IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #8

[neesaki]

A Family Conspiracy?
@Chewy bbm sbm Personally I doubt any 'whole family' conspiracy of intentional death, but have wondered whether two could have, repeat could have, planned and caused this intentionally.
Aside from a handful of demographics on a few members, we don't really know much about family dynamics or individual members' personalities, values, moral compasses, etc. Imo.

Same here, definitely not the entire family.

 

[al66pine]

But what would indicate this to anyone? I mean of course anything is possible but you can't just say it was premeditated or that the family is conspiring and just pull it out of thin air. You need a motive or some reason to suggest this. Exactly we don't KNOW much about the family at all. Seems like a huge leap almost to the point of conspiracy theory to suggest such a horrible thing without any reason at all.

@Chewy
Seems imo it would be a huge leap to dismiss the possibility of an intentional death or conspiracy, without investigation looking for indicia of same. Presumably LE's investigation covered this ^ but extremely doubtful LE or prosecutor would release findings on those points. Apparently NegHom was the charge PR prosecution felt they could prove.
Until/unless Websleuthers get subpoena power, we won't know much about family or ^ points.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Possibly hair splitting here, but seems part of my post may have been mis-interpreted/misunderstood.
Pls, reread my post which did not say it was premeditated or a conspiracy. From my post: "... I have wondered whether two could have, repeat could have, planned and caused this intentionally." bbm
Your post said: "...huge leap almost to the point of conspiracy theory to suggest such a horrible thing without any reason at all." My post did not suggest "a horrible thing" - intentional death or conspiracy - did happen but merely speculated about the possibility. In fact a horrible thing - Chloe's death - did happen.

 

[Safetybug]

I don't know why Grandpa needed to reach/touch the angled lower windows, unless he planned to bang on the glass, too. At Chloe's height, she could easily move close to the glass without her head even touching the railing. SA could have stood or stooped beside her as she banged to her heart's content...or until other passengers became annoyed by the banging. I would have wondered what the he!! the child was doing and why

The whole glass banging scenario perpetuated by MW is full of “bs” ! MW’s own reenactment measurements for the distance from the railing to the window glass is TWICE as far as the distance to the lower panes!

SA says, “So when I knelt down to be with her at that level, I couldn't reach the glass, really, with my fingertips, so I knew she couldn't. So that's when I decided I'd pick her up. So I, you know, was trying to stand her on the railing.”

So using “MW and SA logic” why the sam hill would anyone try to lean forward twice the distance if they already accessed that they CAN’T even reach their fingertips from HALF the distance. All while holding CW with one arm precariously on a railing 11 decks high SA keeps leaning and leaning...

Other discrepancies: the height measurement that MW had done on the stand-in was 71 inches (5 foot 9 inches) but SA’s MUG SHOT online says his height is five feet ELEVEN. Two inches difference! Maybe even more because the tape measure was shown measuring 71 inches at a noticeable SLANT. Also SA’s mugshot states his birthday as Sept ‘68 which makes him actually FIFTY at the time of tragedy. I guess 50 is the new elderly.

I am surprised PR didn’t go for manslaughter charge - reckless homicide versus negligent homicide. imo.

It all makes my skin burn

 

[Chewy]

@Chewy
Seems imo it would be a huge leap to dismiss the possibility of an intentional death or conspiracy, without investigation looking for indicia of same. Presumably LE's investigation covered this ^ but extremely doubtful LE or prosecutor would release findings on those points. Apparently NegHom was the charge PR prosecution felt they could prove.
Until/unless Websleuthers get subpoena power, we won't know much about family or ^ points.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Possibly hair spitting here, but seems part of my post may have been mis-interpreted/misunderstood.
Pls, reread my post which did not say it was premeditated or a conspiracy. From my post: "... I have wondered whether two could have, repeat could have, planned and caused this intentionally." bbm
Your post said: "...huge leap almost to the point of conspiracy theory to suggest such a horrible thing without any reason at all." My post did not suggest "a horrible thing" - intentional death or conspiracy - did happen but merely speculated about the possibility. In fact a horrible thing - Chloe's death - did happen.

Again suggesting that it could have happened or is possible doesn't come across as sleuthing to me it comes across as making stuff up to gossip about.

When I asked what reason I honestly thought you all actually had reasons to suspect such a thing. Example; if say perhaps they had a long history of lawsuits where their kids were hurt. Or you could see something on the video like "it's clear he looks around to make sure no one is watching him" or there was a history of child abuse or neglect etc. I'm not arguing with people that it couldn't be true I'm just shocked that people are just gossiping about these people without any real evidence to back it up.

<modsnip>

 

[Chewy]

The whole glass banging scenario perpetuated by MW is full of “bs” ! MW’s own reenactment measurements for the distance from the railing to the window glass is TWICE as far as the distance to the lower panes!

SA says, “So when I knelt down to be with her at that level, I couldn't reach the glass, really, with my fingertips, so I knew she couldn't. So that's when I decided I'd pick her up. So I, you know, was trying to stand her on the railing.”

So using “MW and SA logic” why the sam hill would anyone try to lean forward twice the distance if they already accessed that they CAN’T even reach their fingertips from HALF the distance. All while holding CW with one arm precariously on a railing 11 decks high SA keeps leaning and leaning...

Other discrepancies: the height measurement that MW had done on the stand-in was 71 inches (5 foot 9 inches) but SA’s MUG SHOT online says his height is five feet ELEVEN. Two inches difference! Maybe even more because the tape measure was shown measuring 71 inches at a noticeable SLANT. Also SA’s mugshot states his birthday as Sept ‘68 which makes him actually FIFTY at the time of tragedy. I guess 50 is the new elderly.

I am surprised PR didn’t go for manslaughter charge - reckless homicide versus negligent homicide. imo.

It all makes my skin burn

That's a really good point. The whole banging on the glass thing just seems odd. You can clearly see even from across the room that the window is open. I think he's trying to rationalize the reason he put her over the railing. In other words most of us would just pick the child up and hold her up by our side to show her the view.

I think it indicates that he knew it was open and that's why he lifted her up there. If this was a set up, he would not have blatantly lifted her up and just dropped her. I think he would faked a stumble or something so it looked more like an accident.

It's obvious in the video that he stood there long enough to realize it was open. I mean even in the video itself you can tell it was open. In person it had to be unmistakeable. The pounding on the glass excuse is a way for him to make it seem like he was doing something "fun" for the child instead of reckless. Not quite sure if I'm being clear here. But if he had said, I thought she would have fun looking out the window, people would act like he was completely irresponsible. It would be an incredibly dangerous and risky thing to do. But if he says he thought the glass was there it makes it less dangerous.

 

[al66pine]

@Chewy
Despite not agreeing w you on some specifics of this case, I ask you to stick around & post. Please.

 

[loveandhugs]

Not exactly - at one point the prosecutors said they were considering all charges, including murder. I agree with others that they charged SA with what they felt they could prove with evidence. That doesn't mean it wasn't intentional. I started out strongly thinking he was medicated and/or drunk. After watching the interviews, videos, etc. I am now leaning towards it was SA's intentional act.

Are we the only ones that feel this way Jesey Sleuth? We read in the paper and hear on the news way too frequently about children being killed by family members, so sad but the reality is that it does happen. Why would one hold a child by an open window, 11 decks high? I am tired of the excuses that he was drunk or medicated, that it was an accident. If someone runs through a red light, has been drinking or on drugs and kills a family, do we excuse their actions because of this? Should we go easy on them because they were drinking or on drugs? They killed someone because of their actions. I don't care if it was an accident or intentional, Chloe is dead because of SA, not because of windows on a ship! I still lean towards intentional by SA's irresponsible actions while Chloe was in his care for a very short time, and the fact that he will not admit guilt. < modsnip> JMO

 

[Chewy]

Are we the only ones that feel this way Jesey Sleuth? We read in the paper and hear on the news way too frequently about children being killed by family members, so sad but the reality is that it does happen. Why would one hold a child by an open window, 11 decks high? I am tired of the excuses that he was drunk or medicated, that it was an accident. If someone runs through a red light, has been drinking or on drugs and kills a family, do we excuse their actions because of this? Should we go easy on them because they were drinking or on drugs? They killed someone because of their actions. I don't care if it was an accident or intentional, Chloe is dead because of SA, not because of windows on a ship! I still lean towards intentional by SA's irresponsible actions while Chloe was in his care for a very short time, and the fact that he will not admit guilt. Also have some questions about KW, something just doesn't add up. <modsnip> JMO

I agree with this as well. It's even worse if he was drinking. I remember watching a video about Elizabeth Vargas who outed herself as an alcoholic who went through bottles of white wine every day. She had two small kids and they asked her if she ever felt like she put her children in danger and she had the gall to say "NO" But the truth is she got lucky. If mom is passing out drunk the kids are in danger. If you are walking around with a child in a public place while tipsy, the kid is in danger. In our neighborhood they actually have Mommy and Baby Happy Hours which is around 12 pm and the moms roll in with their strollers and throw back wine. Meanwhile now they are going to put their babies back in strollers and walk home through a busy crowded street. How is that not endangering a child's safety?

When you have small kids you don't get to keep a drinking lifestyle.

 

[Morag]

Perhaps SA was/is a recovering alcoholic or reformed drinker. And all the other adults had enjoyed a welcome beverage or two at embarkation. They might have thought he was the safe choice to deal with Chloe if they believed him to be a non-drinker, whether he was or not on that day.

 

[Fidobell]

Thank you for this. I have sailed on RCCL approx 5 times and once on this particular boat. If I was given this, I didn't read it. But all those rules are common sense.

I can't imagine a family of 6? with 2 kids having time or the inclination to read this. The only thing everyone was absolutely forced to do by the cruise line was to go to a certain area in case of emergency and how to put on your safety vest.

Ok. I'm a bad person. But a realistic one.

Viewing the pictures in the above article, and the reconstruction of the accident, how did SA lean far enough over the hand rail to dangle Chole outside. Or to put his head out the window? The rail would have stopped him from being able to do that. And he had a big gut. And he has steadfastly said he put her on the wooden rail. And the videos of the incident aren't really clear. (Or not clear enough to charge this man with homocide imo). It would be great to see the additional video from all angles.

Had he taken the breathalyser, and if it showed he had alcohol in his system, he would have a better arguement against RCCL. Booze is how the cruiselines make money and it flows like crazy. Ever tried to get a Diet coke from the bar?

IMO, I think and I hope he is telling the truth. I will read the additional documents on this. But entering this thread with an unjaded eye and no preconceived ideas, I think he is telling the truth. According to the article above, his story hasn't changed since the accident happened.

I am sorry that I have disrupted the prevailing narrative that this may have been a planned homocide. But that is serious reaching and totally unbelievable.

I'm one of many posters here who does not believe SA s version of events . Ivd followed this story here from thread 1 and after reading both sides ( please read all documents , both sides , and CCTV footage, ( dimensions and analysis ) I have made my conclusion . I believe , despite his unwavering version of the accident , that he has to take responsibility for CA s death .
FWIW I don't think it was a homicide but do think reckless behaviour by flouting safe practices and common sense caused this to happen

This case is more than SAs unwavering statement. JMO

 

[RoadToSerfdom]

They seemed pretty confident in their "I thought there was glass", "hidden hole", "missing pane", "children's play area", hockey rink pictures, and media blitz strategy early on and seem shocked/angered/surprised it did not work (for a quick settlement without deep investigation).

The motive would be that with modern healthcare the "secret" would be inevitably discovered some day. Solve a problem and get rich. Just trying to answer your question about motive don't mean to keep going deeper into a theory if not allowed. If I were the authorities I would want to eliminate or confirm it one way or the other just for having a complete investigation and ruling things out. I don't think that could be done at this point in any case.

In the history of cruise lines with millions of trips no adult has ever accidentally dropped a baby/toddler out an open window.

<modsnip>

 

[LietKynes]

A Family Conspiracy?
@Chewy bbm sbm Personally I doubt any 'whole family' conspiracy of intentional death, but have wondered whether two could have, repeat could have, planned and caused this intentionally.
Aside from a handful of demographics on a few members, we don't really know much about family dynamics or individual members' personalities, values, moral compasses, etc. Imo.

Good post.^^^

It only takes one or two to plan something.
As far as the ever-changing story.... something is seriously askew here.

 

[Chewy]

I'm one of many posters here who does not believe SA s version of events . Ivd followed this story here from thread 1 and after reading both sides ( please read all documents , both sides , and CCTV footage, ( dimensions and analysis ) I have made my conclusion . I believe , despite his unwavering version of the accident , that he has to take responsibility for CA s death .
FWIW I don't think it was a homicide but do think reckless behaviour by flouting safe practices and common sense caused this to happen

This case is more than SAs unwavering statement. JMO

This is my opinion as well. I think he deliberately held her up because the window was open. Think Michael Jackson dangling the baby. Someone doing something risky and reckless because they didn't think. And if you consider the video it looks like they are outside at a pool. Even though they were 11 stories up on a huge boat, it was docked and if he had a bit to drink he might have just got lulled into a false sense of security or just had a brain fart and forgotten how high up they were. (If you look at the video it could pass for a resort pool area which instinctively feels like it's ground level.)

I think the whole banging on the glass excuse is his way of covering up that he did something so dangerous. It's like when parents let their kids ride on the lawn mowers because it's a quick fun thing to do.

And I feel horrible for him because we've all made mistakes like this as parents but he paid the ultimate price. I suppose he can't admit what he did because it would destroy his family. But I think the parents should realize what really happened. If they hadn't sued the cruise ship I doubt he would have been prosecuted. The whole thing is tragic.

 

[JulieBEMT]

I tell you what I would do if I did something like this, I'd plead guilty. I'd actually need to do something to accept responsibility and create a sort of punishment to assuage a sense of guilt. I would not drag a court system or my family members through such a trial. I would not sue the cruiseline. I would demand precautions be put in place. (For example block the windows from being open more than 4 inches) I would advocate for parents to be more aware of the dangers on a cruise.

I would own what I had done. I would feel so horrified that I would basically feel like my life was over and now I was on a different path as a result of a stupid mistake.

IMO, he can't/won't plead guilty because that would hurt the parents' chances of winning millions of dollars in a civil suit. We all agree that he should take responsibility. However, it's very possible that he's risking jail time by refusing a plea because CW's parents have told him not to.

I don't understand why anyone would think it was premeditated? Do you think the family teamed up to try to off their kid on a Cruise and was scouring the boat looking for an opportunity? I could see maybe one parent doing that ala Ross Harris but I can't see a whole family deciding to do that? How could they know that the window would be open? They would be better off letting her get hurt in one of the pools or falling down a flight of stairs, or cracking her head in the bathroom. They wouldn't even need to have killed her for that lawsuit to work. The cruise's insurance company would pay out.

It seems like you completely missed the first line of my post. I said "I don't have both feet firmly planted on the premeditated side of the line. But, I still believe it's a good possibility." Nowhere did I say the entire family was involved. Nowhere did I say "I'm certain it was premeditated." I simply said that I believe it's a good possibility. As to why I feel that way, here are just a few reasons:

• The parents advised SA to refuse a breathalyzer.
• Parents immediately began photographing the area and windows.
• They hired MW and had him doing press conferences about a civil suit less than 36 hours after their child died.
• They went on a national media tour to try and sway public opinion before they even buried their daughter.
• The insistence that criminal charges should not be filed. Mom goes so far as to repeatedly refer to killing her own daughter as a "misdemeanor."
  
• I knew the family was lying from the moment this hit the media because I've been on this ship numerous times. Referring to it as a "children's play area," and saying he couldn't tell the window was open were the first two indications for me. IMO, if they were lying about these simple facts so quickly, they could easily be lying about everything.
  
• I've watched the video.
  
  • SA clearly stuck his head/upper body outside of the window before bending down to pick up CW.
  • While leaning out the window, he looked in all directions. It felt to me like he was calculating the number of witnesses and where she would land.
    
  • When he picked her up, in one swift and decisive movement, he hoists her up over his head right to the windowsill.
    
  • This was not a case of holding her up there for just a few seconds. He held her there for more than 30 seconds, and then let go with one hand before dropping her.
• The family was running online fundraisers prior to CW's death, and have run many more since.
  
• I do not have a source for this, so it could easily be rumor, but I read they took out a 200k life insurance policy on CW just a month or two before the cruise.

But what would indicate this to anyone? I mean of course anything is possible but you can't just say it was premeditated or that the family is conspiring and just pull it out of thin air. You need a motive or some reason to suggest this. Exactly we don't KNOW much about the family at all. Seems like a huge leap almost to the point of conspiracy theory to suggest such a horrible thing without any reason at all.

Again suggesting that it could have happened or is possible doesn't come across as sleuthing to me it comes across as making stuff up to gossip about.

When I asked what reason I honestly thought you all actually had reasons to suspect such a thing. Example; if say perhaps they had a long history of lawsuits where their kids were hurt. Or you could see something on the video like "it's clear he looks around to make sure no one is watching him" or there was a history of child abuse or neglect etc. I'm not arguing with people that it couldn't be true I'm just shocked that people are just gossiping about these people without any real evidence to back it up.

<modsnip>

I don't think that coming up with theories on possible motives or reasoning is gossiping. If nobody ever came up with theories, how would anyone investigate them.

That's a really good point. The whole banging on the glass thing just seems odd. You can clearly see even from across the room that the window is open. I think he's trying to rationalize the reason he put her over the railing. In other words most of us would just pick the child up and hold her up by our side to show her the view.

I think it indicates that he knew it was open and that's why he lifted her up there. If this was a set up, he would not have blatantly lifted her up and just dropped her. I think he would faked a stumble or something so it looked more like an accident.

It's obvious in the video that he stood there long enough to realize it was open. I mean even in the video itself you can tell it was open. In person it had to be unmistakeable. The pounding on the glass excuse is a way for him to make it seem like he was doing something "fun" for the child instead of reckless. Not quite sure if I'm being clear here. But if he had said, I thought she would have fun looking out the window, people would act like he was completely irresponsible. It would be an incredibly dangerous and risky thing to do. But if he says he thought the glass was there it makes it less dangerous.

I'm not clear on why you can say "I think" and then speculate on his thoughts and actions, but others cannot do the same.

Are we the only ones that feel this way Jesey Sleuth? We read in the paper and hear on the news way too frequently about children being killed by family members, so sad but the reality is that it does happen. Why would one hold a child by an open window, 11 decks high? I am tired of the excuses that he was drunk or medicated, that it was an accident. If someone runs through a red light, has been drinking or on drugs and kills a family, do we excuse their actions because of this? Should we go easy on them because they were drinking or on drugs? They killed someone because of their actions. I don't care if it was an accident or intentional, Chloe is dead because of SA, not because of windows on a ship! I still lean towards intentional by SA's irresponsible actions while Chloe was in his care for a very short time, and the fact that he will not admit guilt. < modsnip> JMO

You are not he only ones who feel this way. I've been in the same corner all along. While I'm open to the possibility that this was an accident, I believe otherwise.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

Are we the only ones that feel this way Jesey Sleuth? We read in the paper and hear on the news way too frequently about children being killed by family members, so sad but the reality is that it does happen. Why would one hold a child by an open window, 11 decks high? I am tired of the excuses that he was drunk or medicated, that it was an accident. If someone runs through a red light, has been drinking or on drugs and kills a family, do we excuse their actions because of this? Should we go easy on them because they were drinking or on drugs? They killed someone because of their actions. I don't care if it was an accident or intentional, Chloe is dead because of SA, not because of windows on a ship! I still lean towards intentional by SA's irresponsible actions while Chloe was in his care for a very short time, and the fact that he will not admit guilt. < modsnip> JMO

I think it was intentional, too. Among other things.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

Good post.^^^

It only takes one or two to plan something.
As far as the ever-changing story.... something is seriously askew here.

That's right.

 

[10ofRods]

Because of the video, for one thing. It looks pretty deliberate to me. How could someone who supposedly loved this child SO MUCH put her in jeopardy like that "accidentally"? He had to really work at it to get her out that window, from what I saw. SA did not seem that devastated in the interview with David Begnaud. He did do some fake crying at the end. A person would have to be a complete moron to "accidentally" drop a child out of a window like that, so why was he chosen to watch Chloe when there was many more appropriate adults on that cruise who could have done so? People without a background and history of reckless behavior. The whole story stinks and gets worse the more you delve in to it. JMOO.

I know it's not a popular opinion. But people do all kinds of stupid things without thinking. Constantly. Maybe it's because I drive the Los Angeles freeways daily.

People leave their kids near pools to go answer the phone. People drive with their kids outside of car seats. People run stoplights and blow through stop signs (in the Central Valley of California, there are fatal collisions caused by lack of attention nearly every day). Single car accidents vs trees are popular in the mountains. Speeding. Doing wheelies on motorcycles.

People sit their kids on escalator railings and lose them that way. People jimmy open elevator doors and someone walks into a shaft (not daily, but it happens) People harass bison at Yellowstone.

People on vacation are often tremendously careless. In Sequoia NP, people constantly ignore signs and get in cold rushing water (and drown). 2 drowning deaths in June at the same place in Sequoia National Park

People go down to the beach when we have monster tides (and get swept away, along with their kids) We just lost another speeder on Highway 1. A tourist.

People get into the water at the top of Nevada Falls in Yosemite (with their kids! floating on their backs! - yes, they are now dead). Signs galore. 4 drownings in Yosemite in 2017, all of them preventable. All of them tourists. Not all bodies found, even years later.

North Carolina mom charged after son falls off airport escalator, dies

^That's just one example.

At Grand Canyon, it almost ruins enjoyment to watch how people endanger their own lives (3-4 a year fall off and die, many more are badly injured).

I am fine with calling these people "morons". And if I ever harass a bison or get off trail in a National Park, resulting in my untimely death, please call me a moron too.

SA is a reckless moron and perhaps even a Super Moron. In this case, we have a family of nonchalant nincompoops who chose their most eager, most distractible, most reckless, most clueless moronic member to watch their child.

My own experience is that anyone who is new to an experience is already at increased risk.

Thanks all, for letting me vent. If the word "moron" is against TOS, I can edit.

 

[Safetybug]

All so disturbing... reading through the CW Civil Doc (12-11-19) especially since this was written AFTER the ship cam footage was released. The doc says (paragraph #14) “At all times SA was closely supervising CW as she played in the kids water park. Shortly after 4 pm, CW walked over to a nearby wall of glass on the same deck (deck 11) and she was followed closely by SA.” We know that wasn’t the case according to the ship cam. He was often lagging behind her. Unless you consider “closely” meaning pulling her closer to him by standing her on the wooden railing. Funny no mention in their doc how this violates industry wide policy about no sitting or standing or crossing the railing!

The wall of windows was addressed in #17-21 basically saying it was an isolated open window amongst dozens of closed ones. Funny how clearly we can see on the ship cam just to the right of SA an alternate window was wide open - just a short distance away. There may have been even more but are out of view due to the narrow scope of that camera footage (from behind SA) Funny how all of MW reenactment photos show all the windows SHUT. I guess that makes it match up to the “wall of windows” diatribe.

The icing on their cake: paragraph #22 “While some who are uninformed may initially characterize this type of incident as a ‘freak accident,’ it is, in fact, quite common. In fact, this type of risk was, at one time, a common enough hazard that there were numerous industry standards put in place to prevent this very type of incident...” yada yada. So in other words it was NO ACCIDENT. PERIOD (according to WS and posse) All this despite the fact that NO child has ever fallen out /slipped /dropped from a window on any cruise line. EVER. PERIOD

 

[LietKynes]

IMO, he can't/won't plead guilty because that would hurt the parents' chances of winning millions of dollars in a civil suit. We all agree that he should take responsibility. However, it's very possible that he's risking jail time by refusing a plea because CW's parents have told him not to.



It seems like you completely missed the first line of my post. I said "I don't have both feet firmly planted on the premeditated side of the line. But, I still believe it's a good possibility." Nowhere did I say the entire family was involved. Nowhere did I say "I'm certain it was premeditated." I simply said that I believe it's a good possibility. As to why I feel that way, here are just a few reasons:

• The parents advised SA to refuse a breathalyzer.
• Parents immediately began photographing the area and windows.
• They hired MW and had him doing press conferences about a civil suit less than 36 hours after their child died.
• They went on a national media tour to try and sway public opinion before they even buried their daughter.
• The insistence that criminal charges should not be filed. Mom goes so far as to repeatedly refer to killing her own daughter as a "misdemeanor."
  
• I knew the family was lying from the moment this hit the media because I've been on this ship numerous times. Referring to it as a "children's play area," and saying he couldn't tell the window was open were the first two indications for me. IMO, if they were lying about these simple facts so quickly, they could easily be lying about everything.
  
• I've watched the video.
  • SA clearly stuck his head/upper body outside of the window before bending down to pick up CW.
  • While leaning out the window, he looked in all directions. It felt to me like he was calculating the number of witnesses and where she would land.
    
  • When he picked her up, in one swift and decisive movement, he hoists her up over his head right to the windowsill.
    
  • This was not a case of holding her up there for just a few seconds. He held her there for more than 30 seconds, and then let go with one hand before dropping her.
• The family was running online fundraisers prior to CW's death, and have run many more since.
  
• I do not have a source for this, so it could easily be rumor, but I read they took out a 200k life insurance policy on CW just a month or two before the cruise.

I don't think that coming up with theories on possible motives or reasoning is gossiping. If nobody ever came up with theories, how would anyone investigate them.



I'm not clear on why you can say "I think" and then speculate on his thoughts and actions, but others cannot do the same.



You are not he only ones who feel this way. I've been in the same corner all along. While I'm open to the possibility that this was an accident, I believe otherwise.

When a 'like' is not enough. ^^^

I think you explained that very well !

 

[loveandhugs]

I agree with this as well. It's even worse if he was drinking. I remember watching a video about Elizabeth Vargas who outed herself as an alcoholic who went through bottles of white wine every day. She had two small kids and they asked her if she ever felt like she put her children in danger and she had the gall to say "NO" But the truth is she got lucky. If mom is passing out drunk the kids are in danger. If you are walking around with a child in a public place while tipsy, the kid is in danger. In our neighborhood they actually have Mommy and Baby Happy Hours which is around 12 pm and the moms roll in with their strollers and throw back wine. Meanwhile now they are going to put their babies back in strollers and walk home through a busy crowded street. How is that not endangering a child's safety?

When you have small kids you don't get to keep a drinking lifestyle.

My dad was an alcoholic, had an accident with my brother in the car, my brother was three years old. My brother was injured, my dad was not. My mom left him after that, she didn't make excuses for my dad's actions or forgive him. It was actually about the time my dad began drinking heavily, but kept promising to stop. This was in 1950, times were different then. My dad would be charged with DUI today. My mom never forgave my dad, and my dad died of alcoholism when he was 60. If my brother had died, my father would have been responsible for his death, it doesn't matter if it is accidental (because of drinking) or intentional, a little child is dead because someone decided to not take responsibility. Chloe is dead, does drinking mean we forgive him, either intentional or accidental, the results are still the same. JMO