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

[Midwestmom2019]

"It may be hard for some people to believe that the grandpa didn't know that that section of the window was open. … How did he know that there was glass?" Begnaud asked.

"The only way that you can prove or disprove anything that Sam said is based on the video and based on his testimony … Those are the only pieces of evidence you have," Winkleman said. "There were no eye witnesses. There's no one who's come forward to tell any different story. … So all you have is Sam's testimony, his story and the video."

After Chloe fell out of the window, Anello drops to his knees, according to Winkleman, and he yelled out loud, "I just dropped my child. I thought there was glass! I thought there was glass!"
Video shows girl's final moments with grandfather before cruise ship death
My bolding. Once again we're relying on Winkleman's version of events but according to him SA did say it.

Without checking back, I believe LE repeated what SA said based on eye witness reports.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

Again, IMO, there is no need to modify the windows. They have enough safety features as they are. This situation has never happened before, and likely will never happen again.
Furthermore, the window, as currently designed, is safer than the railing on open decks. What is to prevent someone( child) from moving furniture or being lifted onto those railings?? It all boils down to personal caution, supervision and responsibility. IMO

Unfortunately, it just MIGHT happen again, if the family's lawsuit against RCCL goes forward and is successful (please God, no on that one), in that case it could set a really icky precedent, KWIM?

 

[Forever Young]

PR is handling the criminal case under its laws.
Neesaki was referring to ForeverYoung’s continued and exclusive use of California law, use of only one case actually, when the Wiegand civil case has been filed in the Florida federal court system. As an aside, never mind California vs. Federal, this is a maritime case. High Seas. Hotels, apartments and high rises are an entirely different category of law. Talk about mixing apples and oranges.

I thought it was not under maritime law, because the ship was docked. Duty of care, I would think, would encompass not only high rises and hotels, but cruise ships.

I have linked to this interview before, with the CEO of Carnival Cruise Lines, Arnold Donald, where he states: "The total number of cabins on all of the world's cruise ships amounts to less than 2% of the world's hotel rooms, Donald said. In 2017, the total number of global cruise passengers was 26.6 million. In 2014, an average of 4.8 million people stayed in US hotels each night."
The CEO of Carnival reveals the cruise industry's greatest challenge right now

Cruise ships have often been referred to as "floating hotels". I think I was making a valid comparison, since the CEO of Carnival does the same.

 

[MsMarple]

Without checking back, I believe LE repeated what SA said based on eye witness reports.

I don't recall LE stating that eyewitnesses reported hearing SA say anything when Chloe fell but some early articles were overwritten as more information came out. I'd love to see the Probable Cause doc for SA's charge but so far no luck in finding it online.

 

[Forever Young]

One thing I noticed about the crew member opening the window is that he turned a bit to the side which allows for a slightly longer reach. Kind of like how it appears SA shifts her to one hand before she goes out the window.

(Did anyone see that RCCL had a fatality in PR today? Oasis of the Seas.) David Begnaud on Twitter

I have noticed this also, that when other passengers ran to the rail, after the incident, they seemed to be looking to the side, as if you really could not see looking straight down. The man in the video we have seen, who reaches easily out the window, also goes from an angle, not straight out.

Yes, I did see that a man went overboard on a Royal Caribbean cruise earlier today.

 

[Forever Young]

I don’t think whether the windows are changed or not would be admissible.

It might be up to the judge as to admissibility, with instruction as to how to consider that bit of information.

 

[Forever Young]

snip> A 9.5B company (RCCL) generally doesn’t make stupid safety mistakes. There’s an entire team that ensures compliance with maritime law. This vessel isn’t permanently docked so maritime law applies. 42” for any railing is compliant. MOO

IMO, several news articles stated that AW and KW could go for unlimited damages because the ship was not at sea and not under maritime law at the time. I would need to look back for that, but sure that is what I read. Whether accurate or not, I'm not sure.

 

[helenff]

I've been lurking on this thread for a long time and am still struck by how strange it was that this man went straight into denial rather than shameful devastation.

 

[Area52]

IMO, several news articles stated that AW and KW could go for unlimited damages because the ship was not at sea and not under maritime law at the time. I would need to look back for that, but sure that is what I read. Whether accurate or not, I'm not sure.

Regardless of whether it goes under maritime law or not, the window was inaccessible to that child, the handrail prevents you from falling if you are standing in front of the window, and Chloe is only deceased because SA lacks a normal functioning brain. Who in their right mind would place a child in a situation like this. Saying that, what about upper decks with only railings ? Should they also be banned on ships. You can go on and on, but in the end Chloe isn't here because of SA's actions. Not because the window was open. Moo. But I think SA is a moron!

 

[oviedo]

Again, IMO, there is no need to modify the windows. They have enough safety features as they are. This situation has never happened before, and likely will never happen again.
Furthermore, the window, as currently designed, is safer than the railing on open decks. What is to prevent someone( child) from moving furniture or being lifted onto those railings?? It all boils down to personal caution, supervision and responsibility. IMO

Yep It always surprises me when a consideration is made to alter something based on one action IMO- I’ve sailed many times on cruise ships and the view and breeze from the open windows is one of the reasons I return to the same ships over and over - if there was a bar or screen or anything covering the open windows that exist today - I would find another ship as it is that important to me for my relaxation and enjoyment - SA alone is responsible for killing Chloe - as I’ve said before I think he held her in this position many times before and it wasn’t the first time IMO

 

[cattlekate]

I’ve been lurking and have only a few things to say:

1) The video clearly shows Grandpa hosting up Chloe. And changing positions. Whether she is first on the rail, then the window sill, is up for interpretation or the bar camera, if it is released.

2) I tried to re-enact the railing height and window with a doll but am at a loss at what the true window distance and rail height are. Can someone please respond and give me the true rail height and distance to the window sill?

3) I got disoriented after looking at many photos of the open window, as the top window sill juts out quite a bit from the bottom sill. Being disoriented, and old with glasses, I could assume that the lower sill was parallel to the uppper sill. Since Grandpa didn’t mention that, I assume that is not an issue. But it is with me.

Thanks.

 

[Forever Young]

BBM - but if SA is convicted of negligence where does this leave the parents claim for negligence against RCCL? It would be a huge setback for them wouldn't it? They're in it together until SA breaks ranks.

Setback, yes. IMO, I have said before that I DO think SA's conduct was negligent. But his negligence does not mean that RCCL cannot be found to have a degree of negligence, too.

 

[al66pine]

Patsy? Or?

Classic patsy.

Patsy:
---- a person who is easily manipulated or victimized : pushover.
If we think SA was criminally negligent, then imo SA is not victimized, because parents are trying to put cruise line on the hook; they're victimizing RCL. SA dropped & killed Chloe. Not sure if he is a patsy.
---- a person who is easily taken advantage of, especially by being cheated or blamed for something.
Again if we think SA was criminally negligent, then imo he is being blamed (by PR, the gen public, maybe jury) for something he did do. Is that a patsy?

Maybe SA has been left twisting in the wind or left hanging in the wind.
---- To have been left in a very difficult, troublesome, or problematic situation, often to receive punishment or blame.
If that suggests undeserved or unwarranted blame, not the right word. IDK. Trying not to over analyze this. too late.

 

[justbreathe]

IMO, several news articles stated that AW and KW could go for unlimited damages because the ship was not at sea and not under maritime law at the time. I would need to look back for that, but sure that is what I read. Whether accurate or not, I'm not sure.

Maritime law would still apply to the ship itself. Because the ships is at sea so much of the time it would be unreasonable to expect the ship to reconform to laws in each individual port it stops at. So it is held to the standards of maritime law.

The death of a person when not at sea is prosecuted under local laws. Because they are within the jurisdiction of that locality.

There is not another interpretation that can be filed under “imo” because that opinion is wrong.

 

[vallie]

No it wasn’t opened but the bars allow air flow, it has no glass.
My point was did Chloe go to that to look out and feel the breeze.
IIRC it has a padlock.

not trying to butt in with corrections, but those bars are for when the deck is flooded (it's a mostly open deck 11 and 12) the water can flow out without anything going overboard,

 

[justbreathe]

I've been lurking on this thread for a long time and am still struck by how strange it was that this man went straight into denial rather than shameful devastation.

In his interview he said *at first* he blamed himself. But *now* he blames the ship.

Followed by his pathetic demand to “just fix the boat.”

 

[Forever Young]

I think it's impossible to know what he was thinking.

Perhaps the biggest problem was that he did not think at all. He obviously did not consider ahead of time the potential danger of lifting her high over the railing and putting her in such a precarious position.

I don't think he was planning on intentionally throwing his grand child out of the window.
I'm thinking LE investigated thoroughly before charging him with negligent homicide. We don't know about all the evidence they have or how many people they interviewed but if there was any indication that he murdered her or that he planned her death I don't think this guy is intelligent enough to outsmart LE and get away with murder.

There just isn't any evidence to suggest he wanted his granddaughter dead.

Imo

This is why I seriously doubt that any of this will come up at trial. It is impossible to know what someone else was thinking or seeing - if you've ever had the experience of just looking at something the wrong way.

Types of Optical Illusions - Optical Illusions

 

[Forever Young]

Again, IMO, there is no need to modify the windows. They have enough safety features as they are. This situation has never happened before, and likely will never happen again.
Furthermore, the window, as currently designed, is safer than the railing on open decks. What is to prevent someone( child) from moving furniture or being lifted onto those railings?? It all boils down to personal caution, supervision and responsibility. IMO

IMO, it does not matter if it has never happened before. IMO, if it can happen, it will happen.

 

[MimosaMornings]

I've puzzled over this, too. Why didn't he move into the shade? Instead went into the squat. Someone else on here mentioned children doing that was indicative of a heart problem. When he does get to the railing, my interpretation, he almost flops onto it, and allows the railing to support him.

I’m puzzled. I’m quite tall and bending over with the younger grand children is fine at times but if I’m playing with them or want to see up close what they are doing, I squat down to “be on their level” so to speak.
I’m healthy with no heart problems and squat frequently or sit with them.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

I've been lurking on this thread for a long time and am still struck by how strange it was that this man went straight into denial rather than shameful devastation.

^^ This post, right here^^