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

[BetteDavisEyes]

And just before they went to the window, they were following a man who went to the window to look out of it. Chloe follows that man, then is stopped by SA, or else turned to talk to him, at the pillar/column. While they are still stopped there, that same man walks away from the window, crosses in front of them, and right then is when Chloe and SA resume heading for that same open window.

I wonder if this man has been identified and/or interviewed by LE? Given that Chloe started to follow him as he walked toward the windows, had she and Grandpa met him earlier? Why did Chloe follow the man? Was she confused and thought he was SA, or had the man said something to Chloe and Grandpa about going to look out the windows? This guy could actually prove to be an important witness if he had interacted with Chloe and SA before the incident.

 

[Forever Young]

Agreed. It really is suspicious that he refused a breathalyzer.

I have seen it stated that he refused a breathalyzer many times here and on various blogs, but do not recall seeing that in any MSM article or video. Does anyone have a link to where exactly this is said?

 

[Forever Young]

I have seen it stated that he refused a breathalyzer many times here and on various blogs, but do not recall seeing that in any MSM article or video. Does anyone have a link to where exactly this is said?

I wonder if the son-in-law advised SA that since he was not driving, he was under no legal obligation to submit to one.

Also, I'm assuming that LE would have had to obtain one. Would be surprised if it was something the ship would have kept on hand, since many of the patrons on the trip at any given time would fail such a test, and the cruise line themselves do not have the authority to administer one.

 

[Forever Young]

IMO, I think this is the great unknown factor. I know Winkleman said that alcohol was not a factor in this case, which could just be lawyer-speak for no breathalyzer was ever given, therefore, no evidence of alcohol being a factor.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Question: If the police had taken SA into custody / arrested him immediately after what happened, could they have gotten permission from a judge to do drug tests and a breathalyzer on him?

But it looks like they gave him a huge break right then because he was hysterical and a grandfather.

"Mind-altering substance" as mentioned here does ring true. I've always thought alcohol but who knows. I wonder if the prosecutors really wish this had happened because it would have answered a lot of questions one way or another.

So many excellent posts in the last couple of days, just when I thought we'd already covered everything we could to this point.

If SA was known by family members to drink, smoke marijuana, and/or use other "mind-altering substances", this is yet another reason why he never should have been allowed to care for Chloe by himself.

 

[Forever Young]

If SA was known by family members to drink, smoke marijuana, and/or use other "mind-altering substances", this is yet another reason why he never should have been allowed to care for Chloe by himself.

Yes, but....how many people would follow through on that, unless he was stumbling drunk?

What I have wondered about is why Chloe's mother just didn't take her along to whatever it was she was called away to do. An hour at the pool should have been long enough for Chloe at her age. Why was it such a big deal to take her along? She had to call for someone else to come and keep an eye on her?

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

I’m confused as to why he thought there was glass below. Did he think there was a glass ledge outside the open, yes open, window sill? So all the other parts of the wall were flush and flat but he thought this was like a bay window? Also what I’ve had trouble with is when KW was interviewed she said she came over to see what happened. She looked down and saw concrete. She said she expected Chloe to have landed in the water. I don’t understand that statement. I’d be freaking out too much to even debate what side she landed on. Either way she’s not going to survive. What difference does it make what she landed on? For someone grieving the recent horrid death of her child it just seems odd to say. Or am I overreacting? Then in the interview so soon after she’s very angry at the ship. Saying things like get a fan. If my toddler died a couple weeks before that interview in such a horrific manner I wouldn’t be able to speak, eat, bathe, even get out of bed. It’s like her daughter died and immediately she’s on a rampage. MOO.

Very very strange. I know people have different ways of grieving, but all of the family's actions and attitudes about this case just seem OFF.

 

[they'll get you]

Yes, I have seen the blue shelter pic (in this link). It may be that the awning is closer to the ship than the blue shelter is. Don't know.

Chilling photo from toddler’s cruise death

I think that there was very likely witnesses on the dock that viewed what happened. I can't imagine that the dock was witness free at a busy before-sail time.

In this video @ 1:40 there are a lot of people walking below on the dock and the little blue canopy is there but not below that exact window.
Remember this video was taken from the actual window from where Chloe fell.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[they'll get you]

ITA. That IS crazy since the purpose of this gap is for safety.

People and lawyers can twist anything to suit their cause. Something that is designed to save lives can be twisted to cause deaths.

Why is it that SA won’t wear a seatbelt.
I’ve heard people say seatbelts cause deaths because they get trapped by them or because they hurt breasts, stomachs... you name it.

 

[they'll get you]

The pain and suffering Chloe’s family experience is not the fault of RCCL. I hope RCCL doesn’t give them a dime.

IIRC RCCL helped the family with accommodation, transport and anything they needed. Is that admitting fault or being simply benevolent.

 

[they'll get you]

Somewhere, there is an interview cut in which Winkleman states that when SA viewed straight down from the railing at the gap, he could see the lower window glass, so this caused him to think that the glass went all the way up.

He said something to the fact that the placement of the railing actually made it harder to distinguish where the glass began and ended.

Typical lawyers will twist something beneficial into something dangerous to suit them.
Mum is a lawyer.

 

[Forever Young]

People and lawyers can twist anything to suit their cause. Something that is designed to save lives can be twisted to cause deaths.

Why is it that SA won’t wear a seatbelt.
I’ve heard people say seatbelts cause deaths because they get trapped by them or because they hurt breasts, stomachs... you name it.

I dunno. I would think his liability insurance would be sky high after so many speeding tickets and seat belt violations.

 

[they'll get you]

BBM IMHO anyone encouraging their child to bang on any glass needs a visit from Child Protective. Don't tell me that AW, a police officer (who you KNOW has gone through many safety courses) was on board with such a dangerous pastime. My son is a police officer so I DO know what I am talking about. And even if it was only at a hockey arena, who wants their child right by the glass? Pucks have been known to shatter glass at hockey venues, and most have signs and announcements NOT TO BANG ON THE GLASS. I have never heard so many stupid excuses during a case in my life. There is only one way Chloe ended up out that window, her "gpa" put her out that window. For whatever reason.

I noticed all parents held their children when they were close to edges or glass. What if the glass wasn’t secure? What if it gave way? That’s how ‘real’ parents think. Over protective? No, never in a new environment.

 

[they'll get you]

BBM Funny how the other people on board didn't have that problem and were able to keep themselves and their precious children safe on the ship. I wouldn't believe Winkie if he told me what time it was. He still insists that the window in question is in the children's play area!

His job is to convince you, me and the jury that everything imaginable is RCCL’s fault.

If his cat had kittens it would be someone else’s fault and he’d be out to prove it.

 

[justbreathe]

If SA was known by family members to drink, smoke marijuana, and/or use other "mind-altering substances", this is yet another reason why he never should have been allowed to care for Chloe by himself.

Some legally prescribed drugs can exacerbate the effects of alcohol - like Xanax or Ativan. Taking something like this for nerves about flying, traveling, etc could make someone who isn’y aware feel very inebriated even after a small amount of alcohol.

 

[sl222]

One reason this civil lawsuit matters is because someone with sinister intentions could get a blueprint from this whole thing on how to commit a murder and profit from it.

 

[they'll get you]

Or - he could have just taken regular precautions as per cruise ship directives and stayed behind the safety rail? Nothing extra needed. Just a regular, ordinary following of rules.

If Chloe had stayed down or if he’d picked her up behind the rail BOTH OF THEM would’ve been able to see down to the dock.

The way the windows are designed is to allow you to stand at the rail and still look directly down.

This was taken by me standing straight at the rail and looking directly down.

 

[they'll get you]

He is attracted to the window because it is "clear". He can feel the wind coming through it. He bends down beneath the railing with Chloe and sees the glass below. Voila! Suddenly there is glass in the middle row above the railing, too. And then it disappears just as quickly.

AFTER HE LOOKS OUT!

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

One reason this civil lawsuit matters is because someone with sinister intentions could get a blueprint from this whole thing on how to commit a murder and profit from it.

HMMMMM....you just may be on to something there.

 

[Chikkamma]

IMO, the parents knew the very night of the incident that there was a good chance of negligent homicide charges being filed. The mother even asked prosecutors that charges not be brought against SA. Maybe the parents initially thought that they could fight this by threatening to sue the cruise line and showing their complete support for SA.

ETA: The actual filing of the suit did not occur until SA was formally charged.

Are you implying that the parents would drop their civil suit if the prosecutors dropped their criminal case? Do you really believe that SA not going to jail is the only thing their civil suit is about?

The prosecutors have discussed giving SA a plea with no jail time and the family has STILL refused it (according to SA’s defense attorney). This is not just about SA not going to jail. The parents want a payout. At this point, I don’t even consider this an opinion. IMO nonetheless.