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

[al66pine]

Feather in Winkleman's Hat?

Or it’s Winkleman wanting another feather in his cap like the duty lifeguards he won.

@they'll get you
Not a news topic I followed at the time, but I wonder how much impact Winkleman's case actually had on the cruise line's decision to employ lifeguards at the ships' pools. Did he explicitly claim his lawsuit brought that about? When a company implements a new practice to increase pax/customer safety, that decision is often preceded by a extended series of lawsuits, not just one case.

Of course the atty filing the last lawsuit immediately preceding safety implementation may proudly proclaim credit as savior for the masses.

 

[neesaki]

If not for the fact that KW was a deputy prosecutor, I could see her going into "attorney mode." But how can any prosecutor suggest that the man who killed her own child should not face criminal charges?! How unbelievably hypocritical is that? She makes her living ensuring that people are prosecuted for (and hopefully convicted of) the crimes they have committed. Yet, she goes on national news saying how wrong it is that the man responsible for her daughter's death is being prosecuted! The only conclusion I can draw is that she now hopes to make her living by cashing in on her daughter's death.

To have both a cop and a prosecutor arguing for the man who killed their daughter is beyond anything I can even comprehend. It would certainly take away from their credibility on the job!

It seems that you’re seeing things the way most of us do here. Not to mention, you put it very, very well. Thank you very much, JulieBEMT !

 

[Safetybug]

To have both a cop and a prosecutor arguing for the man who killed their daughter is beyond anything I can even comprehend. It would certainly take away from their credibility on the job!

Agreed!

Newsfeeds as July 9 show that AW’s precinct was already in “circle the wagons” mode with statements coming out like:

“the police chief of South Bend, Indiana, Scott Ruszkowski, disputed that statement issued by Puerto Rico police.”

From nearly the get-go CW’s lawyer/LE parents had a united front of professional supporters who “protect their own” seemingly no matter what!

~IMO

 

[La Louve]

*snork* What!? A half dozen of these turbine driven puppies blasting air at you while you scream to be heard above the noise level from about 100dB sounds like magical moments in the making.

View attachment 231370

You “Wait, are we in a back alley warehouse?”

Me “WHAT? THE FANS ARE A LITTLE LOUD! NO, it’s not a people of Wally World convention!”

You “Why are the windows tinted black and all screened in with metal bars across them?”

Me “BECAUSE WE’RE SAFE, dumb doodie head! We’re too stupid to walk around without falling out of stuff.”

You “I’m feeling claustrophobic.”

Me “But SO SAFE, right? Thank you, Wiegand’s, this is a phenomenal vacation.”

LMAO

 

[sl222]

From my early-on look into things, the age gap between KW and SA appears to be 18-20 years. In spite of the public front with the lawsuit etc., I think the parents deep down do blame SA, but struggle with trying to forgive and that may be partly from (my perception) their faith-based values, and for KW's mother's sake as well. I agree the anger runs deep, both because of CW and because of her brother. The descriptions from the memorial service stand out in my mind of the extreme pain and shock and loss that they have experienced. I agree they have become caught up in the lawsuit and were encouraged to sue by the attorneys. But I think that some of them would privately like to just move on as best they can. A huge number of extended family members must be also quite affected by this legal saga. From the start, before the video came out, we here suspected that all this was worse than we knew and that has turned out to be true. I think that there may be still more facts that we don't know that are just as bad as far as contributing factors that led to this. JMO. But one thing is for sure, most people treat their children and grandchildren with excessive caution rather than excessive recklessness. Unfortunately for these few minutes, CW was in the care of the one person who did something that any other family member would have put a stop to and would never in a million years have done. And that must haunt all of them terribly.

 

[Montrealaise]

Agreed!

Newsfeeds as July 9 show that AW’s precinct was already in “circle the wagons” mode with statements coming out like:

“the police chief of South Bend, Indiana, Scott Ruszkowski, disputed that statement issued by Puerto Rico police.”

From nearly the get-go CW’s lawyer/LE parents had a united front of professional supporters who “protect their own” seemingly no matter what!

~IMO

I wonder what the police chief is saying now that the video has been released.

 

[JulieBEMT]

Choosing Others Over Children? Choosing $ & Others?
@JulieBEMT Good post. If, a big if, KSW had prior knowledge of SA having endangered Chloe before and she still asked SA to 'supervise' Chloe (esp on ship where, presumably multiple, alternative capable Chloe-watchers were available), then I tend to agree w ^ analogy/equation.

But after death at SA's hands, there's no possible further endangerment to Chloe, and the analogy/
equation factors get reset or rejiggered. No longer like a woman who has learned of (live-in) boyfriend's abusing her children, who continues relationship/to live w him, in effect 'forgiving' him or 'ignoring' injuries to children, and ranking boyfriend over children. <---There, potential for further injuries to children is an ongoing danger.

Since July by KSW refraining from publicly blaming SA and pointing/shifting blame to cruise line, there is a possibility of a substantial $$$ settlement/award and that position does not alienate SA (or KSW's mother). jmo

My point was more that nobody is in CW's corner. Instead, they all stand in public solidarity with the man who killed her. It's as if her death doesn't matter because SA is more important to them.

 

[JulieBEMT]

DBM.

 

[mheido67]

Agreed!

Newsfeeds as July 9 show that AW’s precinct was already in “circle the wagons” mode with statements coming out like:

“the police chief of South Bend, Indiana, Scott Ruszkowski, disputed that statement issued by Puerto Rico police.”

From nearly the get-go CW’s lawyer/LE parents had a united front of professional supporters who “protect their own” seemingly no matter what!

~IMO

Is there anything new about LE protecting their own? Not in my NYC experience. Hate to be cynical but cops protect cops and cops families. Know anyone who carries a PBA card or shield to flash when they get pulled over? And you think prosecutors don’t go easy on people they’re familiar with or connected people? Lol.

Again, the Wiegands et al have their boogeyman in the form of RCCL. They’ve convinced themselves that it wasn’t SA who put CW in danger, it was the hidden danger of the ship.

 

[JerseySleuth17]

I watched the interview the parents gave with the Today show again. I came away thinking they 100% believe this is the cruise ship's fault CW is dead. I didn't get any sense that they instigated this lawsuit to help save SA from jail time. When asked "do you blame anyone" the mom is incredulous and says "obviously we blame the cruise line". They all seem to be missing the point that there already was a safety measure in place - the railing. And I'm pretty sure there will be witnesses and photographic/video evidence that shows SA knew the window was open. So the big question is - why are they completely ignoring the real cause of CW's death (the grandpa)? I think it started out as a way to focus their grief, before the videos of what SA did were even available. I just am having a hard time comprehending how they can still maintain this position when there is video proof that their child is basically dead b/c grandpa was acting completely reckless. They should be asking SA questions like "how could you not know the window was open? You leaned over the railing and looked around outside for 8 seconds?" Why are they just blinding taking his version of the story as the truth?

 

[Kindred]

Per the judges ruling denying RCCL's motion to dismiss he directed RCCL to respond to Plaintiff's claim that RCCL failed to produce video from two specific cameras within 5 days. Anyone know if RCCL has filed a response?

As a matter of fact...

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.’S NOTICE OF FILING DECLARATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER OF FEBRUARY 5, 2020 [D.E. 28]

RCCL Video Declaration.pdf

Was filed on the 10th. Nine pages total, 2 of them being the filing from the lawyer, the other 7 the sworn declaration of Mildred Quintero, Senior Investigator with RCL’s Global Security Department. It includes two still photos from the cameras in question showing the external doorway to a nearby women's bathroom and basically a shot that's directed more at the 12th deck directly across from it and showing nothing of the area that we know SA and Chloe had been occupying.

I wonder what the police chief is saying now that the video has been released.

Nothing publicly, which is how it should be. Then again the department is under a lot of scrutiny at the moment because of Mayor Buttigieg's presidential campaign. Opponents are airing out a lot of dirty laundry about the PD there so they don't really have time to focus on a case that frankly has nothing to do with them.

 

[JulieBEMT]

As a matter of fact...

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.’S NOTICE OF FILING DECLARATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER OF FEBRUARY 5, 2020 [D.E. 28]

RCCL Video Declaration.pdf

Was filed on the 10th. Nine pages total, 2 of them being the filing from the lawyer, the other 7 the sworn declaration of Mildred Quintero, Senior Investigator with RCL’s Global Security Department. It includes two still photos from the cameras in question showing the external doorway to a nearby women's bathroom and basically a shot that's directed more at the 12th deck directly across from it and showing nothing of the area that we know SA and Chloe had been occupying.
.

Thanks SO much for keeping us in the loop Kindred! We all appreciate it. Do we know if RCCL has refiled the motion to dismiss?

 

[mheido67]

I watched the interview the parents gave with the Today show again. I came away thinking they 100% believe this is the cruise ship's fault CW is dead. I didn't get any sense that they instigated this lawsuit to help save SA from jail time. When asked "do you blame anyone" the mom is incredulous and says "obviously we blame the cruise line". They all seem to be missing the point that there already was a safety measure in place - the railing. And I'm pretty sure there will be witnesses and photographic/video evidence that shows SA knew the window was open. So the big question is - why are they completely ignoring the real cause of CW's death (the grandpa)? I think it started out as a way to focus their grief, before the videos of what SA did were even available. I just am having a hard time comprehending how they can still maintain this position when there is video proof that their child is basically dead b/c grandpa was acting completely reckless. They should be asking SA questions like "how could you not know the window was open? You leaned over the railing and looked around outside for 8 seconds?" Why are they just blinding taking his version of the story as the truth?

You answered your own question. They 100% believe it was the ships fault. Belief is a powerful thing. People don't like to give up strongly held beliefs. Child abuse was raised in an earlier comment regarding people who remain in relationships where abuse is occuring. Many people when confronted with the allegation that a partner/relative is abusing a child instinctively deny it could be true because to accept it would mean that a person they love is actually secretly a monster inflicting harm on other people they love. Accepting it would destroy their reality. I think you can look at this family in a similar way. They have an alternate target for their pain. Blame the big corporation, the flawed ship. It's easier than actually accepting the accusation that it was their beloved family member who caused their pain. Even when confronted with evidence they will still rationalize it away. Look at Bill Cosby's wife. Dozens of women accused him, he was convicted and jailed but she still maintains he is innocent despite all the evidence. Because she's got too much invested to let it all go. It's easier to believe he is who she's always thought he is.

 

[Kindred]

Thanks SO much for keeping us in the loop Kindred! We all appreciate it. Do we know if RCCL has refiled the motion to dismiss?

As of this morning, the only new document filed was that declaration. I'll check again this weekend

 

[Safetybug]

I found these 2 Twitter posts dated July 8 of southbendpolice. The one that starts out, “PLEASE! Stop Speculating...” was written at 12:59 pm the day after the tragedy and the department statement above it was written 17 minutes later. All together generated ~ 100 comments. With a surprising amount of people bold enough to blame the “grandfather” for CW’s death in those first couple of days. So LE/family “damage control” started nearly from the get-go. I still cannot understand how SA got away without his non-consent to a breathalyzer. So many slippery loopholes and the lawyer/LE parents know them inside-out.!

 

[SoCalDavidS]

You answered your own question. They 100% believe it was the ships fault. Belief is a powerful thing. People don't like to give up strongly held beliefs. Child abuse was raised in an earlier comment regarding people who remain in relationships where abuse is occuring. Many people when confronted with the allegation that a partner/relative is abusing a child instinctively deny it could be true because to accept it would mean that a person they love is actually secretly a monster inflicting harm on other people they love. Accepting it would destroy their reality. I think you can look at this family in a similar way. They have an alternate target for their pain. Blame the big corporation, the flawed ship. It's easier than actually accepting the accusation that it was their beloved family member who caused their pain. Even when confronted with evidence they will still rationalize it away. Look at Bill Cosby's wife. Dozens of women accused him, he was convicted and jailed but she still maintains he is innocent despite all the evidence. Because she's got too much invested to let it all go. It's easier to believe he is who she's always thought he is.

O.J. Simpson's 2 youngest kids now live close to him in Florida, and have a relationship with him. It is apparently possible to close your eyes to the reality that is all around you. I could not do it. But relationships can be strong enough to overcome reality. In fact, these days, reality doesn't much matter. It's what is in your mind. While most will look at this case and question why we're even having this discussion, those involved in the lawsuit won't veer from their belief that RCCL is to blame.

For those who continue to ask, as each new piece of damning evidence comes out, whether NOW the family has seen the light. The answer is a resounding NO! And they NEVER will. If there was video with audio, and you could hear Grandpa actually mentioning the open window prior to lifting Chloe up, even that would not change their insistence that this was All the fault of RCCL for having windows that open. The bottom line is if you are waiting for the family to have an epiphany, you're going to be waiting forever, cause it ain't gonna happen.

 

[neesaki]

I wonder if there would have been a law suit against RC if SA had dropped Chloe over the balcony railing instead of out the window. It just seems that they seemed to have forgotten this was actually a cruise ship, not an enclosed space like a hotel.
But then even hotels have balconies, open atriums and railings . SMH

I recall a comment by either AW or KW that they “thought she’d be safe” (paraphrased). A child is only as safe as her caretaker.

 

[mheido67]

I wonder if there would have been a law suit against RC if SA had dropped Chloe over the balcony railing instead of out the window. It just seems that they seemed to have forgotten this was actually a cruise ship, not an enclosed space like a hotel.
But then even hotels have balconies, open atriums and railings . SMH

I recall a comment by either AW or KW that they “thought she’d be safe” (paraphrased). A child is only as safe as her caretaker.

There would not be because their agrument hinges on the supposed hidden danger that openings in what appeared to be a 'solid wall of glass' presented. Climbing on or leaning over a balcony railing presents a clear and obvious danger that is readily apparent to any reasonable person. This case is going to come down to whether a jury believes SA could have been in front of that open window as long as he was and NOT observed that the window was in fact open. EDIT: Or rather that a reasonable person could have done so.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

The only interview I have seen is back in the beginning when Chloe’s parents, SA and wife, as well as Winkleman appeared together. Winkleman was sitting between SA and KW.

Chloe’s father appeared to be crying the entire time, very red swollen face with him constantly wiping his eyes. It was real emotions IMO.

As I watched him, his demeanor said that he did not want to be there. He wanted nothing to do with this law suit. My impression of him was that KW was the instigator for the suit. He was a grieving father who knew nothing would compensate the loss of his daughter, so this appearing in public, talking about safety improvements on the ship, only increased the severe pain he was suffering. JMO.

Many times a death of a child destroys a marriage. It would not surprise me if that were to happen here, too. Especially since AW crying his eyes out and his parents are silent. I know what they think. Don’t you?

 

[SoCalDavidS]

There would not be because their agrument hinges on the supposed hidden danger that openings in what appeared to be a 'solid wall of glass' presented. Climbing on or leaning over a balcony railing presents a clear and obvious danger that is readily apparent to any reasonable person.

So their reasoning is that it's perfectly acceptable to raise a child up over a safety railing, so long as there is assumed to be a window. So decks with a railing and no windows, in that case, Grandpa would be at fault. Ahhh....the contortions one must go through to justify their opinions.