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

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #1,421
This tiny one is RCCL response to the motion to compel. Includes emails with the plaintiffs counsel.

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF ALL VIDEO FOOTAGE.

Wiegand vs RCCL CASE NO. 19-CV-25100-DLG
Filed 01/22/20

RCCL Response to Compel.pdf
 
  • #1,422
It
I was not referring to just Chloe. I mean any other child or person, no matter how they got there, could they have also fell from that window. Was it wide enough for any other child to have fallen from it, under different circumstances?
In my opinion, it doesn't matter how wide the window opens. Because the only way a child gets out that high up window, is if an adult helps them.

If a child wants to jump off the ship by themselves, they can do so off any balcony.
 
  • #1,423
So SA tells the doctor “ I thought the window was closed”
And SA tells the doctor “ I dropped my baby “

I still find “ I dropped my baby “ unusual
because “my baby fell” goes with “I thought the window was closed.
I dropped my baby would go more with I made a mistake putting her out there.


JMO
 
  • #1,424
  • #1,425
If Chloe wanted to bang the glass she could have simply banged the glass. There would be no reason to pick her up for that.

Simple. Easy. Completely destroys SA's ridiculous excuse.

0EEBAF7C-F55E-439F-B58C-2261EEB78A65.jpeg
The glass was there for her to touch as it is approx 4” away from the floor.
In this photo I was standing at the timber rail looking straight down.
 
  • #1,426
Didn't Chloe's parents consider filing a lawsuit right away? I think that may be one reason why he has never actually admitted fault. If he does, his daughter might consider it a betrayal or think it will hurt their case. I think things would have been much different if they had never blamed the company. Imo
@MsBetsy :) bbm
Depends on how we define "right away." Going by memory here:
Sat. July 7, ~ 4:30 Death.
Mon, July 9 Winkleman was interviewed by or quoted in Daily Mail.
 
  • #1,427
This tiny one is RCCL response to the motion to compel. Includes emails with the plaintiffs counsel.

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF ALL VIDEO FOOTAGE.

Wiegand vs RCCL CASE NO. 19-CV-25100-DLG
Filed 01/22/20

RCCL Response to Compel.pdf

Exactly. She would be alive today if not for the reckless action of SA.
The views from the cameras & the recorded seconds SA held her out there. It’s like DNA!

MOO
 
  • #1,428
The headlines are running with this now:

Family of girl who died in cruise ship fall disputes photos used to blame grandfather
The company "has demonstrably lied to this court and, in so doing, Royal Caribbean has created a false narrative," according to Chloe Wiegand's parents.
Family of girl who died in cruise ship fall disputes photos used to blame grandfather


Girl's Family: 'Impossible' to Lean From Cruise Ship Window
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/arti...ly-impossible-to-lean-from-cruise-ship-window
The headlines are running with this now:

Family of girl who died in cruise ship fall disputes photos used to blame grandfather
The company "has demonstrably lied to this court and, in so doing, Royal Caribbean has created a false narrative," according to Chloe Wiegand's parents.
Family of girl who died in cruise ship fall disputes photos used to blame grandfather


Girl's Family: 'Impossible' to Lean From Cruise Ship Window
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/arti...ly-impossible-to-lean-from-cruise-ship-window

If it is physically impossible to lean out the window as currently configured that would seem to bolster the claim by RCCL that the operable windows in no way posed a hidden danger wouldn’t it? It would seem to demonstrate that the windows and railing were in fact doing exactly what they were intended to do, provide ventilation to the covered outdoor pool deck areas while keeping people away from the openings. SA recklessly disregarded the prohibition of placing things (or people) on or over the railings and himself put CW into a dangerous situation just the same as if he’d stood her on any other railing at the perimeter of the ship.
 
  • #1,429


So they are going SA defamation as well. RCC must now remove their gloves.
And those photos are a crock!!

"All in all, Royal Caribbean has filed with this court inaccurate and deceptive CCTV video and a demonstrably false narrative in order to further Royal Caribbean’s interests, rather than the truth; while at the same time defaming Mr. Anello and irresponsibly causing further irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs, a family in severe distress," wrote Michael Winkleman, an attorney representing the Wiegand family in the civil case
 
  • #1,430
View attachment 227626
The glass was there for her to touch as it is approx 4” away from the floor.
In this photo I was standing at the timber rail looking straight down.

I think it was awkward/uncomfortable for him to get down to her level under the rail, so he lifted her up to a more comfortable position for himself. Unfortunately up and over the safety rail.
 
  • #1,431
I think it was awkward/uncomfortable for him to get down to her level under the rail, so he lifted her up to a more comfortable position for himself. Unfortunately up and over the safety rail.
He full on squatted down to her level ( on video) before she ran over to the windows.

MOO
 
  • #1,432
He full on squatted down to her level ( on video) before she ran over to the windows.

MOO

There wasn't a rail at approx 40" for him to have to contend with. In his CBS statement he says

"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 when I decided I'd pick her up."

From the above pic CW could clearly reach the glass, he can't get near enough because the wooden rail is stopping him getting close enough. It is about head height. He wants to share the experience with her, and decides it would be more comfortable from the adult position over the rail.

JMO
 
  • #1,433
  • #1,434
This entire matter may make an abrupt about face and the family might want to consider the end result. Waking up a sleeping giant is not a good idea.
 
  • #1,435
Alright!! I'm going to do this big one first, because I think this is what most people are going to want to see. This is, honest to god, only TWO THINGS filed by the plaintiffs. But the second one is so overwhelmingly huge that it is broken down into FOUR SEPERATE DOCUMENTS in the filing. I'm sticking them all up on DOCDROID just because I have a feeling we're going to be doing a lot of referring back to different things.

WARNING I HAVE NOT FULLY READ ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE POSTING. I say this because the one document that Winkleman included, the statement from the ship's doctor, includes a description of what he witnessed of Chloe's body, including massive head trauma. It is brief, but it is there, and I know several people have posted previously that they don't want to see anything dealing with her injuries/fall. So if you don't want to read about that please skip the last document. I don't know if Winkleman discusses it anywhere else in the oposition so just be warned you may want to wait and see what others say.

-------------------

PLAINTIFFS’UNOPPOSEDMOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PRELIMINARYRESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION [D.E. 7]IN EXCESS OF PAGE LIMITATIONS

Wiegand vs RCCL CASE NO. 19-CV-25100-DLG
Filed 01/22/20

wiegand motion to file excess pages.pdf

summary: Winkleman asks nicely to file a massive amount of pages

----------------

Enter the massive amount of pages (somewhere around 130 in total)

PLAINTIFFS’PRELIMINARY1RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION[D.E. 7]

Wiegand vs RCCL CASE NO. 19-CV-25100-DLG
Filed 01/22/20

Wiegand Prelim Response to Dismiss 1.pdf
This is the actual argument. Winkleman puts all civility aside in it and flat out accuses RCCL of lying to the court. Get your popcorn because this is salty.

Wiegand Prelim Response to Dismiss 2.pdf
Two photos of little Chloe at the ice rink. One in SA's lap leaning close to the glass, one of her again just standing at the glass in another area.

Wiegand Prelim Response to Dismiss 3.pdf
This is what we've been waiting for! The ships inspection! All 101 pages of it

----------------

This one I'm moving separately because it's the doctor's declaration. This one is the one to skip if you don't want to hear about poor little Chloe's state after the fall. But I will say that it has the most interesting contradiction to anything Winkleman ever said about the incident. Per the ship's doctor: SA WAS NEVER SEDATED BY HIM OR HIS STAFF AFTER THE INCIDENT. Only KW and grandmother "Mary" were sedated.

Wiegand Prelim Response to Dismiss 4.pdf


“This case is 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; (3) reached down and picked up Chloe; and (4) then held her by and out of the open window for thirty four seconds beforehe lost his grip and dropped Chloe out of the window.His actions, which no reasonable person could have foreseen, were reckless and irresponsible and the sole reason why Chloe is no longer with her parents. “



Yes. It all boils down to this IMO.
 
  • #1,436
  • #1,437
  • #1,438
There wasn't a rail at approx 40" for him to have to contend with. In his CBS statement he says

"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 when I decided I'd pick her up."

From the above pic CW could clearly reach the glass, he can't get near enough because the wooden rail is stopping him getting close enough. It is about head height. He wants to share the experience with her, and decides it would be more comfortable from the adult position over the rail.

JMO

Exactly. She could walk right under the railing and up to the glass to bang on it if she wanted to. If that was the “reason” for picking her up, it is clearly false.

Also, from the first PDF: (1)the window did not have a “single, adequate indication” (such as a decal or a warning) to indicate it was open;

If there was a decal or warning on the window, he wouldn’t have seen it because the window wasn’t there! It was open! So even if there was a warning on the actual window, the opening wouldn’t have a warning. You can’t put a warning on air/open space.
 
  • #1,439
  • #1,440
@MsBetsy :) bbm
Depends on how we define "right away." Going by memory here:
Sat. July 7, ~ 4:30 Death.
Mon, July 9 Winkleman was interviewed by or quoted in Daily Mail.
Wow. Yeah, that's pretty darn quick.
I'm not sure how they would have come up with any evidence of the ship's negligence in that amount of time, especially if they are claiming they did not meet the standard safety requirements.

Imo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
129
Guests online
2,497
Total visitors
2,626

Forum statistics

Threads
632,167
Messages
18,623,056
Members
243,043
Latest member
1xwegah
Back
Top