IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #3

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
They offered him a plea?
Guilty plea with no prison. Limited supervision.
Well let’s see if he’s selfish or not
If SA takes a plea, that pretty much ends the lawsuit. MOO so, I don't think he will. IMHO that money seems mighty important in the grand scheme of things. MOO MOO and more MOO.
 
I clicked on the link and the headline actually says:
Prosecutors offer plea deal to grandfather accused of dropping toddler to her death from cruise ship, sparing him jail if he accepts and pleads guilty
Grandfather accused of dropping toddler to her death from will try to prove his color blindness | Daily Mail Online
From the article:
  • Prosecutors offered him a plea deal on Tuesday, which he would have to admit guilt to receive no jail time, minimum probation and minimum supervision
  • Anello has said he didn't realize the window Chloe 'slipped' through was open
  • He is reportedly considering the plea deal but is leaning towards rejecting it and taking his case to trial
  • Last month, Anello claimed he didn't realize there wasn't any glass in the window pane because he is colorblind
  • His lawyers said on Tuesday they plan to present Anello's medical records and evidence on his health status, also indicating they would want a trial by jury
  • DailyMail.com previously revealed the last photo of Chloe moments before her death, standing beside a kids' splash pool wearing a pink swimming costume
  • Footage of the tragedy seen by DailyMail.com shows the moment Chloe fell, with Anello slumping to his knees and her mother recoiling in shock and collapsing
Why would SA decline the plea deal? The only thing that comes to mind is that it could impact the civil suit. Chloe's mom is/was a prosecutor and knows that such a plea would be for sparing SA jail time and not necessarily an admission of guilt within the family.

So... is SA being encouraged to go to trial? The colorblind stuff is only going to take him so far. Is he and the family willing to take the gamble?

Also, David Begnaud on Twitter

thanks @MsMarple I’m not too good at posting links.
 
Just thinking out loud... SA may very well end up taking the plea deal but it may come after several more media interviews with him and the family where they make it clear that the plea deal was mainly to spare SA jail time.

David Begnaud gives a great summary of today's hearing. SA is due back in court December 27.
David Begnaud on Twitter

@Only4Justice - your link was fine! I was just pointing out the headline. :)
 
If SA takes a plea, that pretty much ends the lawsuit. MOO so, I don't think he will. IMHO that money seems mighty important in the grand scheme of things. MOO MOO and more MOO.
bbm

Curious if he'll take it... not going to hold my breath,though.
Wonder if the Wiegand's are going to cut gramps loose, now ?
 
Just thinking out loud... SA may very well end up taking the plea deal but it may come after several more media interviews with him and the family where they make it clear that the plea deal was mainly to spare SA jail time.

David Begnaud gives a great summary of today's hearing. SA is due back in court December 27.
David Begnaud on Twitter

@Only4Justice - your link was fine! I was just pointing out the headline. :)
It's actually a really good deal, and any competent criminal lawyer would advise his client to take it. But how would he and the family spin it? "I didn't do anything wrong, I'm not guilty of what I'm accused of but I pleaded guilty so I wouldn't go to jail"?
 
It's actually a really good deal, and any competent criminal lawyer would advise his client to take it. But how would he and the family spin it? "I didn't do anything wrong, I'm not guilty of what I'm accused of but I pleaded guilty so I wouldn't go to jail"?
That's probably exactly what SA (and the family) would say. I guess if SA goes to trial - in the DM article the attorney says they would want a jury trial (as opposed to a bench trial) - and he loses then SA may have an appeal based on ineffective counsel since what attorney would discourage a plea deal that gets no jail time and minimal probation?

IMO if we don't see SA taking that plea before the next hearing and/or announcing he plans to go to trial I would conclude that potential money from the civil case is the number one priority. MOO.
 
That's probably exactly what SA (and the family) would say. I guess if SA goes to trial - in the DM article the attorney says they would want a jury trial (as opposed to a bench trial) - and he loses then SA may have an appeal based on ineffective counsel since what attorney would discourage a plea deal that gets no jail time and minimal probation?

IMO if we don't see SA taking that plea before the next hearing and/or announcing he plans to go to trial I would conclude that potential money from the civil case is the number one priority. MOO.
As I said in an earlier post, any competent attorney would recommend SA take the plea deal, but if he's arrogant enough and stubborn enough not to take it, that's on him.
Interesting that the lawyer would prefer a jury trial. He's probably counting on the jurors feeling terribly sorry for this older gentleman who lost his granddaughter, but on the other hand, if the jurors get a good look at the window - how high up it is, how it's easy to see which windows are open and how incredibly dangerous and reckless placing a child up there is - their sympathy might just evaporate.
 
As I said in an earlier post, any competent attorney would recommend SA take the plea deal, but if he's arrogant enough and stubborn enough not to take it, that's on him.
Interesting that the lawyer would prefer a jury trial. He's probably counting on the jurors feeling terribly sorry for this older gentleman who lost his granddaughter, but on the other hand, if the jurors get a good look at the window - how high up it is, how it's easy to see which windows are open and how incredibly dangerous and reckless placing a child up there is - their sympathy might just evaporate.
I agree. And to add, JMO he might be nervous with a bench trial since it's likely a judge would see through the colorblind, thought there was glass, wanting to bang on the window/get a better view bs and find SA guilty. IOW yes, the attorney is counting on the emotions of jurors. And that could also backfire.
 
What Was Done to this Nighttime Photo of Deck 11 Windows?

Caption for last photo in DailyMail* says this is window Chloe went thru and has graphics added to photo. It was taken from inside ship looking out into (mostly) darkness, w some lights visible in middle row windows, except for one window. Blue 'arrow box' says, "Windows slide open right to left."

1) Why do we see no light(s) coming thru that window w blue 'arrow box' covering some of it? Or am I just missing something?

2) Per caption, photo was taken by Chloe's father after the accident. Yellow & black police tape is visible. I recall seeing this photo back during summer. There's no (other) credit on photo. Who added the graphics? Father? Winkleman? If so, was it early to have developed negligence theory focus on operable windows?

If someone monkeyed w middle window in photo, what else they do?

----------------------------------------------------------------
* Grandfather accused of dropping toddler to her death from will try to prove his color blindness | Daily Mail Online Dec 17.
 
It looks like SA's wife attended his court hearing today. On the DM website, there is a short video of him leaving the courtroom right behind his lawyer; as they walk down the hall, an older white-haired woman in a green dress joins them. SA does not even glance in her direction as the three of them continue down the hall.
 
bbm
Curious if he'll take it... not going to hold my breath,though.
Wonder if the Wiegand's are going to cut gramps loose, now ?

Anello, who has maintained he didn't realize the window Chloe 'slipped' through was open, is reportedly considering the plea deal but is leaning towards rejecting it and taking his case to trial.

In Tuesday's hearing, his lawyers said they plan to present Anello's medical records and evidence on his health status, and also indicated they would want a trial by jury.

His legal team will try to prove his color blindness meant he couldn't see that there wasn't any glass in the window pane the little girl fell through.

The next court hearing is set for January 27, 2020.

Last month, Anello told CBS This Morning: 'I am color blind so that's something that ... I don't know. I just never saw it. I've been told that's a reason it may have happened.'
 
...Last month, Anello told CBS This Morning: 'I am color blind so that's something that ... I don't know. I just never saw it. I've been told that's a reason it may have happened.'

I remember when SA said this during the interview, and I commented on it here. It sounded (to me) that SA had been told that his colorblindness might have been to blame, even though there had been no mention of it previously. Interviewer brought it up so that SA could mention it - probably as instructed by his legal team. If his colorblindness is such a major issue, why is he allowed to drive? And, now there might be other "medical issues" that will be brought up at trial? If SA's "health status" is a concern, why on earth was he charged with caring for a toddler on a cruise ship?
 
Last edited:
If he is trying to say his color blindness stopped him from seeing that there was an open window, which is BS in my opinion, how many doors has he walked into during his 51 years?
My grandfather was color blind and couldn't distinguish the difference between certain colors like green and red. I've never heard in all my years on Earth that color blindness prevented a person from seeing if a window is open or closed.
 
Is Prosecutor Offering to Downgrade Charge too?
They offered him a plea? Guilty plea with no prison. Limited supervision.
Well let’s see if he’s selfish or not
. @Miswestmom2019 :)

David Begnaud's tweet this a.m said SA's attys said Prosecutors said, so his report to us is three times removed from prosecutors purported current offer. IIRC he did not name SA's atty who relayed this info. Did not mention possible change of chg itself. Feels a bit fuzzy, so personally not yet taking this 'offer' report as fact.

Original crime they charged him w. was NegHom.* Now offering no/limited probation and supervision (at one point, DB said "minimum probation and minimum supervision") would be lower than statutory prescribed penalty** of 6 mo to 3 yrs, w parole eligibility after half time served.

Are prosecutors offering to downgrade charges to something like child endangerment?
If not, will judge accept a deal w SA's plea of guilty to NegHom but serving no time?
IDK.

------------------------------------------------------

* Negligent Homicide Statute in Puerto Rico
"§ 4737. Negligent homicide
Any person who causes the death of another through negligence shall incur a misdemeanor, but shall receive the penalty established for a fourth degree felony...." [ed: rest of this section 4737 re motor vehicular deaths is not app to case at hand].

** "§ 4694. Applicable penalties
"(e) Fourth degree felony. — Entails a punishment of imprisonment for a fixed term in natural years which shall not be less than six (6) months and one (1) day, nor more than three (3) years. In such case, the person may be considered for parole by the Parole Board upon having served fifty percent (50%) of the term of imprisonment imposed."
^ from Laws of Puerto Rico Annotated, 33 L.P.R.A. § 4737
^ bbm. Interesting to me that NegHom offense is a misdemeanor, but with a fourth degree felony punishment.
 
Last edited:
I remember when SA said this during the interview, and I commented on it here. It sounded (to me) that SA had been told that his colorblindness might have been to blame, even though there had been no mention of it previously. Interviewer brought it up so that SA could mention it - probably as instructed by his legal team. If his colorblindness is such a major issue, why is he allowed to drive? And, now there might be other "medical issues" that will be brought up at trial? If SA's "health status" is a concern, why on earth was he charged with caring for a toddler on a cruise ship?
<sarcasm> Color blindness - that explains all those tickets for not wearing a seatbelt. </sarcasm>
Seriously though, if his color blindness is so severe it prevents him from seeing whether a window is open or not then maybe he shouldn't have a driver's license. I wonder if all the windows in his home have stickers on them? I hope he doesn't have any sliding glass doors...
 
<sarcasm> Color blindness - that explains all those tickets for not wearing a seatbelt. </sarcasm>
Seriously though, if his color blindness is so severe it prevents him from seeing whether a window is open or not then maybe he shouldn't have a driver's license. I wonder if all the windows in his home have stickers on them? I hope he doesn't have any sliding glass doors...

I imagine that RCCL's legal team can come up with a few colour blind cruise passengers of various varieties (same kind of colour blindness as his, similar age group) who will explain that they had no problem distinguishing if a window was open or not.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
158
Guests online
2,396
Total visitors
2,554

Forum statistics

Threads
602,873
Messages
18,148,109
Members
231,564
Latest member
onlyimagine
Back
Top