Grandpa from Cruise ship tragedy charged

[Anonymous]

The lawyer even looks like a Dbag. I think lawyers like this are psychopaths. They have to be to prey on grieving people

[Anonymous]

Remarkable that People is describing the area as “child’s play area” which it absolutely is not.

And the stupid hockey analogy. The family shows an old cute pic of the little girl with hands on the glass of apparently a hockey rink. But she’s on the floor — the glass starts at the floor and goes up from there. Same as the cruise ship. She could stand on the floor and easily touch the glass. Zero reason or explanation for gramps to hoist her to chest height and stand on the hand railing or window ledge.

[Anonymous]

Maybe grandpa isn’t really grieving at all. Maybe he was mad he had to take care of the baby. Maybe he blames the world for his mistakes. Maybe he had an anger management problem. We really don’t know.

[Anonymous]

The mom is a lawyer. She's an opportunistic, selfish, money-grubbing person. I have sympathy that they lost their child, but they are truly awful people otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remarkable that People is describing the area as “child’s play area” which it absolutely is not.

And the stupid hockey analogy. The family shows an old cute pic of the little girl with hands on the glass of apparently a hockey rink. But she’s on the floor — the glass starts at the floor and goes up from there. Same as the cruise ship. She could stand on the floor and easily touch the glass. Zero reason or explanation for gramps to hoist her to chest height and stand on the hand railing or window ledge.

The lawyer is obviously a sleazeball that knows how to manipulate things. In order to Garner sympathy and support, you take a sweet and innocent memory and tie it to the accident. "She loved banging on the glass at her brothers hockey game. She was so excited.to see her big brother play. Is that why you lifted her up? So she could bang on the glass like she used to do at hockey?". Now you've got grandpa thinking "yeah, that's absolutely why I did it" because he's already being torn apart by guilt and second guessing himself. But now he has a reason for why he did it. And damn that irresponsible cruise ship for having an open window with no warning. And now, when the media gets wind of the story you have a sweet story, a cute picture, and a grandpa who was only doing something that she loved to do.

[Anonymous]

Grandpa held the child up to ferl the breeze and see the view.

Toddlers have amazingly strong legs when they want to push off something.

Grandpa doesn't have a lot of experience with kids and didn't realize that toddlers are wiggly AND strong in the legs.

Toddler pushes off the window sill or railing right out of grandpa's grip and out the window.

Tragic all around, but one person was supposed to be responsible and make good decisions. When you take charge of someone's child, rule #1 is bring the kid back alive. That means being more conservative in judging risks. I know grandpa didn't mean any harm, but he took a risk that was an obvious risk (height, open window), and it was fatal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lawyer says they are waiting to file their lawsuit until they see the CCTV footage of the fall. Wonder why that is?

Also says "“there are safety regulations that exist regarding windows to prevent children from falling out.”

Uh yeah - make them 5 feet off the ground.

https://people.com/crime/chloe-wiegand-cruise-death-grandfather-charged-family-stands-behind-him/

There are safety regulations and there were safety precautions that grandpa bypassed in place. First, go back to page 9 and look at the photo. There is an adult male walking by and the window is at mid-chest height. And there is a railing. So, the grandfather lifted the child up and over/onto the railing. Lifted the child to chest height and then let her lean over towards the window (which looks to be about 18-24 inches away from where grandpa would need to stand). So lifting a child high, putting them on a chest height railing, and letting them lean over towards a window (whether it is open or not) without holding onto the child is not considered bypassing safety regulations and protections? It's ridiculous to blame the cruise line when you do so many stupid things and not attribute this to negligent care. Someone like this should not be left responsible for a child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remarkable that People is describing the area as “child’s play area” which it absolutely is not.

And the stupid hockey analogy. The family shows an old cute pic of the little girl with hands on the glass of apparently a hockey rink. But she’s on the floor — the glass starts at the floor and goes up from there. Same as the cruise ship. She could stand on the floor and easily touch the glass. Zero reason or explanation for gramps to hoist her to chest height and stand on the hand railing or window ledge.

All of the reporting is so bad. I’ve also seen repeated references (including this article) to the family having 3 children. They had just Chloe and the older brother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawyer says they are waiting to file their lawsuit until they see the CCTV footage of the fall. Wonder why that is?

Also says "“there are safety regulations that exist regarding windows to prevent children from falling out.”

Uh yeah - make them 5 feet off the ground.

https://people.com/crime/chloe-wiegand-cruise-death-grandfather-charged-family-stands-behind-him/

There are safety regulations and there were safety precautions that grandpa bypassed in place. First, go back to page 9 and look at the photo. There is an adult male walking by and the window is at mid-chest height. And there is a railing. So, the grandfather lifted the child up and over/onto the railing. Lifted the child to chest height and then let her lean over towards the window (which looks to be about 18-24 inches away from where grandpa would need to stand). So lifting a child high, putting them on a chest height railing, and letting them lean over towards a window (whether it is open or not) without holding onto the child is not considered bypassing safety regulations and protections? It's ridiculous to blame the cruise line when you do so many stupid things and not attribute this to negligent care. Someone like this should not be left responsible for a child.

I think it’s most likely the judge will not even allow the case to trial. I hope they are paying him on contingency only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawyer says they are waiting to file their lawsuit until they see the CCTV footage of the fall. Wonder why that is?

Also says "“there are safety regulations that exist regarding windows to prevent children from falling out.”

Uh yeah - make them 5 feet off the ground.

https://people.com/crime/chloe-wiegand-cruise-death-grandfather-charged-family-stands-behind-him/

There are safety regulations and there were safety precautions that grandpa bypassed in place. First, go back to page 9 and look at the photo. There is an adult male walking by and the window is at mid-chest height. And there is a railing. So, the grandfather lifted the child up and over/onto the railing. Lifted the child to chest height and then let her lean over towards the window (which looks to be about 18-24 inches away from where grandpa would need to stand). So lifting a child high, putting them on a chest height railing, and letting them lean over towards a window (whether it is open or not) without holding onto the child is not considered bypassing safety regulations and protections? It's ridiculous to blame the cruise line when you do so many stupid things and not attribute this to negligent care. Someone like this should not be left responsible for a child.

I think it’s most likely the judge will not even allow the case to trial. I hope they are paying him on contingency only.

I hope the family has to pay for the lawyer. Their lawsuit is so ridiculous

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m glad he was charged because of the lawsuit the family filed.

I am thinking that is indirectly why he was charged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m glad he was charged because of the lawsuit the family filed.

I am thinking that is indirectly why he was charged.

I wonder if things came out (either witness statements or video) when the cruise ship started their investigation in order to defend themselves from a lawsuit that showed grandpa being negligent.

[Anonymous]

I still want to know why the family and their lawyer are insisting on seeing the videotape first. Was the grandfather not there when it happened? Comatose? Unable to remember what he did and what happened, so he has to review it on tape first to be sure?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still want to know why the family and their lawyer are insisting on seeing the videotape first. Was the grandfather not there when it happened? Comatose? Unable to remember what he did and what happened, so he has to review it on tape first to be sure?

I wouldn’t be able to watch that video. To relive my child falling to her death? No way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still want to know why the family and their lawyer are insisting on seeing the videotape first. Was the grandfather not there when it happened? Comatose? Unable to remember what he did and what happened, so he has to review it on tape first to be sure?

I don’t get this either. Seems like it would be easier to file, the tape would obviously part of discovery.