GUILTY IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #9 *NO JAIL*

[oviedo]

Maybe RCCL should put some type of warning, etc., but it's difficult to fix stupid. (Please pardon, if it's offensive)

Gosh it’s been a long time but I cruised RCCL several times after he killed little Chloe and I do believe they added stickers about the doors and windows. Early in I posted pics in her thread.

regarding his testimony - those wood banisters are a good length from the window and just standing a baby on it would give me the willies- I don’t know how a family forgives this level of negligence
JMO

 

[mheido67]

It is interesting that the parents state that they have not viewed any of the video footage from RCCL prior to their daughter's death.

Then, how can they continue to unequivocally support SA? If they refuse to view the evidence that supports the dismissal of their case against RCCL?

Granted, RCCL, should now have stickers on every window on every single ship, "Do not dangle child out open window". The problem is that the window was open, so how should this have been marked?

SA could not identify an open window, from a closed window? That is the crux of the problem.

The window was open, yes. But the windows have a sizable aluminum frame around each pane of glass. Actually, the frame around the operable portions is even thicker because the movable glass has its own frame which the fixed pieces do not. One more way a reasonable person can identify that some of the units are operable. Anyway, there is a sill below the operable portion that is several inches deep. More than enough room to apply a caution sticker to. Anyone walking up to the operable window, be it open or closed, and leaning on the wood railing would be hard pressed to not notice it.

SA claimed to not be able to distinguish if there was glass or not. That was their point, that the design created a hidden danger. But his actions, and his own testimony, seem to belie that claim. He testified that he reached out but never felt any glass. He then moved CW forward from the wood railing and she ultimately fell. I believe he knew the window was open and carelessly held her there and she wriggled from his grasp. It’s not believable that he couldn’t tell there was no glass.

 

[La Louve]

I admit this is somewhat twisted of me to think, but I halfway hope some bystander on the dock who saw Chloe land sues SA for PTSD and mental anguish. I wouldn't wish those images and sounds on anyone.

 

[neesaki]

Not a lawyer nor a psychologist either but seems clear that the parents are using RCCL as a proxy for their anger which they are resistant to direct at SA. It's easier to blame a stranger or a faceless corporation than a beloved family member.

That being said, he ain't blood and if he dropped my child out a window to her death I'd never want to see his godforsaken face again for the rest of my life.

Well, said, “hear, hear”, ITA, etc., etc........

 

[mickey2942]

The window was open, yes. But the windows have a sizable aluminum frame around each pane of glass. Actually, the frame around the operable portions is even thicker because the movable glass has its own frame which the fixed pieces do not. One more way a reasonable person can identify that some of the units are operable. Anyway, there is a sill below the operable portion that is several inches deep. More than enough room to apply a caution sticker to. Anyone walking up to the operable window, be it open or closed, and leaning on the wood railing would be hard pressed to not notice it.

SA claimed to not be able to distinguish if there was glass or not. That was their point, that the design created a hidden danger. But his actions, and his own testimony, seem to belie that claim. He testified that he reached out but never felt any glass. He then moved CW forward from the wood railing and she ultimately fell. I believe he knew the window was open and carelessly held her there and she wriggled from his grasp. It’s not believable that he couldn’t tell there was no glass.

Agreed. He literally stuck his head out, to double check. The window was open when he reached around, grabbed Chloe, and hauled her over the guardrail and out the window.

What the heck? Even writing that scenario is impossibly stupid. There is a problem there, and it isn't the lack of stickers, or faulty window design.

 

[In vino veritas]

It is indeed difficult to fix stupid. And ambulance chasing lawyers like MW rely on that for their livelihood.

But from RCCL's and their responsible passengers' point of view a small sticker on a window is better than inoperable windows on a pool deck. IMO anyway.

Until of course the next idiot comes along and does something absurdly irresponsible, then claims the small sticker wasn’t big enough……..

 

[Montrealaise]

It is interesting that the parents state that they have not viewed any of the video footage from RCCL prior to their daughter's death.

Then, how can they continue to unequivocally support SA? If they refuse to view the evidence that supports the dismissal of their case against RCCL?

Granted, RCCL, should now have stickers on every window on every single ship, "Do not dangle child out open window". The problem is that the window was open, so how should this have been marked?

SA could not identify an open window, from a closed window? That is the crux of the problem.

I wonder whether the parents have read the summary judgment. The judge DID view the video footage carefully and he based his decision on what that video showed. Have they refused to read the judgment, just as they refused to watch the video? Or did they read the judgment and decide to go ahead with the appeal, anyway?

 

[Montrealaise]

Exactly -- I was getting ready to post just what you said above. It was obvious that it was not a children's play area. Period.

I think the media just keep repeating what MW has said without doing any fact-checking of their own. MW also keeps referring to other cases involving children who fell out of windows. In those cases, the children were able to reach the windows on their own, without assistance from an adult. I suspect that MW keeps referring to a "children's play area" in the hope that people will infer that in this case as well, that the windows were accessible to small children.

 

[Montrealaise]

Frankly, I’m of the opinion that attorneys who file flagrantly frivolous lawsuits should be penalized in a very substantial way. Doing so would reduce the amount of such lawsuits from ambulance chase attorneys.
MW disgusts me and at this point he should slink away with his tail between his legs. IMO

I'd be willing to bet that MW knew he didn't have a case but filed anyway in the expectation that the cruise line would offer his clients a generous settlement just to avoid bad publicity and make the whole thing go away. I don't think he ever expected the company to dig in their heels and refuse to settle.

 

[Marysmith]

I'd be willing to bet that MW knew he didn't have a case but filed anyway in the expectation that the cruise line would offer his clients a generous settlement just to avoid bad publicity and make the whole thing go away. I don't think he ever expected the company to dig in their heels and refuse to settle.

I agree. IMO he convinced himself that he is a victim now as well.
I’m so glad that they didn’t settle and fought this selfish, pathetic fool.
I wonder if the family read the judgement as well. I sure hope so. They deserve to know the truth of what happened to their daughter, as painful as it will be to face it.

 

[sassyblue]

I think they could read the judgement and even watch the video and still continue to deny, deny, deny. The arrogance and willful blindness of this family is pathetic. Their beautiful child was only a payday that never came.

 

[Marysmith]

I think they could read the judgement and even watch the video and still continue to deny, deny, deny. The arrogance and willful blindness of this family is pathetic. Their beautiful child was only a payday that never came.

Actually they did get some life insurance money!

 

[al66pine]

Actually they did get some life insurance money!

@Marysmith I recall discussion about life insurance policy on Chloe's life, but I do not recall any MSM report verifying it.
Link, pls, anyone? TiA.

 

[Montrealaise]

Let's also not forget that SA has a track record of being reckless, evidenced by his many citations for refusing to wear a seatbelt. So safety? Not a priority at all for him apparently. Rules? Don't apply. Even had RCCL had a warning on the window, he likely would have ignored it.

RCCL could have had huge signs all over the ship saying "Don't lift children up to open windows" and SA would have ignored them, because he knows everything better and nobody tells him what to do! I've known people who were stopped by police and given a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt - it happened ONCE and afterwards, they always made sure they wore a seatbelt. How many citations does SA have for this - five, I think? He knew he was doing something illegal and risky yet did it again and again? That tells you everything you have to know about his mindset.

 

[Montrealaise]

Just catching up on this news.

Has the text of the judgement been posted anywhere? Or a transcript of the discovery testimony? Would be interested to read those.

I have been among the minority here who feel this tragedy was completely unintentional. I believe SA is solely responsible and RCCL has zero liability. But, being very familiar with this ship, I don’t believe the video that has been publicly available definitively establishes that SA had his head out the window. I’ve stood there and leaned on the railing in front of the window and my head was not outside. You have to really really try to get your head outside. There’s a good bit of distance between the rail and the window because the window angles out. It’s designed that way on purpose. But I do recall removing my sunglasses from the top of my head for fear that they could fall forward and out the window accidentally. Now, that being said, should any reasonable person standing in that position have realized there was no glass in front of them? Absolutely. What I do believe he may have done was to stand her little feet on the open window sill while holding her. This, if true, would completely put the lie to his claim to have not known the window was open. So, I believe the video shows that he clearly held her so that she was forward of the wood railing but not necessarily dangling out of the window. At some point he lost his grip and she fell forward out of the opening.

I’d really like to read the discovery transcript.

I agree with everything you wrote, but I didn't realize we were in the minority. People who can't believe that Chloe's death was unintentional have, IMO, two reasons for their belief:
1. They cannot fathom that anyone would do something so stupid, so reckless, as heedless of the consequences as what SA did. They should Google "Darwin Awards" for real-life examples of other people who took unbelievably stupid risks just for thrills (very few of them survived, BTW).
2. The family's behavior is odd, to put it mildly. They hired a lawyer to sue the cruise company before the child's body was even cold and had the lawyer announce that they were suing for tens of millions of dollars; apparently they had a large life insurance policy on a toddler's life (!) and the parents have refused to watch the video or otherwise face the truth of how their daughter died.

 

[Marysmith]

@Marysmith I recall discussion about life insurance policy on Chloe's life, but I do not recall any MSM report verifying it.
Link, pls, anyone? TiA.

al66pine, I saw that on here but can’t find an MSM link about it. Sorry! So please ignore my post.

 

[al66pine]

.... apparently they had a large life insurance policy on a toddler's life (!) ....

@Montrealaise sbm bbm I realize you said, "apparently" had a large life ins policy on Chloe, so not necessarily "did" have a policy.
If you have an MSM report verifying it, I'd appreciate a link.
Not challenging you. I recall lots of LI discussion from early on, but no MSM. Maybe someone else has link.

Anyone? TiA.

 

[neesaki]

@Montrealaise sbm bbm I realize you said, "apparently" had a large life ins policy on Chloe, so not necessarily "did" have a policy.
If you have an MSM report verifying it, I'd appreciate a link.
Not challenging you. I recall lots of LI discussion from early on, but no MSM. Maybe someone else has link.

Anyone? TiA.

Hey, @al66pine , It was reported early on, via Social Media posts. Something like 600K. Which were, reportedly, removed rather quickly after the horrific incident. It’s a shame we don’t have some screen shots or something. That’s all I know.

All I know, is, IMO, the mother seemed to be out for blood, when it was no ones fault but her own step father’s. Why would she so vehemently protect him? Seems in the least very dysfunctional, at the most rather nefarious. JMO

 

[al66pine]

Hey, @al66pine , It was reported early on, via Social Media posts. Something like 600K. Which were, reportedly, removed rather quickly after the horrific incident. It’s a shame we don’t have some screen shots or something. ....

@neesaki sbm Thx for the memory refresher. Yes, I recall something like that figure --- $ 600,000. Hard to imagine that kind of life insurance for a toddler. Thx again.

 

[Seattle1]

@neesaki sbm Thx for the memory refresher. Yes, I recall something like that figure --- $ 600,000. Hard to imagine that kind of life insurance for a toddler. Thx again.

I don't have MSM link to confirm if life insurance true specifically for Chloe but I do know that the most common way for a toddler to end up with a $600K life insurance is by an employee benefit from one of the parents.

This was true in the case of Chris Watts children each having large life insurance payouts. It happens when the employee opts to designate a percentage of the employee's own corporate life benefit towards the lives of their spouse and dependents. In other words, it was not a policy intentionally purchased/underwritten for a toddler.