Angelika Graswald

[anglolawyer]

This might be interesting.

Angelika Graswald told New York police that she tampered with her fiance's kayak before his death on the Hudson River and that it "felt good knowing he was going to die", prosecutors have told a bail hearing in Orange County.

Ms Graswald, 35, stands accused of intentionally drowning fiance Vincent Viafore while the couple were kayaking together last month. She made a desperate emergency call from the river, saying Mr Viafore, 46, had capsized and she could not find him in the cold, choppy water.

In the days after the kayak trip, she created a flurry of Facebook posts that made her seem less grieving than liberated.

So, we have weird behaviour (guilty) a confession (guilty) and a motive i.e. insurance money and maybe freedom from unwanted relationship (guilty). Does it pass the smell test? No. Because:

1 tampering with a kayak is not a sure way of killing a person
2 if you fail, you may not fail safe
3 nothing in the article about a recovered kayak showing evidence of tampering
4 the tampering would have to be of a kind that was not obvious to investigators (basically, what else is there apart from knocking a hole in it?)
5 English not first language so 'confession' may not be all it seems

Man, you guys (in the US) need to move to 100% taped interviews with lawyer present. Does Poughkeepsie have the DP?

 

[Beerina]

6. Gorgeous (not guilty)

 

[marplots]

7. Latvian (guilty)

 

[Chris_Halkides]

let's hear it for the idea that interrogations should be recorded

I would like to hear a recording of the putative confession.

 

[fuelair]

6. Gorgeous (not guilty)

I'm not seeing gorgeous. At all. Moderately attractive at best.

 

[shuttlt]

3 nothing in the article about a recovered kayak showing evidence of tampering

Could that not be a fault of the article, rather than the case? They mention inconsistencies in her statements, but don't say what they were. Lots of stuff is clearly left out.

From a related link, she says that:
"She also said that the police thought she had tampered with Mr Viafore's kayak, which has been recovered."
http://www.smh.com.au/world/a-kayak-trip-on-the-hudson-river-ends-in-death-and-an-arrest-20150513-gh0hmu.html
Which makes it sound like they thought this independently rather than because she had told them she had.

4 the tampering would have to be of a kind that was not obvious to investigators (basically, what else is there apart from knocking a hole in it?)

What kind of kayak is it? Did the kayak sink, and he failed to get out of it, or did he drown swimming to shore? The water was apparently dangerously cold.

I am no expert, but it's definitely possible to sink some types of them without knocking any holes. You just need to get enough water inside. Some of them have drain plugs that can be removed. A bit of googling indicates that that can cause them to take on significant amounts of water. Apparently some kind of plug had been removed:

"The kayak, he said, had been missing a plug in its stern for some time, which did not affect its buoyancy"
http://www.smh.com.au/world/a-kayak-trip-on-the-hudson-river-ends-in-death-and-an-arrest-20150513-gh0hmu.html

Hard to know what to make of that without knowing more.

Incidentally, she apparently posted pictures of herself doing cartwheels. I'm told that is significant.

 

[shuttlt]

Her English doesn't sound bad at all to me (26 seconds and again at 1:57):


Apparently he capsized and wasn't wearing a life jacket in freezing choppy water.

 

[anglolawyer]

Her English doesn't sound bad at all to me (26 seconds and again at 1:57):


Apparently he capsized and wasn't wearing a life jacket in freezing choppy water.

Suicide, then.

Could she be certain or nearly certain he would die in those circs?

ETA I agree - her English sounds fine. Why, if you go to all the trouble of bumping off your b/f, would you give your relief and happiness away so publicly? Surely, the thing to do is adopt the manner of a bereaved person. I attach very little weight to her behaviour, post-drowning.

 

[anglolawyer]

Could that not be a fault of the article, rather than the case? They mention inconsistencies in her statements, but don't say what they were. Lots of stuff is clearly left out.

From a related link, she says that:
"She also said that the police thought she had tampered with Mr Viafore's kayak, which has been recovered."
http://www.smh.com.au/world/a-kayak-trip-on-the-hudson-river-ends-in-death-and-an-arrest-20150513-gh0hmu.html
Which makes it sound like they thought this independently rather than because she had told them she had.


What kind of kayak is it? Did the kayak sink, and he failed to get out of it, or did he drown swimming to shore? The water was apparently dangerously cold.

I am no expert, but it's definitely possible to sink some types of them without knocking any holes. You just need to get enough water inside. Some of them have drain plugs that can be removed. A bit of googling indicates that that can cause them to take on significant amounts of water. Apparently some kind of plug had been removed:

"The kayak, he said, had been missing a plug in its stern for some time, which did not affect its buoyancy"
http://www.smh.com.au/world/a-kayak-trip-on-the-hudson-river-ends-in-death-and-an-arrest-20150513-gh0hmu.html

Hard to know what to make of that without knowing more.

Incidentally, she apparently posted pictures of herself doing cartwheels. I'm told that is significant.

Thanks shuttit. Interesting article. In particular, he had been bankrupt and was not loaded and she was not thought to be a beneficiary of his life insurance. So where's her motive? Two previous boyfriends or husbands had escaped with their lives. Also, she wrote in her diary she wished he was dead. Moral: people should not keep diaries.

There is a link in the article to an interview she gave to Channel 12. Unfortunately, it's behind a wall.

 

[NotJesus]

From a related link, she says that:
"She also said that the police thought she had tampered with Mr Viafore's kayak, which has been recovered."
http://www.smh.com.au/world/a-kayak-trip-on-the-hudson-river-ends-in-death-and-an-arrest-20150513-gh0hmu.html

Also from that link:

"Some of the couple's closest friends say they cannot fathom how Ms Graswald, who is about five feet tall, could have killed Mr Viafore, who was 187 centimetres."

By tampering with his kayak, obviously. How else does a woman who's just over 1500 millimeters tall kill a man who stands 1/108th of a furlong?

 

[Aepervius]

Also from that link:

"Some of the couple's closest friends say they cannot fathom how Ms Graswald, who is about five feet tall, could have killed Mr Viafore, who was 187 centimetres."

By tampering with his kayak, obviously. How else does a woman who's just over 1500 millimeters tall kill a man who stands 1/108th of a furlong?

While on the river side near rapids, Push him in the freezing water of a rapid while smiling at him, then push the kayak in the rapid, and pretend he capsized. If there is nothing to hold on he would have been falling into the freezing water, with no life jacket and there is no need for excessive force, tampering, or even being tall , bulky or anything. heck it does not even need to be planned and she simply did not tell the truth of the accident once she realized he was dead. And that pretty much explain the absence of life jacket.

 

[anglolawyer]

While on the river side near rapids, Push him in the freezing water of a rapid while smiling at him, then push the kayak in the rapid, and pretend he capsized. If there is nothing to hold on he would have been falling into the freezing water, with no life jacket and there is no need for excessive force, tampering, or even being tall , bulky or anything. heck it does not even need to be planned and she simply did not tell the truth of the accident once she realized he was dead. And that pretty much explain the absence of life jacket.

Are there rapids in that stretch of the Hudson?

 

[Aepervius]

Are there rapids in that stretch of the Hudson?

*shrug* I am not sure the scenario needs rapid really. If the water are freezing enough, that could be enough to make it difficult for an adult to swim.

The point is : we can make up multiple scenario of innocence and culpability, but it all depends on what the investigation shows and what a prosecutor can present and what would be accepted.

Over which we have no idea or influence.

So speculating is as good as it goes.

 

[shuttlt]

So far as I can see, there is clearly not enough reliable evidence in these articles and YouTube videos to form an opinion. There seem to be some weak arguments being put forward by her lawyer - the poor English, maybe she misunderstood, one in particular. The plug not impacting buoyancy is something that they are presumably going to have to back up. Those plugs being missing certainly can cause the kayak to slowly fill with water to the point where it sinks if the water is choppy. Maybe on the model of kayak in this case, it's different.

A few posts ago it was said that apparently she isn't a recipient on the life insurance. Says who?

Graswald is facing a second degree murder charge with attorneys saying she stood to receive $250,000 from life insurance policies.

http://metro.co.uk/2015/05/14/killer-fiancee-said-she-enjoyed-watching-husband-to-be-die-5196495/

Honestly, I don't see why one would be particularly disposed to see this as a miscarriage of justice. If he drowned, it looks as if it may well have been through going out without a lifejacket in freezing water in a kayak that had a hole in it. It doesn't seem like a great stretch for her to engineer those circumstances if she put her mind to it. We'll have to see what evidence they have. For her sake, I hope she has stronger arguments than it all being down to her poor English.

 

[anglolawyer]

So far as I can see, there is clearly not enough reliable evidence in these articles and YouTube videos to form an opinion. There seem to be some weak arguments being put forward by her lawyer - the poor English, maybe she misunderstood, one in particular. The plug not impacting buoyancy is something that they are presumably going to have to back up. Those plugs being missing certainly can cause the kayak to slowly fill with water to the point where it sinks if the water is choppy. Maybe on the model of kayak in this case, it's different.

A few posts ago it was said that apparently she isn't a recipient on the life insurance. Says who?

http://metro.co.uk/2015/05/14/killer-fiancee-said-she-enjoyed-watching-husband-to-be-die-5196495/

Honestly, I don't see why one would be particularly disposed to see this as a miscarriage of justice. If he drowned, it looks as if it may well have been through going out without a lifejacket in freezing water in a kayak that had a hole in it. It doesn't seem like a great stretch for her to engineer those circumstances if she put her mind to it. We'll have to see what evidence they have. For her sake, I hope she has stronger arguments than it all being down to her poor English.

We could use a look at the text of her 'confession'. Since they weren't married, she would not inherit the insurance proceeds unless he had made a will or nominated her as the beneficiary in the policy. Well, that's English law anyway.

How would she engineer his non-use of a life jacket. Also, if you put to sea in a kayak with the plug out, how long before you notice? If you were still close to shore, the plan wouldn't work.

It's obviously too early to dub this case a miscarriage of justice. For one thing, there hasn't been a trial yet. But that's no reason not to mark it as a candidate. It has some features which turn up in such cases, one of them being a tendency to assign excessive weight to supposedly suspicious behaviour (see Knox, Dewani, Routier - all innocent, albeit one of them is on Death Row so not everyone agrees, obviously). There is a thread on that very topic right here.

 

[BStrong]

This might be interesting.

Angelika Graswald told New York police that she tampered with her fiance's kayak before his death on the Hudson River and that it "felt good knowing he was going to die", prosecutors have told a bail hearing in Orange County.

Ms Graswald, 35, stands accused of intentionally drowning fiance Vincent Viafore while the couple were kayaking together last month. She made a desperate emergency call from the river, saying Mr Viafore, 46, had capsized and she could not find him in the cold, choppy water.

In the days after the kayak trip, she created a flurry of Facebook posts that made her seem less grieving than liberated.

So, we have weird behaviour (guilty) a confession (guilty) and a motive i.e. insurance money and maybe freedom from unwanted relationship (guilty). Does it pass the smell test? No. Because:

1 tampering with a kayak is not a sure way of killing a person
2 if you fail, you may not fail safe
3 nothing in the article about a recovered kayak showing evidence of tampering
4 the tampering would have to be of a kind that was not obvious to investigators (basically, what else is there apart from knocking a hole in it?)
5 English not first language so 'confession' may not be all it seems

Man, you guys (in the US) need to move to 100% taped interviews with lawyer present. Does Poughkeepsie have the DP?

The bolded confuses me, as the guy was in the kayak, somehow got out of the kayak and drowned.

I have no opinion on the case as described, but I'm interested in your comment.

 

[anglolawyer]

The bolded confuses me, as the guy was in the kayak, somehow got out of the kayak and drowned.

I have no opinion on the case as described, but I'm interested in your comment.

First, I know next to nothing about kayaking, which is why discussing these cases here is useful, because someone who does will generally show up and explain, to the benefit of all. In fact, the online knowledge pool may well be a more powerful analytical machine than the investigative authorities of the state - but that's another story.

What I meant was: if I tamper with your parachute (and the reserve), you will almost certainly die but pulling the plug out of a kayak seems far less certain. The guy might push off from the shingle, notice water coming in straightaway and turn back. Being still alive, he might also wonder what happened to the plug. Presumably, they aren't designed to come out by accident. He might be the careful type who checks such things and might know very well what has happened. He might go to the police. IOW if you are going to pull something like this you want a high chance of success because you don't want the victim to be around to ask awkward questions.

But, maybe that's all wrong and no kayaker would thing a missing plug surprising. Maybe it happens all the time. We need some kayakers to wade in.

 

[theprestige]

Does it pass the smell test? No. Because:

1 tampering with a kayak is not a sure way of killing a person
2 if you fail, you may not fail safe
3 nothing in the article about a recovered kayak showing evidence of tampering
4 the tampering would have to be of a kind that was not obvious to investigators (basically, what else is there apart from knocking a hole in it?)
5 English not first language so 'confession' may not be all it seems

Man, you guys (in the US) need to move to 100% taped interviews with lawyer present. Does Poughkeepsie have the DP?

I'm not sure how the bolded points are meaningful. Criminals carry out risky, stupid, and implausible plans all the time.

Point three also has me scratching my head. Media articles often omit the details we are most interested in, or get them wrong, etc. I would never try to parse a media report of a criminal investigation for any subtle nuances about what did or did not happen.

And the parenthetical question in point 4 is actually the heart of the matter, isn't it? What kind of tampering could it be? Placing it as a strike against the claim is just appealing to ignorance.

Finally, point 5 is neither here nor there. I really don't think any of these points have a place in a "smell test" of the claim.

 

[shuttlt]

We could use a look at the text of her 'confession'.

Are we likely to see that any time soon?

Since they weren't married, she would not inherit the insurance proceeds unless he had made a will or nominated her as the beneficiary in the policy. Well, that's English law anyway.

I don't know. Either she inherits, or she doesn't. There doesn't seem to be any way for us to check. Presumably its fairly easy for the lawyers etc... to find this out.

How would she engineer his non-use of a life jacket.

I don't know. Honestly, it seems like your imagination only works in one direction. Maybe she made sure one of the lifejackets was left at home. "Gosh darn it, I was sure I packed it, and I was so looking forward to this...".

Also, if you put to sea in a kayak with the plug out, how long before you notice? If you were still close to shore, the plan wouldn't work.

Are you putting any effort into finding this out at all? One Google search and I found this:
http://www.fishingfury.com/20130726/offshore-kayak-fishing-trip-takes-a-dangerous-turn/
In 10 minutes he took on 4 gallons of water and claims to have been unaware he had a serious problem. He estimates he would have sunk in less than half an hour.

It's obviously too early to dub this case a miscarriage of justice. For one thing, there hasn't been a trial yet. But that's no reason not to mark it as a candidate. It has some features which turn up in such cases, one of them being a tendency to assign excessive weight to supposedly suspicious behaviour (see Knox, Dewani, Routier - all innocent, albeit one of them is on Death Row so not everyone agrees, obviously). There is a thread on that very topic right here.

I haven't seen the case against her. I have no idea how much of it is down to behaviour. I wouldn't be surprised if her lawyer says that, along with her bad English possibly being the cause of her mistakenly saying she had killed her husband.

 

[shuttlt]

What I meant was: if I tamper with your parachute (and the reserve), you will almost certainly die but pulling the plug out of a kayak seems far less certain.

The guy might push off from the shingle, notice water coming in straightaway and turn back. Being still alive, he might also wonder what happened to the plug. Presumably, they aren't designed to come out by accident. He might be the careful type who checks such things and might know very well what has happened. He might go to the police. IOW if you are going to pull something like this you want a high chance of success because you don't want the victim to be around to ask awkward questions.

For one thing, the water would come in fairly slowly at first. For another, there is often water sloshing about in a kayak. I'm not sure that it is necessarily too easy to estimate how much when you are in it (I kayak, but not very often, so I am prepared to be corrected). You site lower in the water. Sitting lower in the water, it is progressively harder to make progress and you take on water faster.

The plug is removed to drain the kayak of water. If you believe her story, then surely you are claiming that saying that through some accident the plug wasn't replaced, or fell out, and was lost is a plausible story? He might be the careful type and checks, or he might not. Presumably, she knows/knew which type he was. We don't. Presumably she would be able to make a judgement about whether she would be able to style her way out of it afterwards if it didn't work out, we clearly aren't in such a position.

But, maybe that's all wrong and no kayaker would thing a missing plug surprising. Maybe it happens all the time. We need some kayakers to wade in.

I'm not a sufficiently experienced kayaker to act as an authority here.

It hardly matters though unless you think that a problem with his kayak causing his death is so implausible that that is a central plank of why you think this is another Knox case.