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

[Lilibet]

The part that's the most chilling in the video is when SA leans his head outside of the window and looks downward.
As if he was gauging the distance to the concrete dock below.

Purposeful, and not in the least 'confused and befuddled'.... " I thought there was glass..." He said in the video, slapping his knee several times for emphasis.

I wonder how he might try to explain the discrepancy between his emphatic “I thought there was glass” statement and the video clearly showing him leaning through the window and looking down. It could get interesting.

 

[Safeguard]

This was a misunderstanding IMO. A lot of times posters are referring to previously discussed matters so they assume that their meaning is understood, and it was understood by a lot of people. In this case; the only issue being referred to was whether there were any ongoing medical issues. And the only reason that was being discussed was questions of whether there was any motive involved. I don't want to be jumped on, I am trying to clarify what others were saying. I knew what they meant; it was not saying anything negative about this child. Trying to clear up the misunderstanding.

Pardon my misunderstanding. More than one poster stated her head size may have factored into the her "falling" and that's really reaching imo. . So "motive" was not the not the only factor. I never read a thing about the motive being related to any possible disability. ( not doubting what you say, I just missed that point somehow).
I think some people just wanted to express their feeling that her head looked odd to them. That's the "motive" I sense behind some of the posts.

 

[mickey2942]

FWIW, I think SA was not particularly pleased to be tasked with watching a toddler. His entire attitude towards Chloe was negligent. She wandered off, he is way far behind her, following her on the video. She goes to the window, he is probably frustrated....he looks out, I can almost see his passive-aggressive attitude..."Fine, you want to look out the window kid, here you go!". And he drops her. I don't think that he meant for that to happen. He just was being immature and stupid. Then, he realized what happened, and turns it on RCCL.

It makes me think that he did not pay for the cruise himself, he is along with Chloe's Grandmother, and when asked to tend Chloe for a few minutes, even though he didn't want to, couldn't exactly say, "No, I don't want to watch your kid.". He probably felt like he was being treated like a servant, and was angry with the situation.

Frustration, anger, and child care are not good things.

 

[Safeguard]

FWIW, I think SA was not particularly pleased to be tasked with watching a toddler. His entire attitude towards Chloe was negligent. She wandered off, he is way far behind her, following her on the video. She goes to the window, he is probably frustrated....he looks out, I can almost see his passive-aggressive attitude..."Fine, you want to look out the window kid, here you go!". And he drops her. I don't think that he meant for that to happen. He just was being immature and stupid. Then, he realized what happened, and turns it on RCCL.

It makes me think that he did not pay for the cruise himself, he is along with Chloe's Grandmother, and when asked to tend Chloe for a few minutes, even though he didn't want to, couldn't exactly say, "No, I don't want to watch your kid.". He probably felt like he was being treated like a servant, and was angry with the situation.

Frustration, anger, and child care are not good things.

He watched Chloe alot. There is a ton of photo evidence that he was with her often and enjoyed it. I honestly see nothing like what you're claiming you see. He looks perfectly calm to me. I see no anger, none of the passive aggressiveness you're talking about. Can you describe it? What does he DO exactly, that makes you see the things you say you see? Other than the fatal decision to show her the view from an open window, I see nothing out the ordinary.

And this:
"It makes me think that he did not pay for the cruise himself, he is along with Chloe's Grandmother, and when asked to tend Chloe for a few minutes, even though he didn't want to, couldn't exactly say, "No, I don't want to watch your kid.". He probably felt like he was being treated like a servant, and was angry with the situation. "

Just blows my mind. Where are you are you getting that from?

"Fine, you want to look out the window kid, here you go!"
Really? I'm speechless. Uhg!

 

[book-thinker]

This was a misunderstanding IMO. A lot of times posters are referring to previously discussed matters so they assume that their meaning is understood, and it was understood by a lot of people. In this case; the only issue being referred to was whether there were any ongoing medical issues. And the only reason that was being discussed was questions of whether there was any motive involved. I don't want to be jumped on, I am trying to clarify what others were saying. I knew what they meant; it was not saying anything negative about this child. Trying to clear up the misunderstanding.

I agree. Some earlier posts mentioned if the toddler had any medical issues. I don’t believe people were being negative. Not sure why this is being brought up.

 

[they'll get you]

The part that's the most chilling in the video is when SA leans his head outside of the window and looks downward.
As if he was gauging the distance to the concrete dock below.

Purposeful, and not in the least 'confused and befuddled'.... " I thought there was glass..." He said in the video, slapping his knee several times for emphasis.

Deceitful lying coward.

 

[SouthAussie]

I wonder how he might try to explain the discrepancy between his emphatic “I thought there was glass” statement and the video clearly showing him leaning through the window and looking down. It could get interesting.

On Day One following the incident - Monday 8th July - not one mention of glass or banging on glass. Not until the lawsuit lawyer stepped in.


South Bend Police angle ...
Initial reports claimed her grandfather, named as Salvatore Anello, dangled her from a window, but South Bend Police Department have since said that this is not true. They said Chloe slipped from his hands after he lost his balance, WSBT reported.
Pictured: Toddler who fell to her death from grandfather's arms on cruise ship | Metro News

Port Authority angle ...
Puerto Rico Ports Authority spokesman José Carmona told the AP that the family was gathered in or near a dining hall on the 11th floor and that the grandfather sat the toddler on the edge of a window and apparently lost his grip.
Family in shock after toddler daughter of Indiana cop dies in fall from grandfather's hands on cruise ship, reports say

PR Police angle ...
Police said Chloe's grandfather, Salvatore Anello of Valparaiso, was holding her outside a window on the 11th story of the Freedom of the Seas while it docked in San Juan.
According to Elmer Román, Puerto Rico's Department of Public Security secretary, Anello lost his grip and the girl fell to the ground below.
Here is everything we know about the death of an Indiana toddler on a cruise ship

The Coast Guard angle ...
... spokesman Jonathan Lally said. Still, “every cruise ship has a safety plan,” and “they are required to give a safety brief,” he said. The Coast Guard “strongly advises” passengers who board ships to follow all safety rules and plans.
1-Year-Old Plunges to Her Death While Playing With Grandfather on Cruise Ship Docked in Puerto Rico

 

[al66pine]

Lifted to Rail or Not? Does It Matter, or Collateral Point?

I wish the video was clearer. The railing is relevant IMO because the civil lawsuit complaint states:
20. ... Chloe asked to be lifted up ..Mr. Anello then lifted Chloe up onto the railing and held Chloe ....Complaint - Wiegand vs Royal Caribbean Cruises LTD - LMAW, PA ...in determining what happened, both in the criminal case and the civil case...

@MsMarple bbm sbm. Pls, bear w me for a couple hypotheticals.
Hypothetical #1.
Let's say vids shot from 2, 4, or 6 angles (more if you want) show events in perfect focus and color.
--- Let's say SA told PR LE that Chloe wore a navy-color sundress w matching hat, said same in (hypo) MSM interviews, and posted it on his (hypo?) facebook page, etc. In civil trial, SA repeats same.
However all vids show Chloe wore a pink/lavender swimsuit and white hat, and also showed SA put his head & shoulders out window, then after that held Chloe out side window and she dropped, fell to ground.
Does discrepancy between SA's description of piece of clothing & color versus the vids' depiction of clothing & color matter? Does it matter/is it relevant to civil lawsuit or crim case? No, not if vids show him putting head (and shoulders?) out/thru the window and then holding her outside the window. The particular piece of Chloe's clothing and its color are collateral to issues of both the civil & crim cases. Does not matter whether she wore sundress, swimsuit, or Notre Dame hockey uniform. It's a collateral point.

Hypothetical #2.
---Now let's say vids shot from 2, 4, or 6 angles are in perfect focus and color, like above. Vids show that SA did not lift her to rail, did not sit her on rail, did not stand her on rail. However vids show SA put his head (& shoulders?) out window, then after that he held Chloe out side window and she dropped, fell to ground. Does this discrepancy between allegations in civil complaint and the vids matter? Again, a collateral point.

So, would having a clearer video showing whether SA did or did not sit her or stand her on rail (or even SA or Chloe doing an Irish jig on rail?) clarify SA's culpability re her death? No, immaterial as to allegations in civil Complaint. Ditto crim case.
jmo, could be wrong.

 

[they'll get you]

To repeat a prior thought: If the window had been closed and the same accident happened, meaning Chloe slipped from SA's grip, then her poor head would have smashed into the glass. Then she might have fallen to the floor. Tell me that isn't a serious event. So IMO SA was reckless from the get go, open window or not. MOO.

RSBM

This is the exact angle Winkleman is pushing.
If the windows weren’t openable then Chloe would still be alive, maybe injured but alive.
IMO this will earn them the BIG bucks.

 

[SouthAussie]

RSBM

This is the exact angle Winkleman is pushing.
If the windows weren’t openable then Chloe would still be alive, maybe injured but alive.
IMO this will earn them the BIG bucks.

It seems so unfair. The hindsight of Winkleman's statements (plus the 'banging on the glass' lies).

Royal Caribbean were following all safety angles. Abiding by the law. Notifying their passengers strongly of the guest conduct required, by incorporating into a ticket contract. Trying their damndest to keep their passengers safe and happy and comfortable.

Then one reckless dimwit comes along, and now they are facing a lawsuit. Through absolutely no fault of their own.

 

[they'll get you]

Yes, what sealed it for me was those videos and seeing how his right arm was pulled back far enough to see his elbows. The arm constantly moving. What the heck was he doing while precariously balancing a toddler 11 stories above ground?

I noticed that as well.

 

[they'll get you]

Agreed.
Looks like the initial reports by the ships' employees and PR LE were right.
"...an act of games..."

Eyewitnesses?

 

[SouthAussie]

Yes, what sealed it for me was those videos and seeing how his right arm was pulled back far enough to see his elbows. The arm constantly moving. What the heck was he doing while precariously balancing a toddler 11 stories above ground?

When I read the initial reports, I think that the moving back and forth, and the moving of the right arm thing, is when he was losing his balance, losing his grip.

And why wouldn't he be ... he was leaning over a safety rail that was likely digging into his chest - he couldn't get any closer - while he was hanging on to a beautiful little 20lb weight.

Such a stupid, reckless thing to do. Put a child into a position where you cannot even help or hang onto her.

 

[they'll get you]

Freedom of the Seas is a "Freedom Class" ship, and has two "sisters:" Liberty and Independence of the Seas. The next class down is "Voyager Class." These ships are a bit smaller (they hold about 500 fewer passengers) than Freedom, but have the same basic layout and design. In all, I've been on Freedom and Voyager class ships 11 times. Because of this, I knew they were all lying from the start. First, when they continually called it a "children's play area," and then when he said he didn't know the window was open. I knew there was no way any normal adult would not know that window was open. I suspect that's why I've been so interested in this case all along.

Based on the interviews I've seen from Winkleman, I don't believe he has ever stepped foot on one of these ships. He seems to have no understanding of the area, the windows, the tint on the glass or the wind and noise that comes through these open windows. If he did, he would/should have proceeded much differently. As others have said, I believe he sought out this family in their time of grief, and convinced them that someone else was to blame - the cruise line. In his very first press conference, he came right out and said that all he does is sue cruise lines! His entire practice exists simply to extort money from the deepest pockets possible. I almost choked watching a more recent press conference when he managed to say with a straight face that the railing should have had signs on it that said no sitting or standing on railing. Seriously!?!?

There has been much discussion about the lack of empathy for the parents. While I cannot begin to imagine their pain, most of my empathy evaporated when they hired MW less than 24 hours after the death of their child and then decided to go on a media tour in an attempt to gain public sympathy for their civil case.

IMHO, in order to effectively defend against the civil case, all the RCCL lawyers need to do is to take the jury to the exact location of the incident and let them see/feel for themselves. Case dismissed.

Great post & a warm welcome.

Wow, 11, you’d be nearly Pinicle?

 

[they'll get you]

He watched Chloe alot. There is a ton of photo evidence that he was with her often and enjoyed it. I honestly see nothing like what you're claiming you see. He looks perfectly calm to me. I see no anger, none of the passive aggressiveness you're talking about. Can you describe it? What does he DO exactly, that makes you see the things you say you see? Other than the fatal decision to show her the view from an open window, I see nothing out the ordinary.

And this:
"It makes me think that he did not pay for the cruise himself, he is along with Chloe's Grandmother, and when asked to tend Chloe for a few minutes, even though he didn't want to, couldn't exactly say, "No, I don't want to watch your kid.". He probably felt like he was being treated like a servant, and was angry with the situation. "

Just blows my mind. Where are you are you getting that from?

"Fine, you want to look out the window kid, here you go!"
Really? I'm speechless. Uhg!

I agree that’s why links to MSM are helpful.

 

[they'll get you]

It seems so unfair. The hindsight of Winkleman's statements (plus the 'banging on the glass' lies).

Royal Caribbean were following all safety angles. Abiding by the law. Notifying their passengers strongly of the guest conduct required, by incorporating into a ticket contract. Trying their damndest to keep their passengers safe and happy and comfortable.

Then one reckless dimwit comes along, and now they are facing a lawsuit. Through absolutely no fault of their own.

It IS unfair SouthAussie but this nanny state world we live in protects the knuckleheaded consumer from themselves.
Look at the laws we have to protect our-stupid-selves because of one reckless dimwit.

Also I’ve always found it curious how the South Bend Police were gobbing-on but they weren’t there, they weren’t witnesses but still had so much to say.

 

[JulieBEMT]

Great post & a warm welcome.

Wow, 11, you’d be nearly Pinicle?

Not just yet. Still diamond. LOL

 

[IceIce9]

This was a misunderstanding IMO. A lot of times posters are referring to previously discussed matters so they assume that their meaning is understood, and it was understood by a lot of people. In this case; the only issue being referred to was whether there were any ongoing medical issues. And the only reason that was being discussed was questions of whether there was any motive involved. I don't want to be jumped on, I am trying to clarify what others were saying. I knew what they meant; it was not saying anything negative about this child. Trying to clear up the misunderstanding.

Thank you for explaining this so much better than I did. I should have been more clear when I posted, and explained my line of thought went back to what we had previously discussed.

 

[Montrealaise]

I gather that Chloe's parents have still not watched the video, but surely her other grandparents would have, by now - her biological grandfather (KW's father) and AW's parents. Wouldn't they want to know what happened? And once they saw the video and realized SA's extreme negligence, wouldn't they tell the parents? So why are the parents still defending SA?

 

[IceIce9]

Eyewitnesses?

In early reports they said there were eyewitnesses on and off the ship.