IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #3

[borndem]

Hi Liet! Just a thought about "looking through" an open window... I think the phrase could be taken a couple of ways. My own interpretation was SA looked through the window but didn't necessarily stick his head *out* of it. IOW, I'm looking through my kitchen window right now - or I'm looking out my kitchen window or I'm looking out through my kitchen window. From 15 feet away. My head isn't literally out the window, my gaze is.

So what I think of the phrase is that one's head may not be actually outside. Others may think differently, that is, that one's head *is* outside. So far I'm taking the reporter's words as the first but I certainly could be wrong. Oh, the joy of semantics, lol.

I see.

 

[Seattle1]

I doubt that this case is going to come down to only the video footage - because who knows what angle that footage is recorded from. From behind him? From the side of him? From 10 feet away or from 100 feet away? Did people pass through the footage as it was recorded, perhaps blocking some of the footage?

Prosecutors say they have witnesses, both on and off the island, they plan to call to testify.
“We’re comfortable with the evidence that we have,” prosecutor Ivette Nieves told ABC News this week. “We have a solid case.”
Harrowing surveillance video captures 1-year-old's fatal fall off cruise ship

Reportedly, the investigation of Chloe's death at the hands of her grandfather began immediately where RCCL also said it assisted authorities in San Juan with the investigation leading to SA's charges for negligent homicide four months later.

I agree this case will not be decided on the surveillance video alone just as I don't believe the Judge decided in a vacuum that an arrest warrant for SA was warranted. I'm certain authorities also considered the account from witnesses both on and off the island in their decision (i.e., off-island witnesses likely represent cruise guests not on the island today).

What seems clear from both the authorities in San Juan and the grandfather himself is that there was no evidence of malice here -- hence the lesser negligent homicide charge.

Adhering only to the pertinent facts of Chloe's death and applicable criminal laws -- it follows that negligent homicide charges had to follow the reckless actions of the adult who was also a person in trust of the child. IMO, there should be no dispute that Chloe could not reach the open window on her own, and if not for the grandfather raising her off the ground to the window she would not have fallen out of the window to her death.

Given identical facts, the only way I would see no charges filed would be if it was the little brother that raised his sister off the ground to look out the window. A minor child would not have the mindset to understand the consequences. Also, the minor brother would nowhere be considered a person in trust.

Lastly, I think it's naive to ignore the possibility that another court could decide there's some negligence on the part of RCCL even if SA is held accountable for his reckless behavior that led to the death of his granddaughter. In following many cases, I've learned that it only takes one act to change the definition of what's considered "reasonable public behavior."

While I'm not familiar with the construction of this passenger cruise ship, it seems to me that only a select number of the windows (on the 11th floor) slide open. I wouldn't be surprised to hear where a court agreed with a defense that showed how windows capable of sliding open should somehow be distinguished from those permanently closed. For example -- windows that slide open might be encased in colored window frames that distinguish them from windows that are permanently closed. A similar feature exists in glass office towers where the majority of windows are designed permanently closed while windows designed to "pop-out" (when pressure applied against the window) are designated with a visible red dot on the glass.

Regardless of the legal outcome in this case-- it would be good to see the focus return to the real tragedy that a beautiful 18 month chid lost her life in a manner that should never have happened.

MOO

 

[neesaki]

Not saying this proves anything at this point, but since the CBS interview did not raise the question of whether SA had had anything to drink, that would have been the SA's golden opportunity to answer that question with a point blank no - if he really hadn't had anything to drink. The fact that it wasn't mentioned could indicate that he and/or the attorneys did not want to be asked this question (if so then there's only one reason why not, needless to say).

But I'm sure there are other points (health issues or whatever) that also weren't asked about, that they're saving to raise in his defense if it comes to a full-out trial.

The CBS interviewer's first report was that they'd seen the video and it all happened in 5 seconds, then a day or so later, the same interviewer had a very significant expression on his face (to me anyway, compared to the first report) when he had to update the report to say that the first video they were shown was not the real-time video after all, and how long the actual events took. (This is the same reporter who interviewed SA and asked him, "Don't you think that most people who see the video will say that this was recklessness" - paraphrasing). Also, in that updated version, the anchorman on the far right who was more sympathetic during the first segment about 5 seconds, did not repeat that point of view this time. The other 3 anchors just looked upset and said very little.

Grandfather charged in girl's cruise ship death says he’s colorblind, calls court case "inconsequential"

I’m quite sure any interviews were done only under complete authority of SAs attorney. IOW, the interviews were tightly controlled, in a way that would shed only the best light on their client.
So most of these questions we would like to see answered, were not answered. JMO

 

[neesaki]

Reportedly, the investigation of Chloe's death at the hands of her grandfather began immediately where RCCL said it assisted authorities in San Juan with the investigation leading to SA's charges for negligent homicide four months later.

I agree this case will not be decided on the surveillance video alone just as I don't believe the Judge decided in a vacuum that an arrest warrant for SA was warranted. I'm certain authorities also considered the account from witnesses both on and off the island in their decision (i.e., off-island witnesses likely represent cruise guests not on the island today).

What seems clear from both the authorities in San Juan and the grandfather himself is that there was no evidence of malice here -- hence the lesser negligent homicide charge.

Adhering only to the pertinent facts of Chloe's death and applicable criminal laws -- it follows that negligent homicide had to follow the reckless actions of the adult who was also a person in trust of the child. IMO, there should be no dispute that Chloe could not reach the open window on her own, and if not for the grandfather raising her off the ground to the window she would not have fallen out of the window to her death.

Given identical facts, the only way I would see no charges filed would be if it was the little brother that raised his sister off the ground to look out the window. A minor child would not have the mindset to understand the consequences. Also, the minor brother would nowhere be considered a person in trust.

Lastly, I think it's naive to ignore the possibility that another court could decide there's some negligence on the part of RCCL even if SA is held accountable for his reckless behavior that led to the death of his granddaughter. In following many cases, I've learned that it only takes one act to change the definition of what's considered "reasonable public behavior."

While I'm not familiar with the construction of this passenger cruise ship, it seems to me that only a select number of the windows (on the 11th floor) slide open. I wouldn't be surprised to hear where a court agreed with a defense that showed how windows capable of sliding open should somehow be distinguished from those permanently closed. For example -- windows that slide open might be encased in colored window frames that distinguish them from windows that are permanently closed. A similar feature exists in glass office towers where the majority of windows are designed permanently closed while windows designed to "pop-out" (when pressure applied against the window) are designated with a visible red dot on the glass.

Regardless of the legal outcome in this case-- it would be good to see the focus return to the real tragedy that a beautiful 18 month chid lost her life in a manner that should never have happened.

MOO

I could see this coming into play, IF, it can be proven GP didn’t know the window was open. If he did know... IOW, if he actually did hold her out the window in an “act of games”... in which case he would have known.
Or, if he opened the window himself.....
would it not be a moot point? Just my thoughts, I am not a lawyer.

Yes, SA’s age and “assumed maturity”... as in he is at the age of a “reasonable adult” ... should come into play.

And thank you, I think it’s all good that we’re all on the same page with Justice for Chloe. That’s really what this should all be about.

GP has lived now for 51 years. Chloe lived for what, less than two?
That might help put things in perspective for those who want to keep protecting a man who with blatant negligence and complete and utter disregard for his grandchild’s safety, needlessly held this defenseless baby girl up to an open window, then dropped her to her death. No excuses, please.

 

[sl222]

I’m quite sure any interviews were done only under complete authority of SAs attorney. IOW, the interviews were tightly controlled, in a way that would shed only the best light on their client.
So most of these questions we would like to see answered, were not answered. JMO

I am just so surprised a defense attorney would allow any on-camera interviews unless they could approve the final cut. I posted at the time that I saw indications he doesn't believe his own story/mantra "I thought there was glass," and IMO he was being untruthful. The only time he seemed comfortable about anything he said was when he said he was colorblind. He was advised not to make a statement to the police from the beginning. I realize that a tv interview probably isn't going to be evidence in court though.

 

[sl222]

"Prosecutors say they have witnesses, both on and off the island, they plan to call to testify."

It if comes to a trial then I assume the adult family members could be called to testify too.

 

[SouthAussie]

While I'm not familiar with the construction of this passenger cruise ship, it seems to me that only a select number of the windows (on the 11th floor) slide open. I wouldn't be surprised to hear where a court agreed with a defense that showed how windows capable of sliding open should somehow be distinguished from those permanently closed. For example -- windows that slide open might be encased in colored window frames that distinguish them from windows that are permanently closed. A similar feature exists in glass office towers where the majority of windows are designed permanently closed while windows designed to "pop-out" (when pressure applied against the window) are designated with a visible red dot on the glass.

RSBM

I think that the fact that the windows are all tinted, and open window areas are not tinted, is enough for them to be distinguishable from each other.

Coupled with the fact that a safety rail has been installed there - across the windows - to give the passengers something to hold onto, instead of falling out through an open window if the ship is rocking.



Royal Caribbean cruise family admit grandad left toddler to fall to her death from this window rail

 

[neesaki]

RSBM

I think that the fact that the windows are all tinted, and open window areas are not tinted, is enough for them to be distinguishable from each other.

View attachment 219583 View attachment 219584

Royal Caribbean cruise family admit grandad left toddler to fall to her death from this window rail

Yes, even at night. Thank you for the pics, SouthAussie. Much easier than me having to go find them.

 

[LietKynes]

Also, in that updated version, the anchorman on the far right who was more sympathetic during the first segment about 5 seconds, did not repeat that point of view this time. The other 3 anchors just looked upset and said very little.

Grandfather charged in girl's cruise ship death says he’s colorblind, calls court case "inconsequential"

emph. mine
snipped for focus.

Again with that word.
"Inconsequential", or also "of little/no importance"
Good god, what a terrible thing to say about the life of Chloe.
This is about negligent homicide.
The court case is most certainly not "inconsequential".

Wonder if the parents are secretly fuming about gramps talking ?
Whilst still supporting him ?

 

[Safeguard]

Not saying this proves anything at this point, but since the CBS interview did not raise the question of whether SA had had anything to drink, that would have been the SA's golden opportunity to answer that question with a point blank no - if he really hadn't had anything to drink. The fact that it wasn't mentioned could indicate that he and/or the attorneys did not want to be asked this question (if so then there's only one reason why not, needless to say).

But I'm sure there are other points (health issues or whatever) that also weren't asked about, that they're saving to raise in his defense if it comes to a full-out trial.

The CBS interviewer's first report was that they'd seen the video and it all happened in 5 seconds, then a day or so later, the same interviewer had a very significant expression on his face (to me anyway, compared to the first report) when he had to update the report to say that the first video they were shown was not the real-time video after all, and how long the actual events took. (This is the same reporter who interviewed SA and asked him, "Don't you think that most people who see the video will say that this was recklessness" - paraphrasing). Also, in that updated version, the anchorman on the far right who was more sympathetic during the first segment about 5 seconds, did not repeat that point of view this time. The other 3 anchors just looked upset and said very little.

Grandfather charged in girl's cruise ship death says he’s colorblind, calls court case "inconsequential"

Thank you for posting this!
This is the video I had been looking for and trying to explain since I couldn't find it again.

I listened to SA with head phones on, and there is a distinct difference in his voice and demeanor, just during the portion of his accounting where he talked about not knowing the window was open, and needing to lean forward to bang on the glass, (he said "tap" on the glass). that portion had a very false ring to me, he mumbles and just looks very uncomfortable at that juncture.

What sounded very legit to me, was the portions where he says that it still seems unreal and at the end when he says that he will need (psychological) help at some point.

I don't doubt that he loved Chloe and he is in hell right now. That said. imo he knew the window was open and misjudged the angle he was placing her in as well as his ability to restrain a curious toddler.

Im not sure if his family believes his story. I tend to think if they do, it might be some sort of coping mechanism, (because I can't buy it for one second, and they know him!). Hell he might have even convinced himself. But imo he's in deep, deep trouble legally.

Thought I suppose nothing compares to his emotional torment. And I do believe he never meant to harm the little girl.

 

[al66pine]

How Much of Vid Have Other Reporters Seen?

The press has the entire video. They describe the entire incident ....

Who else w MSM reported seeing the actual vid? Who, anyone other than the ABC reporter? Link?

Winkleman's strategy? Allow only one reporter to see it/part of it? Or a few?
Setting strict limits before interview & vid viewing?
Keeping a tight reign on any potential leak of the vid itself?
Did Winkleman provide any reporter w a copy of the vid?

{{{ETA: Striking my comment about PR Prosecution providing vid to Winkeman.
My mind must have been going wonky when I posted. Meant to say, IIRC, G'pa-SA's def.atty provided vid to Winkleman. Sorry for any confusion.}}}

 

[LietKynes]

I’m quite sure any interviews were done only under complete authority of SAs attorney. IOW, the interviews were tightly controlled, in a way that would shed only the best light on their client.
So most of these questions we would like to see answered, were not answered. JMO

bbm

Yes, the videos do not answer many questions that have been brought up here.
A previous poster listed some of them.

It if comes to a trial then I assume the adult family members could be called to testify too.

bbm

Good point.
That could get interesting.
For instance, what if the adults say they went to eat at the buffet and they were doing something else ?
A small detail -- but if a person fibs about one thing they may be covering for grandpa in other areas.

 

[LietKynes]

How Much of Vid Have Other Reporters Seen?

Who else w MSM reported seeing the actual vid? Who, anyone other than the ABC reporter? Link?

Winkleman's strategy? Allow only one reporter to see it/part of it? Or a few?
Setting strict limits before interview & vid viewing?
Keeping a tight reign on any potential leak of the vid itself?
Did Winkleman provide any reporter w a copy of the vid?

Strike that.

bbm

Do you really think the PR prosecution did that ?
It seems unlikely, only because this is an important defense for them and RCCL.

And Winkleman has been known to fabricate.
"open windows within a child's play area..." Etc.

It'll be interesting to hear what SA's atty says.
Or doesn't say.

 

[SouthAussie]

bbm

Do you really think the PR prosecution did that ?
It seems unlikely, only because this is an important defense for them and RCCL.

And Winkleman has been known to fabricate.
"open windows within a child's play area..." Etc.

Would they trust him with this ?

As Winkleman is representing the family in the lawsuit, is he legally able to request a copy of the video? Although, one would think that the lawsuit would have to be filed with the court prior to obtaining the video.

As Jose Ortiz is representing SA in the criminal trial, Ortiz would be able to have a copy of the video during discovery, I would think.

 

[al66pine]

bbm
Do you really think the PR prosecution did that ?
It seems unlikely, only because this is an important defense for them and RCCL.
And Winkleman has been known to fabricate.
"open windows within a child's play area..." Etc.
Would they trust him with this ?

Thanks, @LietKynes for quickly pointing out my goof, in time for me to edit my post. You are right. G'pa-SA's def atty provided vid to Winkleman.

Whew. My brain must have been taking an unauthorized va-cay day, while my fingers were pounding on keyboard w no supervision.

 

[LietKynes]

Thanks, @LietKynes for quickly pointing out my goof, in time for me to edit my post.

Whew. My brain must have been taking an unauthorized va-cay day, while my fingers were pounding on keyboard w no supervision.

Oh, no.
Your post was fine.
Not trying to point anything out.

I find this Winkleman and possibly SA's defense atty. morbidly fascinating.

By now the public knows those windows were at a level higher than Chloe could reach.
The 'banging on the glass' defense hasn't been mentioned for a while.
Are the lawyers sitting there, leaning back in their office chairs thinking... Hmm, now what do we come up with ?

I am not beyond entertaining the notion that Winkleman could say something that later turns out to be ...well, false. If you know what I mean.

 

[Safeguard]

Thanks, @LietKynes for quickly pointing out my goof, in time for me to edit my post.

Whew. My brain must have been taking an unauthorized va-cay day, while my fingers were pounding on keyboard w no supervision.

Same!
I was too busy correcting like, nine typos in my last post to notice yours!

 

[SouthAussie]

It is interesting to note that the prosecution doesn't care about the knocking on the window story. What the prosecution alleges is ....

Prosecutors allege Anello “negligently exposed the child to the abyss through a window on the 11th floor,” according to a statement from the Puerto Rican Department of Justice obtained by PEOPLE.
Grandfather Charged in Girl's Fatal Fall on Cruise Speaks Out: 'They Can't Do Anything Worse to Me'

And, to me, that is something that cannot be denied. The safety rail was ignored, Chloe was placed in danger. Then the worst of the worst happened.

 

[Seattle1]

RSBM

I think that the fact that the windows are all tinted, and open window areas are not tinted, is enough for them to be distinguishable from each other.

Coupled with the fact that a safety rail has been installed there - across the windows - to give the passengers something to hold onto, instead of falling out through an open window if the ship is rocking.

View attachment 219583 View attachment 219584

Royal Caribbean cruise family admit grandad left toddler to fall to her death from this window rail

Take note that in negligence claims a defendant is held liable for defects regardless of whether the company or business acted negligently. It comes down to whether the plaintiff can show there was a failure to provide adequate warnings of the defect (i.e., open window).

I have not seen one photo posted on this thread of an open window on the ship where I personally can't distinguish that the window is open but that's not how negligence claims work.

Not that I think there was negligence on the part of RCCL -- I simply said that I would not be surprised to read if a court agreed with a claimant that showed in court they could not differentiate between open/closed windows because they did not have adequate warning the window was open. (I think I used an example of a colored [red] window frame as a warning). It's equally possible that a court would agree a tinted window is an adequate warning.

MOO

 

[they'll get you]

A Queensland mother on board the cruise ship claimed passengers were not warned of "how really dangerous" it was to visit the volcano.
Lisa Lou wrote on Facebook that she was "stranded" on the cruise liner while it was docked off White Island.
"I'm mad because these poor people booked the shore excursion… nowhere does it say how really dangerous this shore excursion is," she said.
"I'm angry that the tour still went ahead even though the risk level was at the highest it could get and I'm angry that there are fellow Royal Caribbean cruisers who's family won't be coming back on board

No it’s not. PR gets no money as a result of a guilty verdict. It costs them to put on a trial.

The facts seem to show he leaned out the window to look at port, with the baby. They leaned back in. He then placed the baby on the rail and leaned her forward again. And she fell.

For him not to know after leaning twice through the open window that it was open? To not feel that strong wind? To not put his need to lean through the window in order to see port together with the fact that there was an open window there? He had to be seriously wasted. So wasted that this is reckless homicide. Greater than criminally negligent.

PR is unbiased. They have no reason to support the ship. If anything they have a reason not to turn off future cruisers.

Thank you gitana1 you are GOLD here.