Toddler Death Law Suit Update

[cltnccruisers]

36 minutes ago, spunks said:

This thread IS like watching a train wreck. Painful as it is it is almost impossible to look away. 

 

I read all about rights and such....and why no blood alcohol test and such, but there is an important point....make that 2 important points that are being ignored. One is that this happened on a ship....that is not US territory and does not necessisarily come under US law. Maybe he had a right to refuse such a test and maybe he didn't, but that leads me to point number 2....

 

You simply cannot legislate against stupid! His defense is that he didn't know the window was open??? Seriously???

I think the only place he has a case is right here on Cruise Critic! I doubt his lawyer can find 12 brain dead jurors to buy into his dumber than dirt argument.

 

 

When I first encountered the Miami ambulance chaser several years ago I did some research into Maritime Law.  It was pretty interesting, especially since it limits amounts of civil compensation.  So much for losing a finger, more for a hand, more for an arm, etc.  But something else that stuck with me is relevant here.  That is if a ship is moored, as Freedom was, it falls under the civil authorities of the territory in which it is docked.  Not to mention that Cloe's body was on the pier.

[coffeebean]

2 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

And the plaintiff's attorney will do all in his power to disqualify any juror with any intelligence and fight to get jurors with the longest heart strings.

Sometimes our justice system sucks!

[S.A.M.J.R.]

1 hour ago, spunks said:

I doubt his lawyer can find 12 brain dead jurors to buy into his dumber than dirt argument.

HIS lawyer only needs to find one juror to believe his story.  Then it's a hung jury.

 

I think the family's lawyer only needs to find nine (of the 12) jurors to agree with them. 

[time4u2go]

1 hour ago, spunks said:

This thread IS like watching a train wreck. Painful as it is it is almost impossible to look away. 

 

I read all about rights and such....and why no blood alcohol test and such, but there is an important point....make that 2 important points that are being ignored. One is that this happened on a ship....that is not US territory and does not necessisarily come under US law. Maybe he had a right to refuse such a test and maybe he didn't, but that leads me to point number 2....

 

You simply cannot legislate against stupid! His defense is that he didn't know the window was open??? Seriously???

I think the only place he has a case is right here on Cruise Critic! I doubt his lawyer can find 12 brain dead jurors to buy into his dumber than dirt argument.

 

 

The ship was docked in Puerto Rico.  Wouldn't it fall under Puerto Rican jurisdiction?

[not-enough-cruising]

1 hour ago, time4u2go said:

The ship was docked in Puerto Rico.  Wouldn't it fall under Puerto Rican jurisdiction?

Absolutely 100%

[brillohead]

5 minutes ago, not-enough-cruising said:

1 hour ago, time4u2go said:

The ship was docked in Puerto Rico.  Wouldn't it fall under Puerto Rican jurisdiction?

Absolutely 100%

And isn't Puerto Rico in the United States of America?

 

[TNcruising02]

10 hours ago, coffeebean said:

It is easy enough to see in the video that Anello was holding Chloe with one arm but I did not know he actually stated that. Do you have a link that includes that statement from Anello?

 

Walk me through what you remember," Begnaud said. 

"So she's down at the — looking at the — out the window, and the glass. I bent down by her, and then we always, like, when you're — whenever we were at hockey games, we would bang on the glass, and it was fun, you know? So when I knelt down to be with her at that level, I couldn't reach the glass, really, with my fingertips, so I knew she couldn't. So that's when I decided I'd pick her up," he said. "So I, you know, was trying to stand her on the railing. And it happened in seconds."
 
"Can you show me how you were holding her? Like, was it kind of a bear hug, or was it —," Begnaud said.

"Kind of, yeah. I was trying to hold her like that. From what I remember. ... I had her, and I was trying to knock on the glass. And at that point I'm like, 'Well, I'm going to have to lean farther for her to be able to reach it,' right? Because I thought it was farther out than I expected," he said. 

Anello said at one point he had one arm around her and the other arm was trying to knock on the glass.

"I think that's the point where she slipped out of me," Anello said. "At no point during that whole incident did I think that, well, she fell out. It was, like, it was unbelievable. It's like it disappeared. It's like the glass disappeared."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cruise-ship-death-salvatore-anello-grandfather-charged-death-of-chloe-wiegand-says-hes-colorblind/

Edited February 18, 2020 by TNcruising02

[TNcruising02]

If he was actually trying to tap on a window that wasn't there a couple of inches from his face for 30 seconds, he had to have been impaired.  Either that or his version is not true. Hopefully, the prosecution will do a reenactment and have the jury wait the 30 seconds that the grandfather held the girl out the window to see how absurd his version is.

Edited February 18, 2020 by TNcruising02

[compman9]

With reference to the blood alcohol test - just look at the guy's sea pass card swipes

 

The staggering thing is this man wants to relive this horror in a court of law rather than just accept his personal guilt and live with it like a man

[Bloodgem]

1 hour ago, compman9 said:

With reference to the blood alcohol test - just look at the guy's sea pass card swipes

 

The staggering thing is this man wants to relive this horror in a court of law rather than just accept his personal guilt and live with it like a man

Anello may never accept what he has done because he has blocked out the incident. Once he blocked out how/why Chloe fell he needed to come up with a version to tell the police and family. For Anello this new version, of events, has become what really happened and not what actually happened. 

[chengkp75]

With respect to jurisdiction on a foreign ship in port, it does not completely fall under the jurisdiction of the port it is in, it is covered by the overlapping jurisdictions of the port and the flag state.  There is a lot of legal debate over the limits of port state jurisdiction over a foreign ship, and in most cases, international law and international trade law is applied, and the port state does not impose its jurisdiction on the ship except on matters "external" to the ship (pollution, trade, taxes, etc) or unless the "safety or well being" of the port are affected.  The death of a US citizen on a foreign ship in a US port is considered to be "affecting the well being" of the port.  Further, the US has claimed "extra-territorial" jurisdiction over certain crimes committed against US citizens on foreign ships while in international waters.

[coffeebean]

7 hours ago, TNcruising02 said:

 .............So when I knelt down to be with her at that level, I couldn't reach the glass, really, with my fingertips, so I knew she couldn't. So that's when I decided I'd pick her up," he said. ".........

While I was recently on Mariner OTS, I checked out the windows at floor level on the pool deck. I guess those windows are NOT the same design as Freedom OTS because I could easily reach the glass at ground level. The windows could easily be reached by a toddler of Chloe's age. If the window design is the same on Mariner and Freedom ( which is basically a stretched version of Mariner), I have no idea what Anello was talking about ( not being able to reach the windows at Chloe's level while she was standing on the ground).

 

I hope this statement is investigated further. Makes no sense that Anello could not reach the glass at ground level.

Edited February 18, 2020 by coffeebean

[coffeebean]

2 hours ago, Bloodgem said:

Anello may never accept what he has done because he has blocked out the incident. Once he blocked out how/why Chloe fell he needed to come up with a version to tell the police and family. For Anello this new version, of events, has become what really happened and not what actually happened. 

There is video proof for Anello to watch so he can remember the events as they ACTUALLY HAPPENED. His alternate universe chain of events is not going to cut it in court. A picture is worth a thousand words. Video evidence is worth a lot more that that as it actually gives the time line of how long Anello held Chloe at the window frame. Anello's altered recollection will be easily proven in court as being false.

[coffeebean]

7 hours ago, brillohead said:

Winner winner chicken dinner!

I'm 5'2" tall and can easily put my hand out those windows.....

I'm just under 5'2" and same for me. As I have already said in this thread, when I was on Mariner OTS (which is a stretched version of Freedom OTS) and stood at those windows, I was able to touch the window while my chest was up against the guard rail.

 

Does anyone know for sure if the Freedom class window design is actually the same design on the Voyager class ships which includes Mariner OTS?

Edited February 18, 2020 by coffeebean

[coffeebean]

2 hours ago, Bloodgem said:

Anello may never accept what he has done because he has blocked out the incident. Once he blocked out how/why Chloe fell he needed to come up with a version to tell the police and family. For Anello this new version, of events, has become what really happened and not what actually happened. 

How can Anello's "new" version be admissible in court if it is not actually what really happened?

[grapau27]

5 hours ago, compman9 said:

With reference to the blood alcohol test - just look at the guy's sea pass card swipes

 

The staggering thing is this man wants to relive this horror in a court of law rather than just accept his personal guilt and live with it like a man

Good point although he might have drunk his carry on bottle of alcohol.

[grapau27]

3 hours ago, Bloodgem said:

Anello may never accept what he has done because he has blocked out the incident. Once he blocked out how/why Chloe fell he needed to come up with a version to tell the police and family. For Anello this new version, of events, has become what really happened and not what actually happened. 

The only thing it seems he hasn't changed is the fact it was him and not someone else who dropped Chloe.

[rusty nut]

22 hours ago, TNcruising02 said:

I wonder why the decision was up to him. Is it up to someone if they drive drunk and kill someone? I don't understand why the decision for the testing was up to the grandfather. Of course someone under the influence of something is going to refuse a test if that person is given a choice. It's really hard for me to believe he wasn't under the influence of something or didn't have some type of medical issue impairing him. And I'm not taking about being color blind.

Because he wasn't under arrest.

[rusty nut]

13 hours ago, spunks said:

 I doubt his lawyer can find 12 brain dead jurors to buy into his dumber than dirt argument.

 

 

You might be surprised!

[S.A.M.J.R.]

2 hours ago, coffeebean said:

How can Anello's "new" version be admissible in court if it is not actually what really happened?

Because it's what HE believes happened.

 

Lawyer: Tell us in your own words what happened.

Anello: I crouched down and reached to those windows so we could bang on the glass like we do at her brothers hockey game.  I couldn't reach the glass down there, so I knew she couldn't.  So I picked up so we could reach the glass that was higher up.  

 

There, it's admissible.  

[grapau27]

4 minutes ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

Because it's what HE believes happened.

 

Lawyer: Tell us in your own words what happened.

Anello: I crouched down and reached to those windows so we could bang on the glass like we do at her brothers hockey game.  I couldn't reach the glass down there, so I knew she couldn't.  So I picked up so we could reach the glass that was higher up.  

 

There, it's admissible.  

Hopefully the judge is a cruiser and sees what an idiot Anello was.

Edited February 18, 2020 by grapau27

[mitsugirly]

10 hours ago, TNcruising02 said:

 

So when I knelt down to be with her at that level, I couldn't reach the glass, really, with my fingertips, so I knew she couldn't. So that's when I decided I'd pick her up," he said. "

 

This statement that he made hasn't set well with me either. There's nothing to stop a child, at ground level, from being right up on the glass or reaching it. The handrail is above for those taller as safety. Him saying he bent down to her level and since he couldn't reach with his fingertips and knew she couldn't is absurd. They both would have been able to reach and Chloe was probably already leaning against it looking out. The bottom of the windows go inward and any toddler or child would just walk right up, under the handrail, and be right at the window. Any adult leaning down could easily lean in and look out from below or touch it...you wouldn't even be leaning as much as you would from above. 🙄

 

 

 

Edited February 18, 2020 by mitsugirly

[fred30]

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

With respect to jurisdiction on a foreign ship in port, it does not completely fall under the jurisdiction of the port it is in, it is covered by the overlapping jurisdictions of the port and the flag state.  There is a lot of legal debate over the limits of port state jurisdiction over a foreign ship, and in most cases, international law and international trade law is applied, and the port state does not impose its jurisdiction on the ship except on matters "external" to the ship (pollution, trade, taxes, etc) or unless the "safety or well being" of the port are affected.  The death of a US citizen on a foreign ship in a US port is considered to be "affecting the well being" of the port.  Further, the US has claimed "extra-territorial" jurisdiction over certain crimes committed against US citizens on foreign ships while in international waters.

In this case since the death took place on the pier in Puerto Rico shouldn't they be able to apply all their laws?

Edited February 18, 2020 by fred30

[chengkp75]

24 minutes ago, fred30 said:

In this case since the death took place on the pier in Puerto Rico shouldn't they be able to apply all their laws?

Not a lawyer, but the crime scene is divided between the ship where she fell, which is not US territory, and the pier where she actually died, which is, so this is another sticky international law issue, I would think.

[coffeebean]

35 minutes ago, mitsugirly said:

 

This statement that he made hasn't set well with me either. There's nothing to stop a child, at ground level, from being right up on the glass or reaching it. The handrail is above for those taller as safety. Him saying he bent down to her level and since he couldn't reach with his fingertips and knew she couldn't is absurd. They both would have been able to reach and Chloe was probably already leaning against it looking out. The bottom of the windows go inward and any toddler or child would just walk right up, under the handrail, and be right at the window. Any adult leaning down could easily lean in and look out from below or touch it...you wouldn't even be leaning as much as you would from above. 🙄

 

 

Yup. I've said that a few posts ago. It is easy to touch the stationary windows from ground level. It should be easy enough for the Royal's defense team to prove that in court. Anello's "alternate reality" of what happened will have holes poked in it so large his head will spin!