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

[Medstudies]

He would never put her in harm's way?!? Well , just watch the video and face reality.

Okay if they can say “Sam would never..” Hence, drop the charges - can’t we also say “RCL would never” therefore, drop the lawsuit?

 

[In vino veritas]

But they can’t because that would be the end of their money grabbing lawsuit

But they can’t because that would be the end of their money grabbing lawsuit

Exactly my point!! I guess my sarcasm didn’t come through in my post.

 

[katydid23]

Excellent point. He's 11 stories up. He props a toddler up against a window without checking to see if it was closed? And let's just say it was closed, what if it wasn't latched properly and it swung open and she fell? The mere fact you would lift a child OVER a railing, allegedly prop her up, and lean her forward 11 stories up because you "thought" the window was closed, but never checked if it really was closed, or latched properly, or secured, is such an act of wanton stupidity that I question whether this man is mentally impaired. No normal reasonable person would over do what he did, because is at a minimum completely reckless!! And the fact that the parents defend him but at the same time blame the cruise line for his stupidity is outrageous.

On top of that, IF it had been closed, she wouldn't have been able to stand propped up on that ledge. The glass is only inches away from the beginning of the window ledge. She would have either smacked her face into the glass or fallen backwards, if that window was closed.

So it was unsafe either way.

 

[MsMarple]

On top of that, IF it had been closed, she wouldn't have been able to stand propped up on that ledge. The glass is only inches away from the beginning of the window ledge. She would have either smacked her face into the glass or fallen backwards, if that window was closed.

So it was unsafe either way.

That's such a good point and I hope it gets brought up in both trials to highlight SA's recklessness. Nothing SA did shows that he "would never harm Chloe." Nothing. I can't think of one outcome, window closed, window open, that would conclude with Chloe being safe. Bump the window? Injury. Fall to the floor? Injury. Fall to the dock? Death.

 

[JerseySleuth17]

That's such a good point and I hope it gets brought up in both trials to highlight SA's recklessness. Nothing SA did shows that he "would never harm Chloe." Nothing. I can't think of one outcome, window closed, window open, that would conclude with Chloe being safe. Bump the window? Injury. Fall to the floor? Injury. Fall to the dock? Death.

What's even stranger to me is why did he let go at ALL? Ok you thought the window was closed (allegedly). She wanted to bang on the glass. It's 9 inches from the railing to the window approx. Wouldn't you still have a grip on her *no matter what* because she could have slipped and fell through the gap between the railing and the window? I cannot wrap my head around how he (a) had no grip on her and (b) did not have his hands close enough to her to grab her when she started moving forward. You can snap your hands out in a millisecond to grab a toddler if they start to fall. In looking at the video from the back angle, it's literally like he let her go, and she falls forward. And his reaction time isn't even fast enough to reach out and grab her. Every way I analyze this, his actions make no sense, unless he was impaired with medication, drugs or alcohol etc. and both his judgment and his reaction time was off.

 

[Lawnguylander1964]

Was there surveillance footage of the actual crime? I think that's what makes the difference in this case.

Imo

No, there was no video of the actual crime, but they could have reconstructed the fence inside the court room

 

[Cool Cats]

<<respectfully snipped for emphasis>>

I think you nailed it right here. The single thing that’s going to sink his “I thought there was glass defense” is the 34 seconds he had in which to realize that there was no glass!

34 seconds is no negligible amount of time. Winkleman knows this which is why he time-altered the video.

Winkleman time altered the video? Well I saw the video and counted around 30 seconds he was looking out/standing around that obviously opened window. Do you have a link?
I don't doubt you at all, I'm just curious about the video being tampered with.

If a tampered video is shown in court, it will be countered with the real actual footage so stupid move.

 

[Lawnguylander1964]

What's even stranger to me is why did he let go at ALL? Ok you thought the window was closed (allegedly). She wanted to bang on the glass. It's 9 inches from the railing to the window approx. Wouldn't you still have a grip on her *no matter what* because she could have slipped and fell through the gap between the railing and the window? I cannot wrap my head around how he (a) had no grip on her and (b) did not have his hands close enough to her to grab her when she started moving forward. You can snap your hands out in a millisecond to grab a toddler if they start to fall. In looking at the video from the back angle, it's literally like he let her go, and she falls forward. And his reaction time isn't even fast enough to reach out and grab her. Every way I analyze this, his actions make no sense, unless he was impaired with medication, drugs or alcohol etc. and both his judgment and his reaction time was off.

He said he lost his balance.

 

[weepingangel]

If the ship is being refurbished maybe that’s why thEy won’t be able to visit the actual scene. Do you think they’ll be trying to get jurors who have cruising experience ?
What would be defenses reason for not wanting a jury to visit the scene If it was possible to do so ?
Would a similar ship w same configuration of disappearing windows suffice ?

It worries me greatly that the defense is ' rebuilding the scene.' If it is anything like the 'reenactment' it will be pathetic.

I wish they could take the jury on a day trip to the ship instead.

 

[Chikkamma]

Winkleman time altered the video? Well I saw the video and counted around 30 seconds he was looking out/standing around that obviously opened window. Do you have a link?
I don't doubt you at all, I'm just curious about the video being tampered with.

If a tampered video is shown in court, it will be countered with the real actual footage so stupid move.

Yes, it was a very stupid move. Before the video was leaked, Winkelman had gone around to various news outlets showing video of the incident to select journalists, including David Begnaud of CBS.

CBS found out that the video Winkleman showed them was not in real time and made it seem like Chloe fell immediately after SA lifts her over the rail. CBS called Winkleman out on it and his response was that the time discrepancy was “likely due to software issues”.

Video-altering talk starts at 0:40s

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

He said he lost his balance.

He looked pretty steady in the video. IMOO

 

[MsMarple]

Winkleman time altered the video? Well I saw the video and counted around 30 seconds he was looking out/standing around that obviously opened window. Do you have a link?
I don't doubt you at all, I'm just curious about the video being tampered with.

If a tampered video is shown in court, it will be countered with the real actual footage so stupid move.

I don't think Winkleman altered the video. What I think happened is that CCTV records at a lower frames per second rate in order to save file space and some brands require specific software to reformat the captured video. Since MW was only given a copy of the video then the perceived time may change depending on what software was used to view it. You can see in the released videos that people are not walking smoothly like we would see on TV or a movie. That's because the recording captures fewer frames per second.

It's complicated but I believe that's what the "software issue" MW referred to was really about. It's discussed in the ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONVENTIONALLY FILE VIDEO FOOTAGE REFERENCED IN MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION found in the media links. I don't have a direct link, sorry.

4. If granted, RCL will provide the Clerk with a Flash Drive containing five separate files. The first two files contain footage from two cameras and in its original format. To view, the Court will need to download software containing a proprietary video player that RCL is including in the Flash Drive ( upon request, undersigned can also provide a laptop computer with the proprietary software already installed). The second and third files contain the identical footage in higher resolution. The fifth file contains a side-by-side view of the two higher resolution videos.

I could very well be wrong but I do believe it's more about file compression and proprietary software than MW or anyone else intentionally altering the video.

 

[justice4allnow]

From the beginning, from July 9 on, Puerto Rico officials have insisted that Sam "had the girl in his arms and that he appears sticking out" of the window " and dropped her in an act of games". They have never wavered in this. From the family and their reps we have heard several stories:
*Sam lost his balance while holding her. * Chloe lost her balance. * We have heard that Chloe was sitting or standing on the railing when she fell . * Also were told that Chloe was sitting or standing on the window ledge when she fell. * We were told that Sam held her with two hands *and we were told that he held her with one hand. * And we were told that Sam let go for her for a second, no hands (!), and that's when she fell. * We have been told that Chloe asked to be picked up to bang glass and * also told that Sam decided to pick her up without her asking. *We were also told that Sam and Chloe were simply looking at the view.
I am looking forward to the the truth.

 

[they'll get you]

It worries me greatly that the defense is ' rebuilding the scene.' If it is anything like the 'reenactment' it will be pathetic.

I wish they could take the jury on a day trip to the ship instead.

Yes! The exact same window, the exact same ship.
Just hire a bus like all courts do.
The jurors will love the experience.

 

[Chikkamma]

Dbm

 

[they'll get you]

The other case I was thinking of was Colucci in South Carolina. The jury went to the crime scene. There was one data point about the fence and how she was able to squeeze past it vs opening the gate. There was a reenactment, witness testimony and a security video I think from a previous time she squeezed through the fence.

His wife didn’t open the gate, he said, and instead wriggled through a small space between the fence and the building, which a handyman testified she had done many times in the past.

Jurors visit warehouse where Charleston-area jeweler allegedly killed his wife

Recently in Aust we had a jury drive 4 hours by bus into bushland where a child was abducted. All were there including judge and cops.

It’s not hard for the jury to see the same window on the same ship at same dock.
The problem is the jury would want to stay on for the cruise.

 

[Chikkamma]

I don't think Winkleman altered the video. What I think happened is that CCTV records at a lower frames per second rate in order to save file space and some brands require specific software to reformat the captured video. Since MW was only given a copy of the video then the perceived time may change depending on what software was used to view it. You can see in the released videos that people are not walking smoothly like we would see on TV or a movie. That's because the recording captures fewer frames per second.

It's complicated but I believe that's what the "software issue" MW referred to was really about. It's discussed in the ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONVENTIONALLY FILE VIDEO FOOTAGE REFERENCED IN MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION found in the media links. I don't have a direct link, sorry.

4. If granted, RCL will provide the Clerk with a Flash Drive containing five separate files. The first two files contain footage from two cameras and in its original format. To view, the Court will need to download software containing a proprietary video player that RCL is including in the Flash Drive ( upon request, undersigned can also provide a laptop computer with the proprietary software already installed). The second and third files contain the identical footage in higher resolution. The fifth file contains a side-by-side view of the two higher resolution videos.

I could very well be wrong but I do believe it's more about file compression and proprietary software than MW or anyone else intentionally altering the video.

I think you give Winkleman way too much credit. JMOO.

 

[they'll get you]

IMHO The fam wants the truth covered up and for all of this to just go away. But, guess what, most of the cat is out of the bag.

Thank goodness for those cameras.
Since CCTV cameras caught a raping murderer I love having the security of these cameras everywhere.
Nothing to hide, hide nothing.

 

[they'll get you]

He said he lost his balance.

At the very bottom of window pane is a little ledge about 4” high and 4” wide but it would cause loss of balance.

 

[Fidobell]

He would never put her in harm's way?!? Well , just watch the video and face reality.

I cannot believe they could watch the CCTV and STILL back SA . Reckless doesn't even cover his actions leading to the fall . How can C s parents continue to support this man ? SA breached the safety rail , put there to keep passengers safe . Why even blame CL for the actions of SA ?