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

[mheido67]

Another observation from the MW Motion to Dismiss response filings.

There is a whole secion showing photos of other areas with fixed glass at the railings. Dozens of photos. The first on page 88 shows a glimpse of the deck 12 railing directly above the incident windows. That whole area has no glass but MW ignores it. No other photos of it. Wonder why? It does not appear anywhere else in his railing photos section only in the section where they are pointing out the cameras. Doesn't fit his narrative I guess.

 

[katydid23]

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.

But didn't you say earlier that it is natural for human's to be aware of the danger of those window areas? And that is why they routinely hold their babies close and keep them away from inherent danger? I am pretty sure you used that argument against RCCL.


IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #6
Forever Young posted:
I also have read other forums and comments on this case. Once in a great a while a poster will comment on how they went nowhere near those windows, or held tight to their little ones, or felt fear just reaching out those particular windows. Why? Because they were a recognized danger.

 

[justbreathe]

I agree. Also, if you look at the photo of him with his wife (said to be past 60) and Chloe with the hearing protection headphones on, IMO, you can see the difference in their ages. While I agree that 51 is not "old", it is also not exactly "young".

Yet there are people SA’s age that have and care for babies of their own. The father is only a few years younger than SA. His age is 100% completely and totally irrelevant.

 

[Kindred]

@Lawsmygame2 something else interesting from the doctors statement, he says:

"Then I heard some screaming... ...myself and nurse Natalia should attend to the family (as they were going to need assistence). We ran back onto the ship and took the elevator (prioritize) emergency route straight to deck (11). When the doors opened there was chaos outside."

"By then the mother and father arrived (by security) and entered the clinic at reception. The parents were both emotionally traumatized, asking to see their child. The parents were kept separated from the ER/Grandfather"

I wonder if AW or the very lease KW went off on SA and had to be pulled away from him. She said in her interview she only demanded to be taken to her baby. But it's telling that they were being escorted by security and intentionally kept apart from SA. I certainly don't blame her.

It also makes me notice more how in the one press conference where they appeared together Winkleman sits between AW/KW and SA and his wife. Have they done any appearances together other then that one? I wonder if the "support" is just an outward show for the public/courts and privately it's a very different story.

Wiegand Prelim Response to Dismiss 4.pdf

 

[mheido67]

Actually he said there's no footage from two of the cameras because they're speakers...

Probably these two that he appropriately labled "???" and didn't bother to take a close up of like the others

View attachment 227771

Sorry, the comment I referred to was actually in the email exchanges between the lawyers that was appended to the Motion to Compel response.

"RCL did not preserve footage from two of the cameras you requested. Nonetheless, we provide exemplar footage showing the areas of the ship they captured, which has not changed since the date of the incident. As you will note, they do not cover the subject windows."

 

[justbreathe]

Yep, including destroying your stepfather's criminal defense and turning your suffering into a never-ending public spectacle. Sign me up!

Yep. MW will destroy the defense in a criminal case if his clients want him to.

He will shout your wildly implausible defense of the man who killed your child to rooftops if that is your wish.

I do wonder though if the judge hasn’t implied he would like to see this case go away before a trial (as they want all cases to go away before a trial) and may have had discussions about the likelihood of each side to prevail. And may have encouraged MW to share that info with his clients.

I have to think behind the scenes MW must be trying to tell the parents the video sinks their case and will be bad for SA in the criminal trial.

 

[Forever Young]

Even though no child has ever done that...

Again, it does not matter that it has never happened, according to law. Only that there is a possibility that it could happen to establish that the window is potentially dangerous.

 

[Forever Young]

This is true but it's more because of the nature of the business. They tend to cater to older couples/people and are more of a slow-paced sit back and just enjoy the views type cruise line, not a party it up and have fun! fun! FUN! type cruise. They just aren't focused on children like Carnival or Disney are

I can only imagine how that stipulation has held their insurance rates in check.

 

[katydid23]

But didn't you say earlier that it is natural for human's to be aware of the danger of those window areas? And that is why they routinely hold their babies close and keep them away from inherent danger? I am pretty sure you used that argument against RCCL.

here:
IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #6
Forever Young posted:
I also have read other forums and comments on this case. Once in a great a while a poster will comment on how they went nowhere near those windows, or held tight to their little ones, or felt fear just reaching out those particular windows. Why? Because they were a recognized danger.

 

[In vino veritas]

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

And that assertion... that Chloe asked to be lifted up to bang on the glass, is a load of bs IMO.
1. Why would she ask that if a glass pane was directly on front of her at her level and
2. The photo that was originally all over the media outlets depicted Chloe on the ground leaning on the glass at the hockey game.

 

[al66pine]

"Unknown" in Window?
Image of "unknown" in corner of window. On my 12" tablet, have to enlarge to just barely see it.
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachments/window-sticker-png.227713/
Very faint grey/white w outline in diamond-ish-shape, or square standing on one point.
Most apparent is a smalI round blur to the right of 3 inch mark on tape. Approx. 1 1/2 inch x 1 1/2 inch
Very faint small printing inside the square.Can anyone read the print on this 'unknown?'
In studying it more, I think it is manufacturer-printed info laminated inside layers of window, during manu., not something a sticker, label, tag, applied to pane. Like on car window/windshields.

Probably not relevant, except for atty-W to say -- This ^ is the only warning SA could possibly have had about no glass, and it would take a microscope to see it. Whoops. Never mind, because then he would have known there was glass there. Your Honor, I'd like to withdraw from this case. j/k.

Is ^ any more self-contradictory than MW's other stmts?

 

[Forever Young]

But didn't you say earlier that it is natural for human's to be aware of the danger of those window areas? And that is why they routinely hold their babies close and keep them away from inherent danger? I am pretty sure you used that argument against RCCL.


IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #6
Forever Young posted:
I also have read other forums and comments on this case. Once in a great a while a poster will comment on how they went nowhere near those windows, or held tight to their little ones, or felt fear just reaching out those particular windows. Why? Because they were a recognized danger.

I said they were "recognized". SA is saying he did not recognize the window was open.

 

[katydid23]

Without video taken from outside the ship, IMO, I don't think it can be established that SA was "leaning out the window". He was leaning over the railing, and the railing kept him from leaning out the window, which it was designed to do, IMO.

There are lots of kinds of hard evidence of a crime, besides knowing what a person was seeing or thinking. DNA is one that comes to mind, for instance. Physical evidence. Speculation is what creates "reasonable doubt", IMOO.

It doesn't even matter if he leaned 'outside' the window or not. The glass panes are about 2 or 3 inches from the beginning of the window ledges. He definitely leaned his head that far in. He would have smacked his face on the glass if that window was closed.

 

[mheido67]

Again, it does not matter that it has never happened, according to law. Only that there is a possibility that it could happen to establish that the window is potentially dangerous.

But this is a big point of contention between plaintiff and defense. RCCL is arguing that it is not enough to just show that a condition is potentially dangerous to prove negligence on the part of RCCL. If that was the case any accident that ever happens could open them to a claim of negligence. RCCL maintains that there must be a showing of due notice that a dangerous condition existed prior to the incident happening that was ignored by RCCL. They claim an open window is not a condition that a resonable person would observe to be a dangerous condition. MW is contending that the fact that building standards have changed and other ships do things differently is enoguh to establish that RCCL should have known that a dangerous condition existed. That that serves as defacto due notice. At least that's my layman's understanding of the arguments so far.

 

[Forever Young]

Yet there are people SA’s age that have and care for babies of their own. The father is only a few years younger than SA. His age is 100% completely and totally irrelevant.

I do agree that it is irrelevant to the case. I don't know why people keep offering their opinions that he looks older than his stated years. People do age at different rates. So? No bearing on the case, IMO.

 

[justbreathe]

Depends which court moves faster. The civil case doesn't even need to make it to the first status conference if the judge agrees with the motion to dismiss that there's no merit the complaint. Meanwhile, unless SA takes a plea deal (not looking likely), or for some reason, the prosecutor decides to drop the charges (not likely at all) the criminal case will keep plodding on.

You mean which court moves less slowly haha! Because no court moves fast.

Of course in a criminal case you have the right to a speedy trial. (Even in Puerto Rico because they are protected by the US laws as the rest of the US.)

A civil trial it can be delayed for years. And years.

So I am pretty sure nothing will happen with the civil trial until the criminal case is resolved.

I think behind the scenes everyone is trying to convince the parents to drop the suit. Because it is ridiculous on its face and as a matter of law.

Hence Winkleman’s pathetic “reenactment.” They won’t watch the video maybe but they will look at these pictures.

The judge won’t dismiss unless he is forced to. Because judges hate to make decisions. They muchly prefer citizens make their own decisions (which cannot be appealed like a judge’s can).

Right now it looks like everyone knows there is no case here. But the parents want to proceed. So MW will represent them. As best he can. Which in light of the tape, isn’t much.

So he will not expend his own resources and use the publicity for all it’s worth.

And for people not closely following this case, he may still appear as a hero of the downtrodden standing up to a big corp.

Especially to people outside the US who aren’t super familiar with how our “justice” system works.

Giving interviews to a UK paper, haha. He can already imagine the sweet, sweet euros from those international clients... They take cruises, too.

 

[oviedo]

But that's after the fact that Chloe had fallen. It does not prove he knew before she fell that he knew it was an open window.

Wait what? There is a video of him leaning out the window you can only do that when it’s open
Am I missing something ? We’ve debated this for months and now that the videos have been released I thought most now understand he leaned out the window and that can happen only if it’s open right ? So he knew the window was open else his head would have smacked it and he would be suing RCCL for that
JMO

 

[katydid23]

I said they were "recognized". SA is saying he did not recognize the window was open.

But you didnt say that 'open' windows were perceived as dangerous. Here is the quote:

Here is the question you were asked:
@Forever Young Yes, could happen w same results. Not sure if you are commenting on Wiegand or RCL. Are you saying because (you think/someone thinks) there is a condition on RCL ship was could be made safer, that someone should file a lawsuit to encourage, or for a court to order, RCL to make condition safer, even without any being injured?
Or saying something else?


Your answer:

Well, somebody has been injured. Killed.

I also have read other forums and comments on this case. Once in a great a while a poster will comment on how they went nowhere near those windows, or held tight to their little ones, or felt fear just reaching out those particular windows. Why? Because they were a recognized danger.

The trial court also based its no duty determination on the fact that “there were no prior incidents of anyone or anything falling from any windows․” 8  However, “ ‘[t]he mere fact that a particular kind of an accident has not happened before does not ․ show that such accident is one which might not reasonably have been anticipated.’  [Citation.]  Thus, the fortuitous absence of prior injury does not justify relieving defendant from responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of its acts.”  (Weirum v. RKO General, Inc. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 40, 47;  Lane v. City of Sacramento (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1346 [absence of other similar accidents is relevant to, but not dispositive of, the issue of whether a condition is dangerous].)

FindLaw's California Court of Appeal case and opinions.

=======================================================

So why wouldn't Grandpa recognise this danger? Do we have to know what he was thinking to know his thinking was faulty and lacking common sense?

 

[justbreathe]

But this is a big point of contention between plaintiff and defense. RCCL is arguing that it is not enough to just show that a condition is potentially dangerous to prove negligence on the part of RCCL. If that was the case any accident that ever happens could open them to a claim of negligence. RCCL maintains that there must be a showing of due notice that a dangerous condition existed prior to the incident happening that was ignored by RCCL. They claim an open window is not a condition that a resonable person would observe to be a dangerous condition. MW is contending that the fact that building standards have changed and other ships do things differently is enoguh to establish that RCCL should have known that a dangerous condition existed. That that serves as defacto due notice. At least that's my layman's understanding of the arguments so far.

But “defacto due notice” is not a legal concept. Adherence to current standards under the law is what they can legally be held accountable for.

Not, well, you saw Carnival had different windows so that means you knew yours were “bad.”

 

[Fidobell]

I'm interested to see what happens with SA if the civil suit gets dismissed. If the chance of getting any money from the cruise line gets taken off the table does anyone think he will he give in and confess to try to get out of jail time? Or just continue this martyr act of "But I thought it was closed! It wasn't my fault!"

Hes never gonna change his story , from his tearless crying in his 1st interview till now , hes stuck with his version of events. His awful character traits have lead him to this point and now he cant back down .