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

[Kindred]

BBM. That is your opinion, not fact. Adults traveling with small children on vacation should not need to stop at a bar in mid-day to get a first "cheers" drink. Their primary responsibility is the supervision and safety of the children. Alcohol contributes to supervisory neglect of children. There is absolutely no proof in this case the grandfather had consumed alcohol.

JMO

Your opinion is correct, Adults traveling with small children should not stop at a bar to get a drink. Does that mean that they don't? No, it doesn't. There isn't proof either way if he had or had not had alcohol or if he had or had not taken some kind of medication that could have impaired him. But this forum is a place where people can discuss possible theories of what happened, which is what people are doing.

SA was traveling in a group of 6 adults. He was never up until the moment mom left him alone with her for 15 min and he put Chloe out the window, the ONLY ADULT tasked with her care and safety and there is no indication that he should have known that he would be, since mom was called away on an errand from her playing with Chloe. There is no reason he couldn't have decided to have a drink or two at lunch.

 

[Montrealaise]

The questions above, have been discussed many times, and answered sufficiently.

---As to the 'bad' publicity---every article I have read, is followed by comments which are 90% against the grandfather. Very few people find fault with RCC.

---The video, that you think is being held back, because it is incriminating to the cruise lines doesn't exist. They have already submitted to the court ALL of the footage that shows that window area.

---The reenactments? lmao....did you watch them? They were a joke and proved absolutely nothing. You think the jury is going to see him in the video, lifting that bAby up over the safety rail, propping her up in that open window ledge, letting go of her with one arm, and they are going to bother with a silly, inaccurate reenactment using a mermaid barbie doll?

---those cases you posted at the end, have nothing to do with this case, at all.

I agree with this, with one small correction: I don't think it's 90%. From my reading of the comments in the media, it's closer to 99% - almost nobody blames the cruise line!

 

[gitana1]

The video that’s been released is clear. The negligence is very clear.

You know sometimes there are those with an agenda. Perhaps they have been “unjustly” accused of something in the past. Or maybe their precious child has been through the criminal justice system and God only knows their sweetheart is innocent. Maybe there’s something else going on that causes a desire to go against the grain, to disrupt, cause strife.

Who knows?

But I think it’s very clear at this point that the criminal charges are based on reality.

My personal but not proven belief is that the man was drunk. He refused to take alcohol tests after Chloe was dropped to her death. He had no business caring for a baby in that condition. He had no business holding her outside an obviously open window (we all can see him lean half his body out the window for God’s sake before putting her outside the window).

If Michael Jackson’s baby had slipped during the infamous window incident, he would have faced criminal negligence/negligent homicide charges (had the incident occurred in the states).

The case is a horribly sad one. But the charges are warranted. Babies are vulnerable and have no way to protect themselves. They are totally dependent on the adults in their lives to keep them safe. When those adults knowingly put them in harm’s way and the child dies as a result it’s not an accidental death. It’s homicide.

 

[neesaki]

@Kindred, just letting you know I posted your latest documents link on the media thread. Much thanks to you for your hard work and for providing that information to us.

 

[Kindred]

Thanks @neesaki

I know that with the sporadic nature of court filings they can sometimes get lost of buried in these threads. I might make a post of all the docs for now and their status at the start of the new thread that will probably be here sooner then we think

 

[Kakidoll]

BBM. That is your opinion, not fact. Adults traveling with small children on vacation should not need to stop at a bar in mid-day to get a first "cheers" drink. Their primary responsibility is the supervision and safety of the children. Alcohol contributes to supervisory neglect of children. There is absolutely no proof in this case the grandfather had consumed alcohol.

JMO

as i said, YES, it was my opinion from EXPERIENCING it on 40 plus cruises, many with children with them. I go with some groups as big as 100 people. More than no, as the waiters USED to be welcoming you at the atrium when you first enter with drinks on trays, you bought your very first drink. Even those with Children. They don't NEED it, but its a way to start a 'celebration' of vacation. You don't NEED to stop to get a drink, but if you WANT one, they are readily available. You can't go directly to your cabin (Unless you are priority) and you go hang out where the food and entertainment is. And if you cruise, you'll notice children are NOT supervised nearly as well as they are in other places. Hence the accidents that occur onboard. Majority of parents 'relax' the rules while cruisings. Another reason i cruise OFF season and not when tons of kids are onboard.

 

[mheido67]

I agree with this, with one small correction: I don't think it's 90%. From my reading of the comments in the media, it's closer to 99% - almost nobody blames the cruise line!

The comments that I do read in support of blaming RCCL are almost always people who seem to have no clue about what actually happened.

 

[JulieBEMT]

as i said, YES, it was my opinion from EXPERIENCING it on 40 plus cruises, many with children with them. I go with some groups as big as 100 people. More than no, as the waiters USED to be welcoming you at the atrium when you first enter with drinks on trays, you bought your very first drink. Even those with Children. They don't NEED it, but its a way to start a 'celebration' of vacation. You don't NEED to stop to get a drink, but if you WANT one, they are readily available. You can't go directly to your cabin (Unless you are priority) and you go hang out where the food and entertainment is. And if you cruise, you'll notice children are NOT supervised nearly as well as they are in other places. Hence the accidents that occur onboard. Majority of parents 'relax' the rules while cruisings. Another reason i cruise OFF season and not when tons of kids are onboard.

Agree! Having also cruised many times, I share this opinion. Should caregivers go right to the bar and get a drink? No. Do many caregivers go right to the bar and get a drink (or three)? Absolutely. As Kakidoll said, it's unfortunate that many parents believe a cruise vacation is also their vacation from parenting. I also try to cruise only when school is in session whenever I'm able to. (Since cruising is part of my job, that's not always possible.)

The comments that I do read in support of blaming RCCL are almost always people who seem to have no clue about what actually happened.

Or they have never been on a ship, and can't grasp that this is an open air environment, and these windows are both necessary and safe.

 

[katydid23]

I agree with this, with one small correction: I don't think it's 90%. From my reading of the comments in the media, it's closer to 99% - almost nobody blames the cruise line!

Oh, I think you are probably correct. I was just trying to err on the side of caution. But I rarely ever see any one posting in Grandpa's favour. More like 1%, as you say.

 

[Wehwalt]

ROYAL CARIBBEAN TO OFFER AUSTRALIAN HEROES FREE CRUISES ON SPECTRUM

I can’t see this on MSM but if the word gets out I’d be waiting for Winkleman to call foul.

Undoubtedly they couldn't fill the cruise ship with paying passengers on such short notice. Makes sense to get good publicity out of it in a growing cruise market like Australia.

 

[Safetybug]

I agree with this, with one small correction: I don't think it's 90%. From my reading of the comments in the media, it's closer to 99% - almost nobody blames the cruise line!

Agreed And after listening to this link: 'We all sit here broken': Family of girl who fell to her death prepares for court battle
It’s burns my skin where MW says “...roughly one billion people on this planet thinks it’s an accident except a small subset of people in PR for some reason thinks this was a crime.”
Yet another lie to add to the pile of lies imo

 

[Wicked Strong]

Agreed And after listening to this link: 'We all sit here broken': Family of girl who fell to her death prepares for court battle
It’s burns my skin where MW says “...roughly one billion people on this planet thinks it’s an accident except a small subset of people in PR for some reason thinks this was a crime.”
Yet another lie to add to the pile of lies imo

Yes, you can say one billion people (really I doubt one billion people even know about this) think it's an accident. But it doesn't mean that you cannot seek criminal charges for an accident.

Webster definition of accident:
an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance

MOO​

 

[JulieBEMT]

Agreed And after listening to this link: 'We all sit here broken': Family of girl who fell to her death prepares for court battle
It’s burns my skin where MW says “...roughly one billion people on this planet thinks it’s an accident except a small subset of people in PR for some reason thinks this was a crime.”
Yet another lie to add to the pile of lies imo

It kills me that this guy, of all people, has the nerve to call the cruise line and their lawyers liars! But, since there are nearly 8 billion people on the planet, I would have to fight the urge to respond with "So you're saying that one in every eight people is an idiot and 7 billion is a small subset?"

 

[Kindred]

Agreed And after listening to this link: 'We all sit here broken': Family of girl who fell to her death prepares for court battle
It’s burns my skin where MW says “...roughly one billion people on this planet thinks it’s an accident except a small subset of people in PR for some reason thinks this was a crime.”
Yet another lie to add to the pile of lies imo

Yes, one billion people agree this is an accident... that was caused by the negligence of SA and not the cruise line.

An accident can be a criminal act. No one sits there and says that a drunk driver shouldn't be charged when his negligence causes an accident that kills a carload of people. SA refuses to accept his responsibility. He and the Wiegands keep trying to find anything and anyone to place the blame on except for where it squarely belongs, on his shoulders.

 

[they'll get you]

Undoubtedly they couldn't fill the cruise ship with paying passengers on such short notice. Makes sense to get good publicity out of it in a growing cruise market like Australia.

With this coronavirus I’m sure Winkleman has been kept busy.
I have also noticed in Sydney, RC have upped their advertising on tv and billboards.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

The video that’s been released is clear. The negligence is very clear.

You know sometimes there are those with an agenda. Perhaps they have been “unjustly” accused of something in the past. Or maybe their precious child has been through the criminal justice system and God only knows their sweetheart is innocent. Maybe there’s something else going on that causes a desire to go against the grain, to disrupt, cause strife.

Who knows?

But I think it’s very clear at this point that the criminal charges are based on reality.

My personal but not proven belief is that the man was drunk. He refused to take alcohol tests after Chloe was dropped to her death. He had no business caring for a baby in that condition. He had no business holding her outside an obviously open window (we all can see him lean half his body out the window for God’s sake before putting her outside the window).

If Michael Jackson’s baby had slipped during the infamous window incident, he would have faced criminal negligence/negligent homicide charges (had the incident occurred in the states).

The case is a horribly sad one. But the charges are warranted. Babies are vulnerable and have no way to protect themselves. They are totally dependent on the adults in their lives to keep them safe. When those adults knowingly put them in harm’s way and the child dies as a result it’s not an accidental death. It’s homicide.

Thanks for your words of wisdom, gitana1. You have always been a voice of knowledge and reason on Websleuths, and I believe that we all benefit from your contributions in many cases.

 

[justbreathe]

I don't know. If Winkleman had any merit with his complaint or at least the slightest chance of there being any, I could see the judge letting it proceed. But he really doesn't. He whines like a child at anything that the defendant files, he claims RC is being misleading while trying to claim "industry standards" for apartment buildings as if they apply to a seagoing vessel. To me, his arguments are like throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping something sticks. And the fact that the denial of the motion to dismiss only really focused on the inclusion of the photos/video and not anything else in their argument seems to me like the judge may agree. Most of his orders to RCCL have been basically 'clean this up'.

I keep seeing people claim that judges don't dismiss cases often but actually they do. You can sue for anything but judges will happily throw out your garbage case if it doesn't pass their smell test. They do not like having their time wasted for frivolous bull when they have a pile of legitimate cases worth their attention. And they don't care if you appeal it or not because that's not their problem, it goes on to someone else's court and it's the plaintiff's money being wasted to keep filing so it's water off the judges back. Take your monkeys to another circus, we have plenty here.

Believe me, judges care if their ruling is overturned on appeal. The US justice system is based more on winning vs losing than achieving justice. I wish our system worked where judges just threw out ridiculousness, but that is not my experience.

 

[justbreathe]

It has been my thought if SA could have taken a prescription drug to prevent sea sickness that was prescribed to a person traveling in their group. If so, that would have caused problems for the person giving him the drug.

Or something for anxiety or for sleep. In my mind blind intoxication is the only way this could be accidental.

 

[justbreathe]

BBM. That is your opinion, not fact. Adults traveling with small children on vacation should not need to stop at a bar in mid-day to get a first "cheers" drink. Their primary responsibility is the supervision and safety of the children. Alcohol contributes to supervisory neglect of children. There is absolutely no proof in this case the grandfather had consumed alcohol.

JMO

There is also no proof he did not consume something that made him unable to use his own basic senses.

Just because you are sitting up on your high horse about people with kids on vacation not consuming alcohol doesn’t mean everyone, much less this odd family, feels that way. I mean, they could have had a wine at lunch, or before dinner and that is ok.

It’s a reason why cruising with a toddler seems not the best choice. Here you are on a ship where you can just eat and drink and enjoy. But instead you have the job of toddler duty on a ship.

Instead of ranting about how they shouldn’t need a celebratory drink as soon as they step on the ship, maybe ask why they made this choice for a vacation, as opposed to somewhere more family-with-toddler-centric facilities.

 

[JerseySleuth17]

Or something for anxiety or for sleep. In my mind blind intoxication is the only way this could be accidental.

We don't know what he may have taken or not, but we know this:

1. He refused a breathalyzer.

2. In the cruise ship video, he leans down against a column for several seconds, then trails quite far behind CW as she walks towards the windows. This not not model babysitting behavior of an 18-month old child. It only takes seconds for a toddler to get into trouble and they should be within arms distance.

3. He lifts CW up by ONE ARM up to the railing.

4. He claims he didn't know a window inches from his face was open.

5. He held CW in front of an open window, and then let her go, and his instincts/reflexes were not fast enough to even reach out to try and grab her as she starts to fall - whether he would have caught her isn't the issue the video shows he didn't even try.

These are not the actions of an unimpaired, responsible, 51-year old man watching a toddler.