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

[justbreathe]

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.

No, but it proves he knew it was a window and not a “solid wall of glass.”

 

[justbreathe]

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?

Yes and decency.

 

[mheido67]

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.

RCCL presented it as relevant in demonstrating that if his head went outside the window he had to know there was no glass.

That's why MW reacted to aggressively to show it was impossible for him to get his head actually outside the window.

I actually rather doubt his head ever went outside the plane of the window. Chloe, on the other hand, most certainly would have had portions of her body outside the plane of glass if he held her on the window frame as depicted in the MW recreation photos. How he could have not observed that she was clearly not making contact with any glass is beyond me. It was not instantly like some keep reporting, he held her there for over half a minute.

 

[justbreathe]

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.

The law says the opposite of this.

The standard is not “a possibility it could happen.” They would have to enclose the entire ship.

The standard is prior notice of danger and not correcting it.

The legal standard of “danger”, i.e. not complying with applicable safety regulations, is what is applied.

How could a ship ever transport passengers if the standard for them being liable for injury was “if it can happen, you can win lawsuit for it.”

 

[JerseySleuth17]

Which would make a heck of a lot more sense than: “I wanted to bang on glass. Because it’s fun.”

I completely agree this is my theory - he's on some type of medication that impaired his senses and judgment and he should never have been watching CW alone. It's possible her parents were not aware of this and why they defended him at least initially. RCCL either already has his medical records, or is in the process of getting them, but my money is on he has mental health issues, was on medication, and never should have been in charge of an 18 month old. According to reports he was only watching her for less than 15 minutes before she died. You see him crouch down and support himself against a pole while they were near the pool, then she's at least 5 feet ahead of him heading towards the window area and he is trailing behind her. This isn't exactly model babysitting behavior, it takes split seconds for a toddler to get into trouble and he's acting like how did I get stuck watching this kid? It's all very odd.

 

[mheido67]

Surv Cam Vid from Bridge Wing?
@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.

The bridge wing cam hangs below the bridge wing which is at the very top of the deck plan. It's very far from the Squezze Bar and would almost certainly be blocked by the cantilevered hot tubs. But there must be other exterior cams further towards the stern of the ship.

 

[justbreathe]

Hes never gonna change his story , from his tearless crying in his 1st interview till now , hes stuck with his version of events. His awful character traits have lead him to this point and now he cant back down .

ITA. I don’t think he will be above being “convinced” to “lie” about being responsible and take the plea deal to put this behind them. (But in private he will still be their denial martyr.)

Only of the civil case fails, of course.

 

[Forever Young]

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.

That is the physically impossible moment, IMO. It is exactly what they are arguing against.

 

[wackyw]

DBM

 

[FactFinder3000]

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

He's flinging as much mud as possible in order to pressure RCC to settle. Just classic lawyer behavior. And even if he doesn't get anything out of this one it could pay dividends on his next case. This is not his first time suing RCC and likely not his last.

 

[wackyw]

He's flinging as much mud as possible in order to pressure RCC to settle. Just classic lawyer behavior. And even if he doesn't get anything out of this one it could pay dividends on his next case. This is not his first time suing RCC and likely not his last.

Is it possible to do a (like)squared re this ?

 

[Forever Young]

Wait what? There is a video of him leaning out the window you can only do that when it’s open
Am I missing something ? We’ve debated this for months and now that the videos have been released I thought most now understand he leaned out the window and that can happen only if it’s open right ? So he knew the window was open else his head would have smacked it and he would be suing RCCL for that
JMO

No, IMO, there are no videos showing that SA leaned his head out the window. This is the part that the Wiegands in their response say RCCL is lying about.

This is the part that the re-enactment is purporting to show. That at no time was SA's head "outside the window" and at no point while being held was Chloe outside the ship. Out the window means outside the ship.

 

[mheido67]

Surv Cam Vid from Bridge Wing?
@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.

This is the photo from MW's court filing showing the wing cam.

 

[justbreathe]

RCCL presented it as relevant in demonstrating that if his head went outside the window he had to know there was no glass.

That's why MW reacted to aggressively to show it was impossible for him to get his head actually outside the window.

I actually rather doubt his head ever went outside the plane of the window. Chloe, on the other hand, most certainly would have had portions of her body outside the plane of glass if he held her on the window frame as depicted in the MW recreation photos. How he could have not observed that she was clearly not making contact with any glass is beyond me. It was not instantly like some keep reporting, he held her there for over half a minute.

I feel like RCL has mountains of evidence to prove their case, and that each time MW reacts and the parents continue with the lawsuit a new nail will go into the metaphorical coffin.

Maybe next we will see some witness statements from crew that he was told to stop and didn’t. Maybe we will hear statement from passengers about what exactly he was saying.

I think the final piece might be external video, that RCCL might not even own, so they can say they provided all their video. And that right now they are not planning to use any other video.

 

[Forever Young]

But didn't you say earlier that it is natural for human's to be aware of the danger of those window areas? And that is why they routinely hold their babies close and keep them away from inherent danger? I am pretty sure you used that argument against RCCL.


IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #6
Forever Young posted:
I also have read other forums and comments on this case. Once in a great a while a poster will comment on how they went nowhere near those windows, or held tight to their little ones, or felt fear just reaching out those particular windows. Why? Because they were a recognized danger.

I don't see that I said "natural". I said that an open window is a recognized danger. That is, of course, if you see it. Not natural per se, it is something you learn, but you do have to recognize (see) that it is open to begin with.

 

[mheido67]

No, IMO, there are no videos showing that SA leaned his head out the window. This is the part that the Wiegands in their response says RCCL is lying about.

This is the part that the re-enactment is purporting to show. That at no time was SA's head "outside the window" and at no point while being held was Chloe outside the ship. Out the window means outside the ship.

I agree with you on this. However, I think MW's recreation actually winds up showing that SA could easily have held CW outside the plane of the glass in a way that the so far revealed video does not. Could RCCL have been providing MW with enough rope to hang himself?

 

[JerseySleuth17]

I feel like RCL has mountains of evidence to prove their case, and that each time MW reacts and the parents continue with the lawsuit a new nail will go into the metaphorical coffin.

Maybe next we will see some witness statements from crew that he was told to stop and didn’t. Maybe we will hear statement from passengers about what exactly he was saying.

I think the final piece might be external video, that RCCL might not even own, so they can say they provided all their video. And that right now they are not planning to use any other video.

Considering she was in front of that window over 30 seconds it's entirely possible someone on the dock took a video, cell phone cameras are everywhere and thirty seconds is a VERY long time to notice something, get your camera and start filming. I'm pretty sure RCCL has an ace up their sleeve and in the meantime they are giving SA rope to hang himself, so to speak.

 

[justbreathe]

I completely agree this is my theory - he's on some type of medication that impaired his senses and judgment and he should never have been watching CW alone. It's possible her parents were not aware of this and why they defended him at least initially. RCCL either already has his medical records, or is in the process of getting them, but my money is on he has mental health issues, was on medication, and never should have been in charge of an 18 month old. According to reports he was only watching her for less than 15 minutes before she died. You see him crouch down and support himself against a pole while they were near the pool, then she's at least 5 feet ahead of him heading towards the window area and he is trailing behind her. This isn't exactly model babysitting behavior, it takes split seconds for a toddler to get into trouble and he's acting like how did I get stuck watching this kid? It's all very odd.

I would think this would be a mitigating factor in his criminal trial, too.

Something like, “I never took Xanax before, or I took something twice that day by mistake, or I didn’t know not to combine alcohol with my med...this is the only reason I can think I thought there was glass, because I really thought there was, I am so sorry, this is all my fault...”

I would feel badly for him if he accepted responsibility. But he doesn’t want to.

 

[justbreathe]

No, IMO, there are no videos showing that SA leaned his head out the window. This is the part that the Wiegands in their response says RCCL is lying about.

This is the part that the re-enactment is purporting to show. That at no time was SA's head "outside the window" and at no point while being held was Chloe outside the ship. Out the window means outside the ship.

Oh, well, if they never went outside the ship until SA dropped Chloe outside the ship, that’s it! That’s the key! Give them all the monies!

 

[Forever Young]

But you didnt say that 'open' windows were perceived as dangerous. Here is the quote:

Here is the question you were asked:
@Forever Young Yes, could happen w same results. Not sure if you are commenting on Wiegand or RCL. Are you saying because (you think/someone thinks) there is a condition on RCL ship was could be made safer, that someone should file a lawsuit to encourage, or for a court to order, RCL to make condition safer, even without any being injured?
Or saying something else?


Your answer:

Well, somebody has been injured. Killed.

I also have read other forums and comments on this case. Once in a great a while a poster will comment on how they went nowhere near those windows, or held tight to their little ones, or felt fear just reaching out those particular windows. Why? Because they were a recognized danger.

The trial court also based its no duty determination on the fact that “there were no prior incidents of anyone or anything falling from any windows․” 8  However, “ ‘[t]he mere fact that a particular kind of an accident has not happened before does not ․ show that such accident is one which might not reasonably have been anticipated.’  [Citation.]  Thus, the fortuitous absence of prior injury does not justify relieving defendant from responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of its acts.”  (Weirum v. RKO General, Inc. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 40, 47;  Lane v. City of Sacramento (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1346 [absence of other similar accidents is relevant to, but not dispositive of, the issue of whether a condition is dangerous].)

FindLaw's California Court of Appeal case and opinions.

=======================================================

So why wouldn't Grandpa recognise this danger? Do we have to know what he was thinking to know his thinking was faulty and lacking common sense?

He did not recognize the danger, because he claims not to have known the window was open.