IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #7

[mheido67]

He is taking a pretty big risk considering he could be sentenced to three years in prison.

I think he's a broken man. I think he is doing whatever CW's parents advise him to do and taking a plea deal would undoubtedly hurt the chances of their lawsuit being won or settled favorably with RCCL. AW, KW and MW all know that.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

I think he's a broken man. I think he is doing whatever CW's parents advise him to do and taking a plea deal would undoubtedly hurt the chances of their lawsuit being won or settled favorably with RCCL. AW, KW and MW all know that.

Respectfully, IMHO he didn't sound all that broken in the Begnaud interview. He sounded evasive and defensive. He blithered and blathered and didn't really make a lot of sense. He made a lot of lame excuses. He changed his story.

 

[justice4allnow]

Are we sure that he was offered a plea deal? I remember reading about it-but don't recall whether the information come from Puerto Rico prosecutors or rather from the attorneys on the Wiegand/Anello side.

 

[LietKynes]

Respectfully, IMHO he didn't sound all that broken in the Begnaud interview. He sounded evasive and defensive. He blithered and blathered and didn't really make a lot of sense. He made a lot of lame excuses. He changed his story.

Ita.
Also , S.A. could not or would not look the reporter in the eye.
A clear sign of evasion.

From his past brushes with the law--- the rules do not apply to this man.
The first reports to come from the PR msm said S.A. dangled and dropped Chloe to her death in an "act of games".

This is not a broken man but an evil man who thought it would be fun to play games with a toddler through an open window 11 stories high over what he knew was solid concrete.
In the security footage --he leans out and looks through and downwards to the dock below. He knew how far up they were.

No matter how many lies the lawyer tells or how ridiculous he fakes the reenactment photos with a skinny barbie doll and a thinner, smaller man than S.A. --- the original account by the ship's employees is the most accurate.
In the ship's footage of the 'act of games', a woman gets up and hurries away as S.A. is dangling Chloe as she cannot bear to watch what he's doing.
There will be witnesses to Chloe's death.

Winkleman said there were no witnesses.
In the footage many people are milling about before and after.
Apparently Winkleman is not color-blind, but truth-blind.
Hope he has a large supply of flame retardant pants as he'll need them.

 

[al66pine]

Prison Bar Window & The Window?

I’m seeing the little barred window right under it or am I not understanding. Right around mum’s head. View attachment 228166

@they'll get you View attachment 228166
Yes, a tiny bit of little 'barred window' I call the 'Prison Bar window' is just barely visible in pic. It's below the red-marked window and only half the width of red-marked window. Okay, are we sure we're all are talking about same window, the P/B window? Good.

In July 9 (?) Daily Mail nighttime pic & vid taken from ship exterior, looking at two ppl, I ASSume are LE. One LEO stands at P/B window, gesturing as if holding toddler.
Okay, I think .......^^^....... is why initially I thought P/B window was The Window, where SA dropped Chloe. No misdirection by LE, just random timing of pic-taking.

Now, think of wall as grid, w windows in rows (horizontal) & columns (vertical). Good. Middle row opens.
Since then various pix show the P/B window is in a column that is a couple columns to the right of The Window. Sorry, no link ATM. Different camera angles seem to distort things.

Sorry, as I am the world's slooooowest on keyboard , instead of trying to describe further, I'll post again later (today?) when I've found some pix to illustrate.

And TYVM for your cruise pix.
{{ETA: Naturally other posters got up earlier this a.m. and gave great responses to @they'll get you before I did. Thx.}}

 

[MsBetsy]

Are we sure that he was offered a plea deal? I remember reading about it-but don't recall whether the information come from Puerto Rico prosecutors or rather from the attorneys on the Wiegand/Anello side.

Yes, he was offered a deal to plead guilty and not receive any prison time.
He said he was probably not going to accept it because he wanted to go to trial and clear his name.
So now it appears the deal is off the table.

Imo

 

[WiseGuy]

This case, the further it goes on, just infuriates me more and more. Regardless of measurements, or where the window was located, the fact remains that SA is the one who picked up Chloe and proceeded to drop her.

At trial, one would hope the jurors focus on two main points:
1. SA violated RCL contractual agreement by lifting Chloe up and over the railing.
2. Why did SA not first check to make certain window was closed before placing Chloe in the precarious position(again, against rules). He relied on his thoughts... according to his words. “ I thought the window was closed”
Negligence, negligence, negligence. And that’s what this case is about!!!

Please pardon my rant.

I agree. And have always thought that what he "thinks" has never been relevant. "I thought there was glass." - Well, you thought wrong.

It doesn't matter why he was negligent, if in fact his actions were negligent. In a previous post a member described how the trial will compare what SA actually did, with what a "reasonable person" would do. Somehow in court it will come up that a reasonable person would:
1. perceive that the windows are open
2. decline an 18-month-old's request to bang glass since it is not safe
3. never ever lift a child above the safety railing
4. even if violating the above 3, the reasonable person would HOLD TIGHT WITH BOTH ARMS.

 

[MsBetsy]

I think he's a broken man. I think he is doing whatever CW's parents advise him to do and taking a plea deal would undoubtedly hurt the chances of their lawsuit being won or settled favorably with RCCL. AW, KW and MW all know that.

I think so too. At first I thought the family filed the lawsuit in part to protect SM but now I'm thinking he won't plead guilty because of the lawsuit.

Imo

 

[ilovewings]

Sounds like he intends to fight this at trial. Should be interesting to see what happens.

We'll see- a lot can happen before trial- as you know cases can be settled the morning before trial or even during a trial. If the evidence is convincing enough on behalf of the cruise ship, grandpa might take a plea deal at that time- we shall see. right now he and his attorneys are talking tough--- that can change in big fat hurry

 

[mheido67]

Respectfully, IMHO he didn't sound all that broken in the Begnaud interview. He sounded evasive and defensive. He blithered and blathered and didn't really make a lot of sense. He made a lot of lame excuses. He changed his story.

I disagree. I think he sounded like he was involved in a real tragedy. I went back and watched the interview again. When DB gets to asking him who he blames he starts by saying he initially blamed himself but the more days that go by (and the more he is inflluenced by AW & KW and their lawsuit talk) he starts to think maybe it was RCCL's fault. "If only there was a sign, a warning, we wouldn't have gone near it." Think about that. Anyone who is dealing with the guilt of having caused such a tragedy will be suseptible to anything that eases their sense of guilt. Of course, a warning would always help. We could plaster the world with warning signs about every thing that could possible harm anyone. What a world that would be. But we don't do that because we expect people to act responsibly and only place warnings when there's a circumstance that a reasonable person might not be expected to observe. In London at crosswalks painted on the road are arrows pointing right with the word LOOK because they know there are a lot of tourists whose habit is to have to look left initially when crossing a road. I recently had a rental car in St. Thomas where you drive on the left side of the road (despite the fact it's an AMerican territory) and there was a large sticker at the top of the windshield on the drivers side that said "KEEP TO THE LEFT" because they know most tourists drive on the right and could use a reminder to keep left. But most people believe a reasonable adult should recognize an open window 18" in front of their face. Especially when that window is behind a guardrail that makes it so you have to reach to actually get to the window. So convincing oneself that a warning sign would have averted the disaster is a natural reaction I think.

The interview does highlight a few things for me;

Again, the discrepancy between CW asking to be picked up and SA stating that he decided to pick her up.

The nonsense about not being able to reach the glass at floor level when the glass wall clearly angles out making it harder to reach the higher you go. This again leads me to believe he simply was not paying attention to his surroundings.

Who was it that altered the video that was being shown to the media by MW? Why would LE on PR alter the video to make it appear that SA and CW were at the window for a much shorter period of time than they were in reality. I've got to believe it was MW who compressed the timeframe to influence media reports. DB was not given the video, probably only shown it once which would make him less likely to catch the jumps in the video.

 

[MsBetsy]

I agree. And have always thought that what he "thinks" has never been relevant. "I thought there was glass." - Well, you thought wrong.

It doesn't matter why he was negligent, if in fact his actions were negligent. In a previous post a member described how the trial will compare what SA actually did, with what a "reasonable person" would do. Somehow in court it will come up that a reasonable person would:
1. perceive that the windows are open
2. decline an 18-month-old's request to bang glass since it is not safe
3. never ever lift a child above the safety railing
4. even if violating the above 3, the reasonable person would HOLD TIGHT WITH BOTH ARMS.

Yes, what he thought he saw or didn't see is not that relevant to me.

If someone driving a car goes through a stop sign and hits another vehicle and a passenger dies as a result, it doesn't matter what excuse the driver has. He could say he had something in his eye, his glasses were fogged up, he was distracted, or whatever reason and he would still be negligent.

Imo

 

[Lawsmygame2]

Link to news report.
Defensa de Salvatore Anello contrata perito en reconstrucción de escena

ETA: Also added link to media thread.

Is there an English version?

 

[neesaki]

Is there an English version?

Defensa de Salvatore Anello contrata perito en reconstrucción de escena

Salvatore Anello defense hires expert on scene reconstruction
There is still no date for the start of the trial against the accused of negligent homicide for the fall of his granddaughter from a cruise.

Salvatore Anello's defense, accused of a charge of negligent manslaughter for the death of his granddaughter after falling from a window of a cruise ship anchored at the Pan American Pier II, on Isla Grande, has already hired an expert to rebuild the scene and hazard assessment.

This was reported by Mr. José Guillermo Pérez Ortiz, during a conference on the state of the proceedings that took place today in the courtroom of Judge Gisela Alfonso Fernández, of the San Juan Court.


The lawyer told First Time that his representative is inclined to opt for a jury trial.

"Right now we are leaning towards a jury trial," he responded as he left the court.

The lawyer notified the court that he is still in the process of selecting a medical expert to analyze the clinical picture of his client, among five potential candidates.

The judge said on February 24 the next conference on the status of the procedures date on which the scene reconstruction expert is supposed to have filed a detailed report with her findings. You will also have to notify if a medical expert was hired.

While the public prosecutor represented by prosecutors Laura Hernández and Ivette Nieves said that at this date there is no negotiation to reach an agreement with the defense of the accused.

“We have already been notified of the name of that scene recreation expert, we have not yet been notified of a report, what the court ordered from the defense is that this report must be prepared and notified to the public prosecutor to confirm rules within the next three weeks to no more than that so that we can effectively report on February 24 in what position we are if we need to hire an expert or if the evidence we have is enough to be able to refute or be prepared for any testimony that witness can provide, ”said Hernández.

The prosecution revealed that it has already completed the discovery of evidence after the delivery of copies of the interviews and the annotations of the investigating agent.

The events date back to July 7, 2019, when the child was in his care and fell through a window on the 11th floor of the Freedom of the Seas
cruise , of the Royal Caribbean company, while it was anchored. Chloe Wiegand, 1 year and 7 months old, did not survive the fall from about 115 feet tall.

 

[wackyw]

I agree. And have always thought that what he "thinks" has never been relevant. "I thought there was glass." - Well, you thought wrong.

It doesn't matter why he was negligent, if in fact his actions were negligent. In a previous post a member described how the trial will compare what SA actually did, with what a "reasonable person" would do. Somehow in court it will come up that a reasonable person would:
1. perceive that the windows are open
2. decline an 18-month-old's request to bang glass since it is not safe
3. never ever lift a child above the safety railing
4. even if violating the above 3, the reasonable person would HOLD TIGHT WITH BOTH ARMS.

point 2) I'm not sure she asked to be lifted up, it was he who decided to do that. In his CBS interview he said something very close to this ...

.............. "I bent down by her, when I knelt down to be with her at that level I couldn't reach the glass, so I knew she couldn't, so that when I decided I'd pick her up."

I think he did this because, whilst CW can simply walk to the lower glass because she is under 42" tall, the lower edge of the safety rail. In order to for a 71" man to get close to that window he has to squat/kneel down, and then scoot forward underneath the rail to join her. I know I would find this uncomfortable and I'm a bit lighter than he is. He would also have to reverse that to get back out. He doesn't actually do this though does he? He can't reach the glass, so he has not scooted forwards whilst in the squat/kneeling position. Much more comfortable for him to pick her up and place her over the railing onto the window sill, so that he is standing with a supporting rail. Ahhh, that feels so much better.

And she could have "banged on the glass" from under the rail. But I think he could not have shared that experience with her due to my thinking above, and so took the action he did.

But if she didn't ask, it's one less excuse for him.

JMO

 

[al66pine]

Brother. First on Scene?

....But he was the first family member on the scene and the first to tell his mom something happened.
So I think his memory of exactly what was said in those first few moments could be very relevant.

@justbreathe bbm sbm
I've seen this ^ bbm in threads - brother was first to arrive - but do not recall it from MSM. Anyone have a link? Thx in adv.

 

[Blondie in Spokane]

Ita.
Also , S.A. could not or would not look the reporter in the eye.
A clear sign of evasion.

From his past brushes with the law--- the rules do not apply to this man.
The first reports to come from the PR msm said S.A. dangled and dropped Chloe to her death in an "act of games".

This is not a broken man but an evil man who thought it would be fun to play games with a toddler through an open window 11 stories high over what he knew was solid concrete.
In the security footage --he leans out and looks through and downwards to the dock below. He knew how far up they were.

No matter how many lies the lawyer tells or how ridiculous he fakes the reenactment photos with a skinny barbie doll and a thinner, smaller man than S.A. --- the original account by the ship's employees is the most accurate.
In the ship's footage of the 'act of games', a woman gets up and hurries away as S.A. is dangling Chloe as she cannot bear to watch what he's doing.
There will be witnesses to Chloe's death.

Winkleman said there were no witnesses.
In the footage many people are milling about before and after.
Apparently Winkleman is not color-blind, but truth-blind.
Hope he has a large supply of flame retardant pants as he'll need them.

Good post!

 

[mheido67]

point 2) I'm not sure she asked to be lifted up, it was he who decided to do that. In his CBS interview he said something very close to this ...

.............. "I bent down by her, when I knelt down to be with her at that level I couldn't reach the glass, so I knew she couldn't, so that when I decided I'd pick her up."

I think he did this because, whilst CW can simply walk to the lower glass because she is under 42" tall, the lower edge of the safety rail. In order to for a 71" man to get close to that window he has to squat/kneel down, and then scoot forward underneath the rail to join her. I know I would find this uncomfortable and I'm a bit lighter than he is. He would also have to reverse that to get back out. He doesn't actually do this though does he? He can't reach the glass, so he has not scooted forwards whilst in the squat/kneeling position. Much more comfortable for him to pick her up and place her over the railing onto the window sill, so that he is standing with a supporting rail. Ahhh, that feels so much better.

And she could have "banged on the glass" from under the rail. But I think he could not have shared that experience with her due to my thinking above, and so took the action he did.

But if she didn't ask, it's one less excuse for him.

JMO

It might not have been comfortable for him ( although he didn’t seem to have much trouble squatting down near the pole before they got to the window) but there is absolutely no way either one of them would have had a problem reaching the glass from that position. I think the “she couldn’t reach the glass down there” is an after the fact replacement for “it wasn’t comfortable for me”.

Look at this photo. Look how close the glass is at the floor.

 

[wackyw]

It might not have been comfortable for him ( although he didn’t seem to have much trouble squatting down near the pole before they got to the window) but there is absolutely no way either one of them would have had a problem reaching the glass from that position. I think the “she couldn’t reach the glass down there” is an after the fact replacement for “it wasn’t comfortable for me”.

Look at this photo. Look how close the glass is at the floor.

Squatting/kneeling straight up and down isn't that bad, it's the scooting around that is more uncomfortable. I take on board your further point though re touching the glass, or "not being able to touch the glass"

 

[justbreathe]

Well, it sounds like this is definitely going to trial after all.
It will be up to the jury to decide.
Apparently the jury will not be going to the ship and instead there will be a reconstructuon of the scene.
Between the surveillance evidence, the witnesses, and the scene reconstruction I think the jury will have enough to make the right decision.
Anello and his lawyer must be pretty confident they will win this case since he did not accept the plea deal.

Imo

I think because the parents have some idea they can settle or complete the civil trial before SA actually goes to the criminal trial. That. Will. Never. Happen.

They will delay the civil case until the main witness (SA) is able to testify freely.

 

[WiseGuy]

I think because the parents have some idea they can settle or complete the civil trial before SA actually goes to the criminal trial. That. Will. Never. Happen.

They will delay the civil case until the main witness (SA) is able to testify freely.

I wonder about that. If SA testifies he is open to cross-examination. Given the sketchiness of his story, and his apparent lack of intelligence, that seems like a risk that MW might not want to take. Unless MW is really confident in his ability to feed SA clever answers that will sway a jury.