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

[Midwestmom2019]

How is it possibley "an not accident"?
Theres tons of photographic evidence and testimonies that he adored the girl. You think he planned to kill her, and he thought a cruise ship full of other guests was the perfect place to stage a murder and make it look like an accident?

There is absolutely no motive. These people didn't need money. This wasn't a "cash grab". Or an intentional premeditated murder imo.

This rises to such willful and wanton disregard of the risks that it could bypass accident. READ CLOSELY, possibly.
Or he negligently exposed her to risk in the abyss bc he intentionally put her outside into the abyss through the window. She didn’t jump off the window sill. He put her outside, through the window. That’s not accidental. Her falling was the accident.

 

[they'll get you]

Jumping ahead here since I can't seem to catch up...

I had an interesting conversation with one of my daughters - not the one who's a lawyer but one whom I "sounded out" as if she were a potential juror for the civil suit. To be clear she doesn't live anywhere near PR but I was looking for fresh eyes on the case.

Anyway, my argument was (as I stated upthread) that the parents have to show that RCCL was aware of a potential danger if someone hoisted a toddler up onto the rail in front of an open window and did nothing to prevent it. Because there's no precedent where a child fell out the window under the same circumstances that it will be a difficult argument, given that the grandfather ignored the ship safety policy.

Her counter argument was that RCCL likely shouldn't be held 100% responsible but at the same time there's an issue of anticipating that people sometimes do act in a manner that defies logic and that something as simple of welding blocks in the windows that prevent them from opening wide wouldn't be a hardship. She compared it to cars which are designed to limit how low a window goes in the back seat. The thinking is that limiting the opening helps prevent a child from falling out the window.

Does that make sense? I don't know but if she represents an average person on a jury then the outcome may be of the jury finding both the grandfather and RCCL responsible for Chloe's death. Just an observation. Verdicts in civil cases can be driven more by emotion than logic. MOO.

It makes sense but what about vehicles' windows or doors? So if a child should be held from a car window then a precedence opens up for legalities against the manufacturer for not anticipating that people sometimes do acts in a manner that defies logic. It's gotta be the same thing.

 

[al66pine]

"The law states that you can be charged with criminally negligent homicide if your criminally negligent behavior caused the death of another person. On the other hand, the law states that you can be charged with

manslaughter if your reckless behavior caused the death of another person. Therefore, the difference between these two crimes is the type of behavior that caused the victim’s death."Criminally Negligent Homicide vs. Manslaughter: What’s the Difference?

@Safeguard ^ refers to Colorado criminal statutes. I'm not going to parse CO law, or comment on that atty's interp of CO law. This case is in PR, so I'm repeating sections of PR statute below.

A classic manslaughter case occurs when person comes home, finds spouse in bed w a lover in flagrante delicto, and in the sudden heat of passion or rage, kills the spouse. No planning, no premeditation, is simply enraged, grabs whatever weapon is at hand, and kills. Textbook Manslaughter.

Which section of law to charge G'father with?
Presumably G'father did not intend to kill Chloe, so not a murder case.
Presumably G'father did not intend to kill Chloe, not even in sudden heat of passion or rage, so not manslaughter.
G'father's actions caused the death of Chloe, through his negligence in holding her outside a window on the 11th deck level of a cruise ship. (<<<IIUC, PR JD's stmt, quoted in post 860, by Seattle1)

§ 4736. Manslaughter [<<< PR law, requires intent to kill, see previous posts.]
Notwithstanding the provisions of § 4735 of this title, when the murder occurs in circumstances of sudden heat of passion or rage, the convict shall receive the penalty established for a third degree felony. [<<<Still not applicable, if G'pa did not kill in sudden heat of passion or rage, scrol]
[^If Chloe's death was none of the above, now we get to NegHom that G'pa was charged w]
§ 4737. Negligent homicide
Any person who causes the death of another through negligence shall incur a misdemeanor, but shall receive the penalty established for a fourth degree felony.
[ed: rest of this section 4737 re motor vehicular deaths is not app to case at hand. Deleting.]

Sorry for the cobbled up formatting, fonts, size, colors.

 

[Seattle1]

Edited to add: Sorry about the strike throughs. Don’t know how that happened.

Beg to differ. Reread what the PR Attorney General and other officials said in a statement. EXACTLY what they said.
They did not “cite SA raised CW to the window exposing her to danger. Nowhere has the prosecutor alleged SA dangled baby outside the window, and I see no reason to allege what's not been charged ...”
They said “Mr. Anello, 51, “negligently exposed the child to the abyss through a window on the 11th floor of the cruise ship,””
There was no dangling language. Negligently EXPOSED the child to the ABYSS THROUGH A WINDOW...
Exposed means : to deprive of shelter, protection, or care : subject to risk from a harmful action or condition
abyss means a deep, immeasurable space, gulf, or cavity; vast chasm.
per dictionary.com
through a window. Not by a window, not raised to a window.
THROUGH A WINDOW.
He had her outside of the ship in the air through a window. We don’t know if he was holding her in his arms, on his shoulders, by her waist, by her sundress. She was outside of the ship, with nothing around her except him holding her or her clothes, and subjecting her to risk from a harmful action or condition.
He didn’t expose her to the abyss inside the ship, bc the abyss is outside of the ship. The abyss happened to be through the window to get to it. It could have been a door. Or a screen.
So, the statement clearly defines what happened and why he is charged. If he hadn’t lost his grip, it still would be a crime. Probably attempted negligent homicide.
This was not reckless behavior.
Still striking through. Don’t know why.

I apologize if my post was not clear that the linked content was translated to English by other.

I'm sorry I don't agree with your literal interpretation here-- especially if you were not aware the story translated.

Nonetheless, my own comments are from the first language, and not per reporter's translation, and remain MOO.

 

[al66pine]

PR Statutes, Court Proceedings: English or Spanish?

Most States have a little more to go on, as I recall. I think that’s why we’re all confused about manslaughter vs. murder definitions.

@Midwestmom2019 Yes, agreeing that some/many st. statutes on Murder 1 & 2, Manslaughter, Vol & Invol, and Neg Homicide, or the equivalents, are more specific.

Also despite "L.P.R.A." there's virtually no annotation of cases or legislative history, etc. that one expects in an 'annotated' law source. As I noted before, if anyone has other/additional info re PR statutes, I'm reading & listening. I found some in Spanish language PR law publications online (no help to me), raising the issue of -----

Will trial be conducted in Spanish or English?
Initially I wondered about that, then realized as a PR territorial crime (not a federal crime), no jurisdiction in U.S. District Court, so looks like Spanish imo, but could be wrong. Anyone?

"The official languages [218] of the executive branch of government of Puerto Rico[219] are Spanish and English, with Spanish being the primary language. Spanish is, and has been, the only official language of the entire Commonwealth judiciary system....However, all official business of the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico is conducted in English...." bbm Puerto Rico - Wikipedia

FWIW "... English is the primary language of less than 10% of the population. Spanish is the dominant language of business, education and daily life on the island, spoken by nearly 95% of the population..." Puerto Rico - Wikipedia bbm

 

[katydid23]

Jumping ahead here since I can't seem to catch up...

I had an interesting conversation with one of my daughters - not the one who's a lawyer but one whom I "sounded out" as if she were a potential juror for the civil suit. To be clear she doesn't live anywhere near PR but I was looking for fresh eyes on the case.

Anyway, my argument was (as I stated upthread) that the parents have to show that RCCL was aware of a potential danger if someone hoisted a toddler up onto the rail in front of an open window and did nothing to prevent it. Because there's no precedent where a child fell out the window under the same circumstances that it will be a difficult argument, given that the grandfather ignored the ship safety policy.

Her counter argument was that RCCL likely shouldn't be held 100% responsible but at the same time there's an issue of anticipating that people sometimes do act in a manner that defies logic and that something as simple of welding blocks in the windows that prevent them from opening wide wouldn't be a hardship. She compared it to cars which are designed to limit how low a window goes in the back seat. The thinking is that limiting the opening helps prevent a child from falling out the window.

Does that make sense? I don't know but if she represents an average person on a jury then the outcome may be of the jury finding both the grandfather and RCCL responsible for Chloe's death. Just an observation. Verdicts in civil cases can be driven more by emotion than logic. MOO.

The difference between windows in the back seat of cars and windows up high, in the ship, is a big difference, in my opinion.

Every single day, my kids were within inches of the car windows, sometimes for hours at a time. So it is a big concern and poses a constant danger.

But the only way a small child is in danger because of those high ship windows is if an adult puts them up in that window area. And that is very unlikely. In fact, there has not been another case like this, previously, IIRC.

So I am not sure I would hold the cruise lines responsible for that man's erratic irresponsible actions. Nor would I want ALL the windows to be limited to narrow openings, just because of one man's stupid, irresponsible actions. JMO MOO IMO


ETA: I have only been on 2 cruises, but I highly enjoyed standing at the open windows in the upper deck, and feeling the sea air and watching the vast ocean. It would be annoying if it only opened several inches.

 

[MsMarple]

Almost got it but the difference is in a car the child can roll the window up or down, subject to driver lock controls and get themselves hurt or killed. Here, the window could not have been reached by a child. And RCCL cannot be expected to foresee that some man would put his grandchild up and over safety rails, that are high enough to be under his armpit high so that the child could be put on the window ledge or held outside of the window for whatever reason. Is it REASONABLY foreseeable that a reasonably prudent man one with ordinary sensibilities, would do this? Yes, to open window for fresh air. To jump out of it? Commit suicide? Hold a toddler in the air outside of the ship? Not in the interior of the ship, but exterior? 11 stories up?

Oh yeah, I get it. And now my hubby's in on the debate, lol. I personally don't see RCCL being responsible to anticipate someone acting stupidly but I'm trying to see what counter arguments someone on a jury in this case might consider.

If the case is an argument of the so-called "reasonable person" then yes, there's no way RCCL could anticipate an adult putting a child in danger, knowing that ship policy forbids climbing on the rail. My daughter's argument is that when talking about civil negligence there may be precedence that in some cases companies do end up being held at least partially responsible for not anticipating unreasonable actions such as the McDonald's hot coffee case.

 

[MsMarple]

It makes sense but what about vehicles' windows or doors? So if a child should be held from a car window then a precedence opens up for legalities against the manufacturer for not anticipating that people sometimes do acts in a manner that defies logic. It's gotta be the same thing.

Again, I'm on the same page. But the outcome of the civil case - assuming it actually gets filed and goes to trial - will depend on the juror's perspectives on the facts presented.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

It makes sense but what about vehicles' windows or doors? So if a child should be held from a car window then a precedence opens up for legalities against the manufacturer for not anticipating that people sometimes do acts in a manner that defies logic. It's gotta be the same thing.

Difference is age. Reasonable, or ordinary prudent man is the standard. Would a “normal”
person lift a toddler over the safety rail and perch the child on the window sill 11 floors up? Let alone hold her outside of the window?
And puhleez, he knew window was open otherwise he couldn’t have sat her down on the window sill or the railing. Her shoes would have been hitting the window.
No one is expected to anticipate every little thing someone might do. Ordinary, prudent man is the test. That includes ordinary, prudent child. That’s why all the lower windows were inoperable.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

Oh yeah, I get it. And now my hubby's in on the debate, lol. I personally don't see RCCL being responsible to anticipate someone acting stupidly but I'm trying to see what counter arguments someone on a jury in this case might consider.

If the case is an argument of the so-called "reasonable person" then yes, there's no way RCCL could anticipate an adult putting a child in danger, knowing that ship policy forbids climbing on the rail. My daughter's argument is that when talking about civil negligence there may be precedence that in some cases companies do end up being held at least partially responsible for not anticipating unreasonable actions such as the McDonald's hot coffee case.

I suppose that there are cases were a company is held responsible for damages that they may not have anticipated from some customer action.

McDonald’s got nailed in that lawsuit bc they refused to pay for medical care for the plaintiff. Plaintiff was forced to trial. The coffee burned the woman so bad that her inner legs skin split open and burned the muscles in her inner thighs. It was boiling. And the store had been repeatedly told by customers that they served scalding hot coffee. The jury awarded the huge amount bc the McDonald’s representative was so arrogant defending McDonald’s and so cruel to the plaintiff at the time of the trial. The plaintiff’s lawyer asked him how much money does McDonald’s make a day worldwide from the sale of coffee? McDonald’s guy smirked, laughed and said however many millions of dollars they make. $x million. And that’s why the jury awarded the $xmillion.
That’s the other side of the story.
It’s amazing that there are two sides to every story. And the truth is someplace in the middle.
Now, back at the ranch...

 

[Midwestmom2019]

I apologize if my post was not clear that the linked content was translated to English by other.

I'm sorry I don't agree with your literal interpretation here-- especially if you were not aware the story translated.

Nonetheless, my own comments are from the first language, and not per reporter's translation, and remain MOO.

Do you have the original Spanish version? I’d love to read it as published.

 

[they'll get you]

Difference is age. Reasonable, or ordinary prudent man is the standard. Would a “normal”
person lift a toddler over the safety rail and perch the child on the window sill 11 floors up? Let alone hold her outside of the window?
And puhleez, he knew window was open otherwise he couldn’t have sat her down on the window sill or the railing. Her shoes would have been hitting the window.
No one is expected to anticipate every little thing someone might do. Ordinary, prudent man is the test. That includes ordinary, prudent child. That’s why all the lower windows were inoperable.

I agree. There's something seriously wrong with this man's thinking IMO, I can't get my head around why?
Maybe he had a cruel streak and possibly resented Chloe.

 

[al66pine]

Motive to Harm? Don't Need the Money? Not a Cash Grab?

How is it possible this was "not an accident"?
Theres tons of photographic evidence and testimonies that he adored the girl. You think he planned to kill her, and he thought a cruise ship full of other guests was the perfect place to stage a murder and make it look like an accident?
There is absolutely no motive. These people didn't need money. This wasn't a "cash grab". Or an intentional premeditated murder imo.

@Safeguard There's a reason behind the saying "Appearances can be deceiving."

1). "...absolutely no motive..."?
Not saying G'father had motive to harm a hair on her head, not saying that in any way, shape or form.
In some ways seems like Mr. Nice Guy, as you describe ^, but on somewhat superficial criteria.
But saying from info publicly known ATM, it is virtually impossible to know that he had "absolutely nt motive." True for anyone. jmo.

2) "These people didn't need money. This wasn't a cash grab."
Talking about Mom & Dad? Based on what criteria?
I'm not saying they would use nefarious or deceptive means to try obtain money.
"Need" as it relates to money is subjective, difficult to measure by others.
What's "enough?" Annual income 50,000/ Net Worth 50,000? or 100,000/200,000? or 250,000/500,000?
or 100,000/5,000,000? Who actually knows for any one person, except that person?
And "want" being more subjective is even harder to assess by others, and it can override "need."
Just saying need and want re money is very difficult to assess. jmo.

 

[Kindred]

Is the camera on the inside of the ship or outside facing the window? What angle did the camera show?
We also don't know how clear the image is.
Video evidence is great but an eyewitness is also direct evidence so it may be helpful too.
The video may not have captured what he was saying, either.

Imo

I’ve studied that video and I think I saw 3 cameras but my iPad isn’t good enough. Anyone else got better quality PC?

This is not from the video but a photo from a guest on a previous cruise. The red circles on the right are "fish eye" type security cameras that are able to get a more multidirectional view. In the video they appeared to be placed every 3-4 sections of the ceiling blocks. The green diamonds in the middle look like they might be cameras that are directed facing up and down the walkway, but it's hard to tell for sure. The purple square is what I'm really curious about. They are only along the windows themselves and you will see them all along that wall in the video as they move through the area. I honestly don't know what they are, if they are cameras or some kind of sensor for the overboard detectors. I'm really interested in those. Regardless, if a video is ever publicly released, those are the most likely angles they will show. The only thing we'd need to see from the exterior would be if she is outside the window before the actual fall, the interior cameras are going to hold the most important info.


from here Freedom of the Seas - opening window???

I suppose that there are cases were a company is held responsible for damages that they may not have anticipated from some customer action.

McDonald’s got nailed in that lawsuit bc they refused to pay for medical care for the plaintiff. Plaintiff was forced to trial. The coffee burned the woman so bad that her inner legs skin split open and burned the muscles in her inner thighs. It was boiling. And the store had been repeatedly told by customers that they served scalding hot coffee. The jury awarded the huge amount bc the McDonald’s representative was so arrogant defending McDonald’s and so cruel to the plaintiff at the time of the trial. The plaintiff’s lawyer asked him how much money does McDonald’s make a day worldwide from the sale of coffee? McDonald’s guy smirked, laughed and said however many millions of dollars they make. $x million. And that’s why the jury awarded the $xmillion.
That’s the other side of the story.
It’s amazing that there are two sides to every story. And the truth is someplace in the middle.
Now, back at the ranch...

Thank you for this. I keep seeing this compared to the Hot Coffee lawsuit and this is not at all the same thing, except that it shows what the families lawyer is hopeing on: that repeated falsehoods/propaganda are going to be what people remember, not the actual facts.

 

[Safeguard]

have met him only once and thought he was a very ebullient young man. Charming and enthusiastic --the life of the party.
The sort who'd talk to you and ask you questions as if he truly cared.
But my friend says he's not like that in private and is a scary, abusive control freak.

Yeah. I've known people like that.
I never trust those overly complementary when they just met, or barely know, you types.

And the FB posts seemed to change on SA's FB after Chloe's death. There weren't that many of the two of them, and all of a sudden an influx of photos of SA and Chloe.
The family would like to portra

Do they? I haven't gone back very far.
You would think though, that the 11 year old brother would be questioned about Grandpa at some point. Usually there's at least one person who throws some shade if there's hidden ugliness of any kind. People love to tell their tales in the aftermath, just like when a couple splits up and people come out of the woodwork to talk chit about one or the other...

Photos and testimonies don't always tell the truth.
Imo.

This is true to an extent. I knew a guy who's apartment was staged this way.

Organic fruit in a bowl in the kitchen, coffee table photography magazines, on the coffee table, a paper back copy of Dante carefully placed, to appear tossed on an end table ... Other than that the place ĺooked unlived in. He was trying to cultivate an impression, but the very air was sterile and cold.

He was a very psychopathic person in truth. Evil, vengeful and cunning.

I don't get that feel here.

Social Media can be misleading, but often it's a darn good Thin Slice. imo

eta:With the exception of Public Influencers, of course.

All my family and friends social media accurately reflects who they are and how they live. Some are more privet and post more rarely, others post every single day and have captured every smile the grand kids ever blessed them with. lol!

 

[al66pine]

Statement by PR Atty Gen re NegHom, Oct 29

Is the bolded sentence the only one made public since ~ Oct 29?
We the original release made in Spanish or English?
Anyone? Thx in adv?

BTW, I just noticed, this gives fall as 115 feet.

"Mr. Anello, 51, “negligently exposed the child to the abyss through a window on the 11th floor of the cruise ship,” Dennise N. Longo Quiñones, the Puerto Rico attorney general, and other officials said in a statement. The child fell 115 feet off the cruise ship, called Freedom of the Seas."
"On Monday, Judge Jimmy Sepulveda of the San Juan Investigation Court set bail at $80,000 for Mr. Anello, who was charged with one count of negligent homicide." bbm
^ Grandfather Charged in Toddler’s Fatal Fall From Cruise Ship Oct 29

 

[they'll get you]

This is not from the video but a photo from a guest on a previous cruise. The red circles on the right are "fish eye" type security cameras that are able to get a more multidirectional view. In the video they appeared to be placed every 3-4 sections of the ceiling blocks. The green diamonds in the middle look like they might be cameras that are directed facing up and down the walkway, but it's hard to tell for sure. The purple square is what I'm really curious about. They are only along the windows themselves and you will see them all along that wall in the video as they move through the area. I honestly don't know what they are, if they are cameras or some kind of sensor for the overboard detectors. I'm really interested in those. Regardless, if a video is ever publicly released, those are the most likely angles they will show. The only thing we'd need to see from the exterior would be if she is outside the window before the actual fall, the interior cameras are going to hold the most important info.

View attachment 213119
from here Freedom of the Seas - opening window???



Thank you for this. I keep seeing this compared to the Hot Coffee lawsuit and this is not at all the same thing, except that it shows what the families lawyer is hopeing on: that repeated falsehoods/propaganda are going to be what people remember, not the actual facts.

I saw these as loud speakers.

 

[oviedo]

This is not from the video but a photo from a guest on a previous cruise. The red circles on the right are "fish eye" type security cameras that are able to get a more multidirectional view. In the video they appeared to be placed every 3-4 sections of the ceiling blocks. The green diamonds in the middle look like they might be cameras that are directed facing up and down the walkway, but it's hard to tell for sure. The purple square is what I'm really curious about. They are only along the windows themselves and you will see them all along that wall in the video as they move through the area. I honestly don't know what they are, if they are cameras or some kind of sensor for the overboard detectors. I'm really interested in those. Regardless, if a video is ever publicly released, those are the most likely angles they will show. The only thing we'd need to see from the exterior would be if she is outside the window before the actual fall, the interior cameras are going to hold the most important info.

View attachment 213119
from here Freedom of the Seas - opening window???



Thank you for this. I keep seeing this compared to the Hot Coffee lawsuit and this is not at all the same thing, except that it shows what the families lawyer is hopeing on: that repeated falsehoods/propaganda are going to be what people remember, not the actual facts.

The purple square looks almost like a speaker ? I wonder if it’s one where the ships’ “horn” sounds prior to announcements?

 

[al66pine]

Word of the Day = Ebullient. Do Pix & Testimonials Tell the Truth?

...heading for a divorce and from their FB photos you'd think that her son-in-law is a devoted dad and great husband... a very ebullient young man. Charming and enthusiastic --the life of the party....
But my friend says he's not like that in private and is a scary, abusive control freak.
Photos and testimonies don't always tell the truth. Imo.

@LietKynes bbm sbm
^ "ebullient" = one of my favorite words, right up there w "oleaginous." [ˌōlēˈajənəs]

greasy · slippery · slimy · sebaceous · pinguid · unctuous · fatty · buttery ·
swimming in oil/fat · fawning · ingratiating · smooth · smooth-talking · fulsome · flattering · glib ·
exaggeratedly and distastefully complimentary; obsequious.
"candidates made the usual oleaginous speeches in the debate"
synonyms:
obsequious · sycophantic · excessively deferential · subservient · fawning

 

[Safeguard]

Word of the Day = Ebullient. Do Pix & Testimonials Tell the Truth?
@LietKynes bbm sbm
^ "ebullient" = one of my favorite words, right up there w "oleaginous." [ˌōlēˈajənəs]

greasy · slippery · slimy · sebaceous · pinguid · unctuous · fatty · buttery ·
swimming in oil/fat · fawning · ingratiating · smooth · smooth-talking · fulsome · flattering · glib ·
exaggeratedly and distastefully complimentary; obsequious.
"candidates made the usual oleaginous speeches in the debate"
synonyms:
obsequious · sycophantic · excessively deferential · subservient · fawning

So.. Eddie Haskell?