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

[Chikkamma]

It's called "implied consent", in driving on the roads of the state, you are deemed to have consented to taking the test. Every US state has such a law, generally the penalty for refusing is similar to DUI.

I came on this site looking for a copy of the motion to dismiss, and found it, thanks. My comment would be that having read it, I don't think RCL is hitting as hard as it could, being aware that these cases are also being tried in the court of public opinion through a press which has already jumped to the family's side. Thus, the lawyers, not the family is blamed. I don't believe that we've seen the clearest videos; these are good enough to demonstrate that there's no factual basis for the lawsuit. This happened next to a bar, where I'd expect to find lots of cameras. They don't want to show the graphic ones, including SA's reaction.

RCL will fight this lawsuit all the way but they aren't going to beat up on the family any worse than they have to, to win.

This post was very informative so thank you. It is certainly nice to get a lawyer’s perspective on this case.

May I ask why you are of the opinion that RC will fight this all the way as opposed to settling at some point?

 

[Forever Young]

For reference: post by @Chikkamma, which prompted post below.
"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."

@Forever Young My apologies for being dense, but is this ^ sarc? If not, source of info?
Not seeming to mesh w post (below) it quoted.
So-----Stns agreed not to show vids? But did not have vids? Vids of what?
Seems stns would not be able to air vids they did not have copies of.

That's it for tonight. ZZZ.

Nope, no sarcasm.

CBS News does not have a copy of the video, but the family let "CBS This Morning" lead national correspondent David Begnaud view it to see what happened.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cruise-ship-death-sam-anello-
offered-plea-deal-in-death-of-granddaughter-chloe-wiegand-after-video-leaked/

Editor's note: The Wiegand family's attorney allowed a reporter and senior editor for the IndyStar, which is part of the USA TODAY Network, to review the Royal Caribbean surveillance footage that shows toddler Chloe Wiegand's fall. IndyStar and USA TODAY have not obtained a copy of the video, nor is it being published on our platforms.

Cruise ship death: Video shows minutes before Chloe Wiegand fatal fall

I am also certain that David Begnaud stated in a Twitter response after the videos were leaked that CBS was asked not to air the footage by the family, somewhere back in these threads. I assumed at the time that this was perhaps a condition of being allowed to view said videos.

Can you think of any news sources within the States that have showed the original surveillance videos?

 

[FactFinder3000]

I've watched the videos many times now and I think I've figured out a different possible explanation for what we're seeing. On the side view he reaches his arms out in from of him as he approaches the window. What if he reached out and grabbed the window sill? He could have supported himself with his hands on the windowsill. From the rear view the elbows do not go under him, they go out to the side. Also, the head goes way down. It looks very much like he looks out the window. He reaches out, and grabs the window sill to pull himself forward and ducks his head down to look over the edge. That's what it looks like to me.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

Breathalyzer are not accurate. If you have consumed nothing, get the blood draw.

Ok, let’s go with inaccurate breathalyzer. But at the LE station, he refused the toxicology draw.
So, I guess I’ll be patient, and presume he had not been drinking and/or on pain relievers. So at trial RCCL can provide us with his drink ticket, if he had one, or bar tender testimony.
And SA is going to say I refused to pull blood at the station bc I thought what? My blood alcohol percentage would show up? My drug usage would show up? Or as false positive for alcohol? Or false positive for drug use?
OR WHAT?????
Parents said don’t take breathalyzer bc they know it to be “inaccurate.” I guess they didn’t get a chance to tell him take the tox blood draw bc we know you don’t drink (per Winkleman) and blood work will prove that to LE?
Right.
SA refusing the tests IMHO is more damaging to his defense than had he taken it. We’d know he had been drinking, or some cocktail of alcohol and drugs affected his thought processes and could plead that as a mitigating factor in his dropping of Chloe. But as he has positioned himself, it’s the window’s fault. RCCL’s fault that they had windows that open.
It’s black or white. No gray areas. If the court finds that SA was negligent, responsible for dropping Chloe and it’s not the window’s fault, he takes the full blow. Had he accepted some blame, and provided a valid explanation, sentencing would be more lenient. As it is, PR prosecutor letting him skate. I hope they pull the proposed deal off the table. Three years is a very short time compared to a lifetime for Chloe.

 

[neesaki]

I've watched the videos many times now and I think I've figured out a different possible explanation for what we're seeing. On the side view he reaches his arms out in from of him as he approaches the window. What if he reached out and grabbed the window sill? He could have supported himself with his hands on the windowsill. From the rear view the elbows do not go under him, they go out to the side. Also, the head goes way down. It looks very much like he looks out the window. He reaches out, and grabs the window sill to pull himself forward and ducks his head down to look over the edge. That's what it looks like to me.

If you read my previous posts, this is exactly what I was saying, wasn’t it? I think so! And If so, thank you!

 

[Lawsmygame2]

Yes, I can honestly say that, because that is what I thought I was seeing before seeing the re-enactment photos.

Compare the back shot video to the side view at the relevant time. I see a man's shoulders, back, buttocks, all behind the railing.



I can't for the life of me figure out why everyone is trying to balance themselves mid-section on this railing, in an effort to prove they can, through extreme effort, reach outside the window.

If you can't reach the window opening by just standing outside the railing as you normally would, you're doing nothing but proving that you couldn't reach the window opening without doing something that would be extremely uncomfortable, not fun, and dangerous.

Not sure what you are trying to say in the paragraph that begins, “I can for the life of me...” and the paragraph that follows, but to quote MW when asked by DB “then why did he lean forward with her” to which MW responded “I think it is obvious why they leaned forward and that would be so you could get a better view.” So, why would SA stand on his tippy toes and lean over in an “uncomfortable, not fun, and dangerous” position to reach the outside of the window...to get a better view.

Video shows girl's final moments before cruise ship death

 

[FactFinder3000]

If you read my previous posts, this is exactly what I was saying, wasn’t it? I think so! And If so, thank you!

Oh, you did! I try to read every comment but missed that. So yes, I agree. He reaches his arms out in front of him and I do believe he grabs the window sill. It explains the elbows going way out. That has always bothered me. In the rear view it is clear his elbows go way out and his head goes right down.

 

[TristanP]

This post was very informative so thank you. It is certainly nice to get a lawyer’s perspective on this case.

May I ask why you are of the opinion that RC will fight this all the way as opposed to settling at some point?

Not the person your question was directed to, and I don’t have the answer, but I hope the other poster’s comment was correct because I don’t think RC should settle on this. My unprofessional opinion is that it would open up the door to many, many more lawsuits over incidents caused by people’s own stupidity, and/or end up requiring cruise ships to be like little floating prisons where no one can actually enjoy the ocean air.

Editing to say that I should probably say huge floating prisons instead of little floating prisons!

 

[Midwestmom2019]

I am thinking that the court will not order the Wiegands to pay for the defendant's court costs. I know of one state, Colorado, that allows that - recently came up in the theater shooting case where a plaintiff refused to accept a settlement offer and wound up responsible for defendant's court costs. But, that is a state by state thing, where the law specifically addresses it.

Most states. as far as I know, do not allow for a defendant who wins to collect their costs from the plaintiff, because it discourages the filing of possibly very legitimate complaints out of fear of being held liable for making said complaint.

Texas has similar provisions.

Yes, I can honestly say that, because that is what I thought I was seeing before seeing the re-enactment photos.

Compare the back shot video to the side view at the relevant time. I see a man's shoulders, back, buttocks, all behind the railing.



I can't for the life of me figure out why everyone is trying to balance themselves mid-section on this railing, in an effort to prove they can, through extreme effort, reach outside the window.

If you can't reach the window opening by just standing outside the railing as you normally would, you're doing nothing but proving that you couldn't reach the window opening without doing something that would be extremely uncomfortable, not fun, and dangerous.

Simple logic. Reverse the burden of proof.
We’ve been trying to turn into pretzels when there is no need. If you stand straight by the railing, inside the ship, you can’t reach the window or the outside of the ship. Railing doing it’s job. Keeping idiots from bending over, stretching their arms out while playing drop the kid.
I get it. Occam’s Razor.

edited to add I don’t know how these two got combined. Sorry.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

Not sure what you are trying to say in the paragraph that begins, “I can for the life of me...” and the paragraph that follows, but to quote MW when asked by DB “then why did he lean forward with her” to which MW responded “I think it is obvious why they leaned forward and that would be so you could get a better view.” So, why would SA stand on his tippy toes and lean over in an “uncomfortable, not fun, and dangerous” position to reach the outside of the window...to get a better view.

Video shows girl's final moments before cruise ship death

Because the better view was worth the extra effort.
Or the other suggestion: it was not just an accident.
How would any of us know why he stretched himself out so far? Getting into his thought processes is difficult at best.

 

[Lawsmygame2]

Because the better view was worth the extra effort.
Or the other suggestion: it was not just an accident.
How would any of us know why he stretched himself out so far? Getting into his thought processes is difficult at best.

Yes. Definitely. I cannot fathom why he did what he did and what his thought process was at the time.

 

[they'll get you]

Yes, I can honestly say that, because that is what I thought I was seeing before seeing the re-enactment photos.

Compare the back shot video to the side view at the relevant time. I see a man's shoulders, back, buttocks, all behind the railing.



I can't for the life of me figure out why everyone is trying to balance themselves mid-section on this railing, in an effort to prove they can, through extreme effort, reach outside the window.

If you can't reach the window opening by just standing outside the railing as you normally would, you're doing nothing but proving that you couldn't reach the window opening without doing something that would be extremely uncomfortable, not fun, and dangerous.

You don’t have to balance at all as all your weight is below the rail. You walk up to the railing and bend over and you can see down, it’s an amazing design really.
Also there’s a little 6” ledge if you are shorter or you want to look further out and then there’s your tippy-toes but you can’t overbalance even if you are 6’ tall. If you overbalance you simple would fall backwards into the ship.
I would’ve taken photos but my hubby didn’t want to look conspicuous with camera and tape measure in hand.
I was doing it for our gang.
Unless I pulled over a table and climbed up onto the rail and then on the window ledge then I’d have a mental problem.

 

[they'll get you]

Yes, and re: from the outer edge of window to the outer edge of that wood railing, the 15” measurement is in line with the earlier measurements posted here, using the actual tape measure. Wasn’t this by @they’ll get you ?
Which also means it’s less than the 18 inches, as reported by Wman. IIRC
Right? Do I have to go back and find it, please tell me no, LOL!

WIDTH OF RAIL



WINDOW TO RAIL.

 

[they'll get you]

Nope, no sarcasm.

CBS News does not have a copy of the video, but the family let "CBS This Morning" lead national correspondent David Begnaud view it to see what happened.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cruise-ship-death-sam-anello-
offered-plea-deal-in-death-of-granddaughter-chloe-wiegand-after-video-leaked/

Editor's note: The Wiegand family's attorney allowed a reporter and senior editor for the IndyStar, which is part of the USA TODAY Network, to review the Royal Caribbean surveillance footage that shows toddler Chloe Wiegand's fall. IndyStar and USA TODAY have not obtained a copy of the video, nor is it being published on our platforms.

Cruise ship death: Video shows minutes before Chloe Wiegand fatal fall

I am also certain that David Begnaud stated in a Twitter response after the videos were leaked that CBS was asked not to air the footage by the family, somewhere back in these threads. I assumed at the time that this was perhaps a condition of being allowed to view said videos.

Can you think of any news sources within the States that have showed the original surveillance videos?

Forever young I firmly believe it was leaked by David Begnaud.
imo.

 

[katydid23]

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.

Even if you are 100% sober? Why wouldn't you take one if you hadn't had any alcohol?

 

[katydid23]

I have recently read that an inhaler for asthma will render a positive for alcohol reading. Just have to wonder if any of the arresting officers smelled alcohol, though.

What? ....I hope that's not true.

 

[katydid23]

IMO, no one is saying that he didn't raise her to the window. That came out the day of the incident. The motion to dismiss states that the video proves SA knew the window was open, which IMO, it does not.

It certainly does show he had to know it was open.

First of all, if the window was closed, there'd be no way that baby could have been perched on that ledge. The glass , when closed, is right up where her toes would have been. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS there was no glass there.

 

[Lilibet]

What? ....I hope that's not true.

I think our breathalyzer expert @IceIce9 said earlier that wasn’t true.

 

[katydid23]

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.

NO, legally it cannot be considered a hotel. It is a ship, that floats in the sea. Very different than a hotel.

You cannot take the legal standards for a hotel and then transfer them to a ship, and sue someone for not conforming to hotel standards, when you are not building and designing a hotel.

That's not how legal standards work. They are written for very exact specifications. Hotel vs Ship vs Condominium vs Hospital vs Mall.

 

[katydid23]

Not the person your question was directed to, and I don’t have the answer, but I hope the other poster’s comment was correct because I don’t think RC should settle on this. My unprofessional opinion is that it would open up the door to many, many more lawsuits over incidents caused by people’s own stupidity, and/or end up requiring cruise ships to be like little floating prisons where no one can actually enjoy the ocean air.

Editing to say that I should probably say huge floating prisons instead of little floating prisons!

I totally agree with you. It would be very sad if they would no longer allow passengers to slide the windows open, just because one man did something stupid and negligent, causing a tragic accident.