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

[neesaki]

How could he see the man leave the open window if he was kneeling down on the floor?
There is no evidence that he told her to go to the open window. The only evidence we have seen is the video of him following Chloe directly to the window. As far as I know, there is no audio or any witness who heard what he said so there is no way to know if he said anything to her at all.

For all we know, she saw the man looking out the window and wanted to go look out herself.

Imo

More or less speculation. FWIW he wasn't kneeling on the floor, but squatting down on his feet with his back against the beam.

You're correct, there's no evidence of what SA said to Chloe, but it did appear that he was saying something to her, or at least to someone else who is very short. Then again I guess he could have just been talking to himself.
But it makes more sense to me that he was talking to Chloe as she was right there beside him at that point. After that she headed toward the windows.

It's nothing but deductive reasoning on my part that as the open window was way over her head, Chloe probably didn't notice it or care. And if SA couldn't see the man at the window, I doubt that Chloe could either. It's just MO that if anything, since she's known to love to bang on glass maybe her goal was to do just that... bang on glass, but most likely the lower glass that was within her eyesight and that she could actually reach. All JMO.

 

[wackyw]

More or less speculation. FWIW he wasn't kneeling on the floor, but squatting down on his feet with his back against the beam.

You're correct, there's no evidence of what SA said to Chloe, but it did appear that he was saying something to her, or at least to someone else who is very short. Then again I guess he could have just been talking to himself.
But it makes more sense to me that he was talking to Chloe as she was right there beside him at that point. After that she headed toward the windows.

It's nothing but deductive reasoning on my part that as the open window was way over her head, Chloe probably didn't notice it or care. And if SA couldn't see the man at the window, I doubt that Chloe could either. It's just MO that if anything, since she's known to love to bang on glass maybe her goal was to do just that... bang on glass, but most likely the lower glass that was within her eyesight and that she could actually reach. All JMO.

BBM - do we really know that? Or have we just come to believe it after being told this " post lawyered-up" and it since being repeated enough? It's a necessary precursor to explain Gramps trying to get CW that close to the "invisible but obviously there glass" isn't it? Without the "she loves to bang on the glass" he has no reason to do this. We have seen other pictures with her "up to the glass" at hockey, but there's nothing to really suggest she is banging on it. Perhaps she is just trying to see her brother, or just curious about her surroundings.

 

[al66pine]

Is (Hypothetical) Installation of New Windows Evd. Old Windows Were Dangerous?

I may be wrong, but IMO, there will be no changes made to the existing windows on deck 11 or any similar windows on other decks because 1. There is nothing unsafe about the current windows; 2. Changing the windows would be a costly and unnecessary renovation considering there is nothing wrong with the current design; and 3. If they change the current windows, that may look like they are admitting the windows were a “danger.” JMO

Lawsmygame2 bbm Yes, agreeing on points 1 & 2.
Point 3. Well, not so much. Let's say, courts routinely permitted plaintiffs to present evidence of defendants' changes to their premises (after injury/death), to be considered by juries as evidence that premises were dangerous, etc, (at time of iinjury /death), and therefore juries could consider those repairs as evidence the def's were negligent. What would happen? Would such a rule of evidence encourage ppl/companies to make repairs, if making changes, to make premises safer in the future, could be used against them in lawsuit?
This rule was initially published in Federal Rules of Evidence* 1975, although in use years before then.
Rule 407. Subsequent Remedial Measures [w my bbm & U/S & my insertions in red below]
When measures are taken [such as, RCL installing new windows] that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove:
- negligence;
- culpable conduct;
- a defect in a product or its design; or
- a need for a warning or instruction.
But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as impeachment or — if disputed — proving ownership, control, or the feasibility of precautionary measures."
Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules
The rule incorporates conventional doctrine which excludes evidence of subsequent remedial measures as proof of an admission of fault. The rule rests on two grounds. (1) The conduct [defendant'-RCL's changing windows] is not in fact an admission, since the conduct [RCL's changing windows] is equally consistent with injury by mere accident or through [SA's] contributory negligence [in holding Chloe by the window].... (2) The other, and more impressive, ground for exclusion rests on a social policy of encouraging people to take, or at least not discouraging them from taking, steps in furtherance of added safety. The courts have applied this principle to exclude evidence of subsequent repairs, installation of safety devices, changes in company rules...."
* Rule 407. Subsequent Remedial Measures or
Rule 407 - Subsequent Remedial Measures | 2020 Federal Rules of Evidence

 

[neesaki]

Just thinking about this again, what are the possible reasons for SA to stop midway between the pool area to the windows, to squat down and lean against that beam ? Is that a comfortable position to be in for any posters here ? ( I just know that it's not comfortable for me ). I'm just trying to get some insight as to what might have been going on, as Ms. Betsy said, maybe SA wasn't watching and waiting on that man to leave the window.

 

[wackyw]

Just thinking about this again, what are the possible reasons for SA to stop midway between the pool area to the windows, to squat down and lean against that beam ? Is that a comfortable position to be in for any posters here ? ( I just know that it's not comfortable for me ). I'm just trying to get some insight as to what might have been going on, as Ms. Betsy said, maybe SA wasn't watching and waiting on that man to leave the window.

Nope, I'm in my 50's and my knees would be complaining about that position, and I'm a lot lighter than him. I daresay she stopped, he bent down to talk/listen to her and he suggested to go and look out of the window so he could stand up again, and off she went. It's not like it's an odd thing to do to want to look out of a window, especially when there's a new view to see. Maybe he is hard of hearing, hence bending down to hear/talk to her, and also lifting her up to the rail/ledge to be closer to her for the same reason. I'm still not with the intention to throw her out brigade, he's just extremely stupid/thoughtless/reckless.

JMO

 

[wackyw]

I am trying to take the Occam's Razor approach to this, but there is something I can't fathom ...

I have seen a video of the mother backing Gramps to the hilt, "he never put her in harm's way" etc, but surely even looking at the windows at the time, raises the question "what the f*** were you doing putting my daughter up there against the OPEN window?".

I can't yet square that circle. Conspiracy? Just can't see that, especially by throwing her out onto the dock. There must be better ways out at sea. And there's no reason to suspect it.
Maybe she does blame him, but it is just cold-hearted opportunism when a chance of compo get dangled before them. He can't be guilty in order to get that. Don't know.
Maybe she just didn't even register the difference between the open/closed windows? That could be understandable in the circumstances.
I wonder if/when she first saw the video ?
Any one else got thoughts on this ?

I still want to hear about what was said in the immediate aftermath, i.e. pre "lawyered up" comments.
I'm going to be like a broken record on this because most of the "post lawyered up" stuff is designed to misdirect. I think the immediate aftermath comments are where the honest bits will be found in this case. I just hope all that hasn't evaporated before the trial.

Although whatever is said, I think reckless negligence is nailed on.

JMOO.

 

[they'll get you]

It's nothing but deductive reasoning on my part that as the open window was way over her head,

RSBM


This open maintanance window was below the window that Chloe fell from. Did she feel the breeze, did she see it wasn’t glass?
Was Chloe looking out this before she was lifted up?

(I asked a staff member what it was access for maintenance and washing the windows.)

Cruise line sued by family of toddler who fell to her death from window

 

[sloane7777]

BBM SBM

$$$$$$ < ----???????

MOO JMO

hes not the legal parent though, he would not be the one getting "paid" I just don't see someone dropping someone else's child for the "Dollars" unless hes a total psychopath and puts on a good family man front , I just don't think in my mind he just out and out murdered her ! I just don't (this time, I'm usually very jaded)

 

[Midwestmom2019]

I think he was telling her "goodbye". JMOO.

Earlier today from friends across the pond, I read the same thing. Comment was that it looked like he picked her up. Held her out the window, Was thinking yes or no. Then did it. Other poster added he was trashed bc it’s a cruise. Referring to stumbling around by the pole.

 

[they'll get you]

Just thinking about this again, what are the possible reasons for SA to stop midway between the pool area to the windows, to squat down and lean against that beam ? Is that a comfortable position to be in for any posters here ? ( I just know that it's not comfortable for me ). I'm just trying to get some insight as to what might have been going on, as Ms. Betsy said, maybe SA wasn't watching and waiting on that man to leave the window.

(AND) Why squat down in the sun just steps away from the shade?

Obviously he didn’t want to stand or couldn’t stand, he had to squat in the sun. Couldn’t bend over to speak with Chloe. Right there, right then.

 

[Lawsmygame2]

Is (Hypothetical) Installation of New Windows Evd. Old Windows Were Dangerous?
Lawsmygame2 bbm Yes, agreeing on points 1 & 2.
Point 3. Well, not so much. Let's say, courts routinely permitted plaintiffs to present evidence of defendants' changes to their premises (after injury/death), to be considered by juries as evidence that premises were dangerous, etc, (at time of iinjury /death), and therefore juries could consider those repairs as evidence the def's were negligent. What would happen? Would such a rule of evidence encourage ppl/companies to make repairs, if making changes, to make premises safer in the future, could be used against them in lawsuit?
This rule was initially published in Federal Rules of Evidence* 1975, although in use years before then.
Rule 407. Subsequent Remedial Measures [w my bbm & U/S & my insertions in red below]
When measures are taken [such as, RCL installing new windows] that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove:
- negligence;
- culpable conduct;
- a defect in a product or its design; or
- a need for a warning or instruction.
But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as impeachment or — if disputed — proving ownership, control, or the feasibility of precautionary measures."
Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules
The rule incorporates conventional doctrine which excludes evidence of subsequent remedial measures as proof of an admission of fault. The rule rests on two grounds. (1) The conduct [defendant'-RCL's changing windows] is not in fact an admission, since the conduct [RCL's changing windows] is equally consistent with injury by mere accident or through [SA's] contributory negligence [in holding Chloe by the window].... (2) The other, and more impressive, ground for exclusion rests on a social policy of encouraging people to take, or at least not discouraging them from taking, steps in furtherance of added safety. The courts have applied this principle to exclude evidence of subsequent repairs, installation of safety devices, changes in company rules...."
* Rule 407. Subsequent Remedial Measures or
Rule 407 - Subsequent Remedial Measures | 2020 Federal Rules of Evidence

Yes, agree. However, if RCCL did change the windows after this incident, that information could be introduce for reasons other than to prove negligence, etc. So, while the court is professional minded/trained and would not consider this information to suppose/prove negligence, etc., jurors (even when properly instructed otherwise) could still likely consider it (not legally) as RCCL “admitting” the window design was flawed/needed to be changed and this may sway the verdict in favor of the plaintiff. JMO

 

[lonetraveler]

The mother who held her son over the railing of the African Painted Dog exhibit, dropping him into the exhibit sued the zoo and the zoo settled. The little boy was torn to shreds.

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=Awr...lawsuit//RK=2/RS=kNwuBkJzy97RUP5kUyCVRQ5oVBk-

However, the mother who dangled her son and dropped him into the Cheeta exhibit was charged. And get this......she was a childcare worker...go figure.

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=Awr...-n340846/RK=2/RS=F4GERs1Gv60o7fvp3TDrwlokoEY-

 

[MsBetsy]

Just thinking about this again, what are the possible reasons for SA to stop midway between the pool area to the windows, to squat down and lean against that beam ? Is that a comfortable position to be in for any posters here ? ( I just know that it's not comfortable for me ). I'm just trying to get some insight as to what might have been going on, as Ms. Betsy said, maybe SA wasn't watching and waiting on that man to leave the window.

The only reason I have ever put myself in that position is to relieve lower back pain, especially after being on my feet for awhile. It's instant relief.
I can't see where Chloe is in the video at that time or maybe I just can't remember.
It is curious that she does seem to make a beeline for that particular window as if on some kind of mission.
Maybe she was the type of child who liked to explore every new thing.
We don't know when or how the window was opened. Could she have seen someone open the window and look down and wanted to do the same?
Maybe she had not seen the windows earlier and just noticed them for the first time and wanted to explore.

If only her Grandpa had gently and carefully lifted her to look out the window. There was no reason to lift her all the way over the railing and in such a dangerous position.

I think he knows it was his fault and it was reckless and irresponsible behavior but he is not going to ever admit it.
Maybe he feels like his hands are tied because of the lawsuit.

He should just take the plea deal and be done with it.

Imo

 

[Wicked Strong]

I have seen a couple of photos of SA with Chloe in which he is squatting down &/or on his knees. One is with Chloe at an easter egg hunt, another is him kneeling petting a dog with Chloe by his side. I believe this might be common for him. I'm new so I don't know how to post just the pictures but you will find them on the Media Thread at the start of this, numbers 8 & 42.

 

[al66pine]

Loves-to-Bang-on-Glass?

.... It's just MO that if anything, since she's known to love to bang on glass maybe her goal was to do just that... bang on glass...

@neesaki sbm "... she's known to love to bang on glass..." Yes, entirely possible. Idea of going to outer window wall could have been hers or SA's.
OTOH, is it possible the ^ description was a bit of hyperbole? Maybe did it a few times? Maybe dozens. IDK. Remember, she was also described* as a "fashionista," a "foodie," and "could work a cell phone better than both of her parents." Did L/B/Glass come from same source? If poor Chloe had met her tragic end by SA dropping her over Deck 12 rail, w no glass or windows , would the world have ever heard a peep about Loves-to-Bang-on-Glass? Or would it have been Loves to Sit on Railings?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Obit. View Chloe Wiegand's Obituary on kpcnews.com and share memories
Horrific burden to write a toddler's obituary. Sorry, wondering about portraying 18 mo-old that way. I suppose family/writer was trying to project her into her future life.

 

[Chikkamma]

"but conduct is not a substantial factor in causing harm if the same harm would have occurred without that conduct.”  (Yanez v. Plummer (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th"

But, could another child have scaled furniture or in some other way climbed on top of the railing? The result would be the same. The substantial factor is the open window. IMO

Your logic does not make sense. By your reasoning, if someone throws a child into a boiling pot of water, the boiling pot of water is partially responsible.

 

[MsBetsy]

Yes, agree. However, if RCCL did change the windows after this incident, that information could be introduce for reasons other than to prove negligence, etc. So, while the court is professional minded/trained and would not consider this information to suppose/prove negligence, etc., jurors (even when properly instructed otherwise) could still likely consider it (not legally) as RCCL “admitting” the window design was flawed/needed to be changed and this may sway the verdict in favor of the plaintiff. JMO

Well, in the lawsuit it was suggested that RCCL were aware that the windows were a safety issue and that's why they installed un-openable windows near the pool area on their newer ship.

I wonder if the defense can bring that up if they do go to trial.

Imo

 

[oviedo]

my view

I have seen a couple of photos of SA with Chloe in which he is squatting down &/or on his knees. One is with Chloe at an easter egg hunt, another is him kneeling petting a dog with Chloe by his side. I believe this might be common for him. I'm new so I don't know how to post just the pictures but you will find them on the Media Thread at the start of this, numbers 8 & 42.

Welcome to WS! Awesome you checked out the media thread - this is a tough one for those that have been on WS awhile - most now see it’s criminal negligence but some of us still wonder if it was on purpose - his actions were very deliberate IMO and having been on a similar RCL ship - you can absolutely feel the breeze when docked - it’s a long way down and he knew that - here’s my view from Mariner in December - because of the angle of the window you can still see the dock just fine - he held her outside for the thrill of it IMO

 

[In vino veritas]

Speaking of

The only reason I have ever put myself in that position is to relieve lower back pain, especially after being on my feet for awhile. It's instant relief.
I can't see where Chloe is in the video at that time or maybe I just can't remember.
It is curious that she does seem to make a beeline for that particular window as if on some kind of mission.
Maybe she was the type of child who liked to explore every new thing.
We don't know when or how the window was opened. Could she have seen someone open the window and look down and wanted to do the same?
Maybe she had not seen the windows earlier and just noticed them for the first time and wanted to explore.

If only her Grandpa had gently and carefully lifted her to look out the window. There was no reason to lift her all the way over the railing and in such a dangerous position.

I think he knows it was his fault and it was reckless and irresponsible behavior but he is not going to ever admit it.
Maybe he feels like his hands are tied because of the lawsuit.

He should just take the plea deal and be done with it.

Imo

Speaking of the plea deal.... last I read, SA had another hearing scheduled for January 27 in PR. 1. Has anyone seen updates as to whether or not that will go forward given the earthquakes and 2. Will a plea deal likely be formally offered at that time?

 

[justice4allnow]

Well, in the lawsuit it was suggested that RCCL were aware that the windows were a safety issue and that's why they installed un-openable windows near the pool area on their newer ship.

I wonder if the defense can bring that up if they do go to trial.

Imo

Hi MsBetsy, thank you for your post. Which RCCL ship has inoperable windows on a pool deck and where did you find the info? Are there no windows that open on that ship? I'm asking because I've been searching online for the data on other ships and have been unable to find it. I've heard Mr Winkleman assert that other cruise lines and newer ships including the Anthem of RCCL don't have the same windows that FOTS has-whether that means inoperable, only opens 4 inches, has some kind of grid, I'm unsure, he did not specify. I've found that cabins don't have operable windows because of the danger of high seas, but that's all I've been able to find. Thank you!