IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #6

[Forever Young]

I was under the impression the railings were 42” high. If SA, in fact is 5’11”, that means he’s 71” tall. That means he’s 29” taller than the railing. Assuming the railing is actually 18” away from the window, it seems logical that he would be able to breach the window frame given the position of his body in the La Comay video... even allowing for spine curvature and a belly.

Too bad the only measurement shown in the motion is "what if SA stood on the ledge, an additional 7 inches in height?". But the really important measurements, like height of railing, distance between railing and window, height and weight of SA, torso measurement, reach of arms measurements....nada.

 

[Forever Young]

Engagement Letter. Paying for "Costs"?
@Forever Young Yes. Typically atty/firm pays these out of pocket costs as they arise. Cumulatively they can be quite substantial, w some cases dragging on for yrs.
---- If atty obtains $$$ from defendant, thru negotiation, settlement, or lawsuit, then the math: $$$ less the 33 1/3% atty fee (per sample contract) then less $$$ costs, as enumerated ^, then the balance is disbursed to client.
---- If atty/firm does not obtain $$$ from defendant, atty/firm may never be reimbursed for all the out of pocket expenses they have paid for. Per contract, client is responsible for reimbursement, but I won't guess about lawsuits attys file against clients to try to collect. No idea how often.
{{{ETA: Contingency fees and atty's advancing litigtion costs on behalf of clients allows some clients to sue, when without these contingency fees & advances, client would not have legal representation to sue. And paying lit costs also force attys to be more selective, not take the shaky/dodgy/flimsy cases.}}}

(I don't want to go too much further afield or O/T by discussing at length in this thread, unless it is specific to the case. And others may have info for you too, if you want to pose questions or discuss in Private Forums/Jury Room. Good questions.)

Understand. My frame of reference was how cheaply the reenactment was produced. As you said previously, I, too, was expecting something a little more professionally done.

 

[al66pine]

Pymt of Costs? @Forever Young Thanks for clarifying. Got it now.

Understand. My frame of reference was how cheaply the reenactment was produced. As you said previously, I, too, was expecting something a little more professionally done.

 

[Forever Young]

Here is my question:

Does he actually lean ON his elbows/arms when he looks over the railing and out? And if so HOW?

The position our actor takes doesn't allow any chance of really leaning because he folds his arms beneath him, putting his arms between his body and the rail. That position does make it impossible. However if he puts his elbows on the rail to his sides it's perfectly possible for him to lean with his belly on the rail between them unobstructed and lean further out.

Remember, Winkleman wanted them to have access to the area without the cameras on or any witnesses. How much do you want to bet they did multiple dry runs before they found a position that "made it impossible" and they didn't want anyone to be able to say otherwise?

The position with his arms folded, IMO, is a reenactment of the "bear hug" SA claims to have been using, which went into the one armed hold.

In the video from RCCL, the one shot from the back, IMO, it looks like the railing is right under SA's arm pits, elbows and forearms resting on the rail, with his back side arched toward the ship's interior. He braces himself with his legs being farther out from the railing, not right up against it. (I know we have all seen this position when people lean on something, at least I have). JMO

 

[MsMarple]

Except the photo on page 4 of the Motion to Dismiss shows him completely bent over and his feet on the floor.

It's almost like we're in an alternate universe. The lawyers and the family are seriously dilusional or they think the jurors are stupid.

And notice that the guy's feet are about 6" to 8" from the blue line, making the railing hit him at chest height. In the last photo (where he's standing the Chloe substitute doll on the ledge of the window) his feet are almost toughing the blue line and now the railing hits him just under his ribs, which would allow him to lean further out.

I'm not getting the purpose of standing the doll on the window ledge. It can't be to demonstrate that he couldn't put Chloe out that far as the photo shows the opposite, that he could easily hold her right on the ledge.

Oops, sorry. I meant on the Motion to Produce All Video doc. pg. 4.
demand for all videos.pdf

 

[they'll get you]

We’ll be on the Ovation in Feb and IIRC it doesn’t have those windows or rails other wise I would be sending relevant photos again.

I’m only 5’4” and there was no problem for me to put my head outside the window to look around so then my arms would extend 2’ further out. It was totally safe for me as the design stops me from toppling over but to hold a child beyond there is plain criminal!


This pic was taken at 9am 16th December 2019 on the Voyager, it was a lifeguard opening the windows so obviously RC didn’t warn him not to open them.
He was max 5’11” (?)

Also I spoke with a wait staff who was on the Freedom when Chloe died and amazingly she wasn’t aware of any accident at the time.

 

[Forever Young]

And notice that the guy's feet are about 6" to 8" from the blue line, making the railing hit him at chest height. In the last photo (where he's standing the Chloe substitute doll on the ledge of the window) his feet are almost toughing the blue line and now the railing hits him just under his ribs, which would allow him to lean further out.

I'm not getting the purpose of standing the doll on the window ledge. It can't be to demonstrate that he couldn't put Chloe out that far as the photo shows the opposite, that he could easily hold her right on the ledge.

Oops, sorry. I meant on the Motion to Produce All Video doc. pg. 4.
demand for all videos.pdf

I can't get over the bolded part, either. I thought this was what they were always denying - that she was ever on the ledge. All he has to do is straighten out his arms and she's right out the window.

I guess we're still supposed to be convinced he wasn't negligent because it's not his head going out past the window?

 

[they'll get you]

demand for all videos.pdf

There’s cameras everywhere excluding toilets and staterooms and they are rolling before you even step foot on the ship. I’ve seen some news footage and the quality is amazing.
So good luck gramps.

When people buy a drink package their brain changes to ‘I must get my money’s worth’. He possibly didn’t need alcohol to be a fool.
If he was drunk he’d have better chance of blaming RC for feeding him too much alcohol.

 

[TDoc72]

The "doll" that is used in the reenactment video/photos is offensive. What were they thinking? Chloe was a toddler - not a teen with a budding bosom wearing a bikini. The "doll" has longer legs than a toddler, and the weight distribution is just so wrong.

I'd also like to point out that the height and weight of the "actor" are not similar to Grandpa. SA has a noticeable belly that protrudes much further forward than the model.

Yes, looks very cheap, and cheapens the image of a baby.

I agree on the doll, looks like a gigantic over sized Barbie doll in a skimpy bikini, nothing even close to a baby or toddler ... perverts, IMO. SMH

The "re-enactment" also doesn't accurately depict what is seen on the video, and IMO is unprofessional and would be almost laughable if the circumstances were different.
I don't understand Winks reasoning for doing an inaccurate re-enactment, other than to mislead the public. At least that's how it seems to me, and JMO.

It looks like a Little Mermaid/Ariel doll to me. IMO nothing perverted but I think they should’ve paid more attention and used a doll that was similar in size and weight.

 

[katydid23]

It looks like a Little Mermaid/Ariel doll to me. IMO nothing perverted but I think they should’ve paid more attention and used a doll that was similar in size and weight.

No, it's nothing perverted. But they were trying to make it seem less shocking by pretending this was an older child, as opposed to a one and a half year old BABY.

If they had used a life size toddler doll, it would have looked much more shocking and repulsive to see him stand her up on that window ledge.

 

[Barbieshell]

I don't think he meant to kill her, but dangling a child out of a window is just asking for trouble IMO. I was one of the ones that swallowed the accidental leaning against an open window theory until I saw the footage - a stupid man that will have to live with his disgusting stupidity for the rest of his life.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

I also can't get over the fact that SA is only 51 years old. That has to be a typo right. He looks like he's in his 70s or at LEAST in his 60s.

Alcohol will do that to you.

 

[IceIce9]

Also, to add to my above post, AW as a police officer would be trained and certified to perform breath alcohol testing. He would know that prescription meds would not cause a false positive on a test.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

I meant Etsy, not easy. Sorry about all my typos today, just heard a friend was killed by her husband.

OMG. SO SORRY.

 

[MrsWatson]

I haven't read much at all about this case until I saw an article with the video in it this morning. Up until then, I just figured this was a very tragic, stupid accident.

Then I watched that video and all I can think is WTH was he even thinking!?!

MOO

 

[Midwestmom2019]

“Chloe was always within the ship and there was room to spare.”

How did she fall out if she was always within the ship?
That’s an impossibility. What are these people on??

Miami marijuana.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

Watching the video again I think he very clearly did. He puts her on the railing to his right and he leans way out past the window and looks down. He then grabs Chloe and holds him in front of him. And I just realized something chilling: she seems to reach out and probably did think there was glass in front of her. He realized that and that is how he came up with the excuse so quickly. moo.

The guy's excuse never made sense anyway, though. If Chloe wanted to bang the glass she could have done it from the floor.

Chloe may have reached out instinctively bc she felt like she was going to fall forward. Any wall, even a glass wall may have her life.

 

[Lawnguylander1964]

On a Royal Caribbean blog about this tragedy, a commenter wrote that Sam refused the tox tests at the police station, saying his meds could cause a false positive. No idea if this is true, this is the only place that I've read this. But I've wondered before if he was possibly taking prescribed pain meds. I've had to take them before and a feeling of elation is not unusual; as well you are cautioned not to operate machinery as your reflexes can be off. I suppose that RC will request his medical records, if in fact Sam made that statement.

Growing up, my next door neighbor was a police officer and he always said that no matter what, never submit to a breath or blood test. Wait for your lawyer. I think most lawyers also recommend not getting tested.

So on this one, I don't read anything into him refusing the test.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

I haven't read much at all about this case until I saw an article with the video in it this morning. Up until then, I just figured this was a very tragic, stupid accident.

Then I watched that video and all I can think is WTH was he even thinking!?!

MOO

$$$$$$$$$$$ MOO, JMO, IMHO, etc.

 

[Kindred]

Growing up, my next door neighbor was a police officer and he always said that no matter what, never submit to a breath or blood test. Wait for your lawyer. I think most lawyers also recommend not getting tested.

So on this one, I don't read anything into him refusing the test.

See in my state a refusal on a traffic stop is considered an automatic/admitted DUI and comes with a one-year suspension of your license so in my brain it raises questions. But I can see situations where if there's no consequence like that to worry about and it really isn't pertinent to the issue at hand where it makes sense to refuse.