IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #8

[Wicked Strong]

While I couldn't stomach the article itself (SO sick of "elderly" "colorblind" and "silver haired!), this one says his next court date is 2/24
Parents of toddler dropped to her death from Royal Caribbean ship beg Puerto Rico to end case | EXPRESS INFORMER

Thanks, I was looking for the link. I finally found this one again in the Media Thread, page 6 post 116. Thanks neesaki for posting this:

The defense of Salvatore Anello, charged on charges of negligent murder over the death of his granddaughter when he fell from a window of a cruiser anchored at Pan American Pier II, on Isla Grande, has already hired an expert to reconstruct the scene and assess the dangers i.e.

This was reported by José Guillermo Pérez Ortiz, during a conference on the state of proceedings that took place today in the courtroom of Judge Gisela Alfonso Fernández, of the Court of San Juan.

Right now we're leaning toward a jury trial," he responded to his departure from court.

The graduate notified the court that he is still in the process of selecting a medical expert to analyze his client's clinical picture of five potential candidates.

The judge pointed to the next conference on the state of proceedings on 24 February when the stage reconstruction expert is supposed to have filed a detailed report with his findings. You will also need to notify if a medical expert was hired.

While the public prosecutor represented by prosecutors Laura Hernandez and Ivette Nieves assured that at this date there is no negotiation to reach an agreement with the defendant's defense.

"We have already been notified of the name of that stage recreation expert, we have not yet been notified of a report, which the court ordered to the defense is that that report must be prepared and notified to the public prosecutor confirm the rules within the as near weeks to three no more of that so that we can effectively report on February 24th what position we are in if we need to hire an expert or if with the proof we have is enough to be able to challenge or be prepared for any testimony that that witness can provide," Hernandez said.

The prosecution revealed that it has already completed the test discovery following the delivery of copies of the interviews and notes of the investigating agent.

 

[neesaki]

Agreed.
In the first threads, she said that she thought Chloe would've fallen in the water.
Just like SA's fake crying, the talk show circuit interviews were odd and off-putting.
The main emotional portion was about "fixing the ship".

Chloe was described as a 'foodie' and a 'fashionista'.
Surprised Chloe wasn't touted as being a 'great swimmer'.
That obituary was describing a child whose parents have unrealistic expectations.

Foodie and Fashionista..... never really heard of these til this case, to speak of, but whatever, lol...well, ok, I did have to look that last one up.

Beyond that, I agree, their demeanor has seemed off from the beginning. All I know, is that if I lost a beloved child in this manner, I would be so devastated, I could not function at all, much less decide to do several media interviews. It’s insane when one thinks about it. I would be literally rolled up in a ball in bed! Just keep me hydrated, a little water will be good . Or not, not sure I would care.

And then there’s the blather about how people deal differently with things. well yeah, to a degree, but..... love and grief take over, and one doesn’t go on a media tour and promote suing a cruise line a few days after their child’s death. That, IMO, is really outside of the norm. Not to mention, here should be a waiting period for these fly-off-the-handle type of civil suits. All JMO

 

[neesaki]

@mheido67 sbm Thank you for the ^ correction (as I posted - if I've got this right- which I did not). Sitting at a table & handing an image around would make discussing it easier & clearer. Again, thanks. And to others, sorry for any confusion my post caused.

Believe me, al66pine, you caused me no confusion whatsoever. I was already confused on that matter. And still am, LOL.

 

[Kindred]

I've come down with a cold or some other type of respiratory illness and fell asleep reading posts and had the oddest dreams last night. My head is pounding right now but I woke up with a thought. Something that KW said in the one press conference with the red lipstick.

It dawned on me why I don't like that conference other than the over the topness about it. She doesn't sound like a grief-stricken mother to me. Yes her voice cracks at all the appropriate places when talking about Chloe, but her tone changes and her voice magically clears up when she starts talking about RCCL. She gets angry, which can be understandable in a mother's grief. And then she says this: "We believe that filing this lawsuit sends them the message that they. were. WRONG."

Wrong for what? Of course, right now the only thing that I can think of, is that they were wrong for not immediately asking them how much money they wanted to keep quiet about this. I know we've debated back and forth about the merits of this case and whether or not there's a shot of this civil complaint actually getting dismissed or continuing to trial. And others have asked why would Winkleman file a complaint he knows he can't win. I don't think winning is the point (though of course if they can that would be the icing on the cake). I think they're just trying to have a chance to damage RCCL's reputation at this point and waste their money. You won't pay me, then I'll make you pay the courts.

Winkleman doesn't care because he's getting publicity out of this. I honestly feel like he wants to give up actually practicing and just get a cushy job as a TV legal expert, and boy if this isn't his shot! And it's working, he's getting interviewed about the Coronavirus and the people that were quarantined on that cruise ship. Even if he doesn't win the case he's already won the boost to his name recognition.

**edit, I took out the second video because I don't think it actually helps clarify what I'm trying to say.

 

[mheido67]

I've come down with a cold or some other type of respiratory illness and fell asleep reading posts and had the oddest dreams last night. My head is pounding right now but I woke up with a thought. Something that KW said in the one press conference with the red lipstick.

It dawned on me why I don't like that conference other than the over the topness about it. She doesn't sound like a grief-stricken mother to me. Yes her voice cracks at all the appropriate places when talking about Chloe, but her tone changes and her voice magically clears up when she starts talking about RCCL. She gets angry, which can be understandable in a mother's grief. And then she says this: "We believe that filing this lawsuit sends them the message that they. were. WRONG."

Wrong for what? Of course, right now the only thing that I can think of, is that they were wrong for not immediately asking them how much money they wanted to keep quiet about this. I know we've debated back and forth about the merits of this case and whether or not there's a shot of this civil complaint actually getting dismissed or continuing to trial. And others have asked why would Winkleman file a complaint he knows he can't win. I don't think winning is the point (though of course if they can that would be the icing on the cake). I think they're just trying to have a chance to damage RCCL's reputation at this point and waste their money. You won't pay me, then I'll make you pay the courts.

Winkleman doesn't care because he's getting publicity out of this. I honestly feel like he wants to give up actually practicing and just get a cushy job as a TV legal expert, and boy if this isn't his shot! And it's working, he's getting interviewed about the Coronavirus and the people that were quarantined on that cruise ship. Even if he doesn't win the case he's already won the boost to his name recognition.

**edit, I took out the second video because I don't think it actually helps clarify what I'm trying to say.

Sorry to hear you’re under the weather Kindred. Feel better.

I appreciate your sentiment. I see her apparent anger at RCCL as a manifestation of her grief at losing C. She has convinced herself that RCCL is solely responsible for her daughters death. We all know that’s not the case. But she has convinced herself it is. None of the family will ever admit otherwise. Never. People believe lots of irrational things. Especially when they are emotionally invested in something. So I believe she’s telling RCCL they were wrong to have operable windows in that perimeter window wall. I think they do genuinely want changes to be made to the windows but yes, ruining RCCL’s reputation to help get them what they want is certainly not out of bounds for them. That’s my reading.

I agree re MW. He doesn’t care whether he wins this case or not. The exposure this has brought him as the go to maritime ambulance chaser is invaluable to him. And I agree that he would jump at the chance to become a tv expert. He is one smarmy dude isn’t he?

 

[JerseySleuth17]

Sorry to hear you’re under the weather Kindred. Feel better.

I appreciate your sentiment. I see her apparent anger at RCCL as a manifestation of her grief at losing C. She has convinced herself that RCCL is solely responsible for her daughters death. We all know that’s not the case. But she has convinced herself it is. None of the family will ever admit otherwise. Never. People believe lots of irrational things. Especially when they are emotionally invested in something. So I believe she’s telling RCCL they were wrong to have operable windows in that perimeter window wall. I think they do genuinely want changes to be made to the windows but yes, ruining RCCL’s reputation to help get them what they want is certainly not out of bounds for them. That’s my reading.

I felt this way too, especially early on before the videos came out. We heard "children's play area", "window doesn't meet safety standards", "elderly grandfather" etc. I will never forget seeing the video for the first time. What I was seeing on the video was a completely different version of what happened than what I had been reading in the media. Even if you wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt that early on they channeled their anger to RCCL because all the facts were not known yet - after seeing that video... I'm sorry, SA's actions were so beyond reckless to me they border on sociopathic. CW was in front of that window over 30 seconds! At the end he is holding her by ONE HAND so carelessly that when she fell he doesn't even have an instinctual reaction to try to catch her - because he was either so distracted OR that was the result he was waiting for. I cannot comprehend why the mother is not channeling her anger at the actual cause of her baby's death - SA.

 

[loveandhugs]

I felt this way too, especially early on before the videos came out. We heard "children's play area", "window doesn't meet safety standards", "elderly grandfather" etc. I will never forget seeing the video for the first time. What I was seeing on the video was a completely different version of what happened than what I had been reading in the media. Even if you wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt that early on they channeled their anger to RCCL because all the facts were not known yet - after seeing that video... I'm sorry, SA's actions were so beyond reckless to me they border on sociopathic. CW was in front of that window over 30 seconds! At the end he is holding her by ONE HAND so carelessly that when she fell he doesn't even have an instinctual reaction to try to catch her - because he was either so distracted OR that was the result he was waiting for. I cannot comprehend why the mother is not channeling her anger at the actual cause of her baby's death - SA.

Money!!! JMO

 

[JulieBEMT]

It dawned on me why I don't like that conference other than the over the topness about it. She doesn't sound like a grief-stricken mother to me. Yes her voice cracks at all the appropriate places when talking about Chloe, but her tone changes and her voice magically clears up when she starts talking about RCCL. She gets angry, which can be understandable in a mother's grief. And then she says this: "We believe that filing this lawsuit sends them the message that they. were. WRONG."

Wrong for what? Of course, right now the only thing that I can think of, is that they were wrong for not immediately asking them how much money they wanted to keep quiet about this...I don't think winning is the point (though of course if they can that would be the icing on the cake). I think they're just trying to have a chance to damage RCCL's reputation at this point and waste their money. You won't pay me, then I'll make you pay the courts.

I appreciate your sentiment. I see her apparent anger at RCCL as a manifestation of her grief at losing C. She has convinced herself that RCCL is solely responsible for her daughters death. We all know that’s not the case. But she has convinced herself it is. None of the family will ever admit otherwise. Never. People believe lots of irrational things. Especially when they are emotionally invested in something. So I believe she’s telling RCCL they were wrong to have operable windows in that perimeter window wall. I think they do genuinely want changes to be made to the windows but yes, ruining RCCL’s reputation to help get them what they want is certainly not out of bounds for them. That’s my reading.

...He is one smarmy dude isn’t he?

I've shortened the above to highlight what I'm responding to.
Kindred, I agree with you. Even her tone at that conference was odd. As said, her voice cracked in all the right places, but even that felt rehearsed. She certainly had no problems continuing to speak. No tears again.

JMO, but I also believe her anger at RCCL is due to the fact that they didn't immediately pay. She seems too logical and calculating to truly believe that it was the ship's fault her daughter died. I don't think she truly believes the window, ship or cruise line are to blame. She is just ticked off that she wasn't able to easily extort them. She's angry that she didn't get a quick settlement, and now must continue to make a public spectacle of herself, her daughter's death and her family to get what she wants. So yes. Now they must pay.

Finally, yes!!! He is truly one smarmy dude!

I felt this way too, especially early on before the videos came out. We heard "children's play area", "window doesn't meet safety standards", "elderly grandfather" etc. I will never forget seeing the video for the first time. What I was seeing on the video was a completely different version of what happened than what I had been reading in the media. Even if you wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt that early on they channeled their anger to RCCL because all the facts were not known yet - after seeing that video... I'm sorry, SA's actions were so beyond reckless to me they border on sociopathic. CW was in front of that window over 30 seconds! At the end he is holding her by ONE HAND so carelessly that when she fell he doesn't even have an instinctual reaction to try to catch her - because he was either so distracted OR that was the result he was waiting for. I cannot comprehend why the mother is not channeling her anger at the actual cause of her baby's death - SA.

Having been on the ship numerous times, I immediately felt they were trying to play the media and the public. I knew this was no children's play area. Knowing they were "stretching the truth" (aka lying!) about this detail, I could not believe anything else they said. Even so, I was shocked to see the video and just how reckless he was!

 

[Safetybug]

"We believe that filing this lawsuit sends them the message that they. were. WRONG."

JMO, but I also believe her anger at RCCL is due to the fact that they didn't immediately pay. She seems too logical and calculating to truly believe that it was the ship's fault her daughter died. I don't think she truly believes the window, ship or cruise line are to blame. She is just ticked off that she wasn't able to easily extort them. She's angry that she didn't get a quick settlement, and now must continue to make a public spectacle of herself, her daughter's death and her family to get what she wants. So yes. Now they must pay.

(snipped by me)

Seems very peculiar regarding the timing of KW’s Dec 11 statement. I would have thought if they honestly believed in the integrity of their lawsuit against RCCL then their lawsuit would have been filed 4-5 months sooner. Now it seems a knee jerk response to her stepfather being arrested and their RCCL smear-n-spin campaign wasn’t looking as promising as MW spooled it up. No grab and go settlement. KW’s misplaced scorn rises beyond her grief all bcuz they got check mated by the video proof. I cannot buy KW’s bogus appeal for SA’s innocence. Since when in HER profession does sentiment trump evidence?! Nor do I believe she hasn’t seen that evidence. She slickly said they didn’t WANT to see the video. Hair splitting tricks of the trade. And the whole family doubles down imo

 

[neesaki]

I've come down with a cold or some other type of respiratory illness and fell asleep reading posts and had the oddest dreams last night. My head is pounding right now but I woke up with a thought. Something that KW said in the one press conference with the red lipstick.

It dawned on me why I don't like that conference other than the over the topness about it. She doesn't sound like a grief-stricken mother to me. Yes her voice cracks at all the appropriate places when talking about Chloe, but her tone changes and her voice magically clears up when she starts talking about RCCL. She gets angry, which can be understandable in a mother's grief. And then she says this: "We believe that filing this lawsuit sends them the message that they. were. WRONG."

Wrong for what? Of course, right now the only thing that I can think of, is that they were wrong for not immediately asking them how much money they wanted to keep quiet about this. I know we've debated back and forth about the merits of this case and whether or not there's a shot of this civil complaint actually getting dismissed or continuing to trial. And others have asked why would Winkleman file a complaint he knows he can't win. I don't think winning is the point (though of course if they can that would be the icing on the cake). I think they're just trying to have a chance to damage RCCL's reputation at this point and waste their money. You won't pay me, then I'll make you pay the courts.

Winkleman doesn't care because he's getting publicity out of this. I honestly feel like he wants to give up actually practicing and just get a cushy job as a TV legal expert, and boy if this isn't his shot! And it's working, he's getting interviewed about the Coronavirus and the people that were quarantined on that cruise ship. Even if he doesn't win the case he's already won the boost to his name recognition.

**edit, I took out the second video because I don't think it actually helps clarify what I'm trying to say.

I think, at least in part, shifting the blame away from her step father and herself, has to do with her need to protect her own public image. She wants desperately to make RC appear culpable, even if they aren’t. What happened to Chloe makes her look bad, so she can’t hold herself accountable, she just can’t.

Projecting the blame onto RC also provides her with the justification to sue for a whole lot of money. I would rather say it’s all about dealing with her grief, but I believe there’s more to it. Jmo

Hope you’re feeling better soon, Kindred. Get plenty of rest, chicken soup, and maybe a good hot toddy.

 

[neesaki]

I've shortened the above to highlight what I'm responding to.
Kindred, I agree with you. Even her tone at that conference was odd. As said, her voice cracked in all the right places, but even that felt rehearsed. She certainly had no problems continuing to speak. No tears again.

JMO, but I also believe her anger at RCCL is due to the fact that they didn't immediately pay. She seems too logical and calculating to truly believe that it was the ship's fault her daughter died. I don't think she truly believes the window, ship or cruise line are to blame. She is just ticked off that she wasn't able to easily extort them. She's angry that she didn't get a quick settlement, and now must continue to make a public spectacle of herself, her daughter's death and her family to get what she wants. So yes. Now they must pay.

Finally, yes!!! He is truly one smarmy dude!



Having been on the ship numerous times, I immediately felt they were trying to play the media and the public. I knew this was no children's play area. Knowing they were "stretching the truth" (aka lying!) about this detail, I could not believe anything else they said. Even so, I was shocked to see the video and just how reckless he was!

Re bolded, Very well said, JulieB ! No sense of entitlement is there? (Sarcasm)

 

[mheido67]

(snipped by me)

Seems very peculiar regarding the timing of KW’s Dec 11 statement. I would have thought if they honestly believed in the integrity of their lawsuit against RCCL then their lawsuit would have been filed 4-5 months sooner. Now it seems a knee jerk response to her stepfather being arrested and their RCCL smear-n-spin campaign wasn’t looking as promising as MW spooled it up. No grab and go settlement. KW’s misplaced scorn rises beyond her grief all bcuz they got check mated by the video proof. I cannot buy KW’s bogus appeal for SA’s innocence. Since when in HER profession does sentiment trump evidence?! Nor do I believe she hasn’t seen that evidence. She slickly said they didn’t WANT to see the video. Hair splitting tricks of the trade. And the whole family doubles down imo

"Since when in HER profession does sentiment trump evidence?!"

When? Almost always. People like to think they would be dispassionate rational arbitors of things no matter the circumstances but they are not when friends and family are involved. That's why we have conflict of interest and recusal laws that require individuals with a personal or emotional (or financial) invesment in a case to remove themselves from it. You can't really ask for a better example of WHY these laws exist than this case. These people don't want to deal with the fact that their family member is responsible for this tragedy so they're projecting the blame onto something they have no emotional investment in.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

Funny no one else has or has had a problem with those windows. Until now.

 

[Montrealaise]

Foodie and Fashionista..... never really heard of these til this case, to speak of, but whatever, lol...well, ok, I did have to look that last one up.

Beyond that, I agree, their demeanor has seemed off from the beginning. All I know, is that if I lost a beloved child in this manner, I would be so devastated, I could not function at all, much less decide to do several media interviews. It’s insane when one thinks about it. I would be literally rolled up in a ball in bed! Just keep me hydrated, a little water will be good . Or not, not sure I would care.

And then there’s the blather about how people deal differently with things. well yeah, to a degree, but..... love and grief take over, and one doesn’t go on a media tour and promote suing a cruise line a few days after their child’s death. That, IMO, is really outside of the norm. Not to mention, here should be a waiting period for these fly-off-the-handle type of civil suits. All JMO

''People react to grief differently'' - where have I heard that before? Oh yes, when Casey Anthony went clubbing and partying after her little daughter disappeared. When Scott Peterson was photographed at his 8-months pregnant wife's vigil one week after she disappeared, smiling and joking and appearing to be having a great time.
As for the terms foodie and fashionista, I've heard of them before, but only in reference to adult women.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

''People react to grief differently'' - where have I heard that before? Oh yes, when Casey Anthony went clubbing and partying after her little daughter disappeared. When Scott Peterson was photographed at his 8-months pregnant wife's vigil one week after she disappeared, smiling and joking and appearing to be having a great time.
As for the terms foodie and fashionista, I've heard of them before, but only in reference to adult women.

I think it's safe to say that Chloe's obituary was likely written by an adult woman - probably her mother. I doubt that a 19-month-old child would use these terms to describe herself, although she might have repeated the words if they were used frequently by others.

"Foodies" are generally preoccupied with food, wine, cooking, exploring different cuisines. Perhaps Chloe enjoyed family dinners and going out to eat. She may have been eager to try new foods instead of sticking to typical children's choices like chicken tenders, hot dogs, tater tots.

As for the "fashionista" moniker, whoever was providing Chloe's wardrobe wasn't shopping at a thrift store. Every outfit that Chloe wears in various photos is exquisite with no expense spared. Chloe was always impeccably dressed and looked darling. The white sun bonnet is precious, and I actually have a baby photo of myself wearing a similar white bonnet. I can picture Chloe twirling around in a new dress, and I'd probably find myself referring to her as a little fashionista

 

[JerseySleuth17]

Funny no one else has or has had a problem with those windows. Until now.

No one has ever had a problem because everyone - including SA - knew the window was open. I can't wait until the enhanced video coverage is shown to the jury where his head is either actually outside the window, or within a few inches of where the "glass" would have been if there was actually glass there. It is the most ridiculous excuse I have ever heard and no reasonable person standing in front of that window, bending forward like SA would have thought it was closed. There is a BREEZE for god's sake, fresh air, etc. The tint on the closed windows makes it extra easy to see which ones are open. RCCL is not backing down and the family is never going to win this lawsuit. Maybe a few years of SA in jail will help them see the only person whose fault this is is grandpa for his recklessness.

 

[al66pine]

"There’s nothing worse that they could do to me than what’s already happened"*
^ SA said about the crim charge re Chloe's death. SMH. Hearing this when someone, esp a relative, is charged in an 'accidental' death, I wonder - so why not plead guilty? After all, it's no worse than what already happened, so what's a couple years in the slam?

SA also said, "Chloe being gone is the worst thing ever so I’m like, whatever, you know."
"With Chloe gone" ?!?!?! As if she has been whisked away by a supernatural force and w SA himself having played no part. SMH. Again.

* https://expressinformer.com/parents...l-caribbean-ship-beg-puerto-rico-to-end-case/ < expressinformer.com Jan 28.

 

[Razz]

I have looked at the wooden banister where grandpa said he placed CA on.

1). IF that is what happened, I can see it being an accident. Maybe she was squirmy and when "she reached forward to bang on the glass" and the glass wasn't there, I can see how she may have tumbled out. Grandpa may not have thought or known CA would do this.

2) BUT, if he put her through the window on that small cement ledge...
well that is incredible gross negligence.
If anyone was watching, wouldn't they have said something to SA? I can't imagine ANYONE doing that and/or no one saying anything. This scenario is so off the chart, I can't fathom why he would have done this.

If it's #1, Momma holds some responsibility for leaving her child with the grandfather. RCCL also holds some responsibility. And grandpa, living with knowing what he did is "prison" enough.

If #2: Grandpa goes to jail, no question, but mom still holds responsibility here.

The video appears to show # 2 but for the families sake and grandpa, I hope it is #1.

I cannot imagine anyone willfully putting that sweet baby out the window. On the banister, yes. And I don't see this being a planned homocide. After all, Grandpa followed her over to the windows. Certainly there were easier ways to collect $ from the cruise line.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[al66pine]

Pic Shows Breeze. When Taken? Who Took?

....everyone - including SA - knew the window was open.... no reasonable person standing in front of that window, bending forward like SA would have thought it was closed. There is a BREEZE for god's sake, fresh air, etc....

@jerseysleuth bbm sbm Yes, TYVM for reminder.
The Breeze. The Complaint's first pic* w Chloe shows the breeze. Just above "Zone" in H2O Zone signage, the line of flags on a cable running lengthwise w ship are flying almost horizontal, showing an afternoon breeze. And as someone else posted (sorry, forgot who) the ship's instruments also record weather conditions.
When taken? Info below (if accurate) brackets the pic-taking time ~ 2:40 and ~4:00pm.
Presumably pic was taken after lunch, as Chloe is decked out in swim gear, and after ~ 2:40pm, when Chloe & Mom began to play in pool.**
Who Took? Ideas, anyone???

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* chloe wigand civil.pdf < Complaint.
** "After lunch, Mrs. Schultz-Wiegand and Chloe changed into swimsuits,and at approximately 2:40 p.m., they began to play in the pool(s) aboard the ship. 12.At or around 3:50 p.m., Mrs.Schultz Wiegand needed to go help with an issue related to the cruise,and as such, Mr. Anello came up to the H2O Zone on Deck 11 of the vessel to supervise." bbm ~ 4:00pm SA dropped Chloe.

 

[mheido67]

Pic Shows Breeze. When Taken? Who Took?
@jerseysleuth bbm sbm Yes, TYVM for reminder.
The Breeze. The Complaint's first pic* w Chloe shows the breeze. Just above "Zone" in H2O Zone signage, the line of flags on a cable running lengthwise w ship are flying almost horizontal, showing an afternoon breeze. And as someone else posted (sorry, forgot who) the ship's instruments also record weather conditions.
When taken? Info below (if accurate) brackets the pic-taking time ~ 2:40 and ~4:00pm.
Presumably pic was taken after lunch, as Chloe is decked out in swim gear, and after ~ 2:40pm, when Chloe & Mom began to play in pool.**
Who Took? Ideas, anyone???

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* chloe wigand civil.pdf < Complaint.
** "After lunch, Mrs. Schultz-Wiegand and Chloe changed into swimsuits,and at approximately 2:40 p.m., they began to play in the pool(s) aboard the ship. 12.At or around 3:50 p.m., Mrs.Schultz Wiegand needed to go help with an issue related to the cruise,and as such, Mr. Anello came up to the H2O Zone on Deck 11 of the vessel to supervise." bbm ~ 4:00pm SA dropped Chloe.

Good observation al66pine.

That definitely indicates there was a breeze blowing. Chloe is facing west in that photo so the breeze is coming from the north which would put it at SA's back if the direction remained the same from time of photo to time of fall. So not necessarily a breeze coming in the window hitting him in the face but most likely there would have been wind hitting him from behind on his back and blowing past him out the open window. Certainly less of a giveaway that there was no glass present than if wind was hitting him in the face. Of course the wind could have been swirling from different directions. In any event (also evidenced by the clouds) it clearly was not a still day in San Juan.

I believe that photo was taken by KW, the last photo of CW.