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

[Safeguard]

Hi Safeguard, I do respect your views and opinion. But if you could help me out on one point, regarding the bolded. I would like to hear a plausible explanation for such overt and blatant child abuse, as in this instance, that led to this tragedy.

IOW, how/ why would any adult ever in this world do this to a baby if they cared about protecting her from harm, and wanted her to live.

Do you disagree that the actions of this man were so extremely reckless that they were done in a manner to harm this child? If nothing else, it would have terrified this child and caused intense emotional trauma. God.. if it had only been that, maybe she could have recovered. Instead, she was given a very, very, very, very, extremely early premature death sentence.

Hey neesaki!

"Other than negligence in this one tragic incident".

Maybe that was poorly worded on my part. I don't know these people and they claim SA has always been responsible with their children in the past. He obviously spent a lot of time with Chloe and most likely the her older brother as well prior. So I am only speaking about this one time.

You asked me:

"Do you disagree that the actions of this man were so extremely reckless that they were done in a manner to harm this child? If nothing else, it would have terrified this child and caused intense emotional trauma."

I do agreed that this singular act was the most heinous, thoughtless, soul curdling thing I've ever seen.

I do not believe it was done with malice. I don't think he deliberately murdered Chloe or that he wanted to terrify her.

His behavior absolutely was criminally negligent beyond anything anything I can comprehend. And he alone killed Chloe.

(Hense the negligence charge and not murder).

I think he should do time in fact. He won't, but I think he should. Just like someone who kills a person when they are driving drunk. Did they mean any harm? Probably not. Is someone dead do to their reckless behavior? yup.
Should they have known better? Seems pretty certain to me...

If SA had continued to own it, like he was doing at first, I would be ok with a suspended sentence. But now that he's obviously lying and not accepting that it was his responsibility alone to guard Chloe from harm... I'd like to see him do some time.

 

[MyBelle]

The prosecutors in PR have not “piled on” anything. Salvatore Anello has been charged with the offense negligent homicide. That it is.

If you haven’t already, I suggest you watch the CCTV footage to see for yourself why they chose to prosecute this case. We, as a society, must value childrens’ lives and hold accountable those whose reckless actions snuff out those young lives.

That's your opinion and I disagree. I've watched the video and it is blurry and shows nothing of intent. Mr. Anello has been charged with a misdemeanor. He didn't intentionally snuff out any child's life.

JMO

 

[Arkay]

sorry double post

 

[Arkay]

Hello Arkay... could you clarify what this post is in response to? I’m just trying to get the context, that’s all. TIA

Hi neesaki. I'm referencing MyBelle's post, I think #768. I love her thoughtfulness over the family's suffering, but I disagree with her premise that Puerto Rico is filing charges against the family in retaliation against the cruise line industry, when they temporarily stopped docking there due to protests against the government creating unsafe conditions.

 

[MyBelle]

<snipped for brevity>

It's kind of you to think of this family in despair, as we all do, but I do disagree with your basic contention.
It's true that the cruise ships didn't dock for awhile, but in my opinion there is absolutely no way that Puerto Rican officials would "retaliate" against the cruise ship companies for costing them tourism dollars. That would be counterproductive for their economy.
I've docked in Puerto Rico at least ten times. The instant you walk down the gangplank, you are surrounded by hundreds of souvenir stalls and every other kind of merchandise imaginable. Those merchants depend on the tourists for a living. So do the majority of the stores and restaurants in Old San Juan. There are docking fees, without which the economy would suffer tremendously. IMO the LAST thing the PR officials want is for the cruise ships to keep away, and as you yourself said, it was the cruise lines that decided not to dock and that cost a lot of tourism dollars. They do NOT want to chase away the ships.

BBM. I disagree with you and so does my Puerto Rican son-in-law. The Puerto Rican economy is in dire straits. Multiple government officials have resigned because of accusations of corruption. What better way to retaliate against a cruise line than arresting one of their guests for his conduct while docked in San Juan?

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/international-business/article238590978.html

JMO

 

[IceIce9]

I agree with you. I've stayed away from this thread because of the cruel comments being made about the parents being greedy and that's why they filed the lawsuit. The parents are victims. This is a family very clearly in despair and Puerto Rico prosecutors are playing a very cruel game of "piling on."

Similar comments were made about Lane Grave's parents when he was killed by an alligator at Disney World. That they should have known there were very real alligators lurking in the lagoon in a park where everything else is pure fantasy. There is a now wall around that lagoon and a memorial to the child that is a sculpture of a lighthouse. The same logo is for the Lane Thomas Foundation. The Foundation is doing wonderful work providing financial support to parents of hospitalized children in need of life-saving organ transplants.

The wait of six months before filing misdemeanor charges is an indication to me that Puerto Rico's prosecutors have a political agenda. Shortly after Chloe's death there were massive protests in San Juan over corrupt government officials. The situation was dangerous and the cruise lines decided not to dock there. That cost San Juan a lot of tourism dollars. What better way to retaliate against the cruise line than exploit a grieving family that were their guests and create international publicity over an accidental death.

I think the wrongful death lawsuit will be settled very quickly and quietly and the result will be windows that can not be opened in areas where children might be. I also believe the parents will do something positive to ensure the legacy of their beautiful Chloe lives on.

JMO
Disney World unveils lighthouse sculpture to honor boy killed by alligator

Puerto Rico protests: Royal Caribbean, MSC Cruises cancel stops

Major difference between Lane’s death and Chloe’s.

Have you watched the videos of Chloe’s grandfather picking her up? You can clearly see he raises her up above his head. It looks like he hurls her out the window.

No child could reach as high as that open window. It wasn’t a child’s play area, there was a bar there. If all windows were sealed shut in cruises who would want to take a cruise? And in the history of cruises no child has ever fallen out, or hurled himself out, or been hurled out a window.

 

[Arkay]

BBM. I disagree with you and so does my Puerto Rican son-in-law. The Puerto Rican economy is in dire straits. Multiple government officials have resigned because of accusations of corruption. What better way to retaliate against a cruise line than arresting one of their guests for his conduct while docked in San Juan?

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/international-business/article238590978.html

JMO

Hi, MyBelle. Let's agree to disagree. I was married to a Puerto Rican and I have a Puerto Rican mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law, brother-in-law as well as my own Puerto Rican son-in-law. My husband's relatives still live there, so besides cruising, I've flown there and stayed with them over the last four decades.
Arresting a guest and causing cruise ships to be sued will keep the cruise lines away. The cruise ships are a major, major economic driver. Yes, there is plenty of corruption in PR politics, but everyone wants the economy to improve. So let's just disagree.
IMO the cruise line would only be at fault if the windows suddenly reached in and grabbed Chloe and threw her out. Every passenger has to go through orientation and safety drills. We all know what is allowed and what is prohibited. And then there's common sense.

 

[MyBelle]

<snipped for brevity>

It's kind of you to think of this family in despair, as we all do, but I do disagree with your basic contention.
It's true that the cruise ships didn't dock for awhile, but in my opinion there is absolutely no way that Puerto Rican officials would "retaliate" against the cruise ship companies for costing them tourism dollars. That would be counterproductive for their economy.
I've docked in Puerto Rico at least ten times. The instant you walk down the gangplank, you are surrounded by hundreds of souvenir stalls and every other kind of merchandise imaginable. Those merchants depend on the tourists for a living. So do the majority of the stores and restaurants in Old San Juan. There are docking fees, without which the economy would suffer tremendously. IMO the LAST thing the PR officials want is for the cruise ships to keep away, and as you yourself said, it was the cruise lines that decided not to dock and that cost a lot of tourism dollars. They do NOT want to chase away the ships.

But the condition of the docks HAS chased away the ships. They are refusing to dock there in 2020.
JMO

Concern in Puerto Rico following Royal Caribbean announced cancelling of 90 cruise visits

Cruise ship visits to San Juan, Puerto Rico are being canceled for the 2020-21 season due to the privatization of the cruise port. According to the local newspaper, El Nuevo Día, Royal Caribbean is canceling 90 calls to San Juan, Puerto Rico for the 2020 and 2021 season. The news was released by Fermin Fontanez, the director of the Authority for Public-Private Partnerships that these cancellations would happen...

...The 90 canceled visits to the eastern Caribbean island would mean 360,000 fewer tourists and in turn, would have an economic impact of US$ 44 million. Authorities have also stated that an additional 30 departures from San Juan are being canceled and that apparently includes “Freedom of the Seas” which is operated by Royal Caribbean.

 

[Arkay]

That is DISASTROUS for Puerto Rico. My parents just got back yesterday from a Symphony of the Seas cruise. There are 6000 passengers on that ship. My parents have been there so often that they don't disembark, but most passengers do and they are vital to the economy there.
But your point was not about the condition of the docks. Your point was that Puerto Rico is intentionally filing charges against SA as a retaliation for the ships refusing to dock earlier due to civil unrest, and not because he unintentionally but factually threw his granddaughter overboard 11 stories onto the concrete pier.

But the condition of the docks HAS chased away the ships. They are refusing to dock there in 2020.
JMO

Concern in Puerto Rico following Royal Caribbean announced cancelling of 90 cruise visits

Cruise ship visits to San Juan, Puerto Rico are being canceled for the 2020-21 season due to the privatization of the cruise port. According to the local newspaper, El Nuevo Día, Royal Caribbean is canceling 90 calls to San Juan, Puerto Rico for the 2020 and 2021 season. The news was released by Fermin Fontanez, the director of the Authority for Public-Private Partnerships that these cancellations would happen...

...The 90 canceled visits to the eastern Caribbean island would mean 360,000 fewer tourists and in turn, would have an economic impact of US$ 44 million. Authorities have also stated that an additional 30 departures from San Juan are being canceled and that apparently includes “Freedom of the Seas” which is operated by Royal Caribbean.

 

[Safeguard]

Maybe it is the skeptic in me, but I can’t help wonder why their anger isn’t directed towards the person directly responsible for dropping her out of the window? And whether it has anything to do with his meager bank account?

As someone mentioned earlier, they could have honored her by having SA accept responsibility and educate others about the danger of windows and window safety. This would have honored Chloe and even saved lives. Suing the cruise line saves no lives (since no toddlers have gone out of windows on cruise ships before) and dishonors Chloe’s memory by making her legacy “the history of court cases”.

JMO.

If we were dealing with rational people, I'd agree with most every word you said. But the landscape of grief is treacherous. The 'place' where they are, is a place most of us have never been. Even those of us who lost a child have never stood in their exact spot.

The terra is not firma!

I can't make sense of anything they are doing right now. I place a lot of the blame on their lawyer. I feel like hes exploiting their crazy pain.

But I can see, as a mom, wanting to be angry at the ship. "my little girl was supposed to be safely enclosed in your ship!". Not really rational, nor a good 'look' but I can get it...

They may well come to regret a lot of the choices their making now.

Pretty sure Grandpa is going to feel the full brunt of their rage eventually.

When the circus wagons have pulled out of town, and they are left with just themselves.

 

[SouthAussie]

Freedom of the Seas Squeeze Pictures

I don't think I did this correctly, but I'm trying to insert an image of the bar next to where this happened. I see people saying it's not a children's area because there are only adults around, and there's a bar there. However, (I'm sure someone more skilled than I has already done this, but I can't read all the comments, too many), clearly in the video we can all see the word "squeeze." I thought it must be a juice bar, so I googled it and it is. Therefore it's not a bar serving liquor, but it is also absolutely not a children's area. I've been on Royal Caribbean and the children's area is indoors with counselors to watch them, and there are several places outside that have children's attractions. This is not that.
Even before the release of the video, why is the lawyer saying it's a children's area when it is so starkly not? There are no children's accouterments or child-sized playthings. A juice bar with stools, lounges set up near a small pool, adults everywhere, and the unfortunate bank of windows. The picture I saw is stock footage from 2018, the Squeeze Bar on Freedom of the Seas.

Here is a close up image of the bar.



A review of Squeeze says this ..... "alcohol and juice drinks made from concentrates".



Freedom of the Seas Activities, Entertainment & Amenities for Kids & Adults on Cruise Critic

 

[Safeguard]

Hi neesaki. I'm referencing MyBelle's post, I think #768. I love her thoughtfulness over the family's suffering, but I disagree with her premise that Puerto Rico is filing charges against the family in retaliation against the cruise line industry, when they temporarily stopped docking there due to protests against the government creating unsafe conditions.

I heartily agree. The authorities in Puerto Rico are just doing their job.

And if I do say so myself, they are doing it well and keeping it classy!

They handled the whole matter far more gracefully then than it would have done here!

 

[Arkay]

Here is a close up image of the bar.

View attachment 221867

A review of Squeeze says this ..... "alcohol and juice drinks made from concentrates".

View attachment 221868

Freedom of the Seas Activities, Entertainment & Amenities for Kids & Adults on Cruise Critic

Thank you, SouthAussie! I don't drink alcohol and so I know very little about where alcohol is served aboard. Didn't realize that juice bar served alcohol as well.

 

[Safeguard]

BBM. I disagree with you and so does my Puerto Rican son-in-law. The Puerto Rican economy is in dire straits. Multiple government officials have resigned because of accusations of corruption. What better way to retaliate against a cruise line than arresting one of their guests for his conduct while docked in San Juan?

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/international-business/article238590978.html

JMO

This isn't Polyvent so I'm not going there...

But SA was negligent (to the extreme!). He killed the child, and the charges were warranted.

No matter what version of the video you watch, you see him dang near toss her out the freaking window.

There is no excuse for not charging this guy. Malice? No. Criminaly negligent?
100%

 

[Safeguard]

The narrative by Winkleman are considerably inconsistent with the video evidence.

So much so, I almost can't see how he is even making the ridiculous statements about the footage clearing SA. "Although he did use 'lawyer speak' for,"they can't prove a thing! ".

The versions I watched are pretty darn clear. And yes they do prove he's guilty
as charged.

 

[SouthAussie]

Window Design, Prior Injuries or Deaths

Has anyone found any prior similar accidents occurring on RCCL ships?


Paragraph below alleges there has/have been. I imagine others have gone overboard and died (alcohol involved, over railings, falling to a lower deck, etc.) falling from Frdm/Seas. Has anyone found injuries or deaths by a toddler/sml child going out window? Esp a window w parent/guardian/even a stranger at that very scene, i.e., conceivably involved in holding/standing/‘assisting’ child into a position from which the child could fall thru window.? Or a toddler/sml child pushing chair/furniture upto window and going overboard?

Complaint Count I. General Negligence

Paragraph 35. (g) “Failure to ascertain the cause of prior similar accidents occurring on any of Defendant’s vessels, fleet wide, so as to take adequate measures to prevent their reoccurrence, and more particularly this accident; and/or”

I've been looking and not finding any similar incident of a child going overboard through a window.

I did find this safety act put into place by Congress in July 2010 about cruise ship safety.
No mention of windows - but there is mention that safety rails of not less than 42" height must be in place, and man overboard cameras. (Thank goodness for those cameras, in this case.)


Ԥ 3507. Passenger vessel security and safety requirements
(a) VESSEL DESIGN, EQUIPMENT, CONSTRUCTION, AND RETROFITTING REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Each vessel to which this subsection applies shall comply with the following design and construction standards:
(A) The vessel shall be equipped with ship rails that are located not less than 42 inches above the cabin deck.
(B) .....
(C) .....
(D) The vessel shall integrate technology that can be used for capturing images of passengers or detecting passengers who have fallen overboard, to the extent that such technology is available.
(E) ......
https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ207/PLAW-111publ207.pdf

 

[mickey2942]

So much so, I almost can't see how he is even making the ridiculous statements about the footage clearing SA. "Although he did use 'lawyer speak' for,"they can't prove a thing! ".

The versions I watched are pretty darn clear. And yes they do prove he's guilty
as charged.

This case has been very interesting. When it came out originally, I read the statement that came from Winkleman, as reported by the media, that Chloe had literally walked up to an open window right in the play area and fallen out.

Further sleuthing revealed that SA was probably being deceptive, but the absolute proof was the video. Especially the one viewed from the side. There is a problem here. And SA should count his blessings that the charge is only Negligent Homicide. Because, that did not look "negligent" to me, it looked absolutely deliberate. And crazy.

 

[they'll get you]

Cruise ship death: Video shows minutes before Chloe Wiegand fatal fall
To me this family presser video is sad.
The words speak of unity but ...it feels/looks/ like everything is falling apart.
JMO

Thank you for this posting.
I feel so sorry for Chloe’s mum and especially dad here.

This was made before Chloe’s birthday on the 13th December before the footage hit the news?? Right?
I notice Winkleman hovering closely.

Oh Lordy I see the arrogant disregard from AW. The dismissive flick of his hand made me want to climb through and throttle him.
It was obvious he didn’t want/need/deserve to be there.
HE HAS NO FREAKIN’ REMORSE!!

He believes it’s not his fault and RC’s job is to protect stupid from stupid.
I think I should back away for a while.

 

[they'll get you]

 

[MsFacetious]

<snipped for brevity>

It's kind of you to think of this family in despair, as we all do, but I do disagree with your basic contention.
It's true that the cruise ships didn't dock for awhile, but in my opinion there is absolutely no way that Puerto Rican officials would "retaliate" against the cruise ship companies for costing them tourism dollars. That would be counterproductive for their economy.
I've docked in Puerto Rico at least ten times. The instant you walk down the gangplank, you are surrounded by hundreds of souvenir stalls and every other kind of merchandise imaginable. Those merchants depend on the tourists for a living. So do the majority of the stores and restaurants in Old San Juan. There are docking fees, without which the economy would suffer tremendously. IMO the LAST thing the PR officials want is for the cruise ships to keep away, and as you yourself said, it was the cruise lines that decided not to dock and that cost a lot of tourism dollars. They do NOT want to chase away the ships.

I also don’t see that filing charges harms Royal. I think it helps them because it places blame on him instead of them.