IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #2

[jaejae]

Here is a recent report about this case;

Grandfather Accused in Girl's Fatal Fall from Cruise Ship: 'I Thought There Was Glass'

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

I would like to wish my fellow Websleuthers a very Happy Thanksgiving! If you traveled, I trust you arrived safely and will have an enjoyable celebration with family and friends.

Chloe would have turned two next month, and this would have been the first holiday season that she would have remembered. She would likely have savored turkey with all the trimmings, watched a parade and football on TV. Chloe would be eagerly anticipating a visit with Santa, the enchantment of holiday decorations and lights, gifts under the family's Christmas tree. How truly sad it is that Chloe was not on earth long enough to enjoy the treasures of childhood. Rest in peace, little one. Hope you are dancing and playing with angels on this Thanksgiving Day.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Is the claim still that she wanted to bang on the glass and that's why he held up and out? Because aside from the window being open, why couldn't she bang on the glass on the lower half of the window? You know, the part that is actually her height and doesn't open?

Incidentally, I am right now on a different Royal Caribbean ship. The top part of the windows on deck slide like in the pictures, though on this ship, there's no blue tint to the windows. It's still pretty easy for me at least to tell what's open and what's not, even from a distance.

SA claims Chloe was unable to touch the bottom window because he tried to touch the bottom window but was unable to. Since he allegedly couldn't touch the bottom window he unilaterally decided Chloe wanted to be picked up rather than it being her request as was originally claimed.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

SA claims Chloe was unable to touch the bottom window because he tried to touch the bottom window but was unable to. Since he allegedly couldn't touch the bottom window he unilaterally decided Chloe wanted to be picked up rather than it being her request as was originally claimed.

I don't understand why Chloe "couldn't touch" the bottom window. Surely, she wasn't tall enough to not be able to stand beneath the railing, so why was she unable to touch the window? Grandpa would have had to bend over, stoop, kneel, or sit on the floor at Chloe's level for them to actually touch the lower windows, and I suspect Grandpa didn't want to do this, so he scooped Chloe up to see the view at his eye level.

 

[neesaki]

SA claims Chloe was unable to touch the bottom window because he tried to touch the bottom window but was unable to. Since he allegedly couldn't touch the bottom window he unilaterally decided Chloe wanted to be picked up rather than it being her request as was originally claimed.

I couldn’t believe what I was hearing when he made that totally inane statement. He obviously has absolutely no insight, no clue to how illogical and unbelievable that is. He has the logic of a child if he truly believes that’s gonna fly.


Does anyone know where I can find that :banghead: emoticon?

 

[MsBetsy]

Civil Lawsuit and Crim Trial?
. @MsBetsy You've got me scratching my head again.

From you:"I think the only reason for the lawsuit is to keep the grandfather out of prison."
Could you pls explain how or why parents' civil lawsuit against cruiseline would keep g'fa out of prison? I must be missing something here. TiA.

Yes, because if the Cruise line is held liable for the accident, then it will be harder to prove neglect on the part of the grandfather.
By shifting the blame from him to the "Boat"
it would take much of the blame off of the grandfather.
If they can prove the accident was somehow do to a faulty window or a lack of signs, which is what they are trying to do, then the accident was not as much the fault of the grandfather's as it was the ship.
So they are trying to say it was the Ships fault that the accident occurred.

I hope that makes sense because I don't know how else to explain it.

Imo

 

[MaryG12]

SA claims Chloe was unable to touch the bottom window because he tried to touch the bottom window but was unable to. Since he allegedly couldn't touch the bottom window he unilaterally decided Chloe wanted to be picked up rather than it being her request as was originally claimed.

In all fairness, my guess is these windows are designed so that they are not supposed to be touched. I've never been on a cruise ship but can only go by the photos I see online.

Had Chloe's parents been with her at the time, I have to wonder if they would have said "No" to picking her up and letting her tap on the window.

 

[MaryG12]

“Fix the boat.” What a jackass. I wonder if he actually believes what he is saying?

Scary huh.

This sounds like another "It's someone else's fault, not mine" case.

No personal accountability here.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

I am not sure it is venom. But I am disgusted with this man. I think it is much more than just 'holding up a child to look out a window. ' If one holds up a child to let them look out a window, they don't end up on the concrete 100 feet below, unless someone is incredibly negligent.

I don't see this as a freak accident. A freak accident doesn't involve criminal negligence on his part.

A freak accident is when he is holding his baby tightly, standing safely away from the window ledge, and a runaway rolling food court crashes into him from behind, hurling him forward and pushing his baby into the air. That is a freak, unavoidable accident.

My 'dislike' came from the description of him placing this little baby up upon the guard rail, mere feet away from an open window. I have been on a similar cruise line---you can easily tell if the windows are open or closed. Placing a very young vulnerable child in such a dangerous position is cruel and callous and abhorrently stupid. JMO

As for the long list of tickets---in my opinion it shows his stubborn and reckless nature. I got a ticket once for not wearing my seatbelt. I was 'wearing' it but I had both my arms outside of it because I was wearing a freshly pressed white linen shirt and about to get pictures taken at a family portrait place. lol

But did I repeat that poor decision and receive 4 more tickets for no seat belts? I don't know anyone who has that many infractions of the same law. WHY do that? Only a stubborn, obstinate person would continue to defy that safety law. IMO MOO

I found his refusal to take the breathalyser interesting as well. If he had ZERO drinks he probably would have taken one, to prove so, in my opinion.

I think he told the truth when he quickly uttered the words---" I dropped my Baby. "

If he had simply and accidentally dropped the baby, she wouldn't have landed outside on the pavement below. She would have fallen 5 feet to the floor, and probably suffered injuries she would have recovered from.

I could not agree with this post any more than I do. Hit's the nail square on the head. Justice for Chloe!

 

[MaryG12]

SA is only 51 years old?

Grandfather of girl who fell from cruise ship, Chloe Wiegand, speaks

Gee and I just turned 52 a few weeks ago. He looks so much older, I wonder if this incident aged him.

Justice for Chloe.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I don't understand why Chloe "couldn't touch" the bottom window. Surely, she wasn't tall enough to not be able to stand beneath the railing, so why was she unable to touch the window? Grandpa would have had to bend over, stoop, kneel, or sit on the floor at Chloe's level for them to actually touch the lower windows, and I suspect Grandpa didn't want to do this, so he scooped Chloe up to see the view at his eye level.

He claims he got down in the interview, but it makes no sense to me that he would be unable to touch an unobstructed window unless he was drunk or on drugs...I think he was lying about this, but I'd like to know what the video shows. At the bottom of the windows there's even a platform that Chloe could have stood on right in front of the bottom window where she would have looked similar to the hockey window picture put out by the family.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

He claims he got down in the interview, but it makes no sense to me that he would be unable to touch an unobstructed window unless he was drunk or on drugs...I think he was lying about this, but I'd like to know what the video shows. At the bottom of the windows there's even a platform that Chloe could have stood on right in front of the bottom window where she would have looked similar to the hockey window picture put out by the family.

I think Grandpa is lying whenever his mouth is moving I watched the CBS interview once and don't care to watch again, but doesn't SA say something like, "They told me that could have been the reason" with regard to him being colorblind and why he might not have noticed the difference between tinted and open windows? It sure sounded to me like that notion had been planted and that he was supposed to present it as a viable reason for lifting Chloe to the railing. I get the impression that various family members and/or attorneys are providing several possibilities for the "accident" and are hoping the public will be influenced by at least one of them. "I dropped my child!" No excuses, lame or otherwise, needed to explain this man's careless, reckless actions with his grandchild.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

In all fairness, my guess is these windows are designed so that they are not supposed to be touched. I've never been on a cruise ship but can only go by the photos I see online.

Had Chloe's parents been with her at the time, I have to wonder if they would have said "No" to picking her up and letting her tap on the window.

The mid-level window has the railing jutting out, but the ground-level window has no barrier and in fact has a platform that Chloe could have stood on if she wasn't already standing on it when SA picked her up. It's not that they're supposed to be touched, but it's not hard if you want to touch them. I'm actually very curious where I'd love to see part of the video of Chloe at the wall of windows prior to her being picked up by SA to see what Chloe was doing at the windows prior to SA intervening.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

SA is only 51 years old?

Grandfather of girl who fell from cruise ship, Chloe Wiegand, speaks

Gee and I just turned 52 a few weeks ago. He looks so much older, I wonder if this incident aged him.

Justice for Chloe.

All his pictures he looks old. He's only about 10 years older than Chloe's cop father, yet SA looks a generation older.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

SA claims Chloe was unable to touch the bottom window because he tried to touch the bottom window but was unable to. Since he allegedly couldn't touch the bottom window he unilaterally decided Chloe wanted to be picked up rather than it being her request as was originally claimed.

That doesn't sound reasonable at all to me. From the pictures I've seen, she could have easily gotten to the bottom row of windows. Just WHY WHY WHY was touching the *blankety blank* windows so very important??? I will just never understand. My DH thinks SA was trying to say that he thought there was for some reason glass outside the glass. HUH?

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

All his pictures he looks old. He's only about 10 years older than Chloe's cop father, yet SA looks a generation older.

I would attribute SA's premature aging to poor lifestyle choices. Read into it whatever you'd like My surviving sister is 4.5 years younger than me but looks much older. She has smoked since junior high school and drank heavily in college and until she had children. These "vices" tend to age people.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I think Grandpa is lying whenever his mouth is moving I watched the CBS interview once and don't care to watch again, but doesn't SA say something like, "They told me that could have been the reason" with regard to him being colorblind and why he might not have noticed the difference between tinted and open windows? It sure sounded to me like that notion had been planted and that he was supposed to present it as a viable reason for lifting Chloe to the railing. I get the impression that various family members and/or attorneys are providing several possibilities for the "accident" and are hoping the public will be influenced by at least one of them. "I dropped my child!" No excuses, lame or otherwise, needed to explain this man's careless, reckless actions with his grandchild.

I don't think that interview helped him at all, which I think he made statements against his own interest...possibly with the PR DA feeding a question two (the same way they found out the video they were shown wasn't right). Totally against his own interest he demonstrates how he held Chloe when she fell with him only using one arm while on top of that using a closed fist and being bent over. I think how he was holding her when she fell might not have been clearly visible in the videos, but now they got him to re-enact it making it crystal clear how negligent he was. I'm not even sure his arm was actually touching her, which he seems to say he didn't feel her fall out of his arm. The interview will be Exhibit 1 or Exhibit 2 of the prosecutor.

 

[al66pine]

From MsBetsy's earlier post: "I think the only reason for the lawsuit is to keep the grandfather out of prison."
From my response: "Could you pls explain how or why parents' civil lawsuit against cruiseline would keep g'fa out of prison? I must be missing something here. TiA." bbm

Yes, because if the Cruise line is held liable for the accident, then it will be harder to prove neglect on the part of the grandfather.
By shifting the blame from him to the "Boat"
it would take much of the blame off of the grandfather.
If they can prove the accident was somehow do to a faulty window or a lack of signs, which is what they are trying to do, then the accident was not as much the fault of the grandfather's as it was the ship.
So they are trying to say it was the Ships fault that the accident occurred.
I hope that makes sense because I don't know how else to explain it.
Imo

@MsBetsy Thank you for your response. Now, I see. Turns out I was missing something -- some unstated assumptions in reaching the conclusion in your post.
Unstated assumptions:
1) Parents/Winkleman will actually file suit against cruiseline (have not done yet) not just threaten.
2) Trial of parents' suit against cruiseline will/would occur before crim trial of G'pa.
3) Parents will/would prevail, win civil suit.
4) PR prosecutors will monitor civil trial evidence (I agree this is likely to happen).
5) Civil trial evd and verdict will lead prosecutors to think crim case against G'pa is not so solid as they thought at time of arrest.
6) PR prosecutors will move to dismiss crim charges against G'pa.

If ^ previously unstated assumptions actually happen, then yes, parents lawsuit will keep G'pa out of jail. But in and of itself, parents' & Winkleman filing civil suit does (virtually) nothing to keep G'pa out of jail. Not without all ^ things happening.
Again, thanks for taking time to explain further. Maybe you can see why I was confused jmo.

 

[MsBetsy]

From MsBetsy's earlier post: "I think the only reason for the lawsuit is to keep the grandfather out of prison."
From my response: "Could you pls explain how or why parents' civil lawsuit against cruiseline would keep g'fa out of prison? I must be missing something here. TiA." bbm
@MsBetsy Thank you for your response. Now, I see. Turns out I was missing something -- some unstated assumptions in your post.
Unstated assumptions:
1) Parents/Winkleman will actually file suit against cruiseline (have not done yet) not just threaten.
2) Trial of parents' suit against cruiseline will/would occur before crim trial of G'pa.
3) Parents will/would prevail, win civil suit.
4) PR prosecutors will monitor civil trial evidence (I agree this is likely to happen).
5) Civil trial evd and verdict will lead them to think crim case against G'pa is not so solid as they thought at time of arrest.
6) PR prosecutors will move to dismiss crim charges against G'pa.

If ^ previously unstated assumptions actually happen, then yes, parents lawsuit will keep G'pa out of jail. But in and of itself, parents' & Winkleman filing civil suit does (virtually) nothing to keep G'pa out of jail. Not without all ^ things happening.
Again, thanks for taking time to explain further. Maybe you can see why I was confused jmo.

No, I was not assuming that they will actually file the lawsuit, and I was not assuming they will win. That would be impossible to know without seeing the evidence.

My posts were in response to the question as to why they have not filed yet.
I suggested that one possibility is that they are hoping for a settlement before they even file. In other words, they are waiting for the next move on the part of the Cruiseline, before making their next move.

I think most of their statements and actions so far have been supportive of the grandfather and they will take all necessary steps to prevent him from being convicted of negligent homicide, including filing the lawsuit.

But they don't necessarily have to file in order for a settlement. So that is the only reason I can think of in answer to the question; "What are they waiting for?"

I could be wrong, but I suspect that they are thinking that if the Company takes responsibility, it will take the focus of the grandfather and it may be used as evidence that he was not at fault.

And no, the lawsuit alone will not keep him from going to prison. But they may believe it will help their case. They seem to be doing everything they can to protect him. I doubt they want to see him spend any time in prison.

Imo

 

[MaryG12]

Do we know of any prescription meds SA might have been taking at the time that would cloud his judgement?