IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #6

[Kindred]

Does anyone think there's a possibility that the prosecutor could revisit a murder charge?

I really don't think so. Even with the info from RCCL response, this is nothing new for the prosecution. I think what they have is sufficient. SA's actions still look skeevy as hell but just like in our own debates I don't think they have enough clear and convincing evidence to try and prove there was the intent to harm/kill. The negligence is clear and quite obvious. Better to go with what you have in your hands then grasp for straws

 

[Chikkamma]

Does this mean there are really only 2 videos that captured SA’s actions? That’s what RCCL seems to say in their motion to dismiss but I find that a bit hard to believe... How could a billion dollar ship only have 2 videos which captured SA’s actions?

 

[WiseGuy]

DBM

 

[Chikkamma]

I really don't think so. Even with the info from RCCL response, this is nothing new for the prosecution. I think what they have is sufficient. SA's actions still look skeevy as hell but just like in our own debates I don't think they have enough clear and convincing evidence to try and prove there was the intent to harm/kill. The negligence is clear and quite obvious. Better to go with what you have in your hands then grasp for straws

Someone had posted earlier how the PR courts recently updated their sentencing guidelines for the charge of negligent homicide. I don’t remember exactly what they were, but it allowed for significantly more than 3 years if convicted. Would the new sentencing apply to this case (since I think SA was charged before the updates went into effect)?

 

[WiseGuy]

Does anyone think there's a possibility that the prosecutor could revisit a murder charge?

IMO they will not.

1. PR still has big issues with infrastructure, power and water outages, after-shocks, etc. just seems like everyone’s attention is on bigger issues.
2. Prosecutors would have to prove intent. NegHom just requires proving what actions took place, easy enough with sound-free video. But getting into the “mind” of Anello? How do you do that?

 

[oviedo]

Does this mean there are really only 2 videos that captured SA’s actions? That’s what RCCL seems to say in their motion to dismiss but I find that a bit hard to believe... How could a billion dollar ship only have 2 videos which captured SA’s actions?

It would seem that’s all RCL felt they needed to enter into their Motion? JMO

 

[weepingangel]

Whoa. Thanks for uploading those.

also , no videos exist from outside the ship? Would those cameras be off for some reason while docked? I assumed from postings here they do have those (man overboard) cameras ?


Also. I think the 34 seconds Was the total amount of time that SA was holding Chloe ( right?? that she wasn’t outside the window that entire time uggg)

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Whoa. Thanks for uploading those.

also , no videos exist from outside the ship? Would those cameras be off for some reason while docked? I assumed from postings here they do have those (man overboard) cameras ?


Also. I think the 34 seconds Was the total amount of time that SA was holding Chloe ( right?? that she wasn’t outside the window that entire time uggg)

Security is very tight when ships are in port. I'm sure there is exterior video from the ship or other surveillance cameras at the pier. Perhaps the video that was filed in the dismissal is deemed sufficient proof at this juncture.

 

[weepingangel]

This sounds reasonable. Thanks.
I didn’t even think of security needs as far as cameras but that makes sense also.

Security is very tight when ships are in port. I'm sure there is exterior video from the ship or other surveillance cameras at the pier. Perhaps the video that was filed in the dismissal is deemed sufficient proof at this juncture.

 

[oviedo]

Whoa. Thanks for uploading those.

also , no videos exist from outside the ship? Would those cameras be off for some reason while docked? I assumed from postings here they do have those (man overboard) cameras ?


Also. I think the 34 seconds Was the total amount of time that SA was holding Chloe ( right?? that she wasn’t outside the window that entire time uggg)

She was held outside the window for 34 seconds

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

Security is very tight when ships are in port. I'm sure there is exterior video from the ship or other surveillance cameras at the pier. Perhaps the video that was filed in the dismissal is deemed sufficient proof at this juncture.

Eyewitnesses too.

 

[weepingangel]

View attachment 226114
She was held outside the window for 34 seconds

“By and out of the open window” I think it says Squinting at the format and can’t copy paste lol

obviously 1 second would be too long. Just trying to clarify

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

View attachment 226114
She was held outside the window for 34 seconds

And the family is aware of this?????

 

[Midwestmom2019]

Does this mean there are really only 2 videos that captured SA’s actions? That’s what RCCL seems to say in their motion to dismiss but I find that a bit hard to believe... How could a billion dollar ship only have 2 videos which captured SA’s actions?

Sorry: edited to add privilege of non disclosure if from the time already in anticipation of litigation. at least in Texas keeps evidence out. I totally disagree, everything should be shown.
But maybe only two cameras that shot relevant footage.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

And the family is aware of this?????

They're in denial. They don't want to know exactly how reckless Grandpa was with their little girl. Time for Chloe's parents to stop blaming RCCL for SA's decision to hold the toddler outside a window 11 stories above the pier!

 

[Midwestmom2019]

IMO they will not.

1. PR still has big issues with infrastructure, power and water outages, after-shocks, etc. just seems like everyone’s attention is on bigger issues.
2. Prosecutors would have to prove intent. NegHom just requires proving what actions took place, easy enough with sound-free video. But getting into the “mind” of Anello? How do you do that?

With tangible evidence of motive.

 

[oviedo]

“By and out of the open window” I think it says Squinting at the format and can’t copy paste lol

obviously 1 second would be too long. Just trying to clarify

Yes by and out - I interpreted the clock starting as soon as she crossed the open plane of the window - further it says he lost his grip and dropped her - just sounds so much worse IMO - ugh

 

[Midwestmom2019]

Someone had posted earlier how the PR courts recently updated their sentencing guidelines for the charge of negligent homicide. I don’t remember exactly what they were, but it allowed for significantly more than 3 years if convicted. Would the new sentencing apply to this case (since I think SA was charged before the updates went into effect)?

They may have updated the punishment based on SA actions. And good for PR!
I know he can’t be charged with a crime just written if it wasn’t crime when he dropped her. But as to enhancing punishment? Probably not, ex post facto but a criminal lawyer/professional would know immediately.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

Is the plea deal still on the table? I sure hope not!

 

[oviedo]

And the family is aware of this?????

I don’t think his complaint was verified (meaning the W’s signed it) but I cannot imagine they wouldn’t have read the answer (RCL Motion to Dismiss) by now - and MW isn’t making the morning show rounds as he did when he filed on their behalf - silence as far as I can find
JMO