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

[In vino veritas]

NEW DOCUMENT

I was going to wait till this weekend to check for new filings but... meh. lol. At least it paid off:

PLAINTIFFS’REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE VIDEO FOOTAGE CONVENTIONALLY FILED AND REFERENCED IN DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Filed 2/3/20

Plaintiff support to strike video.pdf

Five pages. Boy does this one have me ready to bang my head on the desk.

From page 2:

"First, Plaintiffs do not object to the procedural manner in which the videos were filed (which is what Royal Caribbean’s motion to conventionally file the videos was directedat); rather, Plaintiffs object to the substance of the videos."

Translation: We didn't mind them filing the videos. We just didn't want them filing THOSE videos because they make us look bad.

Bottom of 2 into top of 3:

"1Among the parties’ agreement regarding the vessel inspection was that Royal Caribbean would provide videos of the incident before the inspection; and the manner in which Royal Caribbean provided those videos is by serving Plaintiffs’ undersigned counsel with a copy of the videos conventionally filed. In other words, Plaintiffs agreed to Royal Caribbean’s motion in order to obtain a copy of the videos they needed for the vessel inspection."

Translation: We only agreed to the filing so that we could get our hands on a copy of the video. Now that we have it we want it stricken from the record.

Like, fecking seriously? You try to claim they're being deceitful but admit you agreed just because you wanted the tapes and now that you have them no one else should be allowed to see them?



God I hope so. Maybe Winkleman will realize no one is picking up what he's putting down.

This response by the Plaintiffs truly boggles the mind. HOW in Gods name can MW make these claims after HE provided an “abridged” copy to media outlets? Apparently the video was perfectly acceptable to use for his “spin”. Now that the expanded version has been made known, it’s content is no longer valid???.... because it no longer supports the plaintiffs lawsuit!!!

I have to believe the judges assessing all these motions and responses have above average intellect and will soon dismiss this case, thereby saving court time and taxpayer dollars.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

Mom hired Winkleman very quickly indeed. Can’t help but wonder if this was this the first time the Wiegands tried to sue a cruise line?

They seem to have had Winkleman, cruise line ambulance chaser, on speed dial.

Gee, ummm...ALMOST kind of maybe like this was scheduled to happen? IMOO, JMOO, IMHO.

 

[Kindred]

Mom hired Winkleman very quickly indeed. Can’t help but wonder if this was this the first time the Wiegands tried to sue a cruise line?

They seem to have had Winkleman, cruise line ambulance chaser, on speed dial.

I apologize for being vague because this might border on TOS, but there was at least one other civil lawsuit involving one of the parents as a defendant. It doesn't appear to have any bearings on this so I'm not going to post anything from it, but I'll just say this is not their first civil court rodeo.

 

[Montrealaise]

NEW DOCUMENT

I was going to wait till this weekend to check for new filings but... meh. lol. At least it paid off:

PLAINTIFFS’REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE VIDEO FOOTAGE CONVENTIONALLY FILED AND REFERENCED IN DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Filed 2/3/20

Plaintiff support to strike video.pdf

Five pages. Boy does this one have me ready to bang my head on the desk.

From page 2:

"First, Plaintiffs do not object to the procedural manner in which the videos were filed (which is what Royal Caribbean’s motion to conventionally file the videos was directedat); rather, Plaintiffs object to the substance of the videos."

Translation: We didn't mind them filing the videos. We just didn't want them filing THOSE videos because they make us look bad.

Bottom of 2 into top of 3:

"1Among the parties’ agreement regarding the vessel inspection was that Royal Caribbean would provide videos of the incident before the inspection; and the manner in which Royal Caribbean provided those videos is by serving Plaintiffs’ undersigned counsel with a copy of the videos conventionally filed. In other words, Plaintiffs agreed to Royal Caribbean’s motion in order to obtain a copy of the videos they needed for the vessel inspection."

Translation: We only agreed to the filing so that we could get our hands on a copy of the video. Now that we have it we want it stricken from the record.

Like, fecking seriously? You try to claim they're being deceitful but admit you agreed just because you wanted the tapes and now that you have them no one else should be allowed to see them?



God I hope so. Maybe Winkleman will realize no one is picking up what he's putting down.

Those videos as devastating to their case and they know it. As I've mentioned before, you cannot move to exclude or strike evidence on the ground that it's not favorable to you. Doesn't work that way.

 

[Safetybug]

Those videos as devastating to their case and they know it. As I've mentioned before, you cannot move to exclude or strike evidence on the ground that it's not favorable to you. Doesn't work that way.

Strange how feverishly adamant the parents are about a striking a video they have adamantly declined to have ever even viewed. Why the kerfuffle?! Oh, yeah... seems SOMEBODY really did see TOO MUCH evidence. Can’t a have cafeteria-style lawsuit. But hey ~ the parents seem well acquainted with the slippery loopholes associated with their professions. IMO.

 

[Chikkamma]

I apologize for being vague because this might border on TOS, but there was at least one other civil lawsuit involving one of the parents as a defendant. It doesn't appear to have any bearings on this so I'm not going to post anything from it, but I'll just say this is not their first civil court rodeo.

Was the parent the defendant or plaintiff in the civil suit alluded to?

 

[mheido67]

MW has now filed a motion to compel RCCL to produce any and all video footage AND filed a motion to strike the video footage that RCCL has submitted.

MW was showing the very same video footage that RCCL provided to him pre-suit to select members of the media when he knew he could control the narrative around what the video showed. This may have also extended to altering the video to show a compressed timeframe. Something RCCL has alluded to in their most recent filings. Now that the full video is in the public domain and clearly shows that SA was in front of the open window for almost a minute they are labelling that same video deceptive and questioning its authenticity. Sounds like someone is flailing.

 

[Wicked Strong]

NEW DOCUMENT

I was going to wait till this weekend to check for new filings but... meh. lol. At least it paid off:

PLAINTIFFS’REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE VIDEO FOOTAGE CONVENTIONALLY FILED AND REFERENCED IN DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Filed 2/3/20

Plaintiff support to strike video.pdf

Five pages. Boy does this one have me ready to bang my head on the desk.

From page 2:

"First, Plaintiffs do not object to the procedural manner in which the videos were filed (which is what Royal Caribbean’s motion to conventionally file the videos was directedat); rather, Plaintiffs object to the substance of the videos."

Translation: We didn't mind them filing the videos. We just didn't want them filing THOSE videos because they make us look bad.

Bottom of 2 into top of 3:

"1Among the parties’ agreement regarding the vessel inspection was that Royal Caribbean would provide videos of the incident before the inspection; and the manner in which Royal Caribbean provided those videos is by serving Plaintiffs’ undersigned counsel with a copy of the videos conventionally filed. In other words, Plaintiffs agreed to Royal Caribbean’s motion in order to obtain a copy of the videos they needed for the vessel inspection."

Translation: We only agreed to the filing so that we could get our hands on a copy of the video. Now that we have it we want it stricken from the record.

Like, fecking seriously? You try to claim they're being deceitful but admit you agreed just because you wanted the tapes and now that you have them no one else should be allowed to see them?



God I hope so. Maybe Winkleman will realize no one is picking up what he's putting down.

I have to remind myself that this is only the lawsuit case, not the PR criminal case against SA. I would expect the same videos to be used as evidence in the criminal case. I don't believe the prosecutors in the criminal case would want part of their evidence not allowed because of MW and the civil lawsuit.

MOO

 

[Blondie in Spokane]

Kindred - thank u for the documents u share with us.....u are a sweetheart. Oh, and I so appreciate your translations too!

 

[BeachSky]

Wow...and so if the judge throws out suit against Cruise line...said person can go on talk show circuit/write book etc. I guess.
It will be interesting to see what has become the end goal. Because even on current cruise line commercials families are seen standing by open railings...no windows at all! ...and children are not flying off the ship!


MOO

 

[WiseGuy]

I have to remind myself that this is only the lawsuit case, not the PR criminal case against SA. I would expect the same videos to be used as evidence in the criminal case. I don't believe the prosecutors in the criminal case would want part of their evidence not allowed because of MW and the civil lawsuit.

MOO

Right. SA's lawyer in the criminal case, Mr. Ortiz, seems to be as quiet as MW is loud. I wonder if Mr. Ortiz will try to suppress the video. You'd think that if the video is successfully entered into evidence in the criminal trial that it must be admissible in the civil trial. Anyone know if documents for the criminal trial are available to the public as the civil documents are? We all are curious to learn more about the witnesses, were any fingerprint found around the window, etc. The more I see of MW's filings, the more he appears to be the big bad wolf huffing and puffing trying to blown down a brick house. Yes, I would describe MW as cartoonish. But as I've said before, I don't think he has any other choice with this looser of a case.

 

[SugarPlumLairy]

Omg, thank you so much Kindred.
Admittedly I think I fractured my jaw when it dropped so hard, and my left eye is terribly sprained from rolling in my head so hard.

I just can’t fathom HOW they think these are reasonable filings. Dismiss the very same videos they had loooooong before the ship inspection. Unbelievable.

 

[mheido67]

“ The more I see of MW's filings, the more he appears to be the big bad wolf huffing and puffing trying to blown down a brick house.”

He has stated numerous times in the recent filings that RCCL is handling this in an out of the ordinary manner and that these suits are typically resolved quietly ( ie. settled out of court) He wants his payday. He never took this case wanting it to go to trial. That much is clear from his own words.

His case hinges on one thing and one thing alone, the idea that SA believed he was standing in front of a closed window. If you don’t believe that there is no “hidden danger” just a man knowingly placing a child in a dangerous situation with a tragic result. The video evidence really makes “he thought there was glass” a tough sell to most people. It’s beyond credulity to think that he could have stood there for upwards of a minute inches from the open window and not have observed that it was indeed open.

MW is fighting a very uphill battle at this point. And his attempt to shift the narrative to deceptive video and impossible claims by RCCL is about the only card he has available to play. SA’s head did not need to be demonstrably outside the window for a reasonable person to conclude that he should have known that there was no glass in front of his face.

 

[Kindred]

Was the parent the defendant or plaintiff in the civil suit alluded to?

Defendant. They were the one being sued.

You'd think that if the video is successfully entered into evidence in the criminal trial that it must be admissible in the civil trial. Anyone know if documents for the criminal trial are available to the public as the civil documents are? We all are curious to learn more about the witnesses, were any fingerprint found around the window, etc. The more I see of MW's filings, the more he appears to be the big bad wolf huffing and puffing trying to blown down a brick house. Yes, I would describe MW as cartoonish. But as I've said before, I don't think he has any other choice with this looser of a case.

Snipped and BBM

You can find the docket online however I don't speak Spanish so I'm dealing with a language barrier trying to navigate the site too much, but I don't think you can actually download any documents at this stage. Depending on what phase of criminal procedure they are in, most actual stuff isn't available to the general public until there's been a verdict to protect the integrity of the case/witnesses/etc. Appellate stuff you can find easy and download pretty much anything but otherwise, both sides want their cards pretty close to their chests.

 

[Kindred]

For those curious, or possibly able to translate to see if there's anything interesting, you can find the criminal docket here at this website:

Portal de la Rama Judicial

Case #KVI2019M0003

The pages will look like this:

 

[Medstudies]

Things that make me go hmmmm.

First: the mycase filing of the wrongful death claim so soon after the accident.

and then stumbling on this article: Baby who died on cruise ship had local ties

...”Local grandparents are Dr. Thomas and Maryann Wiegand. Other family members also live in Angola.”

one guess as to what he is a doctor of...

 

[loveandhugs]

Things that make me go hmmmm.

First: the mycase filing of the wrongful death claim so soon after the accident.

and then stumbling on this article: Baby who died on cruise ship had local ties

...”Local grandparents are Dr. Thomas and Maryann Wiegand. Other family members also live in Angola.”

one guess as to what he is a doctor of...

Wow interesting that he is an eye doctor.

 

[neesaki]

Things that make me go hmmmm.

First: the mycase filing of the wrongful death claim so soon after the accident.

and then stumbling on this article: Baby who died on cruise ship had local ties

...”Local grandparents are Dr. Thomas and Maryann Wiegand. Other family members also live in Angola.”

one guess as to what he is a doctor of...

Well I'll be.... can't believe I missed that before .

 

[al66pine]

Cruisers: Acknowledging Guest Conduct Policies?

So not every adult boarding the ship needs to sign the guest policies? Seems silly to have just one person in a 7 passenger group sign that they read it and agree. JMO

@katydid23 Agreeing w ^. Sorry to circle back to a topic from yesterday in midst of lively discussion about new motion. Gotta go read it. Nevertheless, barging right in. ---
Why not email ea adult pax to request/require sign to ack GCPolicy? Possibilities:
--- Some pax do not have email.
--- Some pax would not respond, either neglecting/forgetting to sign or refusing to sign.
--- Too much admin hassle for RCL to acquire email address for ea adult pax.
--- Process of securing pax ack'mt at dock pre-board would ruin the guest experience.
--- Pax inclined to ignore GCP w/sign to ack receipt, then some w/ignore GCP, get injured, and sue.
--- RCL experience in litigation shows that pax ack'mt of GCP is not given any/much legal significance.
--- Or???
Cruisers: What has your experience been? One person handles for all in party, w cruise line making no pre-cruise contact w other pax? (I know a couple ppl have posted to this effect.) Or?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Historic: Went on cruise in a party of five ~25 yrs ago when hard copy & snail mail prevailed for booking. Back then from cruise line/corp administrative standpoint, it was easier & cheaper for corp to deal w one person in a group (re payment, booking dates, passport info, dining/seating pref's, etc) rather than five ppl, esp w five different mailing addresses.
Current: From corp admin. angle, handling ^ by email seems soooo much easier than the headache inducing hard copy.
Seems that it would not be terribly difficult for cruise lines to email some pre-cruise communications w each of their adult passengers to secure acknowledgement of & agreement w GCP. Seems cruise lines would want to snag those email addresses for other reasons as well: conducting customer post-cruise satisfaction/experience surveys, for loyalty/affinity clubs, and other post-cruise marketing, special offers. Pretty sure this ^ and more has crossed corp minds. But seems RCL doesn't require ea adult pax to ack GCP pre-cruise.

 

[HRH Phoebe Cat]

*snipped by me for emphasis and space*

I have to believe the judges assessing all these motions and responses have above average intellect and will soon dismiss this case, thereby saving court time and taxpayer dollars.

Am I terrible for actually wanting this to go to trial? I want to know what was really going on for little Chloe to die as she did. I hope and pray RCCL is quietly investigating the parents and grandparents until they know how much lint they have in their belly buttons and absolutely nukes this family if that is what it takes for the real truth to be revealed.