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

[Wehwalt]

I need some clarification.
Is the hearing in front of judge in PR regarding the plea deal a mere formality?
Is the plea deal, as reported, a fait accompli, or can the judge impose conditions.... such as admission of facts before granting the deal? Or even reject the plea deal?

I am not certain, due to two things: imprecisions in the reporting and not knowing Puerto Rico criminal procedure. In my practice, a "plea deal" was something different from what we in shorthand called a "plea with a recommendation", with the first being a more formal agreement as to the outcome of the case re the plea and the sentence. Yes, the judge has to agree, and if the judge does not, you can back out of the plea and the case continues as before, sometimes with a new judge.

A plea with a recommendation means just that: a deal that if the defendant pleads guilty, the prosecution will recommend a certain sentence, but the defense can try to persuade the judge to do less than that. But the judge can do more than the prosecution recommends, too, and the defendant is likely to be stuck with it. I don't know which this is.

In many cases, especially when there's a plea deal, the judge, prior to accepting the plea, will ask the defendant a series of questions. This is called a "colloquy". This varies from state to state, and the judge can ask other questions too, but the judge will ask if the defendant understands that by pleading guilty he is giving up the right to a jury trial the verdict of which must be unanimous, the right to present a defense, subpoena witnesses, obtain documents, if anyone has made him threats or promises re his plea (not counting the plea deal), if he's satisfied his lawyer has competently advised him, that sort of thing. Only then will the judge accept the plea.

I don't think the judge can insist that SA adopt the prosecution's version of the facts. But he needs to satisfy himself that SA is pleading guilty because he believes himself guilty. How deep he delves on that point, your guess is as good as mine.

I would expect this to go through without difficulty, simply because these seem to be very competent lawyers who deal with PR law routinely who have come to an agreement. But yes, the judge could cause a lot of problems with the wrong (right?) questions if so minded.

 

[mheido67]

By pleading guilty he is admitting to the fact he negligently caused Chloe’s death. The judge could reject it, but I seriously doubt he will.

I think the judge is a woman. First name is Gisela. Unless I'm mistaken.

 

[al66pine]

SA's Plea. Binding When?
{{ETA: See also @Wehwalt & excellent explanation a few posts up}}
From (cbsnews) David Benaud's Twitter, posted last night:
Statement from Puerto Rico's Attorney General Dennise N. Longo Quiñones: “The Puerto Rico Department of Justice has diligently prosecuted the charges against Salvatore Anello in order to bring justice to Chloe’s unfortunate death..."
"... The defendant filed a motion yesterday afternoon expressing his intent to plead guilty and asking for a hearing date where the Court may accept his change of plea. Anello’s decision to so proceed is wholly within his discretion..."
"...and will become binding only upon his appearing before the Court to voluntarily plead guilty.” bbm
Not clear to me what content, if any, from PR AG's ^ stmt DB may have omitted.

 

[mheido67]

Would the time of his outburst coincide with when all the people turn towards the incident. I just assumed they were reacting to SA screaming “I dropped my baby!”

Again, there is no audio of the event. People could have been reacting to a scream or to words. The issue is Chewy claimed it was not possible for SA to have realized that there was no glass, as opposed to thinking the glass fell out, within a matter of seconds and that that is why it made no sense for SA to say "I thought there was glass" if he....thought there was glass. <modsnip>

 

[Safetybug]

So Fr/Seas Had No "Protective Barrier"?
"In my experience, any elevated public place I've been with that much glass has
always been a protective barrier..." continues w description about Notre Dame hockey rink.

Did SA think the ~ 42+ inch high rail was just decorative? < sarc >

^ from SA's written stmt. Man will plead guilty in granddaughter's cruise ship death to "end part of this nightmare"

 

[al66pine]

SA's Statement. Nightmare.
FWIW: "I took a plea deal today to try to help end part of this nightmare for my family, if possible."
End this part of nightmare so parents can continue next part of nightmare in wrongful death lawsuit?

 

[sl222]

To me, the problem is that this is a plea but with no true admission of fault. It's just a formality to help his family members. Nothing has changed here. The proposal is that he will plead guilty "with no admission of facts."

 

[Kittybunny]

I don’t believe the video “clearly” shows his head out beyond the window frame. Very close to where the glass would have been, yes. Clearly outside, no.

Fair enough. But he stood at that window for 30 seconds. It might have only taken 3 seconds for poor Chloe to fall, but do you honestly believe he stood at that window for 30 seconds, with ocean breeze and light coming through, with Chloe and his bulk RIGHT THERE and never once not once realized the window was open? It defies all logic and belief, really.

 

[mheido67]

Fair enough. But he stood at that window for 30 seconds. It might have only taken 3 seconds for poor Chloe to fall, but do you honestly believe he stood at that window for 30 seconds, with ocean breeze and light coming through, with Chloe and his bulk RIGHT THERE and never once not once realized the window was open? It defies all logic and belief, really.

I've said numerous times that I find it impossible to believe that a person could stand as he did for the amount of time he did and not observe that the window was open.

But since I can't get inside SA's head at that exact moment I don't really know what SA thought. But the law says that it doesn't matter what SA saw or thought. What the law says matters is what a reasonable person would observe. So RCCL doesn't even have to argue the point of whether SA thought there was glass or not. They only need to show that, a) the ship was not in violation of any applicable safety standards, b) RCCL had not been previously notified that a dangerous condition requiring remediation existed and c) that an open window is clear and apparent to a reasonable person, that a reasonable person would ensure there was glass rather than assuming it, and that a reasonable person understands the inherent danger of placing a child onto or in the window opening.

All that being the case I conclude that SA approaching the open window and holding CW near/in the opening without ensuring there was glass and proceeding to let her loose from his grip are the actions of an unreasonable person and CW's death is entirely his fault.

 

[mheido67]

To me, the problem is that this is a plea but with no true admission of fault. It's just a formality to help his family members. Nothing has changed here. The proposal is that he will plead guilty "with no admission of facts."

He's pleading guilty. A guilty plea is a direct admission of fault. "I am guilty of this charge." Pleading no contest is a plea with no admission of fault. Pleading guilty is not.

 

[In vino veritas]

I am not certain, due to two things: imprecisions in the reporting and not knowing Puerto Rico criminal procedure. In my practice, a "plea deal" was something different from what we in shorthand called a "plea with a recommendation", with the first being a more formal agreement as to the outcome of the case re the plea and the sentence. Yes, the judge has to agree, and if the judge does not, you can back out of the plea and the case continues as before, sometimes with a new judge.

A plea with a recommendation means just that: a deal that if the defendant pleads guilty, the prosecution will recommend a certain sentence, but the defense can try to persuade the judge to do less than that. But the judge can do more than the prosecution recommends, too, and the defendant is likely to be stuck with it. I don't know which this is.

In many cases, especially when there's a plea deal, the judge, prior to accepting the plea, will ask the defendant a series of questions. This is called a "colloquy". This varies from state to state, and the judge can ask other questions too, but the judge will ask if the defendant understands that by pleading guilty he is giving up the right to a jury trial the verdict of which must be unanimous, the right to present a defense, subpoena witnesses, obtain documents, if anyone has made him threats or promises re his plea (not counting the plea deal), if he's satisfied his lawyer has competently advised him, that sort of thing. Only then will the judge accept the plea.

I don't think the judge can insist that SA adopt the prosecution's version of the facts. But he needs to satisfy himself that SA is pleading guilty because he believes himself guilty. How deep he delves on that point, your guess is as good as mine.

I would expect this to go through without difficulty, simply because these seem to be very competent lawyers who deal with PR law routinely who have come to an agreement. But yes, the judge could cause a lot of problems with the wrong (right?) questions if so minded.

Thank you Wehwalt. Helps me understand better, as the reports were somewhat vague.
I do hope the judge is able to make admission of facts a condition of the plea deal. One can hope.
And all your excellent and informative posts have given me a better understanding of some legal proceedings!!

 

[Safetybug]

To me, the problem is that this is a plea but with no true admission of fault. It's just a formality to help his family members. Nothing has changed here. The proposal is that he will plead guilty "with no admission of facts."

Agreed! The last part of SA’s long diatribe/plea explanation is where he could have brought his contrition to a public home run. But he’s Just not having that epiphany. He gets down to brass tacks and says, “Going forward, justice for Chloe must include attention being given to provide the safety measures so very needed on Freedom of the Sea. We need to make sure nothing like this will ever happen to another precious baby, or anyone else for that matter, ever again. There are clear safety measures that the cruise line has demonstrated they know are necessary by implementing them on other ships but have neglected on this one.”

IMO...SA’s neglect is the sole reason of her injustice. Anything he says is hollow when clearly he cannot even express culpability without fervently laying blame at RCCL’s feet. There are a million other ways to honor CW’s memory without milking the cash cow and projecting blame elsewhere

 

[neesaki]

Agreed! The last part of SA’s long diatribe/plea explanation is where he could have brought his contrition to a public home run. But he’s Just not having that epiphany. He gets down to brass tacks and says, “Going forward, justice for Chloe must include attention being given to provide the safety measures so very needed on Freedom of the Sea. We need to make sure nothing like this will ever happen to another precious baby, or anyone else for that matter, ever again. There are clear safety measures that the cruise line has demonstrated they know are necessary by implementing them on other ships but have neglected on this one.”

IMO...SA’s neglect is the sole reason of her injustice. Anything he says is hollow when clearly he cannot even express culpability without fervently laying blame at RCCL’s feet. There are a million other ways to honor CW’s memory without milking the cash cow and projecting blame elsewhere

His statement is so carefully orchestrated (by MW?), so as not to interfere with the civil suit, not only that but to promote it. It’s all about getting him off easy and and their greedy cash grab.

And we keep hearing that the civil suit has nothing to do with the criminal case, yet here it is, all in one statement. With Winkleman's signature all over it. I honestly think I’m more disgusted than ever.

 

[Stinalyn]

The probation would be managed locally in Indiana. There's an interstate compact allowing probation supervision to be transferred with the consent of both states because these situations, with an out-of-stater committing an offense, do arise, and it's impractical to supervise from out of state. And yes, Puerto Rico can be part of an interstate compact.

Thank you for the clarification. I don't know how any of it really works, and I appreciate the input from those who do.
I am disappointed in the fact that he doesn't have to explain anything (beyond the stories/ excuses we've already heard) IIUC, ....and that he is "only" getting probation.
I personally feel he deserves some time behind bars for his actions. JMO
Does anyone know what his probation will likely consist of? Is that up to the judge?

 

[In vino veritas]

Agreed! The last part of SA’s long diatribe/plea explanation is where he could have brought his contrition to a public home run. But he’s Just not having that epiphany. He gets down to brass tacks and says, “Going forward, justice for Chloe must include attention being given to provide the safety measures so very needed on Freedom of the Sea. We need to make sure nothing like this will ever happen to another precious baby, or anyone else for that matter, ever again. There are clear safety measures that the cruise line has demonstrated they know are necessary by implementing them on other ships but have neglected on this one.”

IMO...SA’s neglect is the sole reason of her injustice. Anything he says is hollow when clearly he cannot even express culpability without fervently laying blame at RCCL’s feet. There are a million other ways to honor CW’s memory without milking the cash cow and projecting blame elsewhere

Agreed! The last part of SA’s long diatribe/plea explanation is where he could have brought his contrition to a public home run. But he’s Just not having that epiphany. He gets down to brass tacks and says, “Going forward, justice for Chloe must include attention being given to provide the safety measures so very needed on Freedom of the Sea. We need to make sure nothing like this will ever happen to another precious baby, or anyone else for that matter, ever again. There are clear safety measures that the cruise line has demonstrated they know are necessary by implementing them on other ships but have neglected on this one.”

IMO...SA’s neglect is the sole reason of her injustice. Anything he says is hollow when clearly he cannot even express culpability without fervently laying blame at RCCL’s feet. There are a million other ways to honor CW’s memory without milking the cash cow and projecting blame elsewhere

Those words are so clearly not those of SA. I’m certain his statement was likely scripted by MW or KSW, or both.

 

[Chewy]

<modsnip: removed personalized comment>

And from what we’ve heard there weren’t any direct eyewitnesses who actually saw her fall. So at best any witness would have had their attention drawn when they heard him wail or say something. You can see people react after SA has fallen to the floor. So their assessment of how immediate he said anything isn’t exactly reliable to the level of making an assessment of what was neurologically possible. IMO.

<modsnip>when you have over ten years of neurological research and have a limit of study that includes over 40,000 people (not typical statistics studies that generally will include a study base of about 1,000 people)

Google "limits of study" for more info on that..

Yes it is neurologically impossible. Look up error study on mistake and see it.

It is neurologically impossible for him to have had that cognitive reaction. The only way it would have happened that fast is if he constantly dropped small children out of a window.

The immediate emotional reaction would override the cognitive understanding. He would be standing there blank and confused for at least 20-30 seconds.

His immediate comprehension would indicate that this is a common occurrence so he would react in an almost preprogrammed way. For example the way Navy Seals react to crisis. They are trained to bypass that.

No normal human being would react in the way he did unless he knew the window was already open. Which is what I think happened. Which is why I say he might have had a drink and made a careless mistake.

But anyway........let's go back to your expertise. I'm interested!

 

[Chewy]

Just an example of what I mean about cognitive processing and neurological error and shock overload.


Very simple experiment that anyone can do. The brain can typically only process 3-4 bits of information at a time.

So turn to anyone in the room right now and ask them this.

"I am going to tell you my social security number, please repeat it back to me."

Then tell them the number. (Make one up if you want.)

Most people will have about a 90-100% accuracy rate of recalling the numbers because of the way it is broken down.

Next turn to the same people and say "I am going to tell you my credit card number and I want you to repeat it back to me" (again make up a number if you need to)

The majority of people in a study will repeat with a 90-100% accuracy rate of the three digits of the SS number. The majority of people with CC# will do this:

They will repeat ONLY the first four digits of the card number and forget the rest. Note this. It's not as if they only remember the first two sets of numbers and forget the rest. They typically can ONLY remember the first four digits. This is because you added ONE more digit and ONE more set of numbers. It wipes it out.

Cognitive processing in a stressed moment reverts to a sort of "chunking" method. (this is why they use this in schools to prepare for tests)

So three bits of information

First set "I am holding this child"
Second set "I lost my grip and she fell"
Third set "She is going to die." (at this point the emotional overload would wipe out any of the other information.)

First set "She is banging on the window"
Sedond set "I lost my grip and she fell"
Third set " She fell out the window"


Try the credit card example and you will see. It is cognitively impossible for his reaction to have been "I thought there was a window" if he previously honestly thought there was a window.

(Again this is based on people saying he immediately dropped to his knees and said "I dropped my baby out the window" and "I thought there was a window." And again eyewitness testimony is often flawed.)

What happened is that he knew there wasn't a window and lifted her up to look out because there wasn't a window pane there and dropped her. Completely careless mistake. Horrifying mistake.

But the idea that he didn't know there was a window there is not borne out by the evidence.

Hope this helps. Try the experiment. And to emphasize. Ask the person who forgot the rest of your credit card number to repeat it again. And right when they start to do it SCREAM in their face. They won't remember any of it.

What is the point? Stress overload wipes it all out. He dropped his granddaughter to her death. 3 seconds of processing all this while also gutted with the worst stress any of us could imagine? Impossible.

 

[al66pine]

Any Explicit Admission of SA's Negligence or Guilt in Causing Death?

... SA's statement from this morning....Did MW write this statement? ...

@mheido67 bbm sbm Re bbm: imo, yes. Team Winkleman's fingerprints are all over it, imo. Ticking boxes to help w the civil action? Does he accept blame?
--- "Apologizes" for seeming to be rude.......................... (Any apology to or about Chloe?)
---- Outpouring of sympathy from ppl-on-the-street in PR & IN.
--- Proclaiming to speak out when others advised against it.
--- Supportive letters from around the world.
--- Prayers & bible verses (from others).
--- Other children's deaths, w no crim prosecution.
--- Only thinks of Chloe.
--- "Tell you what I experienced."....................................(Not admitting he caused her death.)
--- "I was so horribly wrong about our surroundings.".... (Not admitting he caused her death.)
--- Notre Dame hockey rink barriers.
--- "Glass firmly affixed preventing accidents" at his place of employment.
--- "Wasn't drinking."
--- "Wasn't dangling her out of a window."
--- "in charge of keeping my [g'dau] safe and I failed."...(Cd/have been said about a skinned knee).
--- Taking "plea deal" to help family end nightmare........ (Now anticipating no prison time, stay in IN)
--- "Justice for Chloe" inc's new safety measure by RCL...(<---RCL negligent, at fault for her death)

SA's stmt dances up to the edge of admitting his negligent actions were the proximate cause of Chloe's death, then pirouettes to pin all the blame on RCL. jmo.

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

 

[mheido67]

<modsnip>when you have over ten years of neurological research and have a limit of study that includes over 40,000 people (not typical statistics studies that generally will include a study base of about 1,000 people)

Google "limits of study" for more info on that..

Yes it is neurologically impossible. Look up error study on mistake and see it.

It is neurologically impossible for him to have had that cognitive reaction. The only way it would have happened that fast is if he constantly dropped small children out of a window.

The immediate emotional reaction would override the cognitive understanding. He would be standing there blank and confused for at least 20-30 seconds.

His immediate comprehension would indicate that this is a common occurrence so he would react in an almost preprogrammed way. For example the way Navy Seals react to crisis. They are trained to bypass that.

No normal human being would react in the way he did unless he knew the window was already open. Which is what I think happened. Which is why I say he might have had a drink and made a careless mistake.

But anyway........let's go back to your expertise. I'm interested!

This is not a clinical research experiment where conditions and timing are being closely monitored. You are, at best relying on second hand recounting of what people said they saw or heard as well as their recollection of when they heard it. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously inaccurate regarding details. 20 or 30 seconds. Wow. A practical eternity. Imagine what the first 20 or 30 seconds after SA started reacting to CW falling would have been like for those witnesses as they tried to understand exactly what was happening. And then the minutes that followed as they heard him wailing about what happened. How relaible would you say their recollection of the exact words he said in those first 20-30 seconds be?

Kudos to you and your exertise. Admittedly, over the course of this exchange I have lost track of the exact details of what it is that SA or witnesses said that is neurologically impossible. Perhaps you could refresh my memory. EDIT: written before Chewy's subsequent comment.

<modsnip: personalizing>

 

[Kindred]

As far as I can recall, SA is the only one who ever claimed he yelled "I thought there was glass" after she fell, and that was only after hooking up with Winkleman. The only (currently) available witness statement we have from the doctor says that his words after "I dropped my baby" were "I thought the window was closed" which makes an important distinction, IMO. Thinking the window was closed implies he knew very well that it was a window and he never assumed it was a wall of glass like Winkleman keeps trying to paint it out to be, as opposed to a statement like 'I didn't know it opened'.