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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
\


That's interesting because I watch dateline a lot and I've seen multiple episodes of people being murdered on Cruise ships. Apparently if the boat is heading toward Mexico it's difficult to get cooperation. This particular cruise was in PR so it's different.

If you are talking about people being thrown out that exact type of window ok. But to suggest that out of 20 million people there have never been safety issues where a passenger (in this case Chloe) is hurt by another passenger (SA) that's ridiculous.

Cruise Ship Deaths and Disappearances: a Honeymooner Vanishes Overboard and Other Mysteries

This study shows that there 663 injuries in a 3 year period on one cruise ship with a load of 719 passengers per day.

Passenger accidents and injuries reported during 3 years on a cruise ship. - PubMed - NCBI

Of course I'm not talking about there being no accidents or other incidents on ships! That would be absurd. I'm talking about the design of these particular windows; the ones they are claiming are so dangerous. These windows have been on RCCL ships for more than 20 years now, and CW was the first time anyone has gone out one. Therefore, my point was that these windows do not pose any kind of hidden danger.

There are going to be accidents, injuries and crimes on ships as there are anywhere else in the world. The guest capacity on some of these ships is more than the population of many small towns. They are micro-climates with malls, bars, restaurants, casinos and the list goes on. Each of the three Freedom class ships carry more than 3700 passengers per week. Each of the five Voyager class ships carry about 3300. When you have 27,000 people per week on just eight ships, you're going to have incidents. (This doesn't even account for the four Oasis class ships which carry just under 5500 people per week; an additional 22,000.) So, between the 12 ships in these three classes, we're looking at 49,000 passengers per week, or 196,000 passengers per month. To think there would be no incidents when you're looking at these kinds of numbers would be completely unrealistic. But, when you look at the number of incidents on ships, compared to those on land, ships are considerably safer.

I've been on more than 20 cruises (leaving for another today). If I sat around watching Dateline without ever experiencing a cruise for myself, perhaps I would think they're dangerous too. But, alas; all I do is experience the real thing.
 
Of course I'm not talking about there being no accidents or other incidents on ships! That would be absurd. I'm talking about the design of these particular windows; the ones they are claiming are so dangerous. These windows have been on RCCL ships for more than 20 years now, and CW was the first time anyone has gone out one. Therefore, my point was that these windows do not pose any kind of hidden danger.

There are going to be accidents, injuries and crimes on ships as there are anywhere else in the world. The guest capacity on some of these ships is more than the population of many small towns. They are micro-climates with malls, bars, restaurants, casinos and the list goes on. Each of the three Freedom class ships carry more than 3700 passengers per week. Each of the five Voyager class ships carry about 3300. When you have 27,000 people per week on just eight ships, you're going to have incidents. (This doesn't even account for the four Oasis class ships which carry just under 5500 people per week; an additional 22,000.) So, between the 12 ships in these three classes, we're looking at 49,000 passengers per week, or 196,000 passengers per month. To think there would be no incidents when you're looking at these kinds of numbers would be completely unrealistic. But, when you look at the number of incidents on ships, compared to those on land, ships are considerably safer.

I've been on more than 20 cruises (leaving for another today). If I sat around watching Dateline without ever experiencing a cruise for myself, perhaps I would think they're dangerous too. But, alas; all I do is experience the real thing.

Bon voyage! Enjoy!
 
Winkleman is blowing smoke. Believe me, this entire lawsuit is going to fizzle away to oblivion. The live video evidence is absolutely a slam dunk.

SA leans out window, picks up Chloe, heaves her over the guardrail and out the window. Whoopsie Baby! It is beyond belief to watch every single moment of that depravity.

Even worse, SA with the plea, isn't even going to jail. He can go back and slither around the mainland.
Hopefully about as welcome as OJ and FCA. May he be vilified and shown contempt wherever he goes! Babykiller!
 
If SA remains a non-party, it is hearsay, possibly usable as impeachment if he takes the stand.

I don't believe we will ever get that far.
Not do I. I believe, in the next several days, the lawsuit will be dismissed by the federal judge in Miami. RCL’s re- file of theMotion to Dismiss covered all four corners of the plaintiffs complaint, while painting an excellent verbal picture of SA’s total culpability.
 
Using This Written Statement?
There is a ~ 1 1/2 page typed stmt, written in first person but not signed, not dated, not notarized, a stmt a cbsnews story attributes it to SA.*

I wonder if there's any chance of this stmt, purportedly SA's, being used in either the upcoming NegHom hearing or the civil trial?


* A scrbd.com pdf/image of the typed stmt is linked in cbsnews.com Feb 26 story, which says "In a statement to "CBS This Morning," he said..."
Man will plead guilty in granddaughter's cruise ship death to "end part of this nightmare"

IF (and we know there isn’t)...
If there was a shred of substance to the lawsuit against the cruise line there would be a national clamoring ~ an outrageous outcry. But that just isn’t the case. All we got is family/legal team who come up with a case out of “thin air” “hidden dangers” & mysterious “disappearing glass.” ... Maybe in the land of OZ :rolleyes:

SA’s somewhat rambling nearly 2 page letter sure seems beyond the land of ODD at this point... in contrast he had only 36 measly words to say at the Dec 11 press conference. SA seems to have been on a tight leash after all the negative feedback from his November interview with DB.

Yet SA sure has put a LOT out there Tuesday for someone who has been told, according to his letter, to keep quiet! To me it seems like a reputation grab and oh yeah $till on point for the law$uit.

Part of me wonders if there is a very serious FAMILY “breach“ and maybe this is his last hurrah to save face and “talk” to them in this open letter. Perhaps some family have already cut him off and keep him at more than arms distance. Especially since the video clip made a huge resurgence Tuesday! Someone said the Anellos are believed to have moved out to another city. I imagine many “supporters” who have up till now had their head-in-the-sand and had bought the whole “freak accident” scenario - must have seen the video by now!

The family can’t bamboozle the public any longer. Even though CBS chose on Tuesday to air only 22 SECONDS of the ship’s surveillance video, the truth of SA’s reckless actions are undeniable.

To sum up my opinion, It will take a lot more than SA’s self serving, pandering letter to mop up the hot mess left in the wake of the his recklessness that snuffed out the precious life of sweet little CW.
 
Last edited:
I agree that I don’t think it will get that far.

It would be interesting to see if MW puts him on the stand.

SA is such a poor witness, I doubt MW will put him on the stand. But if he doesn’t, it looks bad for the family. MW is between a rock and a hard place. I’m glad there is a dilemma. Shut down Wiegand’s, once and for all.
 
Not do I. I believe, in the next several days, the lawsuit will be dismissed by the federal judge in Miami. RCL’s re- file of theMotion to Dismiss covered all four corners of the plaintiffs complaint, while painting an excellent verbal picture of SA’s total culpability.
@Kindred has the MTD been set for hearing yet? I would imagine RCL would be aggressive since IMO they have the upper hand.
 
Hopefully about as welcome as OJ and FCA. May he be vilified and shown contempt wherever he goes! Babykiller!

It angers me when we are told by the family that SA has suffered. I am getting so tired of hearing that. It is Chloe who suffered, and her brother who no longer has his sister in his life. I too am also angry that SA just walks away from this without taking responsibility for the fact that because of his actions Chloe's life was over before it began. The statement was all about how awful this has been for him, he put himself in this situation, not Chloe. In the statement it was mentioned about a child that fell out of a shopping cart and died. The only way this could happen is if the parent walked away from the cart and was not watching the child. I see it all the time when I am shopping, what has happened to common sense? Don't even get me going about leaving a child in a car!

Also I have been on over 20 cruises. Yes people do jump over board, or fall overboard, they are being stupid or reckless or want to commit suicide. Most people that go on cruises do not do this, but every cruise I have been on I do see people being careless, and children running around with no adult supervision. You cannot protect people from themselves. Even with all the safety measures in cars, people still drive reckless and kill themselves or other people. I agree with other posters, this is the first incident of a child being dropped from a window. There are safety measures in place, the windows that open are high, there are railings. And what about the balconies? I go on a cruise for relaxation, I am not a reckless or stupid person, and in all 24 cruises I have never been injured because I follow rules and watch my surroundings. I wash my hands and have never gotten sick.

Life is about following rules. Let's stop building cruise ships because they have open windows and balconies. I agree in having safety features when it is obvious it could cause injury, but no matter how many safety issues are in place, there are people who will still find a way to think they can do what they want to do, and never, ever take responsibility for their actions. We can't protect those people from themselves, only those who follow rules and are responsible. I will not hold a baby out of an open window on a cruise ship, and millions of other people will not or have not done it, I wonder why? Do you think they know what the outcome would be?

Someone can get killed in a store, a business, a home, a car, a plane, a school, it is not just a cruise ship. The cruise ship did not kill Chloe, SA did!!!
 
I read this thread almost every day and I hear and feel the outrage over what happened to this innocent child. It was horrible-- but I think we all have to realize that we do not have what I would call perfect justice: Sometimes you have to live with the justice you can get, or imperfect justice. Our justice system is replete with cases of not only imperfect justice, but no justice at all for many victims of crime. I have been involved in the legal system as a Hospital Risk Manager, handling and resolving medical malpractice litigation and working for a plaintiff attorney, representing patients who have been wronged by a physician or hospital. I can give you a list of cases where, for one reason or another the defendant physicians who were sued and in fact did really terrible things, walked away without having to pay a dime after maiming people for life. That happens for several reasons: the jury believed the physician and not the patient: the defense came up with BS defenses that wound up getting the case kicked out by the courts, prior to trial: there are a myriad of reasons where people who were severely harmed by a physician or hospital, got no justice at all. I have come to believe strongly that sometimes you have take the justice you can get and so it is in this case.

SA pled guilty. That is no small thing. It is a big deal-- he may try to mitigate taking that plea with a bunch of words, but it does not matter. He admitted guilt because in fact he is guilty of negligent homicide. For those of you who want him to suffer more for his actions, that may or may not happen. It is out of our control. Every day the justice system makes a deal with a murderer to get someone worse. It isn't pretty but it is the system we have.
 
I read this thread almost every day and I hear and feel the outrage over what happened to this innocent child. It was horrible-- but I think we all have to realize that we do not have what I would call perfect justice: Sometimes you have to live with the justice you can get, or imperfect justice. Our justice system is replete with cases of not only imperfect justice, but no justice at all for many victims of crime. I have been involved in the legal system as a Hospital Risk Manager, handling and resolving medical malpractice litigation and working for a plaintiff attorney, representing patients who have been wronged by a physician or hospital. I can give you a list of cases where, for one reason or another the defendant physicians who were sued and in fact did really terrible things, walked away without having to pay a dime after maiming people for life. That happens for several reasons: the jury believed the physician and not the patient: the defense came up with BS defenses that wound up getting the case kicked out by the courts, prior to trial: there are a myriad of reasons where people who were severely harmed by a physician or hospital, got no justice at all. I have come to believe strongly that sometimes you have take the justice you can get and so it is in this case.

SA pled guilty. That is no small thing. It is a big deal-- he may try to mitigate taking that plea with a bunch of words, but it does not matter. He admitted guilt because in fact he is guilty of negligent homicide. For those of you who want him to suffer more for his actions, that may or may not happen. It is out of our control. Every day the justice system makes a deal with a murderer to get someone worse. It isn't pretty but it is the system we have.

I totally agree with you that there will never be the kind of justice we here would like to see. I didn't expect him to ever do any time and even though it would be appropriate for him to do some time, I was more interested in the facts coming out as to exactly what he did and why but I expect we will never know that.

I don't see his pleading guilty as being a big thing because he knew that he was going to lose a lot more by taking this to a trial by judge or jury because more would have come out about what happened. He had no choice but to plead guilty; I just wonder why it took so long - probably family conflicts about the lawsuit or his or the family's persistent belief for months that he could have been found innocent. I can also understand that the family feels that since they can't bring Chloe back they should try to minimize the remaining damage. And they have the brother to think about and that probably has a lot to do with much of what they're doing by defending themselves, blaming something else.

More about what happened could still come out in the civil suit. I'm sure the family wants to avoid that. At the beginning, they probably thought winning the civil suit would be a lot easier. Maybe that's because the family knew a lot less at the beginning. Now they have reason to see serious problems with SA's version of what happened.

SA's statement starts with trying to ingratiate himself by apologizing for seeming rude to people he was walking by in the hall. That speaks volumes to me based on reading how people who are guilty try to present themselves to others. His statement was totally self-serving.

He and the family seem to think that making statements like this helps to defend them but the exact opposite is true. They could have just never appeared on TV; same with Winkleman, and that would have been so much better. There would have been far less coverage of the whole thing and it would have been a lot more muted.

There will always be the people who won't watch the video who insist that the poor man has suffered enough. If he wasn't drinking or otherwise intoxicated then he had a moment of maliciousness or is just the most reckless adult, and none of that is in keeping with what people who know him have ever said about him publicly. So why did he play Russian roulette with Chloe's life, not just for 5 seconds, which would have been more like an accident, but for over 30 seconds when there was ample time to prevent her from dying?

AW's parents have wisely stayed out of the media. No doubt the W family's media campaign has made all of this even harder for a lot of people in their extended family.

Question: not that this would happen, but if the family decided to drop their civil suit, would they then have to pay the Winkleman firm for the costs they have incurred? I know they don't have to pay them if they continue with the suit until it ends one way or another.
 
I totally agree with you that there will never be the kind of justice we here would like to see. I didn't expect him to ever do any time and even though it would be appropriate for him to do some time, I was more interested in the facts coming out as to exactly what he did and why but I expect we will never know that.

I don't see his pleading guilty as being a big thing because he knew that he was going to lose a lot more by taking this to a trial by judge or jury because more would have come out about what happened. He had no choice but to plead guilty; I just wonder why it took so long - probably family conflicts about the lawsuit or his or the family's persistent belief for months that he could have been found innocent. I can also understand that the family feels that since they can't bring Chloe back they should try to minimize the remaining damage. And they have the brother to think about and that probably has a lot to do with much of what they're doing by defending themselves, blaming something else.

More about what happened could still come out in the civil suit. I'm sure the family wants to avoid that. At the beginning, they probably thought winning the civil suit would be a lot easier. Maybe that's because the family knew a lot less at the beginning. Now they have reason to see serious problems with SA's version of what happened.

SA's statement starts with trying to ingratiate himself by apologizing for seeming rude to people he was walking by in the hall. That speaks volumes to me based on reading how people who are guilty try to present themselves to others. His statement was totally self-serving.

He and the family seem to think that making statements like this helps to defend them but the exact opposite is true. They could have just never appeared on TV; same with Winkleman, and that would have been so much better. There would have been far less coverage of the whole thing and it would have been a lot more muted.

There will always be the people who won't watch the video who insist that the poor man has suffered enough. If he wasn't drinking or otherwise intoxicated then he had a moment of maliciousness or is just the most reckless adult, and none of that is in keeping with what people who know him have ever said about him publicly. So why did he play Russian roulette with Chloe's life, not just for 5 seconds, which would have been more like an accident, but for over 30 seconds when there was ample time to prevent her from dying?

AW's parents have wisely stayed out of the media. No doubt the W family's media campaign has made all of this even harder for a lot of people in their extended family.

Question: not that this would happen, but if the family decided to drop their civil suit, would they then have to pay the Winkleman firm for the costs they have incurred? I know they don't have to pay them if they continue with the suit until it ends one way or another.

Every personal injury firm that I am familiar with works on a contingency basis which means they make money only if there is monetary recovery from a settlement or verdict. I don't believe Winkelman would ask his clients to pay for costs incurred if they
backed out of the case, which of course they won't--- the firm I work for have had clients back out of a case and we never asked them for any monies.
 
This is an interesting little piece about yesterday's guilty plea announcement.

Local man issues statement following plea deal in granddaughter's cruise ship death

"Attorney Michael Winkleman says this plea won't affect their civil suit against Royal Carribean, because Anello is not one of the parties in that lawsuit.

If the deal is approved, Anello will serve only probation and won't have to admit to the facts in the case.

Winkleman told us he thinks prosecutors finally came to their senses.

"My instinct is that when we had submitted to them the results of our ship inspection and accident reconstruction, it told a very different story than what Royal Carribean has told.
""

MW has some serious chutzpah!

Yes, the prosecutors came to their senses and accepted a guilty plea to the charges they brought against SA! Lol!

This whole guilty plea thing (and the above story) got me thinking about the previous court appearance where there was talk of Anello having hired a reconstruction expert.

This is a spanish language article linked by neesaki in the MEDIA TIMELINE thread which talks about that.

Defensa de Salvatore Anello contrata perito en reconstrucción de escena

Is there any way of finding out if this reconstruction expert actually produced anything that got filed with the court in PR? Or was the work of MW's reconstruction expert what was being referred to here? That's what it sounds like. Was MW's "report" filed in PR court?

Either way I don't see how SA pleading guilty as charged can be spun as a win with regard to any reconstruction.

Spin spin spin baby!
 
Well look at what you are saying you can see the potential for children to be harmed on a cruise, then RCCL and all companies should notice this as well. The management has a responsibility to the children that are their passengers. I do understand what you are saying and in fact Ross Harris actually looked up cruises before he left his son in the car. I always thought he was considering throwing his son overboard.

BBM....I agree! The mention of a cruise holiday in the Ross Harris case stood out to me....as perhaps an alternative plan to rid murder Cooper.
 
<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 very interesting & makes a lot of sense to me.
Thank you for your input Chewy.
 
I don't think the parents could present a case that could survive to reach the jury if they don't put SA on the stand. They will likely lose regardless, but I think there's no case at all without SA testifying. If he does not testify, there is no one in the plaintiffs' case who can explain what he did, because what he said would be hearsay. You would be left with a man putting a toddler out an 11th story window without any explanation, which does not add up to cruise ship liability.

Regarding the motion to dismiss that is pending. I think the court will not rule without allowing the plaintiffs to file their opposition. It is up to the court whether to hear oral argument or not, it does not have to.

On the subject of whether a report is in the file in San Juan, my suggestion is to call the clerk's office and ask them. They are undoubtedly familiar with the case. There may be some way of getting pdfs from them.
 
Last edited:
@Kindred has the MTD been set for hearing yet? I would imagine RCL would be aggressive since IMO they have the upper hand.

The only thing on the calendar for the civil case is the telephone status conference that is still set for Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 2:00 P.M. But I do have something else to share...

NEW DOCUMENT

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION [D.E. 30]
Case 1:19-cv-25100-DLG Document 31
Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2020 22 PAGES

reponse to amended motion to dismiss.pdf

I haven't read it all yet (still gotta get my coffee) but so far it looks almost exactly like the previous one minus the complaining about the video and less salt.

 
The only thing on the calendar for the civil case is the telephone status conference that is still set for Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 2:00 P.M. But I do have something else to share...

NEW DOCUMENT

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION [D.E. 30]
Case 1:19-cv-25100-DLG Document 31
Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2020 22 PAGES

reponse to amended motion to dismiss.pdf

I haven't read it all yet (still gotta get my coffee) but so far it looks almost exactly like the previous one minus the complaining about the video and less salt.

Pretty much as Kindred said, the same response minus the parts about the video.

In a nutshell MW is arguing that RCCL's reasons for seeking dismisal are not appropriate for a motion to dismiss but rather for a motion of summary judgement that would occur after the discovery phase of the case. In other words he's saying RCCL is jumping the gun and that plaintiffs have presented sufficient cause to advance to the fact finding phase of the case.

Notably, MW includes a photo of the deck 11 windows as example of how difficult it is to tell which windows are open or closed in which ALL of the windows are actually closed. As we all know this was not the case when SA dropped CW out one of multiple open windows.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
139
Guests online
220
Total visitors
359

Forum statistics

Threads
608,475
Messages
18,239,970
Members
234,385
Latest member
johnwich
Back
Top