IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #3

[jeena]

And it was so unsettling when Winkleman was asked by the CBS reporter why Sam was leaning forward with Chloe and Winkleman's reply was that it was obvious why they were leaning forward, it was to get a better view. Gone was any
pretense from the lawyer that Chloe wanted to bang on the glass!

I was watching a rerun of "Bull" (legal character) yesterday, and he made the comment "what he (defendant) didn't know is very hard to prove" regarding a case he worked on. How is Ortiz ( SA's lawyer) going to prove SA didn't know the window was open? It must be an important part of the case since Winkleman jumped at the chance to say the video proves by SA's actions that he didn't know the window was open.
Anyway, I was dumbfounded when Winkleman made that comment about leaning over for the view, IMO it was a stupid comment because it proves banging on the glass wasn't the reason SA put Chloe in danger. Good post!

 

[IceIce9]

And it was so unsettling when Winkleman was asked by the CBS reporter why Sam was leaning forward with Chloe and Winkleman's reply was that it was obvious why they were leaning forward, it was to get a better view. Gone was any pretense from the lawyer that Chloe wanted to bang on the glass!

And he chose the only open window on purpose so he and Chloe could get that better view.

 

[jeena]

And it was so unsettling when Winkleman was asked by the CBS reporter why Sam was leaning forward with Chloe and Winkleman's reply was that it was obvious why they were leaning forward, it was to get a better view. Gone was any
pretense from the lawyer that Chloe wanted to bang on the glass!

I was watching a rerun of "Bull" (legal character) yesterday, and he made the comment "what he (defendant) didn't know is very hard to prove" regarding a case he worked on. How is Ortiz ( SA's lawyer) going to prove SA didn't know the window was open? It must be an important part of the case since Winkleman jumped at the chance to say the video proves by SA's actions that he didn't know the window was open. How so?
Anyway, I was dumbfounded when Winkleman made that comment about leaning over for the view, IMO it was a stupid comment that doesn't bode well for the case against the cruise line, and, as you said, banging on the glass wasn't the reason SA put Chloe in danger. Good post!

 

[jeena]

I was watching a rerun of "Bull" (legal character) yesterday, and he made the comment "what he (defendant) didn't know is very hard to prove" regarding a case he worked on. How is Ortiz ( SA's lawyer) going to prove SA didn't know the window was open? It must be an important part of the case since Winkleman jumped at the chance to say the video proves by SA's actions that he didn't know the window was open.
Anyway, I was dumbfounded when Winkleman made that comment about leaning over for the view, IMO it was a stupid comment because it proves banging on the glass wasn't the reason SA put Chloe in danger. Good post!

Double Post, wanted to delete this first one, don't know how.

 

[Aydrianna523]

And he chose the only open window on purpose so he and Chloe could get that better view.

Yeah, that's undeniable even for those of us who want to give him some slack with the no-glass excuse.
Add on: I was traumatized when my toddler gbaby (also Chloe) almost died. We all know its a nightmare scenario. My flower avatar represents her suffering some permanent loss (the loss of leaves) after she had cancer treatments.

 

[Aydrianna523]

In reality I wouldn't wish this scenario on my worst enemy. I know we're all emotional about it...

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I was watching a rerun of "Bull" (legal character) yesterday, and he made the comment "what he (defendant) didn't know is very hard to prove" regarding a case he worked on. How is Ortiz ( SA's lawyer) going to prove SA didn't know the window was open? It must be an important part of the case since Winkleman jumped at the chance to say the video proves by SA's actions that he didn't know the window was open. How so?
Anyway, I was dumbfounded when Winkleman made that comment about leaning over for the view, IMO it was a stupid comment that doesn't bode well for the case against the cruise line, and, as you said, banging on the glass wasn't the reason SA put Chloe in danger. Good post!

Winkleman is neither a criminal attorney nor does Winkleman represent SA in any capacity. I find all this strange since Chloe's mom is not just a lawyer but a criminal prosecutor. I think Winkleman is acting unethically given how he's making statements about the criminal case and is having SA do things that impact the criminal case, but Winkleman isn't retained by SA. Winkleman's actions - like the interview - could get SA criminally convicted and Chloe's mom has got to know this, so I hope we get more details on how things are shaking out later this month when SA is due on court.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

But grandpa looked out that window and down below, BEFORE picking her up and putting her on the guard rail. So he knew he was very high above the pavement below.

Even if he wasn't on the 11th floor, but was on the 6th or 2nd or even 1st, she still could have died or been very severely injured if she fell through the open window.

Yes, if SA was that "out of it" or not oriented to time and place he should not have been in charge of Chloe or even been on the cruise. He knew exactly where he was. IMHO there was not a shred of an excuse as to why this happened. Which is partly why I do not think this was accidental.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Double Post, wanted to delete this first one, don't know how.

Once a post is sent, it can't be deleted. Click on "edit", remove the text of your post, type "delete", and send the post. Hope this helps

 

[Aydrianna523]

Yes, if SA was that "out of it" or not oriented to time and place he should not have been in charge of Chloe or even been on the cruise. He knew exactly where he was. IMHO there was not a shred of an excuse as to why this happened. Which is partly why I do not think this was accidental.

That's a scarey thought..

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

SA's Frequent Moves?
@SuzDuJour IIRC, someone here said they counted ~ 29 moves on a public record report.
I noticed ---
--- a few addy's pre-dated 2000.
--- a couple addy's were PO boxes (one in Ohio).
--- one addy was shown twice, w same date.
--- one addy was displayed 3 times, w same date. Duplicate/erroneous entry?
Even ignoring these ^, looks like SA moved ~20 in ~ 20 yrs; mostly in South Bend/Valparaiso areas, except for a few in early/mid 2000s in Moline IL/quad city area. << per cursory glance at zip codes.

Who moves that frequently?

Unless this information is coming from official court documents or voter registrations, I wouldn't put too much stock in it. I can tell you from personal experience that the data published on various address sites is not necessarily accurate. I have never lived in a state other than Michigan, but some of these data sites indicate that I live/lived in California. The sites also claim that I have been known by another name. I was married in 1971 and have been married to my dear husband for 48 years. The only other name that I ever used was my maiden name.

I chuckled when I read the post with the various addresses attributed to SA. I don't put much stock in such information, and I feel safe in saying that much - if not most - of it is erroneous.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Unless this information is coming from official court documents or voter registrations, I wouldn't put too much stock in it. I can tell you from personal experience that the data published on various address sites is not necessarily accurate. I have never lived in a state other than Michigan, but some of these data sites indicate that I live/lived in California. The sites also claim that I have been known by another name. I was married in 1971 and have been married to my dear husband for 48 years. The only other name that I ever used was my maiden name.

I chuckled when I read the post with the various addresses attributed to SA. I don't put much stock in such information, and I feel safe in saying that much - if not most - of it is erroneous.

I think sometimes what happens is those sites merge two different people with the same name into one, which there's more than one person in the US with the same first and last name as SA. I for instance have even had credit card companies confuse my father and I since we share the same first and last names.

 

[sl222]

Unless this information is coming from official court documents or voter registrations, I wouldn't put too much stock in it. I can tell you from personal experience that the data published on various address sites is not necessarily accurate. I have never lived in a state other than Michigan, but some of these data sites indicate that I live/lived in California. The sites also claim that I have been known by another name. I was married in 1971 and have been married to my dear husband for 48 years. The only other name that I ever used was my maiden name.

I chuckled when I read the post with the various addresses attributed to SA. I don't put much stock in such information, and I feel safe in saying that much - if not most - of it is erroneous.

You are so right. These addresses can refer to all kinds of things and so often it's totally wrong info.

 

[Aydrianna523]

Bringing this over from previous thread. I'm still reading this. Interesting that so many people mention that Grandpa was holding the toddler outside the open window.

Freedom of the Seas Fatality?

I also read a paramedic's comment. He said s/he sees life altering bad decisions every day. Another paramedic totally agreed.
They did seem to have some mercy if I'm understanding the tone of their posts.

 

[Only4Justice]

The more I read and think about this tragedy, the more I believe he made a stupid, careless decision that cost baby Chloe her life.

I agree with everyone upthread that he seems to be arrogant “nothing will happen to me cuz I’m too smart” type of dude.

my ex is like this. He used to take our baby boys down to the river and let them throw rocks over a bridge to watch them splash. It scared me to death. But he also has that attitude that he is toooo smart for anything to go wrong for him.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

Once a post is sent, it can't be deleted. Click on "edit", remove the text of your post, type "delete", and send the post. Hope this helps

I post. Then immediately see a shadow copy just under the post I just posted. I delete that completely. The shadow one.
No more double post. That’s been going on for awhile.

 

[GoneGoldfishin']

Unless this information is coming from official court documents or voter registrations, I wouldn't put too much stock in it. I can tell you from personal experience that the data published on various address sites is not necessarily accurate. I have never lived in a state other than Michigan, but some of these data sites indicate that I live/lived in California. The sites also claim that I have been known by another name. I was married in 1971 and have been married to my dear husband for 48 years. The only other name that I ever used was my maiden name.

I chuckled when I read the post with the various addresses attributed to SA. I don't put much stock in such information, and I feel safe in saying that much - if not most - of it is erroneous.

Absolutely true. I also have personal knowledge that these data sites provide incorrect address information; many of them show that I have lived in a different state, at each address my ex husband and his second wife have lived. Awkward.

 

[Montrealaise]

Yes, if SA was that "out of it" or not oriented to time and place he should not have been in charge of Chloe or even been on the cruise. He knew exactly where he was. IMHO there was not a shred of an excuse as to why this happened. Which is partly why I do not think this was accidental.

''Not accidental'' implies deliberate or intentional, but I cannot believe that SA ever intended something to happen to Chloe. From everything I've read, he loved that little girl very much. What I do believe, however, is that he is a reckless, careless and arrogant individual who put Chloe into a very dangerous position.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

''Not accidental'' implies deliberate or intentional, but I cannot believe that SA ever intended something to happen to Chloe. From everything I've read, he loved that little girl very much. What I do believe, however, is that he is a reckless, careless and arrogant individual who put Chloe into a very dangerous position.

BBM
I do know that those facts DO appear to be the case, but his ridiculously stupid "accident" seem to me to be just the opposite. Actions speak louder than words. Just remember Chris Watts appeared to be a loving and involved father. No one could have foreseen what he ended up doing to his children. I'm just not convinced that anyone could be as completely careless to the degree SA was and have it be accidental. JMOO

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

You are so right. These addresses can refer to all kinds of things and so often it's totally wrong info.

I've seen continuing age changes for people who are deceased! Talk about wrong information

There have been enough negative comments about SA without accusing him of whatever is being suggested based on what could be erroneous information.