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

[RoadToSerfdom]

Always found the quote “Sam is not a drinker” odd & deliberately vague.

I noticed this as lawyer speak as well the moment [I read that] he said it. Classic "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." statement.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

Whoa! I just looked at the video of SA at the airport after Chloe’s death. Hadn’t seen it previously. Does NOT look like a man broken by a horrible tragedy in which he was a major player. I just don’t know what to think.
I have to believe if PR prosecutors suspected intent on SA’s part, even without proof of intent, a plea deal would never have been an option.

I had seen still pics of that and you would never guess from his demeanor what had just occurred...especially since we learned he wasn't sedated. Those pics were just another red flag to me.

 

[BeachSky]

IMO the lawyer mother basically (through Winkleman) filed a civil suite to distract the criminal investigation against the grandfather.
1. Dump the blame on RCCL
2. Get compen$ated

I wish the judge had thrown the civil suit out.
Kudos to RCCL ...and hopefully they will prevail.
The boat chasing lawyer needs to be taught a lesson...
I so hope he gets zip!

MOO

 

[Wicked Strong]

There was a case where an 8-year-old girl fell from an interior balcony on a Carnival ship who was possibly jostled by people trying to disembark. The family filed a lawsuit a couple of months later and the suit was ultimately settled. You can Google Zion Smith for more info.

Because of the settlement there's no information about how it occurred. In that case the family was only quoted once in msm and unlike the Wiegands didn't go on a press tour. I have to wonder what they think of this lawsuit. Do they think maybe they should have done similar in hopes of a bigger settlement? Do they think the Wiegands are wrong? I don't know because they haven't spoken out.

But it does beg the question of whether or not future suits will also be played out in msm because people feel it will net a larger settlement. If that happens then that will be the true legacy of Chloe's death, not about forcing a cruise line to "fix the boat, just fix it." Bottom line for the Wiegands is IMO $$. MOO.

I just did a search on this case, I was looking to see if MW's name appeared as the lawyer. One of the first articles was written by a attorney for cruise ship accidents. I find it interesting that he said cruise lines do not have to abide by building codes. Plus he said Federal judges who rule over cruise ship accident cases like that case— will be quick to dismiss any claim against the cruise ships that is not rooted in proof of their negligence. Now I'm really curious on whether the case will be dismissed before it goes to trial.

Who Is To Blame For 8 Year-Olds-Death On Carnival Ship? | HuffPost

MOO

 

[RoadToSerfdom]

Legal Question: RCCL would definitely want to take SA's deposition, to ask him under oath about all that happened and what he was thinking. What if he refuses? Can the civil court judge require him to sit for a deposition? What he says he is not a "party to the lawsuit" so he can't be compelled to sit for a deposition? If he is allowed to refuse a deposition and does so would that count against the plaintiff's case? Or can they then say "not our problem, he is not part of our case, our lawsuit has nothing to do with SA".

 

[loveandhugs]

He is not a drinker
I wasn’t drinking

Agreed ~ regarding how could it be that no breathalyzer or blood test was done? Shouldn’t it have been imperative especially with a dead body to account for?

It’s unnerving how the parents were in such high-gear professionally esp those first hours. Oh, our dearest poppy Sammy just isn’t a drinker! (my twist on their words) And since they are themselves LE/lawyer magically the mantras about drinking are like a get-out-of-jail-free card. Especially when they know all the tricks and loopholes of the biz. Any other joker would have been locked up and processed thoroughly ruling out every possibility.

Oh wait, NO ONE has ever tossed a kid out a cruise ship window! So this should have been the ultimate case-study. But wait, in steps lawyer step-daughter and officer step-son-in-law. Serpentine to the left serpentine to the right. Then under the radar off to the airport undetected. Surreal. So no breathalyzer, no blood test, no autopsy. Tracks covered. Phew! Lights, camera, action! on with the media circuit (circus) and putting the squeeze on RCCL with one spin after another.

Yes, it will definitely be interesting to hear from a Websleuther who is in the legal field to expound on the meaning of ...not a “drinker” / wasn't ”drinking” Does it mean only one drink? with a few hours in between? Wasn’t ”feeling” buzzed?

I seriously doubt it means teetotaler. The smoke and mirrors worked for a spell until they suddenly slinked back to the mainland and now it’s too late for tests. Has he been in AA? Did his prior marriage hit the crapper over alcohol related issues? Has he been to rehab? All this gets a free pass simply because his step-inlaws are deemed credible due to their professional standing. Just take ”our” word for it... Not.a.drinker. We say it’s so - makes it so. Skip tests. Skip autopsy.

Not sure how that wasn’t mandated by authorities other than the family sure played the “accident” card for all it was worth.

SA & entourage had to have known this would have all come out in the bench trial. Oh to have to have been a fly on the wall and see what last-minute evidence was revealed that caused SA to abandon his innocence plea. Sign & sail records? Cameras from other places leading up to the splash pad arrival? A witness at the dock seeing her held out the window? Whatever it was, had to be HUGE for SA to jump on a guilty plea like his head was on fire running to water.

And just like that- no more family press conferences either. No more Q & A sessions. Crickets. This sure has put a monkey wrench in their money grabbing. And have been their own stumbling block to grieving loss of their innocent angel baby. I feel sorrow for what CW’s older brother has to endure for a lifetime

Excellent!

 

[sl222]

Remember we discussed a while back how different SA looked at the airport. Suddenly all the puffiness and at least 15 pounds had vanished. He looked years younger than he usually does. I attributed that to shock and grief but also to him not drinking, and to eating very little. And not doing whatever else it is that he normally does, if anything. If he had any other substances with him then he would have had to get rid of them. MOO.

I think we'll never know what really happened and why but whatever it is, it's bad. If only there had been a more thorough investigation but the whole "sad grandfather" thing really got in the way. I still think the PR authorities did a good job though. They did consider the charge of murder which shows they were objective and thinking of the victim.

 

[neesaki]

I just did a search on this case, I was looking to see if MW's name appeared as the lawyer. One of the first articles was written by a attorney for cruise ship accidents. I find it interesting that he said cruise lines do not have to abide by building codes. Plus he said Federal judges who rule over cruise ship accident cases like that case— will be quick to dismiss any claim against the cruise ships that is not rooted in proof of their negligence. Now I'm really curious on whether the case will be dismissed before it goes to trial.

Who Is To Blame For 8 Year-Olds-Death On Carnival Ship? | HuffPost

MOO

I know it’s OT, but I cannot figure out how an 8 y/o could fall over the balustrade, a taller adult perhaps, but even that would seem suspect, imo. She had to have climbed up IMO. Just terrible either way.
That said, I’m surprised Carnival actually settled , where was their fault. Is there a thread on this?

 

[mheido67]

Legal Question: RCCL would definitely want to take SA's deposition, to ask him under oath about all that happened and what he was thinking. What if he refuses? Can the civil court judge require him to sit for a deposition? What he says he is not a "party to the lawsuit" so he can't be compelled to sit for a deposition? If he is allowed to refuse a deposition and does so would that count against the plaintiff's case? Or can they then say "not our problem, he is not part of our case, our lawsuit has nothing to do with SA".

Interesting question. SA is certainly not a party to the lawsuit and at a certain level he is irrelevant. MW has framed his argument around the codes and standards he claims should apply and around what he claims was RCCL's duty to warn passengers of the potential danger of the open window. Neither of these are specifically dependent on SA himself. As we've already seen from the rejected Motion to Dismiss RCCL certainly believes SA is important but given the arguments being made by MW I don't know that RCCL has much to gain from deposing SA. He will maintain that he thought there was glass. Perhaps they could get him to admit (which he already has ) that he wasn't paying attention to his surroundings.

One thing I want to mention again is there is a mistatement of fact in the MW complaint.

"21. An inspection of the scene after the subject incident revealed that all the glass panes around
the single open pane of glass were closed and that this was the only single pane, among dozens of
panes, that was slid completely open."

This is not true. The cctv video clearly shows at a minimum the adjacent operable window to the right was fully open at the time CW fell. All the windows were subsequently closed by someone (ships crew?) before the PR LE photos (empty scene with yellow caution tape) that are included in the complaint were taken. These photos show all the windows closed, even the window CW fell from. RCCL will certainly want to dispute this all other windows closed claim.

 

[neesaki]

Remember we discussed a while back how different SA looked at the airport. Suddenly all the puffiness and at least 15 pounds had vanished. He looked years younger than he usually does. I attributed that to shock and grief but also to him not drinking, and to eating very little. And not doing whatever else it is that he normally does, if anything. If he had any other substances with him then he would have had to get rid of them. MOO.

I think we'll never know what really happened and why but whatever it is, it's bad. If only there had been a more thorough investigation but the whole "sad grandfather" thing really got in the way. I still think the PR authorities did a good job though. They did consider the charge of murder which shows they were objective and thinking of the victim.

He caused that baby’s death and should have been arrested on the spot until further investigation.... also, being a tourist could he not have been considered a flight risk? Well he obviously was as he didn’t cooperate with LE, snuck out of PR and flew home. JMO

 

[mheido67]

He caused that baby’s death and should have been arrested on the spot until further investigation.... also, being a tourist could he not have been considered a flight risk? Well he obviously was as he didn’t cooperate with LE, snuck out of PR and flew home. JMO

If he was drunk or under the influence would they have charged him with something more than negligent homicide?

I believe LE would have needed a warrant to compel SA to give a blood sample. Unlikely they would have convinced a court to issue a warrant since SA was not accused of doing anything that he was not legally allowed to do while drinking. My non-lawyer take anyway.

 

[al66pine]

Windows. One Open, the Rest Closed?

...One thing I want to mention again is there is a mistatement of fact in the MW complaint.

"21. An inspection of the scene after the subject incident revealed that all the glass panes around the single open pane of glass were closed and that this was the only single pane, among dozens of panes, that was slid completely open."
This is not true. The cctv video clearly shows at a minimum the adjacent operable window to the right was fully open at the time CW fell. All the windows were subsequently closed by someone (ships crew?) before the PR LE photos (empty scene with yellow caution tape) that are included in the complaint were taken. These photos show all the windows closed, even the window CW fell from. RCCL will certainly want to dispute this all other windows closed claim.

@mheido67 sbm Re bbm: Complaint states after "the subject incident" but does not say at the time of the incident or immediately after.
Was paragraph deliberately worded to circumvent saying "at the time of the incident? Yes, ITS. By Dec 11 when Complaint was filed Winkleman had seen, even shown vid, so alleging "at the time of the incident" would have been a crystal clear lie.
It's possible the allegation was true at some point after incident.,depending on precisely when the
"inspection" was conducted. Seconds, minutes, hours? But as you say @mheido67 it definitely was not true at when accident occurred, which is the only relevant time re open/close status. jmo

 

[mheido67]

Windows. One Open, the Rest Closed?
@mheido67 sbm Re bbm: Complaint states after "the subject incident" but does not say at the time of the incident or immediately after.
Was paragraph deliberately worded to circumvent saying "at the time of the incident? Yes, ITS. By Dec 11 when Complaint was filed Winkleman had seen, even shown vid, so alleging "at the time of the incident" would have been a crystal clear lie.
It's possible the allegation was true at some point after incident.,depending on precisely when the
"inspection" was conducted. Seconds, minutes, hours? But as you say @mheido67 it definitely was not true at when accident occurred, which is the only relevant time re open/close status. jmo

You are correct. Left himself weasel room. Although if questioned on it I'm sure the judge could make things a bit uncomfortable for MW. Consider this along with the fact MW used a photo in which all the windows are closed to demonstrate how difficult it would have been to tell which windows are open and which are closed and I'd be a bit annoyed if I were the judge.

 

[neesaki]

If he was drunk or under the influence would they have charged him with something more than negligent homicide?

I believe LE would have needed a warrant to compel SA to give a blood sample. Unlikely they would have convinced a court to issue a warrant since SA was not accused of doing anything that he was not legally allowed to do while drinking. My non-lawyer take anyway.

I guess my point was why take his word for it that it was accidental when it was just as likely that it was not. Could they not have arrested him right then and there until they had investigated further? Just questioning how it was handled.. Any feedback from attorneys? TIA

 

[mheido67]

I guess my point was why take his word for it that it was accidental when it was just as likely that it was not. Could they not have arrested him right then and there until they had investigated further? Just questioning how it was handled.. Any feedback from attorneys? TIA

I think probable cause would have been an issue with LE arresting him on the spot. They would have needed something that indicated this was more than a tragic accident to create probable cause. Otherwise they risk creating a false or malicious arrest charge. "Cops throw grieving elderly grandpa in the slammer!" No police chief wants those kinds of headlines. Plus if they arrested him they would have to charge him within a certain period of time which could have made them rush their initial investigation. There really wasn't any risk of him harming anyone else and if he fled back to Indiana there would be no problem getting him arrested there if he did not turn himself in once charged.

 

[In vino veritas]

You are correct. Left himself weasel room. Although if questioned on it I'm sure the judge could make things a bit uncomfortable for MW. Consider this along with the fact MW used a photo in which all the windows are closed to demonstrate how difficult it would have been to tell which windows are open and which are closed and I'd be a bit annoyed if I were the judge.

Insulted, to say the least. The judge is not an idiot.

 

[JerseySleuth17]

I know I sound like a broken record, but if you look at the video shot from behind, you can see that in the few seconds before CW fell, SA has something in his right hand. I believe it was a cell phone and he was trying to take a picture of her. You see the object/phone in his right hand, then you see him move it to in front of his body as if he's about to take a picture, and out the window she goes. Now if you are in the camp (like me) that he 100% knew the window was open, this means in the few seconds before CW's death at a bare minimum SA was holding her with one hand. We know this because you can see on the video his other hand is holding something (and it's not his grandchild). Right there this is negligent homicide at a minimum. I wish in some of the interviews someone had asked SA "what were you holding in your right hand right before Chloe fell?" "Why were you only holding her with one hand?" "When you leaned over with your head mere inches from the "glass" how could you not know the window was open?" If I were the parents, this is what I would be asking SA instead of blaming the cruise line. You don't a "sticker" on a window to prevent this, you need someone not holding an 18-month old by one hand in front of an open window. The more times I watch the video, the more I can't help but think it was intentional. It was SO reckless to casually hold her that way - by one hand no less! - how is this an accident?? Imo.

 

[neesaki]

The comments after the article say it all, IMO.

Grandfather who dropped toddler to her death from cruise ship window will plead GUILTY | Daily Mail Online

Elle181, Toronto , Canada, 4 days ago

The man and the child's parents are bloody liars and the child's parents are greedy opportunists trying to profit of their innocent child's death. I hope they don't get a penny. These people should all be ashamed of themselves. Its sickening!

Russiamom, Texaa, United States, 4 days ago

Sam and this family has told so many lies about this incident. The window wasnt in a childrens play area. It was in a lounge area near a bar. Sam isnt Chloes grandfather. Hes either the grandmothers husband or boyfriend. Sam isnt elderly. Hes on 51. I dont believe he lifted her up to bang on glass. He knew the window was open and held her out of it in purpose. There was no hidden danger.

Chrissy, Midland, Australia, 5 days ago

It looks for all the world that he leant out of the window with the child.

Sophie2019, Blackstump, Australia, 5 days ago

A foolish act resulted in the death of his grandchild there is no one to blame but him.

BBinOz, Tustin, United States, 5 days ago

No one in this family has behaved well, and the grandfather who treated his granddaughter so cavalierly- ultimately resulting in her death- the least well of all. If he is convicted of Negligent Homicide? Without jail time and with no admission of facts? That seems to be aimed at potentially further victimizing the cruise line in addition to the granddaughter. This entire family seems both chilling and disturbing. Yet in my experience the universe is ultimately a just place. I have no idea how, but I suspect that in the long run if this family continues on this course? Their lives will worsen. Read ALL the pronouns in the grandfathers statement in the final paragraph. How did this child fall? SHE slipped.

Alan Louis, Houston, United States, 5 days ago

Here's rule one of cruise safety - don't let a drunk dangle your baby out an open window.

Hurricane123, Paris, France, 5 days ago

So if he plead guilty, shouldn't they throw out the lawsuit against the cruise ship? How sick is it that he would do what it takes to avoid going to jail for what he did?

City Gal, Los Angeles, United States, 5 days ago

How stupid was this man to think that was safe for her?! Watching that clip made me sick to my stomach!

Russiamom, Texas, United States, 5 days ago

I bet after their lawsuit against RCC fails grandma and the rest of the family will ditch this idiot out of their lives forever. They know hes guilty but arent going to say so publicly because of their cash grabbing lawsuit against the cruise line.

 

[In vino veritas]

I know I sound like a broken record, but if you look at the video shot from behind, you can see that in the few seconds before CW fell, SA has something in his right hand. I believe it was a cell phone and he was trying to take a picture of her. You see the object/phone in his right hand, then you see him move it to in front of his body as if he's about to take a picture, and out the window she goes. Now if you are in the camp (like me) that he 100% knew the window was open, this means in the few seconds before CW's death at a bare minimum SA was holding her with one hand. We know this because you can see on the video his other hand is holding something (and it's not his grandchild). Right there this is negligent homicide at a minimum. I wish in some of the interviews someone had asked SA "what were you holding in your right hand right before Chloe fell?" "Why were you only holding her with one hand?" "When you leaned over with your head mere inches from the "glass" how could you not know the window was open?" If I were the parents, this is what I would be asking SA instead of blaming the cruise line. You don't a "sticker" on a window to prevent this, you need someone not holding an 18-month old by one hand in front of an open window. The more times I watch the video, the more I can't help but think it was intentional. It was SO reckless to casually hold her that way - by one hand no less! - how is this an accident?? Imo.

I watched the video yet again. While I agree that his right arm is pulled way back... I cannot see him holding anything in that hand. Doesn’t mean he isn’t... I just don’t see it.
But it certainly appears as though he’s only holding her with his left arm. Unbelievable.

 

[mheido67]

I know I sound like a broken record, but if you look at the video shot from behind, you can see that in the few seconds before CW fell, SA has something in his right hand. I believe it was a cell phone and he was trying to take a picture of her. You see the object/phone in his right hand, then you see him move it to in front of his body as if he's about to take a picture, and out the window she goes. Now if you are in the camp (like me) that he 100% knew the window was open, this means in the few seconds before CW's death at a bare minimum SA was holding her with one hand. We know this because you can see on the video his other hand is holding something (and it's not his grandchild). Right there this is negligent homicide at a minimum. I wish in some of the interviews someone had asked SA "what were you holding in your right hand right before Chloe fell?" "Why were you only holding her with one hand?" "When you leaned over with your head mere inches from the "glass" how could you not know the window was open?" If I were the parents, this is what I would be asking SA instead of blaming the cruise line. You don't a "sticker" on a window to prevent this, you need someone not holding an 18-month old by one hand in front of an open window. The more times I watch the video, the more I can't help but think it was intentional. It was SO reckless to casually hold her that way - by one hand no less! - how is this an accident?? Imo.

If you could post a screen cap of that I'd love to see it because I don't see how anyone can clearly see his right hand let alone that he was holding a phone in it. There are multiple people (bartender & other passengers) moving between SA and the camera. It may be the case that he was holding a camera but I don't see it. But perhaps that's why he switched her from his right side to his left. Do we know if he's left or right handed?

He has admitted in the interview with DB that he was holding her with one hand, he said because he was reaching for the glass with his right hand. So the fact that he was holding her with one hand is known and he has been asked about it.