IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #6

[mickey2942]

I might add also that it seems that a lot of good people don't want to be a juror. People who work just would rather not take off work for it. Others are uncomfortable with maybe the subject matter, or having to be the one to render a judgement. Good jurors are hard to find.

Hence, outcomes like the "Casey Anthony" and "OJ" verdicts. Although, I think that those outcomes could have been biased due to jury sequestration.

I often wondered how "random" the selection process is for choosing people to receive jury duty summons. I have never received one. My husband received one, over 30 years ago.

 

[MassGuy]

Right, but I wouldn't want someone drunk watching my baby by the wading pool either. A baby can drown in very shallow waters.

I wouldn’t trust this guy to watch my pet rock.

 

[neesaki]

Does anyone familiar with the case believe that a sign warning people about windows possibly being open would have been noticed by SA?

IMO, he was not very observant, and missed real, physical clues that most people would notice I can't imagine mere words would have saved Chloe from his negligence

He may have noticed it, but it wouldn’t have changed what he did. SA wanted an open window, which is the reason he chose that particular window. After viewing that video uncountable times, I have no question he knew that window was open.

The only question I have now is, why?

More investigation is needed. I would hope that PR is going through his life, and any associates ... with a very fine tooth comb. Just a hope.

 

[they'll get you]

Really? First I’ve heard about the highlighted border and handles. And earlier read today about the window being one third closed.
Two huge pieces I’ve missed along the way.
Anything else I’ve missed?

Here are the borders around the windows that open. iirc they don’t open fully so you see the handle and border.
I hope this helps.

 

[they'll get you]

I wouldn’t trust this guy to watch my pet rock.

Parents believe he's Mary Poppins.

 

[neesaki]

Here are the borders around the windows that open. iirc they don’t open fully so you see the handle and border.
I hope this helps.
View attachment 227092
View attachment 227093

I really appreciate the photos, they’re very helpful to me for a visual perspective. Thank you very much, @they’ll get you.

 

[they'll get you]

I really appreciate the photos, they’re very helpful to me for a visual perspective. Thank you very much, @they’ll get you.

They might be the same photos over and over but each photo holds another relevant subject.
I’m just sorry I didn’t get more.
Thank you neesaki.

We’ll be on the Ovation soon which unfortunately is newer and a very different design otherwise you’d get photos of me leaning out windows with tape measure in 101 different angles.

 

[al66pine]

Timeline. SA's Supervision of Chloe. How Long?
Per July 9 MSM, SA dropped Chloe 4:27 local time.* No time given in Complaint.** Is that inaccurate early reporting, or are Complaint times inaccurate? Or? If accurate SA "supervised" her for only ~10 min.

1:15 "family" boarded.
......? Lunch, "family"(Mom Dad, Chloe, Chloe's bro, SA, & GrMother)Others, not mentioned here
......? Mom & Chloe, in swimsuits
2:40 Mom & Chloe in pool
3:50 Mom (to RCL ofc?)
3:50 SA came to H20 Zone
4:00 <--shortly after, Chloe walked to wall of glass, SA followed.
_:__? Complaint paragraph 20 alleges, "...she slipped from Mr. Anello’s arms, falling through the open pane..." but no time is given. Why not?

Per vids, Chloe was dropped only a few min's after she walked to 'wall of glass."
Seems like a discrepancy. Deliberate? Inadvertent?

------------------------------------------------------------
* "The incident happened at 4:27; ship departed at 10.24pm." Grandad 'had to be sedated' after dropping toddler 150ft to her death on cruise ship. pub July 9.
**Complaint allegations, starting on page 3:
"Subject Incident
11. On or about July 7, 2019, at approximately 1:15 p.m., the family boarded the vessel in San Juan, Puerto Rico for a 7-night Southern Caribbean cruise. Upon boarding, the family went to the Windjammer Café for lunch. After lunch, Mrs. Schultz-Wiegand and Chloe changed into swimsuits, and at approximately 2:40 p.m., they began to play in the pool(s) aboard the ship.
12. At or around 3:50 p.m., Mrs. Schultz Wiegand needed to go help with an issue related to the cruise, and as such, Mr. Anello came up to the H2O Zone on Deck 11 of the vessel to supervise Chloe, his 18-month-old granddaughter, as shown below:
[ pic of Chloe]
13. The H2O Zone is advertised by Defendant to be a “kids’… water park[.]”
14. At all times material, Mr. Anello was closely supervising Chloe as she played in the kids’ water park. Shortly after 4 p.m., Chloe walked over to a nearby wall of glass on the same deck (Deck 11), and she was followed closely by Mr. Anello.'
20. See ^.

 

[neesaki]

They might be the same photos over and over but each photo holds another relevant subject.
I’m just sorry I didn’t get more.
Thank you neesaki.

We’ll be on the Ovation soon which unfortunately is newer and a very different design otherwise you’d get photos of me leaning out windows with tape measure in 101 different angles.

Oh you did great, we wouldn’t have them otherwise! I’ve referred back to them several times, they’re like my reference book, lol. BTW, Are these photos saved in the media thread?
I should look, but don’t remember seeing them last time. Might keep
you from having to repost all the time , lol. Thanks again

 

[they'll get you]

Oh you did great, we wouldn’t have them otherwise! I’ve referred back to them several times, they’re like my reference book, lol. BTW, Are these photos saved in the media thread?
I should look, but don’t remember seeing them last time. Might keep
you from having to repost all the time , lol. Thanks again

It’s my pleasure hon
I just don’t understand why they show sideways. No others do.

 

[al66pine]

Reenactment. Setting. The Reenactor? Poses in Photos?

Could one of our members who is actually a lawyer enlighten me here? MW’s “re-enactment” - how would a judge react to this? Or was it even meant for the court to consider at all?... so amateurish ....RCL can just as easily film a re-enactment that supports their story, ....If MW tries to present this re-enactment as objective truth, wouldn’t that be so farcical as to insult the judge’s intelligence?

@WiseGuy bbm sbm Good points. To supplement the excellent post by @Midwestmom2019, a few other thoughts.
Keep in mind: RCL is responsible for objecting to any inaccuracies in documentation Atty-W offers, to show judge that W's reenactment is not true & accurate, and therefore should not be shown to jury. Not the trial court's job to do that sua sponte,* that is, of its own accord.
Atty-W filed motion in court, w pix purportedly reenacting SA's actions w Chloe at the window, done on actual Fr/Seas ship, at the actual bank of windows, presumably at the very window. Setting was not a replica or model, etc, so not much/nothing there for RCL to object to, imo.
But what RCL may/is likely to object to, imo, is--
(1) Person chosen to portray SA, the man who actually held then dropped Chloe. Atty-W's motion w the pix says ~ reenactor is the same/close to height and weight as SA but gives no specifications to support this (for ex., SA & reenactor are both 5'11"), at least not in the motion. It's possible that W did document the similarities, by taking pix of reenactor- w measuring tape showing his height and his waist, chest circumferences, not just weight. The same weight can be distributed differently in SA and reenactor. Also arm length. Does SA have chimpanzee arms and does reenactor have T-Rex arms? If Atty-W is unable to provide documentation of similarity on these points, RCL may object & have a shot at preventing jury from seeing these pix, imo.
(2) Reenactor's positions in pix. This seems imo like best basis for RCL's objection, basically what posters have been saying here - reenactor is posing/artificially restricting himself to prevent his head, shoulders, etc from extending as much as possible. RCl's objection: Clearly SA did extend arms 'far enough' (because Chloe was held and dropped out window), so these reenactment photos are not true and accurate depictions of SA's actions, so should not be admissible for jury to see.

IDK about idea RCL doing own reenactments to offer for jury.
@Midwestmom2019 described issues besides ^, w esp. good points about difficulties of any further reenactments by either plaintiff or defendant, esp. if using a model/replica. Extremely tedious, expensive, etc.

----------------------------------------------------------------
* Sua sponte - Wikipedia
IANA(verified)L

 

[al66pine]

Windspeed?

There's just no way to recreate the winds through the window, though. You can't know exactly how windy it was and what direction it was blowing from....

@FactFinder3000 sbm Absolutely, like you say, no way to recreate the wind for the jury. From Google Earth & info from posters here, not sure if Fr/Seas was docked w bow pointed east or west. Average SanJuan windspeed in July: ~ 12 mph coming from 90 degrees east.

Weatherspark.com (below) has daily tables for temp, wind, etc, if you're curious. And as someone else posted (was that you @Kindred or@Midwestmom2019 ?), US National Weather Service has detailed data for this too, maybe hourly.
---------------------------------------
* The average hourly wind speed in San Juan is essentially constant during July, remaining within 0.2 miles per hour of 12.4 miles per hour throughout.
** The hourly average wind direction in San Juan throughout July is predominantly from the east, with a peak proportion of 99% on July 15.
Average Weather in July in San Juan, Puerto Rico - Weather Spark

 

[Wehwalt]

I don't believe the re-enactment photos were intended for the jury. They don't make anything more probable. They are for public consumption, to "rebut" the security video. Neither side is going to rely on fairly random photographs. If this thing went to trial, there would probably be a mock-up of the railing and the window, with any disputes as to accuracy ironed out in advance. The photographs in question are just being offered for the purposes of a motion, not for the trial, and the judge will give them the weight he deems appropriate which IMO is not much.

Re the filing of depositions: that can be done but is not required, see FRCivP 30 and 32. There is no guarantee that the transcripts will be filed, and SA would not be deposed until his criminal case is disposed of.

Regarding windspeed, I don't know how useful weather stats are. The wind is going to do funny things wrapping around the ship. Any breeze through the window might be determined by the temperatures of the air on either side of it rather than by wind.

 

[they'll get you]

I don't believe the re-enactment photos were intended for the jury. They don't make anything more probable. They are for public consumption, to "rebut" the security video. Neither side is going to rely on fairly random photographs. If this thing went to trial, there would probably be a mock-up of the railing and the window, with any disputes as to accuracy ironed out in advance. The photographs in question are just being offered for the purposes of a motion, not for the trial, and the judge will give them the weight he deems appropriate which IMO is not much.

Re the filing of depositions: that can be done but is not required, see FRCivP 30 and 32. There is no guarantee that the transcripts will be filed, and SA would not be deposed until his criminal case is disposed of.

Regarding windspeed, I don't know how useful weather stats are. The wind is going to do funny things wrapping around the ship. Any breeze through the window might be determined by the temperatures of the air on either side of it rather than by wind.

Legal access to board the ship or they booked a cruise for the re-enactment photos.

 

[Lawnguylander1964]

Does anyone familiar with the case believe that a sign warning people about windows possibly being open would have been noticed by SA?

IMO, he was not very observant, and missed real, physical clues that most people would notice I can't imagine mere words would have saved Chloe from his negligence

What language would the sign be in? Or what universal symbol would you use to demonstrate that which you are not supposed to do?

I can't even read half of the dashboard symbols in my Toyota. The tire pressure symbol is the worst. I had to look that one up in the book at a red light once.

 

[Wehwalt]

Legal access to board the ship or they booked a cruise for the re-enactment photos.

I read somewhere it was in Barbados. RCL could have just told the ship to give them access. I doubt they were allowed to wander the ship unescorted and unfilmed.

 

[al66pine]

Unsupervised, Unrecorded Inspection?

I read somewhere it was in Barbados. RCL could have just told the ship to give them access. I doubt they were allowed to wander the ship unescorted and unfilmed.

@Wehwalt Looks like parties stipulated to ~ unescorted and unfilmed, per below, Motion fild Jan 8.*
".... following agreement and stipulation of the Parties. Plaintiffs shall be permitted to conduct an unsupervised and unrecorded inspection of the Freedom of the Seas in Barbados on Friday, January 10, 2020, including the scene of the incident on Deck 11, adjacent windows, and fixed glass panels on Deck 12. " bbm
One poster commented, seems W wanted privacy while the reenactment team, prepared & rehearsed to get into desired positions and poses for the pix.

Another point, FWIW* "RCCL may not base any expert challenges or any expert cross-examination on the fact that Plaintiffs’ Case 1:19-cv-25100-DLG non-attending experts did not conduct an inspection." bbm

-----------------------------------------------------------------
* WITHDRAWAL OF PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO PREVENT SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE AND REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE HEARING AND STIPULATION OF PARTIES
....Prevent Spoliation of Evidence, based upon the following agreement and stipulation of the Parties: Plaintiffs shall be permitted to conduct an unsupervised and unrecorded inspection of the Freedom of the Seas in Barbados on Friday, January 10, 2020, including the scene of the incident on Deck 11, adjacent windows, and fixed glass panels on Deck 12. RCCL will provide Plaintiffs the CCTV depicting the subject incident, including when Chloe and Mr. Anello walk towards the window prior to the inspection. RCCL agrees that all of Plaintiffs’ non-attending experts may rely on recorded measurements, photos, and videos taken by Plaintiffs during the inspection and RCCL may not base any expert challenges or any expert cross-examination on the fact that Plaintiffs’ Case 1:19-cv-25100-DLG non-attending experts did not conduct an inspection before the area was refurbished. Further RCCL will permit Plaintiffs’ a future inspection of the vessel, if requested by Plaintiffs...."

 

[al66pine]

@Forever Young Thanks for the link to appellate court opinion* on La Jolla child/fall/window case. Very interesting. In child/fall/window hotel & apt cases the app ct analyzed, there were many similarities to this case and to each other. Several screen-popped claims. No Thought-There-Was-Glass claims, and most importantly, imo, no case in which adult was holding child at window. Did you notice injury was in Oct 2008, app ct opn was issued Oct 2014. Six yrs. Then another trial? Maybe parties reached a settlement since. I wonder about final outcome.
* FindLaw's California Court of Appeal case and opinions.

BTW, after plaintiffs' atty in ^ case alleged a certain ASTM re windows applied to that hotel, def's expert testified that it did not. Same thing my post 993 said ---example of Atty-W alleging violation of safety std (ASTM F2006- 17) that does not apply (not relevant/not pertain) to cruise ship.

 

[Forever Young]

@Forever Young Thanks for the link to appellate court opinion* on La Jolla child/fall/window case. Very interesting. In child/fall/window hotel & apt cases the app ct analyzed, there were many similarities to this case and to each other. Several screen-popped claims. No Thought-There-Was-Glass claims, and most importantly, imo, no case in which adult was holding child at window. Did you notice injury was in Oct 2008, app ct opn was issued Oct 2014. Six yrs. Then another trial? Maybe parties reached a settlement since. I wonder about final outcome.
* FindLaw's California Court of Appeal case and opinions.

BTW, after plaintiffs' atty in ^ case alleged a certain ASTM re windows applied to that hotel, def's expert testified that it did not. Same thing my post 993 said ---example of Atty-W alleging violation of safety std (ASTM F2006- 17) that does not apply (not relevant/not pertain) to cruise ship.

I read through that case 3 times. I just find the law fascinating. It is indeed like a big game, with rules that can change at any time. The summary judgement for the defendant was eventually reversed.

What I came away with, re: ASTM standards, was that those are manufacturing standards, and not end-user "industry standards".

While these standards may not be the law per se, various appellate courts are of the opinion that the duty of care owed to "invitees" extends beyond "industry standards".


"As noted, the court based its determination that defendants owed no duty to take “additional protective measures for the subject window” in part on the fact that the window met applicable building code requirements.  

However, “a defendant property owner's compliance with a law or safety regulation, in and of itself, does not establish that the owner has utilized due care.   The owner's compliance with applicable safety regulations, while relevant to show due care, is not dispositive, if there are other circumstances requiring a higher degree of care.”

"The burden and cost to hotel owners of providing such protective devices to prevent children from falling out of windows is minimal compared to the risk of small children suffering serious injury or death from such falls, particularly in light of the obvious public policy of protecting children from accidental serious injury and death.  (Martinez v. Bank of America (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 883, 897 [“A policy favoring preventing death by injury to children has extremely high value.”].)"

"We conclude that the same evidence that raises a triable issue of fact as to breach of duty also raises a triable issue of fact as to causation. Because a trier of fact could reasonably find defendants were negligent in failing to take reasonable measures that would have prevented Michael's accident, it could also reasonably find that defendants' negligence was a substantial factor in causing the accident." 

FindLaw's California Court of Appeal case and opinions.

As I previously stated, none of the cases mentioned in the above document are exactly the same in surrounding circumstances as the case we have been discussing.

However, IMO, it gives us a good idea as to what direction it may be heading.

 

[wackyw]

Hi there,

new poster here. Saw the video on the Daily Mail/Mail Online and thought I'd do some google enquiries and I came across you lot. You all seem a lovely bunch, I've only read link #6, and the media link, so please forgive my ignorance of anything discussed earlier and be gentle with me And I'm from the UK, so there may be some times when words/phrases may be slightly different.

On the video from behind I think it shows the closest window is a non-opener. Despite what I have read in earlier quotes/posts about CW falling "from the only open window in the wall of glass" I think recent video from behind shows the window to the right has been slid to open and he should have seen that as he approached. Anyway, he approaches the non-opener section and then moves to the left to the open section where that window has been slid over the non-opener, so a double layer of tint. After leaning over the rail, he then lifts and moves CW to his left.

video is the second one in this article

Video: grandfather dangled toddler out of Royal Caribbean window for THIRTY SECONDS | Daily Mail Online


Current defence is "he thought there was glass in the window" ... . BS. There's just no way anyone with an iota of awareness would fail to register all the many clues, visual and otherwise. And I don't think he could have hidden, in day to day life, the amount of visual impairment that would have required. There's also a picture of him walking without glasses.

The photo in post #1124 from "@they'll get you" of the lifeguard casually opening the window using the handle, standing upright and with a bent arm, seems to me the best demonstration of "you couldn't fail to notice when you leaned over the railing", as he did for 8 seconds before lifting CW, and 34 seconds afterwards.

To me, all roads lead to SA and his mental state ....

1) "Drunk/Otherwise Intoxicated" - MW claims he "wasn't a drinker" and hadn't used his "drinks card". Maybe, maybe not, could have drunk his own stash before he "looked after" CW. Can't say the video shows this one way or the other, but a risky defence when presumably he was interviewed by LE soon after. Although by refusing a breath/toxicology test there's no longer any proof, just opinion of those whose spoke to him.

2) "Lights on, nobody home". I hope this expression translates for non-UK readers Surely the family would already know this though and would not leave him in sole charge?

3) "Narcissism/Depraved indifference" - just not really giving a ****. Observes behaviours expected of people, and can and does replicate them, however there's a different thought process going on behind the appearance. And one day his real thoughts/impulses won over for reasons unfathomable to the rest of us. But again, could you know someone for 12 yrs and not see something of this, enough to mistrust surely?

4) "Murder" - Extension of above.

I'm thinking number 3 at present, both through my thought process above, and instinctively ... he seems evasive, perhaps there's some deviant cunning behind the cuddly (s)GF fascade.

But I have read comments about him changing his story, and would be interested in reading further. I thought he had done just one interview, with CBS, so I guess there is some previous reporting of his story. In particular is it independently reported what his first words were after dropping CW? I have been through Oviedo's excellent media thread, although not every link in there, and see PRLE quotes about "playing games", "lost his balance" and "lost his grip", and also 48hrs after the incident we have MWs "banging on the glass" statement. The quotes of course are not necessarily exactly what SA said and could be a little loose, and don't necessarily contradict the glass thing. Anything from MW cannot be taken at face value.

Anyone got any links to anything more concrete? Or provide me with a few clue words for me to search on the other threads?

Everything JMO of course.

EDIT - just for clarity I'm putting extreme stupidity in 2), and extreme recklessness in 3).