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

[In vino veritas]

I searched you tube couldn't find it

searched CBS News website---they have a listing for it and a link, but when I click it goes to something else

 

[mheido67]

I bet in South Bend, Indiana you could find a house to buy for $12,000.00.

You're kidding, right?

 

[In vino veritas]

I searched you tube couldn't find it

searched CBS News website---they have a listing for it and a link, but when I click it goes to something else

 

[they'll get you]

I’ve watched the video over a dozen times but still can’t believe what I am seeing...

I can see the sun shining on her where everything else is in shadow.

 

[Lawnguylander1964]

One of my friends is a criminal defense attorney and he says that the prosecutor does not have to show motive in order to get a conviction. However, the question of motive is usually brought up because jurors want to know why somebody did what they allegedly did - people are uncomfortable with the idea that the accused killed someone for no reason at all. Usually the motive is financial or other gain; some murderers, especially serial killers, kill because they enjoy the act of killing another person. Even people with serious mental illnesses have motives - a paranoid schizophrenic who kills the mailman because his delusions made him believe the mailman was actually a foreign agent sent to murder him has a motive. Jurors just want to know why and they will find it easier to convict if they know the motive.

I was going to post the same thing. They talk about motive on Court TV all the time. Jury's need the story to string all the pieces together and for it to be believable. Example in SC v Colucci the prosecution said it was money. Was it accident, suicide or murder. If it was murder, why did he kill his wife? Two mistrials says the motive wasn't strong enough, even though they had great expert witnesses, especially trial #2.

 

[mheido67]

I was going to post the same thing. They talk about motive on Court TV all the time. Jury's need the story to string all the pieces together and for it to be believable. Example in SC v Colucci the prosecution said it was money. Was it accident, suicide or murder. If it was murder, why did he kill his wife? Two mistrials says the motive wasn't strong enough, even though they had great expert witnesses, especially trial #2.

I'd imagine motive plays a much larger roll in a trial that is more dependent on circumstantial evidence. If someone turns up dead and there are no witnesses then identifying who did or did not have a motive to kill the person is more relevent than if you know, by eyewitness or video evidence, that someone definitely killed the person. At that point intent would seem to become more important than motive. I think it would be a hard case to make that SA was motivated by monetary, or some other nefarious, reasons to launch CW out the window. I also think establishing that he had the intent to do CW harm is equally difficult. I think, based on the video evidence and his own words, he was grossly negligent in how he handled CW in an unfamiliar setting and his negligence caused her accidental death. I also think a reasonable person would recognize an open window/ lack of glass when such a condition is present mear inches from their own face for almost a minute.

 

[HRH Phoebe Cat]

Some really great posts here; thank you all. This has been on my mind as well.

(not a lawyer just a layperson and just my own thoughts/opinions) From the video released (see post #592) I think it could be argued that SA in fact knew the window was, in fact, open when he leans over for 8 seconds as shown. It could be then argued that it was his intent to place Chloe in a dangerous position when he placed her on/beyond the guardrail. The proverbial “everyday man/woman” would and quite correctly consider this to have placed Chloe in extreme jeopardy with high risk of serious injury or loss of life. So (once again JMO) whatever his intention was to place her there does not matter. The purposeful and intentional act of placing Chloe on/beyond the guardrail was so inherently dangerous in and of itself.

Something just seems so off here. What was the real motive behind this action?

 

[WiseGuy]

IMHO it’ll be impossible. Criminal
proof is a higher standard. Harder to prove crime than civil. It’ll be a slam dunk in the civil case that SA was responsible.
Question will be if RCCL has any percentage of liability to share with SA. I doubt MW will be able to prove RCCL is at fault. On what basis? That RCCL had windows that open and close? Above the reach of any toddler? With a safety rail in front of it?
I wouldn’t be surprised if MW drops the case after criminal case concludes.

MW 's strategy in attempting to prove RCCL was negligent seems to rest mostly on his assertion that the ship's design violates some safety standard. RCCL's defense seems to be 2-fold:
1. In the entire history of this particular design, no one has ever fallen or been dropped through those windows. The number should be compelling: look not just at FOS but all her sister ships of the same design, and I expect you;d find that over perhaps 13 years, several million passengers have safely coexisted with those windows, a perfect safety record. Until one unbelievably foolish adult came along...
2. Read the official written safety standards that actually apply to cruise ships. No one will be able to find a single standard that FOS violated.

I find it puzzling that MW spends so much attention on what SA "thought". I have never understood why that matters. Both civil and criminal complaints are negligence complaints. To prove negligence "what I thought" is irrelevant, right? It's all about what did you do, and would a reasonable person do that? Yes or No? There is no dispute about what SA actually did, so all this talk about what SA thought is a misdirection campaign, to deflect attention from his actions, which I expect very few normal people would find reasonable.

 

[redabby]

I don’t expect anyone to accept anything they say without question but what does any of that have to do with how much they paid for their cruise vacation or how they managed to afford it or how their son raises money to pay for his sports trip?

Because there is a pattern here. Family

 

[WiseGuy]

Some really great posts here; thank you all. This has been on my mind as well.

(not a lawyer just a layperson and just my own thoughts/opinions) From the video released (see post #592) I think it could be argued that SA in fact knew the window was, in fact, open when he leans over for 8 seconds as shown. It could be then argued that it was his intent to place Chloe in a dangerous position when he placed her on/beyond the guardrail. The proverbial “everyday man/woman” would and quite correctly consider this to have placed Chloe in extreme jeopardy with high risk of serious injury or loss of life. So (once again JMO) whatever his intention was to place her there does not matter. The purposeful and intentional act of placing Chloe on/beyond the guardrail was so inherently dangerous in and of itself.

Something just seems so off here. What was the real motive behind this action?

IMO his motive was to play some silly game. We know from his history with the seat belt laws that he isn't much inclined to follow safety rules. He thinks he is too strong and smart to have anything go wrong.

I don't think it is necessary to prove what he "knew". Just what he "should have known" if he were a reasonable person. Let's imagine that prosecutors & RCCL accept as undisputed fact that SA "thought there was glass", they simply reply with "but you SHOULD have known the window was open, had you acted with the reasonable level of care that you owed a duty to the child you were responsible for." That still proves he is guilty of negligent homicide.

 

[redabby]

I don't think he intentionally dropped her from the window but I wonder if he gained some sort of thrill from placing her in such a dangerous situation , her life was in his hands literally. I think he is so

​

arrogant that he thought he couldn't drop her.

 

[mheido67]

MW 's strategy in attempting to prove RCCL was negligent seems to rest mostly on his assertion that the ship's design violates some safety standard. RCCL's defense seems to be 2-fold:
1. In the entire history of this particular design, no one has ever fallen or been dropped through those windows. The number should be compelling: look not just at FOS but all her sister ships of the same design, and I expect you;d find that over perhaps 13 years, several million passengers have safely coexisted with those windows, a perfect safety record. Until one unbelievably foolish adult came along...
2. Read the official written safety standards that actually apply to cruise ships. No one will be able to find a single standard that FOS violated.

I find it puzzling that MW spends so much attention on what SA "thought". I have never understood why that matters. Both civil and criminal complaints are negligence complaints. To prove negligence "what I thought" is irrelevant, right? It's all about what did you do, and would a reasonable person do that? Yes or No? There is no dispute about what SA actually did, so all this talk about what SA thought is a misdirection campaign, to deflect attention from his actions, which I expect very few normal people would find reasonable.

The reason MW focuses so much on what SA thought is because a major part of their claim is that the design of the windows created a hidden danger. MW contends that the design, a seemingly closed wall of glass (he refers to it that way for a reason) puts people at ease. They perceive it as a fully glazed wall. It puts people in a different state of mind then if they were standing next to just a waist height railing with no glass beyond it. So MW is arguing that SA, believing there to be a full wall of glass had no reason to believe CW was in danger when he put her on the rail and leaned over with her. MW further claims that had there been a simple warning that this "hidden danger" existed SA would have been warned off of placing CW into a dangerous situation that he otherwise did not know existed. That's why what SA thought is key to his argument.

MW also needs to show that RCCL should have been aware that the operable windows posed a danger. Hence is insistance that FotS wasn't meeting current safety standards. RCCL can't be negligent unless it can be shown that they knew or should have known that a dangerous condition existed.

 

[WiseGuy]

The reason MW focuses so much on what SA thought is because a major part of their claim is that the design of the windows created a hidden danger. MW contends that the design, a seemingly closed wall of glass (he refers to it that way for a reason) puts people at ease. They perceive it as a fully glazed wall. It puts people in a different state of mind then if they were standing next to just a waist height railing with no glass beyond it. So MW is arguing that SA, believing there to be a full wall of glass had no reason to believe CW was in danger when he put her on the rail and leaned over with her. MW further claims that had there been a simple warning that this "hidden danger" existed SA would have been warned off of placing CW into a dangerous situation that he otherwise did not know existed. That's why what SA thought is key to his argument.

MW also needs to show that RCCL should have been aware that the operable windows posed a danger. Hence is insistance that FotS wasn't meeting current safety standards. RCCL can't be negligent unless it can be shown that they knew or should have known that a dangerous condition existed.

Beautifully written: clear and concise. I believe you nailed it. Thanks!

 

[mheido67]

IMO his motive was to play some silly game. We know from his history with the seat belt laws that he isn't much inclined to follow safety rules. He thinks he is too strong and smart to have anything go wrong.

I don't think it is necessary to prove what he "knew". Just what he "should have known" if he were a reasonable person. Let's imagine that prosecutors & RCCL accept as undisputed fact that SA "thought there was glass", they simply reply with "but you SHOULD have known the window was open, had you acted with the reasonable level of care that you owed a duty to the child you were responsible for." That still proves he is guilty of negligent homicide.

You're correct, RCCL does not need to prove that SA knew the window was open. But proving such would render the Wiegand's claim moot. Their job is simply to 1) show that there is no legal justification for claiming that the FotS windows in the configuration they existed in posed an inherent or hidden danger that RCCL was obliged to address and 2) that a reasonable person, in the circumstances SA was in, should have observed that the window was open. Nothing to do with what SA knew, only what a reasonable person would have known.

 

[mheido67]

Beautifully written: clear and concise. I believe you nailed it. Thanks!

Thank you WiseGuy.

It's also why it is crucial to MW that people think there was only one open window at the time of the incident. More open windows present more opportunities for a reasonable person to observe that it is not in fact a fully closed wall of glass. The cctv footage clearly puts the lie to that claim.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

You're kidding, right?

No. I’m not. From mobile homes to homes in lower working class or less than desirable neighborhoods. The rust belt is full of them. Actually, if you look around I bet any major city has houses that need a new owner. But are reasonably priced. I’m not saying a McMansion. Or in Granger. But for $12,000.00 there’s places to be called home. With or without elbow grease. Soap and water. Paint. Some basic carpentry skills. Neighborhoods targeted for redevelopment. Tax sales.
My point was $12000 is a pile of money.

ETA: This wasn’t a once in a lifetime trip. Where someone sold a house or won the lottery. We know they’ve sailed before, on Disney. We don’t know how many times or with whom. We’re wondering how they afford the vacation dollars in high season.
ETA2: We know that $20,000 was raised via a social site as reported here. The funeral may or may not have been paid by SBPD. But she was cremated and is in an urn. So all the remaining funds are poised to be used for a different purpose.

 

[mheido67]

Thank you WiseGuy.

It's also why it is crucial to MW that people think there was only one open window at the time of the incident. More open windows present more opportunities for a reasonable person to observe that it is not in fact a fully closed wall of glass. The cctv footage clearly puts the lie to that claim.

In this still from the cctv footage you can see SA bent over at the left hand window. To the right is the other open window, the one with the barred lower section. Can’t make out if any others are open.

Also, sadly, at the very beginning of the cctv clip there is a man standing at the fall window looking out. He turns and walks away and passes CW and SA before they head to the window. If that guy had just stood there a few seconds longer his presence might have made a difference.

 

[mheido67]

No. I’m not. From mobile homes to homes in lower working class or less than desirable neighborhoods. The rust belt is full of them. Actually, if you look around I bet any major city has houses that need a new owner. But are reasonably priced. I’m not saying a McMansion. Or in Granger. But for $12,000.00 there’s places to be called home. With or without elbow grease. Soap and water. Paint. Some basic carpentry skills. Neighborhoods targeted for redevelopment. Tax sales.
My point was $12000 is a pile of money.

ETA: This wasn’t a once in a lifetime trip. Where someone sold a house or won the lottery. We know they’ve sailed before, on Disney. We don’t know how many times or with whom. We’re wondering how they afford the vacation dollars in high season.

$12,000 is a lot of money for some people. But we don’t really know how much they paid for the trip. The estimate is based on balcony cabins. There are much lower priced cabins without balconies (or windows for that matter).

AW is a police officer and KW is an attorney. Both pretty well paid professions. Is the assumption that they were hurting for money just because they had a fund raising page for their sons’ hockey trip? If you’ve ever been on a RCCL cruise you’d know that there are plenty of people who would appear to earn a lot less than a cop and an attorney filling the ships. Even in high season. Strikes me as odd that you’d be concerned with how a professional family afforded a 7 cruise on a ship with thousands of other people. JMO as they say.

 

[WiseGuy]

In this still from the cctv footage you can see SA bent over at the left hand window. To the right is the other open window, the one with the barred lower section. Can’t make out if any others are open.

Also, sadly, at the very beginning of the cctv clip there is a man standing at the fall window looking out. He turns and walks away and passes CW and SA before they head to the window. If that guy had just stood there a few seconds longer his presence might have made a difference.

Great find - that still is very informative, isn't it? From this one shot you can see:

1. the "fall window" was only partially open. Under the Q in squeeze you see 2 dark vertical structures, they are the right-side pieces of window frame. The left-most vertical piece is the right side of the fixed window that lies to the left of the operable window. The right-most is the right side of the window that slid left. And we know that the handle must be clearly attached to it. Point being, there was proof that the window is operable literally in front of Anello's face.
2. Difference between tinted and non-tinted is obvious even in this grainy still. The window to the right of the fall window obviously is open too.

 

[Montrealaise]

I'd imagine motive plays a much larger roll in a trial that is more dependent on circumstantial evidence. If someone turns up dead and there are no witnesses then identifying who did or did not have a motive to kill the person is more relevent than if you know, by eyewitness or video evidence, that someone definitely killed the person. At that point intent would seem to become more important than motive. I think it would be a hard case to make that SA was motivated by monetary, or some other nefarious, reasons to launch CW out the window. I also think establishing that he had the intent to do CW harm is equally difficult. I think, based on the video evidence and his own words, he was grossly negligent in how he handled CW in an unfamiliar setting and his negligence caused her accidental death. I also think a reasonable person would recognize an open window/ lack of glass when such a condition is present mear inches from their own face for almost a minute.

I think that SA suffers from what psychologists call ''optimism bias'', the illogical tendency to underestimate the likelihood of a negative outcome. Psychologists see this all the time with people who take stupid and unnecessary risks (for instance, tourists who take selfies at the edge of the Grand Canyon). Just the irrational belief that nothing bad could possibly happen!

What intrigues me are the motives of the parents. Why are they defending the man who killed their baby? Why are they suing the cruise line for millions of dollars when anybody with a thinking brain knows the cruise line is not at fault? People on this board are inclined to think that their motive is greed, and that's why we're taking a close look at their finances and their financial mindset.