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

[BetteDavisEyes]

SA is known to participate in community theatre productions. Why not have Grandpa do his own reenactment?

 

[Forever Young]

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.

I am thinking that the court will not order the Wiegands to pay for the defendant's court costs. I know of one state, Colorado, that allows that - recently came up in the theater shooting case where a plaintiff refused to accept a settlement offer and wound up responsible for defendant's court costs. But, that is a state by state thing, where the law specifically addresses it.

Most states. as far as I know, do not allow for a defendant who wins to collect their costs from the plaintiff, because it discourages the filing of possibly very legitimate complaints out of fear of being held liable for making said complaint.

 

[justbreathe]

There are many different brands and types of breathalyzer units. They range from cheap ones that people can buy to test their own breath alcohol, which might not or probably won’t be very accurate, to units that are approved by DOT.

The units we use are very accurate. They require calibration before testing a person. If the calibration is off, even a minuscule amount, the unit will not allow a test to be performed.

During our certification classes we demonstrate the reliability by comparing some volunteers who drink to a prediction graph. A 120 pound female who consumes a 12 oz beer, a 180 pound male who consumes 2 12 oz beers, etc. Then we test them at various intervals and compare the breathalyzer results with the prediction graph.

If it isn’t good enough for a court of law, it isn’t good enough for me.

 

[Kindred]

I wanted to expand a little bit on the view of that re-enactment photo, taken in front of a support beam, as opposed to the RCCL video that shows all the support beams in front of SA and Chloe at the window.

IMO, it is those support beams that led to the misconception that SA had his upper body out through the window, and the ensuing outcry by thousands of posters.

I have no dog in this race, no vested interest, just want to be fair to all parties concerned, since none of us were eye-witnesses to the actual incident.

So, do you think it was fair for RCCL to release only the video taken with the support beams obscuring the view, then to state in their motion for dismissal that SA leans all the way out the window prior to lifting Chloe?

They surely do have other videos, possibly one from behind the bar, where the support beams would not give the illusion that we are seeing window frames there.

I do understand that a video taken from behind the bar might be a little too graphic for public viewing, but for RCCL to state that the released videos clearly show SA with his upper body through the window opening is, IMO, prejudicial to the case.

RCCL provided both angles to the court in the conventionally filed evidence, they only included the side view stills in the actual motion to dismiss to show how high SA had to lift her to even get her to the window they are claiming is a death trap, in support of their argument that there is no way this would have happened it SA hadn't put her there in the first place.

RCCL didn't "release" anything to the general public. Any media that downloaded the court documents (they are public record) and aired those are at fault for any of that. But they haven't been doing a televised smear campaign like the plaintiffs and their counsel have.

 

[ilovewings]

I am very glad that RCCL finally came out with their side of the story: the true side. They have been taking a lot of crap from
the Plaintiff's lawyer; this case should get dismissed.

 

[al66pine]

Opening Windows. Does Height Matter?

Doesnt the fact that lifeguard in photo can open the window while walking by prove that you can touch the glass from behind the rail? He's obviously not carrying a ladder with him.

@IM2CYNICAL First post!. And an insightful one!
No ladder? No chimpanzee arms. Not standing on a chair or table? So appears that a 5'11' tall man can stand (flat-footed?) on floor, reach the vertical handle to slide window open or closed. And yet the re-enactor seemed unable reach the glass ~ 1 - 2" further away? Did not look like he had T-rex arms.

Law firm's July 9 notice-letter to RCL requested vids of scene, starting 12 hours before the death and repeated the request in the Jan 17 motion requesting vids. Like @oviedo said, vids from 13 cams will add a lot of clarity to what happened.

Will vids show random passengers & crew members operating the windows? ITS.
Will vids show ppl doing this, ppl not nearly as tall as LeBron James or Michael Jordan? ITS.
Will/can RCL, at trial, offer an exhibit w composite vid, w 5 or 10 sec's of ea person doing this, so dozens of ppl opening & closing windows w their hair blowing around? I hope so. jmo

 

[Forever Young]

Doesnt the fact that lifeguard in photo can open the window while walking by prove that you can touch the glass from behind the rail? He's obviously not carrying a ladder with him.

Of course, you can touch the glass, or else you would not be able to open a window. IMO, the photo does not prove that this same man could extend his head and upper body out through the opening of the window.

It appears to me that the railing comes up past the man's waist, to his rib cage. People can not bend at the rib cage. In order to "lean" out, you would have to stand back from the railing and bend at the waist, which puts you not closer, but further away from the window opening.

The railing is designed to do just that - keep you from leaning out the window.

 

[Forever Young]

I don't understand how Winkleman has been able to get away with telling verifiable lies without being exposed by the media or sanctioned by any governing body thus far.

snip>
1. Winkleman literally showed an ALTERED video to select media in order to make it seem like SA only had Chloe up to the window for a second before she fell. Let me repeat. He ALTERED the CCTV footage to make it favorable to SA. He claimed the video was the "same format" as given to him by the defense.

IMO, I recall in the motion to dismiss that RCCL offered a video player in which to play the video, for download to the court. Or, alternatively, a lap top computer with that software already installed.

Was Winkleman given access to this same video player? How about the news outlets...were they offered the video player in which to view the videos? IMO, no.

 

[Kindred]

IMO, I recall in the motion to dismiss that RCCL offered a video player in which to play the video, for download to the court. Or, alternatively, a lap top computer with that software already installed.

Was Winkleman given access to this same video player? How about the news outlets...were they offered the video player in which to view the videos? IMO, no.

BBM

They didn't have to, because the "leaked" video the media got was from a cell phone, not from RCCL. You can see the edge of the TV screen it was recorded off of at certain times.

 

[Kindred]

Of course, you can touch the glass, or else you would not be able to open a window. IMO, the photo does not prove that this same man could extend his head and upper body out through the opening of the window.

It appears to me that the railing comes up past the man's waist, to his rib cage. People can not bend at the rib cage. In order to "lean" out, you would have to stand back from the railing and bend at the waist, which puts you not closer, but further away from the window opening.

The railing is designed to do just that - keep you from leaning out the window.

The railing is to keep you from getting close enough to fall out. That's why the ship rules, which SA was given before boarding, state that you are not supposed to sit, stand, or climb on the railings. But you can still lean pretty far so you can look down at the waves crashing against the ship.

And no one said he could get his upper body out. If you lean against a rail your belly will squish and give you some room but clearly the actor didn't want to try too hard to actually see if he could lean that far. He has a very good reason not to try and do a proper recreation, especially since the ship is going in for refurbishment and this is the only one we'll get to see.

After Chloe falls a female guest runs over to the next window open that is also already open and leans way over and out to look down as well. You can't get your upper body out, but it sure as hell to me looks like she manages to get her head partially out to look down just before she turns around and covers her mouth in horror.



image from at or around the 6:37 mark of this video

https://video.fymy1-1.fna.fbcdn.net...=36a5d62be897695f9c460d361b6875cf&oe=5E66D171

IMO it's not the posts that make it look like he's leaning his head out the window, it's the leaning out the window (from the rear) that makes it look like he's leaning out the window.

 

[Forever Young]

RCCL provided both angles to the court in the conventionally filed evidence, they only included the side view stills in the actual motion to dismiss to show how high SA had to lift her to even get her to the window they are claiming is a death trap, in support of their argument that there is no way this would have happened it SA hadn't put her there in the first place.

IMO, no one is saying that he didn't raise her to the window. That came out the day of the incident. The motion to dismiss states that the video proves SA knew the window was open, which IMO, it does not.

 

[Bethan]

SA may not be out of the window...but the baby most certainly was!

 

[Forever Young]

snip>

RCCL didn't "release" anything to the general public. Any media that downloaded the court documents (they are public record) and aired those are at fault for any of that. But they haven't been doing a televised smear campaign like the plaintiffs and their counsel have.

Pretty strange that it is the same two videos that La Comay somehow got a hold of. Still don't know how they got them, but do have to ask myself "to whose benefit was it that those videos were shown?"

 

[Medstudies]

I have wondered about diabetes. SA has the weight, and looks like he could be diabetic. Low blood sugar levels can cause people to appear drunk, and have a smell of alcohol on their breathe.
Diabetic ketoacidosis - Wikipedia

This could cause confusion, blurred vision, a range of other problems. The fact that SA had been traveling that day, means that his usual routines were probably messed up, different meal schedule, probably more exercise than he is used to, running around airports.
Hypoglycemia - Wikipedia

INME, men this age, who are type 2 diabetic, are usually extremely noncompliant with accepting the changes a diagnosis means.

This is all speculation, we have no verification that SA is diabetic. Just looking at some potential reasons for his actions.

He certainly, just from appearances, could be. That said, had this truly been a medical episode, I would have expected the family to express that concern at the time of the incident.(I would have expected him or his family to check his glucose, etc.)
And that the medical providers on board would have documented this and that it would have been included in the investigation.

OTOH, if it were a new episode, with no prior diagnosis, surely this would have been trotted out with the color blindness. Right?

(but I totally agree, that DKA can look like intoxication)

 

[Kindred]

Pretty strange that it is the same two videos that La Comay somehow got a hold of. Still don't know how they got them, but do have to ask myself "to whose benefit was it that those videos were shown?"

Well considering Winkleman was showing the video he got from the defense to certain media personnel and getting them to agree with him that the video showed his version I'm not surprised somehow the media got a cell phone copy of a tv screen showing the CCTV footage. Either he leaked it thinking that would either taint the jury pool (an argument that a lot of people were trying to make when it was first released, insisting this would create a mistrial for SA) or get more public support for their side. That still equals points for the wiegand family.

RCCL has so far been dealing directly with the courts. They don't care what the public thinks, they care what the judge/court thinks. This isn't the first time they've been sued and probably won't be the last.

I still feel that Winkleman played with fire hoping that people would buy his version and got burned when instead it outraged people.

 

[Forever Young]

snip>

And no one said he could get his upper body out. If you lean against a rail your belly will squish and give you some room but clearly the actor didn't want to try too hard to actually see if he could lean that far. He has a very good reason not to try and do a proper recreation, especially since the ship is going in for refurbishment and this is the only one we'll get to see.

"As Royal Caribbean itself states: “this is a case about an adult man, Chloe’s step grandfather who, as surveillance footage unquestionably confirms: (1) walked up to a window he was aware was open; (2) leaned his upper body out the window for several seconds.... "

demand for all videos.pdf

 

[mickey2942]

He certainly, just from appearances, could be. That said, had this truly been a medical episode, I would have expected the family to express that concern at the time of the incident.(I would have expected him or his family to check his glucose, etc.)
And that the medical providers on board would have documented this and that it would have been included in the investigation.

OTOH, if it were a new episode, with no prior diagnosis, surely this would have been trotted out with the color blindness. Right?

(but I totally agree, that DKA can look like intoxication)

Many people, even those who have a diagnosis of Diabetes Type 2, are woefully ignorant about the disease. People receive the diagnosis, and have a lot of denial about the disease. This leads to noncompliance with medication, eating, every thing else, and often, do not even tell their families about the diagnosis.

And, with the issue of so many people who do not have health insurance, even if they are employed, maybe SA doesn't even know that he is diabetic. The disease can be ignored for years, put off as being thirsty, tired, hungry.

Of course, this is all speculation, we have zero verification of any diagnosis of Diabetes in SA. But, it is something worth noting.

 

[justice4allnow]

The railing is to keep you from getting close enough to fall out. That's why the ship rules, which SA was given before boarding, state that you are not supposed to sit, stand, or climb on the railings. But you can still lean pretty far so you can look down at the waves crashing against the ship.

And no one said he could get his upper body out. If you lean against a rail your belly will squish and give you some room but clearly the actor didn't want to try too hard to actually see if he could lean that far. He has a very good reason not to try and do a proper recreation, especially since the ship is going in for refurbishment and this is the only one we'll get to see.

After Chloe falls a female guest runs over to the next window open that is also already open and leans way over and out to look down as well. You can't get your upper body out, but it sure as hell to me looks like she manages to get her head partially out to look down just before she turns around and covers her mouth in horror.

View attachment 226817

image from at or around the 6:37 mark of this video

https://video.fymy1-1.fna.fbcdn.net...=36a5d62be897695f9c460d361b6875cf&oe=5E66D171

IMO it's not the posts that make it look like he's leaning his head out the window, it's the leaning out the window (from the rear) that makes it look like he's leaning out the window.

Kindred, I really appreciate your posts. You've managed to shed a great deal of light on this case -through facts, not opinions. You've put in a lot of work from which we have all benefited, thank you!

 

[Forever Young]

IMO it's not the posts that make it look like he's leaning his head out the window, it's the leaning out the window (from the rear) that makes it look like he's leaning out the window.

The rear shot video shows SA with elbows resting on the railing, and is illustrated in the first photo in the motion for demand of all videos. Clearly shown, all body parts from the shoulders down were behind the railing.

demand for all videos.pdf

 

[Bethan]

I have wondered about diabetes. SA has the weight, and looks like he could be diabetic. Low blood sugar levels can cause people to appear drunk, and have a smell of alcohol on their breathe.
Diabetic ketoacidosis - Wikipedia

This could cause confusion, blurred vision, a range of other problems. The fact that SA had been traveling that day, means that his usual routines were probably messed up, different meal schedule, probably more exercise than he is used to, running around airports.
Hypoglycemia - Wikipedia

INME, men this age, who are type 2 diabetic, are usually extremely noncompliant with accepting the changes a diagnosis means.

This is all speculation, we have no verification that SA is diabetic. Just looking at some potential reasons for his actions.

He certainly, just from appearances, could be. That said, had this truly been a medical episode, I would have expected the family to express that concern at the time of the incident.(I would have expected him or his family to check his glucose, etc.)
And that the medical providers on board would have documented this and that it would have been included in the investigation.

OTOH, if it were a new episode, with no prior diagnosis, surely this would have been trotted out with the color blindness. Right?

(but I totally agree, that DKA can look like intoxication)

Previously undiagnosed type 2 diabetic would present with HIGH blood sugar...not low blood sugar.

If he was a known diabetic taking medication, he could be at risk of low blood sugar, particularly when there is a change of routine, flights etc however I’m pretty sure this would have been mentioned before now.