IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #7

[JerseySleuth17]

So as an optometrist, Dr Wiegand would know that SA's claim that his colorblindness prevents him from knowing whether a window is open or closed is a bunch of malarkey.

OR - this is the person that gave SA and "excuse" for dropping a baby out an open window. Horrifying but possible.

 

[JerseySleuth17]

What is it about SA that makes his wife stand by his side? He is responsible for the death of her grandbaby. Did he put a hex on her so she believes whatever comes out of his mouth? I guess I relate to her because we're about the same age and I don't know how they go about their daily lives. JMO etc.

I know, I feel the same way. Especially after seeing that video. Even if you give them the benefit of the doubt that they initiated the lawsuit without seeing video footage, once they saw the video how can you possibly think anyone other than SA is the reason CW is dead? I don't get it. If you want to forgive him ok but you don't simultaneously sue the cruise line. Give me a break.

 

[Kindred]

OR - this is the person that gave SA and "excuse" for dropping a baby out an open window. Horrifying but possible.

I'm pretty sure an Optometrist would know that was BS. Maybe the reason they're staying so silent is they said something along the lines of "next you're going to be blaming the fact he's colorblind" and the next day there's Winkleman on TV spouting it off.

I'm curious if they'll get subpoenaed for the criminal case

 

[al66pine]

Engaging a Probate Atty? South Bend? Chicago?

This doesn't bother me. I imagine they probably want to go with someone unknown vs someone they know. I think it would be kind of oogie for discuss very personal things with someone you may run into at the grocery store down the road.

@Lawnguylander1964 I know some ppl would feel uncomfortable discussing their probate case w anyone at all, esp someone they would randomly encounter around town. Altho that atty's offce is in Chicago, KSW & AW could not file this procedure in a Chicago IL court to try to keep their neighbors unaware. Probate jurisdiction is based on residence of the deceased, which was S.Bend/Granger IN. Being appt'ed as pers reps of Chloe's estate means some info, such as the final accounting w $ figures, is likely to be circulated, thru public record and/or gossip, around their town. IDK offhand of any way they could avoid publicity re probate case, if there is a settlement or award.

Some ppl are more uncomfortable about talking w local physician for annual exam than they would be the same w a dr. a couple hours drive away. Others stress about idea of discussing investments & $ info w a broker in their city and keep some or all their investment a/c's w a distant broker or brokerage.
And some ppl cringe about divulging info to attys, tax return preparers, physicians/med providers, and investment brokers, whether in the neighborhood or light years away. Others don't bat an eyelash at any of the above. A matter of personal feelings/attitudes. jmo.

BTW, "oogie"? Even UrbanDictionary.com did not help me w this.

 

[they'll get you]

Look how crystal clear this shot is and it’s time stamped so imo it’s a RCC camera.


affidavit of expert randall jaques.pdf

 

[Wehwalt]

Report. Relevant Only re RCL's Motion to Dismiss?
@Wehwalt bbm
Sorry to be dense, but how can Inspection report "get by" RCL's Mo/Dis?
Do you think if SA had appeared in photos, pix would have (any/more?) probative value now? Or for possible intro at civil trial (which you think is not going to take place)?
"That does not mean that pictures from the Barbados view cannot be introduced to depict the scene, just ones of the guy."
Depicting the scene? Sorry I'm not following. Seems virtually all the pix depict a part of ship-scene. So those w 'the guy' (Margulies or Jaques?) would not be admissible? Or would be?
"I don't expect them to try, if this gets that far."
So maybe this report is just a publicity prop, so MSM describes it at 100+ page report, as tho there is relevant, material info, photos, measurements, etc.?
Rushing off for caffeine and then back to reread ^ post. I'm overlooking something.

Sorry, don't check here all that often.
My actual thought is that pictures of SA participating in a re-enactment on board ship might have probative value, though more likely for the defense than the plaintiffs, in order to contradict him on something. I was really making more an offhand comment there.

Photographs of the ship are easily admissible to show how the ship looked at the time of photography. Photographs of a man doing something on a ship aren't being introduced to show how the ship looked, and are harder to get into evidence.

I read the pleadings surrounding the motion to dismiss as an argument over whether there are factual disputes that are worth continuing the case to the (time consuming and expensive) discovery phase, including depositions. The plaintiffs are saying that there are facts in dispute (in spite of the photographs and video) that if properly proven will entitle them to recover damages. Royal Caribbean is saying it doesn't matter what else they prove, given the photos/videos, they can't win.

That being said, this battle is plainly not just being fought in the courtroom but in the court of public opinion and whether the main purpose is to get damages or get SA off the hook I am not sure.

 

[mheido67]

Look how crystal clear this shot is and it’s time stamped so imo it’s a RCC camera.
View attachment 230253

affidavit of expert randall jaques.pdf

I believe that is a photograph, not a still from the cctv footage. It’s not the same angle as the cctv that has been released and both CW and SA would have been seen walking over to the window from this camera if it was a camera. RCCL included those photos in a filing to show the movements of KW, CW & SA around the pool deck over time. What you call time stamps are actually time intervals indicating when they were seen on particular cameras. The lines indicate generally where they moved during those times. Both were added to the image.

 

[Lawnguylander1964]

Engaging a Probate Atty? South Bend? Chicago?
@Lawnguylander1964 I know some ppl would feel uncomfortable discussing their probate case w anyone at all, esp someone they would randomly encounter around town. Altho that atty's offce is in Chicago, KSW & AW could not file this procedure in a Chicago IL court to try to keep their neighbors unaware. Probate jurisdiction is based on residence of the deceased, which was S.Bend/Granger IN. Being appt'ed as pers reps of Chloe's estate means some info, such as the final accounting w $ figures, is likely to be circulated, thru pubic record and/or gossip, around their town. IDK offhand of any way they could avoid publicity re probate case, if there is a settlement or award.

Some ppl are more uncomfortable about talking w local physician for annual exam than they would be the same w a dr. a couple hours drive away. Others stress about idea of discussing investments & $ info w a broker in their city and keep some or all their investment a/c's w a distant broker or brokerage.
And some ppl cringe about divulging info to attys, tax return preparers, physicians/med providers, and investment brokers, whether in the neighborhood or light years away. Others don't bat an eyelash at any of the above. A matter of personal feelings/attitudes. jmo.

BTW, "oogie"? Even UrbanDictionary.com did not help me w this.

The Chicago attorney could be a member of the bar in both Indiana and Illinois. I worked for lawyers in DC and almost all of them were members of bars in other states and waived into DC and then when they got older, they took the Florida bar as they headed toward retirement ;o) My cousin is a member of both bars in NJ and NY.

 

[justbreathe]

I'm pretty sure an Optometrist would know that was BS. Maybe the reason they're staying so silent is they said something along the lines of "next you're going to be blaming the fact he's colorblind" and the next day there's Winkleman on TV spouting it off.

I'm curious if they'll get subpoenaed for the criminal case

They will be called to testify, as will every member of their family, including the son.

But hey - why worry about your living child when dollars are at stake?

 

[mheido67]

The camera number is #327 and the angle of the shot is not from deck 12 and it appears from the top of deck 11, where the cameras are.

The full photo show part of the railing of deck 12 visible.

 

[Montrealaise]

Sorry, don't check here all that often.
My actual thought is that pictures of SA participating in a re-enactment on board ship might have probative value, though more likely for the defense than the plaintiffs, in order to contradict him on something. I was really making more an offhand comment there.

Photographs of the ship are easily admissible to show how the ship looked at the time of photography. Photographs of a man doing something on a ship aren't being introduced to show how the ship looked, and are harder to get into evidence.

I read the pleadings surrounding the motion to dismiss as an argument over whether there are factual disputes that are worth continuing the case to the (time consuming and expensive) discovery phase, including depositions. The plaintiffs are saying that there are facts in dispute (in spite of the photographs and video) that if properly proven will entitle them to recover damages. Royal Caribbean is saying it doesn't matter what else they prove, given the photos/videos, they can't win.

That being said, this battle is plainly not just being fought in the courtroom but in the court of public opinion and whether the main purpose is to get damages or get SA off the hook I am not sure.

From all the comments I have read, here and elsewhere, the family has already lost in the court of public opinion. Some people feel sorry for SA, saying he has already suffered enough for what he did, but I haven't seen a single opinion that the cruise line is somehow at fault.

 

[Wehwalt]

From all the comments I have read, here and elsewhere, the family has already lost in the court of public opinion. Some people feel sorry for SA, saying he has already suffered enough for what he did, but I haven't seen a single opinion that the cruise line is somehow at fault.

Probably so. But maybe they can still get enough people ticked off at RCC to be worth settling with, on social media, among the demographic that gets its information mostly from newsfeeds, and that is inclined to be against corporations given a halfway plausible tale sympathetically presented.

 

[JulieBEMT]

Look how crystal clear this shot is and it’s time stamped so imo it’s a RCC camera.
View attachment 230253

affidavit of expert randall jaques.pdf

So was this photo submitted by Wink's team? The reason I ask is that it looks to me like the part of the photo showing the "wall of windows" has been altered to be black and white. If you look to the left of the pillar, that's clearly in color, and you can see the tint. But, all of the other windows as well as deck 12 are black and white
.

 

[In vino veritas]

Looks like this case is going the distance. Judge did not accept RCL motion to dismiss:
Parents of toddler who died on cruise ship can proceed in suit

 

[neesaki]

Looks like this case is going the distance. Judge did not accept RCL motion to dismiss:
Parents of toddler who died on cruise ship can proceed in suit

The readers comments say it all.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

DBM

 

[mheido67]

So was this photo submitted by Wink's team? The reason I ask is that it looks to me like the part of the photo showing the "wall of windows" has been altered to be black and white. If you look to the left of the pillar, that's clearly in color, and you can see the tint. But, all of the other windows as well as deck 12 are black and white
.

No, this was a photo provided to PR authorities by RCCL that was annotated to detail the movements of CW, KW & SA on deck 11 before she fell. MW included it in his motion as an overview of the deck 11 area.

 

[oviedo]

The camera number is #327 and the angle of the shot is not from deck 12 and it appears from the top of deck 11, where the cameras are.

I've been around serious security systems like RCCL for years - the proprietary software these systems use are like watching HD TV IMO. When all of the video is viewed on their software, IMO there will be no doubt who the people are (witnesses and SA) and what was done in those crucial minutes.
JMO

 

[mheido67]

The readers comments say it all.

Looks like about 99% are against the family's lawsuit. But I do agree with one commenter in particular who noted that American juries love to side with the little guy against big corporations regardless of the merits.

 

[mheido67]

I've been around serious security systems like RCCL for years - the proprietary software these systems use are like watching HD TV IMO. When all of the video is viewed on their software, IMO there will be no doubt who the people are (witnesses and SA) and what was done in those crucial minutes.
JMO

Yes, there is no doubt that the first generation footage will be clearer than the grainy footage available on the internet which looks like it was recorded off of a video screen.