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

[katydid23]

We NEED to see the authoritative source for these reports! Can anyone provide links?

I’ve seen a couple passing references to a dock worker, and to an employee on the 11 th deck. Both of whom supposedly saw AW actually holding Chloe through the open window frame. IMO this is a huge deal, could be more convincing than the video. Why does it seem to go unnoticed?

Would LOVE to learn more about who these eyewitnesses are, and what they would testify to.

Can anyone provide more details?

I don't think we will hear any more about those potential witnesses, if they exist, until the trial.

I am sure they were told, on that horrible day, to zip their lips until they were called to the stand.

Although they may have been deposed already. The best we can hope for is maybe some leaks from the depositions, but I doubt it.

JMO

 

[IceIce9]

We NEED to see the authoritative source for these reports! Can anyone provide links?

I’ve seen a couple passing references to a dock worker, and to an employee on the 11 th deck. Both of whom supposedly saw AW actually holding Chloe through the open window frame. IMO this is a huge deal, could be more convincing than the video. Why does it seem to go unnoticed?

Would LOVE to learn more about who these eyewitnesses are, and what they would testify to.

Can anyone provide more details?

In early news stories Puerto Rican LE stated that there were eyewitnesses both onboard and outside the ship. We had linked to the articles in the first thread, the one that was removed.

I am sure those eyewitnesses are keeping a low profile until the trial.

 

[loveandhugs]

Harrowing surveillance video captures 1-year-old's fatal fall off cruise ship.

This link mentions about 2/3 down that there were witnesses both on the ship and on land.

 

[loveandhugs]

Harrowing surveillance video captures 1-year-old's fatal fall off cruise ship.

This link mentions about 2/3 down that there were witnesses both on the ship and on land.

Sorry, it says Prosecutors have witnesses both on and off the island.

 

[al66pine]

Abbreviation UA, 2005.

UAD means a trust, not sure what UA means, it may be a trust and they just abbreviate due to the limitations of their system.

"UA" usually means "under agreement" - could be "under agreement dated"

Yes, agreeing, UA often means under agreement; and/or UAD under agreement dated. This abbrev is frequently used in title of brokerage & bank a/c's; sometimes agreement is a business partnership, but a trust is more common and would seem more likely here.
Trying to figure out why a trust doc would be recorded in county recorders office w no obvious transfer of ownership, and then apparently linked to that particular property/parcel on Feb 25, 2005, in between those two other transfers {ETA: or deed dates}.
"Anello Salvatore &Patricia/H&W"......................."08/29/2018"
"Salvatore &Patricia/H&W Anello" ......................"09/16/1998"
This 2005 "UA"? IDK, I'm missing something.

Just realized in earlier post I was misreading/misthinking ^ gap in years as 10 yrs. It was 20 years.
I'll have to give myself an F in math.

 

[Safetybug]

Harrowing surveillance video captures 1-year-old's fatal fall off cruise ship.

This link mentions about 2/3 down that there were witnesses both on the ship and on land.

I just the article link you posted and although some of the article’s commenters went off on various tangents - one poster made this interesting statement about eye witnesses:

 

[La Louve]

I'm so many pages behind so please forgive me if my comments have already been addressed.

Honestly, I don't see how SA being (allegedly) color blind could keep him from distinguishing between an open window and a closed window. And color blindness is generally diagnosed by opthamologists, not optometrists.

How Color Blindness Is Tested From the link:

• Red/green color blindness, the most common type, is congenital or inherited. It’s far more common in males than females, but still very rare. It affects 5 to 8 percent of males, and 0.5 percent of females. For people with red/green color blindness, reds and greens look similar to each other as a kind of brownish, muted tone. There is also a blue/yellow type of color blindness, but it's even more rare.
• A second, and less common, kind of color blindness is acquired, or related to an eye disease or condition. Retinal or optic nerve disorders are most likely to cause this kind of color blindness. In these cases, symptoms such as overall failing vision or persistent dark or white spots may be noticed first. An ophthalmologist may test for color blindness to help diagnose the problem. The doctor may start with an Ishihara screening test and, if that’s positive, move to more sophisticated testing.

Even if he has the more rare version where you can't distinguish between blue and yellow, I don't see how that helps him.

IMO the only affliction he seems to suffer from is stupidity.

I also give a side-eye to the parents' claim that they can't grieve CW's death until the lawsuit is settled. Obviously if they win the civil suit, the cruise line will appeal any judgement. So this could go on for a loooooooonnnnnnnng time.

The thing that worries me about the civil suit is that it was filed in Florida IIRC. I don't have much faith in Florida juries to use any common sense, but maybe because it's filed in federal court it will be a different jury pool. I think MW is aiming to taint any prospective jurists.

Rest in peace little CW. Justice is coming.
:rose:

 

[neesaki]

DBM

 

[Hughaskton]

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.[/QUOTE

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.

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.

My thoughts on that were conflicted, at first. As this has progressed, my hackles are up and I’m not as conflicted. I could see how they, acting in an LE or lawyer capacity would tell him no. I kind of get that, I’m in LE, so I see why they would. But, for the life of me, I can’t figure out why they are protecting the man that killed their daughter. For the record if my child died at the hands of a man who put her in grave danger and it resulted in her death, I would not be defending them all over the media.

This is my rub though. If I trusted someone in my family and this happened, you bet your butt I would be demanding a test. Not because I thought they were guilty, but to prove he was a trusted and safe human to watch my child. That I would not leave my child in the hands of someone who was impaired or incapable of watching my child and making solid safe decisions. So that’s the question. Did these people knowingly leave their child with someone that is dangerous. I think we have established he is dangerous, but was their purpose for advising him to deny any testing because they actually know he could have been impaired? Is this their way to avoid reality or face their own possible negligence? Hmm

 

[La Louve]

I can't find the quote now but CW's parents supposedly said the civil suit is not about the money, but rather making cruise ships safer.

If that were truly the case, they could've set up a foundation in her name with the goal of "improving" cruise ship safety. Suing for unlimited damages certainly doesn't achieve their stated goal and makes them sound like hypocrites.

And if perchance the civil jury does find in their favor, I hope their words come back to bite them. "Jury awards $0.01 in damages to the plaintiffs."

I just can't, with all of this family's nonsense. Poor little CW seems like she's just a meal ticket for these people. Disgusting.

Sort of OT, but related to how these people are covering for SA. Several years ago my narcissist mother twice "accidentally" left the garage door open when I was staying at her house with my dogs. And both times one of my dogs nearly escaped, and probably would've been a pancake on the nearby highway if I hadn't caught him in time. After the second "accident", I immediately packed up and headed for home. I told her if he'd been hit by a car or permanently lost I would never forgive her and would never speak to her again. Her response: "Even if it was an accident?" WTF??? SMH Some people's brains just aren't wired normally and they have no empathy. I shudder to think what she could've done if I'd ever had children.

"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." I've never stayed at my mom's house again. And to this day she still tries to make me feel guilty for that (usually around other family members), until I remind her I don't stay with her because she can't be trusted around my dogs.

~sigh~

I'm so sorry little CW, that your family seems to care more about protecting an idiot and making money than they do for your short little life. You deserved better.

 

[Hughaskton]

La Louve.. replying to you. I’m still learning this system and last time I replied, I think I clogged it up a little. Lol.

Have they even suggested any tangible way to make a ship safer? I mean I’ve heard a sign posted or I guess Winkleman is trying to say the safety railing should be further or never have an open window on a boat. None of these things would prevent a stupid person from doing what he did. RC does put this in the terms, not to do stuff like this, he ignored that, why would he adhere to a sign? Let’s be real, no one should need a sign telling them not to place a child out a window 11 stories high. No one should need a sign that says, don’t bang on windows. No one should need a sign that’s says, please don’t place a child over there s SAFETY railing!

This, let’s make is safer is ridiculous. This is not a common occurrence. It’s not even a rare occurrence. People don’t do that because, common sense. Here is a thought. Don’t allow gramps to watch your child, he seems to be the only lurking danger in this story. Do that and guess what, anyone around him will he safer.

 

[La Louve]

La Louve.. replying to you. I’m still learning this system and last time I replied, I think I clogged it up a little. Lol.

Have they even suggested any tangible way to make a ship safer? I mean I’ve heard a sign posted or I guess Winkleman is trying to say the safety railing should be further or never have an open window on a boat. None of these things would prevent a stupid person from doing what he did. RC does put this in the terms, not to do stuff like this, he ignored that, why would he adhere to a sign? Let’s be real, no one should need a sign telling them not to place a child out a window 11 stories high. No one should need a sign that says, don’t bang on windows. No one should need a sign that’s says, please don’t place a child over there s SAFETY railing!

This, let’s make is safer is ridiculous. This is not a common occurrence. It’s not even a rare occurrence. People don’t do that because, common sense. Here is a thought. Don’t allow gramps to watch your child, he seems to be the only lurking danger in this story. Do that and guess what, anyone around him will he safer.

Well, the mother claims there are "a million" things the cruise line could do to make the cruise ships "safer" like having fans instead of open windows. Lol. Seriously?? I can imagine at least a dozen reasons why that's a stupid idea. Oh and one of the grandmothers said she couldn't understand why the windows didnt have screens on them. Lol.

I wonder how these people manage to survive a day without the world protecting them from their own stupidity.

<sarcasm alert> maybe i should sue the envelope manufacturer for the paper cut i got on my tongue last week. UGH

 

[they'll get you]

In early news stories Puerto Rican LE stated that there were eyewitnesses both onboard and outside the ship. We had linked to the articles in the first thread, the one that was removed.

I am sure those eyewitnesses are keeping a low profile until the trial.

Likely in straight jackets and under constant watch of psychologists after witnessing something so horrific

 

[they'll get you]

Harrowing surveillance video captures 1-year-old's fatal fall off cruise ship.

This link mentions about 2/3 down that there were witnesses both on the ship and on land.

Prosecutors say they have witnesses, both on and off the island, they plan to call to testify.

“We’re comfortable with the evidence that we have,” prosecutor Ivette Nieves told ABC News this week. “We have a solid case.”
Harrowing surveillance video captures 1-year-old's fatal fall off cruise ship

 

[scruffydog]

My thoughts on that were conflicted, at first. As this has progressed, my hackles are up and I’m not as conflicted. I could see how they, acting in an LE or lawyer capacity would tell him no. I kind of get that, I’m in LE, so I see why they would. But, for the life of me, I can’t figure out why they are protecting the man that killed their daughter. For the record if my child died at the hands of a man who put her in grave danger and it resulted in her death, I would not be defending them all over the media.

This is my rub though. If I trusted someone in my family and this happened, you bet your butt I would be demanding a test. Not because I thought they were guilty, but to prove he was a trusted and safe human to watch my child. That I would not leave my child in the hands of someone who was impaired or incapable of watching my child and making solid safe decisions. So that’s the question. Did these people knowingly leave their child with someone that is dangerous. I think we have established he is dangerous, but was their purpose for advising him to deny any testing because they actually know he could have been impaired? Is this their way to avoid reality or face their own possible negligence? Hmm

One of my thoughts is that he probably had a bottle of booze in his stateroom-had a few-tried to act like a show off Grandpa, and dropped her. If you weren't drinking, then you would certainly be ok with a blood test for alcohol level. Perhaps made foggier yet by taking something like Ativan, Valium, anti depressants, etc.

In some ways I am hoping that is what happened. Otherwise I fear that either for monetary gain, or perhaps the Grandpa thinking that the child was somehow not normal, or an embarrassment-did this awful action on purpose.

 

[they'll get you]

No words

In the video Winkleman said the parents are angry but they understand it was an accident.

Also it is said he was seen dangling the child out of the window then dropped her

Parents of Chloe Wiegand stand by her grandfather after he is charged in her death | Daily Mail Online

 

[Lawnguylander1964]

The selfie theory (from the snap shot of the comment above) is interesting. Do they have his phone and was there a photo on it?

 

[Lambseatoats]

View attachment 231185

No words

In the video Winkleman said the parents are angry but they understand it was an accident.

Also, it is said he was seen dangling the child out of the window then dropped her

Parents of Chloe Wiegand stand by her grandfather after he is charged in her death | Daily Mail Online

Good info in this article and video that you linked. Also noted that it was written:

Forensic experts studied the boat's windows, furniture, and layout in the wake of the accident for clues as to how the child could have gone overboard.

They found the area had been busy but didn't obtain any first-person accounts, with fellow passengers seemingly distracted by the pool, drinks and vacation plans.

Officers did, however, obtain critical video footage from the Freedom of the Seas on-board camera system which was described as 'definitive' by police sources.

Bolded by me for emphasis.

 

[Wehwalt]

The thing that worries me about the civil suit is that it was filed in Florida IIRC. I don't have much faith in Florida juries to use any common sense, but maybe because it's filed in federal court it will be a different jury pool. I think MW is aiming to taint any prospective jurists.

In some courts you would get a wider jury pool in federal court but here it makes no difference. The cruise contract requires filing in Miami. If filed in state court, the local court would draw jurors from Dade County. The federal court, the Miami Division of the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, takes jurors only from Dade County.

 

[they'll get you]

La Louve.. replying to you. I’m still learning this system and last time I replied, I think I clogged it up a little. Lol.

Have they even suggested any tangible way to make a ship safer? I mean I’ve heard a sign posted or I guess Winkleman is trying to say the safety railing should be further or never have an open window on a boat. None of these things would prevent a stupid person from doing what he did. RC does put this in the terms, not to do stuff like this, he ignored that, why would he adhere to a sign? Let’s be real, no one should need a sign telling them not to place a child out a window 11 stories high. No one should need a sign that says, don’t bang on windows. No one should need a sign that’s says, please don’t place a child over there s SAFETY railing!

This, let’s make is safer is ridiculous. This is not a common occurrence. It’s not even a rare occurrence. People don’t do that because, common sense. Here is a thought. Don’t allow gramps to watch your child, he seems to be the only lurking danger in this story. Do that and guess what, anyone around him will he safer.

Common sense isn’t as common as it once was.
Great post Hughaskton, it was common sense!