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

[SaguaroSpirit]

Revisiting the December 19 CNN.com article I stop and ponder this quote from KW: "Our family has already lost everything; what purpose could possibly be served by prosecuting a misdemeanor offense?" (bbm).

The word choice, the tone, really strike me. As if to say, "Killing Chloe is such a minor offense, why bother prosecuting her killer?" This is Chloe's mother for God's sakes, and she dismisses Chloe's life so callously. Did they love Chloe at all??? That poor child, I have to wonder what her home life was really like. RIP little girl.

IMO there is a lot more to this story. I just hope it comes out into the light.

 

[al66pine]

....Re probate lawyer, my guess would be his firm was selected by MW, who needed the probate proceeding properly filed in order to start his case. MW is not going to want to wait while grief stricken parents interview courthouse lawyers in South Bend.

@Wehwalt sbm Thank you for bringing the benefit of your experience to the thread. Again.

 

[Safetybug]

Revisiting the December 19 CNN.com article I stop and ponder this quote from KW: "Our family has already lost everything; what purpose could possibly be served by prosecuting a misdemeanor offense?" (bbm).

The word choice, the tone, really strike me. As if to say, "Killing Chloe is such a minor offense, why bother prosecuting her killer?" This is Chloe's mother for God's sakes, and she dismisses Chloe's life so callously. Did they love Chloe at all??? That poor child, I have to wonder what her home life was really like. RIP little girl.

The parents, being LE & lawyer, knew darn well that once VIDEO came to light SA’s goose was cooked with the public sentiment hence their fast-track to sue RCCL. Their tragic loss should be about justice for CW not absolution for SA. From the earliest reports out of PR the prosecutor on the scene wanted to pursue MURDER charges based on eye witnesses plus the video evidence. This was clearly NO FREAK ACCIDENT. The shift to a misdemeanor charge was mainly because it is easier to prove negligent homicide. As another poster wrote the family should be an “inconsolable pile of mush” - not money grabbers. If they’re sticking to the colorblind/elderly malarkey then the parents should have some culpability for leaving their toddler in his care. IMO.

 

[drama_farmer]

Revisiting the December 19 CNN.com article I stop and ponder this quote from KW: "Our family has already lost everything; what purpose could possibly be served by prosecuting a misdemeanor offense?" (bbm).

The word choice, the tone, really strike me. As if to say, "Killing Chloe is such a minor offense, why bother prosecuting her killer?" This is Chloe's mother for God's sakes, and she dismisses Chloe's life so callously. Did they love Chloe at all??? That poor child, I have to wonder what her home life was really like. RIP little girl.

bbm
Considering that the parents are involved in "law" as a law enforcement officer and attorney, I find that statement very ironic. I wonder how it would fly in a courtroom, if a suspect/defendant in a criminal matter asked the same rhetorical question. One good answer: It's in the interest of justice. IMO

 

[al66pine]

Jaques' Expert Witness Testimony, Excluded in Slip & Fall Case.
After a pax slip & fall in her cabin, w alleged resultant back injuries, Jaques was hired by pax's atty as an expert to determine: 1) the cause of the fall; 2) whether the bath mat was folded in compliance with cruise line policies, and 3) whether the towel was a hazard for passengers.

Cruise line/Defendant argued---
--- his testing was unscientific and unreliable test of the slippery nature of the bath mat on the floor by pushing a towel around with his hand.
--- his expert testimony has been excluded by other courts because of his lack of qualifications, unreliable methodologies, and unhelpful conclusions.
Def argued re his qualifications---
--- no bachelors or advanced degree in any field.
--- his personal background in law enforcement has no bearing on the facts of this case,
--- no experience on slip resistance testing, shipboard housekeeping policies, or the supervision of housekeeping employees, and
---no experience in biomechanics, human factors, or ergonomics.

The court granted the defendant’s motion to exclude.

^ from 2018 Admiralty & Maritime Expert Witness Not Allowed

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

Of course they don't want SA prosecuted.
Then that puts their lawsuit in jeopardy.
The parents will stop at nothing to get their money.
Makes you wonder if something far more sinister was happening ?

BBM Sure looks that way.

 

[JerseySleuth17]

IMO there is a lot more to this story. I just hope it comes out into the light.

I AGREE!! Even the wording of her comment is odd... not "he's suffered more than anyone could know, he is shattered, blah blah blah" - who refers to their daughter's death as a "misdemeanor". Wrong on so many levels.

 

[neesaki]

Revisiting the December 19 CNN.com article I stop and ponder this quote from KW: "Our family has already lost everything; what purpose could possibly be served by prosecuting a misdemeanor offense?" (bbm).

The word choice, the tone, really strike me. As if to say, "Killing Chloe is such a minor offense, why bother prosecuting her killer?" This is Chloe's mother for God's sakes, and she dismisses Chloe's life so callously. Did they love Chloe at all??? That poor child, I have to wonder what her home life was really like. RIP little girl.

ITA. I wonder what KW's response would have been if a defendant's family member made that statement on a case she was prosecuting. Something along the lines of, 'whatever you say, charges dropped'. Yeah, right. Talk about hypocritical. SMH

 

[JulieBEMT]

When the tragedy first happened, there were a few people, including Winkleman, who speculated that Sam had only been charged because Puerto Rico was acquiescing to RCCL's wishes, in an effort to keep their business. Well RCCL has announced that they are relocating the base port of the Freedom of The Seas to Bermuda, which represents estimated losses of $ 13.5 million for the Island. Clearly there was no underhanded deal going on between RCCL and PR. There are a great number of fallacious statements that Winkleman has made over the months.

This information comes from El Vocera, a newspaper in PR: In November of last year, the executive director of the Authority for Public Private Partnerships, Fermín Fontanéz, warned that Royal Caribbean would cancel stops of its cruises on the island for the 2020-2021 season. This came after the president of the company, Michael Bayley, expressed his dissatisfaction with the management and "the little importance" that the government lent to the negotiations for the privatization of the San Juan docks."I don't think the decision was related to earthquakes or past demonstrations. In December the president of the company made it clear that he was upset with the government and then there were meetings with the government that nothing is known about. It's a business decision, "said the expert.

I hope that someone sues Winkleman for what may be libelous statements or that he is sanctioned by the Bar. He seems to just say whatever he wants. At worst, it's irresponsible but it could be illegal to spread deliberate misinformation. If not illegal, some of what he says has the appearance of being unethical.

I'm afraid you got misinformation. Freedom is briefly being home ported out of New Jersey in the summer of 2021 for sailings to Bermuda and Canada, but will then return to her home port in San Juan at least through April of 2022, which is as far out as RCCL's schedule currently runs.

 

[mheido67]

This civil suit is going to come down to whether RCCL can show through the video evidence that SA should reasonably have known the window was open. I'm not convinced the video will show his head conclusively breaking the plane of the glass unless the first gen video files or enhanced resolution files are much much clearer than what is currently in the public domain. The side view doesn't show his head and establishing it from the back view will be difficult. It will be interesting to see if clearer video shows that he spent significant time looking at the opening as opposed to down at the floor or at CW while he was holding her. Will also be interesting to see clearly how he was holding her and whether it looks like he was reaching out with his right hand. I don't believe MW will be able to establish that the windows posed a known risk. But if jurors believe SA thought the glass existed they may decide that the design of the windows did create a hidden danger and rule against RCCL. Let me just add that regardless of the outcome I personally believe sole responsibility lies with SA. If he thought there was glass it's because he was careless, not becuse of any flaw with the ship design.

 

[justice4allnow]

I'm afraid you got misinformation. Freedom is briefly being home ported out of New Jersey in the summer of 2021 for sailings to Bermuda and Canada, but will then return to her home port in San Juan at least through April of 2022, which is as far out as RCCL's schedule currently runs.

This is the newspaper article from which I quoted with the info about Freedom and RCCL: Royal Caribbean reduce operaciones en la Isla

 

[neesaki]

This civil suit is going to come down to whether RCCL can show through the video evidence that SA should reasonably have known the window was open. I'm not convinced the video will show his head conclusively breaking the plane of the glass unless the first gen video files or enhanced resolution files are much much clearer than what is currently in the public domain. The side view doesn't show his head and establishing it from the back view will be difficult. It will be interesting to see if clearer video shows that he spent significant time looking at the opening as opposed to down at the floor or at CW while he was holding her. Will also be interesting to see clearly how he was holding her and whether it looks like he was reaching out with his right hand. I don't believe MW will be able to establish that the windows posed a known risk. But if jurors believe SA thought the glass existed they may decide that the design of the windows did create a hidden danger and rule against RCCL. Let me just add that regardless of the outcome I personally believe sole responsibility lies with SA. If he thought there was glass it's because he was careless, not becuse of any flaw with the ship design.

I see what you’re saying, but I think even if they claim the video isn’t solid proof with regard to being able to actually see his head in relation to the opening, it can be proven he knew there was no glass.
IMO, it could be done with a re enactment that is truly scientifically accurate.... unlike the one by the attorney.

SAs body position is quite obvious in the video, i.e., he’s bent over at the waist to the point his upper body is almost, not quite, parallel to the floor. They could surely measure the angle .... and then actually using a man of SAs size... height and weight and then using exact body position, it seems to me it could be done. Or, how about using SA himself?

Then again, there were all the people who ran over after the tragedy who were leaning there heads out the windows with no difficulty at all. Not to mention eye witnesses , bartenders were right there, possibly other? Shouldn’t need a recreation, but just MOO.

 

[Wehwalt]

If I'm correct, what SA is being charged with carries a maximum sentence of three years. It seems odd to call that a misdemeanor. While I think some states have varied a bit on this in recent years, one year is the traditional (common law) line between felony and misdemeanor.

Some laws do not rely on whether a state happens to call something a felony or a misdemeanor or something else, but go by how long the maximum sentence is.

I would be curious to know which of his current activities SA would be unable to participate in if he was convicted of a felony. He wouldn't be allowed to possess a gun, for one thing. No idea if he presently does.

 

[justice4allnow]

Here is the translation of the El Vocero article dated Feb 7, 2020. It's really nothing that important, I only posted it to show the RCCL wasn't likely pressuring the courts in any way on this case. I look at this newspaper from time-to-time to read the comments of people there about the case and to see what the paper reports about ongoing court actions. Some of their articles are in our Media timeline. This was the paper that reported from the beginning that Sam held her outside the window and lost his grip.

Royal Caribbean reduce operaciones en la Isla

Another hit for local tourism.

The Royal Caribbean cruise company relocated the base port of the Freedom of The Seas ship to Bermuda after several years of being in Puerto Rico, which represents estimated losses of $ 13.5 million for the Island.

"Royal Caribbean has the Freedom of The Seas a whole year leaving from Puerto Rico. Before this, there was the Adventure of The Seas. It has been many years with the presence of a base port on the Island that will change from May 2, 2021 "said Daphne Barbeito, owner of Cruises to Go.


Barbeito explained that the company will continue to operate on the Island for seasons and not throughout the year. "This is the first time in decades that this happens. The ship will be relocated to Bermuda until November 2021 and Puerto Rico will remain, until now, without a ship leaving and entering the entire year," he said.

As he discussed, the 27 departures that will not be made from Puerto Rico have an impact of $ 13.5 million on the spending of passengers who will not enter the local economy. "To this is added the expense of the crew and that of when the ship is supplied in Puerto Rico," Barbeito added.

In November of last year, the executive director of the Authority for Public Private Partnerships, Fermín Fontanéz, warned that Royal Caribbean would cancel stops of its cruises on the island for the 2020-2021 season.


This came after the president of the company, Michael Bayley, expressed his dissatisfaction with the management and "the little importance" that the government lent to the negotiations for the privatization of the San Juan docks.

"I don't think the decision was related to earthquakes or past demonstrations. In December the president of the company made it clear that he was upset with the government and then there were meetings with the government that nothing is known about. It's a business decision, "said the expert.

EL VOCERO requested a reaction from the Tourism Company.

 

[they'll get you]

I find it hard to grasp the theory there was a planned murder.

Then The statistics out of the millions of people who cruise every year there has to be one. Just one.
And that’s a high probability.

 

[they'll get you]

Revisiting the December 19 CNN.com article I stop and ponder this quote from KW: "Our family has already lost everything; what purpose could possibly be served by prosecuting a misdemeanor offense?" (bbm).

The word choice, the tone, really strike me. As if to say, "Killing Chloe is such a minor offense, why bother prosecuting her killer?" This is Chloe's mother for God's sakes, and she dismisses Chloe's life so callously. Did they love Chloe at all??? That poor child, I have to wonder what her home life was really like. RIP little girl.

It’s not going to plan for them.

Dammit.
There’s cctv which lead gramps to get arrested and then RCC comes back fighting.
What!? That was NOT on the plan.

 

[Lawnguylander1964]

.

 

[they'll get you]

If it was planned then why there, at port in front of all those witnesses.

Why not at sea from a private balcony where no body would be found, far away from LE and and cameras.

Or was it those windows, cameras and witnesses they needed.

It’s still hard to understand it would be staged but statically its a high possibility.

 

[katydid23]

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.

Maybe he gave them the idea. And he will help them get an 'expert' to sell it to the jury.

 

[justice4allnow]

If it was planned then why there, at port in front of all those witnesses.

Why not at sea from a private balcony where no body would be found, far away from LE and and cameras.

Or was it those windows, cameras and witnesses they needed.

It’s still hard to understand it would be staged but statically its a high possibility.

I may be wrong, but from what I understand if an incident happens in port they can claim unlimited damages, whereas if it happens at sea, there are very strict caps on the payout.