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

[they'll get you]

replying to my own post to correct the bit BBM - He does have glasses on in the picture I was thinking of, I just didn't see them. Revealed to me in a larger picture. There's a joke in there somewhere, but I'm not going to hunt for it

Maybe his ex-wife or someone could say if he had a backgrown of a violent temper.
There IS something missing.
Also if this family does get $$$mils there could be copy-cats out to try the same.

 

[oviedo]

Maybe his ex-wife or someone could say if he had a backgrown of a violent temper.
There IS something missing.
Also if this family does get $$$mils there could be copy-cats out to try the same.

I think legitimate questions would include life insurance proceeds .... for months we’ve discussed motives - arrogance, stupidity, homicide etc - I really don’t think the trial is going to do anything more than prove he lifted the baby out the window and dropped her knowing the window was open since his upper body is on video leaning out and over - he’s never going to admit to anything IMO

 

[Midwestmom2019]

I agree with you. And I should clarify my post from earlier because I don't think I did a good job of explaining my position.
I 100% think SA is responsible for Chloe's death. I do not think RCCL is at fault here. The simple fact is that Chloe would not have been able to reach that window without help, he is the one that put her in danger IMO. He (SA) killed her, as horrific as that is to wrap my head around. IMO JMO

My only point of uncertainty has been in trying to figure out what (in the name of all- that- is -holy) could have caused Gramps to pick her up and put her in that position, and then drop her (ugh).
I have considered every possible ( I think) reason or explanation and the only two that seem to make sense to me are that either he was impaired in some way (drugs/medication/drinking) or the unthinkable (IMO)alternative...namely that this was somehow a planned act, or deliberate and that SA is an evil man.
***I'm not saying I think he is evil, but that if this was a deliberate act, it would follow that he is evil in that case. IMO JMO
I know there are other possibilities, as many of you have done a great job of listing them, but they don't seem as likely to me.

As much as I hate to let my mind go there, I have to admit I have wondered if this was indeed about money, and I really really hope it wasn't. But I want justice for Chloe, even if that means discovering something horrific and nefarious. I haven't made up my mind, and haven't seen enough evidence to convince me that it wasn't an accident, but it certainly seems like something is "off" with this family and SA in particular w/ the changing stories, excuses and lies. My gut feeling is that there is a whole lot more to this than we know, and I hope the whole truth does come out. JMO MOO etc.

Think beneficiary.

 

[loveandhugs]

I agree with you. And I should clarify my post from earlier because I don't think I did a good job of explaining my position.
I 100% think SA is responsible for Chloe's death. I do not think RCCL is at fault here. The simple fact is that Chloe would not have been able to reach that window without help, he is the one that put her in danger IMO. He (SA) killed her, as horrific as that is to wrap my head around. IMO JMO

My only point of uncertainty has been in trying to figure out what (in the name of all- that- is -holy) could have caused Gramps to pick her up and put her in that position, and then drop her (ugh).
I have considered every possible ( I think) reason or explanation and the only two that seem to make sense to me are that either he was impaired in some way (drugs/medication/drinking) or the unthinkable (IMO)alternative...namely that this was somehow a planned act, or deliberate and that SA is an evil man.
***I'm not saying I think he is evil, but that if this was a deliberate act, it would follow that he is evil in that case. IMO JMO
I know there are other possibilities, as many of you have done a great job of listing them, but they don't seem as likely to me.

As much as I hate to let my mind go there, I have to admit I have wondered if this was indeed about money, and I really really hope it wasn't. But I want justice for Chloe, even if that means discovering something horrific and nefarious. I haven't made up my mind, and haven't seen enough evidence to convince me that it wasn't an accident, but it certainly seems like something is "off" with this family and SA in particular w/ the changing stories, excuses and lies. My gut feeling is that there is a whole lot more to this than we know, and I hope the whole truth does come out. JMO MOO etc.

 

[loveandhugs]

I agree with you. And I should clarify my post from earlier because I don't think I did a good job of explaining my position.
I 100% think SA is responsible for Chloe's death. I do not think RCCL is at fault here. The simple fact is that Chloe would not have been able to reach that window without help, he is the one that put her in danger IMO. He (SA) killed her, as horrific as that is to wrap my head around. IMO JMO

My only point of uncertainty has been in trying to figure out what (in the name of all- that- is -holy) could have caused Gramps to pick her up and put her in that position, and then drop her (ugh).
I have considered every possible ( I think) reason or explanation and the only two that seem to make sense to me are that either he was impaired in some way (drugs/medication/drinking) or the unthinkable (IMO)alternative...namely that this was somehow a planned act, or deliberate and that SA is an evil man.
***I'm not saying I think he is evil, but that if this was a deliberate act, it would follow that he is evil in that case. IMO JMO
I know there are other possibilities, as many of you have done a great job of listing them, but they don't seem as likely to me.

As much as I hate to let my mind go there, I have to admit I have wondered if this was indeed about money, and I really really hope it wasn't. But I want justice for Chloe, even if that means discovering something horrific and nefarious. I haven't made up my mind, and haven't seen enough evidence to convince me that it wasn't an accident, but it certainly seems like something is "off" with this family and SA in particular w/ the changing stories, excuses and lies. My gut feeling is that there is a whole lot more to this than we know, and I hope the whole truth does come out. JMO MOO etc.

I unfortunately have let my mind go there recently, the more I hear SA, the lawyers and family speak the more my mind feels that this may have been intentional. I sure hope I am wrong.

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

I unfortunately have let my mind go there recently, the more I hear SA, the lawyers and family speak the more my mind feels that this may have been intentional. I sure hope I am wrong.

IMO all signs seem to be pointing at just that scenario. All the excuses just seem so lame and fabricated.

 

[al66pine]

Glass. Frost, Paint, Decals?

In Australia any commercial floor to ceiling windows and doors have a frosted or painted motive to show they are doors and not windows so people can detect there is glass.

@they'll get you Yes, great idea for glass doors and floor to ceiling windows, and other windows too.

Not sure about this particular situation w SA. Let's say, there had been a frosted spot or decal (2"x 2" or 4"x 4"?) on middle of every pane. The wall has one window at eye-level, which was opened by a pane sliding to the side, presumably w 2" or 6" of pane w handle still visible in that frame. That pane's spot or decal was slid into next window frame. IOW ~ 2" to 6 " of glass showing in that frame. So when SA approaches this ^, how is it different to him, different from what he encountered in July? Is there reason he would have noticed spots on other windows and said to himself, Danger, this window frame has no spot/decal in the middle, so must be an open window. Danger. Will Robinson. Warning. Danger.

If he failed to detect that as an open window in July, not sure how spots or decals in other panes would have helped him. That is, if he was being truthful in stating he 'thought there was glass.'
If he did not feel the wind, hear the noises from dock below, or notice any salt air, the man was just pain oblivious, for whatever reason or cause. Or not truthful. imo.
ETA: @they'll get you. Thank you for the helpful photos.

 

[Aydrianna523]

I agree with you. And I should clarify my post from earlier because I don't think I did a good job of explaining my position.
I 100% think SA is responsible for Chloe's death. I do not think RCCL is at fault here. The simple fact is that Chloe would not have been able to reach that window without help, he is the one that put her in danger IMO. He (SA) killed her, as horrific as that is to wrap my head around. IMO JMO

My only point of uncertainty has been in trying to figure out what (in the name of all- that- is -holy) could have caused Gramps to pick her up and put her in that position, and then drop her (ugh).
I have considered every possible ( I think) reason or explanation and the only two that seem to make sense to me are that either he was impaired in some way (drugs/medication/drinking) or the unthinkable (IMO)alternative...namely that this was somehow a planned act, or deliberate and that SA is an evil man.
***I'm not saying I think he is evil, but that if this was a deliberate act, it would follow that he is evil in that case. IMO JMO
I know there are other possibilities, as many of you have done a great job of listing them, but they don't seem as likely to me.

As much as I hate to let my mind go there, I have to admit I have wondered if this was indeed about money, and I really really hope it wasn't. But I want justice for Chloe, even if that means discovering something horrific and nefarious. I haven't made up my mind, and haven't seen enough evidence to convince me that it wasn't an accident, but it certainly seems like something is "off" with this family and SA in particular w/ the changing stories, excuses and lies. My gut feeling is that there is a whole lot more to this than we know, and I hope the whole truth does come out. JMO MOO etc.

I didn't read your comment close enough. Sorry.
Multitasking.
I haven't crossed over to the nefarious side YET.
I remember hearing about a local guy tossing his baby in the air but, oops, didn't catch him.
Trying to figure out if it's something like that. Mindless babysitting. They seem smart enough yet very very foolhardy with children.

 

[Aydrianna523]

I agree with you. And I should clarify my post from earlier because I don't think I did a good job of explaining my position.
I 100% think SA is responsible for Chloe's death. I do not think RCCL is at fault here. The simple fact is that Chloe would not have been able to reach that window without help, he is the one that put her in danger IMO. He (SA) killed her, as horrific as that is to wrap my head around. IMO JMO

My only point of uncertainty has been in trying to figure out what (in the name of all- that- is -holy) could have caused Gramps to pick her up and put her in that position, and then drop her (ugh).
I have considered every possible ( I think) reason or explanation and the only two that seem to make sense to me are that either he was impaired in some way (drugs/medication/drinking) or the unthinkable (IMO)alternative...namely that this was somehow a planned act, or deliberate and that SA is an evil man.
***I'm not saying I think he is evil, but that if this was a deliberate act, it would follow that he is evil in that case. IMO JMO
I know there are other possibilities, as many of you have done a great job of listing them, but they don't seem as likely to me.

As much as I hate to let my mind go there, I have to admit I have wondered if this was indeed about money, and I really really hope it wasn't. But I want justice for Chloe, even if that means discovering something horrific and nefarious. I haven't made up my mind, and haven't seen enough evidence to convince me that it wasn't an accident, but it certainly seems like something is "off" with this family and SA in particular w/ the changing stories, excuses and lies. My gut feeling is that there is a whole lot more to this than we know, and I hope the whole truth does come out. JMO MOO etc.

I forgot something in my last reply. He says he wasn't on alcohol, but I think most of us are very very skeptical about that.
Someone said earlier that that crouching thing he did has something to do with alcohol...blood flow. I didn't know that but it makes sense.
I'm not saying anything new.
Just venting. I can't believe this happened to such an adorable child!!

 

[Forever Young]

@Forever Young Yes, could happen w same results. Not sure if you are commenting on Wiegand or RCL. Are you saying because (you think/someone thinks) there is a condition on RCL ship was could be made safer, that someone should file a lawsuit to encourage, or for a court to order, RCL to make condition safer, even without any being injured?
Or saying something else? (I've been having crippling-brain-denseness-spells lately, so pls be patient ).

Well, somebody has been injured. Killed.

I also have read other forums and comments on this case. Once in a great a while a poster will comment on how they went nowhere near those windows, or held tight to their little ones, or felt fear just reaching out those particular windows. Why? Because they were a recognized danger.

The trial court also based its no duty determination on the fact that “there were no prior incidents of anyone or anything falling from any windows․” 8  However, “ ‘[t]he mere fact that a particular kind of an accident has not happened before does not ․ show that such accident is one which might not reasonably have been anticipated.’  [Citation.]  Thus, the fortuitous absence of prior injury does not justify relieving defendant from responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of its acts.”  (Weirum v. RKO General, Inc. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 40, 47;  Lane v. City of Sacramento (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1346 [absence of other similar accidents is relevant to, but not dispositive of, the issue of whether a condition is dangerous].)

FindLaw's California Court of Appeal case and opinions.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

I forgot something in my last reply. He says he wasn't on alcohol, but I think most of us are very very skeptical about that.
Someone said earlier that that crouching thing he did has something to do with alcohol...blood flow. I didn't know that but it makes sense.
I'm not saying anything new.
Just venting. I can't believe this happened to such an adorable child!!

A perfect little girl. Remember?

 

[Forever Young]

This isn’t a contrib case. It’s not even negligence. It’s malice and aforethought.
But you know that, don’t you?

No, I don't know that it was a murder.

 

[In vino veritas]

"but conduct is not a substantial factor in causing harm if the same harm would have occurred without that conduct.”  (Yanez v. Plummer (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th"

But, could another child have scaled furniture or in some other way climbed on top of the railing? The result would be the same. The substantial factor is the open window. IMO

No. The window is perfectly safe as designed, giving the height of the railing and the distance of the railing from the window.
substantial effort would be needed to go out that window.
Furthermore, if a child moves heavy furniture to a position where they are able to get up over the railing and out the window, culpability still remains with the parents who should be supervising.

 

[Forever Young]

It sounds like the substantial factor would be improper supervision by the parent or guardian, which on land such an event happening of allowing a child to fall out a window is a chargeable criminal offense to the child's guardian:
Toddler Falls from Roof, Babysitter Arrested
Mother speaks after child falls out of window under care of babysitter

Interesting story. The sitter was using meth.

Anecdotal story - my niece and her husband had just bought a house. Her husband was out in the yard working one morning, looked up, and saw their 5 year old son standing on the roof. He'd gone out the window.

Husband immediately started yelling "Don't move! Don't move!"

Ran inside and retrieved him. The boy is 18 years old now, and is a champion gymnist. Also very lucky, because his parents and grandparents love him very much.

 

[they'll get you]

'1,000 likes or I will drop him': Dad jailed for holding son out window in Facebook post
https://au.news.yahoo.com/facebook-post-sees-dad-jailed-for-holding-son-out-window-36071490.html

Look how innocent this baby is, he has no fear or thought he is in any danger. OMG. I think of Chloe.



Dammit I hate the human race.

 

[they'll get you]

Well, somebody has been injured. Killed.

I also have read other forums and comments on this case. Once in a great a while a poster will comment on how they went nowhere near those windows, or held tight to their little ones, or felt fear just reaching out those particular windows. Why? Because they were a recognized danger.

The trial court also based its no duty determination on the fact that “there were no prior incidents of anyone or anything falling from any windows․” 8  However, “ ‘[t]he mere fact that a particular kind of an accident has not happened before does not ․ show that such accident is one which might not reasonably have been anticipated.’  [Citation.]  Thus, the fortuitous absence of prior injury does not justify relieving defendant from responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of its acts.”  (Weirum v. RKO General, Inc. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 40, 47;  Lane v. City of Sacramento (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1346 [absence of other similar accidents is relevant to, but not dispositive of, the issue of whether a condition is dangerous].)

FindLaw's California Court of Appeal case and opinions.

I hear what you are saying and it only takes one incident for a danger to be recognised.

Once a death occurred from a Takata airbag in Australia the danger was apparent and there was a national recall. Now there has been a second death.....
Same, same but different, just thinking out loud.
Compulsory Takata airbag recall

 

[they'll get you]

No. The window is perfectly safe as designed, giving the height of the railing and the distance of the railing from the window.
substantial effort would be needed to go out that window.
Furthermore, if a child moves heavy furniture to a position where they are able to get up over the railing and out the window, culpability still remains with the parents who should be supervising.

It’s a minefield.

 

[Forever Young]

Wow. You know, it has been noted that you joined this forum after the incident occurred, and you are continuously trying to twist things in SA's favor. I have definitely noted your manipulation of language as well.

Court documents say:

snip> "Chloe’s step grandfather who, as surveillance footage unquestionably confirms: (1) walked up to a window he was aware was open; (2) leaned his upper body out the window for several seconds;"
Royal Caribbean says video proves grandfather knew window was open before dropping toddler

snip> "The only reasonable conclusion from the video is that Mr. Anello knew the window was open before picking up Chloe. "
Royal Caribbean says video shows grandfather knew window was open before dropping toddler

Weasel words

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch - Wikipedia

It has been noted? By whom?

We are still in the United States aren't we? Innocent until proven guilty...freedom of speech?

Or are we not to question because unquestionably, if we do, we aren't being reasonable, and will not reach the reasonable conclusion.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

No, I don't know that it was a murder.

Check the 11th Circuit cases instead of California. Never know. There might be some different court rulings supporting malice and aforethought in these types of cases.

 

[Midwestmom2019]

It has been noted? By whom?

We are still in the United States aren't we? Innocent until proven guilty...freedom of speech?

Or are we not to question because unquestionably, if we do, we aren't being reasonable, and will not reach the reasonable conclusion.

Tut tut, children. Let’s not be snippy when we snip snip.