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

[Lilibet]

I honestly can’t imagine how any family deals with the fact that one member has caused the death of another by accident, negligence or murder. The shock and tumultuous emotions, including anger, would be mind-blowing. And I suppose, given family dynamics and individual personality and psychology, reactions would differ dramatically even within a family.

I have no doubt that the entire family loved and grieves for Chloe...but also love each other. So even if they know and believe that grandpa’s carelessness resulted in Chloe’s death, do they turn on him angrily and seek “justice” or do they try not to add to his intense pain and fracture their family further? Which decision honors Chloe’s memory best? Is there a middle ground? And at what point do they get to a point where they can even decide this?

I can’t answer for this family or even my own. But I wanted to step back for a moment and put myself in their place...which is really between a rock and a hard place. Even though I don’t think their lawsuit has merit and I do think grandpa’s carelessness cost Chloe her life, I know how impossible this situation must be for them as a family. Ideally IMO, they will drop the lawsuit, grandpa will take his legal lumps out of respect for Chloe’s short life, and they will move forward together somehow, carrying their memories of Chloe and their love for each other with them. They will never be the same, but I wish them peace and healing, however they find it.

 

[LietKynes]

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

Good point. ^^^

There is something else going on with SA that we're not privy to.
A nanny or other outsider would come under intense scrutiny if not outright accusations from the parents.

 

[LietKynes]

Which decision honors Chloe’s memory best? Is there a middle ground? And at what point do they get to a point where they can even decide this?

I can’t answer for this family or even my own. But I wanted to step back for a moment and put myself in their place...which is really between a rock and a hard place. Even though I don’t think their lawsuit has merit and I do think grandpa’s carelessness cost Chloe her life, I know how impossible this situation must be for them as a family. Ideally IMO, they will drop the lawsuit, grandpa will take his legal lumps out of respect for Chloe’s short life, and they will move forward together somehow, carrying their memories of Chloe and their love for each other with them. They will never be the same, but I wish them peace and healing, however they find it.

BBM
Snipped for focus.
Ita.
Agreed that a lawsuit in no way honors Chloe's life.
And the second bolding is their best option hands down.
This frivolous lawsuit is embarrassing for them, because it has no firm ground to stand on.

 

[Lilibet]

BBM
Snipped for focus.
Ita.
Agreed that a lawsuit in no way honors Chloe's life.
And the second bolding is their best option hands down.
This frivolous lawsuit is embarrassing for them, because it has no firm ground to stand on.

I kind of suspect that the lawsuit has a dual purpose for them. It may be their way of “supporting” grandpa during this horror that they must know he caused but don’t want to blame him for, while at the same time “honoring” Chloe’s life by forcing the cruise line to make “safety” improvements for the sake of other kids (as they’ve stated). Unfortunately, with either motive, they are avoiding facing what really happened. For the sake of their family, they will eventually need to come to grips with what grandpa did, as will he. This is the only way they will move forward and remain a family. That’s how they can honor Chloe’s life IMO.

 

[they'll get you]

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?

The video might show if the window was already open, did he open it or did he look out before picking up Chloe.

Either way I don’t believe it was a malicious act, he simply wasn’t thinking.

I never see children lifted up shopping centres to look down over the railings unless they are on a parent’s hip standing back because the glass is there for the children, prams or people in wheelchairs to see.

This is heart wrenching and the damage is done.

 

[they'll get you]

I took They'll get you's post to mean that in her case:



She did not seem to implying SA was "elderly" just a bad choice to have watching a child unaided. I agree. Elderly or not poor judgement becomes obvious over time and in the end, it's up to parents to protect their children

What?? In his early 50’s!?
Where on earth did I think he was 75.
OMG now I’m going senile.
How could I get that so wrong.

I’m sorry guys.

 

[they'll get you]

Salvatore Anello, 50

Sorry guys.

 

[MsFacetious]

You sure are right! Very surprising that an attorney would not think twice about his choice of words. Stick to "devastated," that word is accurate and safe. And the salt on open wound is a particularly graphic and ugly choice of words that would put some people's minds elsewhere to actual desciptions of torture. I knew something bugged me about his words and you nailed it.

I have a very photographic mind. I tend to see things as I read them. So when I read his words I immediately associated them with Chloe... and it was horrifying.

And that's where adults come in. Swoop up baby and teach them to wave instead, as windows are not for banging on. Parenting 101 imo.

16.5 years, 3 kids. Banging on windows has always been a no no because of fish tanks and aquariums. Maybe that's why I taught that so early. We spent a lot of time around fish tanks.

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.

I'm pretty confident that any and all people who drop a baby out a window 150 feet above the concrete will in fact be charged. I don't think that will ever happen without charges. It's not a gray area.

 

[oviedo]

Good point. ^^^

There is something else going on with SA that we're not privy to.
A nanny or other outsider would come under intense scrutiny if not outright accusations from the parents.

ITA - something is amiss IMO - I will leave it at that

 

[Kindred]

Clipped for brevity:

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.

They won't. Contrary to the lawyers claim that there are "regulations" there are not. A screen would not stop a child from falling out of an open window.

Window Screen Gives Way, 3-Year-Old Falls 3 Floors To Ground In Jersey City

And contrary to what the mother claims ventilation is not simply a "comfort" issue but a health and safety one as well. They can't have guests collapsing from heat exhaustion just because someone decided to not follow the rules and placed a toddler on a railing.

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.

They were not and are not. Courts have ruled this over and over again in cases of passengers getting drunk, climbing on the rail and going overboard.

Skokan v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. 2018 - Nathan Skokan while cruising with his parents became highly intoxicated and was witnessed leaning too far over the rail and went over. RC skipped a step in their own overboard procedures that caused a delay in getting a rescue boat in the water. Family argued RC should not have allowed him to drink that much. Jury still found not at fault despite the admitted foul-up with procedure because RC could not have anticipated that he would put himself into that position to go over the rail.

Broberg v. Carnival Corp. 2017- Samantha Broberg while cruising with her friends became highly intoxicated and went back to her state room. Shipboard cameras recorded her moving her balcony chair so that she could climb up and sit on the railing where she fell overboard. Husband sued claiming that *Carnival should not have allowed her to drink so much. Jury found that *Carnival could not have anticipated that anyone would attempt to intentionally sit on the rails in violation of their policies and there was nothing they could have done

The summaries are of course paraphrased by me for this post but the precedent is there and RC has that ammo to use in the suit by the Wiegands. Since the area is already up to code and there was no way little Chloe or any other young child could have gotten herself into the position to put herself out of that window, the Wiegands are going to have to try and find a way to allege that RC SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that SA was going to put that child in that dangerous position and done something to make it so she wouldn't have fallen. THEY CAN'T.

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.

I'm waiting for the video. The lawyer will definitely get a copy of it now thanks to discovery. If the family runs with it to the media or not will be very telling about just how damning it is. Part of me wonders if he isn't caught opening the window himself on tape and the family made the "he didn't know" claim before they came to realize there was an internal security camera. I'm still convinced the protests about "they won't give us the tapes" is because they want to be the one to control any media release and spin on it.

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.

How are there any other culpable parties? I still have yet to hear where the parents were during this incident. There is absolutely no indication at this time that her parents or other family members were on that deck with SA and Chloe and saw/knew what he was doing or could have intervened themselves so I'm not sure where the "charge all" is coming from. If you have something saying they were there I'd love to see it.

**edited because I realized I mistakenly attributed the second case to RC and not Carnival

 

[they'll get you]

ITA - something is amiss IMO - I will leave it at that

Could you elaborate please as I’m genuinely interested.

 

[oviedo]

Could you elaborate please as I’m genuinely interested.

I was agreeing with @LietKynes - something else is going on here IMO - I have an idea but will await the release of the video as I could be wrong

 

[ilovewings]

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

Very good point!!!!

 

[IceIce9]

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.

This is such a good point. No one picked her up to bang on the glass at the hockey game, the picture showed her standing and banging.

 

[sl222]

LBM

Yeah I'm just not seeing that in this family.
Hard to fathom standing by anyone who killed your child.
But, I realize that's just me.
Or not.

Chloe's life mattered !

SA is not "elderly".
He is in his early 50's and by his bosses' testimony is capable and competent at his job.
His boss said (according to the lawyer, MW) that SA does his job well and is liked at work.

I agree with your statement that it's up to parents to protect their kids in whatever ways that requires !

That should've included not allowing a man with a disregard for the law to watch their baby.
Of course this is step-grandpas' fault.
No one else was holding Chloe up to an open window.
Not her parents, not the ship's staff.

It's not true at all that SA is innocent of any wrongdoing.
We can agree to disagree.

You are right to want to eulogize Chloe in your posts and that is commendable.
But telling others how to post isn't helpful and to be honest -- loving everyone and singing "Kumbaya" will not bring comfort or justice to Chloe.

She should be alive and growing and enjoying life !!

At least there needs to be justice for her.
It's fine if you disagree but that's how I view this sad case.

I agree. Chloe suffered. She experienced terror and pain and was all alone falling 150 feet. As reports said, she screamed (and yes, her mother also screamed but Chloe DID know she was falling out of this high place, and she did scream, this was reported.) She should have been able to count on being safe. This man had a horrific moment of what I'm sure went far beyond carelessness. And I'm sure it is not the first time he showed poor judgment. I am sure he adored Chloe and I feel for him that his life has been destroyed. But I agree that this is not about thinking that Chloe would feel bad about this and would just want it to go away so her GF doesn't feel even worse. One day Chloe and her GF will be reunited in the hereafter, but right now, what is right for Chloe and for any child, their protection and the enforcement of this, is what matters.

Yes, I do have compassion - a LOT - for someone who does something in a moment of stupidity that completely ruins their life or someone else's or both. It is unbearable for that person.

The mother and father of Chloe got married around 5 years ago. As we know he is a police officer. Chloe's older brother may be from another marriage or relationship, I don't know, but her GM and step-GF have been part of her life all her life (and same is true for her older brother). I realize this isn't my business but it would be really hard for this marriage to survive, the pain and blame factors would be immense.

I feel that Chloe's father is trying to support Chloe's mother's wishes here, and that Chloe's mother is extremely concerned with supporting her own mother, the wife of SA, and that this is a key reason that she is defending SA (her stepdad) so vigorously - because what affects him directly affects her mother. To me, that makes a lot of sense. She doesn't want to see her own mother disgraced if public opinion is so much against SA, her mother's husband. In the parents' unimaginable horror at what happened, anything is understandable. But I feel that they are making this even harder on themselves.

I hope that at least one of the parents would view the video (which they were not up to seeing early on, understandably) and see what really happened. I agree that this is not going to be like what they are spinning through their attorney. It's going to be really, really bad in terms of recklessness on SA's part.

It's not up to Chloe's parents to control what the justice system does to SA. Like I mentioned earlier, I don't know why they did not just keep this quiet and enter a plea of some kind and show cooperation even if through their attorney. All this was completely out of the press finally and now here it is again.

It's all somehow a really co-dependent mess and ultimately the whole family is suffering more instead of being able to grieve privately. If they go on tv again I will conclude that there is something really wrong with them. This family needs help, not to be on tv. I mean that in kindness.

These parents didn't deserve this and they are really "too nice" to be so concerned about the person who caused their child's death and messed up life for their remaining child - but in my opinion they need to get away from worrying about the effect on the GM and on her husband the step-GF. This is just adding to the parents' suffering. They didn't cause this. They have enough on their plate just to take care of themselves and their son. I am not expressing this that well but hopefully it makes sense.

 

[neesaki]

I agree. Chloe suffered. She experienced terror and pain and was all alone falling 150 feet. As reports said, she screamed (and yes, her mother also screamed but Chloe DID know she was falling out of this high place, and she did scream, this was reported.) She should have been able to count on being safe. This man had a horrific moment of what I'm sure went far beyond carelessness. And I'm sure it is not the first time he showed poor judgment. I am sure he adored Chloe and I feel for him that his life has been destroyed. But I agree that this is not about thinking that Chloe would feel bad about this and would just want it to go away so her GF doesn't feel even worse. One day Chloe and her GF will be reunited in the hereafter, but right now, what is right for Chloe and for any child, their protection and the enforcement of this, is what matters.

Yes, I do have compassion - a LOT - for someone who does something in a moment of stupidity that completely ruins their life or someone else's or both. It is unbearable for that person.

The mother and father of Chloe got married around 5 years ago. As we know he is a police officer. Chloe's older brother may be from another marriage or relationship, I don't know, but her GM and step-GF have been part of her life all her life (and same is true for her older brother). I realize this isn't my business but it would be really hard for this marriage to survive, the pain and blame factors would be immense.

I feel that Chloe's father is trying to support Chloe's mother's wishes here, and that Chloe's mother is extremely concerned with supporting her own mother, the wife of SA, and that this is a key reason that she is defending SA (her stepdad) so vigorously - because what affects him directly affects her mother. To me, that makes a lot of sense. She doesn't want to see her own mother disgraced if public opinion is so much against SA, her mother's husband. In the parents' unimaginable horror at what happened, anything is understandable. But I feel that they are making this even harder on themselves.

I hope that at least one of the parents would view the video (which they were not up to seeing early on, understandably) and see what really happened. I agree that this is not going to be like what they are spinning through their attorney. It's going to be really, really bad in terms of recklessness on SA's part.

It's not up to Chloe's parents to control what the justice system does to SA. Like I mentioned earlier, I don't know why they did not just keep this quiet and enter a plea of some kind and show cooperation even if through their attorney. All this was completely out of the press finally and now here it is again.

It's all somehow a really co-dependent mess and ultimately the whole family is suffering more instead of being able to grieve privately. If they go on tv again I will conclude that there is something really wrong with them. This family needs help, not to be on tv. I mean that in kindness.

These parents didn't deserve this and they are really "too nice" to be so concerned about the person who caused their child's death and messed up life for their remaining child - but in my opinion they need to get away from worrying about the effect on the GM and on her husband the step-GF. This is just adding to the parents' suffering. They didn't cause this. They have enough on their plate just to take care of themselves and their son. I am not expressing this that well but hopefully it makes sense.

Good post, I think you expressed it quite nicely, sl222.

 

[sl222]

I honestly can’t imagine how any family deals with the fact that one member has caused the death of another by accident, negligence or murder. The shock and tumultuous emotions, including anger, would be mind-blowing. And I suppose, given family dynamics and individual personality and psychology, reactions would differ dramatically even within a family.

I have no doubt that the entire family loved and grieves for Chloe...but also love each other. So even if they know and believe that grandpa’s carelessness resulted in Chloe’s death, do they turn on him angrily and seek “justice” or do they try not to add to his intense pain and fracture their family further? Which decision honors Chloe’s memory best? Is there a middle ground? And at what point do they get to a point where they can even decide this?

I can’t answer for this family or even my own. But I wanted to step back for a moment and put myself in their place...which is really between a rock and a hard place. Even though I don’t think their lawsuit has merit and I do think grandpa’s carelessness cost Chloe her life, I know how impossible this situation must be for them as a family. Ideally IMO, they will drop the lawsuit, grandpa will take his legal lumps out of respect for Chloe’s short life, and they will move forward together somehow, carrying their memories of Chloe and their love for each other with them. They will never be the same, but I wish them peace and healing, however they find it.

You said it perfectly. Thank you.

 

[squareandrabbet]

Personally, I don't have a problem with the parents not viewing the video. I wouldn't want to view the video either.

However, their attorney can take that metaphorical bullet for them, if the video is released to the attorney; and I suspect that's the way it will work, if the attorney ever gets a copy of the video.

 

[oviedo]

Chloe Wiegand: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com

I believe the window in question is the very top ? and it happened at 5pm with the family boarding that day?
snipped BBM
Port Authority spokesman Jose Carmona told CNN that the girl was in the dining hall playing with her grandfather on deck 11 of the ship when the tragedy occurred. Carmona said one window pane to the hall was open and Wiegand’s grandfather sat the girl in the window. He lost his balance which caused Wiegand to fall. Carmona said, “Sadly, she died on impact.”

I went back to the beginning of this thread - I had never read that SA "lost his balance" - causing her to fall. Did I just miss this in other reports? How did the family say she fell ? or did they? I haven't watched the NBC video of them.

 

[neesaki]

Chloe Wiegand: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com

I believe the window in question is the very top ? and it happened at 5pm with the family boarding that day?
snipped BBM
Port Authority spokesman Jose Carmona told CNN that the girl was in the dining hall playing with her grandfather on deck 11 of the ship when the tragedy occurred. Carmona said one window pane to the hall was open and Wiegand’s grandfather sat the girl in the window. He lost his balance which caused Wiegand to fall. Carmona said, “Sadly, she died on impact.”

I went back to the beginning of this thread - I had never read that SA "lost his balance" - causing her to fall. Did I just miss this in other reports? How did the family say she fell ? or did they? I haven't watched the NBC video of them.

I recall the “sat her in the window” report, which if accurate how did he not know the window was open, if he sat her “in” it? Also how was she going to “bang on the glass” if her back was to the window. Does this mean she was facing the window?
Since the beginning what has been reported and the lawyers claims seem to all be at odds, IMO. It would be nice if LE would clear up the contradiction on at least this point.