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

[BetteDavisEyes]

Also, AFAIK, helicopter parents/grandparents do not let toddlers run SO FAR ahead of them as SA did in that video. That visual really stood out to me. But then I thought, "well, he knows what's going to happens, so he really does not care about her safety at that point"...

The first time that I watched the video, I was as disturbed by SA's lack of concern for Chloe's safety as I was him hoisting her up to an open window 11 stories above the concrete dock Chloe should never have been in the bar area, yet Grandpa allowed her to run wherever she wanted as he struggled to keep up with her. Chloe was in danger even before Grandpa held her in the open window!

 

[mheido67]

As to the bolded, I agree. I would add that it will also come down to whether a reasonable person would ever put 18 month 0ld child up over the guard rail, and prop her up into a narrow window ledge, and hold her with one arm, when you have not even checked to see if there was glass yet.

Agreed. RCCL made those very points in their motion to dismiss.

 

[MeadowMuffin]

As to the bolded, I agree. I would add that it will also come down to whether a reasonable person would ever put 18 month 0ld child up over the guard rail, and prop her up into a narrow window ledge, and hold her with one arm, when you have not even checked to see if there was glass yet.

That one arm hold really burns my biscuit. I remember seeing somewhere a photo of SA holding a small child with one arm while on a watercraft of some sort. Chloe's brother maybe? Can't find it now to save my life, so I will say it's MOO. But I showed the photo to my husband who thought it was a jet ski. Nevertheless SA is a reckless person when you look at his traffic violations and how he handled Chloe.

 

[katydid23]

From the amended Motion to Dismiss so kindly posted by Kindred above;

"...this is a case where an adult man, Salvatore Anello, voluntarily and unbeknownst to RCL, lifted his 18-month old granddaughter several feet above the deck and onto a railing that she could never have climbed on her own. In doing so, Mr. Anello placed Chloe mere inches away from a window that was open to the outside elements of wind and noise and, as the photographs in the Complaint show, was flanked by closed windows of tinted, reflective glass. Mr. Anello then purportedly held Chloe forward to allow her to bang on glass that he did not first attempt to touch himself."

Bingo.

Still reading through but this filing appears to have taken the judges admonition to heart. Focused entirely on the allegations made by MW.

"Mr. Anello then purportedly held Chloe forward to allow her to bang on glass that he did not first attempt to touch himself."

I think this^^^ is a very major argument for the prosecution. Because if the defense is correct that SA was color blind, and thus couldn't see if glass was tinted or not, then wouldn't he take special care to make sure there was glass there, before he propped his baby up into the window ledge?

He admitted that he had not touched the glass, and was leaning forward to try and reach for it, when he then shoved the baby forward so far she fell to her death.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

That one arm hold really burns my biscuit. I remember seeing somewhere a photo of SA holding a small child with one arm while on a watercraft of some sort. Chloe's brother maybe? Can't find it now to save my life, so I will say it's MOO. But I showed the photo to my husband who thought it was a jet ski. Nevertheless SA is a reckless person when you look at his traffic violations and how he handled Chloe.

There might be a better copy of this photo that shows SA's loose, one arm grip on Chloe. Her head is above Grandpa, and he is barely holding onto her little legs. If Chloe squirmed or turned suddenly to look at something, she could very easily have fallen to the floor because he had such a loose hold on his grandchild. It really bothered me when Kim said that SA never, ever put (their) children in danger, because Grandpa clearly has no clue how to care for his grandchild. I wonder if Chloe's brother and/or Chloe were ever in a vehicle driven by SA without wearing his seatbelt?

 

[mheido67]

"Mr. Anello then purportedly held Chloe forward to allow her to bang on glass that he did not first attempt to touch himself."

I think this^^^ is a very major argument for the prosecution. Because if the defense is correct that SA was color blind, and thus couldn't see if glass was tinted or not, then wouldn't he take special care to make sure there was glass there, before he propped his baby up into the window ledge?

He admitted that he had not touched the glass, and was leaning forward to try and reach for it, when he then shoved the baby forward so far she fell to her death.

I think promoting SA's colorblindness as a contributing factor might wind up biting the plaintiffs (in the civil case) in the . The obvious question becomes, and I think RCCL is moving the conversation in this direction, if SA knew he had a visual impairment why didn't he take more care to ensure that there was actually glass where he assumed it was? RCCL laid out the case law supporting their claim that they can't be held liable for the unforeseable acts of a third party and are not obliged to design the details of their ships to account for a specific individuals inability to perceive open and apparent dangers that a reasonable person would perceive as such.

 

[katydid23]

I think promoting SA's colorblindness as a contributing factor might wind up biting the plaintiffs (in the civil case) in the . The obvious question becomes, and I think RCCL is moving the conversation in this direction, if SA knew he had a visual impairment why didn't he take more care to ensure that there was actually glass where he assumed it was? RCCL laid out the case law supporting their claim that they can't be held liable for the unforeseable acts of a third party and are not obliged to design the details of their ships to account for a specific individuals inability to perceive open and apparent dangers that a reasonable person would perceive as such.

I agree that promoting his colour-blindness may harm their arguments in the end.

They are claiming that the ship needs WARNING stickers on all of the windows. But the only reason, according to them, that SA couldn't tell the difference between open and closed windows was the tinted glass couldn't be seen by him.

So they lose the argument about warning stickers right there. Because a reasonable man standard does not need the stickers if there is tinted glass.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

I think promoting SA's colorblindness as a contributing factor might wind up biting the plaintiffs (in the civil case) in the . The obvious question becomes, and I think RCCL is moving the conversation in this direction, if SA knew he had a visual impairment why didn't he take more care to ensure that there was actually glass where he assumed it was? RCCL laid out the case law supporting their claim that they can't be held liable for the unforeseable acts of a third party and are not obliged to design the details of their ships to account for a specific individuals inability to perceive open and apparent dangers that a reasonable person would perceive as such.

If Chloe's parents knew that SA was visually (or otherwise) impaired, why did they place Chloe in his care? Did they allow Chloe and/or her brother to ride in a car with SA driving without wearing a seatbelt? Surely, they knew about SA's traffic violations, but maybe that didn't matter to them. I'm more than a little curious to learn the whereabouts of the other family members when Grandpa was Chloe's sole caregiver that fateful afternoon.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

I agree that promoting his colour-blindness may harm their arguments in the end.

They are claiming that the ship needs WARNING stickers on all of the windows. But the only reason, according to them, that SA couldn't tell the difference between open and closed windows was the tinted glass couldn't be seen by him.

So they lose the argument about warning stickers right there. Because a reasonable man standard does not need the stickers if there is tinted glass.

SA would not have heeded "warning" stickers just like he doesn't wear a seatbelt even after being ticketed. Rules don't apply to him, and he would have lifted Chloe over the railing and up to the open window regardless of signage advising him not to do so. The man is brazen and careless and should never been charged with Chloe's care.

 

[WiseGuy]

If Chloe's parents knew that SA was visually (or otherwise) impaired, why did they place Chloe in his care? Did they allow Chloe and/or her brother to ride in a car with SA driving without wearing a seatbelt? Surely, they knew about SA's traffic violations, but maybe that didn't matter to them. I'm more than a little curious to learn the whereabouts of the other family members when Grandpa was Chloe's sole caregiver that fateful afternoon.

Good point. That would explain why KW is so emphatic in insisting SA did nothing wrong, never ever ever placed a kid in danger, it's evil RCCL's fault, etc. Because KW knew that SA was irresponsible and yet she got lazy or whatever, and shuffled Chloe off to him rather than impose on one of the 4 other adults who could have watched her. I bet her intuition told her it was risky to let SA watch Chloe. She may have know he was drinking or medicated or just plain stupid, she ignored her own better judgement and now can't bear to face her own responsibility for Chloe's death.

 

[JerseySleuth17]

"Mr. Anello then purportedly held Chloe forward to allow her to bang on glass that he did not first attempt to touch himself."

I think this^^^ is a very major argument for the prosecution. Because if the defense is correct that SA was color blind, and thus couldn't see if glass was tinted or not, then wouldn't he take special care to make sure there was glass there, before he propped his baby up into the window ledge?

He admitted that he had not touched the glass, and was leaning forward to try and reach for it, when he then shoved the baby forward so far she fell to her death.

The argument he didn't know the window was open is all a RED HERRING Imo. Of course he knew the window was open. It's only 9-10 inches from the railing. Think about it - these windows open, they slide side to side. You have to be able to reach your arm out to reach the latch that opens the window! I'm 5'6" and can reach and open these windows no problem. When he leaned forward over the railing when he first approached the window, he knew that window was open. His head was either physically outside, or so close to the it he would have only been inches from the "glass" if there had been any. This "glass" is not far away, you can literally just extend your arm and you touch it - again because you have to be able to reach the latch to get it open. All SA had to do was reach his arm out a little bit to check to make sure "there was glass" - and he didn't. But he's 11 stories up and thought it was a brilliant idea to lean her forward so she can "bang on glass" then doesn't have enough of a grip on her that she falls out of it? It is mind boggling.

 

[neesaki]

If Chloe's parents knew that SA was visually (or otherwise) impaired, why did they place Chloe in his care? Did they allow Chloe and/or her brother to ride in a car with SA driving without wearing a seatbelt? Surely, th¡ley knew about SA's traffic violations, but maybe that didn't matter to them. I'm more than a little curious to learn the whereabouts of the other family members when Grandpa was Chloe's sole caregiver that fateful afternoon.

It’s bothered me from the beginning how little Chloe was left alone with the “elderly” SA right after boarding a cruise ship. Then again everything about this case .... how it happened, why it happened, and the family’s behavior since... raises red flags for me.

 

[Montrealaise]

Also, AFAIK, helicopter parents/grandparents do not let toddlers run SO FAR ahead of them as SA did in that video. That visual really stood out to me. But then I thought, "well, he knows what's going to happens, so he really does not care about her safety at that point"...

I just get the impression that he has never taken care of young children (certainly not on his own). KW left them at the kids' splash are, undoubtedly thinking that they would stay there. Sadly, Chloe ran off - as toddlers are wont to do - and SA didn't stop her, not even when she ran into a cocktail lounge.

 

[Kindred]

RCCL has already stated in there court filings that only the two cameras from which the footage was leaked captured any of the events involved in CW's death. I highly doubt they would do so if there was additional footage. Unless there is footage from some other source which I find doubtful seeing as no one has made any mention of any third party footage to date.

BBM.

Please remember that neither the Wiegands or RCCL are party to the criminal case, and therefore don't have any right to discovery in the criminal trial. If PR LE collected any photos or videos from any guests or even dock security camera's they are under no obligation to give this evidence over to the cruise line. Certainly not while in the middle of a criminal case. It's possible that they did to help RCCL security with their own internal investigation into the matter but there is still no "we have to give you this".

We know that SA's criminal defense has been sharing things that they have been getting, but if they have that already I doubt they'd want to let out publicly because it's probably more damning then the footage we've seen. Instead, Winkleman will play dumb and hope that RCCL doesn't know/have anything else outside their on security recordings.

Is it possible that RCCL does have outside dock security footage? Yes, I'm sure that their lawyers would have been in contact with whoever technically owns those cameras and was sure to get their own copies. But even if they do have that footage: 1) Winkleman's motion to compel was only for RCCL's security footage and 2) they still haven't hit discovery phase yet where they would be required to hand over any and all evidence they are in possession of, including third party recordings.

Just because it hasn't come out publicly doesn't mean that it doesn't exist somewhere.

 

[mheido67]

BBM.

Please remember that neither the Wiegands or RCCL are party to the criminal case, and therefore don't have any right to discovery in the criminal trial. If PR LE collected any photos or videos from any guests or even dock security camera's they are under no obligation to give this evidence over to the cruise line. Certainly not while in the middle of a criminal case. It's possible that they did to help RCCL security with their own internal investigation into the matter but there is still no "we have to give you this".

We know that SA's criminal defense has been sharing things that they have been getting, but if they have that already I doubt they'd want to let out publicly because it's probably more damning then the footage we've seen. Instead, Winkleman will play dumb and hope that RCCL doesn't know/have anything else outside their on security recordings.

Is it possible that RCCL does have outside dock security footage? Yes, I'm sure that their lawyers would have been in contact with whoever technically owns those cameras and was sure to get their own copies. But even if they do have that footage: 1) Winkleman's motion to compel was only for RCCL's security footage and 2) they still haven't hit discovery phase yet where they would be required to hand over any and all evidence they are in possession of, including third party recordings.

Just because it hasn't come out publicly doesn't mean that it doesn't exist somewhere.

I agreed completely, there could be third party footage.

If the criminal trial has reached the discovery phase already I'd imagine SA would have no problem having his defense team share any footage they have with MW. Or perhaps he would if it's damning of him? That would make for awkward family conversation. But I rather doubt anything from off the ship would have enough detail to really be of any use to anyone.

As far as security cameras on the pier I highly doubt they would be aimed up high enough or have a wide enough field of view to have captured anything happening on deck 11 of FotS. They would be more concerned with anything happening on the pier itself.

I would really love to see the higher definition cctv footage. I'm sure it would answer a lot of people's questions about SA's movements and how he held CW.

 

[In vino veritas]

Please pardon my ignorance, but I have another question for our WS attorneys:

If the federal judge in Miami is now inclined to dismiss the lawsuit against RCL, would the dismissal be held pending the completion of the criminal trial in PR?

It’s been said that the civil lawsuit, if brought to trial, would not resolve until after the criminal proceedings concluded. I don’t know if the reverse situation holds true.

Any clarification will be much appreciated.

 

[mheido67]

Please pardon my ignorance, but I have another question for our WS attorneys:

If the federal judge in Miami is now inclined to dismiss the lawsuit against RCL, would the dismissal be held pending the completion of the criminal trial in PR?

It’s been said that the civil lawsuit, if brought to trial, would not resolve until after the criminal proceedings concluded. I don’t know if the reverse situation holds true.

Any clarification will be much appreciated.

I think the reason the civil trial would wait until the criminal trial is completed would be because SA could not be compelled to provide testimony in the civil trial (which I assume RCCL or MW would seek) because he would be exposed to self-incrimination that could affect his criminal trial. That being the case they would hold off on the civil trial until post-criminal trial. At least that's my non-lawyer understanding of the reasoning.

If the civil trial is dismissed it has no affect on SA's criminal trial as no testimony would be required. So I don't see any reason to delay the dismissal. SA is not a party to the civil case so the judge in the civil case has no obligation to him.

 

[Wehwalt]

To all you actual legal eagles on WS: do the plaintiffs now have an opportunity to respond to RCL’s amended motion? Or can the judge go ahead and dismiss without further input from the plaintiff?

Yes. There will undoubtedly be an opposition. There may be a reply brief from the defendant, who I would expect to get the last word. The judge can rule based on the pleadings or he can ask them to argue it.

I read the motion. It's more or less what's been argued previously. I found it a bit showy about heeding the judge's admonition to discuss the pleadings, not evidence. It will be interesting to see whether MW does the same in their response. That could be a reason why they go to great care to only argue based on what is within the initial complaint, so that MW has no excuse to do otherwise.

Not familiar enough with the case law to give you an opinion on how strong a chance this has. Interested in reading the response.

 

[justbreathe]

Excellent post, that is exactly how I felt seeing SA fall to the ground, I would have almost had my whole body out of the window trying to grab Chloe.

Playing the “intoxicated off his butt” card - I wonder if he even noticed when she fell, or instead registered that she just...wasn’t there anymore, and by the time he looked she was falling away...

 

[justbreathe]

I thought this was odd too! You're holding a baby near what is clearly an open window (forget the whole "I thought the window was closed" argument). You don't have a close enough grip on her to grab her when she starts to fall and your reflexes are so slow you can't reach out lightning fast to grab her. I don't see ANY movement on SA's part that indicates any type of last minute, arms outstretched, attempt to grab CW. No matter how futile, how out of your reach she is... don't you at least try?? It's like he let's go, she falls forward and he falls backwards! In the interview he says "I watched her fall the whole way down." How? Not out the window. And I don't think the lower window would have had the angle to see the dock, I could be wrong about that. But at least from the video it appears he immediately falls to the ground and I'm not connecting how he could also watch her fall. How do you let go of your granddaughter and your first instinct is to fall backwards, not lean forwards with arms outstretched, even if she's already too far away? I've dropped sunglasses, drinks, lots of things other than a HUMAN BEING and my natural reaction is to reach my hand out to try to catch it, not shrink away. So odd!

Interestingly - you can see through the bottom panes all the way to the ground because they angle out like:

__/

There is a great pic around somewhere. This was literally the only thing he said that made sense, imo. It made me wonder if having to see her fall all the way down was *not* part of the...plan? I don’t know.