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

[In vino veritas]

I can understand the frustrations of many of us here on WS.... a share many of the same.
The behaviors and commentary from this family from the day Chloes’s death occurred have aroused the suspicions of the majority of the people following the case.

BUT, I have to believe if authorities truly believed there was premeditation and intent on ANY family members part, they would have proceeded accordingly.

Originally, I believed PR prosecutors had suspicious inklings, but no definitive proof.... hence the negligent homicide charge. A charge they felt certain would yield a significant penalty for SA. The offer(?)/ consideration of a plea deal, however, shoots that theory down. PR prosecution would NEVER have conceded if they even thought SA acted intentionally... even without proof of intent. They would have ensured the case went to trial, either before the judge or a jury.

I mostly believe SA is one of those supremely arrogant and obtuse individuals who believe that nothing bad will ever happen to them. That’s likely why he refuses to wear seatbelts, allows children to bang on glass ( assuming that really ever was done.... in all pics Chloe just appears to have her hand on the glass while leaning against it) and thinks it’s fine to hold his grandchild up to an open window.

I say all of the above... while a teeny, tiny part of me still thinks the worst. All JMO.

 

[WiseGuy]

BBM ITA, the family should never have had her on the cruise at that age, I don't care if that sounds judgemental or not. There is just no good reason and nothing to be gained by having a child that age on a ship. UNLESS...! JMOO

Sorry, I don't follow your logic. Did Chloe do anything improper? Have other 18-month-olds cruised on that very ship without incident?

We web sleuths have gone on endlessly stating that Chloe behaved properly for her age and would never have had a problem, it was the 51-year-old who behaved badly. So by your logic 51-year-old fools are the ones who should be barred from cruise ships.

 

[mheido67]

Good point... It does appear that no one really wanted to watch Chloe, so SA was the chosen one.
So why did they take her on this cruise in the first place?..... I honestly don’t know. I know everyone won’t agree with me, but my opinion, a toddler has no place on a cruise ship if her parents don’t want to bother looking after her. And I mean, she would be under their watch 24/7 , unless she’s in the care of a very responsible Nanny.
Why vacation with your child if you don’t want to watch her and spend time with her ? What then is the point? JMO
Yes, This case makes me quite angry.
ETA: Not to mention, if you have a child that small, wouldn’t everyone be looking out for her more, and watching her even more closely ? This whole situation screams Very Dysfunctional. IMO

Well, you've convinced yourself of that anyway. What are you basing this determination that no one wanted to watch Chloe on? Your own imaginings about what the family did once boarding the ship? KW was in the H2O Zone with Chloe before the ship even left the pier! Clearly, this is the action of a woman whose priorities are elsewhere and who doesn't want to be with her child. They were taking a family vacation together. This is not something dysfunctional families typically do. There are a bunch of photos of SA with CW out at various locations. It's clear he spent a lot of time with her outside of the family homes. Why is it so hard to comprehend that KW would have him watch her while she went to deal with something? Yes, I'm sure she regrets lots of things every day but it's not like there's no evidence that SA didn't regularly care for her. He did a really stupid thing. He was incredibly careless in this instance. But I don't see it as an indictment of this entire family.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

Sorry, I don't follow your logic. Did Chloe do anything improper? Have other 18-month-olds cruised on that very ship without incident?

We web sleuths have gone on endlessly stating that Chloe behaved properly for her age and would never have had a problem, it was the 51-year-old who behaved badly. So by your logic 51-year-old fools are the ones who should be barred from cruise ships.

No, of course Chloe didn't do anything improper. I have had a child myself, and can't imagine trying to have a relaxing vacation having to one on one watch a toddler 24/7 without help!

 

[neesaki]

Well, you've convinced yourself of that anyway. What are you basing this determination that no one wanted to watch Chloe on? Your own imaginings about what the family did once boarding the ship? KW was in the H2O Zone with Chloe before the ship even left the pier! Clearly, this is the action of a woman whose priorities are elsewhere and who doesn't want to be with her child. They were taking a family vacation together. This is not something dysfunctional families typically do. There are a bunch of photos of SA with CW out at various locations. It's clear he spent a lot of time with her outside of the family homes. Why is it so hard to comprehend that KW would have him watch her while she went to deal with something? Yes, I'm sure she regrets lots of things every day but it's not like there's no evidence that SA didn't regularly care for her. He did a really stupid thing. He was incredibly careless in this instance. But I don't see it as an indictment of this entire family.

There were 6 adults in that cruise party. And the only one watching Chloe was letting her run around through a crowded bar area while he lagged behind, then he squatted down against a column as though he was too tired ( inebriated?) to stand. He wasn’t supervising her properly before he dropped her out that window. Six adults, one toddler, and he alone in whatever altered and unaware state he was in, was given the responsibility of supervising her, in a new and unfamiliar environment, where anything could happen. It didn’t dawn on any of the other 5 adults that he wasn’t quite up to par, not fit, to watch over an energetic toddler?

So yes, dysfunctional, which is further supported by the family’s actions following Chloe’s death. Blame the ship and deny the truth, that SA is the the only one responsible... go on a media tour, sue the cruise line, and enable guilty, lying SA to the point they expect PR to drop the criminal charges just because they want them to. I’d say “dysfunctional” is quite a generous term. MOO

 

[WiseGuy]

There were 6 adults in that cruise party. And the only one watching Chloe was letting her run around through a crowded bar area while he lagged behind, then he squatted down against a column as though he was too tired ( inebriated?) to stand. He wasn’t supervising her properly before he dropped her out that window. Six adults, one toddler, and he alone in whatever altered and unaware state he was in, was given the responsibility of supervising her, in a new and unfamiliar environment, where anything could happen. It didn’t dawn on any of the other 5 adults that he wasn’t quite up to par, not fit, to watch over an energetic toddler?

So yes, dysfunctional, which is further supported by the family’s actions following Chloe’s death. Blame the ship and deny the truth, that SA is the the only one responsible... go on a media tour, sue the cruise line, and enable guilty, lying SA to the point they expect PR to drop the criminal charges just because they want them to. I’d say “dysfunctional” is quite a generous term. MOO

Brilliant summation - echos my thoughts exactly.

 

[neesaki]

The court date is today.

Esta búsqueda es el resultado de: KVI2019M0003
Resultados encontrados: 1 Fecha: 3/6/2020 - 11:43:16 AM
Translated:
This search is the result of: KVI2019M0003
Results found: 1 Date: 3/6/2020 - 11:43:16 AM

Portal de la Rama Judicial

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

No, of course Chloe didn't do anything improper. I have had a child myself, and can't imagine trying to have a relaxing vacation having to one on one watch a toddler 24/7 without help!

Let me explain further...at Chloe's age, from about 18 months til around 5 years old, my son was extremely hyperactive. If I didn't literally watch him every second he would get into things, destroy things or get hurt. There was no relaxing around him, ever. He was a whirlwind, we used to call him "Taz". It was a very stressful time, and I can't even imagine taking him on a cruise ship or camping. Just trying to go to a grocery store , library or doctor appointment was difficult enough.

 

[In vino veritas]

The court date is today.



Portal de la Rama Judicial

I thought it was on the 19th, as indicated on a previous post by Laria Rivera.
Unless the court felt the need to move the date up.

 

[neesaki]

The court date is today.



Portal de la Rama Judicial

Now it shows 12:52 PM. Any idea who might be the first to report on this ?

 

[neesaki]

I thought it was on the 19th, as indicated on a previous post by Laria Rivera.
Unless the court felt the need to move the date up.

That was the original date, no idea why it was moved up.

 

[neesaki]

Now it shows 12:52 PM. Any idea who might be the first to report on this ?

Haha, now 12:34. Should be starting in about two minutes.

 

[Only4Justice]

Let me explain further...at Chloe's age, from about 18 months til around 5 years old, my son was extremely hyperactive. If I didn't literally watch him every second he would get into things, destroy things or get hurt. There was no relaxing around him, ever. He was a whirlwind, we used to call him "Taz". It was a very stressful time, and I can't even imagine taking him on a cruise ship or camping. Just trying to go to a grocery store , library or doctor appointment was difficult enough.

a cruise with a toddler doesn't sound like much fun to me.

 

[neesaki]

Oh my gosh. Showing a different time again, different every time I check it. I wonder if somethings wrong with that site. Or they’re always running behind and the time changes up until it finally begins.

 

[Jax49]

Oh my gosh. Showing a different time again, different every time I check it. I wonder if somethings wrong with that site. Or they’re always running behind and the time changes up until it finally begins.

Or are we seeing the time we searched? It is a couple minutes off but...

 

[In vino veritas]

Or are we seeing the time we searched? It is a couple minutes off but...

That’s what I think. Date/time we searched. Could be a problem with the site.

As far as I know, the hearing date is set for the 19th

 

[oviedo]

I am not seeing any reports about a hearing today (so far in my searching).

 

[neesaki]

That’s what I think. Date/time we searched. Could be a problem with the site.

As far as I know, the hearing date is set for the 19th

Laria said it shows the date, but that's the only date shown there. Are we looking in the wrong place ?

 

[Jewels53]

Número de Caso Demandante Demandado Región Tribunal Asunto Materia Estatus
K VI2019M0003 EL PUEBLO DE PUERTO RICO ANELLO, SALVATORE SAN JUAN CRIMINAL DELITO CONTRA VIDA ACTIVO

Fecha Hora Tipo de Señalamiento Salón Juez
06/04/2020 08:30 AM JUICIO EN SU FONDO 1101 GISELA ALFONSO FERNANDEZ
03/04/2020 08:30 AM JUICIO EN SU FONDO 1101 GISELA ALFONSO FERNANDEZ
02/04/2020 08:30 AM JUICIO EN SU FONDO 1101 GISELA ALFONSO FERNANDEZ
19/03/2020 08:30 AM JUICIO EN SU FONDO 1101 GISELA ALFONSO FERNANDEZ
24/02/2020 08:30 AM STATUS CONFERENCE 1101 GISELA ALFONSO FERNANDEZ
27/01/2020 08:30 AM STATUS CONFERENCE 1101 GISELA ALFONSO FERNANDEZ
17/12/2019 08:30 AM STATUS CONFERENCE 1101 GISELA ALFONSO FERNANDEZ
20/11/2019 08:30 AM JUICIO EN SU FONDO 1101 GISELA ALFONSO FERNANDEZ
Hacer otra búsqueda Esta búsqueda es el resultado de: K VI2019M0003
Resultados encontrados: 1 Fecha: 3/6/2020 - 1:22:31 PM
Nota: La información suministrada es solamente para fines de orientación y no sustituye las comunicaciones oficiales del Tribunal General de Justicia. La información reflejada en la pantalla de consulta es para propósitos generales. Para información detallada de cada caso debe visitar la Secretaría del Tribunal correspondiente. Es responsabilidad del usuario del Sistema validar la oficialidad de la misma en dicha Secretaría. Se libera a la Rama Judicial, sus empleados y funcionarios de toda responsabilidad contra reclamaciones y gastos que pudieran surgir por la utilización ulterior de dicha información.

Portal de la Rama Judicial

I know it is written in Spanish. The dates show the day first then the month followed by the year.

 

[neesaki]

I am not seeing any reports about a hearing today (so far in my searching).

Here's today's court calendar (I think) and don't see his case listed. I've obviously been on a wild goose chase and taken you all with me. Sorry guys.
Portal de la Rama Judicial

It does show it on the calendar for the 19th though. Just enter the date and San Juan under municipality.
Meanwhile back at the ranch.....