IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #5

[Safeguard]

Here's an essay on "turnaround day" that some might find interesting and informative.
What Is a Turnaround Day on a Cruise? - Cruise Critic

DH and I have been on cruises up to 12 nights but have never done what is called a back-to-back when you stay on the ship after it returns to home port prior to the next voyage. We have a cruise coming up later this month that we originally booked as a 14-night sailing so we could experience a back-to-back since the ship does two different 7-night itineraries (eastern and western Caribbean), returning to Fort Lauderdale in between. As final payment approached, I was beginning to worry that I might not be up to 14 nights on a cruise ship, so we canceled the western leg of the 14-night sailing. I'm sure we'll have some regrets about not experiencing a b-2-b cruise, but 15 days away from home just seemed like too much. I will turn 70 during the cruise. I tend to be a homebody, and, while I love traveling, it's become less enticing as I age. I'm glad that we did a lot of traveling in our youth

I haven't traveled very much, and have never been on a cruise, (although my sister's love them!), but do to your fabulous writing style I feel like I've been on a very short, extremely inexpensive cruise!.

If you ever write a mystery novel, set aboard a cruise ship, I'll be the first in line at Barnes & Noble! (Although, wouldn’t turn down a signed free copy )

 

[Arkay]

I haven't really engaged in the colorblind discussion except once, a thread or two ago, because to me it seems immaterial. JMO. But as I've said once before, my father is colorblind, but he knows what a window is, so he absolutely would never have lifted us up to a high window when we were children. Nor would he have done that with his grandchildren, and now his great-grandchildren. He would have let any of us look through the bottom floor-level window while standing immediately behind us, arms on our shoulders etc., or on his hip if we were as young as Chloe. Arms wrapped around us. I know he wouldn't have hoisted us to a high window even with glass because he'd be afraid of dropping us inside the ship if it rocked a little, even in port. Most especially, in a million years he wouldn't have lifted any of us as kids up and out and through a window that he knew had no glass because he'd already leaned as far out of it as he could.
I'm also keeping away from blaming the parents for the media tour, lawsuit, and defense of SA. I don't agree with them at all, but I'm not in their shoes, thank God, and I don't want to cast aspersions on whatever denial is helping them deal with this ultimate tragedy. As a law enforcement official and a prosecutor, we know that in their professional capacities, they are both accustomed to people who lie to get out of trouble. If AW were the arresting officer in this case, and KW were the prosecuting attorney, I imagine this would be a slam-dunk case. But they're not acting in their professional capacity. They are heartsick and anguished parents with a son who has to be so emotionally devastated. I hope they don't win the civil suit and I hope SA goes to prison, but I'm giving them a wide berth right now. Again, JMO.

 

[al66pine]

Motion for Change of Venue. "Language Barrier"?

While that may be technically correct, I am expecting IMO a request for a change of venue, because of the notoriety of the case in San Juan, and the language barrier....

@Forever Young
A motion for a change of venue, on basis of language barrier?
"Spanish is ... the only official language of the entire Commonwealth judiciary system." See post 770.
If all PR court proceedings are conducted in Spanish, moving trial from current PR court in San Juan to ct in other judicial district would not overcome any possible claimed language barrier, so why would judge change of venue motion on that basis? Would not, jmo.

Any “language barrier” issue for SA is addressed by PR providing translator for him, imo.

Motion for change of venue on grounds of "'notoriety", IDK.

 

[Arkay]

double post DBM

 

[Chikkamma]

A “new” design might not be a “better” design. I don’t think it implies there is a problem with the old windows. If there is the legal standards for ships should be updated.

You are correct. New does not imply better, but having a new design that prevents people from falling out of windows (such as windows that don’t open at all or only open 4”) might imply that the old design was a potential safety hazard or an “accident waiting to happen”. However, I think Winkleman’s omission of the word “ALL” implies that only some of RCCL’s new ships have these new features. If even one new RCCL ship has the same Freedom of the Seas style windows, it implies RC believes the windows safe.

 

[Safeguard]

I haven't really engaged in the colorblind discussion except once, a thread or two ago, because to me it seems immaterial. JMO. But as I've said once before, my father is colorblind, but he knows what a window is, so he absolutely would never have lifted us up to a high window when we were children. Nor would he have done that with his grandchildren, and now his great-grandchildren. He would have let any of us look through the bottom floor-level window while standing immediately behind us, arms on our shoulders etc., or on his hip if we were as young as Chloe. Arms wrapped around us. I know he wouldn't have hoisted us to a high window even with glass because he'd be afraid of dropping us inside the ship if it rocked a little, even in port. Most especially, in a million years he wouldn't have lifted any of us as kids up and out and through a window that he knew had no glass because he'd already leaned as far out of it as he could.
I'm also keeping away from blaming the parents for the media tour, lawsuit, and defense of SA. I don't agree with them at all, but I'm not in their shoes, thank God, and I don't want to cast aspersions on whatever denial is helping them deal with this ultimate tragedy. As a law enforcement official and a prosecutor, we know that in their professional capacities, they are both accustomed to people who lie to get out of trouble. If AW were the arresting officer in this case, and KW were the prosecuting attorney, I imagine this would be a slam-dunk case. But they're not acting in their professional capacity. They are heartsick and anguished parents with a son who has to be so emotionally devastated. I hope they don't win the civil suit and I hope SA goes to prison, but I'm giving them a wide berth right now. Again, JMO.

Compassionate, sensible, logical observations. As per usual for you, I completely agree with every word.

Eta: Your ability to retain sensitivity and compassion, yet weed out emotion from what's fair, consequence wise, is becoming my favorite thing about your posts.

I particularly like the lack of drama and hysterical embellishment. This case is heart wrenching enough, just bare bones, without creative invention of back stories that don't exist, except in the mind of the poster...

 

[Chikkamma]

dbm

 

[Arkay]

Thank you, Safeguard. I also agree with you about BetteDavisEyes' writing style. She paints an excellent picture of the hubbub when a ship is docked, particularly on embarkation day.

 

[MyBelle]

Does that boat transport prisoners so they can't access the windows to attempt a water escape? It reminds me of a prison.

Anyway, because the newer ships have windows that open only 4 inches, doesn't that suggest the fully open windows on the older ships are a safety hazard, an accident waiting to happen, therefore the new modification is being implemented? This is what Winks is implying, so how does RCCL defend themselves against that fact? I can understand the courts putting partial blame on RCCL for CW's death for that reason, even though SA breached the railing. If the FOS window opened four inches only, chances are CW wouldn't be dead, just maybe injured.
What if a child climbed on one of those chairs or tables in the bar area, then went onto the railing and fell overboard?

I wonder if we will ever get to a point in time when a driver will be jailed for causing a death which could have been avoided if his old car was equipped with a rear view camera and all the other safety features on the new cars?

BBM. I think that is exactly the concern. Just because it has never happened prior to this incident is no guarantee it won't happen again.

I don't know of any prosecutions related to cars backing over children but I also know from the link that it happens too frequently which is why many newer vehicles do have rear cameras. There have been more prosecutions of parents who have "forgotten" their child was in the car and died from the heat but even then, prosecutors often decide not to pile onto the family's grief with a criminal prosecution.

Look at how long Disney World had been in existence with no alligator attacks. All it took was one tragic incident and the parents were vilified by trolls on social media. Disney's CEO immediately reached out to the parents. Now the beach area along a lagoon is walled off. No prosecution and no lawsuit was needed. Disney and LE handled it with incredible compassion.

Backovers | KidsandCars.org
Jury’s Out on Prosecution of Parents Who Leave Kids in Cars

JMO

 

[Safeguard]

Thank you, Safeguard. I also agree with you about BetteDavisEyes' writing style. She paints an excellent picture of the hubbub when a ship is docked, particularly on embarkation day.

I call em like I see em Arkay, as do you.

 

[al66pine]

Release of Vids? Effect on Brother?

... I had younger brothers and sisters when I was that age. All 6 of us are still around, and we are no longer youngsters. It would have hit me like a ton of bricks to lose a sibling when I was 10 years old, and most excruciatingly so, for an innocent, precious baby sister.

@Forever Young bbm Yes, agreeing, death of younger toddler sibling- from any cause - would have hit you like a ton of bricks (yrs ago, maybe before surv-cam-vids?) and ditto in this case brother Wyatt. Sad beyond imagination.

But imo, it was (virtually) inevitable that these vids would be shown at both trials and then post-trial be all over soc media, youtube, etc. Did/does KSW think she can shield son forever? Seems at best, she could delay his exposure to vids until trials. How long - months, maybe a few yrs?

As much as we want to protect children, we can't always do it. And in this situation, I have doubts about her professed objections about release of vids.

 

[Lawnguylander1964]

The criminal case is classified as a misdemeanor under PR law, but they use felony penalties for conviction.

So can this case may be tried by a judge instead a jury?

 

[Safeguard]

BBM. I think that is exactly the concern. Just because it has never happened prior to this incident is no guarantee it won't happen again.

I don't know of any prosecutions related to cars backing over children but I also know from the link that it happens too frequently which is why many newer vehicles do have rear cameras. There have been more prosecutions of parents who have "forgotten" their child was in the car and died from the heat but even then, prosecutors often decide not to pile onto the family's grief with a criminal prosecution.

Look at how long Disney World had been in existence with no alligator attacks. All it took was one tragic incident and the parents were vilified by trolls on social media. Disney's CEO immediately reached out to the parents. Now the beach area along a lagoon is walled off. No prosecution and no lawsuit was needed. Disney and LE handled it with incredible compassion.

Backovers | KidsandCars.org
Jury’s Out on Prosecution of Parents Who Leave Kids in Cars

JMO

With all due respect, the two cases are not
even remotely similar.

Lanes parents were behaving responsibly.

They were not dangling the boy over the open jaws of an alligator.

 

[crhedBngr]

If I'd seen Chloe's fall, I'd have nightmares for the rest of my life. I'd never get that out of my mind!

ETA: I wonder if Gramps will be charged with negligent homicide. Should be a very interesting case.

JMVHO.

 

[IceIce9]

BBM, snipped for brevity

No offense, but you need to stop making uncorroborated allegations about something you don't know anything about. There is absolutely no evidence that the chain of custody has been violated, and the way you keep throwing that word around has made it clear you don't actually understand what chain of custody is or how evidentiary recordings are handled.

Chain of custody (CoC), in legal contexts, is the chronological documentation or paper trail that records the sequence of custody, control, transfer, analysis, and disposition of physical or electronic evidence. When it comes to things like murder weapons or bloody gloves this is able to, and should be documented fully at all times, who has what times for what times, and if possible what purposes. This is easy, because there is only one item that can only exist in one place at any given time. It goes out to a lab, it comes back in. Defense attorney brings an expert to examine a fire arm, who and times are documented until it goes back into the locker.

It DOES NOT work the same way for digital recordings. For one thing, PR LE WAS NOT, AND NEVER IS, GIVEN THE ONLY VIDEO IN EXISTENCE. They were given A DVD COPY while RCCL retains the original. The person involved in making the copy for RCCL is documented and will be called in as an evidentiary witness during the trial to attest that yes, I made this recording that was turned over. Yes, this version presented before the court is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. When the defense gets the video in discovery they are not led into a room and only get to watch it on a monitor while the DA keeps it, an official copy is burned and turned over to the defense WHICH THE DA AND LE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER ONCE IT LEAVES THEIR OFFICE. IT DOESN'T COME BACK. The defense can do whatever they want with it, which clearly they made another copy and gave it to Winkleman (who up until then was not entitled to discovery because he is not involved with the criminal case and the civil case HAD NOT BEEN FILED) who has taken it on a media tour.

If pressed the DA will likely have no problems producing records of what copies they have made and who they gave them too, but once those videos are out of there hands they are not responsible for what happens to them, the people who have those copies are. And we already know the defense has gone and made more copies for the family and that Winkleman has been flaunting his copy to the media. I am not one bit surprised that somehow the media got what looks like a crummy cell phone recording of a TV monitor knowing that and I find it hard to find any reason that the DA would have leaked this so again, please stop. You are entitled to your "opinion", but don't use legal terms you don't understand to try and make it sound like you have a point.

Thank you for this. As a person who routinely deals with chain of custody at work, I get super annoyed when people throw the phrase around when they have no clue what it means.

 

[al66pine]

Change of Venue? To Where?

They have been doing the talk circuit here on the mainland but not on the island. Even if a change in venue was granted, it probably wouldn't take it off the island, just move it to another city in PR. That might actually make things more difficult for them in the long run. RCCL has absolutely no reason to settle. It may have been what they were hoping for but it's probably not going to happen.

@Kindred

In trial of SA on PR criminal charges, a judge granting C/V motion would not have authority to move trial out of PR, only to other courts in PR. If SA was charged w federal crime, possibly different outcome.*
-------------------------------------------------------
* "A change of venue is the legal term for moving a trial to a new location. In high-profile matters, a change of venue may occur to move a jury trial away from a location where a fair and impartial jury may not be possible due to widespread publicity about a crime and its defendant(s) to another community in order to obtain jurors who can be more objective in their duties. This change may be to different towns, and across the other sides of states or, in some extremely high-profile federal cases, to other states." bbm
Example of trial for federal crim charges in which trial was moved from one state to another: "The trial of 1995 Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, in which the court granted a change of venue, and ordered the case transferred from Oklahoma to the U.S. District Court in Denver, Colorado...." bbm
Change of venue - Wikipedia

 

[al66pine]

If I'd seen Chloe's fall, I'd have nightmares for the rest of my life. I'd never get that out of my mind!
ETA: I wonder if Gramps will be charged with negligent homicide. Should be a very interesting case. JMVHO.

@crhedBngr bbm

If ^ post refers to Sam Anello & gr'dau Chloe, he already has been charged w NegHom under PR crim statute.
See media thread.
A grandfather who police say dropped his young granddaughter from the 11th floor of a cruise ship docked in Puerto Rico in July has been accused of negligent homicide. A judge on Monday ordered the arrest of Salvatore Anello after prosecutors submitted evidence and said the 18-month-old Chloe Wiegand fell when he raised her up to an open window.
Grandfather charged in death of granddaughter who fell from cruise ship. Oct 29
His lawyer, Jose Perez, said that his client was offered a plea deal, but that he would rather clear his name, CBS reported.
https://nypost.com/2019/12/18/grand...nd-from-cruise-ship-offered-plea-deal-lawyer/. Dec. 18

 

[Chikkamma]

I would like to address the parents claim that they didn’t want to video released “to protect their son”. I do not see how their statement could be the least bit sincere given their actions.

No one in the public sphere had access to the video UNTIL the parents allowed Winkleman to show the video to several journalists... who later described in detail (or to whatever extent their agreement with Winkleman permitted) the contents of said video. The parents were the first ones to allow members of the public to view the video and they are now complaining that they didn’t want members of the public to view the video.

This seems similar to KW’s lamentation that she doesn’t want Chloe’s legacy to be “the history of court cases”, when she and AW were the first ones to bring forth a case against RCCL in the first place!

Their words are completely incongruent with their actions. It rings hollow to me.

 

[Arkay]

You are correct. New does not imply better, but having a new design that prevents people from falling out of windows (such as windows that don’t open at all or only open 4”) might imply that the old design was a potential safety hazard or an “accident waiting to happen”. However, I think Winkleman’s omission of the word “ALL” implies that only some of RCCL’s new ships have these new features. If even one new RCCL ship has the same Freedom of the Seas style windows, it implies RC believes the windows safe.

I'm all for positive safety features, but of course there is still always going to be the rogue human element. No matter how the windows were designed, or how they may be retrofitted in the future, that cannot prevent a tragedy that is initiated by an adult with zero common sense. Say the cruise lines all decided to permanently seal every window aboard every ship. That wouldn't have saved Chloe if SA had decided that he'd go up one deck, to where there are just railings, and thoughtlessly dangle her over those. Instead of insisting she wanted to bang on the glass, he may have insisted she wanted fresh air, or an unimpeded view, or whatever.

I just detest that he's treating this like an unavoidable, unforseeable freak accident.

When I was in high school, I knew a girl with a younger sister named Grace Gold. A few years later she was killed by falling masonry while walking by Columbia University. She was 17. In response to this actual freak accident, here in NYC we have something called Labor Law 11, plus something called FISP, which were laws imposed after Grace was killed. They are laws which are supposed to be very strict in inspecting all building facades and have led to literally thousands of scaffolds built around the lower floors of buildings. So, a retrofit. Yet a week or two ago, a 60-year old woman was killed by another chunk of something that fell off a building in Midtown, just as she walked by. Local Law 11 did not save her, because the facade failed inspection but the repairs weren't done. The rogue human element.

 

[katydid23]

It certainly appears the window design is faulty when the newer ship's windows only open four inches. I hope RCCL doesn't get hit with any fault, but the new window design doesn't look good for them, imo.

Anyway, I think I have to disagree with you regarding CW being placed on the window metal track and not the railing, at least when she was standing up. In the behind video, it looks like she is standing very close to SA, in the side video, she can't be seen. In her sitting position I can't tell where she is. Do you think she was on the window track while standing and sitting, or just sitting after SA changed her position?

How is that faulty for a high window behind a safety railing, to be open more than 4 inches?

The ONLY child to ever fall out of one of those windows was SA's grandchild---and only because he placed her in that dangerous position.

I don't see the window as being faulty. I see SA's brain as being faulty.