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

[Medstudies]

Many people, even those who have a diagnosis of Diabetes Type 2, are woefully ignorant about the disease. People receive the diagnosis, and have a lot of denial about the disease. This leads to noncompliance with medication, eating, every thing else, and often, do not even tell their families about the diagnosis.

And, with the issue of so many people who do not have health insurance, even if they are employed, maybe SA doesn't even know that he is diabetic. The disease can be ignored for years, put off as being thirsty, tired, hungry.

Of course, this is all speculation, we have zero verification of any diagnosis of Diabetes in SA. But, it is something worth noting.

ITA, But considering the fact that they have been reaching hard for excuses, I believe it would have been diagnosed and trotted out months ago. Really This would have been the perfect excuse.

his employer is a large hospital. I’ll have to look, but I would be shocked if his employment didn’t require annual health screenings. (Of course, no one can be forced to eat well or take their meds. And some live in denial, so there’s that.)

IIRC: The color blindness was diagnosed after this incident. Which leads me to believe they immediately looked hard for any medical reason to CHA. But yea, maybe he’s diabetic

 

[Forever Young]

Another hypothetical question came to my mind. Maybe we can chew on this for a while.

Everyone seems to think that the law regarding window protection that Winkleman et al refer to in the lawsuit, is only in regard to multiple family dwellings, or buildings. Are there also industry standards for hotels? Could a cruise ship be legally considered a hotel?

We may not like him, but I don't think he is so stupid as to throw a law in that would not pertain to this suit.

 

[Lawsmygame2]

Double post.

 

[Lawsmygame2]

IMO, these photos are quite damning to the defense and to MW’s case. As you see in the photos included below, the railing does not come up to the chest of the person. It is closer to his waist. Further, the second photo shows the person extending the doll so the doll’s feet sit on ledge of the window. Notice the man’s arms aren’t fully extended. If they were the doll would be beyond the window (outside).

If you look at the other photos included on page 41 of this thread, it shows that the man has his butt stuck out and is leaning forward so that it looks like the railing comes up to his chest area. Upon review, it is because of the placing of the feet. In the first set of photos list on page 41, his feet are further from the black line on the floor. In these photos his feet are close or touching the line. JMO.

See above post with text double post to see attached photos. For some reason, it would not attch to this post???

 

[In vino veritas]

IMO, these photos are quite damning to the defense and to MW’s case. As you see in the photos included below, the railing does not come up to the chest of the person. It is closer to his waist. Further, the second photo shows the person extending the doll so the doll’s feet sit on ledge of the window. Notice the man’s arms aren’t fully extended. If they were the doll would be beyond the window (outside).

If you look at the other photos included on page 41 of this thread, it shows that the man has his butt stuck out and is leaning forward so that it looks like the railing comes up to his chest area. Upon review, it is because of the placing of the feet. In the first set of photos list on page 41, his feet are further from the black line on the floor. In these photos his feet are close or touching the line. JMO.

See above post with text double post to see attached photos. For some reason, it would not attch to this post???

Exactly!! In the photo holding the doll, the actor is at waist level to the railing. If he hinges from the waist, his head will either breach the window or come extremely close. Factor in going up on ones toes if the objective is to see what’s below, and the conclusion is obvious.

 

[neesaki]

IMO, these photos are quite damning to the defense and to MW’s case. As you see in the photos included below, the railing does not come up to the chest of the person. It is closer to his waist. Further, the second photo shows the person extending the doll so the doll feet sit on ledge of the window. Notice the man’s arms aren’t fully extended. If they were the doll would be beyond the window (outside).

If you look at the other photos included on page 41 of this thread, it shows that the man has his butt stuck out and is leaning forward so that it looks like the railing comes up to his chest area. Upon review, it is because of the placing of the feet. In the first set of photos list on page 41, his feet are further from the black line on the floor. In these photos his feet are close or touching the line. JMO.

I agree, the re-enactment isn't accurately duplicating SA's actions.

SA looks like a man on a mission, IMO... and the video clearly shows that immediately upon his arrival to the window, he reaches his arms through and out the window then... it looks as though he grabs the edges of the window ?.... as though to pull himself forward through the window, (9 - 10 minute mark), before he then looks straight down. He is almost bent at a 90 degree angle while looking down. In all honesty, I can't help but think it looks as though he's casing out the area below before picking Chloe up.

ETA: It's possible that he's putting his arms out the window to rest them on the window sill, as from the back view the elbows appear slightly bent. He's still leaning way too far forward to have them on the railing though. He wouldn't even have to lean over to do that, IMO. Whatever the case, his intended purpose appears to have been to go to the window and scope out the dock area as his actions were without any hesitation.

https://video-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v...=de4c52406978f61b76ba2c67dc952e61&oe=5E8E5E71

 

[Kindred]

The rear shot video shows SA with elbows resting on the railing, and is illustrated in the first photo in the motion for demand of all videos. Clearly shown, all body parts from the shoulders down were behind the railing.

demand for all videos.pdf

From at or about 4:03 in the



I'm not quiet sure how you can tell how his arms are resting on the railing. Can you honestly say that you can see his arms folded underneath his chest and supporting his weight like the actor is doing? Between the random male sitting at the bar in the blue shirt obstructing and, well, SA's body obstructing I don't think anyone can say how exactly his arms are placed.

Again, the actor is doing Winklemans version. I would like to see the video of their entire reenactment investigation, including any and all rehearsals not just their finished poses. It's easy to say "clearly we can't do what they are saying" if we don't get to see them actually legitimately try. They want all of RCCL's video, why can't we have all of theirs?

We still don't even have any proof that their actor is actually comparable to SA, they provide no side by side comparison, just a statement that he "is nearly identical in height and torso to Sam Anello". So how near is nearly? 3 inches off the top? 6 inches around the middle? How convenient that they had a lawyer in the firm who is "nearly identical" to SA.

 

[Kindred]

Kindred, I really appreciate your posts. You've managed to shed a great deal of light on this case -through facts, not opinions. You've put in a lot of work from which we have all benefited, thank you!

Awww thanks. I like when we can keep the discussions and debates productive and it's been so hard to get some actual stuff to look at and go over with nothing but the PR version going around. I'm happy to grab documents when I can!

Also I'm enjoying debating with you @Forever Young , I hope I don't come off as heated or anything. I get excited when there's someone I can dig into facts and arguments with and I don't want you to take it personal

 

[al66pine]

Purpose of Rail Design? Possible Design Fail?

....The railing is designed to do just that - keep you from leaning out the window.

@Forever Young bbm sbm Imo rail design is not intended to keep ppl from "leaning out the window." Seems overly broad. Why try to prevent ppl from putting head, maybe shoulders, out the window to get the views and the sea air? Imo it's intended to prevent injury/death of ppl leaning out so far that their center of gravity shifts forward/outward to the point, at which, without their realizing the imminent peril, they fall out the window. IOW, to prevent injury/death of ppl from "inadvertently falling out the window."

The rail design did not fail to achieve intended effect of preventing ppl from "inadvertently falling out the window." Neither SA nor Chloe inadvertently fell out the window. jmo

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Purpose of Rail Design? Possible Design Fail?
@Forever Young bbm sbm Imo rail design is not intended to keep ppl from "leaning out the window." Seems overly broad. Why try to prevent ppl from putting head, maybe shoulders, out the window to get the views and the sea air? Imo it's intended to prevent injury/death of ppl leaning out so far that their center of gravity shifts forward/outward to the point, at which, without their realizing the imminent peril, they fall out the window. IOW, to prevent injury/death of ppl from "inadvertently falling out the window."

The rail design did not fail to achieve intended effect of preventing ppl from "inadvertently falling out the window." Neither SA nor Chloe inadvertently fell out the window. jmo

Absolutely every cruise ship I've sailed on (30+ sailings since the mid-'80s) has railings throughout the ship: stair railings, hand rails in passenger stateroom alleyways, railings that surround outdoor decks, passenger balcony railings, etc. They are there for a reason - passenger safety: Handrails for balance and safety when the ship is in rough seas and railings that are intended to keep passengers from falling overboard or falling out an open window by leaning too far over said railings. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows better than to breech the safety railings. No one else on any cruise vessel has ever lifted a toddler over a safely railing, held said toddler in an open window, and lost a grip on the child. Until, of course, SA decided to do just than!

 

[Chikkamma]

I wanted to expand a little bit on the view of that re-enactment photo, taken in front of a support beam, as opposed to the RCCL video that shows all the support beams in front of SA and Chloe at the window.

IMO, it is those support beams that led to the misconception that SA had his upper body out through the window, and the ensuing outcry by thousands of posters.

I have no dog in this race, no vested interest, just want to be fair to all parties concerned, since none of us were eye-witnesses to the actual incident.

So, do you think it was fair for RCCL to release only the video taken with the support beams obscuring the view, then to state in their motion for dismissal that SA leans all the way out the window prior to lifting Chloe?

They surely do have other videos, possibly one from behind the bar, where the support beams would not give the illusion that we are seeing window frames there.

I do understand that a video taken from behind the bar might be a little too graphic for public viewing, but for RCCL to state that the released videos clearly show SA with his upper body through the window opening is, IMO, prejudicial to the case.

I respectfully disagree. I think RC was stating as fact that when SA leaned he went outside of the window because there is no way for him not to have done so given his height and the degree of his lean (i.e. he was practically bent in half). When SA leaned over the rail and he extended his elbows out our view, there is no way, given his posture, that his arms would have been able to stay completely inside the ship IMO. In any case, it can be easily proved by measurements or a third party demonstrating this (i.e. not the defense).

I don't think part of SA's body having actually gone outside of the window is a misconception. I believe RC claimed such because it is what their HD video shows and because it can be backed up by a demonstration of someone of SA's height doing such.

 

[Chikkamma]

Is it fair to say that RCCL is probably the one who "leaked" the video to La Comay?

I assume LE has all 13 camera views from RC. Only 2 views were leaked. These are the same 2 views that RC chose to use in their motion to dismiss.

 

[al66pine]

Alleged Failure to Comply w 'Safety Standards.' Applicable/Relevant?
ASTM* Is an ASTM Standard a law?
Short Version: No, not necessarily a law. Complying w ASTM may be only "best practices" i.e., not mandatory. So even if ship did not comply w a certain ASTM std. that is not a necessarily a 'violation' of law.
Longer Version: Complaint alleges multiple times that RCCL's Frdm/Seas window configuration violates ASTM standards. Per below, compliance w ASTM standards is voluntary, unless adopted as a requirement by "an external contract, corporation, or government." *
Not clear to me if US govt, or interntl compact, etc. have adopted any ASTM stds as applicable to RCL Alleged ASTM 'violation' may/may not be relevant or material. Even if a gov't, international compact, etc. has adopted many ASTM standards, a given std may not apply to Frdm/Seas. Like the one below, imo.

* "ASTM International,... is an international standards organization that develops and publishes voluntary consensus technical standards for a wide range of materials, products, systems, and services...
"ASTM International has no role in requiring or enforcing compliance with its standards. The standards, however, may become mandatory when referenced by an external contract, corporation, or government.
ASTM International - Wikipedia

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
That's ^ gen background re ASTM.. Below, one ASTM std. Complaint alleges re non-compl & negligent.
ASTM F2006- 17
Complaint, paragraph 26, alleges non-compliance w ASTM F2006- 17. The ASTM Notes, issued w standard itself, state, it applies to windows installed in "multiple family apartment buildings."
1. Scope
1.3 This safety specification applies only to devices intended to be applied to windows installed at heights of more than 75 ft 7 (23 m) above ground level in multiple family dwelling buildings...."
^ from ASTM F2006 - 17 Standard Safety Specification for Window Fall Prevention Devices for Non-Emergency Escape (Egress) and Rescue (Ingress) Windows bbm
(If anyone drills down in ^ link and finds this std applies to Frdm/Seas, I'll send you a replica of the Reenactment Not-to-Scale Bikini Barbie/Ariel Doll. Just kidding. )

Complaint, paragraph 27 "...Defendant knew or should have known of the industry standard set forth by above ASTM standards, yet Defendant’s vessel was not in compliance."
Complaint, paragraphs 34 and 35 allege cruiseline breached its duty of care in various ways and specifically in sub (i) by "Failure to incorporate applicable standards, including the ASTM and/or other industry standards..."
Since that particular ASTM standard applies to windows installed in "multiple family apartment buildings" it is not applicable to ship. RCL's failure to comply w that not-applicable standard was not a breach of duty of care, as alleged in para 35(i).

IOW, Complaint alleges non-compliance/violation of a safety standard that is irrelevant, immaterial (does not pertain).
-------------------------------------------------------------------

... I don't think he is so stupid as to throw a law in that would not pertain to this suit.

@Forever Young bbm sbm Maybe rethink?

 

[1&2&3]

Is it possible for one of our Spanish speaking members to translate what is being said on the La Conray video? The whole thing so we may follow along. TIA.

 

[Andreee]

I wanted to expand a little bit on the view of that re-enactment photo, taken in front of a support beam, as opposed to the RCCL video that shows all the support beams in front of SA and Chloe at the window.

IMO, it is those support beams that led to the misconception that SA had his upper body out through the window, and the ensuing outcry by thousands of posters.

I have no dog in this race, no vested interest, just want to be fair to all parties concerned, since none of us were eye-witnesses to the actual incident.

So, do you think it was fair for RCCL to release only the video taken with the support beams obscuring the view, then to state in their motion for dismissal that SA leans all the way out the window prior to lifting Chloe?

They surely do have other videos, possibly one from behind the bar, where the support beams would not give the illusion that we are seeing window frames there.

I do understand that a video taken from behind the bar might be a little too graphic for public viewing, but for RCCL to state that the released videos clearly show SA with his upper body through the window opening is, IMO, prejudicial to the case.

DBM

 

[neesaki]

I wanted to expand a little bit on the view of that re-enactment photo, taken in front of a support beam, as opposed to the RCCL video that shows all the support beams in front of SA and Chloe at the window.

IMO, it is those support beams that led to the misconception that SA had his upper body out through the window, and the ensuing outcry by thousands of posters.

I have no dog in this race, no vested interest, just want to be fair to all parties concerned, since none of us were eye-witnesses to the actual incident.

So, do you think it was fair for RCCL to release only the video taken with the support beams obscuring the view, then to state in their motion for dismissal that SA leans all the way out the window prior to lifting Chloe?

They surely do have other videos, possibly one from behind the bar, where the support beams would not give the illusion that we are seeing window frames there.

I do understand that a video taken from behind the bar might be a little too graphic for public viewing, but for RCCL to state that the released videos clearly show SA with his upper body through the window opening is, IMO, prejudicial to the case.

At his height and the angle of his body while bending over and out the window, there’s no way some part of his body wasn’t past the window. And from the back view it’s the same, he’s leaning way out, bent over at nearly a 90 degree angle. The support beams don’t really obscure the view from the side, but the back view again confirms what he was doing.

I have serious concerns, and I think others here do as well.... about what SAs rational was behind his actions....

For one, It appears he had a specific reason for going to that window, as shown by him making a direct beeline for it, before unhesitatingly.... actually quite quickly... reaching his arms through then his upper body through, then leaning out and looking down.

It’s obviously all just my opinion, based on what I / we have all learned and observed here.

But why does he appear to be casing out the dock area before he picked that baby up, and then within seconds she’s gone. If not that, then what was he doing and why? Was he completely stoned out of his mind? Because in all honesty that’s the only other explanation I could possibly come up with, and even then it’s questionable. Jmo

 

[they'll get you]

This is certainly gaining world wide attention, even here in Australia.
It could be RC getting this news out far and wide before their good name is tarnished.

Grandpa leaned out window before girl's fall, cruise liner claims
Grandad leaned out window before girl's fall, cruise liner claims

 

[gregjrichards]

Do you think this terrible tragedy will result in changes being made to the design of RC future ships? I just wonder about the impact it will have if any going forward. I’m not blaming the design of the ship at all it’s just something I have wondered about.

 

[Forever Young]

Awww thanks. I like when we can keep the discussions and debates productive and it's been so hard to get some actual stuff to look at and go over with nothing but the PR version going around. I'm happy to grab documents when I can!

Also I'm enjoying debating with you @Forever Young , I hope I don't come off as heated or anything. I get excited when there's someone I can dig into facts and arguments with and I don't want you to take it personal

Oh, not at all! It's rather like a game! A lively discussion, and I know exactly how you feel!

 

[Rotten apple]

Do you think this terrible tragedy will result in changes being made to the design of RC future ships? I just wonder about the impact it will have if any going forward. I’m not blaming the design of the ship at all it’s just something I have wondered about.

I don’t think so. I mean, honestly I think if this were an ongoing danger instead of a terrible lapse in judgement we would hear about babies being dropped out of windows all the time. This was a terrible, hideous, awful consequence of a very, very poor choice on SA’s part. Regardless of where anyone stands on the logistics of the case, I think we can all agree that there will be NO winners in the end. But I cannot imagine any cruise line feeling that they need to change their design.