Toddler Death Law Suit Update

[A&L_Ont]

1 hour ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

Be careful using that argument.  It works great unless there's an opening in the window.  

Except that safety rail is in there as well.... not to mention the point I quoted below. 

 

56 minutes ago, Two Wheels Only said:

if you don't drop anyone to their death.

 

[cltnccruisers]

From what I have read of Winkleman in the past he tries to generate so much negative publicity for his target that they settle out of court just to end it.  In this case it may be backfiring.

[BillOh]

2 hours ago, SenatorsFan said:

What does that mean? Anyway,  it's an away game so I won't be there! 😆

It was a joke, no its a home game!  For me 😉

[TNcruising02]

4 hours ago, nextcruiseis said:

Anello has opted for a bench trial. Also his attorney stated that they will not be using an expert to reconstruct the accident scene and they would not be calling upon a physician to discuss his color-blindness.   The prosecution stated they would call witnesses, but did not specify how many.

 

https://www.elnuevodia.com/noticias/tribunales/nota/elabuelastrodelaninaquecayodeuncrucerorechazaunjuicioporjurado-2548730/

It's not surprising that Anello's attorney has chosen not to reconstruct the accident scene since doing so would prove that he was completely responsible for Chloe's death.

[KelSny1011]

18 minutes ago, TNcruising02 said:

It's not surprising that Anello's attorney has chosen not to reconstruct the accident scene since doing so would prove that he was completely responsible for Chloe's death.

 

I agree and now I'm curious what their defense will be?  RCI is responsible because they should have had signs that said "Don't dangle babies outside windows"???  

 

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

Is it possible the reenactors and experts are Winkleman's and he's not willing to let Anello's defensive attorney use them without payment?  

 

I still wouldn't understand because I would think if Anello is found NG, that helps their case. 

[cltnccruisers]

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

Is it possible the reenactors and experts are Winkleman's and he's not willing to let Anello's defensive attorney use them without payment?  

 

I still wouldn't understand because I would think if Anello is found NG, that helps their case. 

They were clearly identified as members of Winkleman's team in several articles showing his on-board theatrics.

[compman9]

I just want to check a couple of 'facts' that I was not aware of

 

Daily Mail in the UK has written today that Anello is 51

This cannot possibly be correct. I am 53 and he looks old enough to be my Dad, and he has been painted as a lovable old Grandad

 

Also, in their comments section, it says that Anello was not the child's Grandad, but the grandmother's boyfriend - Surely, this isn't true

 

 

 

 

[grapau27]

20 minutes ago, compman9 said:

I just want to check a couple of 'facts' that I was not aware of

 

Daily Mail in the UK has written today that Anello is 51

This cannot possibly be correct. I am 53 and he looks old enough to be my Dad, and he has been painted as a lovable old Grandad

 

Also, in their comments section, it says that Anello was not the child's Grandad, but the grandmother's boyfriend - Surely, this isn't true

 

 

 

 

These facts are our understanding and have been quoted many times in this thread.

He looks older but if you watch the video he squats down low easily against the post then springs up quickly and moves easily to the window bending to look out the open window and then easily picks Chloe up and holds her above his head then out of the window.

Certainly not the actions of an old man some people are trying to portray.

[Two Wheels Only]

Anello was 50 when the incident happened in July. He turned 51 in September.

 

It is believed that he married the grandmother. If they are legally married or not has not been confirmed.

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

14 hours ago, cltnccruisers said:

They were clearly identified as members of Winkleman's team in several articles showing his on-board theatrics.

Please note the AND in my post.  A NG verdict for Anello can only help Winkleman, so why wouldn't he have his "experts" help the defense?

[Barnkitty]

In one of the photographs I saw of Winkleman's re-enactors, it appears to make the situation more dire. The legal partner is standing sideways on the deck, in the bar window area, holding a measuring tape. His inside (to the window sill) arm is holding a measuring tape, and clearly his knuckles, and part of his hand, even arm,  are extending beyond where the window glass would be, with the tape stretched out to the railing. (I think they were trying to make it look farther than it was), but it really shows a man not stretching, just extending his arm, and being able to touch outside the window.   If he turned to full-face the window, it would be no effort or stretch to have the poor baby dangling outside.  This is Winkleman's partner in this picture.  It also shows the railing is above waist height.  We don't know what FSGP was trying to show Chloe that he had to extend her out the window, but from this angle, it certainly shows the danger of a one-arm grip with a squirmy toddler 11-stories above a pier.  It also clearly shows the difference in color from an open window and a closed window- the tinting sheet has a slight grid pattern to it. Seems this photograph alone would prove all FSGF's other statements false. But I'm not sure the judge cares about color-blindness, or hockey game window banging, or views from a dangle. I think the judge will be looking at the definition of negligence. 

 

 Definition. A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. 

 

 Optics not so good for fake-step-grandpa... so maybe that's why Winkleman is not sharing. It could make FSGP lose his case. And if he loses, it greatly impacts the civil suit.

[AlyssaJames]

6 hours ago, compman9 said:

he has been painted as a lovable old Grandad

 

Daily Mail really played up the 'lovable silver-haired elderly grandad' shtick after the family gave them some exclusive statements or interviews or something.

[cltnccruisers]

3 hours ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

Please note the AND in my post.  A NG verdict for Anello can only help Winkleman, so why wouldn't he have his "experts" help the defense?

IMHO, Winkleman started with the conclusion he wanted to find then directed his people in such a manner as to support that conclusion.  He's not stupid, just opportunistic.  He knows people familiar with the ship will see through him.  Also, if he does think his experts will help the lower bar of the civil suit why jeopardize them in the criminal trial?

[voyager70]

Daily Mail sounds like the UK version of the US National Enquirer.  Total garbage.

 

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

47 minutes ago, cltnccruisers said:

IMHO, Winkleman started with the conclusion he wanted to find then directed his people in such a manner as to support that conclusion.  He's not stupid, just opportunistic.  He knows people familiar with the ship will see through him.  Also, if he does think his experts will help the lower bar of the civil suit why jeopardize them in the criminal trial?

IMO, if the criminal trial comes back with a "guilty" verdict, that hurts Winkleman's case.  "See, a court already found Anello was responsible, so how can RCI also be responsible."  On the other hand, if Anello is found NG, that helps Winkleman. "See, a court already found Anello wasn't responsible, so RCI must be." 

[Midwestgal]

5 hours ago, AlyssaJames said:

 

Daily Mail really played up the 'lovable silver-haired elderly grandad' shtick after the family gave them some exclusive statements or interviews or something.

Lovable has nothing to do with it. He could be a great guy and did love her but really did something so stupid . I don’t for a minute think he set out to drop her off the ship , it was his  and his alone stupid actions  that killed her. Honestly we know nothing of him prior to this happening , he could of been a very loving grandpa  and an all around good person. They need to put the blame on someone other than the responsible person and that’s not unusual. None of them deserve a penny and what he did was involuntary manslaughter in my opinion.

[Barnkitty]

Involuntary Manslaughter

Involuntary manslaughter is defined as an unintentional killing that results either from criminal negligence or the commission of a low-level criminal act such as a misdemeanor. Involuntary manslaughter is distinguished from other forms of homicide because it does not require deliberation or premeditation, or intent. Because neither of these mental states is required, involuntary manslaughter is the lowest level category of homicide.

Criminal Negligence

The first type of involuntary manslaughter occurs when a defendant negligently commits an act that results in the death of another. The level of negligence required for involuntary manslaughter is higher than normal civil negligence and requires that the defendant have acted in a very unreasonable manner. The exact language used to describe this negligence standard varies by state, but many refer to it as “criminal negligence” or “gross negligence.” State laws also vary as to whether the defendant must have been aware that his conduct was grossly negligent. In some states, the defendant must have known that his conduct was a threat to others, while other states consider whether the actions were objectively negligent, without regard for the defendant’s own perceptions.

It is important to understand that criminal negligence does not require that the defendant have committed an unlawful act. Rather, it criminalizes both lawful and unlawful acts that are committed negligently. For instance, although driving a vehicle is legal, driving that vehicle in a reckless manner may constitute criminal negligence and, if death results, lead to a charge of involuntary manslaughter.

Criminal negligence can also result from a failure to perform an act that the defendant has a duty to perform. Where a parent has a duty to take care of and protect a child, but the child dies when she is left in the car on a hot day, the parent may be culpable for involuntary manslaughter. Another example would be a tour operator who fails to advise his passengers of the proper safety protocols, resulting in the death of a passenger. This tour operator has failed to perform his duty, resulting in criminal negligence.

 

He should have pled out, accepted long-term probation. You have to wonder what his attorney really thinks and has recommended, and are they in so far, because of the civil case, that no one can back out.  Some earlier poster said that the mother did not like the fake-step-grand-father based on comment they read on her Facebook page, but which have mysteriously disappeared.

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

2 minutes ago, Barnkitty said:

Involuntary Manslaughter

Involuntary manslaughter is defined as an unintentional killing that results either from criminal negligence or the commission of a low-level criminal act such as a misdemeanor. Involuntary manslaughter is distinguished from other forms of homicide because it does not require deliberation or premeditation, or intent. Because neither of these mental states is required, involuntary manslaughter is the lowest level category of homicide.

Criminal Negligence

The first type of involuntary manslaughter occurs when a defendant negligently commits an act that results in the death of another. The level of negligence required for involuntary manslaughter is higher than normal civil negligence and requires that the defendant have acted in a very unreasonable manner. The exact language used to describe this negligence standard varies by state, but many refer to it as “criminal negligence” or “gross negligence.” State laws also vary as to whether the defendant must have been aware that his conduct was grossly negligent. In some states, the defendant must have known that his conduct was a threat to others, while other states consider whether the actions were objectively negligent, without regard for the defendant’s own perceptions.

It is important to understand that criminal negligence does not require that the defendant have committed an unlawful act. Rather, it criminalizes both lawful and unlawful acts that are committed negligently. For instance, although driving a vehicle is legal, driving that vehicle in a reckless manner may constitute criminal negligence and, if death results, lead to a charge of involuntary manslaughter.

Criminal negligence can also result from a failure to perform an act that the defendant has a duty to perform. Where a parent has a duty to take care of and protect a child, but the child dies when she is left in the car on a hot day, the parent may be culpable for involuntary manslaughter. Another example would be a tour operator who fails to advise his passengers of the proper safety protocols, resulting in the death of a passenger. This tour operator has failed to perform his duty, resulting in criminal negligence.

 

He should have pled out, accepted long-term probation. You have to wonder what his attorney really thinks and has recommended, and are they in so far, because of the civil case, that no one can back out.  Some earlier poster said that the mother did not like the fake-step-grand-father based on comment they read on her Facebook page, but which have mysteriously disappeared.

He's charged with negligent homicide, not Involuntary Manslaughter. 

[Cruiser_1977]

If Anello is dead set on pleading innocent, his criminal attorney, Jose G. Perez-Ortiz, has to then put on the best defense of which he is capable or resign.

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

3 minutes ago, JennyB1977 said:

If Anello is dead set on pleading innocent, his criminal attorney, Jose G. Perez-Ortiz, has to then put on the best defense of which he is capable or resign.

And maybe he can't afford the experts (reenactors & color blindness folks).  I'm just surprised Winkleman isn't helping.

 

[Cruiser_1977]

@S.A.M.J.R. Most folks on this thread think that the Winkleman reenactors/experts haven't been any help to the Wiegand's case. Maybe Perez-Ortiz agrees with most of the people on this board and believes that the Winkleman stuff shows more his clients guilt than his innocence. That could be why he is choosing not to use it.

 

Was just thinking of it this way...

When Anello walks into court he has the presumption of innocence. It is not on his attorney to "prove" he's innocent. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It's possible that based on the evidence he's seen so far that he (Perez-Ortiz) believes that the judge would have some doubt.

Edited February 25, 2020 by JennyB1977

[cltnccruisers]

2 hours ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

IMO, if the criminal trial comes back with a "guilty" verdict, that hurts Winkleman's case.  "See, a court already found Anello was responsible, so how can RCI also be responsible."  On the other hand, if Anello is found NG, that helps Winkleman. "See, a court already found Anello wasn't responsible, so RCI must be." 

I agree, I just don't see a NG verdict.  Then again, I still think OJ was guilty and there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll.  😃

[cltnccruisers]

1 hour ago, JennyB1977 said:

@S.A.M.J.R. Most folks on this thread think that the Winkleman reenactors/experts haven't been any help to the Wiegand's case. Maybe Perez-Ortiz agrees with most of the people on this board and believes that the Winkleman stuff shows more his clients guilt than his innocence. That could be why he is choosing not to use it.

 

Was just thinking of it this way...

When Anello walks into court he has the presumption of innocence. It is not on his attorney to "prove" he's innocent. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It's possible that based on the evidence he's seen so far that he (Perez-Ortiz) believes that the judge would have some doubt.

Yes, that is how it's supposed to work.  But everyone has their opinions and can we (even judges) totally divorce ourselves from them?  I've been called for jury duty twice.  I was honest both times when questioned and dismissed on both.  The one I will never forget was the accused being a carjacker who pistol whipped the victim and killed the baby she was carrying in the process.  When asked if I could ignore that I said I could not.  Not so much different from this.

[A&L_Ont]

1 hour ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

And maybe he can't afford the experts (reenactors & color blindness folks).  I'm just surprised Winkleman isn't helping.

Winkleman’s main focus is his case. To help in the GF’s case is really no concern of his.  He gets no financial gain from helping. His battle is against RC, regarding safety and financial reimbursement for the family’s loss of a daughter, as well as pain and suffering.