IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #4

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
...So is it he's colorblind, or are they now going to try and claim something new that is going to make you wonder why the family even bothered to trust a child with him in the first place?

<respectfully snipped>

Exactly! If SA had health issues that might have led to poor decision-making, why on earth did Chloe's parents allow him to be alone with their daughter? SA clearly does not seem to know how to care for a toddler as evidenced by the odd way that he holds her in various photos I've seen.
 
Statement from the family, taken from this article:

Grandfather offered plea deal in girl's cruise ship death as Puerto Rico TV show airs video

"In a statement, the Wiegand family said: "The family is shocked by the deplorable and disgraceful misconduct that led to the release of this footage. The family's sole motivation for not releasing the video was to protect their older child. That motivation has not changed. The family publicly asks the Puerto Rican authorities, why was this footage released? Why do you continue to inflict such heinous emotional distress on our family? Haven't we been punished enough by the loss of Chloe? Finally, the family requests an immediate, independent investigation done into the circumstances surrounding the leak." "
 
Statement from the family, taken from this article:

Grandfather offered plea deal in girl's cruise ship death as Puerto Rico TV show airs video

"In a statement, the Wiegand family said: "The family is shocked by the deplorable and disgraceful misconduct that led to the release of this footage. The family's sole motivation for not releasing the video was to protect their older child. That motivation has not changed. The family publicly asks the Puerto Rican authorities, why was this footage released? Why do you continue to inflict such heinous emotional distress on our family? Haven't we been punished enough by the loss of Chloe? Finally, the family requests an immediate, independent investigation done into the circumstances surrounding the leak." "
I'm glad it was released. The public deserves to know the truth. Chloe deserves justice. JMOO
 
So David Begnaud of CBS is saying that SA’s defense attorney now states that SA did not have any drinks on the ship and that his key card (used to make purchases onboard) had not even been swiped to purchase a bottle of water yet.

Why wait this long to say that SA had ZERO drinks onboard (vs. the vague “Sam is not a drinker”)? Why refuse the breathalyzer?

Twitter

Good grief, what does a bottle of water have to do with it? Just embellishment courtesy of the defense attorney for contrast purposes. Sounds like he could have used some hydration for the purpose of having his brain functioning. And I thought the family had lunch on the ship shortly after boarding.
 
I've been lurking and distracted by another case (the two kids in PA. It's the next county over from me and has had been pretty distracted) but I haven't forgotten about this one.

But the recent articles about the refusal for a plea have me so angry. Especially this line from this article:

Grandfather of child who plunged to death from cruise ship doesn't want plea deal

"Anello’s defense told the court that they will be presenting experts that will analyze the scene and his medical records will be provided as well as testimony from his doctor. The defense is expected to provide the names of experts they plan to call to the court on Jan. 17."

I'm really damn curious if they're pulling in experts for the stupid colorblind argument. Because being colorblind DOES NOT mean that he wouldn't be able to see the tint on the windows. It means he wouldn't be able to see the COLOR OF THE TINT on the windows. They would still appear darkened and gray compared to the open window, he just wouldn't be able to see any of the blue/green color to it. Which means he should have been extra curious why some of them were dark and some of them were not. It immediately begs the question of why he didn't check first instead of just assuming all the windows were closed when they were clearly different in some way.

So is it he's colorblind, or are they now going to try and claim something new that is going to make you wonder why the family even bothered to trust a child with him in the first place?
If the prosecutor has evidence that SA stuck his head out the window, then there goes his claim that he didn't know the window was open and the whole issue of colorblindness becomes irrelevant.
 
Statement from the family, taken from this article:

Grandfather offered plea deal in girl's cruise ship death as Puerto Rico TV show airs video

"In a statement, the Wiegand family said: "The family is shocked by the deplorable and disgraceful misconduct that led to the release of this footage. The family's sole motivation for not releasing the video was to protect their older child. That motivation has not changed. The family publicly asks the Puerto Rican authorities, why was this footage released? Why do you continue to inflict such heinous emotional distress on our family? Haven't we been punished enough by the loss of Chloe? Finally, the family requests an immediate, independent investigation done into the circumstances surrounding the leak." "
Odd that the family seems to be more upset at the fact that the video was leaked than at the possible contents of the video.
 
<respectfully snipped>

Exactly! If SA had health issues that might have led to poor decision-making, why on earth did Chloe's parents allow him to be alone with their daughter? SA clearly does not seem to know how to care for a toddler as evidenced by the odd way that he holds her in various photos I've seen.
And if he didn’t disclose these issues to the family doesn’t that also make him negligent?
 
Question - do families have the right to control evidence in the possession of the prosecutor?
As far as I know, no. Prosecutors could technically release anything they wanted to, but most do not because of course, they don't want to jeopardize their own case. Outside of FL anyways you don't typically see prosecutors laying out their case to the media instead of to a jury in a court room.

Odd that the family seems to be more upset at the fact that the video was leaked than at the possible contents of the video.

They have been saying for days that the video will exonerate GF. And now it got leaked? It makes one wonder...
 
AT THIS TIME, CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF THE QUESTIONABLE VIDEO IS AT RISK OF LOSING POSTING PRIVILEGES. IF WE LEARN THE SOURCE OF THE VIDEO IS VERIFIED IN MSM, THAT MAY CHANGE. UNTIL THEN, PLEASE KEEP THIS WARNING IN MIND AS YOU POST.

CocoChanel
Moderator
the dailymail posted it. Can it now be discussed?
 
the dailymail posted it. Can it now be discussed?

PLEASE WAIT TO DISCUSS UNTIL WE CAN CONFIRM IT FROM A SECOND MSM SOURCE. IT IS AN VIDEO OF A TERRIBLE TERRIBLE MOMENT THAT WHILE IT DOES NOT SHOW THE HORRIBLE TRAGEDY, IT IS VERY DISTURBING TO WATCH KNOWING WHAT IS OCCURRING. I WILL LET YOU KNOW WHEN WE HAVE THE OK FROM TRICIA FOR DISCUSSING THIS VIDEO OF THE MOMENTS WHEN THIS PRECIOUS CHILD FELL TO HER DEATH.
 
PLEASE WAIT TO DISCUSS UNTIL WE CAN CONFIRM IT FROM A SECOND MSM SOURCE. IT IS AN VIDEO OF A TERRIBLE TERRIBLE MOMENT THAT WHILE IT DOES NOT SHOW THE HORRIBLE TRAGEDY, IT IS VERY DISTURBING TO WATCH KNOWING WHAT IS OCCURRING. I WILL LET YOU KNOW WHEN WE HAVE THE OK FROM TRICIA FOR DISCUSSING THIS VIDEO OF THE MOMENTS WHEN THIS PRECIOUS CHILD FELL TO HER DEATH.
thank you.
 
With this type of "logic" no one who was ever careless would go to prison....it is a slippery slope.

Does this mean that the woman who killed three children getting off a school bus, should not be charged with negligent homicide, because she didn't mean to kill children when she passed a stopped school bus with flashing lights?

Why shouldn't SA go to prison? Because he feels badly? I am sure that many people in prison feel remorse for their actions. By this logic, we shouldn't convict any one, because they are sorry for what happened.

SA deserves a sentence, based on a trial and jury of his peers. He obviously feels little to no actual remorse, because if he was truly repentant, he would plead guilty and ask for leniency, instead of placing the blame for Chloe's death on the cruise line, telling one story after another, as a way to justify reasons for why Chloe is dead.

Chloe is dead, because SA deliberately put Chloe in an unsafe situation. He should own that behavior, and be held accountable for his actions.

I agree he should do time, counseling, etc for what happened. I also truly believe he is very, very sorry. I watched the interview and he was not blaming or making excuses. He was explaining what he did and what happened. Also stating that if there was a sign he wouldn't have placed the baby there. But again, that simply means he didn't detect any danger. A sign would have been an obvious warning. If one would have been present and he put the baby there after seeing that sign, then THAT would be a deliberate murder. He made some very bad judgment calls about what was safe for the baby. Possibly due to alcohol. Either way, he should pay for his negligence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
158
Guests online
4,670
Total visitors
4,828

Forum statistics

Threads
602,845
Messages
18,147,581
Members
231,549
Latest member
lilb
Back
Top