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

[In vino veritas]

Exactly they do not want that real video which is super clear released to the public- imo the plea avoids that

Hopefully, if that is the case, karma comes into play and the super clear , incriminating video is “leaked”.

 

[mheido67]

My opinion on KW and AW lawsuit is their biggest win will be when the judge dismiss the lawsuit after accepting SA’s guilty plea.

With SA pleading guilty, does that not absolve RCCL of all liability in connection to this case?

The criminal case and the civil suit are two entirely different things. Two different courts, two different judges involving four seperate parties. In the criminal case it's the People vs SA. In the civil suit it's KW/AW vs RCCL. The criminal trial judge can't dismiss the civil suit.

And no, SA pleading guilty does not abslove RCCL of liability. More than one party can be deemed to have been at fault in any case. Even if SA pleads guilty to negligent homicide a judge/jury could still find that RCCl was negligent in not securing the windows or including some warning that portions of the glass wall were operable. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

 

[1&2&3]

DBM

 

[Wehwalt]

(snip)

And no, SA pleading guilty does not abslove RCCL of liability. More than one party can be deemed to have been at fault in any case. Even if SA pleads guilty to negligent homicide a judge/jury could still find that RCCl was negligent in not securing the windows or including some warning that portions of the glass wall were operable. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

No, but it makes proximate cause a lot harder to establish. Gonna need that for a recovery against RCCI.

 

[In vino veritas]

Yeah... no. It doesn't sound like he's fully accepted his part at all. It doesn't appear to be the full statement but here's what CBS shared:

"At the moment the accident happened, it was as if this wall of protective glass disappeared," Anello said in his statement. "I was in complete disbelief ... I wasn't drinking and I wasn't dangling her out of a window. I just wanted to knock on the glass with her as we did together so many times before ... I was placed in charge of keeping my beautiful granddaughter safe and I failed."

Man will plead guilty in granddaughter's cruise ship death to "end part of this nightmare"

Don't you just hate it when that "protective glass" just "disappears"?

I really hope this statement gets back to the judge and she demands him to give a full accounting of what happened before she accepts his plea because that's ********. Now he's back to "I saw glass but it vanished"?

**edit - CBS not NBC. My head still isn't totally clear yet lol

I CANNOT, absolutely cannot, believe he is still adhering to that absurd “ banging on hockey glass” story. I DO hope the judge asks him at the hearing why 1: he felt it was necessary to lift her up to do that when it was perfectly possible for her to do that from the floor, and 2: why did he lean over and look down before picking her up, and 3: most importantly, why did he not reach and and touch glass to make sure it was closed before picking her up.
Absolutely make him answer... put him on the hot seat.... before any agreement to a plea deal.
SA, the Wiegands and this case makes my blood percolate!!

 

[mheido67]

No, but it makes proximate cause a lot harder to establish.

Understood. But people should not think that this guilty plea will 100% kill the civil suit.

 

[Chewy]

I told y'all he'd do the Alford plea if he could. Just didn't know if they offered it in PR.

And I agree that it's interesting how the parents are saying that they are "accepting it" so that they can get back to suing the cruise line. Just ridiculous.

 

[Wehwalt]

Understood. But people should not think that this guilty plea will 100% kill the civil suit.

Agreed. The estate has a really good case against SA, though ...

 

[In vino veritas]

No, but it makes proximate cause a lot harder to establish. Gonna need that for a recovery against RCCI.

Also, wouldn’t the HD video the prosecution has be admissible in the civil case by RCCL, as they are the owners of the video?

 

[Chewy]

I CANNOT, absolutely cannot, believe he is still adhering to that absurd “ banging on hockey glass” story. I DO hope the judge asks him at the hearing why 1: he felt it was necessary to lift her up to do that when it was perfectly possible for her to do that from the floor, and 2: why did he lean over and look down before picking her up, and 3: most importantly, why did he not reach and and touch glass to make sure it was closed before picking her up.
Absolutely make him answer... put him on the hot seat.... before any agreement to a plea deal.
SA, the Wiegands and this case makes my blood percolate!!

BBM


That's the weird part to me. If he's going to try to push that version, well even if you did think that there was glass in the window, glass pops out and breaks. Why would you just lean a toddler against a glass pane 11 stories up without making sure it was secure first?

 

[oviedo]

Also, wouldn’t the HD video the prosecution has be admissible in the civil case by RCCL, as they are the owners of the video?

@Kindred would know for sure but IIRC RCCL did file a motion to admit the video and the equipment so it can be seen in all it's spectacular HD imaging.
JMO

 

[Safetybug]

There’s lot of dicey, polarizing comments on the South Bend Tribunes Facebook latest news report (Tuesday 10:04 pm) regarding the guilty plea. Several clearly thought he was innocent who like Gale on CBS, think he never should have been charged in the first place. Apparently there is a lot of water in da-Nile

 

[mheido67]

Also, wouldn’t the HD video the prosecution has be admissible in the civil case by RCCL, as they are the owners of the video?

Of course, RCCL has already filed the full resolution cctv footage with the court. But, as a previous commentor noted, the records could be requested to be sealed by the plaintiff so that the public could not see the video.

 

[In vino veritas]

Of course, RCCL has already filed the full resolution cctv footage with the court. But, as a previous commentor noted, the records could be requested to be sealed by the plaintiff so that the public could not see the video.

As long as the judge and/or jury (if case goes to trial) are able to view it.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

As long as the judge and/or jury (if case goes to trial) are able to view it.

Leaks happen.

 

[neesaki]

I CANNOT, absolutely cannot, believe he is still adhering to that absurd “ banging on hockey glass” story. I DO hope the judge asks him at the hearing why 1: he felt it was necessary to lift her up to do that when it was perfectly possible for her to do that from the floor, and 2: why did he lean over and look down before picking her up, and 3: most importantly, why did he not reach and and touch glass to make sure it was closed before picking her up.
Absolutely make him answer... put him on the hot seat.... before any agreement to a plea deal.
SA, the Wiegands and this case makes my blood percolate!!

Same here, it’s almost beyond belief. The other question I want the judge to ask him is how, if there was glass, was he able to accomplish putting his head out the window to look down at the pier. I really, really want to hear SA’s answer to that question.

ETA: correct typo

 

[Kindred]

As long as the judge and/or jury (if case goes to trial) are able to view it.

The judge will definitely get to see it after all the fuss Winkleman made over those cameras

Of course, RCCL has already filed the full resolution cctv footage with the court. But, as a previous commentor noted, the records could be requested to be sealed by the plaintiff so that the public could not see the video.

The question is do they actually have grounds to have that video sealed? As RCCL pointed out in their initial (denied) motion to dismiss, the video already exists in the public domain. That's like trying to close the barn door after the horse has already gotten out.

 

[Chewy]

Something else, if he honestly thought there was glass in the window, he wouldn't have immediately computed her falling to her death. He would have been confused and thought she had fallen INSIDE the window onto the floor. It would have taken a second for it to register. He immediately knew what happened because he knew there wasn't glass.

 

[GeorgiaRai]

Yeah... no. It doesn't sound like he's fully accepted his part at all. It doesn't appear to be the full statement but here's what CBS shared:

"At the moment the accident happened, it was as if this wall of protective glass disappeared," Anello said in his statement. "I was in complete disbelief ... I wasn't drinking and I wasn't dangling her out of a window. I just wanted to knock on the glass with her as we did together so many times before ... I was placed in charge of keeping my beautiful granddaughter safe and I failed."

Ugh. He sucks.

 

[mheido67]

Same here, it’s almost beyond belief. The other question I want the judge to ask him is how, if there was no glass, was he able to accomplish putting his head out the window to look down at the pier. I really, really want to hear SA’s answer to that question.

I think you meant if there WAS glass, no? If asked I wager he would respond that he didn't put his head out the window, he just bent over the railing to look down at Chloe.