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

[Forever Young]

Was it LE or a witness?

It really does not say, does it.

ETA: I think you mean were they going off of what a witness said, or what SA said.

They look to be in uniform, dark shirts and khaki pants.

 

[mickey2942]

I am just going by the evidence presented, and since no murder charge was brought against SA, I have to assume that LE investigated and ruled that out.

They can always revist the charges and add additional charges, based on new information. Who knows what LEO has investigated or found since the original charge?

 

[mheido67]

Lovely clear explanation of this, thank you. And my interpretation from the "behind" video the "wall of glass" is "b*******s". True ALL the lower frames are glass, so that small children do not cascade through. CW approaches a section where the lower and upper frames are indeed glass. She is very sagfe at this moment. But BOTH the upper frames to the left and right of the one CW approached are OPEN. Which is why he moves to one of them, in this case to the left. So he can get a better view. And then lifts CW up and over the safety railing designed for adults.

JMOO

Don’t agree with your observation about him moving her to a different window. Watching both videos SA walks over to the section to the left of the support column and that is where they stay until she falls.

 

[al66pine]

Trial Court Judges & Fallibility? Questions of Law? Reversal on Appeal?
Can a judge rule a certain safety standard statue applies to an RCL ship when statute does not apply?
Time for a corollary. Let's say a certain federal statute requires a certain safety device, a safety widget, for semi trucks operating on public highways, effective as of 01/01/ 2015. Let's say, w Chloe in a properly manuf'ed & installed toddler seat in back seat, SA drives his domestic passenger car manuf'ed in US last yr w all its federal law-mandated safety devices in place, all working perfectly. SA is not paying attention to operating the vehicle. Maybe on his cell, talking/texting, adjusting radio volume, singing Baby Shark, or what-ev. The vehicle is involved in a one-vehicle crash against a concrete wall, in which Chloe dies, and SA is not injured.
Mom & Dad engage atty to sue car manufacturer. Complaint alleges in the car manuf'r was negligent in failing to install a Safety Widget in the model & make of SA’s passenger car. Plaintiff's atty argues if SA's car had been manuf'ed w a Safety Widget installed, the crash would not have occurred and Chloe would be safe & sound at home watching Frozen. Expert witness testimony from both sides. Blah, blah.
Auto manuf'r argues, fed statute requiring Safety Widget applies only to semi trucks and not to passenger cars.
This judge allows into evidence info about Safety Widgets & the fed statute; jury hears evd & awards a kajillion dollars to parents.
Tho imperfect, it's the corollary I'm conjuring up ATM as to whether the judge can find a law relevant and decide to apply it to this case re RCL ship.

Okay, trial ct does it. Does AutoManuf'r (RCL) open corp. checkbook & pay judgment?
Not likely. Defendant is waaaay more likely to appeal.
Whether a particular statute applies is usually a question of law.<--a judge decides.
And trial court's decision on question of law (& many other issues) is subject to appeal.
When a def thinks trial judge makes incorrect ruling on question of law, and that ruling results in a kajillion dollar judgment against the them, the def is pretttttty likely to appeal.
And in above case, app ct decision may determine that tr ct made an incorrect ruling on question of law, so reverse tr ct's decision. If failure to install Safety Widget in car was the only count of negligence, imo, app ct does not remand for re-triaI. As verdict for plaintiff was based on only that count and as a matter of law, it was not applicalble, the basis for ruling for plaintiff collapses.
But in this case, Complaint alleges multiple counts of negligence.

 

[they'll get you]

Can a Child Fall Overboard on a Cruise Ship?

Guardrails and Verandas
The guardrails on most cruise ships are at least 42-inches high, which makes them a challenge for any climbing toddler to scale. On Disney ships, below the top rail are steel fence-style rails covered by a sheet of transparent plexiglass, so there's nothing for little kids to climb on to get high enough to lean over the top rail. This is true of the railings on the ship's public decks as well as the balcony railings in staterooms with verandas.

Can a Child Fall Overboard on a Cruise Ship?

 

[mheido67]

Part II - Conversely, a question for the jury - should RCCL have foreseen that the open windows in that area could have contributed to a child falling out and off the ship, especially when they also are charged with caring for the health and safety of minors?

I think RCCL started to address that by arguing that a reasonable person would not lift a child over the safety railing and that such an action was unforeseen. They have managed to avoid having lifeguards even after multiple child drowning deaths because it is accepted that guardians are responsible for safeguarding children in pools. I can accept the same with regards to not placing children over safety railings.

 

[weepingangel]

That reenactment was shown on TelemundoPR

ETA these videos contain views of what I assume is Chloes body covered with a sheet FYI

TelemundoPR

Royal Caribbean: abuelo sabía que ventana estaba abierta cuando nieta cayó al vacío

And I believe this one has a telephone interview with a witness (there may be two different videos, the interview was at the end of one of them iirc)
Menor muere tras caer de crucero en muelle Panamericano de San Juan

And the reenactment from the ship at night had the officer seeming to demonstrate holding Chloe the same way as in MW’s reenactment.

In the nighttime video from le he opens his hands after shaking them up and down while in the “hold chloe straight out in front of me.” As if she was just let go.

 

[they'll get you]

Some highly educated people have no common sense.

I know a few.

 

[they'll get you]

I'm sure they do. Let them contribute them into evidence, then.

Their expert witnesses will be absolute experts in the truest degree, with Degrees.

 

[they'll get you]

DBM.
Double post.

 

[neesaki]

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.

Oh boy, idk, but this whole thing, has gone on a bit. Maybe there’s something we’re missing? But, it does seem you are leaning toward protecting SA. Am I wrong?

 

[they'll get you]

Someone posted a photo of a little boy standing and touching the same glass and I’d dearly love to see that photo again as it proves Chloe was able to do the same.

 

[wackyw]

Don’t agree with your observation about him moving her to a different window. Watching both videos SA walks over to the section to the left of the support column and that is where they stay until she falls.

OK, interesting because it might be quite crucial in court. I see it differently, as I see it ....

CW runs towards the windows, ... she simply goes to the nearest one, there is no difference between any of the lower panes there. I think the "maintenance hatch" is actually a few panes to the right.
He follows her, and realises he would be looking through a double tint of two panes directly above CW.
Both the upper panes to the left and right are open, and he chooses to go TO HER LEFT, perhaps because of the post. But he could have equally gone to the right.
He immediately leans over, and possibly out, to check "the view, or other reason" for 8 seconds.
He then claimed he bent down with CW and tried to bang on the glass and found they couldn't, but from the videos I think this is debatable whether he did or didn't. Very quick if he did.
If he did, he finds CW is down below a ~40" rail which he finds it awkward to get down to, and then waddle under.
How to solve all this?
Move CW from his right to his left, and up and over the rail, to the clearer view ie the OPEN window. Then they can do the "games" together, ... and ..... yeah well ....
And just to be clear about my thoughts now, I don't think he had any bad intentions, he just *advertiser censored**** up.

CAPS just for emphasis, not meaning to shout at you, promise How do you see it ? Pretty sure this will be contentious in court!

PS - adding the video link .. there are two video bits, both are needed.

Video: grandfather dangled toddler out of Royal Caribbean window for THIRTY SECONDS | Daily Mail Online

PSS - all MOO

 

[they'll get you]

Oh boy, idk, but this whole thing, has gone on a bit. Maybe there’s something we’re missing? But, it does seem you are leaning toward protecting SA. Am I wrong?

I don’t see that. Foreever Young is simply looking at both sides. I think it would be monotonous to sit in a courtroom and hear only one side of a story.

I was thinking, what if I threw a child into an empty pool thinking there was water in it.

The pool is usually full of water, that’s what pools are used for and I used the excuse that I thought the water was crystal clear.
I’d be a freakin’ fool not to make sure there was water there and I’m sure I’d pay the consequences for negligence.
Even if I had bad eyesight or clourblind it would’ve been up to me to touch the water to make sure it was safe first.
Just my thoughts here.

 

[al66pine]

Winkleman's Measurement Squad?

Yes they must realise RCC have every dimension and fabric on every ship but they arming themselves with their (stupid) measurements and knowledge.

@they'll get you Yes, RCL probably did not get ship sketched out on bar cocktail napkins. Yes, Winkleman knows that RCL has records of measurements for every dimension, down to the nano-meter, discoverable by routine discovery. So why not just use routine discovery?
1. To suggest RCL may deliberately bum-dope them?
2. To have fodder for another round of publicity - we go all out for our clients?
3. For a couple partners in firm to make tax-deductible trip to Barbados & tack on a few fun days?
IDK.

 

[Tutter]

Not if the windows in question are remedied to be prevented from opening more than 4 inches.

It is not the circumstances, or how it happens. The common and preventable element in other hypothetical cases would be the open window.

"How would that future hypothetical have anything to do with this particular case, which is nothing like thAt? In Chloe's tragic death, her caregiver physically placed her in a deadly situation and she died a brutal death."

Because there was an open window.

No, because she was hoisted up over a safety railing and onto a window sill. Passengers are not allowed to climb on, sit on or stand on railings as agreed to in the paperwork given by the cruise line. Ignorance is no excuse. You breach the safety railing, you fall. Pretty simple. Picture good old Sam standing on the ledge....pretty ridiculous right? Oh but he was safely standing behind the railing and he is alive.

 

[wackyw]

I don’t see that. Foreever Young is simply looking at both sides. I think it would be monotonous to sit in a courtroom and hear only one side of a story.

I was thinking, what if I threw a child into an empty pool thinking there was water in it.

The pool is usually full of water, that’s what pools are used for and I used the excuse that I thought the water was crystal clear.
I’d be a freakin’ fool not to make sure there was water there and I’m sure I’d pay the consequences for negligence.
Even if I had bad eyesight or clourblind it would’ve been up to me to touch the water to make sure it was safe first.
Just my thoughts here.

Ahh, but did one half of the pool have a coloured cover over it, and the other half not ?

 

[mheido67]

OK, interesting because it might be quite crucial in court. I see it differently, as I see it ....

CW runs towards the windows, ... she simply goes to the nearest one, there is no difference between any of the lower panes there. I think the "maintenance hatch" is actually a few panes to the right.
He follows her, and realises he would be looking through a double tint of two panes directly above CW.
Both the upper panes to the left and right are open, and he chooses to go TO HER LEFT, perhaps because of the post. But he could have equally gone to the right.
He immediately leans over, and possibly out, to check "the view, or other reason" for 8 seconds.
He then claimed he bent down with CW and tried to bang on the glass and found they couldn't, but from the videos I think this is debatable whether he did or didn't. Very quick if he did.
If he did, he finds CW is down below a ~40" rail which he finds it awkward to get down to, and then waddle under.
How to solve all this?
Move CW from his right to his left, and up and over the rail, to the clearer view ie the OPEN window. Then they can do the "games" together, ... and ..... yeah well ....
And just to be clear about my thoughts now, I don't think he had any bad intentions, he just *advertiser censored**** up.

CAPS just for emphasis, not meaning to shout at you, promise How do you see it ? Pretty sure this will be contentious in court!

PS - adding the video link .. there are two video bits, both are needed.

Video: grandfather dangled toddler out of Royal Caribbean window for THIRTY SECONDS | Daily Mail Online

I just don’t see him go anywhere but to the one window she ultimately falls from.

I think he had no ill intentions toward CW.

I think he got to the window and she was on the floor between his legs and the window. He bent over and looking down between the railing and the window frame watched her. After several seconds he crouches down and with her then lifts her up. He raises her very high over the railing and appears to set her on the wood railing. After several seconds standing facing the window he appears to lift her and shift her from his right to his left and seems to be holding her with only one arm. At some point they seem to lean forward and shortly after that CW falls from his grasp and SA falls backward to the deck.

I do not believe a reasonable person standing less than 24 inches from an open window would not observe that the window was open and that no glass was present unless they were cognitively impaired or negligently not paying attention to what was the environment around them. He clearly violated the prohibition on placing things over the ships railing which leads me to believe he was simply reckless with the safety of his grand daughter. I don’t think he should go to jail but if he does I won’t be bothered. I don’t believe the windows represent a danger to any reasonable person and I don’t think they need to be changed or modified.

 

[TDoc72]

Not if the windows in question are remedied to be prevented from opening more than 4 inches.

IMO it doesn’t matter if the window was open 4 inches, 4 feet, or 4 miles. She did not get herself out of that window. None of this happens if he never picked her up and put her over the rail.

And I believe this one has a telephone interview with a witness (there may be two different videos, the interview was at the end of one of them iirc)
Menor muere tras caer de crucero en muelle Panamericano de San Juan

Is there anyone who could translate what the witness says?

 

[neesaki]

Just had my hubby watch this video. He told me to be quiet and not say anything, so I didn't. No explanations. Here's his response:

"He threw the baby out the window... that sorry SOB.... "
Then he got up and walked out. Then, back in...
"the question is why". Then he said,
"it had to be a vendetta, vengeance. There's more to it than meets the eye. "
"who's it going to hurt the worst " ?

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