IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #5

[justbreathe]

Sure it would. It's no different than wearing sunglasses. They cut the glare of the sun but don't alter what you see through them.

JMO

They do alter what you see. Everything has a darker tint.

You saying the windows would look the se open or closed is the same as saying one wouldn’t notice if the lens on one side of the sunglasses popped out.

 

[justbreathe]

Sure it would. It's no different than wearing sunglasses. They cut the glare of the sun but don't alter what you see through them.

JMO

They do alter what you see. Everything has a darker tint.

You saying the windows would look the se open or closed is the same as saying one wouldn’t notice if the lens on one side of the sunglasses popped out.

I consider the mother is a victim in this case. I'm sure not getting the impression the grieving mother to be greedy. If SA pleads guilty, it will have no bearing on their wrongful death lawsuit, which will be heard in U.S. Federal Court, not in P.R.

I doubt the parents settle their lawsuit. I think this publicity stunt of PR releasing the video is going to cause them to dig in their heels. RCCL should have followed the lead of Disney, who settled with the parents of Lane Graves BEFORE they filed a lawsuit, which they clearly would have won.

JMO

If SA is found guilty in PR this most certainly will impact the civil suit.

It would mean SA being at fault for Chloe’s death has been determined to be an indisputable fact.

Sure, the civil court could assign some percentage of fault to the cruise line even after SA was found guilty, but I think that would be a stretch.

 

[justbreathe]

I don't understand what point you are trying to make. A person is color blind at birth so when SA was diagnosed is irrelevant. It really doesn't matter when Begnaud was shown the medical records. Begnaud obviously believes SA is color blind. Begnaud has no reason to lie about it.

JMO

I think the point is that SA is a liar and Winky is a and it is possible they found some “doctor” to falsely diagnose SA with colorblindness.

Because the world is filled with unethical people.

 

[justbreathe]

View attachment 222915 View attachment 222917 View attachment 222918

I'm confident a color-blind person doesn't see a shade of a color that is not opaque. The windows were tinted and they were translucent.

JMO[/QUOTE]
You are just making things up. What are you talking about?

 

[justbreathe]

At trial, the burden will be on the prosecution, not the defense. The mother, an attorney, is asking for an investigation into the leaking of the video. I don't blame her. In the U.S., the media doesn't assist the prosecution by trying to taint the defendant prior to trial. I can think of no better example than Richard Jewell.

I'm pretty confident that if this had happened in the U.S., there would be no prosecution of the grandfather.

JMO

OMG. Puerto Rico is the US.

 

[neesaki]

I think that the prosecution will be able to prove how far SA's head extended through demonstrating some measurements.

For example, if we look at the photo TGY posted (below) and compare it to the bent-over portion of SA's body that extended over the safety rail ..... I think we will find that at least a good portion of his head extended past the window ledge, and that his body was too far extended over the safety rail for him to have just been bending his head to look down between the window and the safety rail.

I think it will be a logical and measured conclusion. I don't think that it will be left up to individual perspectives.

View attachment 222959 View attachment 222960

Hopefully there is video from outside the ship as well.

 

[Area52]

I love you all! So, just a warning, don’t let “certain posters” bring this thread down. Just Ignore them !

Same people on different threads, trying to derail the conversation play the devils advocate. Don't play into her rudeness.

 

[neesaki]

The video I was referring to was of the regular dressed man giving his own account of the puppet video. The Charlton YouTube video. He was the person calling Chloe an “it”...not the puppet.

He seemed just slightly biased, one commenter said he must be a defense attorney. Whatever the case he didn’t have the facts of this tragedy down very well. Thought it happened on the 7th floor, and that Chloe raised her arms to be picked up. Ha, he does sound like a defense attorney, doesn’t he? And then he repeatedly called Chloe “it”. Maybe he works for Winkleman. SMH

 

[Chikkamma]

Many here believe the parents viewed the video prior to filing the lawsuit. If that is the case, which is certainly possible, why did they lie about viewing it at the press conference? Wouldn’t it have been in their best interests to declare that they HAVE seen it and still believe SA’s version of events? This is what Winkelman claimed to have done, and it would have been a better look for the parents as well, whether the video was released or not.

Now, at best, they look like gullible fools who believed grandpa’s false version of events, or at worst, outright liars trying to milk RCCL for money with a lawsuit they know is baseless.

 

[justbreathe]

I didn’t know the tragic death of 4 yr old Conor Clapton who fell from a high rise.

The Day Eric Clapton's Son Was Killed in 49-Story Fall

Crawled out an open window. I feel like this was the impetus for a lot of the regulations now for windows in highrises.

 

[Arkay]

Crawled out an open window. I feel like this was the impetus for a lot of the regulations now for windows in highrises.

I remember when this happened, but I don't think it was the impetus for high-rise regulations. I've mentioned in several posts that I'm a native New Yorker, and as it happens I live on the 11th floor of an apartment building. When Clapton's son ran and kept running and went out the open window, there were already laws in NYC requiring safety bars for all windows in buildings that had at least three stories. My 38-year old daughter was nine in March 1991 when Clapton's son died, and the law here requires window bars until all children are over 10 years old. As it happens, I still have the bars on because I just never took them out. Now I have three grandchildren, two of whom are still younger than ten. I guess eventually I'll remove them when they are all old enough.

That law was in place when Clapton's four-year old son died so tragically. Unfortunately since that home was a condo and not a co-op like mine, they were free to choose whether or not to comply. That to me is nonsensical, and you may be right that it was an impetus for condo associations to adhere to the NYC law.

To the best of my knowledge, these laws exist because children who are no longer in a crib can wake up and do crazy things while the parents are asleep. If there were no safety bars in the windows, I know for certain that neither I nor any other adults in the family would lift any children up and over the windows or the terrace.

Happy New Year to all of you. I won't be in Times Square but if any of you are coming, the security rules are necessarily strict, but the weather is decent.
May 2020 bring fewer tragedies to write about on Websleuths.

 

[Forever Young]

I think Forever Young is making a legitimate point here. The defense will argue that when SA leaned over, he was still inside the ship (ie. his head didn’t go past the window ledge) and thus he could still have thought the window was closed. Technically, nowhere on the video angles released to the public can we definitively see SA’s head or arms go past the window ledge.

Some posters have described a moment in the video when you see Chloe’s arm outside of window in the area where 1/4 of the window is still in the frame. I’ve watched this part countless times and while it does look like her arm is out past the ledge, it is still not crystal clear and I think it is possible she was still within the ship’s parameters.

Perhaps a new angle view will be released and we can have more definitive proof?

Thank you, that was exactly my point.

IMO, SA was negligent the moment Chloe went over and outside that railing. IMO, he knew the window was open. IMO it is a clear case of negligent homicide.

But the Wiegands are looking for at least partial responsibility on the part of RCCL and the ship design. A big pay-out for 50% or 25% or even 10% responsibility (not to mention how much better SA and the rest of the family would feel about that).

SA was rocking the baby on the railing and she was pitched forward and out. This could have happened without SA's head or arm reach going totally past the window opening.

Like nearly everyone else who has viewed the La Comay video, I also thought SA had breached the opening of the window to the outside just prior to lifting Chloe over the railing. After many views, though, I am thinking that is unlikely.

IMO, it is going to be hard to prove that any part of his body breached that opening. And IMO, this case is not going to be the "slam dunk" that we all thought it was going to be, upon first viewing the video.

 

[Forever Young]

Wouldn’t his reason to lie be that he thinks “colorblindness” could be a plausible reason he thought the window was closed - he couldn’t see the tinting?

If he was diagnosed before this, that will be easily proven.

Then SA will need to show his colorblindness prevents him from seeing shades of blue green, and dirt and salt spray.

And also that he knew that he had a problem with knowing if a window was open or not? Seems like this problem would have come up before this happened. How could he go 51 years and not encounter an open window? If that was the case he should have taken extra precaution, knowing about his disability.

 

[Forever Young]

Many here believe the parents viewed the video prior to filing the lawsuit. If that is the case, which is certainly possible, why did they lie about viewing it at the press conference? Wouldn’t it have been in their best interests to declare that they HAVE seen it and still believe SA’s version of events? This is what Winkelman claimed to have done, and it would have been a better look for the parents as well, whether the video was released or not.

Now, at best, they look like gullible fools who believed grandpa’s false version of events, or at worst, outright liars trying to milk RCCL for money with a lawsuit they know is baseless.

IMO, they have not viewed the video, in order not to prejudice their own testimony or feelings as to SA's innocence or guilt while they await what could be well over a year until trial.

Remembering their backgrounds as a police officer and Assistant Prosecutor, it is not their job to declare his innocence or guilt. It will be up to a jury to decide that.

 

[Forever Young]

But it is ok for the family to convict RCCL in the court of public opinion? Got it.

Too bad for them that the video was released.

I agree that the family was looking for a huge public outcry in an attempt to get RCCL to settle early on.

 

[neesaki]

Around the 4:00 mark he leans forward and looks out the window, with his shoulders and head at like a 90 degree angle to the rest of his body, and looks straight down. It looks to me like if he didn’t have his head out he’d be looking down at the window sill.

How tall is SA, 5’8” or 5’9”? From just below his shoulders, say chest high to the top of his head what would that be? Any one here in that height range that can give us a measurement? The rail to the window was what, 13 inches?

 

[Chikkamma]

Around the 4:00 mark he leans forward and looks out the window, with his shoulders and head at like a 90 degree angle to the rest of his body, and looks straight down. It looks to me like if he didn’t have his head out he’d be looking down at the window sill.

How tall is SA, 5’8” or 5’9”? From just below his shoulders, say chest high to the top of his head what would that be? Any one here in that height range that can give us a measurement? The rail to the window was what, 13 inches?

The distance from rail to window in that particular part of the ship is 18 inches.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

And also that he knew that he had a problem with knowing if a window was open or not? Seems like this problem would have come up before this happened. How could he go 51 years and not encounter an open window? If that was the case he should have taken extra precaution, knowing about his disability.

Or someone else should have taken his "disability" into consideration when choosing him as caretaker. JMOO

 

[Chikkamma]

Thank you, that was exactly my point.

IMO, SA was negligent the moment Chloe went over and outside that railing. IMO, he knew the window was open. IMO it is a clear case of negligent homicide.

But the Wiegands are looking for at least partial responsibility on the part of RCCL and the ship design. A big pay-out for 50% or 25% or even 10% responsibility (not to mention how much better SA and the rest of the family would feel about that).

SA was rocking the baby on the railing and she was pitched forward and out. This could have happened without SA's head or arm reach going totally past the window opening.

Like nearly everyone else who has viewed the La Comay video, I also thought SA had breached the opening of the window to the outside just prior to lifting Chloe over the railing. After many views, though, I am thinking that is unlikely.

IMO, it is going to be hard to prove that any part of his body breached that opening. And IMO, this case is not going to be the "slam dunk" that we all thought it was going to be, upon first viewing the video.

I don’t think it will be that hard to prove in court if he breached the window or not. Remember, only two views were released to the public. RCCL has many more cameras on the ship which I am sure captured alternate angles [they get sued all the time so they have to be prepared]. Also, the clarity of the real RCCL footage will be 20x better than the video leaked to the public.

 

[neesaki]

View attachment 222923
This should be as good as a link.
Then another 3” to the very outside of the windowsill/ship.

This was the photo I was looking for, so 18 inches from outside of guard rail to the actual window opening. Thanks for the photo!

ETA, Thank you too chikkamma.