IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #6

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Probably because of this part:

"... including items for a new baby girl and a few boys t-shirts (for Chloe's brother?)which contained the message: "Chosen for me by my sister in Heaven"

That message seems a bit much...I know the family is grieving, but a t shirt with that message seems to be too big of a burden for another child to bear imo of course.
 
Probably because of this part:

"... including items for a new baby girl and a few boys t-shirts (for Chloe's brother?)which contained the message: "Chosen for me by my sister in Heaven"

Just a guess, but wonder if this was a Christmas list? I was employed by someone who lost a 13 year old to an accident (totally preventable if the parents had been paying attention) one summer. That first Christmas was very hard on them. Lots of gifts that referred back to the parents' loss. It was a good two years before things even began to take on a semblance of normalcy. It was all they could think about for a very long time.

As for KW possibly expecting, well, she's not getting any younger, so I would not be surprised.
 
That message seems a bit much...I know the family is grieving, but a t shirt with that message seems to be too big of a burden for another child to bear imo of course.

I do worry about him. He was a half brother, and it would have been normal for him to feel a little jealousy, and a little bit left out, while Chloe was living, let alone this. I sure hope he has a good relationship and lots of time with his bio father. I'm sure he really needs time away from this situation.
 
But does what he "thought" matter at all? In a negligent homicide case, doesn't the prosecution need to establish what a "reasonably prudent person" would do/think? SA had no REASONABLE basis for his "thinking" - no reasonable person would think/assume that a clear open space must have glass and that there's no need to bother to check for the glass before lifting the baby and risking her life? Same with the colorblind excuse.
I imagine in a trial, SA could claim he's colorblind and assumed there was glass in front of his face. RCL would reply, that's fine Mr Anello, we believe everything you've said. None of that, even if true, matters at all. Because your actions while supervising Chloe fail to come close to meeting the standard of what a reasonably prudent person would do.

So my question is, to what extent does the "reasonably prudent person" standard nullify all of Anello's excuses?


IMO, it exonerates RCCL from any wrong doing or negligence.

My thoughts have always been that SA is going for "no negligence" on his part, either. You can't have a negligent homicide charge without negligence. IMO, in his mind, he was not negligent, because of what he thought.
 
They have a lot of "oopsing" to do, IMHO.

I was thinking about those early interviews with KW and AW, and the Begnaud interview with SA.

How many times have interviews like that, in other cases of missing children, etc. uncovered a lie, or a clue to a murder? Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
 
Last edited:
IMO, it exonerates RCCL from any wrong doing or negligence.

My thoughts have always been that SA is going for "no negligence" on his part, either. You can't have a negligent homicide charge without negligence. IMO, in his mind, he was not negligent, because of what he thought.
Makes me think of the Doobie Brothers song...

But what a fool believes he sees
No wise man has the power to reason away.
 
Winkleman showed PEOPLE two grainy video clips of the tragedy. In one, Anello is seen propping Chloe up on the railing on her feet, then on her bottom, before she disappears from view. In another, Anello is seen dropping to the floor after Chloe falls out the window.
Video of Girl Falling to Death From Cruise Ship Exonerates Grandfather, Says Family’s Lawyer

I hope People also picks up the court filings

Thank you, oviedo, for your continuous updating on the media thread for this case :)
 
Cruise line says grandfather knew window was open before Granger girl fell to her death

Snipped


But in its motion, the cruise line argues it has no duty to protect against unforeseeable incidents.

"His actions, which no reasonable person could have foreseen, were reckless and irresponsible and the sole reason why Chloe is no longer with her parents," the document says.

In a statement to the Indianapolis Star, Winkleman said Royal Caribbean's motion was "baseless and deceptive."

"It is clear that Royal Caribbean’s tactic is to blame Chloe’s grandfather rather than to accept that Royal Caribbean did not implement industry standards for toddler safety aboard its ships," Winkleman said in the statement Friday.
 
I do worry about him. He was a half brother, and it would have been normal for him to feel a little jealousy, and a little bit left out, while Chloe was living, let alone this. I sure hope he has a good relationship and lots of time with his bio father. I'm sure he really needs time away from this situation.
In the Estsy liked list, along with the baby items and jewelry, there were photos of what looked looked framed maps of the Caribbean.
 
Would Winkleman's actions be enough to get him disbarred? I personally think he deserves to be disbarred but I don't know what the legal standard is. At the very least, I hope his reputation is destroyed after everyone has discovered the truth.
He’s entitled to defend his clients - his statement just doesn’t acknowledge the evidence so he will continue to support the complaint IMO
 
The Wiegands’ attorney Michael Winkleman issued this statement:

The Wiegands are in the process of responding to Royal Caribbean’s Motion to Dismiss. In short, Royal Caribbean’s Motion to Dismiss is baseless and deceptive. It is clear that Royal Caribbean’s tactic is to blame Chloe’s grandfather rather than to accept that Royal Caribbean did not implement industry standards for toddler safety aboard its ships which ultimately led to Chloe’s tragic death. Royal Caribbean has premised its defense in this case and its blame on Chloe’s grandfather by supplying two deceptive views from its CCTV cameras to the court and the Puerto Rico authorities. However, the Plaintiffs were first permitted a vessel inspection of the scene of the incident on January 10 – less than a week after Royal Caribbean first informed the Wiegands that they are making modifications to the ship that will destroy the subject area where the incident occurred. That inspection has revealed that Royal Caribbean’s Motion to Dismiss neglects to tell the Court and, presumably, the authorities that there were no less than THIRTEEN CCTV video cameras in the area of the incident. The Wiegands will ask the Court to compel Royal Caribbean to produce all the video from those nearby cameras.

Further, the Wiegands’ response to Royal Caribbean’s Motion to Dismiss will definitively show what the Wiegands have said since day one: that Chloe’s grandfather never knew there was an open window and never ...
-
13 cameras will give a lot of clarity - he’s gonna regret this request IMO and also the video when shown using the proprietary software will be very clear
JMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
213
Guests online
543
Total visitors
756

Forum statistics

Threads
608,190
Messages
18,236,072
Members
234,317
Latest member
Spygirl09
Back
Top