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

[they'll get you]

I don't think he meant to kill her, but dangling a child out of a window is just asking for trouble IMO. I was one of the ones that swallowed the accidental leaning against an open window theory until I saw the footage - a stupid man that will have to live with his disgusting stupidity for the rest of his life.

He is stupid, he is still stupid, he always will be stupid, he will die stupid and he’s too stupid to know he is stupid.

 

[mickey2942]

Great, I can almost "see" the next line of defense for SA, "The Ambien made me do it.". Get the next lawsuit ready!

 

[they'll get you]

I’m an instructor for breath alcohol and drug screen testing, and I can tell you that meds will not cause a false positive.

There are just a few things that will show up on a breath alcohol (breathalyzer) test, but the only med would be an over-the-counter cold medicine that contains alcohol. I think maybe NyQuil is the brand name. But it is a tiny amount, and the breathalyzer records the amount.

Also an alcohol based mouthwash will show up if a person just happened to use it immediately before a breathalyzer. But this would be “mouth alcohol” and not alcohol that entered the blood stream.

If any alcohol is detected, even a trace amount, the breathalyzer will begin an immediate countdown to 30 minutes. At 30 minutes the breathalyzer will prompt the operator to perform a second test. This is the “confirmation” test that will prove whether it was mouth alcohol (mouthwash) or alcohol that has entered the bloodstream.

During the 30 minute countdown the subject must remain with the operator of the breathalyzer, and can not eat, drink, or smoke.

If a blood test is done for alcohol it is even more specific.

Sorry for the long explanation, I hope it makes sense. There is much more information I could go into but trust me when I say prescription meds will not provide a false positive.

Alcohol based handwash that is everywhere onboard will skyrocket the reading but it evaporates quickly.

 

[Wehwalt]

See in my state a refusal on a traffic stop is considered an automatic/admitted DUI and comes with a one-year suspension of your license so in my brain it raises questions. But I can see situations where if there's no consequence like that to worry about and it really isn't pertinent to the issue at hand where it makes sense to refuse.

It's called "implied consent", in driving on the roads of the state, you are deemed to have consented to taking the test. Every US state has such a law, generally the penalty for refusing is similar to DUI.

I came on this site looking for a copy of the motion to dismiss, and found it, thanks. My comment would be that having read it, I don't think RCL is hitting as hard as it could, being aware that these cases are also being tried in the court of public opinion through a press which has already jumped to the family's side. Thus, the lawyers, not the family is blamed. I don't believe that we've seen the clearest videos; these are good enough to demonstrate that there's no factual basis for the lawsuit. This happened next to a bar, where I'd expect to find lots of cameras. They don't want to show the graphic ones, including SA's reaction.

RCL will fight this lawsuit all the way but they aren't going to beat up on the family any worse than they have to, to win.

 

[IceIce9]

I was just coming to say the same thing @IceIce9 said about the PBT/Breathalyzer testing. But I do want to add that there are meds that can show up as a false positive in a narcotic blood/urine test. HOWEVER remember that this was a 7 day cruise. Meaning that if these were prescription drugs he would have had them with him, and would have easily been able to provide the information of what drugs at what dosages he takes so they could be taken into consideration.

This wouldn't be handled like a drug test at work where it's "oh! look! it's positive you're on meth!" A clinical toxicologist is perfectly capable to get back a toxicology screening and compare the results to see if the metabolites found would be at the same therapeutic levels that you would normally see for the dosages of the meds he's taking and be able to say "Oh yeah, that's clearly his antidepressant/pain med/whatever."

I am curious though. Here's a list of some meds that can (not always) give a false positive. I'm sure we have members who take these as they are some pretty common drugs. Were any of you guys aware your meds might give a false positive? The link lies there's 20 on the list not 15 lol.

20 Medications That Can Cause a False Positive on Drug Tests - GoodRx

If narcotics show up on a drug screen (not breath alcohol test) the toxology report won’t just say “positive” or “negative.” It will show a numerical reading, and a range. So for example, if someone had been exposed to second hand marijuana smoking, the tox report would show a numerical value within a range that indicated passive, second hand smoke exposure. If the person actually smoked marijuana the number on the tox report would be in a much higher range.

(Nearly everyone who tests positive for marijuana claims to have a roommate who smokes marijuana, lol)

If a person is taking a legit, prescribed drug that shows up in the drug screen tox report, he or she will be asked to provide the name of the doctor who prescribed the med. the doctor will be contacted to verify the drug and dose.

If the amount of drug found in the drug screen matches the amount prescribed, no problem. But if an amount is found that exceeds the range that would be expected to be found with the prescribed dosage, that would indicated illegal drug use.

 

[IceIce9]

Alcohol based handwash that is everywhere onboard will skyrocket the reading but it evaporates quickly.

When someone performs a breathalyzer test, they must take air deep into their lungs and blast it hard into the breathalyzer. Even if the person had just used hand sanitizer it wouldn’t register on the test unless he got some in his mouth. Then it would be similar to a mouthwash “mouth alcohol” reading.

 

[weepingangel]

I agree. (The parents) A lawyer and a LE officer would have both strongly encouraged SA to decline the testing IMO. Not surprising and idk if it means much Regarding being under any influences . I’m going with it being a case of lack of common sense and extremely poor judgement
Among other things.

Growing up, my next door neighbor was a police officer and he always said that no matter what, never submit to a breath or blood test. Wait for your lawyer. I think most lawyers also recommend not getting tested.

So on this one, I don't read anything into him refusing the test.

 

[Montrealaise]

Engagement Letter. Paying for "Costs"?
@Forever Young Yes. Typically atty/firm pays these out of pocket costs as they arise. Cumulatively they can be quite substantial, w some cases dragging on for yrs.
---- If atty obtains $$$ from defendant, thru negotiation, settlement, or lawsuit, then the math: $$$ less the 33 1/3% atty fee (per sample contract) then less $$$ costs, as enumerated ^, then the balance is disbursed to client.
---- If atty/firm does not obtain $$$ from defendant, atty/firm may never be reimbursed for all the out of pocket expenses they have paid for. Per contract, client is responsible for reimbursement, but I won't guess about lawsuits attys file against clients to try to collect. No idea how often.
{{{ETA: Contingency fees and atty's advancing litigtion costs on behalf of clients allows some clients to sue, when without these contingency fees & advances, client would not have legal representation to sue. And paying lit costs also force attys to be more selective, not take the shaky/dodgy/flimsy cases.}}}

(I don't want to go too much further afield or O/T by discussing at length in this thread, unless it is specific to the case. And others may have info for you too, if you want to pose questions or discuss in Private Forums/Jury Room. Good questions.)

So if the parents don't get any money from RCLL, either by settlement or judgment, they could be on the hook to MW for thousands of dollars. If the case goes to trial and they lose, the court will most likely order them to pay for the defendant's costs - more thousands of dollars. In other words, their bid to get millions from the cruise line could end up costing them plenty.

 

[IceIce9]

No, it's nothing perverted. But they were trying to make it seem less shocking by pretending this was an older child, as opposed to a one and a half year old BABY.

If they had used a life size toddler doll, it would have looked much more shocking and repulsive to see him stand her up on that window ledge.

They should have used a doll of the exact same height and weight of Chloe. But we all know why they didn’t. How shocking that would be!

 

[Wehwalt]

I've been thinking over the motion to dismiss, and I speak as a (mostly) retired lawyer, though I never did much federal work.

RCL is saying to the other side and to the judge "The camera don't lie. Whatever case the plaintiffs have is going to have to deal with the fact that SA put his head out and then put her out. The only thing they can argue is about the window and we include our legal argument why we're not liable on the window. The plaintiffs need some factual basis from which they can convince a jury that we're negligent. They don't have that, as the camera showed. SA was negligent, and it's not just us who are saying that but the AG of PR. We weren't."

Sounds pretty good to me but there are people who are well-paid to get out of those binds so we'll see.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

OMG, it’s shows over 3700 comments.. It shows today’s date for the article, was it posted earlier and updated maybe?
I mean, wow, That’s a huge number of comments, and most along same line of thinking we are.

I'm just seeing it now. More then 5,700 posts this morning!

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

He is stupid, he is still stupid, he always will be stupid, he will die stupid and he’s too stupid to know he is stupid.

 

[justbreathe]

Also, to add to my above post, AW as a police officer would be trained and certified to perform breath alcohol testing. He would know that prescription meds would not cause a false positive on a test.

But some prescription meds do greatly enhance the effects of alcohol. Like the ones you take to calm your nerves when traveling.

 

[justbreathe]

When someone performs a breathalyzer test, they must take air deep into their lungs and blast it hard into the breathalyzer. Even if the person had just used hand sanitizer it wouldn’t register on the test unless he got some in his mouth. Then it would be similar to a mouthwash “mouth alcohol” reading.

Breathalyzers are not admissible in court because they are not accurate. He could have taken a blood draw.

 

[justbreathe]

They should have used a doll of the exact same height and weight of Chloe. But we all know why they didn’t. How shocking that would be!

They could (should) have gotten one of those faceless dummies made to exactly Chloe’s height, weight, etc, to see how she might have pitched forward and out the window.

 

[justbreathe]

I have not seen one comment supporting SA since the video and pics were released through the public filing.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

See in my state a refusal on a traffic stop is considered an automatic/admitted DUI and comes with a one-year suspension of your license so in my brain it raises questions. But I can see situations where if there's no consequence like that to worry about and it really isn't pertinent to the issue at hand where it makes sense to refuse.

I think that advice presumes you had been stopped on suspicion of drunk driving or while under the influence of drugs and YOU KNEW you had been drinking or high. Otherwise, what’s the problem?
Any LE or legal opinions?
As a matter of fact, knew of a case where marijuana was found in vehicle with traffic stop and multiple passengers, all arrested, to defend owner of vehicle who claimed not his drugs, advised immediate test to prove no drugs in system.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Chloe may have reached out instinctively bc she felt like she was going to fall forward. Any wall, even a glass wall may have her life.

I've got to wonder what Chloe was thinking/saying. By SA's own account Chloe is quite verbal and also Chloe isn't 'colorblind.' I've for instance thought he was playing the I'm Gonna Drop You game terrifying her which caused her to be dropped by accident. Everything that is said by SA and lawyers seems to exclude what Chloe was thinking at the time of the incident, which her putting her arms out wouldn't be because she was colorblind and thought there was a window there. By SA's own account she 'squirmed,' which would be her not wanting to go out or be out the window. Too bad there wasn't audio as I bet during the 30+ seconds that this happened in that Chloe expressed she didn't want to go out the window. Instead SA and the lawyers want to act like Chloe verbalized to get up on the windowsill and then didn't say a word afterward even though she didn't have the alleged vision problems of SA, which doesn't make sense.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

I have not seen one comment supporting SA since the video and pics were released through the public filing.

Yes, and it's a pretty good indicator of how a jury will react. If SA has an opportunity for a plea deal, he should take it.

 

[justbreathe]

I think that advice presumes you had been stopped on suspicion of drunk driving or while under the influence of drugs and YOU KNEW you had been drinking or high. Otherwise, what’s the problem?
Any LE or legal opinions?
As a matter of fact, knew of a case where marijuana was found in vehicle with traffic stop and multiple passengers, all arrested, to defend owner of vehicle who claimed not his drugs, advised immediate test to prove no drugs in system.

Breathalyzer are not accurate. If you have consumed nothing, get the blood draw.