GUILTY IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #9 *NO JAIL*

Discussion in 'Recently Sentenced and Beyond' started by IceIce9, Oct 28, 2019.

  1. al66pine

    al66pine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,675
    Likes Received:
    18,908
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Winkleman: "No Admission of Facts" True or not?
    @Lawnguylander1964 snipped for focus. Thx for your post w link. Just jumping off of it, hoping someone will dive in w comment or correction.
    W his "no admissions of fact" phrasing, has Mr. Winkleman crafted some virtuoso weaselling??? Anyone???

    Iirc, MSM called it a plea agreement, not an Alford Plea.* Did I miss Prosecutor comments?
    I'm trying to imagine the actual language on the doc. Did it say, simply: SA pleads guilty to causing death of another thru his negligence, per PR Crim Code Sec. ___???
    Could he plead guilty to crim offense of NegHom but not admit some facts, such as --- 1. The date of the events. 2. He was in SJ, PR. 3. There was another person, Chloe in SJ, PR. 4. She died. 5. Death was caused by his negligence.

    Seems imo, SA's guilty plea to crim NegHom is not the rosy outcome re civil suit that Winkleman is trying to convey. my2ct, could be wrong.

    _______________________________________
    * If prosecutor called it an Alford Plea (I missed it), then the language in doc imo would state that SA admits the Prosecutor has sufficient evidence to obtain a NegHom conviction in court, but pleads not guilty. Did SA enter an Alford Plea?
    "A plea under which a defendant may choose to plead guilty, not because of an admission to the crime, but because the prosecutor has sufficient evidence to place a charge and to obtain conviction in court...
    "In entering an Alford plea, the defendant admits that the evidence presented by the prosecution would be likely to persuade a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Alford plea - Wikipedia
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2021
    SaguaroSpirit likes this.


  2. Seattle1

    Seattle1 #LiveLikeLizzy

    Messages:
    21,327
    Likes Received:
    225,957
    Trophy Points:
    113
    IN - Grandfather charged in cruise ship death of toddler Chloe Wiegand #7

    @alp66pine - I wanted to comment on your earlier post about life insurance payout for Chloe but the thread closed.

    Relative to Life Insurance, we learned from Chris Watts how in this case, a father (or mother) can be the "Insured" as defined in the Policy, and the wife and children of the "Insured" are all "Covered Persons" and "Covered Dependents" as defined in the Policy.

    As a police officer, I would expect that Mr. Wiegand would have elected to purchase a Principal Sum of of coverage beyond the amount provided by his employer.

    If Wiegand designated a percentage of the Principal Sum to be allocated to his children-- including Chloe, I'm sure her death would meet all the criteria to receive a payout.

    The following is an excerpt is from the Ron & Cindy Watts (Chris' parents) complaint.

    The complaint explained:

    • 18. Under the Policy, an employee of Anadarko was eligible to purchase an amount of Principal Sum for the Accidental Death Benefit. CW elected to purchase the Principal Sum of $500,000.
    • 19. CW was the “Insured” as defined in the Policy. SW, CCW and BW were all “Covered Persons” and “Covered Dependents” as defined in the Policy.
    • 20. By endorsement, the Policy specified that the Principal Sum for a Covered Dependent would be a set percentage of the Insured’s Principal Sum.
    • 21. The Principal Sum for SW as the spouse of CW was 60% of CW’s Principal Sum, or $300,000.
    • 22. The Principal Sum for CCW and BW as Dependent Children of CW was 15% of CW’s Principal Sum, or $75,000 each.
    The filing went on to explain that Shanann and the girls met all the necessary criteria to receive a full payout but that Chris would not be able to receive the money. "CW, as a 'killer,' may not acquire the benefits owed for the deaths of SW, CCW and BW under the Policy under the Statute," states the filing. This is known as the Slayer Statute.

    Sick Money Grab: Parents Of Killer Dad Chris Watts Seek $450K Insurance For Slain Wife, Children
     
  3. Seattle1

    Seattle1 #LiveLikeLizzy

    Messages:
    21,327
    Likes Received:
    225,957
    Trophy Points:
    113
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ship-say-intentionally-destroyed-footage.html

    Feb 11, 2021

    Royal Caribbean lied to the U.S. Coast Guard and 'intentionally destroyed' security footage to evade responsibility for Chloe Wiegand's fatal plunge from the 11th deck of a cruise ship, the toddler's family allege in a scathing new court filing.

    Grieving parents Alan and Kimberly Wiegand have asked the judge in their long-running negligence lawsuit to enter a default judgement in their favor for 'spoliation of evidence.'

    In a series of motions obtained by DailyMail.com they claim Royal Caribbean wiped video footage that was 'fatal' to its defense and would have exonerated Chloe's devastated grandfather, Salvatore Anello.

    If they succeed, the case will go directly to a jury to decide on damages that could run into tens of millions of dollars just as the cruise operator battles to stay afloat during the Covid-19 pandemic.

    [..]

    The Wiegands say the issue is crucial because, if it was indeed a crew member who ignored safety orders and left the window open, Royal Caribbean's liability for the 150ft horror plunge would be indisputable.

    In the absence of that critical evidence, their attorneys have asked US District Judge Donald L. Graham to apply the 'harshest of sanctions' by deciding the case in the grieving couple's favor.

    'The CCTV was destroyed because it was fatal to Royal Caribbean's defense and would have exonerated Mr. Anello,' the motion concludes.

    'The video likely shows that a crewmember opened the window and thus created the very condition that led to Chloe's death. This is not a narrative Royal Caribbean would allow.'

    Judge Donald is expected to take several months to rule on the motion, which would pave the way to a jury awarding 'unlimited' damages to police officer Alan, 42, and his attorney wife Kimberly, 38, of South Bend, Indiana.

    ____________________

    [​IMG]

    Motion available at the link above.
     
  4. Midwestmom2019

    Midwestmom2019 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,345
    Likes Received:
    19,918
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have wondered why RCCL has not brought in SA as the third party defendant, as he did the tossing. The proximate cause, if you will. But for his actions she would not have fallen overboard. In other words, the windows were not the cause but SA was the cause. SA can defend himself with that color blind story at the time he takes the stand.
     
  5. In vino veritas

    In vino veritas Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    245
    Likes Received:
    2,610
    Trophy Points:
    93
    This new motion came out after Anello’s sentencing. It seems to me that they are desperate at this point.... grasping at straws; perhaps they are hoping to force a settlement before the trial.

    Because.... if this case goes to trial, I think there is a strong possibility the Wiegands will lose.
     
  6. Midwestmom2019

    Midwestmom2019 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,345
    Likes Received:
    19,918
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The judge is going to take months to decide the motion. Tells me he’s going to let it gear up for trial. It’s on Weigant to prove fault. Not RCCL that the windows are ok. I didn’t see him cite any statutes that the windows were not up to safety codes. Or any case law that windows on cruise ships are supposed to be x, y or z. If it’s a question of fact, judge won’t decide it.
    I hope you are correct and that they are grasping at straws. But filing this kind of motion is pretty typical, whether there is a fact question or not. It’s another way to ferret out other defenses that might be used at trial even when the filing side knows it’s not a law question and the judge should not decide the case.
    Miami jury. We’ll know soon enough.
     
  7. Midwestmom2019

    Midwestmom2019 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,345
    Likes Received:
    19,918
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Agree that Weigants should lose. But that’s my opinion. Crappy cases make it bad for truly injured people because the public screams about the injustices of this kind of fact situation. They never hear about the more deserving plaintiffs.
    Karma.
     
  8. al66pine

    al66pine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,675
    Likes Received:
    18,908
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Question of Fact? "No Admission of Facts"
    @Midwestmom2019 Yes, agreed. Yet Winkleman's stated re crim procedure, Sam made "No Admission of Facts." MSM reported Sam pleaded guilty to NegHom (no mention of Alford plea, in what I read).

    Is Sam's guilty plea re crim NegHom charge res judicata in Chloe's parent's civil WD action?
    Crim chg was against him, so it may be res judicata, because in crim proceedings, Sam had opportunity and basis for disputing his negligence, imo but did not.

    But if not res judicata, and if Sam was deposed or testifies at civil WD trial, and if he tries to deny negligence, seems if no other use, RCCL could use Sam's Oct 2020 plea to impeach him in scheduled WD trial, April 2021. Anyone???

    I could approaching from flawed angle, so could be wrong. May need caffeine or sleep.
     
  9. GeorgiaRai

    GeorgiaRai Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    1,038
    Trophy Points:
    93
    I still follow this case/thread but maybe I shouldn't. Every time I read a statement from the parents and/or their attorneys, I feel less sympathy and compassion for them. I hate feeling negatively of people who tragically lost their child, but I find their legal proceedings increasing appalling and off-putting.
     
    Tutter, Kittybunny, fabvab and 15 others like this.
  10. In vino veritas

    In vino veritas Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    245
    Likes Received:
    2,610
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Could not agree with you more. There is something very off about all these people, especially in the face of such compelling and damning video evidence.
     
    fabvab, La Louve, HulaMum and 11 others like this.
  11. Midwestmom2019

    Midwestmom2019 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,345
    Likes Received:
    19,918
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Winkleman’s interpretation of ANYTHING is spin doctoring for media. Unless you read the documents signed by SA and that document recites the definitions, he can spin anything anyway he feels like. So Winkleman is the worst source of interpretation of the law and consequences of SA criminal plea. If SA admitted no facts, any interpretation can be made including he took the plea to close the chapter. Or he was forced to plea it out. Or whatever reason he (SA) gives to the media. Or whatever Winkleman says is the reason. SA just has to say I didn’t see it as anything harmful to lift her up. Did his signed document say I lifted her up and out of the window in the air 160 up? No, it probably just said I’m accepting the plea of negligence behavior. Or whatever the definition of his crime is quoted from PR statutes. It should also say bc I’m guilty and for no other reason. But if he does not admit any facts of what he did, then RCCL still has to prove what he did specifically. He leaned out. He looked out. He held the baby outside of the window. Almost from the beginning he said I lifted her to bang on the glass but it wasn’t there. Not that I lifted her up and out of the window. You can be so stupid that it rises to negligence and negligence homicide bc most everyone would not do that act. Now the family comes in and says ok maybe he’s stupid but if the window had been closed, she would have not fallen out. Is the window not being locked an act that causes her death? Or are his actions the cause. Or both? Cumulative? Or superseding intervening cause of her death. “But for” is another term used. Are they both to blame? Proportionate liability. But if more than a certain percentage, it’s a winner lose all. Or take all. I don’t know what Florida’s laws are with regard to a percentage. And that may be why RCCL is not bringing SA as a third party. It’s the strategy behind leaving him out of the fault. RCCL will argue it’s his fault. But if he’s in the case as a defendant the jury may split the liability. And RCCL is gambling that the jury will not pin it on them bc there is another part that is really responsible: SA. Winkleman can’t take the chance of bringing him in bc the jury could pin it all on SA. Or a bigger portion than needed to tip it all onto SA. 60/40 or whatever it could be. So the trial strategy: “Empty Chair.” He’s guilty. Not RCCL. Maybe so....I don’t know what the law in Florida Federal Court is with regard to percentage fault. So don’t quote me.
     
    Kittybunny, Seenit, neesaki and 4 others like this.
  12. Midwestmom2019

    Midwestmom2019 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,345
    Likes Received:
    19,918
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Maybe PRAG office plead it out bc if Chloe had medical issues, some jurors might have felt this was a mercy killing and found him not guilty. There are so many angles here, there can be no flawed angles. Every little spec of any rabbit trail is followed in a case. And this? As big as it could be? Every angle is thought about, researched, probably tried to several mock juries to get a feel for the public opinion. Winkleman hooked a big fish here. But he has to reel him in. I don’t think he can do it.
    Let’s say we think there is a 3% chance the jury will side with Winkleman. Then they take 3% of the potential verdict. $100 Million, for example. 3 Million. That could be a reasonable offer to settle and not risk exposing themselves to higher dollar damages. That’s the simplest of explanations. There are countless other details that figure into the calculation of probabilities for an award. Statistics comes in handy right about now.
     
    sl222, Seenit, neesaki and 4 others like this.
  13. al66pine

    al66pine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,675
    Likes Received:
    18,908
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Da Plane! Da Plane! *
    @In vino veritas. Yes, your ^ post reminded me of the same thing. Seems low flying planes would frequently be visible from that vantage point, because adjacent to pier is - yes - an airport (airstrip?) iirc, w a single runway, w a flight school there. Mostly gen-av, not comm. passenger service.
    I recall seeing the airstrip on Google Earth, and then realizing some pix in Winkleman's WD complaint also showed a row of small planes.

    And now I can't find any ref to Sam saying he lifted Chloe for plane viewing.
    Is it possible someone speculated that's why he lifted her up for that, rather than Sam telling that to authorities?

    ____________________________________

    * W apologies (or credit?) to Hervé Villechaize, Quotes from "Fantasy Island" & Ricardo Montalban, entire cast & crew. :DI swear I never watched it. Not ever. Not even once. Scout's honor. I didn't. :D
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2021
  14. In vino veritas

    In vino veritas Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    245
    Likes Received:
    2,610
    Trophy Points:
    93
    If memory serves, the article stated viewing the low flying plane as the reason SA lifted her up. My recollection isn’t perfect, but I believe SA indicated he thought it was something Chloe would be excited about seeing.
    But again, I read the article 1.5 years ago....
     
    sl222, Seenit, SaguaroSpirit and 2 others like this.
  15. GeorgiaRai

    GeorgiaRai Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    1,038
    Trophy Points:
    93
    I didn't know of the airplane explanation. But whether it was to see a plane or "bang on the glass" - Chloe could have seen/done that from her safe spot on the floor, I believe. The open window would've been the only reason that specific spot offered a different view/experience than the rest of the glass wall, and IMO, the exact reason SA lifted her up to it.
     
    Tutter, L8Shift, CalmSeas and 5 others like this.
  16. Midwestmom2019

    Midwestmom2019 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,345
    Likes Received:
    19,918
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There’s a pile of info if you’re up to read Nancy Grace on crime on line dot com. There are more than a few articles there including court documents that he knew window was open. No time to read right now but that’s interesting, for sure.
     
    sl222, La Louve, Andreee and 5 others like this.
  17. In vino veritas

    In vino veritas Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    245
    Likes Received:
    2,610
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Well, I suppose we will know something once the trial begins on the 28th of April...... unless there is still some chance the case will be dismissed prior to that date.
     
    sl222 and al66pine like this.
  18. Montrealaise

    Montrealaise Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    256
    Likes Received:
    2,727
    Trophy Points:
    93
    I agree as well. The video has been available for over a year now, yet the parents still want the cruise line to pay them "tens of millions of dollars". Poor little Chloe has become no more than a cash grab for her parents.
     
    La Louve, neesaki, al66pine and 2 others like this.
  19. Montrealaise

    Montrealaise Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    256
    Likes Received:
    2,727
    Trophy Points:
    93
    I don't follow their reasoning. The person who is responsible for Chloe's death is the crew member who opened the window, and not the negligent fool who lifted her out of that window? I've never been on a cruise, but it's my understanding that there are always some windows open on upper decks to let the breeze through, otherwise it would be unbearably hot and stuffy.

    Some months ago this site posted an excellent video by someone who walked around the same deck with a hand-held camera, going up to the windows. Some were open and others were closed, and it was VERY obvious which was which because the glass is tinted a light blue.

    As for MW's statement that, every year children die from falling out of windows - yes, and in those cases, the windows were closed enough to the ground that a child could reach it. In this case, the windows were about 5 feet above the ground, high above any toddler's head, and had a safety bar in front of them. The only way a child could reach a window is if an adult lifted her high up, over the safety bar - which is what happened in this case.
     
    mommylicious, Tutter, sl222 and 10 others like this.
  20. Blondie in Spokane

    Blondie in Spokane Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,727
    Likes Received:
    10,928
    Trophy Points:
    113
    EXCLUSIVE
    : 'You killed Chloe.' Devastated mother of 18-month-old who was dropped by her grandfather from Royal Caribbean ship tells how she broke down and screamed at her stepfather after the tragedy in never-before-seen video
    deposition


     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2021
    sl222, neesaki and Kittybunny like this.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice