IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #2

[Montrealaise]

IMO thinking about the physics, I believe if Chloe had her feet on the windowsill it would be less likely for her to fall forward if they were planted against the sill. If her feet were over the windowsill she'd have less leverage but maybe enough to prevent her falling forward because her body would more or less be at a 90 degree angle to the sill.

If her legs were dangling below the railing then she'd in essence be "top heavy" and moving her upper body forward to <cough> get a better view would be much more likely to propel her forward. But that would be determined by the length of her leg from the knee to the hip plus whatever height difference there is between the railing and the bottom of the window (the sill) plus the length of her knee to her feet and adding the velocity of her body moving forward.

What we do know though is that whatever position/angle she was in was enough to propel Chloe out the window as she leaned forward. So yes, it's likely SA leaning forward also helped Chloe to lean forward. IOW, he may have pushed her out as he leaned in to "get a better view."

I don't believe SA did it on purpose but I'm quite convinced he ignored common sense, which to me means he may or may not have known the window was open. Winkleman is claiming that there's no way to tell definitively whether he knew or not so all we can do is go by SA's own testimony.

I disagree. I believe between the video, expert forensics and testimony and eyewitness testimony SA's actions will be discernible.[/QUOTE
Just looking at the pictures of the open window make me dizzy. For SA to place a small child up there is grossly negligent, which explains why the PR prosecutors charged him with negligent homicide - which means that the accused was not just negligent, but grossly so.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

The attorney Winkleman's statements are contradictory and inflammatory. His insistence from the beginning that it happened in a children's play area, for instance. He maintained that Chloe wanted to bang on the glass (we've learned recently that it was Sam who wanted to bang on the glass and decided to lift her to do that). His frequent assertions that the windows did not meet safety guidelines. And his statement that Chloe was on the rail 5 seconds, when the CBS reporter told us it was around 25 seconds. Anyone else noticed any other mis-statements by Winkleman? I'm not sure why he is doing this, it just makes him look unreliable. He appears to be trying to stir up sentiment against Royal Caribbean but instead it seems to be backfiring on him.

Unfortunately, there have been a lot of comments in the past week since SA's interview that seem sympathetic to him on the MSM news articles that do show comments. More so than early on when it first happened in July when it seemed like most people believed he was guilty of gross negligence. There are many "oh leave the poor man alone" and "they're just charging him to save the cruise line" and "he's so brokenhearted" comments and it concerns me how dense people can be. Wow.

 

[justice4allnow]

Unfortunately, there have been a lot of comments in the past week since SA's interview that seem sympathetic to him on the MSM news articles that do show comments. More so than early on when it first happened in July when it seemed like most people believed he was guilty of gross negligence. There are many "oh leave the poor man alone" and "they're just charging him to save the cruise line" and "he's so brokenhearted" comments and it concerns me how dense people can be. Wow.

It's possible that some of those sympathetic comments are from paid commentators. A great deal of money is at stake here. PR firms working for large corporations or celebrities for instance will sometimes hire people to write online comments favorable to their clients, knowing that it can turn the tide of public opinion. The employees doing it can set up multiple accounts and create what looks like an onslaught of comments.I'm not saying that the law firm is doing this, just that it does happen all of the time.

 

[MsBetsy]

Possible Settlement? Likely/Unlikely to Help G'father?
@MsBetsy sbm bbm ^ That's what they may think, but whether or not a lawsuit is filed, parents & cruiseline (hypo) settlement very, very, very likely would not be admissible as evidence in G'pa's crim trial.

Why? If parents & cruiseline reach an agreement, very, very, very likely the Settlement and Release document would (1) explicitly deny responsibility for any role in events leading to Chloe's death and (2) contain a confidentiality clause, prohibiting both parties from making the document or any terms public. So (hypo) settlement would not help G'pa stay out of the slam. jmo.

I would think the Cruiseline would deny responsibility as well. And yes, that would not help his case, and I'm guessing the family is aware of this. It is only if they admit negligence and offer a settlement that it might take the blame off of the grandfather, which I'm assuming is what they are hoping for.

But I still think they are waiting and hoping for an outcome that would show negligence on the part of the Ship. If they were so sure that the ship is responsible, then why have they not filed yet? What else could they be waiting for?

If the family had proof of the ships negligence, why would they not be able to present that evidence in court? Especially if the defense is that he was not entirely at fault and something else is to blame.

Can't it still be used as evidence without it being made public? And if not, why?

Sometimes it is made public that the parties have agreed on a settlement but they do not disclose the amount or any details contained in the document.


Imo

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Do we know of any prescription meds SA might have been taking at the time that would cloud his judgement?

Privacy laws preclude the release of medical information to the public. If there are medical and/or medication issues pertaining to SA's judgment, this would be brought up as part of the defense in a trial.

Privacy

 

[MsBetsy]

He would NOT have been able to see ‘all the way down’ unless he had his head out that window looking straight down. It’s impossible.

Yeah, the metal bar is supposedly a foot from the window, so he would have had to be leaning far forward with his neck stretching out, I would think.
Unless his head was underneath the metal bar. I don't know. It would really help to see the video.
Was he really dangling the child out the window or was he leaning forward with her in his arms?
Which is it? The video must show it if he had her outside the window, as was originally claimed by some reports.

Imo

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

The repeated reports that Grandpa kept "reaching out for the glass" are mind-boggling! At some point, didn't he figure out that there was no glass? And, if there was no glass, shouldn't SA have figured out that the window was open?

 

[MsBetsy]

The repeated reports that Grandpa kept "reaching out for the glass" are mind-boggling! At some point, didn't he figure out that there was no glass? And, if there was no glass, shouldn't SA have figured out that the window was open?

I wonder if it's clear from the video that he was reaching out for the glass.
Even so, he should have checked before he lifted her up. Or not put her on the ledge, or bar, at all.
I don't think this guy has much common sense.
From watching his interview I got the impression that he was a bit "challenged."

Imo

 

[MsMarple]

Regarding the civil suit IMO it's complicated because it's not a direct wrongful death suit - SA is between the ship's liability and Chloe's death. IOW, if SA himself had fallen out of the window while leaning forward then showing liability on the ship's part might be easier.

And that tells me that there will either be a settlement or if it goes to trial SA will be found a certain percentage liable and possibly 100 percent liable. IMO the family will have an uphill battle proving negligence and if the ship has passed all required safety regulations then all they can really hope for is a settlement by the ship's insurance company in order to avoid too much bad PR.

It'll be interesting to see if Winkleman actually files the suit and if so how the court responds. MOO.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

The repeated reports that Grandpa kept "reaching out for the glass" are mind-boggling! At some point, didn't he figure out that there was no glass? And, if there was no glass, shouldn't SA have figured out that the window was open?

And wouldn't it be reasonable that if you are holding your "best friend" (as Chloe has been described "You can barely look at him without him crying," Kimberly Weigand said. "She was his best friend.") that you would be super extra cautious and careful with her???!!! You would want to be damned awful POSITIVE that there was glass there. Hopefully this upcoming trial can clear up some of this confusion and conflicting reports of what exactly happened.

Grandpa who dropped young granddaughter from cruise ship: 'I saw her fall'

 

[WhatDidYouDo]

Is everyone forgetting that it happened in less than a minute? The news sources I've read all say between 5 and 8 seconds after he lifts Chloe up and still within a minute of their arrival in to that space (according to when the video shows them walking in). Obviously he did something exceptionally stupid but I don't for a second believe it was calculated or intended or anything more than the worst of the worst tragic accidents.

The first mistake that man made was lifting her up, the second was hiring that ambulance chasing lawyer who can't help but comment things that are hurting his client.

 

[vallie]

I wonder if it's clear from the video that he was reaching out for the glass.
Even so, he should have checked before he lifted her up. Or not put her on the ledge, or bar, at all.
I don't think this guy has much common sense.
From watching his interview I got the impression that he was a bit "challenged."

Imo

Maybe in the video he is isn't tapping , he is pointing to something for Chloe to look at , she wouldn't, so he picked her up?

It's possible the tape is shown to lawyers, lawyers try to make something from what he seems to sorta be doing, and build their narrative around it. The only reason he would do public appearances is because the evidence shows neglect and he is trying to explain it as something else. hoping public sentiment will fall in his favor or taint a jury pool

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

I doubt that the video presented to media outlets was the actual surveillance footage onboard Freedom of the Seas or video from the pier in San Juan. Media were likely given a few video clips to include in reports on the case. I suspect that the actual CCTV video from the ship and port is closely guarded and will not be released to the public until after the trial, if it's ever released. Both the prosecution and RCCL have remained tight-lipped on what is actually shown in the video, and they are not not going to jeopardize their case by releasing too much information. I think the PR DA and RCCL are confident that the video will show exactly what SA was doing from the time he embarked the ship until the horrific incident that took Chloe's life. I get chills just thinking about it

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Yeah, the metal bar is supposedly a foot from the window, so he would have had to be leaning far forward with his neck stretching out, I would think.
Unless his head was underneath the metal bar. I don't know. It would really help to see the video.
Was he really dangling the child out the window or was he leaning forward with her in his arms?
Which is it? The video must show it if he had her outside the window, as was originally claimed by some reports.

Imo

If she was on the windowsill with much of her body out the window, I don't think it would be mutually exclusive for her to both be considered dangling and him leaning forward with her in his arm.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

The first mistake that man made was lifting her up, the second was hiring that ambulance chasing lawyer who can't help but comment things that are hurting his client.

Actually Winkleman expressly doesn't work for SA, which I find quite curious as Winkleman seems to be damaging SA's criminal defense.

 

[neesaki]

It's possible that some of those sympathetic comments are from paid commentators. A great deal of money is at stake here. PR firms working for large corporations or celebrities for instance will sometimes hire people to write online comments favorable to their clients, knowing that it can turn the tide of public opinion. The employees doing it can set up multiple accounts and create what looks like an onslaught of comments.I'm not saying that the law firm is doing this, just that it does happen all of the time.

I truly believe this is the case, it should be illegal.
Early on, comments were not so sympathetic, wouldn’t have changed for the better, IMO.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

Is everyone forgetting that it happened in less than a minute? The news sources I've read all say between 5 and 8 seconds after he lifts Chloe up and still within a minute of their arrival in to that space (according to when the video shows them walking in). Obviously he did something exceptionally stupid but I don't for a second believe it was calculated or intended or anything more than the worst of the worst tragic accidents.

The first mistake that man made was lifting her up, the second was hiring that ambulance chasing lawyer who can't help but comment things that are hurting his client.

"The surveillance video shown to CBS News by attorney Michael Winkleman, who represents Chloe's family but not Anello in his criminal case, appeared to show that the time it took for Anello to pick Chloe up and hold her up to a window above the railing before she fell was about six seconds. But CBS News has since learned that video was not in real time. The incident actually lasted more than 30 seconds." BBM Grandfather charged in girl's cruise ship death says he's colorblind, calls outcome of case "inconsequential"

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Actually Winkleman expressly doesn't work for SA, which I find quite curious as Winkleman seems to be damaging SA's criminal defense.

Personally, I think the purpose of the parents' lawsuit against RCCL is intended to assuage their guilt for having entrusted Grandpa with Chloe's care while they were elsewhere on the ship. Their continued support of this man's careless and reckless actions is baffling. They should be livid, but they seem to care more about protecting Grandpa than seeing that justice is served in the tragic death of their child.

 

[MsBetsy]

Maybe in the video he is isn't tapping , he is pointing to something for Chloe to look at , she wouldn't, so he picked her up?

It's possible the tape is shown to lawyers, lawyers try to make something from what he seems to sorta be doing, and build their narrative around it. The only reason he would do public appearances is because the evidence shows neglect and he is trying to explain it as something else. hoping public sentiment will fall in his favor or taint a jury pool

Does he have a defense lawyer yet? I haven't heard anything about that and I haven't seen an answer yet.

I think what is most important is how the video is interpreted by the prosecution and the court, as well as what witnesses have to say.

But yes, I agree that the family is trying to sway public opinion in their favor by everything they have said and also through the lawsuit and what that lawyer has to say.

And in some ways it is working because it seems more and more unclear what actually happened everytime they make a statement.

Someone posted that the comments about the case seem to be more in support of the grandfather recently.

So I still believe the family is using the lawsuit to help clear the grandfather. I think they will do everything in their power to prevent him from being charged with negligent homicide.

Imo

 

[MsMarple]

Does he have a defense lawyer yet? I haven't heard anything about that and I haven't seen an answer yet.

I think what is most important is how the video is interpreted by the prosecution and the court, as well as what witnesses have to say.

But yes, I agree that the family is trying to sway public opinion in their favor by everything they have said and also through the lawsuit and what that lawyer has to say.

And in some ways it is working because it seems more and more unclear what actually happened everytime they make a statement.

Someone posted that the comments about the case seem to be more in support of the grandfather recently.

So I still believe the family is using the lawsuit to help clear the grandfather. I think they will do everything in their power to prevent him from being charged with negligent homicide.

Imo

“What I saw with the video, it’s pretty consistent with what my client has told me,” said José Pérez Ortiz, who represents Salvatore Anello in the criminal case.
https://nypost.com/2019/11/22/video...grandfather-thought-window-was-closed-lawyer/