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

[oviedo]

It doesn't even matter if he leaned 'outside' the window or not. The glass panes are about 2 or 3 inches from the beginning of the window ledges. He definitely leaned his head that far in. He would have smacked his face on the glass if that window was closed.

Lol we were thinking the same thing ...

time to take a break from this
JMO

 

[SpanishInquisition]

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.

He was escorted off the floor. He had no other time to inspect the window after she fell, so his statement about the window being open rather than saying there was a broken window was based on what he knew before she was dropped.

 

[mheido67]

But “defacto due notice” is not a legal concept. Adherence to current standards under the law is what they can legally be held accountable for.

Not, well, you saw Carnival had different windows so that means you knew yours were “bad.”

"Not, well, you saw Carnival had different windows so that means you knew yours were “bad.”

But that's basically what Plaintiffs are claiming, isn't it?

 

[Forever Young]

BBM

THAT is what has always ticked me off so much about his color blind excuse and that interview. The fact he admits he had to be told that was what happened. NOT that yes! He couldn't see the window wasn't there because he's color blind, but that "I've been told this is why it happened."

I really want to get a copy of the transcript of that interview because to me, he all but confesses in that. I wonder if the prosecutor in PR has a copy of it.

IMO, I have always imagined that someone, or even SA to himself, said, "You didn't see there was no glass? Buddy, you better get your eyes examined."

Then came the diagnosis with a doctor explaining that color-blindness does not effect just the perception of color, but also shading and depth perception. He was told that this may be why this happened. IMOO

 

[Fidobell]

I think Winkleman would be a formidable adversary in the courtroom - if he had a case. Here he does not, so all he can do is bluster and file motions in support of the family.

Hes an embarrassment to his profession , his clients and to Chloe's memory

 

[justbreathe]

So we’re being asked to believe that; CW stood on the deck below SA looking out the window for several seconds while he observed her, he then squatted down with her for several more seconds but they couldn’t bang on the lower glass for some reason and then she asked to be picked up so she could bang on the glass above the railing, SA picked her up to do that and it then took 34 seconds for her to lean forward and attempt to bang on glass that was not present which is when he lost his grip and she fell?

Anyone believe that? What was happening during the 34 seconds before she fell? Clearly she was not banging on any glass. At no point during this time did SA recognize, while she was not banging on glass, that there was no glass to bang on? What was SA doing? What was he looking at?

Trying to reach the non-existent glass? Sounds like something an intoxicated person would do.

 

[justbreathe]

Hes an embarrassment to his profession , his clients and to Chloe's memory

Most lawyers are these things. (Well, except the part about Chloe specifically.)

 

[In vino veritas]

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.

I most certainly think it can be established that SA’s head and/ or arms extended past the window. All you need is an accurate reconstruction. Not the parody that MW presented. The very fact that the Actor in MW’s reconstruction is not in the same position as SA’s body was in the RCCL video is very damaging, IMO, to MW’s case.

 

[justbreathe]

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.

You are correct. Without video from the outside we will never know if SA’s head or body was technically beyond the parameters of the ship.

However, this doesn’t matter one tiny bit.

It is a smoke-screen by SA to distract from the actual point here, which is that SA brought himself and Chloe close enough to the wide open window 11 stories up for her to be able to be dropped outside.


Whether his head ever actually went outside or not is irrelevant.

But that recreation is a very nice way to show Chloe’s parents what happened to their daughter.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Again, it does not matter that it has never happened, according to law. Only that there is a possibility that it could happen to establish that the window is potentially dangerous.

So should properly functioning airbags be removed from cars because they're potentially dangerous to toddlers, especially if they are not properly placed in a seat by a parent or guardian?

 

[Forever Young]

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?

I recently saw a video taken of a woman falling overboard, taken from outside the ship. She did survive in the water for several hours before being discovered. The video was very grainy, but I don't know if it had purposely been obscured for publication.

I agree it would clear up a lot of speculation as to who and at what point anyone was leaning outside the window or held outside the window.

 

[neesaki]

The seat is at 15 inches, and the arm of the chair is at 25 inches. IMO, this is to demonstrate another possible way that a child could raise themselves up to the railing; not Chloe per se, although some children at that age are quite accomplished climbers.

Maybe a 7 or 8 year old child would be strong enough to drag the chair over to climb up onto the top of the railing.

IMO, this is to demonstrate the danger of an open window at that height.

ETA: the photo is a little confusing because the red line extending from the seat says 25", but it is the arm of the chair, not the seat, that is 25".

So if a child could climb onto a chair or table to the window, then they could also do the same to get onto and over the many railings on the ship as well. Do you think then Winkleman is also planning to sue RCCL for having these open balconies and railings? Just curious how far he’s planning to take his dog and pony show.

 

[justbreathe]

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

Because why get a $5 level at the store to make sure the lines are straight when they won’t help you try to make something of this .

 

[In vino veritas]

“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.

“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.

Exactly. SO many contradictions by MW and family.
Also... not sure WHY SA wouldn’t be able to reach the glass on the lower level..... there’s no railing down there impeding his access. If he’s crouching at Chloes level, it should be quite easy for him to reach.

 

[justbreathe]

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.

If RCCL is held liable for “unlimited damages” because a guy picked his kid up and dropped them out an open window, no kids will ever be on a cruise ship again.

The risk of “unlimited damages” and litigation wouldn’t be worth the risk of having those passengers.

 

[Forever Young]

Another observation from the MW Motion to Dismiss response filings.

There is a whole secion showing photos of other areas with fixed glass at the railings. Dozens of photos. The first on page 88 shows a glimpse of the deck 12 railing directly above the incident windows. That whole area has no glass but MW ignores it. No other photos of it. Wonder why? It does not appear anywhere else in his railing photos section only in the section where they are pointing out the cameras. Doesn't fit his narrative I guess.

IMO, the reason it was not shown is because it does not illustrate a place where there is glass in most places, but none in others. It is all open. The idea of a "hidden opening" does not come into play at the top deck railings.

 

[justbreathe]

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

Totally agree! Something like, I didn’t know it was a window, I thought it was a solid glass wall...

Not “I thought it was closed.”

Because how could a solid glass wall be closed?

 

[al66pine]

Surv Cam Vid from Bridge Wing?

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.

@mheido67 Yes, seems like that vid could be very enlightening.
Trying to get a grasp of location of br wing cam from cruisedeckplans.com.
Here's Deck 11, w Squeeze Bar, H20Zone, etc.
Freedom of the Seas Deck 11 Deck Plan Tour

Can you - or someone - link & describe where bridge wing survcam would be? Thx in adv.

 

[Wehwalt]

Unless the plaintiffs lose on the 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the criminal trial will likely finish first. SA's participation as witness or party is at the least highly desirable and at present he can't even be deposed. The civil proceedings would wait until there's an outcome and he can't take the Fifth anymore.

 

[justbreathe]

I most certainly think it can be established that SA’s head and/ or arms extended past the window. All you need is an accurate reconstruction. Not the parody that MW presented. The very fact that the Actor in MW’s reconstruction is not in the same position as SA’s body was in the RCCL video is very damaging, IMO, to MW’s case.

This is true.

If only it mattered.

I think an accurate reconstruction would show what happened and if his head went beyond the window.

But it doesn’t matter.

Someone has decided there is a connection between his head going beyond the frame and him knowing the window was open.

Like, “His head never went out the window! So this proves he thought there was glass!”

But it does NOT prove this at all. It only proves if he would or would not have bumped his head IF the window was closed.