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

[In vino veritas]

OK. My blood is percolating again!!! Right from the get-go in MW’s response he is obfuscating facts. Still referring to “open pane“ of glass in a wall of glass. Claiming this wall of glass is “adjacent” to the “ children’s play area” when, in fact, it was a good 40 feet away.

Continuously implies that the only appropriate warning indicators consist of decals or signs...... virtually no mention of height of window from floor, railing a significant distance from window(previously used as an argument about the physical impossibility of SA being able to lean his head out of it) or tinting of windows. The photo used by MW where he asserts it’s incredibly difficult to tell which are open or closed seems to have all windows closed. Ergo, no ability to see the difference. Does he think the judge is an idiot??

 

[ilovewings]

i have a question - since SA Admitted to negligent homicide, how does that not end
the civil case against the cruise ship---
his actions were the proximate cause of Chloe's death

 

[mheido67]

I also just wanted to post this. It's a portion of the ASTM code that MW likes to reference. I can't post more because it's copyrighted but here's a particularly relevant portion;

"1.3 This safety specification applies only to devices intended to be applied to windows installed at heights of more than 75 ft7 (23 m) above ground level in multiple family dwelling buildings. This safety specification is not intended to apply to windows below 75 ft (23 m) because all windows below 75 ft (23 m) that are operable could be used as a possible secondary means of escape."

These safety standards were designed and implemented specifically for use in multifamily residential buildings. Meaning within apartments, where kids live. They were not intended to apply to every operable window everywhere. And it bears repeating that they were designed to prevent unattended children from accessing windows and falling, not to prevent adults from dropping children out windows.

 

[SoCalDavidS]

i have a question - since SA Admitted to negligent homicide, how does that not end
the civil case against the cruise ship---
his actions were the proximate cause of Chloe's death

Because we are living in Bizarro World, and that is the best way to describe the "Injustice" System this country has today.

But hey.....at least the lawyers are all getting paid.

 

[In vino veritas]

I also just wanted to post this. It's a portion of the ASTM code that MW likes to reference. I can't post more because it's copyrighted but here's a particularly relevant portion;

"1.3 This safety specification applies only to devices intended to be applied to windows installed at heights of more than 75 ft7 (23 m) above ground level in multiple family dwelling buildings. This safety specification is not intended to apply to windows below 75 ft (23 m) because all windows below 75 ft (23 m) that are operable could be used as a possible secondary means of escape."

These safety standards were designed and implemented specifically for use in multifamily residential buildings. Meaning within apartments, where kids live. They were not intended to apply to every operable window everywhere. And it bears repeating that they were designed to prevent unattended children from accessing windows and falling, not to prevent adults from dropping children out windows.

Excellent point mheido! MW made it a point to cite over 4000 child deaths from windows, but neglected to say they were from residential dwellings!!
At no point in his rebuttal did he indicate that NO children have ever fallen out of cruise ship windows.

 

[In vino veritas]

Because we are living in Bizarro World, and that is the best way to describe the "Injustice" System this country has today.

But hey.....at least the lawyers are all getting paid.

i have a question - since SA Admitted to negligent homicide, how does that not end
the civil case against the cruise ship---
his actions were the proximate cause of Chloe's death

Not if you read MW’s rebuttal to the MTD. According to good old MW, it is RCL’s negligence which is the proximate cause of little Chloe’s death.

 

[Wehwalt]

i have a question - since SA Admitted to negligent homicide, how does that not end
the civil case against the cruise ship---
his actions were the proximate cause of Chloe's death

Because there is no identity of parties. The W's are not bound by SA's impending plea of guilty (which has not yet happened).

I read it. I do not pretend to know very much about cruise ship law but the point that struck me concerns notice, see especially footnote 4 on page 7. I think if the court wants to dismiss this case, it is perfectly capable of ruling that standards for a multifamily dwelling, which is what is being cited, have no applicability to a cruise ship just because children might be seen in both places. I don't see why it would need the record developed further to do that. That doesn't dispose of all the counts, but I bet the court can find a way to do it. Because nothing is ever going to change the facts.

If there's a dismissal, I don't think the court would grant leave to file an amended complaint. The facts aren't going to get any better for the plaintiffs, and the law isn't going to get any better. I think their only remedy will be an appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal and good luck on that one.

 

[ilovewings]

Not if you read MW’s rebuttal to the MTD. According to good old MW, it is RCL’s negligence which is the proximate cause of little Chloe’s death.

But with SA pleading guilty of negligent homicide does that not
imply that he was in fact responsible for Chloe's death?

 

[mheido67]

But with SA pleading guilty of negligent homicide does that not
imply that he was in fact responsible for Chloe's death?

It does. But it doesn’t preclude a judge or jury in a separate court case from finding RCCL liable as well.

Remember the OJ Simpson case? He was acquitted by a jury in criminal court of murdering Nicolle Brown and Ron Goldman but Goldman’s family sued him in civil court and a jury found him liable for his wrongful death and he was subject to a big monetary damages judgement.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

It does. But it doesn’t preclude a judge or jury in a separate court case from finding RCCL liable as well.

Remember the OJ Simpson case? He was acquitted by a jury in criminal court of murdering Nicolle Brown and Ron Goldman but Goldman’s family sued him in civil court and a jury found him liable for his wrongful death and he was subject to a big monetary damages judgement.

IMO that jury was attempting to right a wrong. There is already one big fat wrong in this case, that SA is basically getting away with murder and he shouldn't have.

 

[mheido67]

IMO that jury was attempting to right a wrong. There is already one big fat wrong in this case, that SA is basically getting away with murder and he shouldn't have.

Don't disagree with you.

Just used it as an example. Simpson couldn’t just say, “but this other jury found me not guilty so you can’t say I’m liable for their wrongful deaths now.” Same applies to RCCL. But, as others have pointed out SA pleading guilty will likely make it more difficult for MW to win a judgement against RCCL.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

Don't disagree with you.

Just used it as an example. Simpson couldn’t just say, “but this other jury found me not guilty so you can’t say I’m liable for their wrongful deaths now.” Same applies to RCCL. But, as others have pointed out SA pleading guilty will likely make it more difficult for MW to win a judgement against RCCL.

Yeah, this whole case has been one big stinking garbage pile of WRONG from the very beginning.

 

[neesaki]

Yeah, this whole case has been one big stinking garbage pile of WRONG from the very beginning.

And now we have SA’s “guilty” plea along with his self serving statement... Aka talking out of both sides of his mouth. And to boot, MW putting his spin on it. Why of course he has to insert himself right in the middle of it. I mean, seriously?
SMH, :banghead, , etc., etc.

 

[In vino veritas]

What we have is SA’s change of plea to “guilty”. The hearing before the judge has yet to be scheduled and the plea has yet to be accepted by the judge.

I hope the judge makes “admission of facts” a condition for the acceptance of the plea deal. From what I’ve gleaned from my readings of all the posts and media reports, this is not yet a done deal.

Or am I missing something?

 

[Hughaskton]

What we have is SA’s change of plea to “guilty”. The hearing before the judge has yet to be scheduled and the plea has yet to be accepted by the judge.

I hope the judge makes “admission of facts” a condition for the acceptance of the plea deal. From what I’ve gleaned from my readings of all the posts and media reports, this is not yet a done deal.

Or am I missing something?

That would be epic. I really hope that happens, I’m just not going to hold my breath, I will cross my fingers though...

 

[Mommazz4]

Is there a version of the La Comay video translated to English?

When I viewed it on YouTube I found a translation option in the settings link

 

[JerseySleuth17]

I thought SA's statement was appalling. It's clear the lawyers helped him write it but I am still having trouble wrapping my head around how the statement begins by saying sorry to the media he has to walk by every day and ignore and he doesn't want to appear rude. What!?? It's so completely outrageous. The statement was worded so as to not sabotage the civil case against RCCL. Which means that even at a time when SA is supposed to be accepting responsibility for causing CW's death, the family is STILL trying to pin this on the cruise line. "Justice for Chloe" would involve grandpa not picking her up, holding her in front of an open window, and dropping her. There is no way on earth he didn't know the window was open.

The fact that this family still continues this ridiculous claim against the cruise line disgusts me. Imo he plead guilty because even with a trial by judge given the evidence he would have been found guilty - there was no way he could have won, so they got him the best deal they could without jeopardizing the civil case. Judges are not bound to follow prosecutor recommendations. I am hoping the judge throws a curveball that tanks the civil case.

 

[neesaki]

I thought SA's statement was appalling. It's clear the lawyers helped him write it but I am still having trouble wrapping my head around how the statement begins by saying sorry to the media he has to walk by every day and ignore and he doesn't want to appear rude. What!?? It's so completely outrageous. The statement was worded so as to not sabotage the civil case against RCCL. Which means that even at a time when SA is supposed to be accepting responsibility for causing CW's death, the family is STILL trying to pin this on the cruise line. "Justice for Chloe" would involve grandpa not picking her up, holding her in front of an open window, and dropping her. There is no way on earth he didn't know the window was open.

The fact that this family still continues this ridiculous claim against the cruise line disgusts me. Imo he plead guilty because even with a trial by judge given the evidence he would have been found guilty - there was no way he could have won, so they got him the best deal they could without jeopardizing the civil case. Judges are not bound to follow prosecutor recommendations. I am hoping the judge throws a curveball that tanks the civil case.

Please indulge me for just a moment. What if the Judge asks SA if he knew there was no glass. SA says no, your honor, I thought there was glass. Judge says “roll the video”, showing SA’s head out the opening.

Is that scenario even a possibility? Wishful thinking, right? Ok, so if something like this did happen, would the plea be denied? Then what would happen? Any lawyers on board this a.m.? TIA

 

[loveandhugs]

I thought SA's statement was appalling. It's clear the lawyers helped him write it but I am still having trouble wrapping my head around how the statement begins by saying sorry to the media he has to walk by every day and ignore and he doesn't want to appear rude. What!?? It's so completely outrageous. The statement was worded so as to not sabotage the civil case against RCCL. Which means that even at a time when SA is supposed to be accepting responsibility for causing CW's death, the family is STILL trying to pin this on the cruise line. "Justice for Chloe" would involve grandpa not picking her up, holding her in front of an open window, and dropping her. There is no way on earth he didn't know the window was open.

The fact that this family still continues this ridiculous claim against the cruise line disgusts me. Imo he plead guilty because even with a trial by judge given the evidence he would have been found guilty - there was no way he could have won, so they got him the best deal they could without jeopardizing the civil case. Judges are not bound to follow prosecutor recommendations. I am hoping the judge throws a curveball that tanks the civil case.

I feel the same way about the statement, it was not written by SA, and it was worded so we would feel sorry for his suffering. I cannot put the words down about how this makes me feel, but the words would not be nice. Chloe was an afterthought at the end of the statement. If SA would admit that his actions caused Chloe's death, and show real tears, maybe then I would feel differently. There has been no justice for Chloe and by SA not taking responsibility for her death makes me realize how little her life meant to him. Reminds me of little Caylee, so sad that people can take a child's life and not admit that their actions caused the death of someone who did not deserve to die at the hands of someone they loved and trusted. No matter how SA or the lawyers spin it, I do not see any remorse on SA's part (or the parents). Let's blame the cruise line, let's get a lot of money, let's tell everyone how much we are suffering. In the deepest depths of my soul, I still have a feeling that this was not an accident. IMO

 

[In vino veritas]

I thought SA's statement was appalling. It's clear the lawyers helped him write it but I am still having trouble wrapping my head around how the statement begins by saying sorry to the media he has to walk by every day and ignore and he doesn't want to appear rude. What!?? It's so completely outrageous. The statement was worded so as to not sabotage the civil case against RCCL. Which means that even at a time when SA is supposed to be accepting responsibility for causing CW's death, the family is STILL trying to pin this on the cruise line. "Justice for Chloe" would involve grandpa not picking her up, holding her in front of an open window, and dropping her. There is no way on earth he didn't know the window was open.

The fact that this family still continues this ridiculous claim against the cruise line disgusts me. Imo he plead guilty because even with a trial by judge given the evidence he would have been found guilty - there was no way he could have won, so they got him the best deal they could without jeopardizing the civil case. Judges are not bound to follow prosecutor recommendations. I am hoping the judge throws a curveball that tanks the civil case.

I am SO in agreement. I hope the judge rejects the plea deal. If not that, then absolutely make “admission of facts” a condition of the very sweet deal being offered to that coward.