IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #6
- Thread starter IceIce9
- Start date
- Status
Lawsmygame2
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2019
- Messages
- 75
- Reaction score
- 757
Using SA's (Hypothetical) Crim Trial Testimony at Civil Trial?
@SoCalDavidSUse at civil trial? In a word, yes.
In many more words
In case in chief, Winkleman puts on evd. to try to show 'window defects' in Frdm/Seas design, construction, installation, etc. and violations of various ship-building codes, standards, guidelines and recommendations thru expert witness(es) re marine architecture & related fields.
RCCL atty's cross exam of those experts will try to show that some/all of ^ stds, etc do not apply to Frdm/Seas.
Winkleman will try to show that RCCL's failure to comply w those stds, etc. was negligent.
And that RCCL's negligence re windows caused Chloe's death.
One pivotal, crucial claim is (in paragraphs 16 thru 20) in effect SA "thought there was glass" in window frame and/or did not see glass was 'missing' from window frame thru which Chloe was held (and dropped). To try to show what SA saw or thought he saw/did not see, he's got to testify in civil case. And <--that subjects him to RCCL's cross exam about all his other inconsistent and/or directly contradictory stmts.
In def.'s case, RCCL will try to show that SA's actions were the intervening cause of Chloe's death and can do this is three or more ways:
1. Show vids from various angles, The vids we've seen w SA's head past the window - as many here believe - make good defense for RCCL as not being responsible for Chloe's death.
2. Put on shipboard witnesses such as passengers & staff, about what they saw SA do & what they heard him say on Deck 11 and from other "outside witnesses" for ex, LEOs & any EMTs who communicated w him after he dropped her, and any witnesses on the dock who saw her being held in mid-air, et al.
3. Recall SA to the witness stand, the man holding Chloe at window. And then RCCL can ask him
about his actions, can challenge him w vid clips. Can ask about his other out-of-courtstmts: several inconsistent or directly contradicting his own TTWG testimony, other 'reasons' / 'excuses' given at various times - colorblindness, etc.
For ea 'reason' /'excuse' stmt he made pre-trial, SA must either -
- deny making the stmt, i.e., essentially saying the person testifying about SA's earlier stmt is not telling the truth or misheard SA, then ditto for other stmt about another 'reason,' so one -by-one, essentially calling several witnesses liars, or
- admit making the stmt, so as Prosecutor asks about three, four, or five of these stmts, SA is essentially admitting that he's come up w a string of excuses (most or all of which sound pretty flimsy).
^^^Sorry for repeating some info from my post 376, but different parties, different angles.^^^
if SA has testified at crim trial, RCCL can ask him about his sworn stmts made on the stand in crim trial. RCCL can use court reporter's transcript or possibly audio-video of him on the stand. <--- This is an exclusion* from the hearsay rule. This allows RCCL to use the prior contradictory testimony to impeach him, that is, to question his credibility. Typically using his own prior sworn testimony to impeach is waaaay more damaging to his credibility, than some other witness(es) testifying about his inconsistent or contradictory stmts.
If SA's principal overriding interest in the two cases is supporting his step-dau & son-in-law in their lawsuit against RCCL, seems exercising his right not to testify in crim trial would be beneficial to them.
imo.
-----------------------------------------------------
* Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 801
In my opinion, SA will not testify in his criminal trial. If he does, that would be huge mistake for him. However, based on his actions on the day of the incident and actions thereafter, we all know he is not that bright. He will probably make his attorney allow him to testify thinking he can convince the jury that his version of the incident is the truth. If he does, that will be good for the prosecution because, based on what we have seen from previous video, he is not a good actor or liar.
I can see him demanding to be put of the stand because he is a narcissist. I hope so...
Lawsmygame2
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2019
- Messages
- 75
- Reaction score
- 757
Double post.
Last edited:
KS-W's Immediate Reaction? What About Vids?
Of course, RCCL has not said a peep. No Deck 11 witnesses were quoted about her reaction. AFAIK, ditto PR LE, no reason to speak on this . The other gr'parents on cruise, keeping mum.
Leaving us to depend upon credibility of who? Oh, KS-W for veracity of stmt re what she did and said.
I can easily imagine absolute devastation, shock, grief, anger, yelling, screaming, crying, But like you said, MsMarple, hard to imagine no blame as an immed reaction.
I wonder if vid of parents' arrival (or other fam) on Deck11 scene will be shown at civil trial.
@MsMarple bbm
Of course, RCCL has not said a peep. No Deck 11 witnesses were quoted about her reaction. AFAIK, ditto PR LE, no reason to speak on this . The other gr'parents on cruise, keeping mum. Leaving us to depend upon credibility of who? Oh, KS-W for veracity of stmt re what she did and said.
I can easily imagine absolute devastation, shock, grief, anger, yelling, screaming, crying, But like you said, MsMarple, hard to imagine no blame as an immed reaction.
I wonder if vid of parents' arrival (or other fam) on Deck11 scene will be shown at civil trial.
neesaki
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,682
- Reaction score
- 47,181
ITA, bolded,,, not that bright, and a narcissist. I really would like to let this case go, because something tells me...... nah, Nevermind.
We have to keep our hopes up for baby Chloe. She deserves justice, whether her family thinks so or not.
SoCalDavidS
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2018
- Messages
- 1,149
- Reaction score
- 12,168
Well, that's Never going to happen. Families with young kids would stop cruising, and that's a giant segment of the overall market.
they'll get you
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2012
- Messages
- 14,657
- Reaction score
- 57,045
Cruising is not dangerous for anyone....usually.
justbreathe
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2012
- Messages
- 430
- Reaction score
- 4,054
Yah, there is something weird about that...
SaguaroSpirit
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2016
- Messages
- 1,942
- Reaction score
- 19,369
As every little piece of the puzzle falls in to place...
BetteDavisEyes
Fasten your seatbelts...
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2010
- Messages
- 35,368
- Reaction score
- 79,048
I've never heard about any previous cruises. Maybe AW and KW took Chloe's brother on a cruise before she was born. I suppose it's possible that Grandma and Grandpa Anello had not been on a cruise before this one and that's why she was asking about open windows on Deck 11.
Without SA's Testimony, What Can Defense Use?
---
In closing argument, I'll convince the jury that LE zeroed in on the first guy they saw on Deck 11 and failed to look for the guy actually responsible.
or
Those videos were taken from weird angles and are all distorted, showing you w your head out past the window frame, then holding Chloe out, suspending her in mid-air and dropping.
or
When prosecution witnesses are on the stand, my cross examination will tear them to shreds, because those witnesses did not really see or hear anything.
or
I can use expert witnesses to show the ship design is dangerous and defective, because -
--- Designer/architect should have placed any operable/operating windows on that outer wall up so high LeBron James or Yao Ming could not reach them.
---Designer/architect should have specified the glass to be totally opaque black, so ppl could tell if an operable/operating window was in open position.
--- Ship builder installed windows incorrectly, so low that an adult could bend torso past the safety rail to put own head out the window, past the outer frame and wall, then extend arms holding a toddler suspended in mid-air.
Maybe SA will not testify. Maybe let defense counsel run w some of the above, j/k^
But then, remember what happened w a snappy sounding line: "If the glove does not fit, you must acquit."
@Lawsmygame2 bbm Agreeing w you re gist of the above. Wondering what the hapless atty saddled w this case (assuming public defender but could be wrong) can advise SA to try to dissuade him from testifying? Or to use at trial. I don't see a lot to work with. Maybe
---In closing argument, I'll convince the jury that LE zeroed in on the first guy they saw on Deck 11 and failed to look for the guy actually responsible.
or
Those videos were taken from weird angles and are all distorted, showing you w your head out past the window frame, then holding Chloe out, suspending her in mid-air and dropping.
or
When prosecution witnesses are on the stand, my cross examination will tear them to shreds, because those witnesses did not really see or hear anything.
or
I can use expert witnesses to show the ship design is dangerous and defective, because -
--- Designer/architect should have placed any operable/operating windows on that outer wall up so high LeBron James or Yao Ming could not reach them.
---Designer/architect should have specified the glass to be totally opaque black, so ppl could tell if an operable/operating window was in open position.
--- Ship builder installed windows incorrectly, so low that an adult could bend torso past the safety rail to put own head out the window, past the outer frame and wall, then extend arms holding a toddler suspended in mid-air.
Maybe SA will not testify. Maybe let defense counsel run w some of the above, j/k
^ But then, remember what happened w a snappy sounding line: "If the glove does not fit, you must acquit."
Last edited:
mickey2942
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2016
- Messages
- 13,913
- Reaction score
- 132,611
SA needs to negotiate a plea deal. ASAP.
SoCalDavidS
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2018
- Messages
- 1,149
- Reaction score
- 12,168
He needed to negotiate a deal weeks ago. The fact there is no deal is indication IMO that they're unwilling to go along with anything being offered. I'm confident that any deal being offered includes taking responsibility, and doing that would put the RCCL civil suit in peril. Obviously they view the downside to that as being greater than the downside of going through the fight for acquittal.
MsMarple
Member since 2013
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2013
- Messages
- 11,878
- Reaction score
- 71,953
IMO it's one thing for a person to endanger him or her self but to do so to an innocent child is unfathomable. I just read that a family from Portland Oregon went to watch a coastal storm - even though there was a warning in place as it was a King tide, the highest kind which can add 10 to 15 extra feet to waves - and a sneaker wave swept the father and two kids out to sea. The father survived but their 7-year-old daughter was pronounced dead and her 4-year-old brother has not been found.
Now, many people enjoy storm watching - I've done it myself from a safe distance - but it should be done from far away, not on the beach. Yet people do it over and over even though people die every year. Ignore the warnings if you must but don't drag your kids into danger!
SA chose to put Chloe on that railing and not himself. Why? Because it would be ridiculous for a grown man to climb up onto a safety rail to look out the window. But it was okay for Chloe. SMDH.
Now, many people enjoy storm watching - I've done it myself from a safe distance - but it should be done from far away, not on the beach. Yet people do it over and over even though people die every year. Ignore the warnings if you must but don't drag your kids into danger!
SA chose to put Chloe on that railing and not himself. Why? Because it would be ridiculous for a grown man to climb up onto a safety rail to look out the window. But it was okay for Chloe. SMDH.
When I first saw the night photo of the windows AW took, I thought, wow, there is no way to determine which windows are opened or closed. Upon closer inspection of that photo, it's obvious which windows are closed, because lights from outside the ship have a glare when hitting the glass of the closed windows, but light glare is absent on the open ones, I guess you cruisers already know this. I was surprised to find something in the photos regarding the windows I didn't notice before. I failed trying to copy and paste the photo here, sorry.
Pammi
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2020
- Messages
- 63
- Reaction score
- 732
SA said he thought the window had glass. How did her feet get outside the window tracks, if she was standing on the guard rail 15-18" out and fell, she would have hit the window sill first, right? She was a preemie, and likely wasn't more than 30" tall.
I can't see how this happened unless her held her past the sill. I think good copies of the cctv from the ship will show exactly what happened. I don’t know how closely Puerto Rico’s court follow the usa, here in Ohio my daughter was recently a juror where a 19 yo shot a 17 yo in the back over some drugs, and she said they played the street cam video several times, and slow motion, the victim’s family cried the whole time. I don’t think KW is prepared for the raw emotion this trial will bring. She'll never forget what she sees.
Though- I worry most about the surviving sibling in these situations, how are they coping while parents are distracted by not one but two lawsuits....
I can't see how this happened unless her held her past the sill. I think good copies of the cctv from the ship will show exactly what happened. I don’t know how closely Puerto Rico’s court follow the usa, here in Ohio my daughter was recently a juror where a 19 yo shot a 17 yo in the back over some drugs, and she said they played the street cam video several times, and slow motion, the victim’s family cried the whole time. I don’t think KW is prepared for the raw emotion this trial will bring. She'll never forget what she sees.
Though- I worry most about the surviving sibling in these situations, how are they coping while parents are distracted by not one but two lawsuits....
Maybe the silver lining about this case is Chloe could save many lives if people learned to be more careful moving about safely for themselves and people they care for after hearing about her tragedy.
Case in point, I am the sole caregiver for my 90 year old Mom, she needs monitoring going up and down steps. Today I had heavy packages on my arm while trying to give her support climbing steps. I was not doing a good job because I failed to hold the bannister to brace myself to avoid falling backward with the heavy packages in case she fell backwards on me going up the stairs. I thought of Chloe losing her balance, gravity, her fall, etc. and grabbed the bannister for better support. My uncle used to coach basketball and said girls and boys have different centers of gravity, an interesting fact I was unaware of.
Case in point, I am the sole caregiver for my 90 year old Mom, she needs monitoring going up and down steps. Today I had heavy packages on my arm while trying to give her support climbing steps. I was not doing a good job because I failed to hold the bannister to brace myself to avoid falling backward with the heavy packages in case she fell backwards on me going up the stairs. I thought of Chloe losing her balance, gravity, her fall, etc. and grabbed the bannister for better support. My uncle used to coach basketball and said girls and boys have different centers of gravity, an interesting fact I was unaware of.
I was hoping a tech company would provide an accurate animation of Chloe standing, sitting, being held by SA, etc. and the trajectory path she would have taken going out the window in each position, instead we got the primitive demonstration by la comay, but it is better than nothing.
la comay really stepped up in working to get Justice for Chloe, kudos!
Cruise owners will have techies at their disposal and could pull an indisputable demo out in court . And with the limited evidence we've seen just now , goodness knows what is being kept under wraps , witnesses , other CCTV . We've not heard from any staff or passengers which makes me think they are potentially court witnesses barred from saying anything which could jeopardise a conviction. All we have heard is various SA explanations and the presser for the suing of the CC .
- Status