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

[katydid23]

GMAFB. From your link:

'We respectfully ask the Puerto Rican prosecutors to take a hard look at the new evidence that has come to light,' Alan and Kimberly said in an emotion-charged statement shared exclusively with DailyMail.com. 'It shows what we have known all along, that Sam thought it was a wall of glass.

'We have never wanted charges filed against Sam because we know with all of our hearts that he would never put Chloe in harm's way.

'We will stand with Sam as long as it takes - but we cannot grieve as a family until the criminal charges are dropped.'
Parents of toddler dropped to her death from Royal Caribbean ship beg Puerto Rico to end case | Daily Mail Online

As an LE officer and attorney both parents know better; SA is charged with negligent homicide and intent is not necessary for a conviction, only that he acted in a negligent way. If the DA had evidence that SA had acted with intent to harm Chloe then the charges would be murder not negligence.

Sigh. I'm getting tired of the parents trying to spin this case into something it's not. Attempting to influence public opinion based on emotions is wearing thin. IMO it dishonors Chloe for SA and her parents to continue to deny his reckless actions. MOO.

Oh my, is someone paying the Daily Mail to print this drivel?


"Alan and Kimberly Wiegand say evidence from their own private investigation into Chloe's fatal plunge from the Freedom of the Seas shows it was 'physically impossible' for Salvatore Anello to have dangled her overboard.

As the elderly, color-blind grandpa made his third court appearance today in San Juan, the couple called on prosecutors to scrap the negligent homicide charge so they can finally grieve together as a family."


So this 'new evidence' is that silly reenactment video that looks like it was done for a middle school project?

 

[justice4allnow]

From the DM article today: Prosecutors have not offered Anello a formal plea deal, contrary to reports.
I had a feeling about that, that the story may have possibly been floated from the Anello side.

 

[al66pine]

dbm, a duplicate.

 

[al66pine]

SA & Taking the 5th in Civil Action?

As long as SA’s criminal case is pending, he can take the 5th. He can’t be forced to participate in a reenactment....

@justbreathe bbm sbm Yes, agreeing, SA could take the 5th, pre-crim trial.
In civil suit deposition, if RCL deposes SA, and he takes the 5th*, his refusal can be used as evd in RCL's def case. So seems AW & KS-W would not want SA deposed. Ditto his actually being on the stand & taking the 5th. RCL could use his silence in closing argument and, in jury instructions, judge would tell jury it could take his silence and inferences from it into consideration. So ^ a reason for plaintiffs to drag feet in civil case, until crim case is tried.
--- Participating in reenactment for civil case? Agree w @justbreathe, no forced participation.

Re both ^ points, it's hard to for me to imagine any stmts SA could make or any reenacting he could do in civil suit which would help civil trial jury to view his previous stmts & actions as less negligent than the RCL vids show.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" ...Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being forced to incriminate themselves.... exposing oneself ...to "an accusation or charge of crime," or as involving oneself '...in a criminal prosecution or the danger thereof." ... defined as "the constitutional right of a person to refuse to answer questions or otherwise give testimony against himself. ... "
"The Supreme Court has held that "the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them."... 'Silence is often evidence of the most persuasive character.'". ^Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

 

[Chikkamma]

Here comes the DM and a message from the parents:

Parents of toddler dropped to her death from Royal Caribbean ship beg Puerto Rico to end case | Daily Mail Online

Here we go again... I have never seen a family with such a sense of entitlement. They are always the “victims” - even when they are on the offense!

 

[Chikkamma]

GMAFB. From your link:

'We respectfully ask the Puerto Rican prosecutors to take a hard look at the new evidence that has come to light,' Alan and Kimberly said in an emotion-charged statement shared exclusively with DailyMail.com. 'It shows what we have known all along, that Sam thought it was a wall of glass.

'We have never wanted charges filed against Sam because we know with all of our hearts that he would never put Chloe in harm's way.

'We will stand with Sam as long as it takes - but we cannot grieve as a family until the criminal charges are dropped.'
Parents of toddler dropped to her death from Royal Caribbean ship beg Puerto Rico to end case | Daily Mail Online

As an LE officer and attorney both parents know better; SA is charged with negligent homicide and intent is not necessary for a conviction, only that he acted in a negligent way. If the DA had evidence that SA had acted with intent to harm Chloe then the charges would be murder not negligence.

Sigh. I'm getting tired of the parents trying to spin this case into something it's not. Attempting to influence public opinion based on emotions is wearing thin. IMO it dishonors Chloe for SA and her parents to continue to deny his reckless actions. MOO.

They “cannot grieve as a family until all criminal charges are dropped” AND they win kazillions of dollars. These people are something else...

 

[whatsnext]

He would never put her in harm's way?!? Well , just watch the video and face reality.

 

[al66pine]

when we file a civil suit we indicate whether a jury trial is wanted - my guess is MW is going for that one juror
JMO

@oviedo Thanks for confirming and clarifying private law ofc practices as we move along in this case. And for serving as one of our consultants-in-chief on cruise ship matters.
Yupp, if anyone missed it before or doubted:
From Complaint page 21:
"WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant for all damages
recoverable by law and demand a jury trial of all issues so triable."

 

[Lawnguylander1964]

Well, both those were murder cases and the jury did not have the advantage of viewing direct evidence such as a video tape of the crime as in this case.

I don't think the jury will need to visit the ship in order to find him negligent.
You can clearly see him lift her over the railing and onto the window ledge. The proof is on the tape.

Imo

The other case I was thinking of was Colucci in South Carolina. The jury went to the crime scene. There was one data point about the fence and how she was able to squeeze past it vs opening the gate. There was a reenactment, witness testimony and a security video I think from a previous time she squeezed through the fence.

His wife didn’t open the gate, he said, and instead wriggled through a small space between the fence and the building, which a handyman testified she had done many times in the past.

Jurors visit warehouse where Charleston-area jeweler allegedly killed his wife

 

[MsBetsy]

This is incorrect. SA was never officially offered a plea deal. It was something that both sides discussed (verbally) but it was never concrete. The prosecutor said this herself in a spanish interview- that there was “discussion of a plea deal but nothing on the table and it looks like the case at this time will go to trial”.

That being said, I’m sure if SA indicated that he would take the discussed deal that the prosecutors would offer him one. But that did not happen.

I’ll try to find the link to the video where she says this, but it’s in Spanish.

Yes, I saw that. They said they had not approached him nor had they rejected the idea.

Some earlier articles were misleading as I mentioned up thread.

I still think it was Anello who was reluctant. He is determined to fight it out in court.

Imo

 

[In vino veritas]

Yep. IMO SA will need to testify in both trials. He has the option not to testify in his criminal trial but refusing or pleading the 5th isn't going to go over too well with a jury. Most juries want to hear what the defendant has to say. And either choice IMO will fail with the jury in either case.

And yes, he'll likely be subpoenaed in the civil case since he's a major player in Chloe's death. I'm not sure what all he'd have to say other than "I thought there was glass!" in order to bolster the "danger" of the misleading hole of death in the wall of glass. And even that is incredibly weak; what does that prove, that some people are reckless idiots?

I believe the crux of the family's argument will be that RCCL failed to meet the safety standards of the windows but I keep reading that ship standards are different so I'm thinking MW won't be able to come up with actual documentation for regs on ship windows.

So what's left? That RCCL should have had warning signs, decals, bars on the windows? Good luck with that. MOO.

Major player?? He’s the ONLY player in Chloe’s death!!

 

[MsBetsy]

The other case I was thinking of was Colucci in South Carolina. The jury went to the crime scene. There was one data point about the fence and how she was able to squeeze past it vs opening the gate. There was a reenactment, witness testimony and a security video I think from a previous time she squeezed through the fence.

His wife didn’t open the gate, he said, and instead wriggled through a small space between the fence and the building, which a handyman testified she had done many times in the past.

Jurors visit warehouse where Charleston-area jeweler allegedly killed his wife

Was there surveillance footage of the actual crime? I think that's what makes the difference in this case.

Imo

 

[In vino veritas]

These bulleted points from the DM article say it all:

• Chloe's parents begged Puerto Rican prosecutors to stop criminal proceedings in an emotion-charged statement shared exclusively with DailyMail.com
• Alan and Kimberly Wiegand say evidence from their own private investigation shows it was 'physically impossible' for Anello to have dangled her overboard
• 'We have never wanted charges filed against Sam because we know with all of our hearts that he would never put Chloe in harm's way,' they said
• Anello, elderly and color-blind, made his third court appearance today in San Juan, Puerto Rico

These bulleted points from the DM article say it all:

• Chloe's parents begged Puerto Rican prosecutors to stop criminal proceedings in an emotion-charged statement shared exclusively with DailyMail.com
• Alan and Kimberly Wiegand say evidence from their own private investigation shows it was 'physically impossible' for Anello to have dangled her overboard
• 'We have never wanted charges filed against Sam because we know with all of our hearts that he would never put Chloe in harm's way,' they said
• Anello, elderly and color-blind, made his third court appearance today in San Juan, Puerto Rico

Elderly?? He is 51. That is not elderly.

Then, perhaps if the prosecutors do offer a plea deal, the Wiegands should encourage SA to accept it.

 

[IceIce9]

Then, perhaps if the prosecutors do offer a plea deal, the Wiegands should encourage SA to accept it.

But they can’t because that would be the end of their money grabbing lawsuit

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

These bulleted points from the DM article say it all:

• Chloe's parents begged Puerto Rican prosecutors to stop criminal proceedings in an emotion-charged statement shared exclusively with DailyMail.com
• Alan and Kimberly Wiegand say evidence from their own private investigation shows it was 'physically impossible' for Anello to have dangled her overboard
• 'We have never wanted charges filed against Sam because we know with all of our hearts that he would never put Chloe in harm's way,' they said
• Anello, elderly and color-blind, made his third court appearance today in San Juan, Puerto Rico

IMHO The fam wants the truth covered up and for all of this to just go away. But, guess what, most of the cat is out of the bag.

 

[In vino veritas]

GMAFB. From your link:

'We respectfully ask the Puerto Rican prosecutors to take a hard look at the new evidence that has come to light,' Alan and Kimberly said in an emotion-charged statement shared exclusively with DailyMail.com. 'It shows what we have known all along, that Sam thought it was a wall of glass.

'We have never wanted charges filed against Sam because we know with all of our hearts that he would never put Chloe in harm's way.

'We will stand with Sam as long as it takes - but we cannot grieve as a family until the criminal charges are dropped.'
Parents of toddler dropped to her death from Royal Caribbean ship beg Puerto Rico to end case | Daily Mail Online

As an LE officer and attorney both parents know better; SA is charged with negligent homicide and intent is not necessary for a conviction, only that he acted in a negligent way. If the DA had evidence that SA had acted with intent to harm Chloe then the charges would be murder not negligence.

Sigh. I'm getting tired of the parents trying to spin this case into something it's not. Attempting to influence public opinion based on emotions is wearing thin. IMO it dishonors Chloe for SA and her parents to continue to deny his reckless actions. MOO.

GMAFB. From your link:

'We respectfully ask the Puerto Rican prosecutors to take a hard look at the new evidence that has come to light,' Alan and Kimberly said in an emotion-charged statement shared exclusively with DailyMail.com. 'It shows what we have known all along, that Sam thought it was a wall of glass.

'We have never wanted charges filed against Sam because we know with all of our hearts that he would never put Chloe in harm's way.

'We will stand with Sam as long as it takes - but we cannot grieve as a family until the criminal charges are dropped.'
Parents of toddler dropped to her death from Royal Caribbean ship beg Puerto Rico to end case | Daily Mail Online

As an LE officer and attorney both parents know better; SA is charged with negligent homicide and intent is not necessary for a conviction, only that he acted in a negligent way. If the DA had evidence that SA had acted with intent to harm Chloe then the charges would be murder not negligence.

Sigh. I'm getting tired of the parents trying to spin this case into something it's not. Attempting to influence public opinion based on emotions is wearing thin. IMO it dishonors Chloe for SA and her parents to continue to deny his reckless actions. MOO.

IMO it is very telling that the Wiegands claim they can’t move forward in the grieving process while criminal charges against SA are pending. Apparently they’d be able to grieve quite properly while pursuing the civil lawsuit though. Unbelievable! MOO

 

[Chikkamma]

What will sink him, and I agree with the cruiseline, is that he spent plenty of time leaning towards the window enjoying the fact it was open.

<<respectfully snipped for emphasis>>

I think you nailed it right here. The single thing that’s going to sink his “I thought there was glass defense” is the 34 seconds he had in which to realize that there was no glass!

34 seconds is no negligible amount of time. Winkleman knows this which is why he time-altered the video.

 

[Chikkamma]

“LIFTED & LET GO” should be the mantra the prosecutors use throughout SA’s criminal trial. Because those 2 actions are what caused Chloe’s death.

We have debated endlessly on here about whether SA knew the window was open or not, and the jury might as well. What cannot be contested, however, is that SA (1.) lifted Chloe over and beyond the safety railing against RCCL’s rules and (2.) he let go of her.

These 2 actions, all at the hand of SA, killed Chloe Wiegand. He LIFTED and LET GO.

If I was on the jury, this refrain of “LIFTED & LET GO” would be enough to persuade me of his culpability.

 

[JerseySleuth17]

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.

Excellent point. He's 11 stories up. He props a toddler up against a window without checking to see if it was closed? And let's just say it was closed, what if it wasn't latched properly and it swung open and she fell? The mere fact you would lift a child OVER a railing, allegedly prop her up, and lean her forward 11 stories up because you "thought" the window was closed, but never checked if it really was closed, or latched properly, or secured, is such an act of wanton stupidity that I question whether this man is mentally impaired. No normal reasonable person would over do what he did, because is at a minimum completely reckless!! And the fact that the parents defend him but at the same time blame the cruise line for his stupidity is outrageous.

 

[MsMarple]

Major player?? He’s the ONLY player in Chloe’s death!!

ITA! What I meant was MW is trying to make RCCL and its dangerous windows the cause of Chloe's death. How he plans to get around SA's recklessness remains to be seen but IMO that's an uphill battle.