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

[wackyw]

As far as the negligent Homicide charge, what he was thinking is irrelevant.

Like best case scenario - this is a simple case of negligence. Someone breaks the rules, someone else gets hurt, even though there was no intention there.

His thoughts matter if we are talking about the worst case scenario.

And everything SA has said explaining his thoughts thus far has sounded, I’ll say - *implausible.*

I wonder if he will ever testify, and if so will his explanations be more coherent than his press interview?

re BBM - I don't believe he will. I've typed out the relevant bits of text in an attempt to make sense of some of the bits. But it's so unclear and contradictory, I give up!! . But one bit in particular that struck me was .....

........... "The windows are tinted so it is pretty easy to recognise that its open"
........... "I'm colour blind so that's been told to me, I don't know I just never saw it, I been told that's a reason that it might have happened"

I don't know I just never saw it -- sounds like he does not understand the logic of the colour blindness excuse himself ? He's 51, how has he ever managed with glass structures before ?
He can't grasp the concept of his excuse because it's rubbish, no chance of him getting it straight at a trial either I don't think. So will not testify, never mind trying to explain his other actions.

JMOO

 

[mheido67]

Item 20 in the original complaint...

20. Upon reaching this wall of glass, Chloe asked to be lifted up so that she could bang on the glass of the window, as Chloe frequently did at her older brother’s hockey games. Mr. Anello then lifted Chloe up onto the railing and held Chloe while she leaned forward to bang on the glass that Mr. Anello and Chloe thought to be in front of them. As Chloe leaned forward, however, there was no glass in the frame in front of her, and she slipped from Mr. Anello’s arms, falling through the open pane and down approximately 150 feet below onto the Pier in San Juan, resulting in her death.

https://www.lipcon.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/DE-1-Wrongful-Death-Complaint.pdf

So we’re being asked to believe that; CW stood on the deck below SA looking out the window for several seconds while he observed her, he then squatted down with her for several more seconds but they couldn’t bang on the lower glass for some reason and then she asked to be picked up so she could bang on the glass above the railing, SA picked her up to do that and it then took 34 seconds for her to lean forward and attempt to bang on glass that was not present which is when he lost his grip and she fell?

Anyone believe that? What was happening during the 34 seconds before she fell? Clearly she was not banging on any glass. At no point during this time did SA recognize, while she was not banging on glass, that there was no glass to bang on? What was SA doing? What was he looking at?

 

[justbreathe]

Mentioned earlier this evening that this family may end up with an outcome totally opposite of where they’re pushing it. Sleeping giants are not to be messed with. Winkleman may have made millions. RCCL a little more than that, money wise. And can go toe to toe with MW. Easy. Out run him. Out spend him. Our maneuver him. Out think him. Out talk him. RCCL was incredibly courteous to the family very early and continued to take a position that other large corporations should emulate. Silence in the face of accusations. But if they want a fight, RCCL will give them one that will make headlines around the world.

I think Winkleman would be a formidable adversary in the courtroom - if he had a case. Here he does not, so all he can do is bluster and file motions in support of the family.

 

[Kindred]

re BBM - I don't believe he will. I've typed out the relevant bits of text in an attempt to make sense of some of the bits. But it's so unclear and contradictory, I give up!! . But one bit in particular that struck me was .....

........... "The windows are tinted so it is pretty easy to recognise that its open"
........... "I'm colour blind so that's been told to me, I don't know I just never saw it, I been told that's a reason that it might have happened"

I don't know I just never saw it -- sounds like he does not understand the logic of the colour blindness excuse himself ? He's 51, how has he ever managed with glass structures before ?
He can't grasp the concept of his excuse because it's rubbish, no chance of him getting it straight at a trial either I don't think. So will not testify, never mind trying to explain his other actions.

JMOO

BBM

THAT is what has always ticked me off so much about his color blind excuse and that interview. The fact he admits he had to be told that was what happened. NOT that yes! He couldn't see the window wasn't there because he's color blind, but that "I've been told this is why it happened."

I really want to get a copy of the transcript of that interview because to me, he all but confesses in that. I wonder if the prosecutor in PR has a copy of it.

 

[Forever Young]

It is just like the hunting pics where hunters are way behind their kill, to make it look bigger. We have all seem the video. SA has no problem bending over the railing. The actor seems much shorter than SA, and has very short legs. And what is with him standing so far away from the railing with his butt sticking out?

IMO, this is to demonstrate that you can bend over the railing, but not at the waist. He is bending from his neck and shoulders. That necessitates that his backside and feet stand back from the railing.

 

[wackyw]

This would make sense except for the “up and over the safety rail” part.

He could have lifted her and sat her on the railing facing him with her legs still within ship. He could have looked at the view with her side saddle on the rail. He could have been clutching her tightly against him. These are all actions of a tired person who just wants to have the kid still for a few without having to hold their full weight.

Lifting her over the rail - there is literally no reason to do that except to “fly” and make the baby either laugh or be scared (depending on the baby), which could be a stupid, stupid mistake having nothing to do with banging on glass or a missing window. OR to purposefully intend to drop her.

I think the “I thought the window was closed” part came when he realized in the elevator that they might be taking him straight to jail.

And now that is what he is sticking with.

Because he thinks to have to tell the parents and his wife at this point that he is just a dummy who did a dumb thing and killed a baby would make everything worse.

So now, they will sue...and lose. SA will probably go to jail if he doesn’t take deal.

And the family will be able to nurse their denial by making SA a big giant martyr victim of Big Corporation.

But SA will always know the truth.

It will be interesting to see what everyone’s stance is a few years, or decades from now.

I have a feeling AW’s denial will fade first.

KW may never be able to accept what really happened.

I agree with everything you say. Of the options you describe - I don't believe he lifted her over the rail because intended to drop her, but to "share the view and fly" with her close to him, for a laugh not to scare. He is either an unbelievably stupid risk-taker with no self-check for consequences, or he was under some reduced mental capacity for whatever reason.

I agree he came up with the glass thing in the minutes after the incident and has stuck with it, and the lawyers have come up with the colour blindness thing in an attempt to fit with that.

JMOO

 

[justbreathe]

It really does matter what he was thinking, IMO. They will have to prove that he was aware of the danger. Awareness is one of the criteria of the negligent homicide charge, and what he was thinking will be very hard to prove, IMO.

No. They do not have to prove he was aware of anything. They have to prove a “reasonable person” would have been aware and therefore not have done what SA did.

Also, knowing someone’s thoughts isn’t the only way to prove what they may have in fact been aware of.

Some might say leaning out a window is sufficient to prove a person was aware the window was open.

But do we, *can* we ever, *really* know SA didn’t suffer from a temporary one-off psychotic episode that caused him to hallucinate glass? No. Of course not.

But if being able to read a person’s thoughts was required to convict someone of a crime no one would ever be.

 

[Lawsmygame2]

It’s on record ...
From Ship Doctor
SA said....I dropped my baby
nothing about fell.
The fell part is coming from Winkleman IMO .

Yes. Agree. My whole point, without saying it my post, was to point out the absurdity of the whole “glass” thing. Based on their statement in Item 20 of their initial complaint, Chloe leaned forward to bang on the glass. I would think that, because she was probably not “colorblind,” she realized there was no glass there. So, would she lean forward to bang on the glass? IMO, she wouldn’t. It was only because SA held her outside the window and lost his grip that she fell. JMO

 

[al66pine]

"Sticker" in Window?
Image of measurement of sticker on the window. View attachment 227713
Can anyone read the print on this 'sticker' or decal or what-ev? What does it say?
Could it be manuf'r info laminated inside layers of the window?

 

[Forever Young]

Having sat in these chairs thousands of times, I did not notice them to be any higher than "normal chairs." As someone who's had multiple knee and back surgeries, I would certainly have noticed if they were a full six inches higher than the industry standard, ADA compliance height of 19 inches! They are really grasping at straws now.

View attachment 227740
View attachment 227742

The seat is at 15 inches, and the arm of the chair is at 25 inches. IMO, this is to demonstrate another possible way that a child could raise themselves up to the railing; not Chloe per se, although some children at that age are quite accomplished climbers.

Maybe a 7 or 8 year old child would be strong enough to drag the chair over to climb up onto the top of the railing.

IMO, this is to demonstrate the danger of an open window at that height.

ETA: the photo is a little confusing because the red line extending from the seat says 25", but it is the arm of the chair, not the seat, that is 25".

 

[justbreathe]

I find these two photos interesting. In the first what’s missing? The doll, that’s what. Because if it was there it would be clear that CW could have been standing at SA’s feet right up against the glass while he looked down at her. Safely on the floor.

The second photo I’m shocked that they included as it shows that SA literally put CW feet on the open window sill. Previously I had assumed only that he held her on the railing and she lurched forward. Now it appears he literally stood her on the window frame. And still, he somehow was oblivious to the lack of glass?

MW knows this would not and will not ever be admissible in a trial. He did it because he knew it would be public record and I guess this is the best they could come up with in rebuttal of the actual video.

Which is sad.

Maybe he is literally going along with what his clients want him to do, as he has to really, unless he was allowed to withdraw from the case.

 

[drama_farmer]

I can think of a few examples, off the top of my head, where what someone was thinking at the time of the incident was not grounds to absolve them of responsibility:

"I didn't think the gun was loaded"
"I didn't see the Stop sign"
" I thought I put the candle out"
" I was sure I locked the door"
etc. etc. IMO

 

[Lawsmygame2]

I don't know why my response was displayed in the quote box??? Here is my response so you don't have to click on the quote box...

Yes. Agree. My whole point, without saying it my post, was to point out the absurdity of the whole “glass” thing. Based on their statement in Item 20 of their initial complaint, Chloe leaned forward to bang on the glass. I would think that, because she was probably not “colorblind,” she realized there was no glass there. So, would she lean forward to bang on the glass? IMO, she wouldn’t. It was only because SA held her outside the window and lost his grip that she fell. JMO

 

[justbreathe]

Does anyone else find it ironic that Winkleman included this as part of his documentation of warnings on the ship?

Argh! This. Decal = warning, warning! Drunk passenger I am glass! Do not walk into me!

 

[wackyw]

BBM

THAT is what has always ticked me off so much about his color blind excuse and that interview. The fact he admits he had to be told that was what happened. NOT that yes! He couldn't see the window wasn't there because he's color blind, but that "I've been told this is why it happened."

I really want to get a copy of the transcript of that interview because to me, he all but confesses in that. I wonder if the prosecutor in PR has a copy of it.

I typed out the bits that I thought were relevant, got fed up with the tediousness of doing this to type everything
And I'm not promising what I have typed is exact but I did make an attempt to get very close.
It's not formatted or anything, but I'm sure you can follow it anyway !

I have once or twice started to write my thoughts on the content and it's contradictions, and extrapolate on some of his statements, but my head starts to hurt.
In particular taking something he says about his "colour blindness" and trying to "accept it", and extending the logic of that goes absolutely nowhere!
And I'm not talking about what colour blindness technically is or isn't, I mean just taking and running with what he says.


But in the meantime if anyone wants to pick on some of the parts go ahead !!

"
I saw her fall ... the whole way down
I then just remember screaming I thought there was glass

I bent down by her,
When I knelt down to be with her at that level I couldn't reach the glass, so I knew she couldn't
so that's when I decided I'd pick her up.

so I was trying to stand her on a railing and it happened in seconds
I had her and I was trying to knock on the glass
and at that point I'm gonna have to lean further for her for her to be able to reach it cos I thought it was further out than I expected
and that's the point where she slipped out of me

at no point during that incident did I think she fell out, it was like unbelievable like it disappeared the glass disappeared

I don't know if there's a feeling more helpless than watching her fall - noooo

CBS The video ... appears to show you holding Chloe above the r and over the railing, I have to think a juror who watches that would think that was reckless
non knowing there wasn't glass there
if somehow I thought she was going beyond the glass I wouldn't have done it, id have been appalled

CBS The windows are tinted so it is pretty easy to recognise that its open
I'm colour blind so that's been told to me, I don't know I just never saw it, I been told that's a reason that it might have happened
"

JMOO and best effort at partial transcription

 

[Forever Young]

"Sticker" in Window?
Image of measurement of sticker on the window. View attachment 227713
Can anyone read the print on this 'sticker' or decal or what-ev? What does it say?
Could it be manuf'r info laminated inside layers of the window?

All I am seeing is the red measuring tape, with the yellow tap pulled out. In what area of the window is there a sticker?

 

[justbreathe]

The seat is at 15 inches, and the arm of the chair is at 25 inches. IMO, this is to demonstrate another possible way that a child could raise themselves up to the railing; not Chloe per se, although some children at that age are quite accomplished climbers.

Maybe a 7 or 8 year old child would be strong enough to drag the chair over to climb up onto the top of the railing.

IMO, this is to demonstrate the danger of an open window at that height.

ETA: the photo is a little confusing because the red line extending from the seat says 25", but it is the arm of the chair, not the seat, that is 25".

So...what about all the open decks and balconies with just railings?

Per your theory the window is dangerous, the entire ship is dangerous. Perhaps children under the age of 12 should not be allowed on cruise ships because it is so dangerous, what with windows around every corner.

 

[justbreathe]

I don't know why my response was displayed in the quote box??? Here is my response so you don't have to click on the quote box...

Yes. Agree. My whole point, without saying it my post, was to point out the absurdity of the whole “glass” thing. Based on their statement in Item 20 of their initial complaint, Chloe leaned forward to bang on the glass. I would think that, because she was probably not “colorblind,” she realized there was no glass there. So, would she lean forward to bang on the glass? IMO, she wouldn’t. It was only because SA held her outside the window and lost his grip that she fell. JMO

Yes. And I like how MW says Chloe thought there was glass. He can read her mind now?

 

[justbreathe]

There was, allegedly, someone who actually told SA not to do what he was doing -

I remember that from the original thread!

I also remember someone saying a crew member had gone to alert someone higher up the chain of command to what he was doing.

If this tragedy had not happened, SA may very well have been escorted off ship and banned for pulling such a dangerous stunt.

 

[justbreathe]

And on the 2nd picture, it is very obvious, that if he had placed the child standing on the ledge like that, IF the window was closed, it would have been impossible to stAnd her there. Her toes would have been up against the glass, as would her face. Look at the closed window beside them.

There would have been NO ROOM to stand her up there.

And if had leaned over with the doll, the doll would have been hanging out the dang window.

Just standing straight the doll is up against the glass.

Bend over and dangle, dangle.