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

[Lawnguylander1964]

One news article said witnesses stated they heard her hit the wall on the way down.

One news article said she hit an awning on the way down.

I never read Chloe was screaming.

I imagine witnesses were screaming.

 

[they'll get you]

I heard that but couldn’t find the source.

Anyone know who saw her hit the awning?

I don’t think there is an awning a photo which was taken straight down from the 11 floor showed no awning. In fact IIRC the widest point of the ship is the 11th floor from which Chloe fell.


This was taken from my balcony on the 10th floor looking upward to the 11th floor. (Sideways view)
Our WS friend recently took pictures down from the 11th to the pier and I don’t recall seeing a balcony.

 

[they'll get you]

@ 1:36 the VO shows view of straight down from deck 11 and there appears no awnings.

 

[Safeguard]

One news article said witnesses stated they heard her hit the wall on the way down.

One news article said she hit an awning on the way down.

I never read Chloe was screaming.

I imagine witnesses were screaming.

Please provide links to those acounts. <modsnip> Thank you.

 

[MsMarple]

Please provide links to those acounts. <modsnip> Thank you.

I'm not the OP but I remember those reports. The articles about the awning were from early reports. The translation leaves much to be desired however:
According to preliminary information, the girl fell from a lower balcony to the deck, hit the ship and hit the pavement. Immediately, according to witnesses, the thunder of the blow was heard and heartbreaking screams of a woman alerting the fatality.
Muere niña al caer de crucero en San Juan
Other reports:
The toddler's maternal grandfather, identified as Salvatore Anello, was reportedly playfully dangling the child from one of the ship's port-side windows when he lost his grasp, sending the girl plummeting into an awning before she landed on the concrete dock below.
Toddler slips from grandfather's arms, falls to her death from 11th floor of cruise ship
When speaking to Primera Hora, Elmer Roman said that Wiegand hit an awning after she fell before landing on the pavement.
Chloe Wiegand: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com

So if the awning report was mistaken then the rest of those reports should be taken with a grain of salt. Again, these were posted very early on.

And if there is no awning on the side of the ship - and I can't imagine there is one - then IMO it's false.

 

[Safeguard]

My heart bleeds for the broken child lying decks below...

Although I knew her not at all, I'm interested to know...

How she died, who was too blame?

Could she have been saved?

But most of all I wish to know how do we assign blame?

 

[MsMarple]

Seriously. What the f difference does it make if the baby hit an awning on the way to her death?

No idea. I was just supplying the requested links.

 

[mickey2942]

I brought up "Lane, at Disney", not because the case is similar, but the supposed settlement amount given to the family. There never was a lawsuit, but estimates are that pain and suffering amount to the family involved is estimated to be around $10 million.

Which is quite impressive, given that this was a small child, similar age to Chloe. It gives pause,

Yeah well that's not what I saw. I saw him slowly following Chloe. He seemed to stop, whenever she did. I don't think his 'murder plot' included watching, in wait, for an open window.

If, as you insist, he deliberately killed the girl, why bother setting up a cruise itinerary? He was with her countless times, surely he could have devised a cheaper, more convenient less public murder!

It's bad enough the little girl is dead, her family vilified because they haven't handled things with the grace we all surely would have/s. (Good Lord! Her mother even wore RED LIPSTICK!).

Why on earth do you think this middle aged grandpa, with nothing much going for him except this tiny star, wanted her dead? Give me a good reason! Not just voyeuristic speculation.

Why did he put her out a window, 11 stories up?

 

[SouthAussie]

I'm not the OP but I remember those reports. The articles about the awning were from early reports. The translation leaves much to be desired however:
According to preliminary information, the girl fell from a lower balcony to the deck, hit the ship and hit the pavement. Immediately, according to witnesses, the thunder of the blow was heard and heartbreaking screams of a woman alerting the fatality.
Muere niña al caer de crucero en San Juan
Other reports:
The toddler's maternal grandfather, identified as Salvatore Anello, was reportedly playfully dangling the child from one of the ship's port-side windows when he lost his grasp, sending the girl plummeting into an awning before she landed on the concrete dock below.
Toddler slips from grandfather's arms, falls to her death from 11th floor of cruise ship
When speaking to Primera Hora, Elmer Roman said that Wiegand hit an awning after she fell before landing on the pavement.
Chloe Wiegand: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com

So if the awning report was mistaken then the rest of those reports should be taken with a grain of salt. Again, these were posted very early on.

And if there is no awning on the side of the ship - and I can't imagine there is one - then IMO it's false.

I have seen various pics of awnings on the docks ... not attached to the cruise ships.

This is one example (when Explorer of the Seas was docked). There is another pic where there is a long awning-covered gangplank leading onto the cruise ship (Freedom of the Seas), I just can't locate the link at the moment.

 

[Lawsmygame2]

I just can’t imagine that he did this on purpose or that CW’s family plotted to do this for a big “payout.” I also can’t imagine why the GF would put his precious granddaughter in this kind of danger. However, you will never convince me that he did not know the window was open. Therefore, he did put her in extreme danger for whatever reason he did it.

I think the actions of the GF and CW’s parent since the accident are very strange and are the reasons people are questioning whether there was “a plot” to intentionally kill CW. I have to say their actions has made me question things. Reasons:

1. The family would not answers questions from PR investigators.

2. The father taking photo of the scene that same day.

3. A civil attorney was employed within 24 hours of the accident. If AS or family feared being “suspects” and therefore wanted to “remain silent” then they should have sought a criminal attorney not a civil attorney. As a mother, my mind would have never went to the “civil suit” thoughts so quickly. That would have been the least of my concerns.

4. The continuous change of stories.

5. The family’s tv interviews within a few weeks of the accident.

6. The grandfather’s interview after being charged. He wouldnt cooperate with police but he does a tv interview.

7. The go fund me type account established before the accident for the son’s hockey trip.

8. The go fund me type account that was established for CW’s parents for expenses etc.

#7 and 8 makes people question whether the family needed money and the “plot” theory comes into play. I can’t imagine this but I also can’t imagine involving a civil attorney within 24 hours of the accident.

There are other things that seem strange...these are just a few.

Just my thoughts and opinions.

 

[al66pine]

Evidence in One Trial. Use in Another Later?
Note: I'm responding to @MsMarple 's post 940, based on (my interp of) Fed Rules of Evd* & common law. Inviting attys, law professionals, others to weigh in, to clarify or correct.
Quoting from OP in blue:
"....either case can call eyewitnesses though whether they will or not is up to the various attorneys."
Agreed.

"... I would think a live video conference call would be fine..."
Agreed, as long as court rules permit and judge allows.

"... What I was wondering about is whether or not all evidence from one trial would apply to the other."
All evd? Sorry, considered piece by piece.

"... For example, the discussion about the standards used for window construction. It may be used in the civil trial but may be irrelevant in the criminal trial."
Depends.
Imo, darned unlikely PR prosecutor wd/have reason in PR's case in chief to put on any evd re windows.
But SA/def atty could try to use as defense, the window design/construction caused or contributed to Chloe's death, then SA/def atty wd/have to put on same type of evd about window design/
construction/installation, put on expert witnesses, etc. Same kind of evd KSW & AW/atty-W will put on in civil case to show RCCL at fault. If SA/def. atty does that, then PR prosecutor can 'attack' that in cross-exam of those witnesses and could put on its own expert witnesses in rebuttal.

"Also, if the civil trial concludes first <I'm snipping> can SA's attorney or the DA bring the verdict and any award to the criminal trial?"
Let's say
1) civil jury finds RCCL negligence caused/contributed to Chloe's death, returns verdict for plaintiff-parents, & awards $ X, which is a finding & verdict based on plaintiff meeting their burden of proof of 'by preponderance of the evd' not 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
---- Clearly PR prosecutor wd/not want to use that in evd.
----SA's def cannot use that to try to show SA was not at fault, not guilty of NegHom.
2) civil jury finds RCCL was not negligent and returns a verdict for defendant RCCL ($ 0 for parents)?
--- PR cannot use it. Altho it seems favorable for PR's prosecution of SA, it only shows that plaintiff- parents/atty-W failed to meet burden of proof. A jury saying ~ 'RCCL not even civilly negligent' does mean/not even tend to show that SA was criminally negligent in causing/contributing to death.
--- SA/def atty would not want to use it.

"Also if the civil [case] <I'm snipping again> is settled can SA's attorney or the DA bring the verdict and any award to the criminal trial?
Settled out of court, which could have happened before parents/atty-W filed Complaint/Petition in court, or after filing it or could happen tomorrow. Nope, if PR rules of evd for crim cases are similar to Fed Rules of Evd, 408:
"Rule 408 – Compromise Offers and Negotiations
(a) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of the following is not admissible — on behalf of any party — either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction:
(1) furnishing, promising, or offering — or accepting, promising to accept, or offering to accept — a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim; and
(2) conduct or a statement made during compromise negotiations about the claim..."
Rule 408 - Compromise Offers and Negotiations | 2020 Federal Rules of Evidence

Re your other question about crim trial first, then poss use in civil trial evd? That's for a later post.
Jmo, imo, moo. Again, inviting attys, law professionals, others to weigh in, to clarify or correct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
* See Federal Rules of Evidence, Federal Rules of Evidence - 2020 Official Edition (as amended thru Dec 1, 2019)

 

[Sillybilly]

Scroll and roll folks.

Thanks.

 

[Chikkamma]

<modsnip: quoted post was removed>

Out of curiosity, what of her brief life do you think the family is trying to salvage by suing Royal Caribbean? The family would have received nothing but sympathy if it weren’t for their aggressive public bullying of RC, who has become another victim of this tragedy. My heart truly goes out to the parents for the senseless loss of their daughter, but I think their lawsuit is ridiculous.

If given the choice between RC agreeing to permanently seal all their windows shut so “no other child gets hurt” (not that ANY child in the history of cruises has been dropped out of a window before) or a settlement of 25M, what choice would be made? This is my problem with the lawsuit.

 

[al66pine]

Chloe's Scream

One news article said witnesses stated they heard her hit the wall on the way down.
One news article said she hit an awning on the way down.
I never read Chloe was screaming.
I imagine witnesses were screaming.

@Lawnguylander1964 re bbm
Not personally vouching for info below, but it was in MSM. You may not have read it before in MSM or on thread, but this was my post from several hrs ago:

"Yes, in Daily Mail Oct 28, w news about SA's arrest. A "blood curdling scream."
IIRC, an early DM article (~July 9 or 10) also referred to her scream on the way down.
Did not say who heard it, ppl on dock, or ppl on Deck 11, or others.
Salvatore 'Sam' Anello charged over death of Chloe Wiegand on cruise ship | Daily Mail Online"

Heartbreaking.

 

[sl222]

What is the other fear? ...

Fear of loud noises IIRC.

 

[neesaki]

My heart bleeds for the broken child lying decks below...

Although I knew her not at all, I'm interested to know...

How she died, who was too blame?

Could she have been saved?

But most of all I wish to know how do we assign blame?

Salvatore Anello, The baby’s step grandfather is the one who is to blame... but you know this.

 

[neesaki]

I just can’t imagine that he did this on purpose or that CW’s family plotted to do this for a big “payout.” I also can’t imagine why the GF would put his precious granddaughter in this kind of danger. However, you will never convince me that he did not know the window was open. Therefore, he did put her in extreme danger for whatever reason he did it.

I think the actions of the GF and CW’s parent since the accident are very strange and are the reasons people are questioning whether there was “a plot” to intentionally kill CW. I have to say their actions has made me question things. Reasons:

1. The family would not answers questions from PR investigators.

2. The father taking photo of the scene that same day.

3. A civil attorney was employed within 24 hours of the accident. If AS or family feared being “suspects” and therefore wanted to “remain silent” then they should have sought a criminal attorney not a civil attorney. As a mother, my mind would have never went to the “civil suit” thoughts so quickly. That would have been the least of my concerns.

4. The continuous change of stories.

5. The family’s tv interviews within a few weeks of the accident.

6. The grandfather’s interview after being charged. He wouldnt cooperate with police but he does a tv interview.

7. The go fund me type account established before the accident for the son’s hockey trip.

8. The go fund me type account that was established for CW’s parents for expenses etc.

#7 and 8 makes people question whether the family needed money and the “plot” theory comes into play. I can’t imagine this but I also can’t imagine involving a civil attorney within 24 hours of the accident.

There are other things that seem strange...these are just a few.

Just my thoughts and opinions.

Really great post. I guess the Bolded part, is the conundrum. Appreciate all your input .

 

[sl222]

I looked up the 2 innate fears. Interesting study - even children 6 to 14 months would not venture past a place where it appeared that they would fall.
The science of fear - CNN

 

[Chikkamma]

I just can’t imagine that he did this on purpose or that CW’s family plotted to do this for a big “payout.” I also can’t imagine why the GF would put his precious granddaughter in this kind of danger. However, you will never convince me that he did not know the window was open. Therefore, he did put her in extreme danger for whatever reason he did it.

I think the actions of the GF and CW’s parent since the accident are very strange and are the reasons people are questioning whether there was “a plot” to intentionally kill CW. I have to say their actions has made me question things. Reasons:

1. The family would not answers questions from PR investigators.

2. The father taking photo of the scene that same day.

3. A civil attorney was employed within 24 hours of the accident. If AS or family feared being “suspects” and therefore wanted to “remain silent” then they should have sought a criminal attorney not a civil attorney. As a mother, my mind would have never went to the “civil suit” thoughts so quickly. That would have been the least of my concerns.

4. The continuous change of stories.

5. The family’s tv interviews within a few weeks of the accident.

6. The grandfather’s interview after being charged. He wouldnt cooperate with police but he does a tv interview.

7. The go fund me type account established before the accident for the son’s hockey trip.

8. The go fund me type account that was established for CW’s parents for expenses etc.

#7 and 8 makes people question whether the family needed money and the “plot” theory comes into play. I can’t imagine this but I also can’t imagine involving a civil attorney within 24 hours of the accident.

There are other things that seem strange...these are just a few.

Just my thoughts and opinions.

Great post. I’d like to add one more to that list:
-The father taking a photo of the scene the same day but at night when all the windows are closed. This photo the father took was used to make it look like all the windows are the same color (no tint at night) and are uniform in appearance (like whole glass panels rather than functioning, opening windows).

 

[LietKynes]

Great post. I’d like to add one more to that list:
-The father taking a photo of the scene the same day but at night when all the windows are closed. This photo the father took was used to make it look like all the windows are the same color (no tint at night) and are uniform in appearance (like whole glass panels rather than functioning, opening windows).

Interesting that you noticed that.^^^

It's peculiar that he was of a mind to take photos at all.

Yes some pointed out that as LE he'd be trained to take photos to preserve evidence.
And yet there's something odd about it.