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

[LietKynes]

Yes, and don't you imagine that there would be lawsuits ensuing? It's just about a given.

So --you thought at first it might've been murder ?
According to what you posted.
Why ?
In my (inquiring) mind -- curiosity abounds. Even though I know what it did to the cat.

Btw--- There IS a railing in front of that window.

I'm thinking RCCL thought their passengers were intelligent enough to understand the dangers of holding and dangling a toddler outside of the window ledge.
S.A. has been described as a competent employee by his boss.
One would assume that also means intelligent enough to do his job.
RCCL shouldn't have had to place a sticker on SA's forehead saying "I'm stupid".

Surely he hasn't suffered a sudden onset of early dementia ?
And even if so-- why hasn't he used it as yet another excuse ?
He's used nearly everything else-- except for Neuropathy in both feet (like the father of that little autistic boy who was left alone for 3 hours at a park and drowned --Maddox Ritch)

The Wiegand's have sailed before on a Disney cruise.
This is public knowledge and was referenced in the most recent DM article about the step-grandpa, S.A.
The window's didn't open on the previous cruise.
But on the RCCL ship they opened.
Seems it's a no brainer.
A man was murdered for 10. $; outside a Mcdonald's.
10. $. was considered enough of an amount to end a person's life.
People will kill for insane amounts of money.

But it gets better--- make it millions or unlimited; as the lawyer for S.A. has said they can claim-- and any greedy people would at least give it a thought.
Notice I said greedy. Although grasping would also fit in some circumstances.
Not referring to anyone in particular.
Just some thoughts .
This post lands at random.

 

[LietKynes]

Harrowing for the guy whose arms they had to bisect to make it appear he couldn’t reach out the window.

I thought the same.
Or they had him wear an extra-tight girdle to restrict his breathing, and make it hard for him to reach his arms through that window ?

 

[Lawsmygame2]

Still does not prove that SA knew the window was open, even if he would have been able to reach outside the window. That does not show that he could see that the window was open.

Interesting...However, if it is proven that SA stuck his head and Chloe out the window (beyond the ledge (which houses the window), it would prove he knew the window was open. In other words, even if he didn’t see the window was open, once he stuck his head and Chloe beyond the ledge, he would have/should have known there was no glass.

 

[they'll get you]

Better yet, a Reborn Toddler Doll that squirms and wiggles like a real toddler being held that high up!

At times I had no option other than to put my toddlers down when they decided to tantrum or I’d drop them and that was on my hip with a good grip!

Why on earth would you risk that moment 11 floors up!

 

[Snoods]

I don’t know if this has been mentioned before on this thread so here goes:

Something that has been bothering me...

Even if SA believed, because of his “colorblind” condition or whatever reason, wouldn’t Chloe have known there was not window since she didn’t have the same condition as the grandfather? So what was she thinking/fear in that moment? It breaks my heart to think about it.

Another question...were there any statements, etc., to the effect that Chloe leaned forward to bang on the glass and that’s when she fell out the window...?

To me it looks like Chloe ran straight to that window because it was open. As has been repeated multiple times, she could have banged on the glass from where she was standing. Grandpa should never have held her up to or outside the window, he should have said let’s walk over to the kiddo area. (Try as he might, Winkleman can’t turn Squeeze Bar into a children’s play area.) This thread wouldn’t be here and Chloe would still be alive.

 

[Andreee]

View attachment 227814
These railings are strewn absolutely everywhere all over the ship and imo they are a 6” gap and a baby of Chloe’s size could easily climb through.
I saw parents holding children around these and they can’t be all changed.

View attachment 227814
These railings are strewn absolutely everywhere all over the ship and imo they are a 6” gap and a baby of Chloe’s size could easily climb through.
I saw parents holding children around these and they can’t be all changed.

Agreed. Also, what about any railings whatsoever.... Railings going down stairs, railings by the elevators gaps, railings on the 2nd levels of theaters. Etc... stuff can happen if you are reckless.

I suppose it would become a neverending maze of safety precautions upon safety precautions to avoid every extreme eventuality in every situation, aside from uncontrollable and unforseeable human intervention which as we know can cause problems anyways.

 

[Forever Young]

View attachment 227822 This is the photo that I'm talking about; 2 of you have said LE did a reenactment of what Sam told them. Same photo we are all referencing?

That is the one I was thinking of, yes. No baby doll.

 

[In vino veritas]

SA followed CW to that window. That's very clear from the video. I believe he was looking down at CW between the railing and the window frame while she was still on the floor, apparently unable to reach the window that was right in front of her if SA is to be believed.

IMO, I do not see video footage of Chloe going to that particular window. It’s not really clear to me where she is positioned on the floor.... unless I’m missing something glaring.

 

[Wicked Strong]

OK, I deleted an earlier post because it sounded angry, however, I am still at the angry stage. REALLY, SA caused the death of his granddaughter, there is no doubt about it. At his defense, he says he didn't know that the window was open. In my mind it doesn't matter, he still caused his granddaughters death. IT WAS NOT THE WINDOW THAT CAUSED THE DEATH! I'm in the Midwest and I don't give a crap about whether he is color blind or whatever the defense is putting out. The accident (or not accident) could have occurred at any place he was caring for his granddaughter. The world cannot be responsible for everything that is harmful. I admit I do not agree with lawsuits, and this one in particular.

 

[Forever Young]

Yes, but I feel like I saw a video...

If there is no video that is interesting to me, because in my mind I can literally see him moving up and down then opening his hands and fingers wide...

And if there is no video I made that all up in my mind from a picture...

La Comay, before showing the surveillance video, showed an animation back in July. I had posted a link for it here, but it may have been removed, because I went off topic in the course of talking about something unrelated to this case in the same post.

There may be another type of animation that La Comay also showed, but I must not have saved that to my favorites.

Starts around 3: 30

La Comay also showed this one, no animation but a different shot of LE at window, around 30:50

 

[In vino veritas]

What if the kid is skinny? I bet plenty of kids could squeeze through a 4 inch wide gap. Not all babies are chubby cheeked cherubs.

Or perhaps their fingers will get crushed when they close the window......

 

[mheido67]

OK, I deleted an earlier post because it sounded angry, however, I am still at the angry stage. REALLY, SA caused the death of his granddaughter, there is no doubt about it. At his defense, he says he didn't know that the window was open. In my mind it doesn't matter, he still caused his granddaughters death. IT WAS NOT THE WINDOW THAT CAUSED THE DEATH! I'm in the Midwest and I don't give a crap about whether he is color blind or whatever the defense is putting out. The accident (or not accident) could have occurred at any place he was caring for his granddaughter. The world cannot be responsible for everything that is harmful. I admit I do not agree with lawsuits, and this one in particular.

I understand your frustration. Let me just explain the argument being presented by The attorneys for CW and her parents. What they are claiming is that the very design and construction of the glazed wall includes an inherent danger in that from casual observation, when all of the panels are closed, it looks like a “solid wall of glass”. The importance of this being that it puts in the mind of the observer that it is safe and there is nothing to fear from being next to it unlike a typical railing which being only 4 feet high can cause people unease. Give them a sense of danger. The attorneys are claiming that SA was put at easy because he believed the wall was fully glazed and there was no danger at all. But there was a danger and they claim the design of the wall caused that danger to be hidden and that steps should have been taken to alert people to the potential danger. To achieve this they suggest there should be decals or warning labels placed on the wall. This is done with glass doors to provide a visual clue that there is glass present. In this case the labels would be placed on the the window frame elements to warn that the portion of glass is operable and may be open. They claim that such a label would have informed SA that the glass was not present and he wouldn’t have placed her over the railing. RCCL maintains that a reasonable person, in close proximity to the open windows, should have enough visual indication that the window is open without a label and that SA clearly acted recklessly by ignoring ship rules about safety rails. For what it’s worth I agree with RCCL. A reasonable person should have observed that there was no glass present especially when the health and safety of a minor they were charged with caring for was involved.

 

[they'll get you]

As for the "measurements" taken by MW and team, do they really think RCCL doesn't know the exact height, angle and distance of every railing, window, chair and table on that ship? Do they think the Naval Architects, Marine Engineers, builders and designers just guessed when creating the ship?

Yes they must realise RCC have every dimension and fabric on every ship but they arming themselves with their (stupid) measurements and knowledge.

 

[wackyw]

I understand your frustration. Let me just explain the argument being presented by The attorneys for CW and her parents. What they are claiming is that the very design and construction of the glazed wall includes an inherent danger in that from casual observation, when all of the panels are closed, it looks like a “solid wall of glass”. The importance of this being that it puts in the mind of the observer that it is safe and there is nothing to fear from being next to it unlike a typical railing which being only 4 feet high can cause people unease. Give them a sense of danger. The attorneys are claiming that SA was put at easy because he believed the wall was fully glazed and there was no danger at all. But there was a danger and they claim the design of the wall caused that danger to be hidden and that steps should have been taken to alert people to the potential danger. To achieve this they suggest there should be decals or warning labels placed on the wall. This is done with glass doors to provide a visual clue that there is glass present. In this case the labels would be placed on the the window frame elements to warn that the portion of glass is operable and may be open. They claim that such a label would have informed SA that the glass was not present and he wouldn’t have placed her over the railing. RCCL maintains that a reasonable person, in close proximity to the open windows, should have enough visual indication that the window is open without a label and that SA clearly acted recklessly by ignoring ship rules about safety rails. For what it’s worth I agree with RCCL. A reasonable person should have observed that there was no glass present especially when the health and safety of a minor they were charged with caring for was involved.

Lovely clear explanation of this, thank you. And my interpretation from the "behind" video the "wall of glass" is "b*******s". True ALL the lower frames are glass, so that small children do not cascade through. CW approaches a section where the lower and upper frames are indeed glass. She is very sagfe at this moment. But BOTH the upper frames to the left and right of the one CW approached are OPEN. Which is why he moves to one of them, in this case to the left. So he can get a better view. And then lifts CW up and over the safety railing designed for adults.

JMOO

 

[they'll get you]

Really? Murder?
What makes you think that bc some of us have discussed that scenario as well. We just can’t wrap our heads around that murder idea.
What benefit would the family get from murdering their baby?

Yeah! really! murder!
Because this is so bazaar my mind sometimes thinks this is a possible scenario.

 

[they'll get you]

View attachment 227822 This is the photo that I'm talking about; 2 of you have said LE did a reenactment of what Sam told them. Same photo we are all referencing?

Was it LE or a witness?

 

[Forever Young]

snip> A reasonable person should have observed that there was no glass present especially when the health and safety of a minor they were charged with caring for was involved.

I think you have a good understanding of what is being alleged by both parties.

One thing I would like to add is - and I've only recently found this out - is that there apparently is no objective definition of a responsible person.

"In law, a reasonable person, reasonable man, or the man on the Clapham omnibus[1] is a hypothetical person of legal fiction crafted by the courts and communicated through case law and jury instructions.[2]"

"Strictly according to the fiction, it is misconceived for a party to seek evidence from actual people in order to establish how the reasonable man would have acted or what he would have foreseen".

"While there is a loose consensus in black letter law, there is no accepted technical definition."
Reasonable person - Wikipedia

One question for a jury to decide is "Could a reasonable person have thought that an open window was closed?".

 

[Forever Young]

For what it’s worth I agree with RCCL. A reasonable person should have observed that there was no glass present especially when the health and safety of a minor they were charged with caring for was involved.

Part II - Conversely, a question for the jury - should RCCL have foreseen that the open windows in that area could have contributed to a child falling out and off the ship, especially when they also are charged with caring for the health and safety of minors?

 

[wackyw]

No. Are you, or anyone else here, working for RCCL? I've wondered about that too, so no offense taken.

No, I work in IT support. I often have to work out why some outcome is not what was expected/desired. Sometimes it is a fault in the thought actually applied, sometimes it due to an accidental "missing" thought, sometimes it is errrr... other.

 

[Forever Young]

Yes they must realise RCC have every dimension and fabric on every ship but they arming themselves with their (stupid) measurements and knowledge.

I'm sure they do. Let them contribute them into evidence, then.