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

[10ofRods]

I think that some people, some entire families of people, are way more casual about safety than others. We see it all the time in the National Parks (where deaths of small children do occur - but almost always because the adults in their lives have been really really...careless, ignorant, unconcerned, as if they were in their own living rooms).

I don't know what happens to some people on vacations, but it is remarkable.

 

[Hughaskton]

New here and have been reading and soaking in info.

I just want to say thank you to those who have provided so much info and insight into this awful incident.

my opinion? SA is a negligent person. RCC did their due diligence in keeping passengers and children safe. They in no way could foresee a grandfather or anyone for that matter doing what he did. Had there been an issue with the window breaking, giving a false sense of security, or some kind of failure in the structure of the window, sure, they may have some liability, still on SA, but at least I could understand it. I say may, but I don’t believe anything would have prevented SA from doing what he did. He alone failed Chloe. He owed her the right to be safe and not put in danger and he made the choice to lift her to that dangerous spot, window open or closed it was stupid and negligent. It’s all sad, but this family needs to face the reality, SA caused Chloe’s death, not RC, not what if’s, not maybe’s, not hypothetical scenarios, he did.

 

[justice4allnow]

This is a theory, not an accusation: it's possible that Sam had taken a medication for which he did not have a prescription, something that he got from another family member. It's not unknown in some families to share meds, I've known of people sharing painkillers, Xanax, sleeping meds, etc. The fact that both Kim and Al told Sam to not submit to drug-testing has always bothered me. Were they were afraid of the results because they had provided him with something? As JustBreathe and JerseySleuth brought up, his actions raise suspicions.

 

[Snoods]

Borderline and psychopath are 2 different things.

We have gone over possible motives including money, hate, jealousy and plain old psychopathy or something like that.

The only other thing that makes sense to me, almost more sense, is that he took maybe a couple xanax to relax from traveling, had a drink possibly, and ended up way more messed up than he intended or even realized.

Which is why he was following her around 10 paces behind, squatting on the floor, laying over the rail, scooping her up like a bag ‘o ‘taters, to “try to find glass...where...glass...”

Sorry, I actually meant antisocial personality disorder/sociopathy. Thank you for the correction.

Antisocial personality disorder signs and symptoms may include:

• Disregard for right and wrong
• Persistent lying or deceit to exploit others
• Using charm or wit to manipulate others for personal gain or personal pleasure
• Arrogance, a sense of superiority and being extremely opinionated
• Recurring problems with the law, including criminal behavior (repeated disregard for the laws the rest of us follow)
• Impulsiveness or failure to plan ahead
• Lack of empathy for others and lack of remorse about harming others (over Chloe, IMO fake crying during interview. Also the doctor on ship said he only cried when someone asked him about what happened.)
• Unnecessary risk-taking or dangerous behavior with no regard for the safety of self or other (Self-explanatory)
• Failure to consider the negative consequences of behavior or learn from them (ticketed more than once for not wearing a seatbelt and speeding)
• Being consistently irresponsible and repeatedly failing to fulfill work or financial obligations (someone posted earlier about a bankruptcy, coupled with many tickets)

He may behave the way he thinks he is supposed to behave, mimicking others, even though he doesn’t really feel the emotions.

I don’t know if I believe this, but it would explain his callous disregard for Chloe’s life, and his ability to charm family members into believing his bs. What you suggest makes sense as well.

I am usually a very Occam’s Razor type person, which to me would be he straight up knew the window was open and held her up to look outside the window and dropped her. His fault, whether he was on Xanax or has a disorder or is fake color blind or really for real feels super bad and thinks he has been punished enough, because don’t forget he feels really bad. He needs to be in jail.

Antisocial personality disorder - Symptoms and causes

 

[katydid23]

Boyfriend? I thought he was the mother's husband and that they married about 20 years ago, when KW was still a teenager.

I reads some speculation that they were not legally married...But who knows....Either way... she immediately took his side....that baffles me.

 

[katydid23]

It would be interesting to know how they hold the property. If they hold it as tenants by the entirety, then they're married.

Could they be considered married by common law, because they lived together for many years?

 

[katydid23]

Chloe's obituary lists maternal grandparents, Salvatore and Patti Anello of Niles Michigan. You can find it in the media thread at the front of this thread.

Right, but family members write the obituary and say whatever is easiest or sounds better. If grandma has lived with her boyfriend for 20 years, the 'best' way to write the obituary is the simplest way.

 

[JerseySleuth17]

I am not sold on them being married or owning the house.

Spokeo and those types of sites aren't reliable in terms of names. Many people use various names in different places even though they aren't their legal names. They just pull them all from various sources.

If you've ever done a Lexus/Nexus search on yourself it's eye opening and scary. My first and last name are mispelled on various magazine subscriptions and even an old Nieman Marcus credit card and those spellings haunt me 35 years later and came up on my initial security clearance investigation.

Niles Michigan is in Berrien County. A search of Berrien County deeds does not come up with anyone named "Anello" or "Annello" (just in case). They may live there but they don't

It would be interesting to know how they hold the property. If they hold it as tenants by the entirety, then they're married.

Niles Michigan borders both Berrien and Cass County. They are listed in the Cass county public records as purchasing a home in Cass county in 2017 - Salvatore and Patricia Anello. A copy of the deed itself is not available in public records online. She would have had to show ID as part of the purchase so if nothing else her last name is Anello. My guess is they are married.

 

[Lambseatoats]

Hello All, new member here. I have followed this case for a while and was feeling guilty that I think SA is entirely at fault for the accident - then I found websleuths and many like-minded people and evidence to support my feelings and thoughts. I thank you all for the information you have compiled on this site.

I haven't seen it mentioned here (could have missed it), but this case reminded me of the Pittsburgh Zoo where Elizabeth Derkosh dropped her son into the Painted Dog exhibit and he was mauled to death. Despite the mother's negligence, the parents sued the zoo and the zoo defended themselves much as the cruise line is doing.

Parents of 2-year-old mauled by wild dogs settle Pittsburgh zoo lawsuit
"The injuries and damages sustained by Maddox Derkosh, including Maddox Derkosh's death, were caused solely by the carelessness, negligence, and/or recklessness of Elizabeth Derkosh," the zoo's attorney wrote in the court filing. She "knew or should have known he could fall into the exhibit" and failed "to maintain a proper grasp of Maddox Derkosh after lifting him over the railing."

According to the above article, the zoo settled with the parents for an undisclosed sum. The major difference in this case IMO is that other adults had been seen dangling their small children over the 4-foot high railing in order to get a better look at the dogs previously and in spite of this being brought up during safety committee meetings, the zoo did not make changes to the exhibit. These observations were noted in the minutes from the committee. The apparent lack of this kind of recommendation to the cruise line removes that weak link, IMO.

I'm pretty sure KW would know about this case (as an attorney) and is counting on a settlement no matter what - before trial or during a trial. To me, she has set her sights on blaming the cruise line and any notion that SA is at fault probably doesn't enter her consciousness. She may even derive a misguided courageous feeling by sticking up for him which propels her forward toward her goal of a monetary substitute for her deceased daughter. She lacks badly needed introspection, IMO.

Sorry this is long and not directly related to current conversations. It took me a bit to get signed up.

 

[JerseySleuth17]

I am usually a very Occam’s Razor type person, which to me would be he straight up knew the window was open and held her up to look outside the window and dropped her. His fault, whether he was on Xanax or has a disorder or is fake color blind or really for real feels super bad and thinks he has been punished enough, because don’t forget he feels really bad. He needs to be in jail.

I am as well - I am 100,000,000% convinced he knew that window was open, and he was playing some type of "game" with CW at a minimum, swinging her back and forth, and then inexplicably let her go - *without* enough reflexes or room to grab her* and she fell straight out the window. This whole "I thought the window was closed" was complete b.s., stated in the immediate aftermath as a pathetic excuse and then latched onto like a dying man on a life raft. Now it has become the narrative - let's sue RCCL no warning labels on open windows! - and it's too far gone to go back to the actual truth - at a minimum he was completely stupid and reckless - if not actually wondering what it would be like to see her fall and kill her. Go back to the most simple answer - he KNEW the window was open. WHY he did this remains to be seen - alcohol/drugs/impaired thinking, intentional, stupidity, recklessness, I don't know. Watch his interview again - he can't even muster up a convincing reply to how any of this is anyone's fault but his own. The parents are putting him up to this for the money grab, which in itself is disgusting and bizarre but he's not very convincing in that interview.

 

[JerseySleuth17]

Hello All, new member here. I have followed this case for a while and was feeling guilty that I think SA is entirely at fault for the accident - then I found websleuths and many like-minded people and evidence to support my feelings and thoughts. I thank you all for the information you have compiled on this site.

I haven't seen it mentioned here (could have missed it), but this case reminded me of the Pittsburgh Zoo where Elizabeth Derkosh dropped her son into the Painted Dog exhibit and he was mauled to death. Despite the mother's negligence, the parents sued the zoo and the zoo defended themselves much as the cruise line is doing.

Good point but from a legal perspective the fact that the zoo had prior knowledge of a potentially dangerous situation (other parents lifting children over the railing) and did nothing is a MAJOR difference from the SA case. If a business has knowledge of a potentially dangerous situation and does nothing (and puts it in corporate minutes no less!) that indicates liability on their part, which is most likely why they settled. I think with the SA case, there is no indication that an open window above waist height, behind a railing, was a liability risk. No child had ever fallen out of one before. As far as I know, there are no complaints about this issue to the cruise line, no one has come forward and said "my baby almost fell out of a RCCL cruise ship window too" that kind of thing. No business can protect itself against the stupidity of humans. If you put a baby up over a safety railing and don't hold onto her tight enough that she falls 11 stories, that's your fault and no one else. Based on what we've seen so far in this case I don't think RCCL has any intention of ever settling, and I suspect they have more stuff that will come to light eventually - witness interviews, cell phone photos/videos, people warning him what he was doing was dangerous, SA's medical records, etc. If the parents continue with this case, it's all going to come out. I almost want the case to continue so I can see some of this evidence and get some answers, b/c right now I cannot comprehend how this even happened if it wasn't - as some believe - intentional.

 

[Lambseatoats]

Good point but from a legal perspective the fact that the zoo had prior knowledge of a potentially dangerous situation (other parents lifting children over the railing) and did nothing is a MAJOR difference from the SA case. If a business has knowledge of a potentially dangerous situation and does nothing (and puts it in corporate minutes no less!) that indicates liability on their part, which is most likely why they settled. I think with the SA case, there is no indication that an open window above waist height, behind a railing, was a liability risk. No child had ever fallen out of one before. As far as I know, there are no complaints about this issue to the cruise line, no one has come forward and said "my baby almost fell out of a RCCL cruise ship window too" that kind of thing. No business can protect itself against the stupidity of humans. If you put a baby up over a safety railing and don't hold onto her tight enough that she falls 11 stories, that's your fault and no one else. Based on what we've seen so far in this case I don't think RCCL has any intention of ever settling, and I suspect they have more stuff that will come to light eventually - witness interviews, cell phone photos/videos, people warning him what he was doing was dangerous, SA's medical records, etc. If the parents continue with this case, it's all going to come out. I almost want the case to continue so I can see some of this evidence and get some answers, b/c right now I cannot comprehend how this even happened if it wasn't - as some believe - intentional.

Yes, I agree. That's what I meant by the 'weak link' for the zoo. I also agree with you and think RCCL has more information, video, etc. and will resist a settlement.

 

[Montrealaise]

Yes, I agree. That's what I meant by the 'weak link' for the zoo. I also agree with you and think RCCL has more information, video, etc. and will resist a settlement.

Both LE and RCCL have said that there are eyewitnesses. I remember reading that a dock worker saw what SA was doing and wanted to inform his supervisor, but couldn't do so in time. Since he was outside the ship, I imagine he will be able to tell the court whether SA's head was out the window when he looked out and whether he put Chloe outside the window, as well.

 

[drama_farmer]

Hello All, new member here. I have followed this case for a while and was feeling guilty that I think SA is entirely at fault for the accident - then I found websleuths and many like-minded people and evidence to support my feelings and thoughts. I thank you all for the information you have compiled on this site.

I haven't seen it mentioned here (could have missed it), but this case reminded me of the Pittsburgh Zoo where Elizabeth Derkosh dropped her son into the Painted Dog exhibit and he was mauled to death. Despite the mother's negligence, the parents sued the zoo and the zoo defended themselves much as the cruise line is doing.

Parents of 2-year-old mauled by wild dogs settle Pittsburgh zoo lawsuit
"The injuries and damages sustained by Maddox Derkosh, including Maddox Derkosh's death, were caused solely by the carelessness, negligence, and/or recklessness of Elizabeth Derkosh," the zoo's attorney wrote in the court filing. She "knew or should have known he could fall into the exhibit" and failed "to maintain a proper grasp of Maddox Derkosh after lifting him over the railing."

According to the above article, the zoo settled with the parents for an undisclosed sum. The major difference in this case IMO is that other adults had been seen dangling their small children over the 4-foot high railing in order to get a better look at the dogs previously and in spite of this being brought up during safety committee meetings, the zoo did not make changes to the exhibit. These observations were noted in the minutes from the committee. The apparent lack of this kind of recommendation to the cruise line removes that weak link, IMO.

I'm pretty sure KW would know about this case (as an attorney) and is counting on a settlement no matter what - before trial or during a trial. To me, she has set her sights on blaming the cruise line and any notion that SA is at fault probably doesn't enter her consciousness. She may even derive a misguided courageous feeling by sticking up for him which propels her forward toward her goal of a monetary substitute for her deceased daughter. She lacks badly needed introspection, IMO.

Sorry this is long and not directly related to current conversations. It took me a bit to get signed up.

Welcome Lambseatoats! and thank you for that helpful contribution!!

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Both LE and RCCL have said that there are eyewitnesses. I remember reading that a dock worker saw what SA was doing and wanted to inform his supervisor, but couldn't do so in time. Since he was outside the ship, I imagine he will be able to tell the court whether SA's head was out the window when he looked out and whether he put Chloe outside the window, as well.

Wow! I had not read about a dock worker noticing what was going on 11 decks above him. I recall that a crew member saw SA holding Chloe up to the window and told him not to do it. Sounded like a bartender or bar waiter who was working in the nearby Squeeze bar. Very telling if a worker on the ground actually saw SA and/or Chloe at the window.

 

[neesaki]

Hello All, new member here. I have followed this case for a while and was feeling guilty that I think SA is entirely at fault for the accident - then I found websleuths and many like-minded people and evidence to support my feelings and thoughts. I thank you all for the information you have compiled on this site.

I haven't seen it mentioned here (could have missed it), but this case reminded me of the Pittsburgh Zoo where Elizabeth Derkosh dropped her son into the Painted Dog exhibit and he was mauled to death. Despite the mother's negligence, the parents sued the zoo and the zoo defended themselves much as the cruise line is doing.

Parents of 2-year-old mauled by wild dogs settle Pittsburgh zoo lawsuit
"The injuries and damages sustained by Maddox Derkosh, including Maddox Derkosh's death, were caused solely by the carelessness, negligence, and/or recklessness of Elizabeth Derkosh," the zoo's attorney wrote in the court filing. She "knew or should have known he could fall into the exhibit" and failed "to maintain a proper grasp of Maddox Derkosh after lifting him over the railing."

According to the above article, the zoo settled with the parents for an undisclosed sum. The major difference in this case IMO is that other adults had been seen dangling their small children over the 4-foot high railing in order to get a better look at the dogs previously and in spite of this being brought up during safety committee meetings, the zoo did not make changes to the exhibit. These observations were noted in the minutes from the committee. The apparent lack of this kind of recommendation to the cruise line removes that weak link, IMO.

I'm pretty sure KW would know about this case (as an attorney) and is counting on a settlement no matter what - before trial or during a trial. To me, she has set her sights on blaming the cruise line and any notion that SA is at fault probably doesn't enter her consciousness. She may even derive a misguided courageous feeling by sticking up for him which propels her forward toward her goal of a monetary substitute for her deceased daughter. She lacks badly needed introspection, IMO.

Sorry this is long and not directly related to current conversations. It took me a bit to get signed up.

Good post, and 100% agree with your points in bold. And Welcome to WS, glad you’re here !

 

[Lawnguylander1964]

Chloe's obituary lists maternal grandparents, Salvatore and Patti Anello of Niles Michigan. You can find it in the media thread at the front of this thread.

Correct, but you can put anything you want in an obituary. It doesn't have to be legally factual. It's just whatever you tell the funeral home to put in it.

 

[Lawnguylander1964]

A quick look at common law marriage and IL, IN and MI don't recognize it after the 1950s.

My next door neighbor posts on Facebook and Nextdoor and calls him her husband when referencing him in posts. I believe they just got married a month ago based on a post and seeing a white garment bag going into the trunk of the car.

I was next to a woman getting my nails done once and she was saying "my husband, well he's not really my husband, it's just easier to say that since we've been together for so long..."

So I think people do refer to someone as a spouse even though they aren't legally married. Sometimes it's just easier than trying to explain the relationship.

 

[Yellowbeak]

Whatever her name was embarking on the cruise is her name. You need to show either a passport or driver’s license and original birth certificate. To get the new drivers license I had to show original birth certificate, marriage license, items with my address addressed to me (bills), I believe even my social security card. I think they are married. No reason to think otherwise. JMO

 

[Safetybug]

A quick look at common law marriage and IL, IN and MI don't recognize it after the 1950s.

My next door neighbor posts on Facebook and Nextdoor and calls him her husband when referencing him in posts. I believe they just got married a month ago based on a post and seeing a white garment bag going into the trunk of the car.

I was next to a woman getting my nails done once and she was saying "my husband, well he's not really my husband, it's just easier to say that since we've been together for so long..."

So I think people do refer to someone as a spouse even though they aren't legally married. Sometimes it's just easier than trying to explain the relationship.

I know someone who did just that in her mother’s obit. Regarding this case, I believe SA/family/lawyer used this misnomer to add to the smoke & mirrors of calling him a silver haired elderly and color blind. Anything that garners more sympathy for their lawsuit than to admit flatly that SA is merely 51 boyfriend of KW’s mother. Using the term grandfather invoke endearment. What they cannot win by facts they seem to exaggerate by emotion. $$. JMO.