IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #6

[they'll get you]

Apparently people tend to get into this position because they might have temporary lost control of their facilities it is a very uncomfortable position. I don't know if he had a drink but it something my hubby has seen many times and the first thing he said when watching the video. To be honest him being impaired is one of the only things that makes some sort of sense a reckless person who is rather tiddly.

2 bottles of wine are allowed to be taken on board per each state room.

 

[Tutter]

It's kind of like "at no point ever, ever, would Sam ever
put our children in danger".

Seriously, though, they are saying that SA did not himself breach where the glass would have been, had it been there. They are saying that he did not hold her outside the window, she fell out there.

she only fell out, because he hoisted her up over the railing. How can that be RCCL’s fault? Unless it is Chloe’s fault, for you know, falling...

 

[Snoods]

The article below has new information and new quotes from Winkleman. Apparently, Winkleman had an accident re-enactment done during their inspection of the ship in Barbados and is planning to release those results next week.

Michiana family says cruise line is being 'deceptive' in lawsuit over toddler's death

Nice try! Do we really need a re-enactment when we can watch it exactly as it happened on video?

Winkleman says last week, an inspection and accident reconstruction was conducted, proving there was at least a foot and a half of room between the railing and window."

“They are trying to capitalize on that angle to come up with a false narrative,” said Winkleman. “What the photos, videos, and accident reconstruction from the vessel inspection show is that Chloe was always within the ship and there was room to spare.

Yet he still managed to drop her out the window? This makes him seem even more negligent, like he had to push her extra hard.

 

[Forever Young]

she only fell out, because he hoisted her up over the railing. How can that be RCCL’s fault? Unless it is Chloe’s fault, for you know, falling...

They have to prove that SA was aware of the existence of a dangerous situation (open window) in order for him to be charged with the negligent part of negligent homicide. If he could not reach past the place that a window would have been, they can still claim he did not know the window was open.

Do most other ships have industry standard fall prevention window guards, screens, and a device to open the windows four inches for toddler safety?

Was the FOS going to implement the industry standard toddler safety features during the 2020 refurbishment?

Is it less safe to cruise on a ship due to be refurbished?

I'm just curious about these questions, I don't blame RCCL for CW's death, SA was crazy to do what he did, imo. Even if all the safety features were done, she could have fallen off the railing while standing and been hurt or killed.

IMO, these are good questions in regard to standards for cruise ships (not buildings). Were some features "grandfathered in" or given a date in which new safety windows were to be installed? RCCL, in the notification of refurbishment, said that the area in question would be destroyed?

 

[they'll get you]

she only fell out, because he hoisted her up over the railing. How can that be RCCL’s fault? Unless it is Chloe’s fault, for you know, falling...

Don’t forget Chloe wasn’t anywhere near the window.

Twisting the truth is an art.

 

[MsMarple]

When a ship is in port, most of the time one side of the ship is alongside the pier while the other side of the vessel is flanked by water. Think of it as parallel parking: When you parallel park, one side of your vehicle is along the curb side of the street while the other side of your vehicle is flanked by the street. If Grandpa had held Chloe up to an open window on the starboard side of the ship, she would have fallen into the water. I recall an odd comment that KW made in one of her media interviews: "I thought there would be water on both sides of the ship". The ship was in port at the time of the incident, so only one side of the ship was flanked by water.

Someone mentioned that pier cameras might not belong to RCCL, but I feel certain that there is other surveillance video of the dock side of the ship at the time of the incident. I'm also confident that there is exterior footage on the ship that might or might not show the incident. A passenger on the starboard side of the ship could go overboard when the ship is in port, and port authorities must prevent anyone getting on the vessel who is not a ticketed passenger and/or shipboard officers, staff, or crew.

OT: DH and I are in cruise countdown mode as our winter cruise (for my 70th birthday) is coming up in one week. We will pack this weekend because DH is working through next Thursday, then we're off for a sailing on Sky Princess

I get it. And maybe they deactivated the CCTVs on the outside while in port. I did read that there's currently a push to have motion-activated cameras installed to automatically alert to man overboard and some ships are utilizing them but there are problems with false alarms. So I think the ship has cameras on both sides (and maybe bow and stern) but probably turn them off in port.

But as stated by others it's probably irrelevant though there may be value in the videos if the civil case actually gets to court. Juries like to see.

And enjoy your cruise! I've only been on one. many years ago and it was the ill-fated Emerald Seas. It listed to one side the whole time but at least we didn't get food poisoning, lol! And no, we didn't take the kids.

 

[FactFinder3000]

It's kind of like "at no point ever, ever, would Sam ever
put our children in danger".

Seriously, though, they are saying that SA did not himself breach where the glass would have been, had it been there. They are saying that he did not hold her outside the window, she fell out there.

Watching the video again I think he very clearly did. He puts her on the railing to his right and he leans way out past the window and looks down. He then grabs Chloe and holds him in front of him. And I just realized something chilling: she seems to reach out and probably did think there was glass in front of her. He realized that and that is how he came up with the excuse so quickly. moo.

The guy's excuse never made sense anyway, though. If Chloe wanted to bang the glass she could have done it from the floor.

 

[al66pine]

SA and Winkleman
@SpanishInquisition. Thinking about your post below re W's inappropriate (to us) actions and how they affect SA. Good points.
I wonder how much, if any, direct communication Winkleman & SA have had. Did they speak in the few days in early July when the family stayed in PR, awaiting release of remains? In person? By phone? Skye or equiv? Presumably after AW & KS-W communicated w him. Was SA there w them too?
July 10 (?) MSM said SA had crim atty from PR when he went to LE for interview. Refused to give stmt. Seems like following std legal crim advice. Is that the same crim def atty rep'ing him now?

And what about communications btwn SA &W since?
Have some or all of their communications been relayed back & forth thru KS-W?
Was Begnaud/CBS interview of SA orchestrated by W?
Hardly seems like something arranged by crim def atty.
Ditto the Dec 11(?) Indiana presser w Winkleman there w the four.

Maybe SA compartmentalizes civil case from crim case, ignores him crim atty on any matters outside the PR ctroom? Maybe depending on lead from Winkleman and/or KS-W?

Re AW's hypo/potential case against SA, I'doubting any $ to collect from SA. Potential benefit to AW, might be a moral victory - AW publicly ack's SA's negligence & responsibility & wanted SA to so same

...That these sorts of issues and impressions come up is precisely what's wrong with what Winkleman is doing. Chloe's father could for instance realistically divorce Chloe's mother and sue SA over and above the criminal implications of what Winkleman has done to SA, which Chloe's father would have a very good claim against SA even if RCCL had contributory negligence due to SA's taped confession done at the instigation of Winkleman. SA from both a civil and criminal standpoint had everything to lose and nothing to gain by Winkleman getting SA to admit to a one-handed hold with Chloe on a railing immediately before the fall.

..

 

[mickey2942]

DBM

 

[MsMarple]

Would Winkleman's actions be enough to get him disbarred? I personally think he deserves to be disbarred but I don't know what the legal standard is. At the very least, I hope his reputation is destroyed after everyone has discovered the truth.

My understanding is technically yes. But in reality while the court has the power to sanction Winkleman as does the Florida Bar it's not likely to happen. Never say never of course but this particular case is kind of a plaintiff says/defendant says situation and much depends on the interpretation of those videos.

Proving that Winkleman and by extension the Wiegands deliberately misrepresented the facts could be difficult. The same holds for RCCL. So it might be a wash.

Unless the Wiegands file a complaint with the Florida Bar Association IMO not much will happen. Frankly, the bad PR to Winkleman and his firm is far worse. There's competition in the maritime law firms and egg on Winkleman's face will have a financial impact on future cases IMO.

 

[al66pine]

A Bag of Potatoes?

....Seriously, though, they are saying that SA did not himself breach where the glass would have been, had it been there. They are saying that he did not hold her outside the window, she fell out there.

@Forever Young sbm bbm Yes.
Chloe fell. She had to be close enough to window frame opening to move past the window ledge (or sill, or track, or term of anyone's choice), and then sadly, further to impact.
How did she come to be close enough to do that? SA lifted her that close & dropped her.

Or for the sake of discussion, let's hypothesize that Chloe must have somehow added to the physical energy/movement pushing her out - say, doing an Elsa dance, or hopping to Baby Shark, or writhing away from uncomfortable grasp at waist, or squirming from a splinter on wooden rail. If she moved, regardless of how or why she moved, it was entirely foreseeable to and thus entirely preventable by an ordinarily prudent person. Including SA.
Foreseeable? Yes, we know toddlers move. If she had propelled herself from standing on floor 5 ft away, up over 42-46" rail thru window by herself that would not have been foreseeable.
Preventable, how? By not getting so close to the open window.

SA knew he was not carrying a 25 lb bag of potatoes or other inert object..
Chloe, a wonderful little girl, was handled w no more care than bag of potatoes. jmo

 

[katydid23]

Now that the Weigands have responded to the Motion for Dismissal, is everyone still confident that RCCL will prevail?

I am because their response was weak. IMO. They stated:

"Michael Winkleman says the cruise line is being deceptive by only showing two of the 13 cameras.

“They are trying to capitalize on that angle to come up with a false narrative,” said Winkleman. “What the photos, videos, and accident reconstruction from the vessel inspection show is that Chloe was always within the ship and there was room to spare.”

Winkleman says last week, an inspection and accident reconstruction was conducted, proving there was at least a foot and a half of room between the railing and window."


How does any of that ^^^help them in this lawsuit?

It doesn't make any sense. ALL of the cameras will show the same thing. ALL angles will show him looking out of the window 1st, the picking up the baby, lifting her high over the GUARD RAIL, and up to the open window. There are no camera 'angles' that will show anything different than that. So how is it 'misleading' to show the two angles they submitted?


And that 'room to spare' mantra is nonsense. OBVIOUSLY there was no room to spare since she ran out of room suddenly and fell to her death.

And how could they say she was 'always within the ship' with room to spare. If that were true, she would have fallen 6 feet to the floor, rather than 120 feet to the outer dock. If she was on the guard rail when she fell, she would have been injured from the fall to the floor, but we wouldn't be grieving her tragic death.

Their words are empty and purposely misleading.

 

[ZsaZsa]

I am not sure which pier they were docked at but I was on Harmony of the seas in December and we were docked at San Juan. There was another RCI ship next to us ; so left to right standing forward on ship towards the city: Harmony, pier, Another RC ship. So the other ship was facing the side that she would of fell from. It is possible if another ship was docked there they have footage. Not sure which pier they were at though. I was at the main pier of Ild San Juan. Just a thought...

They were at the Pan American pier. The piers you docked at in downtown Old San Juan are used for ships calling in for the day.
If your cruise originates/ends in San Juan they use the Pan American cruise terminal.

 

[katydid23]

To me, it depends on what exactly RCL needs to prove. Do they need to prove what SA was actually thinking? If so that's a high hurdle. Do they only need to prove that the "reasonably prudent person" would never have done what SA did? I don't know how you prove what a normal person would do - I kind of know instinctively, but is there a written method that lawyers would use to establish what a normal person thinks?

The standard of care in negligence cases
Written by: Enjuris Editors

The “reasonable person” standard is an objective test in personal injury cases that jurors use to determine if a defendant acted like other people would have in the same situation.
The question in any negligence case is, “What would a reasonable person have done in this same situation?”

This reasonable person doesn’t actually exist.

He is an objective ideal, created so that juries have something to which they can cling during their deliberations. The reasonable person, who is probably bespectacled and wears a somber gray suit, represents the standard of care in the situation at hand.

For example, let’s say you’re in a car accident. You were rear-ended by another car while stopped in traffic. Let’s review the elements of negligence:

1. The defendant must have owed you a duty of care.
2. That duty of care must have been breached.
3. That breach must have caused injuries.
4. Those injuries must have resulted in damages.


If and when the jury reviews the facts, they will compare it to the “reasonable person” standard.

They will determine how a typical person would have acted in the same scenario under the same circumstances. Would a reasonable person have reacted in the same fashion? What would those jurors have done under those circumstances? Would they have reacted the same way the defendant did? Would they have rear-ended your car?

This is technically an objective standard, not a subjective one, so it doesn’t take into account any specific aspects of the defendant and means everyone is held to the same level. The jury will consider the defendant’s conduct in light of what he knows and has experienced. However, it is meant to be a broad representation of the community at large.

The “Reasonable Person” in a Negligence Case

 

[katydid23]

This is probably the reason why Chloe's parents told SA not to submit to breathalyzer or blood tests

If they were certain he was not drinking, wouldn't they want him to be tested to prove that, on the record?

The fact that they both told him to refrain from testing makes me suspicious.

 

[MsMarple]

Nope, had not seen this one(above):Michiana family says cruise line is being 'deceptive' in lawsuit over toddler's death

“They are trying to capitalize on that angle to come up with a false narrative,” said Winkleman. “What the photos, videos, and accident reconstruction from the vessel inspection show is that Chloe was always within the ship and there was room to spare.

Winkleman says last week, an inspection and accident reconstruction was conducted, proving there was at least a foot and a half of room between the railing and window."

"Winkleman says the photos and accident re-enactment data will be released next week"

This came out of Granger, Indiana. I remember David Begnaud saying that the family had tremendous support in their hometown area.

There's that 18" again. IIRC, the original argument was that the 18" meant that SA couldn't really see that the window was open, because of, you know, his color blindness.

Now it appears that Chloe could not have been "outside" the window because... 18". And way too far for SA to have his head outside. Just for reference, from my middle finger to my elbow is 18". Not very far at all.

 

[katydid23]

The article below has new information and new quotes from Winkleman. Apparently, Winkleman had an accident re-enactment done during their inspection of the ship in Barbados and is planning to release those results next week.

Michiana family says cruise line is being 'deceptive' in lawsuit over toddler's death

Accident reenactments can be A joke and a ploy by the defense team.

They tried the same in Phil Spector case and did a phony reenactment. Even produced a Hollywood film based upon the fake reenactment of the murder.

The parents of Lil Deorr tried the same thing. Hired a PI team to film a reenactment but it did not match what the parents initially told LE about the day DeOrr went missing.

 

[al66pine]

Winkleman's 'Response'

I am because their response was weak. IMO. They stated:
How does any of that ^^^help them in this lawsuit?...
It doesn't make any sense. . If she was on the guard rail when she fell, she would have been injured from the fall to the floor, but we wouldn't be grieving her tragic death. ...
Their words are empty and purposely misleading.

@katydid23 sbm Agreeing w your points in ^ post. Pretty lame.
However, yes, Winkleman response to RCL's Motion to Dismiss was not a document filed in court, just issued a "statement" to media, IIUC. I could be wrong.
Hoping poster(s) here w better access to the court doc's will post a link to actual doc filed w ct,.as soon as W files.

 

[katydid23]

They have to prove that SA was aware of the existence of a dangerous situation (open window) in order for him to be charged with the negligent part of negligent homicide. If he could not reach past the place that a window would have been, they can still claim he did not know the window was open.



IMO, these are good questions in regard to standards for cruise ships (not buildings). Were some features "grandfathered in" or given a date in which new safety windows were to be installed? RCCL, in the notification of refurbishment, said that the area in question would be destroyed?

How can they claim he didn't know it was open when we clearly see him stick his head out of the window opening? There is no way he could do so, and not realise it was open air.

Obviously he could 'reach that far' because he dropped the baby outside of the window. She didn't jump out by herself. He dropped her. He said so, literally said those exact words---'I dropped my baby' in his initial statement.

 

[al66pine]

Disciplinary Actions & FL Atty's?
MsMarple The info in (my) post 732 might give a better understanding about the FL SupCt Rules about frivolous lawsuits, what they are and are not, and the many gray areas in between.
And that post may also give some insight to FL disciplinary actions for various Rule violations.
Snipped from referenced post-
------ FL Sup Ct. Rule."4-3. ADVOCATE RULE. 4-3.1 MERITORIOUS CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS"
------ Sanctions for Filing Frivolous Lawsuits? FL Bar News, Disciplinary Actions

BTW, a trial court/judge's authority to sanction an atty rep'ing client in a case in that court is quite limited as compared to the St Sup Ct's power wielded over the atty's license to practice law. Generally trial ct sanctions only apply to that atty's actions in that particular case and to sanction for that particular case, for example, no further motions for postponements for trial will be granted in that case. jmo

My understanding is technically yes. But in reality while the court has the power to sanction Winkleman as does the Florida Bar it's not likely to happen. Never say never of course but this particular case is kind of a plaintiff says/defendant says situation and much depends on the interpretation of those videos.
Proving that Winkleman and by extension the Wiegands deliberately misrepresented the facts could be difficult. The same holds for RCCL. So it might be a wash.
Unless the Wiegands file a complaint with the Florida Bar Association IMO not much will happen....

sbm. Not sure I'm following why Wiegands would be inclined to complain re Winkleman. Maybe I'm getting too far O/T. Sorry. Back to poor little Chloe.