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

[they'll get you]

The selfie theory (from the snap shot of the comment above) is interesting. Do they have his phone and was there a photo on it?

On the side-on vid before he reaches the window he holds somthing up to his face. Some suggested a cigarette but it could be his cell phone. Was his cell in his right hand to make his elbow move backward to take the photo.
Did he save his cell and dropped Chloe instead.

 

[katydid23]

On the side-on vid before he reaches the window he holds somthing up to his face. Some suggested a cigarette but it could be his cell phone. Was his cell in his right hand to make his elbow move backward to take the photo.
Did he save his cell and dropped Chloe instead.

If he dropped her cuz he was taking a selfie......my head will explode...

 

[JerseySleuth17]

Sort of OT, but related to how these people are covering for SA. Several years ago my narcissist mother twice "accidentally" left the garage door open when I was staying at her house with my dogs. And both times one of my dogs nearly escaped, and probably would've been a pancake on the nearby highway if I hadn't caught him in time. After the second "accident", I immediately packed up and headed for home. I told her if he'd been hit by a car or permanently lost I would never forgive her and would never speak to her again. Her response: "Even if it was an accident?" WTF??? SMH Some people's brains just aren't wired normally and they have no empathy. I shudder to think what she could've done if I'd ever had children.

I would have done the same thing! Those weren't "accidents", and whatever your mother's motivation you did the right thing protecting your dogs from her. Because you are responsible, can recognize passive-aggressive behavior dangerous to your loved ones, and took steps to protect them from her actions. If you were CW's parents, and something happened to your dogs, you'd be suing the garage door company for not having a sensor alarm to warn you if your dogs went outside!

 

[JerseySleuth17]

One of my thoughts is that he probably had a bottle of booze in his stateroom-had a few-tried to act like a show off Grandpa, and dropped her. If you weren't drinking, then you would certainly be ok with a blood test for alcohol level. Perhaps made foggier yet by taking something like Ativan, Valium, anti depressants, etc.

In some ways I am hoping that is what happened. Otherwise I fear that either for monetary gain, or perhaps the Grandpa thinking that the child was somehow not normal, or an embarrassment-did this awful action on purpose.

I personally think he was impaired somehow, possibly with prescription medication, possibly a combination of alcohol/medication, and his judgment was off. I think the family knew this and that is why he refused a breathalyzer. If you have nothing to hide, why not agree to one just to clear the record that this was in any way your fault? I wish someone interviewing him would have asked him that question, seems like it could have cleared a few things up.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

We NEED to see the authoritative source for these reports! Can anyone provide links?

I’ve seen a couple passing references to a dock worker, and to an employee on the 11 th deck. Both of whom supposedly saw AW actually holding Chloe through the open window frame. IMO this is a huge deal, could be more convincing than the video. Why does it seem to go unnoticed?

Would LOVE to learn more about who these eyewitnesses are, and what they would testify to.

Can anyone provide more details?

Those of us who have been here since last July when the case made headlines are recalling details from the earliest media coverage of Chloe's tragic death. I've looked for articles that had certain information but cannot find them. Many of the early news reports included details of the incident before MW started his campaign against RCCL. The narrative shifted when the family made it known that they were going to sue the cruise line that was to blame for their little girl's death.

 

[mheido67]

On the side-on vid before he reaches the window he holds somthing up to his face. Some suggested a cigarette but it could be his cell phone. Was his cell in his right hand to make his elbow move backward to take the photo.
Did he save his cell and dropped Chloe instead.

To me it looks like he was either adjusting his glasses or removing them. Difficult to tell with the low video quality. Have not heard any comments from him about removing his glasses so I think he likely just adjusted them on his face. If he did remove them, even momentarily, that would seem to go in RCCL's favor, no?

 

[mheido67]

Those of us who have been here since last July when the case made headlines are recalling details from the earliest media coverage of Chloe's tragic death. I've looked for articles that had certain information but cannot find them. Many of the early news reports included details of the incident before MW started his campaign against RCCL. The narrative shifted when the family made it known that they were going to sue the cruise line that was to blame for their little girl's death.

I think part of the problem is that early reporting in cases like this proves to be inaccurate. Someone speaks to someone with second hand information, the details aren't clear, they heard something in passing that they assumed was from a good source, etc. I'd imagine many of the early online stories get edited or removed as information gets called into question. Look at the Kobe Bryant reporting. First it was 5 people, someone reported all his kids were onboard, then it turns out there were 9 people and only one of his kids onboard. I even heard speculation that Kobe might have been the pilot very early on.

 

[In vino veritas]

My thoughts on that were conflicted, at first. As this has progressed, my hackles are up and I’m not as conflicted. I could see how they, acting in an LE or lawyer capacity would tell him no. I kind of get that, I’m in LE, so I see why they would. But, for the life of me, I can’t figure out why they are protecting the man that killed their daughter. For the record if my child died at the hands of a man who put her in grave danger and it resulted in her death, I would not be defending them all over the media.

This is my rub though. If I trusted someone in my family and this happened, you bet your butt I would be demanding a test. Not because I thought they were guilty, but to prove he was a trusted and safe human to watch my child. That I would not leave my child in the hands of someone who was impaired or incapable of watching my child and making solid safe decisions. So that’s the question. Did these people knowingly leave their child with someone that is dangerous. I think we have established he is dangerous, but was their purpose for advising him to deny any testing because they actually know he could have been impaired? Is this their way to avoid reality or face their own possible negligence? Hmm

The Wiegands are defending SA so aggressively, IMO, because if they do not, they do not a basis for a negligence lawsuit

My thoughts on that were conflicted, at first. As this has progressed, my hackles are up and I’m not as conflicted. I could see how they, acting in an LE or lawyer capacity would tell him no. I kind of get that, I’m in LE, so I see why they would. But, for the life of me, I can’t figure out why they are protecting the man that killed their daughter. For the record if my child died at the hands of a man who put her in grave danger and it resulted in her death, I would not be defending them all over the media.

This is my rub though. If I trusted someone in my family and this happened, you bet your butt I would be demanding a test. Not because I thought they were guilty, but to prove he was a trusted and safe human to watch my child. That I would not leave my child in the hands of someone who was impaired or incapable of watching my child and making solid safe decisions. So that’s the question. Did these people knowingly leave their child with someone that is dangerous. I think we have established he is dangerous, but was their purpose for advising him to deny any testing because they actually know he could have been impaired? Is this their way to avoid reality or face their own possible negligence? Hmm

The selfie theory (from the snap shot of the comment above) is interesting. Do they have his phone and was there a photo on it?

IMO, I seriously doubt there is any validity to the selfie story. I’ve viewed the cctv video numerous times and it does not look like he was holding a cell phone, nor reaching in his pocket for one once he placed Chloe on the railing/ ledge.

 

[In vino veritas]

I think part of the problem is that early reporting in cases like this proves to be inaccurate. Someone speaks to someone with second hand information, the details aren't clear, they heard something in passing that they assumed was from a good source, etc. I'd imagine many of the early online stories get edited or removed as information gets called into question. Look at the Kobe Bryant reporting. First it was 5 people, someone reported all his kids were onboard, then it turns out there were 9 people and only one of his kids onboard. I even heard speculation that Kobe might have been the pilot very early on.

When the reports of Chloe’s death first started appearing, I recall an article stating that SA had been leaning out the window with Chloe in order to view small, incoming planes.

That article is nowhere to be found now.

 

[In vino veritas]

I'm so many pages behind so please forgive me if my comments have already been addressed.

Honestly, I don't see how SA being (allegedly) color blind could keep him from distinguishing between an open window and a closed window. And color blindness is generally diagnosed by opthamologists, not optometrists.

How Color Blindness Is Tested From the link:

• Red/green color blindness, the most common type, is congenital or inherited. It’s far more common in males than females, but still very rare. It affects 5 to 8 percent of males, and 0.5 percent of females. For people with red/green color blindness, reds and greens look similar to each other as a kind of brownish, muted tone. There is also a blue/yellow type of color blindness, but it's even more rare.
• A second, and less common, kind of color blindness is acquired, or related to an eye disease or condition. Retinal or optic nerve disorders are most likely to cause this kind of color blindness. In these cases, symptoms such as overall failing vision or persistent dark or white spots may be noticed first. An ophthalmologist may test for color blindness to help diagnose the problem. The doctor may start with an Ishihara screening test and, if that’s positive, move to more sophisticated testing.

Even if he has the more rare version where you can't distinguish between blue and yellow, I don't see how that helps him.

IMO the only affliction he seems to suffer from is stupidity.

I also give a side-eye to the parents' claim that they can't grieve CW's death until the lawsuit is settled. Obviously if they win the civil suit, the cruise line will appeal any judgement. So this could go on for a loooooooonnnnnnnng time.

The thing that worries me about the civil suit is that it was filed in Florida IIRC. I don't have much faith in Florida juries to use any common sense, but maybe because it's filed in federal court it will be a different jury pool. I think MW is aiming to taint any prospective jurists.

Rest in peace little CW. Justice is coming.
:rose:

Actually, KW said they can’t properly grieve for Chloe until the negligent homicide charges are dropped. Apparently they’d be able to grieve just fine pursuing the civil lawsuit once the impediment of the criminal case was removed.
The unbelievable gall of this family......

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

To me it looks like he was either adjusting his glasses or removing them. Difficult to tell with the low video quality. Have not heard any comments from him about removing his glasses so I think he likely just adjusted them on his face. If he did remove them, even momentarily, that would seem to go in RCCL's favor, no?

SA had been out in the sun on the hot open deck of the ship and probably had to wipe perspiration off his face to keep his glasses from sliding off his nose.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Actually, KW said they can’t properly grieve for Chloe until the negligent homicide charges are dropped. Apparently they’d be able to grieve just fine pursuing the civil lawsuit once the impediment of the criminal case was removed.
The unbelievable gall of this family......

If SA is found guilty, the Weigands can probably kiss their huge financial settlement good-bye. If the charges are dropped, or Grandpa is acquitted, they stand a good chance of raking in the dough.

 

[JulieBEMT]

If SA is found guilty, the Weigands can probably kiss their huge financial settlement good-bye. If the charges are dropped, or Grandpa is acquitted, they stand a good chance of raking in the dough.

I will be so furious if they see a dime! I cannot imagine him being acquitted though.

 

[Safetybug]

when listening again to video

View attachment 231185

No words

In the video Winkleman said the parents are angry but they understand it was an accident.

Also it is said he was seen dangling the child out of the window then dropped her

Parents of Chloe Wiegand stand by her grandfather after he is charged in her death | Daily Mail Online

In the link above ^^^ under the 2 minute clip entitled ”Grandfather of toddler who died on cruise ship arrives home” at a minute and 24 seconds in the lawyer says regarding CW’s parents: “They are in part angry with him but they understand it was a mistake”

interestingly... the definition of “mistake” is “an action or judgment that is misguided or wrong.“

it is a carefully chosen word by MW, a Freudian-slip, admitting it was in fact a mistake on SA’s part!

 

[mheido67]

when listening again to video


In the link above ^^^ under the 2 minute clip entitled ”Grandfather of toddler who died on cruise ship arrives home” at a minute and 24 seconds in the lawyer says regarding CW’s parents: “They are in part angry with him but they understand it was a mistake”

interestingly... the definition of “mistake” is “an action or judgment that is misguided or wrong.“

it is a carefully chosen word by MW, a Freudian-slip, admitting it was in fact a mistake on SA’s part!

MW is also quoted in that article as saying, 'He didn't realize the window was open. He puts her up on a railing thinking that there was a window there and either lets go or loses grip of her for a moment and she's gone.'

So this is in late October and MW was not clear on whether SA "let go" of CW or not? Seems a rather important detail to have some clarity on, no? And what possible excuse could one have for lifting an 18 month old child 4 feet off the floor and letting them go? Even if SA thought there was glass did he expect she was going to support herself between the railing and the glass without his assistance? How exactly would she bang on the glass if she was using her own arms to support herself against the glass? Seems the narrative was still developing at that point.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

I can't find the quote now but CW's parents supposedly said the civil suit is not about the money, but rather making cruise ships safer.

If that were truly the case, they could've set up a foundation in her name with the goal of "improving" cruise ship safety. Suing for unlimited damages certainly doesn't achieve their stated goal and makes them sound like hypocrites.

And if perchance the civil jury does find in their favor, I hope their words come back to bite them. "Jury awards $0.01 in damages to the plaintiffs."

I just can't, with all of this family's nonsense. Poor little CW seems like she's just a meal ticket for these people. Disgusting.

Sort of OT, but related to how these people are covering for SA. Several years ago my narcissist mother twice "accidentally" left the garage door open when I was staying at her house with my dogs. And both times one of my dogs nearly escaped, and probably would've been a pancake on the nearby highway if I hadn't caught him in time. After the second "accident", I immediately packed up and headed for home. I told her if he'd been hit by a car or permanently lost I would never forgive her and would never speak to her again. Her response: "Even if it was an accident?" WTF??? SMH Some people's brains just aren't wired normally and they have no empathy. I shudder to think what she could've done if I'd ever had children.

"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." I've never stayed at my mom's house again. And to this day she still tries to make me feel guilty for that (usually around other family members), until I remind her I don't stay with her because she can't be trusted around my dogs.

~sigh~

I'm so sorry little CW, that your family seems to care more about protecting an idiot and making money than they do for your short little life. You deserved better.

I Completely and totally agree with this excellent post. Beautifully and so very clearly stated.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

Actually, KW said they can’t properly grieve for Chloe until the negligent homicide charges are dropped. Apparently they’d be able to grieve just fine pursuing the civil lawsuit once the impediment of the criminal case was removed.
The unbelievable gall of this family......

 

[al66pine]

Pot, Meet Kettle
Somehow I missed this before.
"Lawyer Michael Winkleman also posed questions over the integrity of Puerto Rican prosecutors, suggesting they may have an 'ulterior motive' in pointing the finger at Anello instead of criticizing the world's biggest cruise line operator."
"'It's hard to not think that a lot of this is either for show or for some sort of ulterior motive,' Winkleman told DailyMail.com..." bbm

^ Parents of Chloe Wiegand stand by her grandfather after he is charged in her death | Daily Mail Online Oct 29, 2019, updated Nov. 30 2019

 

[Longtimenoc]

I don't think we will hear any more about those potential witnesses, if they exist, until the trial.

I am sure they were told, on that horrible day, to zip their lips until they were called to the stand.

Although they may have been deposed already. The best we can hope for is maybe some leaks from the depositions, but I doubt it.

JMO

The doctor who responded to the scene said he saw no other people around when he arrived on the dock. Of course he was focused on the deceased child and probably tuned out distractions.

 

[Longtimenoc]

Actually, KW said they can’t properly grieve for Chloe until the negligent homicide charges are dropped. Apparently they’d be able to grieve just fine pursuing the civil lawsuit once the impediment of the criminal case was removed.
The unbelievable gall of this family......

I think that mom, dad and family are unable to accept the reality that gramps was an idiot and behaved so atrociously, dangled, heaved their darling baby out an open window. The truth is too painful and would rock their world back home. They have blinders on.