IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #4

[Arkay]

As Kakidoll said, it's a ship; areas tend to merge. However, part of the lawsuit is that this was a children's play area, which seeks to implicate Royal Caribbean for not having extra precautionary measures installed, such as windows that cannot be opened. But the video does show that this was not a designated children's area, so that point is not only moot, but blatantly false. Whether people were still boarding as seems likely, and those already aboard were wandering around to check out the ship, at that time SA had one job...keep a watch on Chloe.
This can never be fixed. I'm sure he'd do anything to rewind and do it differently. That cannot happen, and so justice must be served. Even if they don't put him in jail, the family should take the lawsuit off the table and go forward to help their son. JMO.
Happy Chanukah and Merry Christmas to all.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

As Kakidoll said, it's a ship; areas tend to merge. However, part of the lawsuit is that this was a children's play area, which seeks to implicate Royal Caribbean for not having extra precautionary measures installed, such as windows that cannot be opened. But the video does show that this was not a designated children's area, so that point is not only moot, but blatantly false. Whether people were still boarding as seems likely, and those already aboard were wandering around to check out the ship, at that time SA had one job...keep a watch on Chloe.
This can never be fixed. I'm sure he'd do anything to rewind and do it differently. That cannot happen, and so justice must be served. Even if they don't put him in jail, the family should take the lawsuit off the table and go forward to help their son. JMO.
Happy Chanukah and Merry Christmas to all.

IMOO If SA really felt bad about killing Chloe, and if it really was an accident, he would accept blame and responsibility.

 

[MsMarple]

IMOO If SA really felt bad about killing Chloe, and if it really was an accident, he would accept blame and responsibility.

I think SA feels horrible but has convinced himself that his reckless behavior was an accident, and because the parents hired the attorney so quickly he's now stuck between a rock and a hard place.

If he admits guilt now he compromises the civil suit and his criminal case. IMO the time to admit guilt was when he dropped Chloe and IIRC early on he did say he "dropped" her. But once the parents engaged Winkleman they all had to toe the line of RCCL being the bad guy and SA being a victim. So the story had to change.

And while I feel sympathy for Chloe's parents it leaves a bad taste in my mouth that SA can't even express guilt or remorse because of the civil suit. A suit that they may very well lose. IMO that's not conducive to the healing process. MOO.

 

[MsMarple]

Oh, and:
Hanukkah Sameach!
Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah Y'all

 

[book-thinker]

I’m wishing all websleuther’s
Happy Hanukkah and a blessed Merry Christmas!

 

[1&2&3]

I missed the video. Would someone tell me where to find it? TIA

Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah.

 

[al66pine]

Allegations in Complaint. Rules of Professional Conduct, FL Bar.
@MsMarple bbm No need for you to apologize. I misread (some of) your post and after reading some FL State Bar Rules re atty's obligation to the court, I hesitate to try to respond to your post, but will offer info from FL bar website.

Complaint states "Mr. Anello then lifted Chloe up onto the railing and held Chloe..."

Does ^ phrase in complaint violate state bar Rules of Professional Conduct re Candor toward the Tribunal? Is it a basis for disciplinary action? Quotes below are from "Rules Regulating The Florida Bar" Rules of Professional Conduct, Sept 19, 2019, w some sentences I bolded and underscored.
"4-3. ADVOCATE RULE
4-3.1 MERITORIOUS CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law...
"RULE 4-3.3 CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL
(a) False Evidence; Duty to Disclose. A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;...
Comment
This rule governs the conduct of a lawyer who is representing a client in the proceedings of a tribunal.
"Representations by a lawyer
An advocate is responsible for pleadings and other documents prepared for litigation, but is usually not required to have personal knowledge of matters asserted therein, for litigation documents ordinarily present assertions by the client, or by someone on the client’s behalf, and not assertions by the lawyer. Compare rule 4-3.1. However, an assertion purporting to be on the lawyer’s own knowledge, as in an affidavit by the lawyer or in a statement in open court, may properly be made only when the lawyer knows the assertion is true or believes it to be true on the basis of a reasonably diligent inquiry..." pages 80-83 in pdf, from this link https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2019/09/Ch-4-from-2020_03-SEP-RRTFB-9-19-19-3.pdf

For the record, I'd like to see attys telling big fat lies to be reprimanded by bar assns or st supreme cts as applicable, then tarred & feathered But that's jmo.

I don't quite follow your hypothetical #1 - of course a blue swimsuit vs. pink is irrelevant.

However, in your hypothetical #2 IMO there is relevance. I tried and failed to explain properly so far and I apologize and will try one more time.
In the civil complaint Winkleman writes that SA sat Chloe on the railing. If that is a lie then there's a problem. By signing the complaint, he (and the family) are certifying that to the best of their knowledge they have vetted what's contained in the complaint as truthful. Duty of candor.
I'm not talking about the hyperbole as that's expected. I'm addressing a bald-faced lie where the attorney saw SA put Chloe outside the window and not on the railing. Or that SA dangled, threw or pushed Chloe, whatever.
The court has power to sanction the attorney and his clients if it feels fraud has been committed. It may not impact the family so much, at worst they may have to pay RCCL's attorney fees. But Winkleman could conceivably end up with a temporary revocation of his license that could last years. At worst he could be disbarred.
Why an attorney from a large firm would risk that over one case is hard to understand. I'm not saying he didn't do exactly that but if he did then he's a terrible lawyer and deserves to have his livelihood taken away. That's why IMO I believe the railing is relevant.
So I'm *not* saying the negligence would be any more or less. I'm saying: If clear video proves the family (by way of their attorney) deliberately lied about the circumstances in order to gain money then the court has the legal power to punish all of them. So what does Winkleman gain by bald-faced lying?

 

[BeachSky]

I missed the video. Would someone tell me where to find it? TIA

Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah.

Video: Horrific moment Salvatore Anello drops granddaughter | Daily Mail Online

 

[MsMarple]

Allegations in Complaint. Rules of Professional Conduct, FL Bar.
@MsMarple bbm No need for you to apologize. I misread (some of) your post and after reading some FL State Bar Rules re atty's obligation to the court, I hesitate to try to respond to your post.

Complaint states "Mr. Anello then lifted Chloe up onto the railing and held Chloe..."

Does ^ phrase in complaint violate state bar Rules of Professional Conduct re Candor toward the Tribunal? Is it a basis for disciplinary action? Quotes below are from "Rules Regulating The Florida Bar" Rules of Professional Conduct, Sept 19, 2019, w some sentences I bolded and underscored.
"4-3. ADVOCATE RULE
4-3.1 MERITORIOUS CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law...
"RULE 4-3.3 CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL
(a) False Evidence; Duty to Disclose. A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;...
Comment
This rule governs the conduct of a lawyer who is representing a client in the proceedings of a tribunal.
"Representations by a lawyer
An advocate is responsible for pleadings and other documents prepared for litigation, but is usually not required to have personal knowledge of matters asserted therein, for litigation documents ordinarily present assertions by the client, or by someone on the client’s behalf, and not assertions by the lawyer. Compare rule 4-3.1. However, an assertion purporting to be on the lawyer’s own knowledge, as in an affidavit by the lawyer or in a statement in open court, may properly be made only when the lawyer knows the assertion is true or believes it to be true on the basis of a reasonably diligent inquiry..." pages 80-83 in pdf, from this link https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2019/09/Ch-4-from-2020_03-SEP-RRTFB-9-19-19-3.pdf

For the record, I'd like to see attys telling big fat lies to be reprimanded by bar assns or st supreme cts as applicable, then tarred & feathered But that's jmo.

bbm

Yes, you hit it spot on. If the lawyer (and by extension his clients) knowingly makes false claims then big trouble can ensue. Furthermore, once the lawyer sees a mistake was made then he's obligated to correct it.

IOW, a complaint can um, stretch the truth to a certain degree but once the line is crossed and it's clear false information was presented then the court can act upon it.

Mind you, there's a lot of leeway and not all false claims are sanctioned by the court even though it has the power to do so. Certainly in cases where the lawyer has done his best to verify the claims and they turn out to be false then he's pretty much off the hook. But he must correct it.

That was the point I was trying to make. It doesn't mean that will happen here but it is a risk if Winkleman learned after viewing the video that SA put Chloe outside of the window. BTW, you did a great job of finding the pertinent rules IMO.

Oops! I for got to answer your question to me. IMO Winkleman saying SA put Chloe on the railing is fine if that's what the video shows. But if he failed to note that SA then continued to lift (or throw) her out the window (if that actually happened) then it's a problem. This is my understanding of the Bar rules. MOO.

 

[Lilibet]

Video: Horrific moment Salvatore Anello drops granddaughter | Daily Mail Online

I’ve said this many times and will say it again...Anyone who has seen this video, whether family or lawyer, and still says SA is colorblind and didn’t know the window was open is flat-out lying. He clearly leaned through the window before picking up Chloe. They have no civil case and Puerto Rico has a slam dunk guilty verdict. Why are they keeping up this pretense?

 

[al66pine]

Yes, you hit it spot on. If the lawyer (and by extension his clients) knowingly makes false claims then big trouble can ensue. ...It doesn't mean that will happen here BTW, you did a great job of finding the pertinent rules IMO. ....

@MsMarple Thanks for your kind words.
Finding the pertinent rules? A couple quick google searches. Hitting the right doc, then

whizzing thru 80+ pages to find the applicable rule. LOL.

 

[justice4allnow]

Anello's actions are a mystery and I understand why people are speculating as to his motive. We have nothing to go on, no prior instances of neglect nor aggression towards her. Yet his actions are so dangerous, the outcome so deadly, it is impossible to see his actions as reasonable. No one would do what he did to a baby, to a child-or to so much as a guinea pig! It would be cruelty to animals if a pet were injured doing what he did. And yet we are to believe that he is a loving grandfather who had an "accident"- an accident that no other person ever had in those circumstances. I wish that he would give a candid, honest explanation of what happened and of what he was thinking. We may never know. It was to be Chloe's second Christmas.

 

[al66pine]

Lots of discussion about the window(s) and the role played in this tragedy. Can we back up, say to July 14, a week after this sad death, for a hypothetical question.

--- If LE had released videos to the public (the ones we’ve seen in the last several days);
--- If Chloe’s parents & G’pa SA had not made public stmts, or done MSM interviews;
--- If PR prosecutor announced a criminal Negligent Murder case against G’pa;
Would we have bn endlessly debating window design, placement, and configuration, window tinting?
Or spit-balling ideas to explain G'pa's actions -- alcohol, seizures, medicine side effect, tripping on object, sun in his eyes, tired arms, color blindness, memory issues, depth perception probs, carpal tunnel syndrome, migraines, you-name-it.

No, we would have seen vids showing SA sticking his head & shoulders well outside window, then moments later suspending little Chloe over a 100+ ft drop. Even w some differing interps of the vids, they really focus the discussion on what actually happened. jmo

 

[BrownRice]

IMOO If SA really felt bad about killing Chloe, and if it really was an accident, he would accept blame and responsibility.

And maybe apologize?

kinda like the woman not too far from Grandpa in Indiana who plowed down 4 kids at their bus stop, killing 3 siblings. Never an apology.

Maybe their attorneys have advised them not to apologize? Can’t imagine a scenario where my NEGLIGENCE killed someone, especially little kids, where I wouldn’t be a blubbering mess apologizing to everyone.

 

[Kindred]

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to everyone here! I hope you've been getting in some quality family time or will soon.

Anello's actions are a mystery and I understand why people are speculating as to his motive. We have nothing to go on, no prior instances of neglect nor aggression towards her. Yet his actions are so dangerous, the outcome so deadly, it is impossible to see his actions as reasonable. No one would do what he did to a baby, to a child-or to so much as a guinea pig! It would be cruelty to animals if a pet were injured doing what he did. And yet we are to believe that he is a loving grandfather who had an "accident"- an accident that no other person ever had in those circumstances. I wish that he would give a candid, honest explanation of what happened and of what he was thinking. We may never know. It was to be Chloe's second Christmas.

To be honest, I get a very strong "not my problem" vibe from SA towards Chloe. That isn't to say that he didn't love her and enjoy her company, but more like someone else would worry about her and he'd just get to have fun when she was around.

As an example, my one cousin was getting married and had made her older married sister her matron of honor and her little 2-year-old niece her flower girl. Because grandma had always been such a big help with the little one, mom pretty much took the baby to everything (bridal showers, dress fittings, the wedding, and reception) and just assumed that grandma was keeping an eye on baby. And because grandma wasn't specifically asked to look after and was dealing with arrangements and the financial sides of things she wasn't watching. At the shower, the toddler pulled a display table down on herself that had lit candles on it. Got hot wax on her dress and broke the glass votives but luckily wasn't burned or cut, just scared. At the reception, she wandered out into the parking lot TWICE, again lucky that someone saw her and grabbed her before she could get hit by a car or wander away completely. Mom was adamant she'd done nothing wrong but after that Gma ALWAYS asked "who's looking after her?" at family get-togethers and events.

That's exactly the vibe I get off SA. We don't know for sure that he was ever left alone with her prior to this. We have photos of him with her, but they all seem to be some kind of event and with other people about. And even then there are times Chloe is just kinda 'there' by him but not his focus at all.

He sure seems far more interested in this dog right now then Chloe. She's not even in his line of sight. She could easily bolt and get herself into an unsafe situation if he was the only one there minding her.

This is a very sweet photo, but it's clear grandma is the one doing most of the actual minding and helping, holding the bag for the eggs and encouraging her while he snaps pictures. And there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. There are some grandparents who are just not that hands-on, don't do diapers, physically can't keep up, etc. It doesn't mean they don't care just that they don't get left alone with little ones because they don't/can't stay focused on her and her saftey. He looks like he's having fun following along, but could just as easily decide he's bored and wants to focus on someone/thing else and let grandma and her keep going without him.

Chloe and mom had been playing in the splash pad before he came up. Why did she stop playing in the water after mom left? Those things can keep little ones entertained for hours till you finally have to step in and pull them out kicking and screaming to dry off, warm-up, and get something to eat/drink. I don't know if he was wearing swim trunks under his shirt but part of me wonders if mom made her come out while she was only with SA, not trusting him with her in the water where she could slip or get into one of the wading pools with him not paying full attention and so he encouraged her to wander away to find something else to occupy her because 'mom said no more splashing till she got back'. She goes over to the windows and he decides to try something he thinks is funny out not thinking about if she's still wet and slippery, or how squirmy she might get because he's never had to think about that before. Someone else was always there to do that for him. And next thing you know she's disappeared from his hands before he can do anything to stop it.

 

[Lilibet]

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to everyone here! I hope you've been getting in some quality family time or will soon.

To be honest, I get a very strong "not my problem" vibe from SA towards Chloe. That isn't to say that he didn't love her and enjoy her company, but more like someone else would worry about her and he'd just get to have fun when she was around.

As an example, my one cousin was getting married and had made her older married sister her matron of honor and her little 2-year-old niece her flower girl. Because grandma had always been such a big help with the little one, mom pretty much took the baby to everything (bridal showers, dress fittings, the wedding, and reception) and just assumed that grandma was keeping an eye on baby. And because grandma wasn't specifically asked to look after and was dealing with arrangements and the financial sides of things she wasn't watching. At the shower, the toddler pulled a display table down on herself that had lit candles on it. Got hot wax on her dress and broke the glass votives but luckily wasn't burned or cut, just scared. At the reception, she wandered out into the parking lot TWICE, again lucky that someone saw her and grabbed her before she could get hit by a car or wander away completely. Mom was adamant she'd done nothing wrong but after that Gma ALWAYS asked "who's looking after her?" at family get-togethers and events.

That's exactly the vibe I get off SA. We don't know for sure that he was ever left alone with her prior to this. We have photos of him with her, but they all seem to be some kind of event and with other people about. And even then there are times Chloe is just kinda 'there' by him but not his focus at all.

He sure seems far more interested in this dog right now then Chloe. She's not even in his line of sight. She could easily bolt and get herself into an unsafe situation if he was the only one there minding her.

This is a very sweet photo, but it's clear grandma is the one doing most of the actual minding and helping, holding the bag for the eggs and encouraging her while he snaps pictures. And there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. There are some grandparents who are just not that hands-on, don't do diapers, physically can't keep up, etc. It doesn't mean they don't care just that they don't get left alone with little ones because they don't/can't stay focused on her and her saftey. He looks like he's having fun following along, but could just as easily decide he's bored and wants to focus on someone/thing else and let grandma and her keep going without him.

Chloe and mom had been playing in the splash pad before he came up. Why did she stop playing in the water after mom left? Those things can keep little ones entertained for hours till you finally have to step in and pull them out kicking and screaming to dry off, warm-up, and get something to eat/drink. I don't know if he was wearing swim trunks under his shirt but part of me wonders if mom made her come out while she was only with SA, not trusting him with her in the water where she could slip or get into one of the wading pools with him not paying full attention and so he encouraged her to wander away to find something else to occupy her because 'mom said no more splashing till she got back'. She goes over to the windows and he decides to try something he thinks is funny out not thinking about if she's still wet and slippery, or how squirmy she might get because he's never had to think about that before. Someone else was always there to do that for him. And next thing you know she's disappeared from his hands before he can do anything to stop it.

This is a very good (and very kind and fair) analysis of what may have been the family dynamics.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to everyone here! I hope you've been getting in some quality family time or will soon.



To be honest, I get a very strong "not my problem" vibe from SA towards Chloe. That isn't to say that he didn't love her and enjoy her company, but more like someone else would worry about her and he'd just get to have fun when she was around.

As an example, my one cousin was getting married and had made her older married sister her matron of honor and her little 2-year-old niece her flower girl. Because grandma had always been such a big help with the little one, mom pretty much took the baby to everything (bridal showers, dress fittings, the wedding, and reception) and just assumed that grandma was keeping an eye on baby. And because grandma wasn't specifically asked to look after and was dealing with arrangements and the financial sides of things she wasn't watching. At the shower, the toddler pulled a display table down on herself that had lit candles on it. Got hot wax on her dress and broke the glass votives but luckily wasn't burned or cut, just scared. At the reception, she wandered out into the parking lot TWICE, again lucky that someone saw her and grabbed her before she could get hit by a car or wander away completely. Mom was adamant she'd done nothing wrong but after that Gma ALWAYS asked "who's looking after her?" at family get-togethers and events.

That's exactly the vibe I get off SA. We don't know for sure that he was ever left alone with her prior to this. We have photos of him with her, but they all seem to be some kind of event and with other people about. And even then there are times Chloe is just kinda 'there' by him but not his focus at all.

He sure seems far more interested in this dog right now then Chloe. She's not even in his line of sight. She could easily bolt and get herself into an unsafe situation if he was the only one there minding her.

This is a very sweet photo, but it's clear grandma is the one doing most of the actual minding and helping, holding the bag for the eggs and encouraging her while he snaps pictures. And there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. There are some grandparents who are just not that hands-on, don't do diapers, physically can't keep up, etc. It doesn't mean they don't care just that they don't get left alone with little ones because they don't/can't stay focused on her and her saftey. He looks like he's having fun following along, but could just as easily decide he's bored and wants to focus on someone/thing else and let grandma and her keep going without him.

Chloe and mom had been playing in the splash pad before he came up. Why did she stop playing in the water after mom left? Those things can keep little ones entertained for hours till you finally have to step in and pull them out kicking and screaming to dry off, warm-up, and get something to eat/drink. I don't know if he was wearing swim trunks under his shirt but part of me wonders if mom made her come out while she was only with SA, not trusting him with her in the water where she could slip or get into one of the wading pools with him not paying full attention and so he encouraged her to wander away to find something else to occupy her because 'mom said no more splashing till she got back'. She goes over to the windows and he decides to try something he thinks is funny out not thinking about if she's still wet and slippery, or how squirmy she might get because he's never had to think about that before. Someone else was always there to do that for him. And next thing you know she's disappeared from his hands before he can do anything to stop it.

Great post. Happy Holidays to you and yours as well!
The above post makes a lot of sense. alright. But, and this is just my own little opinion...that makes it seem even odder that SA was chosen to watch Chloe.

 

[Chikkamma]

I missed the video. Would someone tell me where to find it? TIA

Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah.

Good quality video from the original leaked footage:

https://video.fymy1-1.fna.fbcdn.net...=36a5d62be897695f9c460d361b6875cf&oe=5E66D171

 

[ColyH]

I drive a bus and once an older man was in the bus with his granddaughter and she was hanging on a parallel bar that runs from front to back. I told the man that is not safe because if I have to slam on the brakes she will fly off that bar and injure herself. He just stood there and said nothing like he didn't even care.

Most grandparents seem more interested in their grandchildren liking them than being respected by them.

 

[Kakidoll]

I’ve said this many times and will say it again...Anyone who has seen this video, whether family or lawyer, and still says SA is colorblind and didn’t know the window was open is flat-out lying. He clearly leaned through the window before picking up Chloe. They have no civil case and Puerto Rico has a slam dunk guilty verdict. Why are they keeping up this pretense?

To apologize is to admit guilt and/or family KNEW this whole time. Then the and sympathy and possible MONEY go out the window too. They can never admit guilt now, Sadly. Well, they could but they'd piss off a lot of people.