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

[justbreathe]

That's an excellent point. With Chloe on the railing beside him he bent fully over the railing a second time. The excuse that he was looking down at Chloe cannot apply in that case.

I will say this - SA saying “I looked for her on the floor” and “I saw her fall” does make sense after seeing the window design because it seems you can look down and see the floor at your feet as well as right down the side of the ship to the dock or sea below simultaneously.

This is like the only thing he said that makes sense.

 

[Tutter]

bbm
@neesaki : Re. the bolded ; It looks like your husband is asking the wrong question.
More like who has something to gain ?
And, no, it's not the fear of going off to a PR prison for a stint.
Something else.

The last thread before this one someone brought up that sometimes people struggle with challenges brought on in life by certain medical issues.
Could be the step grandpa and maybe not.

Was going to say his head looked enlarged but maybe it's not his head that looks too big ?
From the photos not just in the Nbc news site, but other msm links in the way back site from the DM and other news links.

Of course photos can do a number on the visual distortion of images.
This is in reference to the general issues people can have ; and points to no one in particular.

There are some parents who do not do well with medical issues and the subsequent costs brought on by those in their household.
This is evident in one of the cases in the "Crimes against children" section of the forum.

I have entertained this exact thing. The fist time I saw the video, to me it looked like he lifted her up and tossed her out. (I do think that particular video was sped up) Very deliberate actions by Sam. That with the no personal responsibility, and the family agreeing he did nothing wrong, the lawsuit immediately; was just...off.

And then the fact that he had her 14 minutes before he dropped her.

I’m sure that is an unreasonable thought, but no more unreasonable than putting Chloe out a cruise ship window and being surprised when she fell.

 

[Forever Young]

Busy parents relying on grandparents and neighbors to fill in the childcare gaps is not exactly an indictment of their family life in my opinion.

Right. Lucky you if you can be a stay at home mom. Many women have to work. You always need a back-up sitter in case your regular sitter is unavailable for the day. It could have been a mutual arrangement where they took turns watching each other's children when needed. The situation referenced did not at all make me uneasy.

 

[MsBetsy]

He doesn’t say that - MW says his head could not go outside.

SA days he was trying to reach forward to touch the glass. That wasn’t there.

And thought, “If my long arm can’t reach it, she can’t, let’s get closer...”

But never clued in to the fact that he wasn’t touching the glass because there was no glass to touch.

How far did he reach out and not touch anything? Yet he still was trying to put Chloe even farther out.

And he still didn’t realize there was no glass
there?

I wonder if there is a trial, will it really be so important whether or not he knew there was glass or if the window was open or not?
Isn't the issue that he disregarded the ships rules by lifting Chloe over the railing and then proceeded to put her on the ledge?

Was it ever clarified whether he stood or sat her on the window ledge? If he sat her on the ledge then her legs would be dangling out the window which is another violation.

Imo

 

[FactFinder3000]

I will say this - SA saying “I looked for her on the floor” and “I saw her fall” does make sense after seeing the window design because it seems you can look down and see the floor at your feet as well as right down the side of the ship to the dock or sea below simultaneously.

This is like the only thing he said that makes sense.

No, he looks out the window before picking Chloe up, then he looks out the window a second time after setting her on the railing beside him. Both times were before he dropped her. So why would he be looking down for Chloe when she is sitting on the railing beside him?

 

[mickey2942]

I wonder if there is a trial, will it really be so important whether or not he knew there was glass or if the window was open or not?
Isn't the issue that he disregarded the ships rules by lifting Chloe over the railing and then proceeded to put her on the ledge?

Was it ever clarified whether he stood or sat her on the window ledge? If he sat her on the ledge then her legs would be dangling out the window which is another violation.

Imo

How horrible for little Chloe. The "choice" of sitting on a narrow metal ledge, no doubt very hot, or standing on the narrow metal ledge, cutting into the soles of her feet through those little foam shoes. No wonder the poor baby "fell" out of the window, she never should have been perched into such an uncomfortable, and unsafe place.

 

[MsBetsy]

I will say this - SA saying “I looked for her on the floor” and “I saw her fall” does make sense after seeing the window design because it seems you can look down and see the floor at your feet as well as right down the side of the ship to the dock or sea below simultaneously.

This is like the only thing he said that makes sense.

What I would like to know is when he looked over the railing, was he looking down at the floor into the space between the railing and the window or was he really looking out of the window and down the side of the ship to the ground?

When he said he looked for her down on the floor maybe he was thinking that she fell there instead of out the window. Then he immediately looked out the window since she wasn't on the floor and realized she had fallen from the ship.

Imo

 

[LietKynes]

I wonder if there is a trial, will it really be so important whether or not he knew there was glass or if the window was open or not?
Isn't the issue that he disregarded the ships rules by lifting Chloe over the railing and then proceeded to put her on the ledge?

Was it ever clarified whether he stood or sat her on the window ledge? If he sat her on the ledge then her legs would be dangling out the window which is another violation.

Imo

Good points.
The glass issue was brought up as an excuse by SA and when that was shown to be a lie he went with the color blindness.
During SA's interview and fake crying jag he said "I thought there was glass" and repeatedly slapped his knee as if to emphasize how terrible RCCL was that there were no warnings about not putting a baby out the open window.
It's because of RCCL that Chloe is dead according to Kim Wiegand's public statement in the presser and certainly not step grandpa's fault.

 

[FactFinder3000]

Yes, but bending from the neck and shoulders will not put your upper body out and through the window.

It only takes the top half of ones head to go out the window to be able to look down at the concrete below and know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the window is, in fact, open.

I think it should be noted, by the way, that your opinion that his head did not breach the window is based on third hand video. RCCL has the original video, and they have stated that in their opinion, with libel as a possible consequence if they are wrong, that he did go out the window.

 

[MsBetsy]

How horrible for little Chloe. The "choice" of sitting on a narrow metal ledge, no doubt very hot, or standing on the narrow metal ledge, cutting into the soles of her feet through those little foam shoes. No wonder the poor baby "fell" out of the window, she never should have been perched into such an uncomfortable, and unsafe place.

Yes, young children completely depend on and trust their caretakers to make important decisions for them.
She could not have anticipated for a second the danger she was in.
SM was responsible for her care and he made a drastic mistake which I'm sure the family will suffer for the rest of their lives.
In just a matter of minutes their lives were changed forever.

Imo

 

[MsBetsy]

Good points.
The glass issue was brought up as an excuse by SA and when that was shown to be a lie he went with the color blindness.
During SA's interview and fake crying jag he said "I thought there was glass" and repeatedly slapped his knee as if to emphasize how terrible RCCL was that there were no warnings about not putting a baby out the open window.
It's because of RCCL's that Chloe is dead according to Kim Wiegand's public statement in the presser and certainly not step grandpa's fault.

Yes, I remember all that and the matter of the glass has been discussed at length and Winkleman seems to think that it is significant. Probably to make the point that having windows that open is dangerous.

But the fact still remains that SM acted in such a way that was apparently in violation of the ships rules. He is providing an explanation as to why he held her up to the window but that still doesn't excuse him from lifting her over the railing and putting her on the ledge.

If passengers are not permitted to cross the railing, stand on the railing, sit on the window ledge, etc, then it stands to reason that one is not supposed to place a child over the railing.

If it had been an adult who climbed over the railing and sat on the window ledge and fell, it wouldn't make a difference if they thought there was glass. That might be the reason why they did it, but it is still their own fault.

Imo

 

[MsBetsy]

No, he looks out the window before picking Chloe up, then he looks out the window a second time after setting her on the railing beside him. Both times were before he dropped her. So why would he be looking down for Chloe when she is sitting on the railing beside him?

He also looked on the floor after she fell, which indicates that at first he thought she fell in the the space between the railing and the window.

Imo

 

[FactFinder3000]

He also looked on the floor after she fell, which indicates that at first he thought she fell in the the space between the railing and the window.

Imo

I guess I should rewatch the video. Does anyone have a good link? There so many versions out there...

Wouldn't he at some point look out the window as well, if he dropped her out there?

 

[justice4allnow]

Right. Lucky you if you can be a stay at home mom. Many women have to work. You always need a back-up sitter in case your regular sitter is unavailable for the day. It could have been a mutual arrangement where they took turns watching each other's children when needed. The situation referenced did not at all make me uneasy.

I can understand that and wish that I could find the original quote-because it wasn't so much what the neighbor said as the terse, almost defensive reply that just seemed a little "off." I'll keep looking for it.

 

[MsBetsy]

I guess I should rewatch the video. Does anyone have a good link? There so many versions out there...

Wouldn't he at some point look out the window as well, if he dropped her out there?

Yes, he did look out the window because he says he saw her fall.
But at first he said he looked for her on the floor.

Imo

 

[cattlekate]

Can someone please respond with the following:
1). What is the height from the floor to the railing?

2) What is the distance from the railing to the window sill?

3) Is there a ledge at the bottom, below the railing, for an adult to tip-toe on?

4) How tall is SA? How tall was Chloe?

After watching both videos, I’m convinced that SA hoisted Chloe up to the rail. I’m not convinced that she was placed anywhere other than the railing.

The sideways video has pillars in the way, which make it look like SA was hoisting her to the window sill, but I don’t think that is true due to the pillars being in the way of the camera.

I’ve re-enacted this in my house and am convinced that she was hoisted up to the railing. But being top-heavy, as all toddlers are, she squirmed and leaned forward and thus tumbled out.

But without the measurement between the railing and window, as well as SA and her heights, it’s difficult to determine if she could tumble out.

 

[Wehwalt]

I meant that the Wiegands' case is to decide whether the open windows in the middle row were an unsafe, negligent condition.

Not necessarily. It is up to the judge to decide whether to put something before the jury, or to decide that RCC was not negligent as a matter of law, which is what they are arguing for in the motion to dismiss. This can even happen at the trial, for example at the close of the plaintiffs' case or at the close of the evidence.

 

[FactFinder3000]

Yes, he did look out the window because he says he saw her fall.
But at first he said he looked for her on the floor.

Imo

I don't recall seeing that. So does he climb up on a chair, since it's allegedly impossible to just look out the window?

 

[TDoc72]

I think wanting to watch movies over and over is pretty normal for kids. My own daughter must have watched Frozen at least twenty times, and sang songs from the soundtrack so often I could still hear her singing in my sleep.



Imo

I highly doubt that she would sit in a chair and stare at the tv for 3 showings of the movie. It was probably just on in the background as she came and went and did other things.

The always capable BetteDavisEyes linked in her comments that the ship was docked and there would've been zero motion.

I think there would still be motion, just not as much as on the open water. I’ve never been on a cruise though.

After watching both videos, I’m convinced that SA hoisted Chloe up to the rail. I’m not convinced that she was placed anywhere other than the railing.

The sideways video has pillars in the way, which make it look like SA was hoisting her to the window sill, but I don’t think that is true due to the pillars being in the way of the camera.

I’ve re-enacted this in my house and am convinced that she was hoisted up to the railing. But being top-heavy, as all toddlers are, she squirmed and leaned forward and thus tumbled out.

But without the measurement between the railing and window, as well as SA and her heights, it’s difficult to determine if she could tumble out.

I snipped the questions. I don’t know the measurements.

IMO she was first standing on the rail. Then sitting on it. If she was sitting on it, I think her feet were probably outside the window. There isn’t much space between, per pics by cruisers. At some point I think she was not sitting or standing on anything—held up by SA but over the rail, so much closer to the windowsill. Undecided if she was actually sat on the windowsill—seems like it would be very uncomfortable and possibly hot.

But if her feet were out and she pulled one of those toddler ‘I’m boneless’ moves, she could’ve easily slid right out.

IMO any scenario we toss around ends up as his fault b/c he lifted her over the rail into an open window in the first place.

 

[justbreathe]

What I would like to know is when he looked over the railing, was he looking down at the floor into the space between the railing and the window or was he really looking out of the window and down the side of the ship to the ground?

When he said he looked for her down on the floor maybe he was thinking that she fell there instead of out the window. Then he immediately looked out the window since she wasn't on the floor and realized she had fallen from the ship.

Imo

A member here posted a pic from her cruise (jazzy pants, cute sneakers) of the view looking down while leaning against the railing.

Because each row of glass slants out, when looking down just past the wooden safety rail you see your own feet, because the bottom pane of glass slants away from the ship (not perpendicular to the floor) you also see straight down the side of the ship.

I will look or the photo.