico Annotated, 33 L.P.R.A. § 4733 et seq.

 

[MsFacetious]

I'm willing to bet that the video shows grandpa held her outside the window. Not just resting on the railing.

But WHY WOULD ANYONE DO THAT TO A BABY?!
With the sitting on the railing it was idiotic...
If he held her OUTSIDE THE WINDOW that is cruel... basically homicidal.
If someone held my baby outside an 11th story window and then pulled them back inside, I'd consider that person a danger to my child's life. Period.

Maybe bc he couldn’t prove he wasn’t drinking. His family would not have told him to refuse alcohol test if he had nothing to drink. He’d have taken it voluntarily. He’d have been encouraged by his family TO take it to dismiss that possibility.

I'd refuse a breathalyzer and request an immediate blood test. I would think that's what Chloe's Dad would have advised if he was concerned about the accuracy of breathalyzers.

 

[Lilibet]

Maybe bc he couldn’t prove he wasn’t drinking. His family would not have told him to refuse alcohol test if he had nothing to drink. He’d have taken it voluntarily. He’d have been encouraged by his family TO take it to dismiss that possibility.

Even without taking the test, if he was impaired from drinking, it could have been obvious to whoever interacted with him after he dropped Chloe. They will be called as witnesses if that’s the case. So refusing the test may not matter as evidence.

 

[MsFacetious]

Even without taking the test, if he was impaired from drinking, it could have been obvious to whoever interacted with him after he dropped Chloe. They will be called as witnesses if that’s the case. So refusing the test may not matter as evidence.

Not unless that person is some sort of expert.
Since he was sedated... how quickly did that happen?
Who interacted with him before that?
What was their knowledge about intoxication?
Would they know the difference between medication and alcohol intoxication?
Alcohol intoxication and medical conditions?
It'll be rough if the person isn't someone really qualified.

 

[Lilibet]

Ask Michael Jackson. I know we can’t, but Blanket should have been taken from him after he held him by one arm off a balcony. At least he didn’t drop him, and he admitted it was a “mistake.” But still...who does that? And why?

But WHY WOULD ANYONE DO THAT TO A BABY?!
With the sitting on the railing it was idiotic...
If he held her OUTSIDE THE WINDOW that is cruel... basically homicidal.
If someone held my baby outside an 11th story window and then pulled them back inside, I'd consider that person a danger to my child's life. Period.

 

[BeachSky]

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

If he was dangling her that’s just insane IMO

 

[Lilibet]

Not unless that person is some sort of expert.
Since he was sedated... how quickly did that happen?
Who interacted with him before that?
What was their knowledge about intoxication?
Would they know the difference between medication and alcohol intoxication?
Alcohol intoxication and medical conditions?
It'll be rough if the person isn't someone really qualified.

All true. I’m thinking of alcohol on the breath and obvious physical impairment. A staff physician (if there is one) or trained security or even a trained bartender could probably detect that. As a child I knew when my Dad had been drinking. Combined with bar receipts and witnesses, it would be pretty strong circumstantial evidence. Naturally, the defense would raise all the issues you did, but I think it there’s a good chance it would hold up in court.

 

[katsrfun]

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

My lawyer once told me to always refuse a breathalyzer if I ever got stopped by the police and they requested one. At least in Florida, they can suspend your license for year, but you don't have to try and defend yourself against a drunk driving charge, or definitely get a DUI. I think the police can use other evidence, but without a breathalyzer it is hard to make a drunk driving offense stand, unless you were stupefyingly drunk. I don't drink whatsoever, and I don't think it is a good idea for anyone who has some responsibility at any given moment to be drinking, including but not limited to not driving, and not watching over small children on a cruise ship. However, it is my opinion that he wasn't drunk or even drinking, I think he, for whatever reason, let go of her. I think it was a good idea that he didn't agree to the breathalyzer, only because if he were drinking it would been a great big problem for him, not that it shouldn't be, but I think he was okay to refuse at that time. JMOO.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

Even without taking the test, if he was impaired from drinking, it could have been obvious to whoever interacted with him after he dropped Chloe. They will be called as witnesses if that’s the case. So refusing the test may not matter as evidence.

It’ll add more weight to the probability that he had been drinking. Every bit counts.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

My lawyer once told me to always refuse a breathalyzer if I ever got stopped by the police and they requested one. At least in Florida, they can suspend your license for year, but you don't have to try and defend yourself against a drunk driving charge, or definitely get a DUI. I think the police can use other evidence, but without a breathalyzer it is hard to make a drunk driving offense stand, unless you were stupefyingly drunk. I don't drink whatsoever, and I don't think it is a good idea for anyone who has some responsibility at any given moment to be drinking, including but not limited to not driving, and not watching over small children on a cruise ship. However, it is my opinion that he wasn't drunk or even drinking, I think he, for whatever reason, let go of her. I think it was a good idea that he didn't agree to the breathalyzer, only because if he were drinking it would been a great big problem for him, not that it shouldn't be, but I think he was okay to refuse at that time. JMOO.

He was smart to refuse, as you say bc it would have been a great big problem for him.
That’s exactly why he refused to take the test. Bc he knew it would be a great big problem. He would have taken it or blood test to confirm no alcohol in his system if he knew he hadn’t had any alcohol. He would want to avoid the problem of being accused of drinking by proving no alcohol.

 

[they'll get you]

Thanks @Chris. P. Bacon for insight and photo.

Looking at the photo in your post, would you say that 3 of the windows are open?

It sure looks like it.

 

[al66pine]

"Hockey Fan" Statement by Atty Winkleman?

Just to review, here is a quote from an early article July 9. After quoting the banging on glass story from the attorney ....

Grandfather of toddler in cruise ship death thought window was closed, lawyer says

@Lilibet sbm Yes, ^ about same time Atty Winkleman said "...Chloe was a hockey fan and loved to bang on the glass..." July 9

.


Really? 18 mo old was a hockey fan? Loved to bang on the glass? Maybe she was ready to lace up her skates, get out on center ice, throw a few punches w the some of the players?

In face of %?!#+! statement, cant help the sarc. My apologies, in aftermath of unspeakable tragedy.

 

[they'll get you]

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

That’s true as the CCTV might have been directly behind him and any of the outside vids I’ve seen are usually grainy.
Oh Lord I think it’s a horror movie I doubt I could watch.

I’ve been thinking Chloe might been so tired after such a big day and acting up wanting to see the pool or something. I’ve had my children literally wriggle out of their t-shirt that I was holding onto.

Hey I’m not looking for excuses as there aren’t any but if your not used to looking after a tired toddler then be prepared for WWIII.

 

[they'll get you]

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.

I’ve opened a couple of these windows and they all don’t run freely. IIRC one was sticky and needed effort.

 

[they'll get you]

Screen grabs from the video

I’ve studied that video and I think I saw 3 cameras but my iPad isn’t good enough. Anyone else got better quality PC?