IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #5

[al66pine]

Sequence of Events? KSW Being Summoned? SA?

So - SA went to get KW and watch Chloe while she took care of the business? Where was everyone else at this time, I wonder?
It still sounds to me like the porter found the group and SA offered to go get KW and watch CW so KW could do her thing.
I mean, did KW call SA on the phone to come get Chloe? It makes more sense to me if SA went to her.

@justbreathe IDK where anyone was. Some posters upthread suggested AW & son might have been in pool area, at same time KSW and Chloe were. Makes sense, but no MSM confirmation AFAIK. Anyone seen MSM on this?

One poster (@BetteDavisEyes ? TYVM) suggested the cruise matter may have bn related to toddler issues (crib for Chloe, diaper disposal, etc). Makes sense, but no MSM confirmation AFAIK. MSM, anyone?
I missed any previous ref to a porter summoning anyone in the group. Maybe a porter, or phone call from office, or at check in she/they were told stop by later today at your leisure, or during these hours. jmo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Complaint:
"....After lunch, Mrs. Schultz-Wiegand and Chloe changed into swimsuits, and at approximately 2:40 p.m., they began to play in the pool(s) aboard the ship.
12. At or around 3:50 p.m., Mrs. Schultz Wiegand needed
needed to go help with an issue related to the cruise, and as such, Mr. Anello came up to the H2O Zone on Deck 11 of the vessel to supervise Chloe,..."

 

[al66pine]

dbm

 

[MsMarple]

Huh. I got the exact opposite impression. Sam originally told PR authorities that he accidentally dropped Chloe out the window.

Only after Winkleman gets involved, the story changes. In SA's televised acount, I feel like he almost sounded embarrassed and not authentic imo.

I think Winkleman saw the footage, and made up a (semi) plausible story, that he was able to match to that picture of Chloe at the hockey game, because in one part of the video, her arms/hands are outstretched very, very similarly to that photo.

Yes, I'm aware of the initial story. The banging on the glass story came from somewhere though and only SA and the parents knew about it. The parents had the photos of Chloe at the hockey rink. Because KW is also a lawyer her input may have influenced the final draft of the complaint. As their lawyer Winkleman must rely on information from his clients.

So at some point they shared it with Winkleman. Who decided to weave it into the complaint is anyone's guess. IMO it's not clear that Winkleman alone decided to do so without support from the family as the story is so ludicrous - like the color blind claim. But at least the color blind claim can be backed up with medical documentation. The banging on the glass claim is IMO ridiculous.

I'm *not* saying that's what happened, just that we don't know what factors caused those claims to be inserted into the complaint.

 

[Abb914]

Around 6:40 in the lacomay video you can see the women sitting at the table jump right up, runs to the next open window, leans out and look down, turns around and possibly covers her face. Cant imagine how traumatic it was for her but telling that there’s no way grandpa didn’t look down. Chloe would of had to be out the out let edge or you would think she had to of banged off the ledge of the window. Not completely slip out.

 

[Arkay]

Since I haven't been on a cruise in years I am ignorant about the available technology on ships. So are you saying cell phones can only be used in port because of acceess to land based cell towers nearby? Cell phones must work at sea until the ship gets too far away from the cell towers, correct? BTW, I hope you had a great time on your cruise, and that window photo you took doesn't look good for SA's defense. How can he not tell the window was open at that short distance from the railing? Thanks for posting it.

I've been cruising since the late 70s, and my most recent cruise was a year and a half ago, on Royal Caribbean. Of course there were no cell phones in the 70s. If there were an emergency you'd have to make a very expensive ship-to-shore call at some office aboard.
Nowadays, when you are not in port you are advised to put your phone in airplane mode, or you will be charged outrageous roaming fees. In our family we resort to leaving notes under each other's cabin doors to communicate when we weren't together. In port you can turn on your phone in regular mode. I think it has something to do with the location of satellite and cell phone towers, not sure. This is also, I believe, why you have to pay for Wi-Fi aboard ship if you want it. It is sold in time increments, and goes very slowly because the ship is moving and it has to make a connection with a satellite and bounce back down. Or something!

On a separate note, even if intrusive and omnipresent, I am most grateful that everything is on camera these days. I can't see anything other than SA bent over double at the window with his head and shoulders out, clearly no window impeding him, before he picked up Chloe. We've all talked about this for awhile but once the video came out, the jig was up. Like in the olden days when a prototypical story would be a man cheating on his wife, he says he's working late but has the infamous lipstick on his collar and smells like someone else's perfume. The wife gets suspicious, hires a private investigator who snaps pictures of him out with his mistress, and the story is clear. Obviously an old cliché but sped up to the 2019 version with CCTV. I want him to admit it, let the parents absorb what they must to know the truth, and let them begin to go on in whatever way they can with their son.
I always wonder what the actual grandfather, Scott Schutz, has to say. He must be so torn.

 

[max99]

I would imagine that in an extended and blended family, there might be one or two who never cared for SA to begin with.

What if the parents or other grandparents really thought from the beginning, "This is negligent homicide", and believed that he should do some time?

Would you run around to the press stating that and risk prejudicing the jury pool?

Would you risk causing family in-fighting and side-taking?

I believe the parents themselves knew this was negligent homicide from the beginning. They themselves cannot sentence SA to jail. They are letting the courts and its legal process take its course.

This is what the Wiegands know best. It is their line of work, and they can go on auto-pilot, while the awful truth sinks in.

you seem to have inside info...or you're very intuitive.

 

[jeena]

Can you post a link to this video? I don't think I have seen it. TIA

I don't know if I did the linking correctly, see above. If it's no good, all you need to do is go on YouTube, type in, chloe wiegand surveillance video, in the search engine and go down the list to select video by Charlton, it has about 5,000 hits so you can identify it better. In the video there is a photo of a toddler being dangled by her swimsuit straps. Anyway, Charlton seems to be on SA's side and he sounds somewhat "flighty" as he narrates the video, but keep watching because I saw things in the video I missed before watching other ones. Please let me know if you found it. If you don't, I'm sure one of the kind folks here will post the link for you.

Can you post a link to this video? I don't think I have seen it. TIA

 

[MyBelle]

Interesting that there was no mention of SA in her obituary. In fact, “Her best friend was her dog, Penny Rosabell, with whom she surreptitiously shared many snacks and kisses.” I thought Chloe was SA’s best friend?

BBM. Not true.

Left to cherish Chloe's memory are her parents, Alan and Kimberly and brother, Wyatt Amm, all of Granger; maternal grandparents, Salvatore and Patti Anello, of Niles, Michigan, and Scott and Annie Schultz, of Zelienople, Pennsylvania; and paternal grandparents, Thomas and Mary Ann Wiegand, of Angola, Indiana.

View Chloe Wiegand's Obituary on kpcnews.com and share memories

 

[mickey2942]

I've been cruising since the late 70s, and my most recent cruise was a year and a half ago, on Royal Caribbean. Of course there were no cell phones in the 70s. If there were an emergency you'd have to make a very expensive ship-to-shore call at some office aboard.
Nowadays, when you are not in port you are advised to put your phone in airplane mode, or you will be charged outrageous roaming fees. In our family we resort to leaving notes under each other's cabin doors to communicate when we weren't together. In port you can turn on your phone in regular mode. I think it has something to do with the location of satellite and cell phone towers, not sure. This is also, I believe, why you have to pay for Wi-Fi aboard ship if you want it. It is sold in time increments, and goes very slowly because the ship is moving and it has to make a connection with a satellite and bounce back down. Or something!

On a separate note, even if intrusive and omnipresent, I am most grateful that everything is on camera these days. I can't see anything other than SA bent over double at the window with his head and shoulders out, clearly no window impeding him, before he picked up Chloe. We've all talked about this for awhile but once the video came out, the jig was up. Like in the olden days when a prototypical story would be a man cheating on his wife, he says he's working late but has the infamous lipstick on his collar and smells like someone else's perfume. The wife gets suspicious, hires a private investigator who snaps pictures of him out with his mistress, and the story is clear. Obviously an old cliché but sped up to the 2019 version with CCTV. I want him to admit it, let the parents absorb what they must to know the truth, and let them begin to go on in whatever way they can with their son.
I always wonder what the actual grandfather, Scott Schutz, has to say. He must be so torn.

You bring up something very interesting here, the fact that this situation occurred on video. In real time, from at least two different angles, and possibly more that we haven't seen.

Once the video came out, even I couldn't believe how absolutely blatant this was. I imagined something like SA had placed Chloe on the guardrail, and she slipped. Which made a semblance of "sense". A tragic accident.

Once I saw the video, I was absolutely floored, this didn't look like an accident to me, SA deliberately put a child outside a window. She wasn't on the guardrail at all. It was crazy.

If there had not been a video, SA could have easily made up almost any story he wanted...

The flip side of videos, is that juries now, almost "expect" video evidence of everything. As in, if there is no video "reasonable doubt" takes on a whole new meaning.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

You bring up something very interesting here, the fact that this situation occurred on video. In real time, from at least two different angles, and possibly more that we haven't seen.

Once the video came out, even I couldn't believe how absolutely blatant this was. I imagined something like SA had placed Chloe on the guardrail, and she slipped. Which made a semblance of "sense". A tragic accident.

Once I saw the video, I was absolutely floored, this didn't look like an accident to me, SA deliberately put a child outside a window. She wasn't on the guardrail at all. It was crazy.

If there had not been a video, SA could have easily made up almost any story he wanted...

The flip side of videos, is that juries now, almost "expect" video evidence of everything. As in, if there is no video "reasonable doubt" takes on a whole new meaning.

BBM And let's not forget about the multiple eyewitnesses we haven't heard from yet!!

 

[Arkay]

BBM And let's not forget about the multiple eyewitnesses we haven't heard from yet!!

I wonder how this will be done. The passengers on a cruise usually are from all around the world. The crew is always multi-national as well, and typically do not stay on the same ship for very long.
I fervently hope RCCL was able to get written and videotaped statements from the eyewitnesses, because it will be extremely difficult, not to mention costly, to fly them in from all over the world to testify. If they are even willing and able and can spare the time for it. I would think that their statements would be admissible in court but maybe not, because they can't be cross-examined.
Those of you with legal knowledge, could you enlighten me?

 

[watersheds]

Either I missed it, or it's information yet to be released, but I'd be very curious to know whether SA was intoxicated in any way during the incident.

 

[WiseGuy]

Huh. I got the exact opposite impression. Sam originally told PR authorities that he accidentally dropped Chloe out the window.

Only after Winkleman gets involved, the story changes. In SA's televised acount, I feel like he almost sounded embarrassed and not authentic imo.

I think Winkleman saw the footage, and made up a (semi) plausible story, that he was able to match to that picture of Chloe at the hockey game, because in one part of the video, her arms/hands are outstretched very, very similarly to that photo.

Huh. I got the exact opposite impression. Sam originally told PR authorities that he accidentally dropped Chloe out the window.

Only after Winkleman gets involved, the story changes. In SA's televised acount, I feel like he almost sounded embarrassed and not authentic imo.

I think Winkleman saw the footage, and made up a (semi) plausible story, that he was able to match to that picture of Chloe at the hockey game, because in one part of the video, her arms/hands are outstretched very, very similarly to that photo.

Isn’t that unethical? Like possible disbarment unethical?

Google search found this:

Criminal defense attorneys have a duty to zealously represent their clients and guard their confidences. However, they also have a duty to the court not to present evidence that they know is false, fraudulent, or perjured, whether it’s coming from the defendant or a witness whom the lawyer knows intends to lie. A lawyer who knowingly uses or presents perjured testimony risks serious consequences. Under the profession’s code of ethics (the Canons of Professional Ethics of the American Bar Association), doing so subjects the lawyer to discipline—and quite possibly, disbarment.

The technical term is “subornation of perjury“: the crime of persuading a person to commit perjury, which is the swearing of a false oath to tell the truth in a legal proceeding, whether spoken or written.

 

[justbreathe]

I don't know if I did the linking correctly, see above. If it's no good, all you need to do is go on YouTube, type in, chloe wiegand surveillance video, in the search engine and go down the list to select video by Charlton, it has about 5,000 hits so you can identify it better. In the video there is a photo of a toddler being dangled by her swimsuit straps. Anyway, Charlton seems to be on SA's side and he sounds somewhat "flighty" as he narrates the video, but keep watching because I saw things in the video I missed before watching other ones. Please let me know if you found it. If you don't, I'm sure one of the kind folks here will post the link for you.

Yes, for some reason this is the first video where I could see where we see Chloe’s arm through the 1/4 of the window that isn’t open, right next to them on their right.

You can see her arm *outside* through that closed 1/4 of the window. You would not be able to see her arm through the window if it was not outside the window!

 

[Forever Young]

I don't know if I did the linking correctly, see above. If it's no good, all you need to do is go on YouTube, type in, chloe wiegand surveillance video, in the search engine and go down the list to select video by Charlton, it has about 5,000 hits so you can identify it better. In the video there is a photo of a toddler being dangled by her swimsuit straps. Anyway, Charlton seems to be on SA's side and he sounds somewhat "flighty" as he narrates the video, but keep watching because I saw things in the video I missed before watching other ones. Please let me know if you found it. If you don't, I'm sure one of the kind folks here will post the link for you.

I don't know if I did the linking correctly, see above. If it's no good, all you need to do is go on YouTube, type in, chloe wiegand surveillance video, in the search engine and go down the list to select video by Charlton, it has about 5,000 hits so you can identify it better. In the video there is a photo of a toddler being dangled by her swimsuit straps. Anyway, Charlton seems to be on SA's side and he sounds somewhat "flighty" as he narrates the video, but keep watching because I saw things in the video I missed before watching other ones. Please let me know if you found it. If you don't, I'm sure one of the kind folks here will post the link for you.

Thank you! Yes, I found it. I had not seen this one before, and it was not coming up for me when searching.

 

[Forever Young]

you seem to have inside info...or you're very intuitive.

No inside information. Common sense + empathy + years of observation = intuition.

 

[Safeguard]

everything is on camera these days. I can't see anything other than SA bent over double at the window with his head and shoulders out, clearly no window impeding him, before he picked up Chloe. We've all talked about this for awhile but once the video came out, the jig was up

I want him to admit it, let the parents absorb what they must to know the truth

Well! That was quite the post! Good to have you 'On Board'!

Completely agree, "the gig was up" once the video was released. Many of us surmised, before then, that he must have know the window was open and chose it, specifically for that reason.
Why else, that particular window?

I really appreciate your critical eye and how you do not go down avenues of speculation as to what can't possibly be seen, yet people are claiming could have occurred.

For example, I see nothing that even remotely looks like SA is smoking. (And as a smoker myself, I know the look).
I feel pretty darn sure SA doesn't even smoke. Yet there have plenty of posts that claim he appears to be smoking.

That's but one example of people seeing things that can't possibly be discerned from that raw footage.

I'm very much enjoying your first hand information on cruising. I've never been on a cruise myself, have never felt inclined and probably never will,
so first hand information is much appreciated!

Lastly, I am with you on just wanting him to admit it! He did so once, something changed his mind. But I was far more sympathetic when he owned his chit.

 

[jeena]

I've been cruising since the late 70s, and my most recent cruise was a year and a half ago, on Royal Caribbean. Of course there were no cell phones in the 70s. If there were an emergency you'd have to make a very expensive ship-to-shore call at some office aboard.
Nowadays, when you are not in port you are advised to put your phone in airplane mode, or you will be charged outrageous roaming fees. In our family we resort to leaving notes under each other's cabin doors to communicate when we weren't together. In port you can turn on your phone in regular mode. I think it has something to do with the location of satellite and cell phone towers, not sure. This is also, I believe, why you have to pay for Wi-Fi aboard ship if you want it. It is sold in time increments, and goes very slowly because the ship is moving and it has to make a connection with a satellite and bounce back down. Or something!

On a separate note, even if intrusive and omnipresent, I am most grateful that everything is on camera these days. I can't see anything other than SA bent over double at the window with his head and shoulders out, clearly no window impeding him, before he picked up Chloe. We've all talked about this for awhile but once the video came out, the jig was up. Like in the olden days when a prototypical story would be a man cheating on his wife, he says he's working late but has the infamous lipstick on his collar and smells like someone else's perfume. The wife gets suspicious, hires a private investigator who snaps pictures of him out with his mistress, and the story is clear. Obviously an old cliché but sped up to the 2019 version with CCTV. I want him to admit it, let the parents absorb what they must to know the truth, and let them begin to go on in whatever way they can with their son.
I always wonder what the actual grandfather, Scott Schutz, has to say. He must be so torn.

Thanks for the info regarding cell phone usage aboard the ship, very informative. I feel all this surveillance is an invasion of privacy, but when it brings criminals like Joran van der Sloot to justice for murder (Stefanie Ramirez killing), I guess it's worth it.
Yes, the real grandparents (Wiegand and Schultz) must be devastated, and not a word from them in the press. Terrible tragedy that should have never happened.

 

[MsMarple]

Isn’t that unethical? Like possible disbarment unethical?

Google search found this:

Criminal defense attorneys have a duty to zealously represent their clients and guard their confidences. However, they also have a duty to the court not to present evidence that they know is false, fraudulent, or perjured, whether it’s coming from the defendant or a witness whom the lawyer knows intends to lie. A lawyer who knowingly uses or presents perjured testimony risks serious consequences. Under the profession’s code of ethics (the Canons of Professional Ethics of the American Bar Association), doing so subjects the lawyer to discipline—and quite possibly, disbarment.

The technical term is “subornation of perjury“: the crime of persuading a person to commit perjury, which is the swearing of a false oath to tell the truth in a legal proceeding, whether spoken or written.

Your facts are correct but remember, Winkleman is a Maritime Personal Injury attorney, not a Criminal Defense attorney. Jose Perez Ortiz is SA's criminal defense lawyer.

But ethically yes, the same holds for both. Neither can present false information and if they do and discover it is false then they must correct the mistake.

Perez Ortiz has only stated that he believes the video proves his client was unaware that the window was open. It's Winkleman who has been giving msm interviews.

 

[Safeguard]

I know what I saw, and he put his head and upper body outwards, then, he looked DOWN. How could he have looked down without his head outside of the window. I seriously doubt he was just looking down at the window frame.

Right. He was nearly bent in half. There can be no mistake about the window being open.