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

[Erik_Emune]

Seriously, though, they are saying that SA did not himself breach where the glass would have been, had it been there. They are saying that he did not hold her outside the window, she fell out there.

Is it me, or is it completely self-contradictory at this point? "SA could not possibly have reached that window, it's a full 18 inches from the railing!" doesn't really work with "The window is an absolute deathtrap and designed so that anyone could have fallen out of it."

 

[In vino veritas]

Exact

Is it me, or is it completely self-contradictory at this point? "SA could not possibly have reached that window, it's a full 18 inches from the railing!" doesn't really work with "The window is an absolute deathtrap and designed so that anyone could have fallen out of it.

 

[In vino veritas]

Exactly!!! SO many contradictions by MW!

Exact

 

[Sweetsbeach]

Toddlers are top heavy, have very little core strength and are just getting the hang of coordination and balance to be able to walk. So why would he think it was a good idea to stand her on a railing?

 

[neesaki]

“Chloe was always within the ship and there was room to spare.”

How did she fall out if she was always within the ship?
That’s an impossibility. What are these people on??

So now he’s implying that either...

1. Chloe herself jumped out the window
2. SA pushed Chloe out the window
3. SA threw Chloe out the window

No way she purposely jumped out, so that leaves 2 and 3.

So sounds to me like SA is guilty as charged, IMO.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

SA is 5' 11" according PR LE in the booking photo:
https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-s...=700:*&output-quality=auto&output-format=auto
I don't think the 're-enactment' is accurate as I think the re-enactor is shorter, but if it's actually true given the La Comay video that Winkleman has previously acknowledged as accurate, showing that SA didn't even have his feet on the ground while doing this with Chloe is bad news for SA.

 

[Lawnguylander1964]

This statement doesn't exactly seem to help SA's criminal case:
In fact, it was physically impossible for Sam to have had his head out of the window frame with his feet on the deck, as demonstrated in the photos below.
Assuming that's true, that further seems to establish SA's negligence.

Except the photo on page 4 of the Motion to Dismiss shows him completely bent over and his feet on the floor.

It's almost like we're in an alternate universe. The lawyers and the family are seriously dilusional or they think the jurors are stupid.

 

[mickey2942]

So now he’s implying that either...

1. Chloe herself jumped out the window
2. SA pushed Chloe out the window
3. SA threw Chloe out the window

No way she purposely jumped out, so that leaves 2 and 3.

So sounds to me like SA is guilty as charged, IMO.

I actually think that the "Negligent Homicide" charge is an absolute gift. It is basically easy to prove for the prosecution, with little to no evidence, the video evidence lays out the case eloquently.

The issue of premeditated murder, would be a much bigger hill to climb. Could the case be made for this? I believe that it probably could. As I said previously, SA needs to settle this, the plan for quick cash settlement is over, RCCL has dug in their heels on this.

INMO, this may have more to do with Winkleman. He has become a thorn in the side for RCCL, and they have decided to finally nip this out. No more quick cash settlements to stay out of the news. They are done with being Winkleman's checkbook.

 

[Tutter]

They show the still of his first initial lean when they first approached the window, but after the shot of him lifting her way over his head they don't show the shot after he switches her to the window frame and leans waaaaay over so that you can almost barely see any of him in the video. I think that change in his position is very important because it shows that Winky isn't trying to match the video at all. He's just posing

oh yeah, and remember SA only had his left arm holding Chloe. ( and he said this too iirc) His right arm was bent and elbow visible.

it’s like they can’t see they are making it worse for SA. Interesting....

 

[Lilibet]

They show the still of his first initial lean when they first approached the window, but after the shot of him lifting her way over his head they don't show the shot after he switches her to the window frame and leans waaaaay over so that you can almost barely see any of him in the video. I think that change in his position is very important because it shows that Winky isn't trying to match the video at all. He's just posing

At the point he leans way out the window with Chloe, you can see his right elbow inside the ship, so he is clearly holding her with one arm (perhaps supporting her with right hand, to give him the benefit of the doubt). But it’s obvious he doesn’t have a firm grip on her. If they aren’t showing that, it’s deceiving.

ETA: We posted basically the same thing simultaneously, Tutter. Great minds and all that.

 

[Fidobell]

Motions to dismiss are rarely granted, but the cruise line's attorneys know that so I don't really think they hope to win this motion. I believe their real motivation is to get the truth out there and counter all the things Winkleman has been saying publicly for the past six months - that it was a children's play area, that the window did not meet safety standards, and so on and on. Winkleman has been trying this case in the media, trying to get the public on his client's side, but two can play that game - by having the motion explicitly spell out what the video shows, namely that SA knew the window was open and acted in an extremely negligent manner.

If Chloes parents have believed SA s word till now , being called out so publicly by CL must make them think again . Company has everything to lose here so would not have blamed SA so definitively unless they had concrete evidence of this mans actions .

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Except the photo on page 4 of the Motion to Dismiss shows him completely bent over and his feet on the floor.

It's almost like we're in an alternate universe. The lawyers and the family are seriously dilusional or they think the jurors are stupid.

I'm not seeing his feet as his legs seem to be obscured by the table. What it does establish is that he was bent over while given that we know he was bent over, Winkleman's claim would only be demonstrating further criminal negligence by showing SA's feet were off the floor when he was bent over in the video.

 

[Fidobell]

I say good luck with that. You’ll all see his head out and him hold Chloe outside.

The family has filed a motion requesting all video evidence from each camera including one from outside the ship. Winkleman says the photos and accident re-enactment data will be released next week.

Michiana family says cruise line is being 'deceptive' in lawsuit over toddler's death

Is it a re-enactment as SA tells it ? Or as the videos show ?

 

[Lilibet]

If Chloes parents have believed SA s word till now , being called out so publicly by CL must make them think again . Company has everything to lose here so would not have blamed SA so definitively unless they had concrete evidence of this mans actions .

I’m sure they have concrete evidence. We’ve seen the videos. This lawsuit will take forever, unless they now choose to drop it, with Winkleman trashing them dishonestly, so from a bottom-line standpoint, the cruise line needs to let the public know that this is a frivolous lawsuit IMO.

 

[mickey2942]

I'm not seeing his feet as his legs seem to be obscured by the table. What it does establish is that he was bent over while given that we know he was bent over, Winkleman's claim would only be demonstrating further criminal negligence by showing SA's feet were off the floor when he was bent over in the video.

This is Chloe's fault, of course. SA was just trying to make her happy, by accommodating "her" wish to "bang on glass".

Ugh! Let's blame a dead child for being dead. Not the adult charged with her care.

 

[neesaki]

This is so useless! Why is the guy not standing directly against the rail in the first pic. Like, uh, yeah, your head won’t go out the window if you don’t PUT IT OUT THE WINDOW. Dude can’t just *stand* there. He needs to Look. Out. The. Window. Extend your turtle neck, bro.

Exactly, he's purposely restricting how far he bends over and extends his neck . It's an inaccurate re-enactment.

 

[Kindred]

At the point he leans way out the window with Chloe, you can see his right elbow inside the ship, so he is clearly holding her with one arm (perhaps supporting her with right hand, to give him the benefit of the doubt). But it’s obvious he doesn’t have a firm grip on her. If they aren’t showing that, it’s deceiving.

ETA: We posted basically the same thing simultaneously, Tutter. Great minds and all that.

You see his elbow while Chloe is still on the rail, not after the shift to the frame.



This is from the shortened La Comay video that only shows the part on the accident (I'll find the link to the video and edit it in here in a moment). This is literally just a few frames before he collapses after she falls. There is no sign of his elbow anywhere. His butt is up in the air and the ONLY thing showing.

Still, that position in the video is not at all the same as Winky with his dolly.

**edit*** Screen shot provided is from THIS VIDEO at or about the 11:51 mark

 

[Kindred]

Is it a re-enactment as SA tells it ? Or as the videos show ?

That is the real question isn't it?

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

...INMO, this may have more to do with Winkleman. He has become a thorn in the side for RCCL, and they have decided to finally nip this out. No more quick cash settlements to stay out of the news. They are done with being Winkleman's checkbook.

I agree. This isn't RCCL's first rodeo with MW. He makes a point of filing these lawsuits very quickly after an incident in hopes that the cruise line will agree to settle quickly to escape bad publicity. MW convinced his clients that they would receive a big payout because RCCL wouldn't want bad press about the death of a toddler on one of their ships. Once criminal charges were brought against SA, the case ceased to be an unfortunate "accident" for which RCCL would have likely compensated the family. The criminal charges put a damper on the lawsuit, and that's probably why Chloe's parents were against SA having any responsibility for what happened to their child.

 

[mickey2942]

I agree. This isn't RCCL's first rodeo with MW. He makes a point of filing these lawsuits very quickly after an incident in hopes that the cruise line will agree to settle quickly to escape bad publicity. MW convinced his clients that they would receive a big payout because RCCL wouldn't want bad press about the death of a toddler on one of their ships. Once criminal charges were brought against SA, the case ceased to be an unfortunate "accident" for which RCCL would have likely compensated the family. The criminal charges put a damper on the lawsuit, and that's probably why Chloe's parents were against SA having any responsibility for what happened to their child.

Which is why, I have always thought that RCCL is the one who pressed Puerto Rico to press charges.

Tell me, that RCCL doesn't have a lot of political power in Puerto Rico?! They literally own that island. If they decided not to port ships there any longer, it would literally devastate the tourist economy there. I am sure that RCCL was more than happy to provide evidence to facilitate the charges.