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

[Kindred]

I am starting to wonder if their case is going to be about the pre-existing risk of how a child “could” crawl onto a “squeeze bar” bar stool, stand up on the railing and fall out of the window. The second image in this post made me think about the bar stool measurements they made in their original filing. Sure grandpa made a mistake but rccl still had a safety issue...? Thoughts? Or does this theory sound crazy?

But here's the thing, their own argument that it's "physically impossible" for a grown adult to reach his long man arms out the windows automatically blows that argument out of the water. If he couldn't reach the window from the rail, how could her tiny baby arms? They can't really make both arguments at the same time.

Not to mention, you know, biology also doing that. Even if a toddler could reach the railing from the barstool, do you know the kind of gymnastics she would have to be able to perform to get from barstool, to on top of the rail, to the window frame and out? That would require a lot of hand and arm strength, especially since her little hands probably can't fit entirely around the rail, not to mention balance and dexterity that most adults don't have if put to a similarly scaled obstacle. If you have an 18 month old who could do that sign them up for American Ninja Warrior now.

Also anyone can argue as much could haves and would haves as they like but that is irrelevant to this case. This case is about how RCCL should have prevented Chloe's death. Chloe's death didn't involve bar stools or tables or chairs, it involved SA putting her on the other side of a safety rail and out the window. RC's lawyers could easily get that thrown out on that.

 

[justbreathe]

Dbl post

 

[justbreathe]

Playing devil’s advocate for a minute, perhaps MW really has no other choice. Consider what his playbook might have been:

Plan A, week 1 – get RCCL to offer quick settlement to make this nuisance go away

Plan B, weeks 2-4 – go public, gather lots of public support to shame RCCL into offering a settlement

Plan C… I don’t think his playbook had anything after Plan B. Why would it? History shows RCCL knows the game, they have usually/always paid MW to go away.

Initially MW seemed to be the master puppeteer, controlling the narrative, getting his version of the story in front of everyone, and glory be, with barely a peep from his opponent – a slam dunk!

Then the video leaked, SA had that disastrous interview with DB, and RCCL is fighting back with guns blazing. MW looks at this train wreck of a case thinking now what? He can’t employ facts, logic and reason because all of that leads straight to a guilty verdict for SA. Really, unless he can just walk away, all he can do is challenge everything, admit nothing, and hope he gets a jury loaded with idiots.

Give him credit for one thing: he is a tireless advocate for his client, ridiculous as they may be.

All this.

MW isn’t going to be expending a lot of his own resources on this case.

I wonder what the Wiegands think/say when the read the filings?

Thank you for a very thought out post. There is just so much that points to this not being an accident, the other option is it was planned. Not sure if SA made the decision a few minutes before he actually looked out the window and then picked up Chloe and held her out of the window, or if it was planned before actually getting on the cruise ship, and if that is the case, were other family members involved? It was as though SA was looking out the window to make sure there would be nothing in the way to stop Chloe's fall when he dropped her out of the window. I sure hope for little Chloe that the truth comes out, she deserves that. I do not know how SA can get up each day and look at himself in the mirror knowing that because of whatever his actions were, he is the one that is responsible for little Chloe's life being taken from her.

Oh, he is fine. At first he blamed himself. But *now* he blames the cruise line. So his conscience is clear. Isn’t that nice for him?

 

[vallie]

What’s amazing and equally horrifying to me, is the extremely short period of time he “watching “ Chloe. And to think that in such a very small time frame, she was just gone.

Unfathomable, to borrow a word from the first CBS interview with parents ,,, what I also find myself scratching my head on is in same interview , the mother makes a point to say, at no time ever, EVER has Sam put our children in danger. besides learning that Salvatore Anello was Sam, I felt such a statement from the mother seemed defensive and odd, I coulen't help but think she may be putting (has put ) the safety of her children in harms way by continuing to believe he is extremely safe babysitter iykwim? Theres so many PR disasters in the family narrative in the media, if it wasn't so tragic and offensive it's almost satire soap opera and MW, SA,KW are dirty rotten scoundrels (and worse)

 

[Wicked Strong]

I can see both sides, planned and accidental. But, IMO, he had spent time with Chloe before and she must have been a charming, delightful child. How could he want to go along with anything that had to do with causing her death on purpose. In the pictures he usually has another family member with him, so he wasn't solely looking after her. I can see a point of him being frustrated at being told to watch her when others were having fun, maybe that's why he was so careless. I honestly think he might have thought, great, how do I entertain her and probably saw the wall of windows as a way to get out of the sun and to keep her entertained at the same time. He picked her up swiftly because he might have been angry, and very carelessly placed her on the rail, then he couldn't see out the window himself so he moved her to one side and dropped her.

I also don't think that he was drunk, I'm pretty sure the doctor and other ship employees that rushed to the scene immediately after would have said so. He could have though been on some OTC drugs that clouded his judgement.

MOO

 

[vallie]

I can see both sides, planned and accidental. But, IMO, he had spent time with Chloe before and she must have been a charming, delightful child. How could he want to go along with anything that had to do with causing her death on purpose. In the pictures he usually has another family member with him, so he wasn't solely looking after her. I can see a point of him being frustrated at being told to watch her when others were having fun, maybe that's why he was so careless. I honestly think he might have thought, great, how do I entertain her and probably saw the wall of windows as a way to get out of the sun and to keep her entertained at the same time. He picked her up swiftly because he might have been angry, and very carelessly placed her on the rail, then he couldn't see out the window himself so he moved her to one side and dropped her.

I also don't think that he was drunk, I'm pretty sure the doctor and other ship employees that rushed to the scene immediately after would have said so. He could have though been on some OTC drugs that clouded his judgement.

MOO

Thanks Wicked, upon seeing the video, I thought Sam looked angry, he in bare feet, prob just took his shoes off to watch her at the splash pad, ( her last picture, they called it in the media ) she runs for whatever game or reason they are playing, he too far behind , why not hold her hand or pick her up instead of her running away into strangers and unfamailar territory?, the swift almost violent lifting , very uncaring , for sure. He seems likable and nice in photos but, so far, we have seen his actions, when he is alone with CW so an explanation may be that he is angry before he drops CW. I don't believe he did it on purpose, If it were planned, wouldn't he do it at the end of the cruise? why ruin everyone's cruise????
JMHO

 

[MsMarple]

OMG ... seriously?? They are trying to say that the stance in the reenactment pic (1st pic) is exactly the same as the stance in the real (2nd) pic

View attachment 229494 View attachment 229495

Just a few pages into the 105 page doco and already I can see why Royal Caribbean are disputing the accuracy of the lawsuit photos and diagrams!

And they inadvertently illustrated how easy it is to detect an open window. Take a gander on the open window on the right; could anyone think it's closed?

demand for all videos.pdf

 

[JerseySleuth17]

The only thing keeping me from thinking SA did this intentionally at this point is that the prosecutor has not charged him with anything indicating an intentional motive. I definitely think there is something "off" about him. To me he seems medicated and out of it. His behavior was completely reckless and defies any norm of responsible parenting/babysitting. Does anyone know if SA has children of his own? In the video of him in the airport, to me he didn't really look like a man destroyed because he just killed his wife's granddaughter, he almost just looks like he's waiting for someone to tell him which way is baggage claim. The video of him doing the interview - he did not strike me as a man torn apart by what had happened. This is all just so bizarre I can't wrap my head around why this family continues to blame a cruise line when the person in charge of watching their daughter couldn't tell a window less than 3 inches from his face was open. It's insane.

 

[WiseGuy]

I wonder what the Wiegands think/say when the read the filings?

Me too. We sleuths are mostly laymen, and we have no trouble seeing the absurdities, contradictions and hypocrisy in much of their counsel's output. KW is a real lawyer and AW is LE himself. They MUST notice the gaping holes in MW's work.

And even if the parents still haven't seen the video, certainly close family members and friends have. Only a few weeks ago they joined in holiday gatherings. At some point someone may have said "you know, I've seen the video, and I can see how so many people are convinced Sam was negligent." Or worse, some hot head uncle has a few drinks and decides to tell Sam in person what he thinks. AW's parents also had their cruise ruined before it began, and lost their precious granddaughter - they have been silent publicly, but it would be understandable if they were to boil over in private. .. just a matter of time IMO.

 

[mheido67]

I think the latest filings by RCCL illustrate one thing very clearly, RCCL has no intention of settling with these people.

 

[katydid23]

I am starting to wonder if their case is going to be about the pre-existing risk of how a child “could” crawl onto a “squeeze bar” bar stool, stand up on the railing and fall out of the window. The second image in this post made me think about the bar stool measurements they made in their original filing. Sure grandpa made a mistake but rccl still had a safety issue...? Thoughts? Or does this theory sound crazy?

All of the bar stools and tables are VERY heavy and difficult to move. They have to be because of the instability at sea.

So children would not be able to move the barstools, IMO.

 

[mheido67]

I am starting to wonder if their case is going to be about the pre-existing risk of how a child “could” crawl onto a “squeeze bar” bar stool, stand up on the railing and fall out of the window. The second image in this post made me think about the bar stool measurements they made in their original filing. Sure grandpa made a mistake but rccl still had a safety issue...? Thoughts? Or does this theory sound crazy?

I don't believe anyone has standing to sue based on a potential danger that has yet to cause harm to anyone. Anyone can drag a lounge chair over to a window/railing and create a potential hazard. That doesn't give them cause to sue over it. As RCCL constantly points out in their filings CW is dead for one reason alone, SA, an adult person, lifted her over a safety railing and held her up to an open window 11 stories above a concrete pier and allowed her to fall. Any other potential way someone could get to that window is irrelevent to their case. Again, not a lawyer so JMO.

 

[HRH Phoebe Cat]

The only thing keeping me from thinking SA did this intentionally at this point is that the prosecutor has not charged him with anything indicating an intentional motive. I definitely think there is something "off" about him. To me he seems medicated and out of it. His behavior was completely reckless and defies any norm of responsible parenting/babysitting. Does anyone know if SA has children of his own? In the video of him in the airport, to me he didn't really look like a man destroyed because he just killed his wife's granddaughter, he almost just looks like he's waiting for someone to tell him which way is baggage claim. The video of him doing the interview - he did not strike me as a man torn apart by what had happened. This is all just so bizarre I can't wrap my head around why this family continues to blame a cruise line when the person in charge of watching their daughter couldn't tell a window less than 3 inches from his face was open. It's insane.

I have nothing but the utmost respect for you, @JerseySleuth17, but my take is a bit different. Once again, not a lawyer...just a layperson here. It is my believe that PR authorities charged him with the highest crime they felt they had a reasonable chance of securing a conviction on. PR has limited resources for this. Much government unrest, etc. And it hasn’t been too long since Hurricanes Maria and Irma, both category 5’s, in September 2017. It is my firm belief that the judicial and LE branches of PR are trying to do the very best they can with this case.
Thanks to the poster who pointed out the Prosecutor was there on site on the cruise ship. Talk about proactive!

 

[JerseySleuth17]

I have nothing but the utmost respect for you, @JerseySleuth17, but my take is a bit different. Once again, not a lawyer...just a layperson here. It is my believe that PR authorities charged him with the highest crime they felt they had a reasonable chance of securing a conviction on. PR has limited resources for this. Much government unrest, etc. And it hasn’t been too long since Hurricanes Maria and Irma, both category 5’s, in September 2017. It is my firm belief that the judicial and LE branches of PR are trying to do the very best they can with this case.
Thanks to the poster who pointed out the Prosecutor was there on site on the cruise ship. Talk about proactive!

Yes that certainly could be the case. Luckily the family filed a civil lawsuit about 3 seconds after CW died so we know RCCL has lots of money and resources to ferret out anything that points to something more than recklessness. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be something more. Right now I lean towards some sort of mental illness or impairment issue, Imo SA's actions are just so far off base from the actions of a reasonable 51-year old man watching an 18-month old I am having trouble even wrapping my mind around what he did. Maybe he was resentful to have to watch her, a little drunk/medicated, passive aggressive anger issues, who knows. But he absolutely 100% knew that window was open.

 

[Chikkamma]

The more I review video evidence and all the court documents Kindred has so kindly put at our disposal, the more I’m inclined to dispense with the notion that Chloe’s death was accidental. I believe, IMO, that PR LE harbored the same doubts. To paraphrase early reports, LE indicated they were investigating all options, even murder.
IMO, PR LE came to the same conclusion most of us have: that there is not sufficient proof to successfully convict on more serious charges. Hence the negligent homicide charge... provable, with a minimum 3 year jail term if convicted.

It has been stated in various discussion forums that SA was involved in community theater. I have yet to confirm this, but , if true, it would explain the performance he put on for DB during the CBS interview... the heaving sobs WITHOUT tears. At one point in his performance he even peered up though his fingers, almost as if to gauge reaction from DB.
According to the ships doctor immediately after the incident , SA was crying, hysterical, etc. yet he refused sedation. Why? Perhaps because he could possibly let down his guard if sedated? Mere speculation on my part, but given the alleged theater background, worthy of some thought.

Another sticking point for me is the family’s aggressiveness toward RCL. From the onset, they held RCL fully responsible for Chloe’s death..... BEFORE all the facts were made available AND fully absolved SA of any culpability. Couple this with the media tour to garner public sympathy, presumably to yield a quick settlement, and it becomes apparent that $$$$ is a primary objective of the Wiegands.
Some posters have claimed that these behaviors could be grief coping mechanisms and initially I was swayed. But then common sense prevailed. Yes... definitely file a lawsuit if, after a careful review of facts , shows that it is justified. And AFTER you’ve had an appropriate time to grieve the loss of your 18 month old daughter.

Finally, it is the TENACITY of this family regarding the pursuit of the civil lawsuit, despite clear video evidence negating their allegations against RCL, along with their AUDACITY in asking PR prosecutors to dismiss the criminal case against SA so they can “grieve” while pursuing the civil case against RCL unencumbered, that now leads me to believe something is just not right about this case.

All JMO, of course!

Proof that SA is an actor, among other things. (I posted this in one of the very early threads).

https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/play-depicts-crown-point-marriage-mill-days/article_2bf6f69f-ce29-5a68-a6a7-2dbeb519944c.html?

"Kimberly said of Anello, who resides in Valparaiso and has ties to community theater in Crown Point. " https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/porter/family-of--month-old-girl-killed-in-cruise-ship/article_2c598743-fd94-58b9-b2b6-138abd2e54d8.html?NWITimes

 

[Lawnguylander1964]

If you google the phrase with "Anello" it comes up in the search as the top one. I can't read the article unless I tell them who I'm voting for, so I can't see the actual article, but it is in the preview.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

All this.

MW isn’t going to be expending a lot of his own resources on this case.

Snipped for focus.

Yes, low budget B movie grade reenactment. No question MW sees the writing on the wall. But the publicity, he has to keep it up until the very end.
We haven’t heard from Begnaud. Wonder where he’s been? In PR covering earthquakes. That’s close, isn’t it for him to host a super special exclusive interview with SA and Co. Right after the next court hearing for SA....

 

[Midwestmom2019]

I have nothing but the utmost respect for you, @JerseySleuth17, but my take is a bit different. Once again, not a lawyer...just a layperson here. It is my believe that PR authorities charged him with the highest crime they felt they had a reasonable chance of securing a conviction on. PR has limited resources for this. Much government unrest, etc. And it hasn’t been too long since Hurricanes Maria and Irma, both category 5’s, in September 2017. It is my firm belief that the judicial and LE branches of PR are trying to do the very best they can with this case.
Thanks to the poster who pointed out the Prosecutor was there on site on the cruise ship. Talk about proactive!

I posted to that prosecutor. Maybe others. But for LE to call the prosecutor to come to the ship???
I know that LE takes newbie prosecutors out to view actual dui arrests. Walk the line. Finger to nose.
But to get called for this? No, IMO LE thought it was intentional and tried like h—- to get him. But can’t get there.
So going with a sure shot. I’ve heard of cases where the jury asks if they can award more than asked for, maybe in a criminal case that’s possible? Remember this is PR, too.
That would be justice.

 

[al66pine]

Pix w Margulies? Admissible, for What Purpose? RCL's Possible Objections?
Below is based on rules of evd, IIRC.
To intro photos w Marguiles as a comparable model for SA where height is the only issue, plaintiff might offer the Margulies pic w measuring tape next to him and claim it shows Margulies is XX" tall, the same height as SA. But Jaques' affidavit, page 3, paragraph 8, fails to state Margulies' height, instead stating "... Mr. Anello (who is nearly identical in height to Jason Margulies)..." In stating 'nearly identical,' Jaques does not specify his margin of error. Is it one inch, two inches, six inches? When 100+ page report w that pic was filed, posters here criticized the way the tape was held, etc, said it was not clearly legible and concluded because of the tape's twist it was inaccurate. Their weights are not stated IIRC. BTW, was SA's weight given on mug shot/jail ID card (which I believe gave height as 5'11")?

In trying to show what SA was/was not physically capable of doing, plaintiff must show imo that Marguiles' build/physique is similar/close to SA's. If the Inspection report or Jaques' affidavit states measurements of Margulies or SA's forearm, upper arm or total arm lengths, or circumference of chest and waist, I've missed it. Seems RCL has strong basis for objecting to admission of these photos as evd of SA's posture over the rail and how far his head or arms could have reached toward the window frames, window opening, or (non-existent) window glass pane. If this objection is sustained, can it be cured now -- by measuring SA now, 6 months later instead of back in July, to find a reenactor whose measurements parallel his?

More from affidavit, page 3, paragraph 8:
Page 19 pic "shows that, with his feet on the deck, Jason Margulies’ head is at least six inches away from the outer edge of the tape measure which was still inside the subject window."
But in ^ pix reenactor's feet are planted at an unmeasured distance, so far from the rail, that by bending at his waist, his shoulders drop, allowing elbows & lower arms to rest on rail. So of course, his head is several inches from opening. Notice his short upper arm. T-rex trying to plank?

"The photographs on page 20 show that in order for the very top of Jason Margulies' head to touch the closed window, his feet are at least 7 inches raised off the deck." bbm
That pic shows back of heels 7 inches off deck, not the pad of his foot, which would have placed his head much closer to window. Also SA may have stood on the 6" window frame, acting as a step. That would boost his height even more, putting head even closer to window.
The actual surv cam vids do not reveal position of SA's feet, so Jaques' extrapolation from SA's "feet on deck" is hypothetical.
A puzzle:
Line drawing (page 45, <-- number at bottom of pdf page) total wall height floor to ceiling: left side 105 inches and right side 105 1/2 inches, which could be accurate. Or could be inaccurate measurement, or a data error in drawing.
jmo

 

[Midwestmom2019]

If you google the phrase with "Anello" it comes up in the search as the top one. I can't read the article unless I tell them who I'm voting for, so I can't see the actual article, but it is in the preview.

I googled that and I got the hand bags he’s been selling all these years. Now I know why he can afford to cruise. And take everyone with him.