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

[ilovewings]

okay good people- i know you all mean well, but honestly, I think some are watching too many crime shows ( i know i do!!): I 100% believe this was a horrible reckless and negligent act on the part of grand pa: there is nothing, and i mean nothing, nada, nothing to suggest that there was evil intent here. Mom going on TV and the parents filing a lawsuit so quickly are surely not indicative that anyone in the family intentionally harmed the child. My hope is that the cruise ship prevails in this case and that grandpa is shown to be the negligent reckless person he was in this instance, that caused the death of this lovely child.

 

[justbreathe]

Agreed. The speed with which an attorney was retained, with the intent to file a lawsuit declared, is odd. I can understand doing this after they had some time to process what happened to Chloe. But the parents and SA came out of the gate very aggressively blaming the cruise line, and doing it in a very public manner. And their continued absolution of SA, despite clear evidence of negligence by him, makes me question their integrity.... and intent.
IMO, SA has zero credibility, particularly after his CBS interview with DB. His recollections of what occurred were , IMO, very matter of fact. Emotionless. And that display of “ sobbing” , with no evidence of tears, substantiated to me that he has no real remorse.
I even now question the histrionics reported in the doctors account. From what I’ve gleaned, SA had been involved in community theatre, so he has acting experience. AND... he refused sedatives.
SO.... as much as I really want to believe this was a very stupid mistake by a reckless individual, part of me still thinks perhaps there was intent all along.

What SA did was so unbelievable, so beyond even the most basic common sense one can’t help but wonder what else was at play here.

 

[Forever Young]

With all due respect, I don’t understand your blind insistence that SA couldn’t have leaned out the window when he leaned over the railing when there are people in this very forum (shorter than SA), who have been on this very ship, who have stated that they were able to lean out the window when they leaned over the railing.

Its fine to have an opinion, but it seems like yours is set in stone, never to be swayed, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Isn't this what the Wiegands' response to RCCL's motion to dismiss says? I thought their response said it was a physical impossibility for SA to put his entire upper body out through the window without his feet leaving the floor. RCCL's motion to dismiss said he had his entire upper body out through the window.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

What SA did was so unbelievable, so beyond even the most basic common sense one can’t help but wonder what else was at play here.

Exactly. Looks like the truth is starting to dawn on more and more people. Things are coming together, and fast. I for one can't wait to hear about the other security cam vids and even more importantly, what the eyewitnesses have to say.

 

[LietKynes]

American toddler dies after fall from Royal Caribbean cruise ship - CNN

Here is the reference to grandpa losing his balance----

"The grandfather sat the girl in the window and lost his balance, and the girl
fell to her death".

The always capable BetteDavisEyes linked in her comments that the ship was docked and there would've been zero motion.
So much for the family claiming otherwise ; lol.
Chalk that up with the pretended color blindness and thinking the window was a "wall of glass with hidden holes" --according to the step grandpa, S.A.

 

[KR72]

okay good people- i know you all mean well, but honestly, I think some are watching too many crime shows ( i know i do!!): I 100% believe this was a horrible reckless and negligent act on the part of grand pa: there is nothing, and i mean nothing, nada, nothing to suggest that there was evil intent here. Mom going on TV and the parents filing a lawsuit so quickly are surely not indicative that anyone in the family intentionally harmed the child. My hope is that the cruise ship prevails in this case and that grandpa is shown to be the negligent reckless person he was in this instance, that caused the death of this lovely child.

I agree, and many, many child deaths are caused by reckless idiots (parents, grandparents, babysitters etc...) who are engaging in risky behaviour. I'll again mention the case in Newfoundland of the 10 year old who died while out on an ATV with his father as an example of recklessness on behalf of the parent leading to the death of a child. Children die in all sorts of manners, car accidents for example, because parents weren't driving for conditions in inclement weather or speeding. Those sorts of deaths are more common than holding a child out an 11 story window and dropping him or her and they don't grab the headlines as much as a story like this one.

The gruesome nature of Chloe's death, the setting (on a cruise ship), the now released video, and the strange behaviour of the family make this case high profile. I could be wrong, but I don't think SA intentionally murdered Chloe but he needs to be held accountable for his actions regardless.

 

[Forever Young]

Emph. mine

I wouldn't know about the conditions of the ship but from the videos and photo evidence presented -- the conditions of RCCL's ships are not at fault.
Plus, I wasn't there for a cruise at that time or any other time.
Were you there when this happened ?
Serious question as you seem to point out in post # 1771 that a newborn's head could not breech a 4 inch window gap; but everyone knows this already.
They do not need to lock all of the window due to negligent homicide or worse.

I was not there. My response was to a question about the possibility of a real skinny kid being able to pass through a 4 inch gap.

 

[justbreathe]

Menor muere tras caer de crucero en muelle Panamericano de San Juan[/URL]

This is it! Thank you!! I am glad it exists but not quite as I remembered.

The man seems to just turn away after showing how SA (might have) held Chloe.

I think it strange that this and the MW “reenactment” seem to show SA holding her with his hands on her waist.

Maybe SA was not even holding her with his arm around her waist, but just had his hands on her, then took one away...

 

[justbreathe]

Ahh, but did one half of the pool have a coloured cover over it, and the other half not ?

Water is clear. He thought there was water there. Duh.

 

[MsBetsy]

W.H.O. Says Limited or No Screen Time for Children Under 5

I can't read the article but I have yet to meet a parent who doesn't allow screentime at all and very few who limit it to an hour or two a day. We have never had tv in our house but if we did my daughter would have probably wanted to watch shows everyday too when she was a toddler. Whenever she went to playdates they always seemed to have the tv on.


When my daughter went to kindergarten almost everyone in her class had a DS. I didn't even know what they were until she started school. Even at a young age children want to be entertained all the time and many parents seem to cater to them by allowing them to do this.


So I don't think it's out of the ordinary that Chloe watched movies over and over.
Although I wouldn't choose to do it, I don't judge the parents for allowing their kids to watch alot of tv. If that's what they did. Maybe Chloe just watched movies.

Either way I don't think that or the fact that Chloe was watched by other people have anything to do with what happened.

Imo

 

[Forever Young]

You can also bend at the chest and neck.

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

 

[Forever Young]

Exactly! Much easier for him, as bending down to her level would be very uncomfortable, due to his abdominal girth.

This was my point also. Not at all saying it was a good idea. Just that that may have been why he did not let her stay on the floor, down around his knees.

 

[Forever Young]

But if SA reached his hand out the window, then he'd know there was no glass there, right?

It has not been shown that he reached his hand out the window, and he denies doing that.

 

[justbreathe]

These are SA's words in the CBS interview ..

"
so I was trying to stand her on a railing and it happened in seconds
I had her and I was trying to knock on the glass
and at that point I'm gonna have to lean further for her for her to be able to reach it cos I thought it was further out than I expected
and that's the point where she slipped out of me
at no point during that incident did I think she fell out, it was like unbelievable like it disappeared the glass disappeared
"

Not that I really believe much he said in that interview, but ....

"she slipped out of me"
"at no point during that incident did I think she fell out"

Open to interpretation perhaps, but to me these two statements suggest she "dropped", like he stated to LE, vertically, as opposed to lunging forward first.
If she dropped vertically, and outside of the ship which she obviously did, then he was holding her outside of the ship.
These words might come back to haunt him, if he were to testify, which he won't.

Reading this, this entire story sounds ridiculous.

So ridiculous I can help but think, or SA was leaning out knowing what he was about to do, and hesitating before just dropping her.

 

[justbreathe]

Please pardon my ignorance of the law and all it’s nuances, because I’m not sure I understand why RCCL, in the motion to dismiss, would not have included additional incriminating evidence proving SA’s culpability?

No need to put it all out there in a prelim motion. They will keep their cards hidden and hope SA keeps sounding like a fool.

This motion to dismiss is based more on technical points about how they filed.

They added the other items as a way to counter the info MW keeps putting out there.

 

[Forever Young]

View attachment 227874

@ 0:52 there is a woman standing relaxed at the window.
She is slumped and leaning on the railing.
If she straightened up and stretched herself you can see she’d be able to look out, armpits and head and then be able to stretch her arms a further 2’ out.

Our favourite video yet again.

If she straightened up, the railing would be directly against her stomach. If she stays straight, that wooden bar will press against her stomach area and be very uncomfortable, prompting her to back up. If she continues leaning forward with the bar against her stomach, her feet will leave the ground. IMO

 

[LietKynes]

Reading this, this entire story sounds ridiculous.

So ridiculous I can help but think, or SA was leaning out knowing what he was about to do, and hesitating before just dropping her.

The msm news articles have referenced the 34 second moment of dangling before he dropped her -- so you are right.
The cameras will bear proof and I don't think we've seen every angle that RCCL has !

No need to put it all out there in a prelim motion. They will keep their cards hidden and hope SA keeps sounding like a fool.

This motion to dismiss is based more on technical points about how they filed.

They added the other items as a way to counter the info MW keeps putting out there.

Excellent points.

 

[FactFinder3000]

Exactly. Maybe it could be argued that the first time he was bent over the railing he was looking at Chloe who was beneath him on the floor but what was he looking down at the second time? He couldn’t be looking at Chloe. He had already picked her up. Clearly, his head was through the window looking down at the pier.

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.

 

[justbreathe]

It has not been shown that he reached his hand out the window, and he denies doing that.

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?

 

[LietKynes]

This is it! Thank you!! I am glad it exists but not quite as I remembered.

The man seems to just turn away after showing how SA (might have) held Chloe.

I think it strange that this and the MW “reenactment” seem to show SA holding her with his hands on her waist.

Maybe SA was not even holding her with his arm around her waist, but just had his hands on her, then took one away...

bbm

The reenactment was ridiculous.
The man holding the doll was shorter and thinner than S.A.
No beer belly either.
And yet the reenactment person had his arms close to his side-- all he had to do was to extend his arms, lean forwards, and his arms and shoulders/upper body would be out the window !
It's so clear from the photos.
Why couldn't Winkleman find an accurate body double or just ask SA to reenact it ?
We all know why.