IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #7

[Lawnguylander1964]

• Laws of Puerto Rico Annotated
• TITLE THIRTY-FOUR Appendix Rules of Court
• II Rules of Criminal Procedure
• Chapter XI. TRIAL

34A L.P.R.A. App. II, Rule 134

Rule 134. JURY; VIEW OR INSPECTION
When, in the opinion of the court, it is advisable that the jury should view the place in which the offense was committed, or in which any other material fact occurred, it may order the jury to be conducted in a body, in the custody of a marshal, to the place, which must be shown to them by a person designated by the court for such purpose and said marshal must be sworn to suffer no person, including himself, to speak or communicate with the jury on any subject connected with the trial, and to return to the court with the jury, without unnecessary delay. Whenever an inspection is made the judge should always go with the jury to the place of the events.

https://advance.lexis.com/documentp...r16&prid=8e942c28-cbf4-4b6c-ac8a-df4c2302fae4

 

[WiseGuy]

I totally agree. The depth of their denial is a bit disturbing , IMO.

So, just a question.... do you think it has something to do with them both being in the world of law enforcement? Does that grant them a special sense of entitlement? Or, is that just their belief? I really don’t know, just wondering if that’s how it works.
TIA

Good point. Both KW and AW are law enforcement in Indiana. So how will this work:

Officer AW pulls someone over for running a red light: "Officer, I am colorblind and thought the light was green!" AW: "Too bad, the law does not care why you ran the light, fact is you ran it, pay your fine."

Or prosecutor KW: Criminal says "Attorney KW, as a feeble color-blind man I am BEGGING you to drop the charges!" KW: "I have ample evidence to convict you - tough luck!"

Those 2 are going to look like major hypocrites.

 

[MsBetsy]

Good point. Both KW and AW are law enforcement in Indiana. So how will this work:

Officer AW pulls someone over for running a red light: "Officer, I am colorblind and thought the light was green!" AW: "Too bad, the law does not care why you ran the light, fact is you ran it, pay your fine."

Or prosecutor KW: Criminal says "Attorney KW, as a feeble color-blind man I am BEGGING you to drop the charges!" KW: "I have ample evidence to convict you - tough luck!"

Those 2 are going to look like major hypocrites.

I think for some people when it comes to protecting their family all reason and common sense goes out the window.

They may believe their knowledge and background will help both cases but in the end I don't think it will make a difference.

There is probably little chance SM will be found not guilty and I think even less of a chance they will win the lawsuit.
But then again I have heard of cases where people have been awarded lots of money for what seem to be ridiculous reasons so I guess you never know.

I'm not sure I even know what they are asking for. Do they want money or are they requesting the ship be "fixed"?
I'm not familiar with these kinds of cases other than what I've seen on the news and usually people are asking for a certain amount of money, usually an extraordinary amount, but I haven't heard this mentioned yet.

Imo

 

[FactFinder3000]

This man sued and won $21.5 mil for this

Yes the door closed on him but sheesh!!

I checked, his lawyer wasn’t MW. (Friedman)

That verdict was tossed, though. Not sure if it went to retrial or not.

 

[mheido67]

I think for some people when it comes to protecting their family all reason and common sense goes out the window.

They may believe their knowledge and background will help both cases but in the end I don't think it will make a difference.

There is probably little chance SM will be found not guilty and I think even less of a chance they will win the lawsuit.
But then again I have heard of cases where people have been awarded lots of money for what seem to be ridiculous reasons so I guess you never know.

I'm not sure I even know what they are asking for. Do they want money or are they requesting the ship be "fixed"?
I'm not familiar with these kinds of cases other than what I've seen on the news and usually people are asking for a certain amount of money, usually an extraordinary amount, but I haven't heard this mentioned yet.

Imo

Early on they said they just wanted the ship fixed so this didn't happen to anyone else but I believe when they filed suit they asked for compensatory and punitive damages.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

Early on they said they just wanted the ship fixed so this didn't happen to anyone else but I believe when they filed suit they asked for compensatory and punitive damages.

It has never happened to anyone else.

 

[Montrealaise]

I don't think bringing windows and a railing into a court room is going to have the same effect as standing on the 11th floor of a boat.

Exactly. It's not just feeling the breeze coming through the open window and hearing the sounds from outside - it's also standing at the window, looking outside, and realizing how very, very high up it is. I've never been on a cruise but just looking at the videos on this site makes me queasy and when I think of placing a small child there, I feel panicky. Doubtless some, if not all, jurors would feel that same way.

 

[al66pine]

Alleged Damages? $ Damages Sought?

....I'm not sure I even know what they are asking for. Do they want money or are they requesting the ship be "fixed"? I'm not familiar with these kinds of cases other than what I've seen on the news and usually people are asking for a certain amount of money, usually an extraordinary amount, but I haven't heard this mentioned yet. Imo

@MsBetsy sbm bbm Complaint* specifies nature of alleged damages (virtually boilerplate),while the dollar amt of alleged damages sought is unspecified. AFAIK, Winkleman has not mentioned any $ amt. in interviews.

Did I miss para. w Plaintiffs demanding Repair Ship, So This Never Happens to Another Child? <sarc>
Or is that just part of The Script --- mom and atty making altruistic sounding plea to MSM
but no connection w pleadings in court? Sorry, not sorry, if my cynicism offends.

------------------------------------------------------
* Complaint, Page 21, Paragraph 52"... b. Decedent’s estate lost earnings of the Decedent and lost the benefit of the prospective net accumulations, which might reasonably have been expected but for the Decedent’s death.
"c. The beneficiaries/survivors of the Decedent incurred funeral expenses, suffered loss of
financial support, loss of services, lost past and future wages, future loss of support and
services, loss of inheritance, sustained mental pain and suffering and loss of the
Decedent’s companionship and protection, and suffered moral damages.
"WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant for all damages recoverable by law..."

 

[In vino veritas]

Early on they said they just wanted the ship fixed so this didn't happen to anyone else but I believe when they filed suit they asked for compensatory and punitive damages.

Not to mention that MW would NOT be in it if the reason for the suit was merely to implement change. This guy is all about the big bucks... MOO.

 

[Montrealaise]

I

GMAFB. From your link:

'We respectfully ask the Puerto Rican prosecutors to take a hard look at the new evidence that has come to light,' Alan and Kimberly said in an emotion-charged statement shared exclusively with DailyMail.com. 'It shows what we have known all along, that Sam thought it was a wall of glass.

'We have never wanted charges filed against Sam because we know with all of our hearts that he would never put Chloe in harm's way.

'We will stand with Sam as long as it takes - but we cannot grieve as a family until the criminal charges are dropped.'
Parents of toddler dropped to her death from Royal Caribbean ship beg Puerto Rico to end case | Daily Mail Online

As an LE officer and attorney both parents know better; SA is charged with negligent homicide and intent is not necessary for a conviction, only that he acted in a negligent way. If the DA had evidence that SA had acted with intent to harm Chloe then the charges would be murder not negligence.

Sigh. I'm getting tired of the parents trying to spin this case into something it's not. Attempting to influence public opinion based on emotions is wearing thin. IMO it dishonors Chloe for SA and her parents to continue to deny his reckless actions. MOO.

I think that what the parents really meant to say is "We cannot grieve as a family until RCCL pays us millions of dollars".

 

[katydid23]

Good call! He's not straining at all, so easy to do!

And look at how close his face is to the open window. How could he not know?

This is also a very damning picture if you imagine that poor baby standing right there on that tiny ledge. Look at this picture, and imagine propping up an 18 month old child, right there...

 

[Andreee]

Exactly. It's not just feeling the breeze coming through the open window and hearing the sounds from outside - it's also standing at the window, looking outside, and realizing how very, very high up it is. I've never been on a cruise but just looking at the videos on this site makes me queasy and when I think of placing a small child there, I feel panicky. Doubtless some, if not all, jurors would feel that same way.

I agree. I would definitely want to see and be on the ship itself at an identical window setup, to experience the real venue.

 

[katydid23]

Good call! He's not straining at all, so easy to do!

Also, if he was going to pick up his baby and lift her up into the window sill, wouldn't he CHECK to see it was closed and safe BEFORE he placed the child up there?

It would be so easy to do, looking at this picture. His hand can easily reach forward and feel for glass or no glass. Easy as pie.

 

[sloane7777]

You know I do look at that close up and the first thing I think is , maybe he didn't want to babysit anymore but didn't know how to tell them. (first thing that popped into my head ) I might be starting to change my mind.

 

[Andreee]

Also, if he was going to pick up his baby and lift her up into the window sill, wouldn't he CHECK to see it was closed and safe BEFORE he placed the child up there?

It would be so easy to do, looking at this picture. His hand can easily reach forward and feel for glass or no glass. Easy as pie.

Well, yes, re. safety as even though he says he thought the window was closed, in that scenario it could've very well been UNLATCHED or loose; so why not check for that before swinging the toddler over the railing!

 

[katydid23]

Well, yes, re. safety as even though he says he thought the window was closed, in that scenario it could've very well been UNLATCHED or loose; so why not check for that before swinging the toddler over the railing!

He keeps saying he thought 'there was glass.' But why did he think there was glass? Did he check to make sure?

He said he thought it was a 'wall of glass.' Why would he think that if he was severely colourblind? Why would he assume it was a wall of glass if he knew he couldn't see tinted glass?

 

[Pigey]

Two grandmas on ship and they chose an old fool to watch a precious child. It makes no sense.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

Two grandmas on ship and they chose an old fool to watch a precious child. It makes no sense.

EXACTLY.

 

[katydid23]

Two grandmas on ship and they chose an old fool to watch a precious child. It makes no sense.

Exactly. And I bet the older brother could have played with her in the wading pool and she would have been happy and safe until Mom returned.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

Two grandmas on ship and they chose an old fool to watch a precious child. It makes no sense.

Plus, Chloe's own father. *SMH*