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

[Forever Young]

No. They do not have to prove he was aware of anything. They have to prove a “reasonable person” would have been aware and therefore not have done what SA did.

Also, knowing someone’s thoughts isn’t the only way to prove what they may have in fact been aware of.

Some might say leaning out a window is sufficient to prove a person was aware the window was open.

But do we, *can* we ever, *really* know SA didn’t suffer from a temporary one-off psychotic episode that caused him to hallucinate glass? No. Of course not.

But if being able to read a person’s thoughts was required to convict someone of a crime no one would ever be.

Without video taken from outside the ship, IMO, I don't think it can be established that SA was "leaning out the window". He was leaning over the railing, and the railing kept him from leaning out the window, which it was designed to do, IMO.

There are lots of kinds of hard evidence of a crime, besides knowing what a person was seeing or thinking. DNA is one that comes to mind, for instance. Physical evidence. Speculation is what creates "reasonable doubt", IMOO.

 

[Lawsmygame2]

In doctor’s statement, “ While he was crying he just said, I thought the window was closed.” Wouldn’t that imply he knew the windows opened. Why would you think it was “closed” if “Mr. Anello reasonably believed that this was a wall of fixed glass with no openings.”? (Quote copied from initial complaint, Item 19).

Wiegand Prelim Response to Dismiss 4.pdf

https://www.lipcon.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/DE-1-Wrongful-Death-Complaint.pdf

 

[Forever Young]

I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone measure a person with a tape measure like shown in the pic!

Possibly what they are going for here is the lines of the Squeeze bar behind the man for fixed and straight lines.

 

[mheido67]

I typed out the bits that I thought were relevant, got fed up with the tediousness of doing this to type everything
And I'm not promising what I have typed is exact but I did make an attempt to get very close.
It's not formatted or anything, but I'm sure you can follow it anyway !

I have once or twice started to write my thoughts on the content and it's contradictions, and extrapolate on some of his statements, but my head starts to hurt.
In particular taking something he says about his "colour blindness" and trying to "accept it", and extending the logic of that goes absolutely nowhere!
And I'm not talking about what colour blindness technically is or isn't, I mean just taking and running with what he says.


But in the meantime if anyone wants to pick on some of the parts go ahead !!

"
I saw her fall ... the whole way down
I then just remember screaming I thought there was glass

I bent down by her,
When I knelt down to be with her at that level I couldn't reach the glass, so I knew she couldn't
so that's when I decided I'd pick her up.

so I was trying to stand her on a railing and it happened in seconds
I had her and I was trying to knock on the glass
and at that point I'm gonna have to lean further for her for her to be able to reach it cos I thought it was further out than I expected
and that's the point where she slipped out of me

at no point during that incident did I think she fell out, it was like unbelievable like it disappeared the glass disappeared

I don't know if there's a feeling more helpless than watching her fall - noooo

CBS The video ... appears to show you holding Chloe above the r and over the railing, I have to think a juror who watches that would think that was reckless
non knowing there wasn't glass there
if somehow I thought she was going beyond the glass I wouldn't have done it, id have been appalled

CBS The windows are tinted so it is pretty easy to recognise that its open
I'm colour blind so that's been told to me, I don't know I just never saw it, I been told that's a reason that it might have happened
"

JMOO and best effort at partial transcription

“I bent down by her,
When I knelt down to be with her at that level I couldn't reach the glass, so I knew she couldn't
so that's when I decided I'd pick her up.”

So the 18 month old didn’t ask to be picked up. He says he decided to pick her up because she couldn’t reach the glass? How could she not reach the glass at deck level? This makes zero sense.

 

[justbreathe]

The lawyer is there to zealously represent their client. And the lawyer is an officer of the court with certain responsibilities to it. Add to it that this case is being fought in the court of public opinion as well as at the federal courthouse. I wouldn't expect action against MW by the court soon.

I was more struck by the emails between the lawyers. The reason MW's firm filed the motion when the defense was quite willing to turn over the video was that MW firm would not agree to them being turned over "to the extent they exist". Unless there's something being said beyond the plain meaning of the language, that's a pretty thin reason to waste the court's time with a motion.

He is there to rep his client. But FIRST and FOREMOST he is an officer of the court.

Always remember you are not your lawyer’s first priority.

Your lawyer’s relationship with the court system they practice in is the first priority.

That being said, MW has practiced in FL for a long time. They all know each other. The judges, MW, lawyers from competing firms, RCCL’s lawyers - when they are done in court they all do lunch and play golf.

MW won’t do anything to anger the court where his bread is buttered to where he would get sanctioned. Judge might just stick him with the tab at the club next month.

I think what MW is getting at with the “to the extent they exist” is he will want proof that none of the videos were erased and that is the reason for their “non-existence.”

He wants RCCL to provide all documentation of all the tapes that ever existed, and he wants to match that up with all the tapes he gets.

So he can be sure he has all the tapes that both *are* and *ever were* in existance.

Cue the tantrum when one of the videos that
clearly points away from the incident accidentally got erased.

RCCL: But see - the camera is fixed. It has never been moved and never could have shown anything from that area of the ship.

MW: They are hiding evidence! They won’t show us what we need!

 

[katydid23]

Maybe they are trying to show that any young child could climb the chair to reach an open window and fall out? In order to prove their point that windows that open are a potential hazard?

Even though no child has ever done that...

 

[Kindred]

All I am seeing is the red measuring tape, with the yellow tap pulled out. In what area of the window is there a sticker?

there is either a sticker or something etched in the glass here, diamond-shaped with words. Probably a manufacturers logo but that is the only thing I can figure they are measuring in that shot

 

[mheido67]

He is there to rep his client. But FIRST and FOREMOST he is an officer of the court.

Always remember you are not your lawyer’s first priority.

Your lawyer’s relationship with the court system they practice in is the first priority.

That being said, MW has practiced in FL for a long time. They all know each other. The judges, MW, lawyers from competing firms, RCCL’s lawyers - when they are done in court they all do lunch and play golf.

MW won’t do anything to anger the court where his bread is buttered to where he would get sanctioned. Judge might just stick him with the tab at the club next month.

I think what MW is getting at with the “to the extent they exist” is he will want proof that none of the videos were erased and that is the reason for their “non-existence.”

He wants RCCL to provide all documentation of all the tapes that ever existed, and he wants to match that up with all the tapes he gets.

So he can be sure he has all the tapes that both *are* and *ever were* in existance.

Cue the tantrum when one of the videos that
clearly points away from the incident accidentally got erased.

RCCL: But see - the camera is fixed. It has never been moved and never could have shown anything from that area of the ship.

MW: They are hiding evidence! They won’t show us what we need!

RCCL already stated in their response to MW motion to compel that there is no preserved video from two of the cameras that MW requested footage from because they do not face the area of the incident. But they still provided sample video from those two cameras just to show that nothing would have been visible.

Related, it’s hard to tell but in one of the photos provided by MW there appears to be a camera inside the Squeeze juice bar on the ceiling. Hard to tell but it looks like a camera to me. No one seems to have mentioned it though so perhaps not.

 

[katydid23]

“I bent down by her,
When I knelt down to be with her at that level I couldn't reach the glass, so I knew she couldn't
so that's when I decided I'd pick her up.”

So the 18 month old didn’t ask to be picked up. He says he decided to pick her up because she couldn’t reach the glass? How could she not reach the glass at deck level? This makes zero sense.

Yes, that statement he made, about the baby NOT being able to 'reach the glass' at that level is baffling. How could he say that and expect people to believe it?

 

[Kindred]

RCCL already stated in their response to MW motion to compel that there is no preserved video from two of the cameras that MW requested footage from because they do not face the area of the incident. But they still provided sample video from those two cameras just to show that nothing would have been visible.

Related, it’s hard to tell but in one of the photos provided by MW there appears to be a camera inside the Squeeze juice bar on the ceiling. Hard to tell but it looks like a camera to me. No one seems to have mentioned it though so perhaps not.

Actually he said there's no footage from two of the cameras because they're speakers...

Probably these two that he appropriately labled "???" and didn't bother to take a close up of like the others

 

[Forever Young]

So...what about all the open decks and balconies with just railings?

Per your theory the window is dangerous, the entire ship is dangerous. Perhaps children under the age of 12 should not be allowed on cruise ships because it is so dangerous, what with windows around every corner.

I recently heard that Viking does not allow children. I do not know that for a fact, but Viking will be starting locally here with river cruises in a couple of years, and someone commented that they do not allow children.

 

[Kindred]

In doctor’s statement, “ While he was crying he just said, I thought the window was closed.” Wouldn’t that imply he knew the windows opened. Why would you think it was “closed” if “Mr. Anello reasonably believed that this was a wall of fixed glass with no openings.”? (Quote copied from initial complaint, Item 19).

Wiegand Prelim Response to Dismiss 4.pdf

https://www.lipcon.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/DE-1-Wrongful-Death-Complaint.pdf

THAT is an amazing catch! You're right. Him telling the ships doctor he thought it was closed does indicate he knew it was a window and was perfectly capable of opening. NOT that it was a "wall of glass". God I hope RCCL takes that gift from Winkleman and runs with it

 

[Forever Young]

there is either a sticker or something etched in the glass here, diamond-shaped with words. Probably a manufacturers logo but that is the only thing I can figure they are measuring in that shot

I see it now. Yes, probably safety glass.

 

[Kindred]

I recently heard that Viking does not allow children. I do not know that for a fact, but Viking will be starting locally here with river cruises in a couple of years, and someone commented that they do not allow children.

This is true but it's more because of the nature of the business. They tend to cater to older couples/people and are more of a slow-paced sit back and just enjoy the views type cruise line, not a party it up and have fun! fun! FUN! type cruise. They just aren't focused on children like Carnival or Disney are

 

[mheido67]

I recently heard that Viking does not allow children. I do not know that for a fact, but Viking will be starting locally here with river cruises in a couple of years, and someone commented that they do not allow children.

My wife did a Viking cruise to Cuba last year. Definitely no children on that. Not sure if it's a general policy.

The new Virgin cruise ships are definitely not children allowed at all.

 

[katydid23]

Someone posted on a news outlet that the window was closed and popped open. Is this true? If so, that would rectify what the family said is the cruiseline's fault.

That window doesn't 'pop' open, it slides open. It can't slide open by itself.

If it had 'popped' open it would have been broken, and would have fallen off the hinges, and landed on the deck below.

That window did not 'pop' open. JMO

 

[Forever Young]

THAT is an amazing catch! You're right. Him telling the ships doctor he thought it was closed does indicate he knew it was a window and was perfectly capable of opening. NOT that it was a "wall of glass". God I hope RCCL takes that gift from Winkleman and runs with it

But that's after the fact that Chloe had fallen. It does not prove he knew before she fell that he knew it was an open window.

 

[justbreathe]

It’s interesting that any video from the bridge wing camera has not made an appearance as of yet. The ships definitely have video surveillance down the sides of the ship from these cameras and others further toward the stern I have to believe. One would think there would be video of CW falling from the window. But none has been produced as of yet so far as I can tell. Perhaps exterior coverage is not as complete as I previously assumed.

Oh, I think it exists. But RCCL isn’t going to be the baddie by publishing that nightmare.

And I don’t think MW or the parents want it out there either.

 

[whatsnext]

Oh, I think it exists. But RCCL isn’t going to be the baddie by publishing that nightmare.

And I don’t think MW or the parents want it out there either.

I really hope so, it would be the piece of evidence that would decide everything. No more excuses. But if it exists , why would RCCL hesitate to publish it ?
Just because of courtesy?

 

[Lawsmygame2]

But that's after the fact that Chloe had fallen. It does not prove he knew before she fell that he knew it was an open window.

Hummm...considering that in order for a window to be closed, it has to open. Again, supposedly SA’s own statement based on the doctor’s report...”While he was crying he just said, I thought the window was closed.” Why didn’t he say...I thought there was glass? JMO