Discussion in 'Crimes-Spotlight on Children' started by IceIce9, Oct 28, 2019.
Ok, so total of 17 inches including width of wood railing. Thank you!
Welcome aboard, ARE. Glad to have you join us here on Websleuths.
Chain of custody does not work the same way for digital recordings, of which many copies can and typically do exist, as it does for physical items. It was discussed once before in a previous thread here:
IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #5
The only way that they could exclude the video is to try and go the same route that Winkleman is with his motion to strike in the civil case, basically trying to claim that RCCL has inappropriately modified the video in some way. Which, I don't see going anywhere because RCCL has provided basically five versions of the tape to the civil court, both angles untouched, both angles enhanced (we don't really know what that means at this point, could have just been stuff like brightness and contrast, removing static, images being sharpened to make it clearer but this is all speculation) and a side by side video showing both enhanced angles simultaneously.
Whether they did the same for the criminal investigation or left that up to the prosecution and their experts is unknown at this time though I would imagine not.
Enhancing a video to make the images clearer is not grounds for throwing out the tape, especially if they are admitting it upfront and providing the original unedited for comparison.
Winkleman was also showing 2 videos to the media
Not a lawyer but from everything I have read about cruise ship caselaw, for the Wiegands’ lawsuit not to be dismissed, they would have to prove that (1) there were previous incidents of passengers dangling children over these rails, (2) RC had knowledge of these incidents and (3) RC failed to act. The Wiegands would need a factual basis (not a theoretical one) to claim negligence and RC’s argument is that they do not have one.
There are zero previous deaths of a similar nature on an RC ship. So the only other way to establish negligence on the part of RCCL would be for the Wiegands’ attorneys to watch many years worth of RC CCTV footage hoping to find an incident or two of a passenger dangling a child over this rail. And even then, they would have to prove that RC knew that passengers were doing this but failed to act.
I don’t see how they can prove this within the one year time frame they have to file their civil suit.
*Sadly, the criteria needed to establish a claim for negligence means that RCCL will likely change the design of these windows eventually so as to not leave themselves open to future litigation. Because the next passenger who drops a toddler out of one of their windows now has a factual basis to claim negligence (i.e. RC is aware of the danger because of grandpa’s dangling behavior). Correct me if I am wrong.
Earlier post by @Forever Young:
"IMO, yes. All U. S. news stations state that they agreed not to show the videos on air and did not themselves have copies." <-- in its entirety. bbm
My post ^ re above:"@Forever Young My apologies for being dense,... source of info?..." bbm sbm
Respectfully, my post asked for a source of info about ^ first post. Your post explained circumstances of CBS David B's viewing the vid. Thank you.
I'm still interested in learning about the source of info for ^ post. Tho the post includes "IMO", seems there would be a source of info for all these stations agreeing on anything. Seems some news
article must have given a basis for ^ opinion. Or?
Could one of our members who is actually a lawyer enlighten me here? MW’s “re-enactment” - how would a judge react to this? Or was it even meant for the court to consider at all?
IMO his low-budget production is so amateurish it could have been the work of any high school drama club. Everyone knows that anything MW produces is biased, as is his job. RCL can just as easily film a re-enactment that supports their story, So what’s the point?
If MW tries to present this re-enactment as objective truth, wouldn’t that be so farcical as to insult the judge’s intelligence?
What it amounts to is that under Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant, such as RCL, can serve papers on a third party, such as SA, if you are saying, in effect, "If the plaintiffs are owed any money, it's not from us, it's from him."
They can do this without permission until 21 days after they file their answer (their grounds of defense). They have not yet filed their answer, just a motion to dismiss. If the court denies the motion to dismiss, then that order will probably tell them when they have to file their answer by.
Re the window: The reenactment is not in my opinion intended for the court. They will have measurements and all sides can easily construct mock-ups if they need them. I'm guessing but my thought would be they want images out there to rebut the RCL ones.
Or, even if his head didn't breach the window, his fingers did. Too bad they probably didn't think to check for fingerprints.
Whatever means would cover the passengers in the bar area, that are consuming alcohol, I suppose.
OK, that first post was an opinion, and a little cantankerous, but due to the fact that when the videos were first leaked I did not recall any major news network (CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX, etc.) showing the footage, though they all reported on it.
My assumption was that the family asked them not to, because I believe I remember David Begnaud stating that CBS would not air the leaked videos because the family had asked them not to. Some things on Twitter become increasingly hard to find, as time goes on, IMO.
My answer was in response to the question if it was fair to say that RCCL leaked the videos. I said yes, (I thought it was fair to do so IMO.) But you're right, it has not been proven, and I should have been more careful in my wording.
Part II was also an assumption because if one station agreed not to air the leaked videos on the family's request, I assumed the others followed suit. Deductive thinking on my part.
Wiegands. Evd & Elements to Prevail in Civil Action?
1. Yes, think you covered "have to prove" basics below.
2. Yes, re "zero previous deaths of a similar nature on an RC ship," AFAWK. And based on info posted by one person's review of a database w 30 yrs data of passenger & crew lawsuits and finding no death from similar circumstances on any cruise ship companies. If any law firm could sniff out death in similar circumstances anywhere in our solar system, I know who I'd put my $$$ on.
3. Re: "within the one year time frame they have to file their civil suit."
(a) Well, as Complaint for Wiegands' lawsuit was filed Dec. 11, 2019, no danger of this ct ruling the statute of limitations already expired on this Complaint for Chloe's wrongful death in July 2019.
(b) Your-not-directly-asked question, re law firm requesting yrs of surv cam vids. Hmmm, depending on # of surv cam vids and # of yrs requested, and locations depicted (just the port wall of Deck 11, or all public levels w windows, or all ext vid of all staterooms/outside cabins, etc? Lots of variables in the requests for production. Can't just say - RCL, produce surv cam vids for us). I imagine potential for disagreement btwn parties, possibly ending w a ct ruling on breadth of Atty-W's Request for Production.
(c) Re law firm (hypothetically) taking a long time to watch, say, thousands of hours of surv cam vids,
----- Complaint has been filed.<--- Initiation of action/filing of Complaint is what Stat/Lim applies to.
----- Once filed, other rules (ex. Rule 34, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure*) apply to discovery, and govern many issues about who ask for what/Request for Production & when, deadlines for other party to produce the doc's, or to allow inspection of premises or other physical evd,** blah, blah, blah.
* Table of Contents - 2020 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
** Rule 34 – Producing Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Tangible Things, or Entering onto Land, for Inspection and Other Purposes
34 (E) Producing the Documents or Electronically Stored Information. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, these procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored information:
(i) A party must produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request;
(ii) If a request does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, a party must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms; and
(iii) A party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.
And other rules for other types of discovery, such as depositions and Requests for Admission.
I don't understand why there is even a debate on the leaked videos. They were filed with the court, were they not? That means plenty of people have access. All it takes is for a reporter to know somebody, or bribe somebody, and voila. This happens all the time. The videos were filed, and then subsequently leaked. Those dots seem easy to connect. Absolutely no reason to assume RCCL did it.
I was able to find this on Findlaw. It is an interesting read, but lengthy. It's all about duty of care, as it applies to "innkeepers".
FindLaw's California Court of Appeal case and opinions.
Well, the question was about it being leaked to La Comay, and IMO how it was aired in Puerto Rico, but not the States.
In the back of my mind also was the idea that La Comay needs sponsors like RCCL, and that there might be a connection there.
My first question was always "to whose benefit was it that those videos be published on air?" Without explanation of what we are seeing from the plaintiff's side.
I think we can all agree that the airing of the videos by La Comay was hugely of benefit to RCCL.
But I know I did present that argument terribly, taking a bunch of stuff into consideration that the OP did not ask. My apologies.
Screenshots from the video for perspective
Prior to full outreach his finger tip appears to reach the threshold of the window.
Second photo his hand is extended out. (Funny how he didn’t seem perplexed about where the glass was and why he couldn’t bang on it...)
And then another screencap of a female standing at an open window of same deck. -(Would love to know how tall these people are)
There is a motion to admit the videos filed and the court has to rule on it - since there is an objection IIRC they will need a hearing on this IMO
my question is will they wait for the March status hearing or will RCCL want their motion heard sooner ?
ETA link to media thread
IN-Grandfather charged cruise ship death of Chloe Wiegand MEDIA TIMELINE NO DISCUSSION
The re-enactment would have to be preapproved by the court. It would have to be based on every fact entered into evidence during the trial, necessary to make the re-enactment factually correct.
Measurements. Calculations. Exact replicas of railings, window tracks. Height, weight of SA and Chloe. Distances from last picture at wading pool, between where he slumped onto a pole before walking towards Chloe to catch up with her. Most importantly, I think the judge would insist that the jurors all get close to the setup. Touch the railing. Look at the window colors. EVERYTHING POSSIBLE so the jurors would see it from SA perspective. Not a seat in the jury box.
It would be a big exhibit. But bc Winkleman insists it’s in a kids’ play area, RCCL would have their say as well.
And that’s if the judge agrees to set it up in court. It would be easier to go onboard. But to coordinate the logistics with the actual ship, would be difficult. If not impossible especially since they are renovating the ship.
I suppose they could design it like a Hollywood set and take jurors out there. But the winds through the window are critical. And the noise from the dock.
It would be really difficult to reenact when you realize how many facts go into describing the scene.
If film, different. But the winds, noise, all of that is so critical to defend themselves, maybe it would be too much to stage. At some point they would have to stop reenacting ties to all of the facts. I guess that point is up to the lawyers and judge.
If I am understanding correctly, the videos we continue to have access to are all considered "leaked videos". There has been a motion to strike these same videos as evidence and that has not yet been ruled on.
Probably sooner. Hearing on admissibility of videos. Then maybe combined with MTD. More likely time before hearing on motion itself in case either party wants more videos, or some other admissibility issues come up.
So when everyone is done arguing what should be admitted at time of hearing on MTD, judge can rule bc everything will be before them.
And disposes of all parties and all issues.
I’d think that the judge will not dismiss the case. Rather, they’ll let the jury tell the family how absurd their claim has been and bc SA will be third party defendant, jury can put it all on him. Where it belongs.
Remember, the criminal case is still up for grabs. That would have an influence on the judge, as well,
never mind the political leanings or influences...
As usual, all MOO.