Angelika Graswald

[shuttlt]

After Mr Viafore’s kayak filled with water, he held on for five to 10 minutes, and witnesses have said she intentionally capsized her own kayak.

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

Mohl added that Graswald knew she was the first name on Viafore's two insurance policies and 'talked about what she could do with the money', estimated to be around $250,000.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3080670/Woman-charged-drowning-fianc-Hudson-River-admits-tampered-kayak-relished-watching-drown-emerges-stood-claim-250k-two-life-policies.html
Apologies for quoting the mail. I really want to know now what the source of the "she wasn't on the insurance" claim is.

And from the same Mail article:

But according to detectives, her story became inconsistent - and witnesses said they saw her push him in.

I can only find that claim in the Mail.

 

[Elagabalus]

....There were initial photos of the couple together and inspirational bits of poetry, then selfies in which she is practically beaming, a video clip of her doing a cartwheel, a racy cartoon depicting an old married couple. Less than a week after he died, she turned up at a local pub with their friends and taking the stage to sing Hotel California.

I do hope that they have more than this.

What's practically beaming? Doing a cartwheel-shades of Amanda? Singing Hotel California! Scandalous!!!

 

[BStrong]

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.

Murder-by-sabotage-of-the-kayak is a new one on me, I have no kayaking (is that a word?) experience, but I know that the old eggshell skull rule is still in effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull

So a criminal case where somebody did something to a party that led to the death of that other party, even if it might not sound like murder on the face of it could still end up being a murder case.

 

[shuttlt]

I do hope that they have more than this.

What's practically beaming? Doing a cartwheel-shades of Amanda? Singing Hotel California! Scandalous!!!

The defence say it's pretty much just that and her bad English.

 

[anglolawyer]

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

They do? Tell us more. You can leave out risky if you like, since murder is intrinsically risky. Stupid comes in many flavours. This type of stupid includes a method of killing which seems to be highly uncertain and might if unsuccessful attract suspicion. Please focus on that type with one of two illustrative examples.

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.

That is very skeptical of you. People here seem to have difficulty forming provisional opinions and holding onto the fact that they are provisional. The case is new. There may be damning, conclusive evidence against her, I don't know. I'm open to the possibility. But you have to admit, it's an unusual crime. That, by itself, should get a proper skeptic thinking.

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.

Well, we have been told there's a plug. And that it takes hours to sink a kayak with the plug out. That does not sound to me like a great way of bumping someone off. And how will they ever prove it (absent the confession of which we need more info)?8

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.

Heh, you obviously haven't followed the Amanda Knox case. Anyway, that point has been covered in the course of this discussion (which is what it's for) - her English seems fine.

 

[anglolawyer]

Murder-by-sabotage-of-the-kayak is a new one on me, I have no kayaking (is that a word?) experience, but I know that the old eggshell skull rule is still in effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull

So a criminal case where somebody did something to a party that led to the death of that other party, even if it might not sound like murder on the face of it could still end up being a murder case.

The egg shell skull principle does not seem to have any obvious applicability here. Can you explain what you mean?

 

[shuttlt]

That is very skeptical of you. People here seem to have difficulty forming provisional opinions and holding onto the fact that they are provisional. The case is new. There may be damning, conclusive evidence against her, I don't know. I'm open to the possibility. But you have to admit, it's an unusual crime. That, by itself, should get a proper skeptic thinking.

Where is the need to come to a decision, provisional or otherwise here? I wouldn't be particularly surprised if she turned out innocent, or guilty. One might as well ask a magic 8 ball for an opinion.

Well, we have been told there's a plug. And that it takes hours to sink a kayak with the plug out.

Where are you getting "hours" to sink from? The quote I found had the man guessing he'd have sunk in 40 minutes. I'd have thought you would have stopped making any headway long before you sank though.

One thing that mildly puzzles me. Supposedly it was on the return trip that he sank. If the cause of the sinking was taking on water, why didn't that happen on the way out? Even if he was just lucky on the way out, you'd have thought he would have still taken on a lot of water... I don't understand how he would fail to notice that.

If the police think he sank because of the plug had been removed, maybe they think it needed to have happened after the trip out?

 

[anglolawyer]

Where is the need to come to a decision, provisional or otherwise here? I wouldn't be particularly surprised if she turned out innocent, or guilty. One might as well ask a magic 8 ball for an opinion.

There isn't any need and I haven't suggested there was.

Where are you getting "hours" to sink from? The quote I found had the man guessing he'd have sunk in 40 minutes. I'd have thought you would have stopped making any headway long before you sank though.

One thing that mildly puzzles me. Supposedly it was on the return trip that he sank. If the cause of the sinking was taking on water, why didn't that happen on the way out? Even if he was just lucky on the way out, you'd have thought he would have still taken on a lot of water... I don't understand how he would fail to notice that.

If the police think he sank because of the plug had been removed, maybe they think it needed to have happened after the trip out?

I am sorry, but I don't follow. Where are you getting this trip out and trip back from? Oh wait, I get it. Is your idea that she maybe pulled the plug after they were already way out on the water? Is that actually possible? Presumably the plug is right in the bottom of the boat. Or is it at one end and you empty it by tipping the boat up? I guess in that case the plug could be out of the water or accessible anyway. So she pulls the plug and he slowly fills up on the way back and sinks. Neat.

 

[shuttlt]

I am sorry, but I don't follow. Where are you getting this trip out and trip back from? Oh wait, I get it. Is your idea that she maybe pulled the plug after they were already way out on the water?

It's on a bunch of the reports:

The couple set off in separate kayaks about 4:15 p.m. and came ashore at Banneman's Island, where they spent about two hours, authorities said. On the return voyage, Viafore's kayak began taking on water and capsized.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/n-y-woman-felt-good-watching-lover-drown-prosecutor-article-1.2221200

Is that actually possible? Presumably the plug is right in the bottom of the boat. Or is it at one end and you empty it by tipping the boat up?

On the end in all the ones I've seen. Google has pictures. The boat would fill up pretty damn fast if there was an open hole below the water line.

 

[BStrong]

The egg shell skull principle does not seem to have any obvious applicability here. Can you explain what you mean?

Pretty clear - Joe blow non-professional fighter gets in a beef with someone and throws a half-ass punch at a guy that kills him is still on the hook for the homicide no matter what his intention was at the time he threw the punch or whether or not he believed the punch might kill the victim.

If Ms. Graswald screwed with the kayak in question and that fact is proven, even if she had no intention to kill the victim and didn't think for a moment that screwing with the kayak could cause his death, she could still be held culpable for his death.

 

[anglolawyer]

Pretty clear - Joe blow non-professional fighter gets in a beef with someone and throws a half-ass punch at a guy that kills him is still on the hook for the homicide no matter what his intention was at the time he threw the punch or whether or not he believed the punch might kill the victim.

If Ms. Graswald screwed with the kayak in question and that fact is proven, even if she had no intention to kill the victim and didn't think for a moment that screwing with the kayak could cause his death, she could still be held culpable for his death.

Ah, OK. I don't think that's an egg shell skull situation TBH. In your first case, an assault is elevated to manslaughter by the principle but in the second it is (possibly) reduced from murder by her lack of intent. Your first example works better without an intent to kill, which confuses the issue. In ESS cases there is usually no such intent.

Getting back to our case, suppose she removed the plug intending to 'teach him a lesson' or some such but with no subjective intent to kill or cause serious harm. But suppose also that on the evidence of all experts, the inevitable result of what she did was to condemn him to death. There is a doctrine in criminal law in which the accused is presumed to intend the ordinary and natural consequences of their acts. She might go down for murder because of that.

 

[anglolawyer]

It's on a bunch of the reports:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/n-y-woman-felt-good-watching-lover-drown-prosecutor-article-1.2221200


On the end in all the ones I've seen. Google has pictures. The boat would fill up pretty damn fast if there was an open hole below the water line.

Ah, thanks. So the idea, presumably, is that she took the plug out when they were on the island. That is starting to make more sense. Since the waters were cold and choppy she may have figured there was a good likelihood he would fill up on the way back and, if not, so what? The plug came out. **** happens. Don't look at me.

 

[shuttlt]

Ah, thanks. So the idea, presumably, is that she took the plug out when they were on the island. That is starting to make more sense. Since the waters were cold and choppy she may have figured there was a good likelihood he would fill up on the way back and, if not, so what? The plug came out. **** happens. Don't look at me.

That's my guess on the police theory.

 

[anglolawyer]

That's my guess on the police theory.

It's gonna be tough to prove without that confession. Almost the perfect murder I would say. So what did she say, and why - Jeez, how hard can it be to stick to your story?

 

[shuttlt]

It's gonna be tough to prove without that confession. Almost the perfect murder I would say. So what did she say, and why - Jeez, how hard can it be to stick to your story?

I guess it may depend on things like what exactly the witnesses saw, and how bad her confession is. There also seems to be a Knox like issue of a delayed 911 call.

 

[anglolawyer]

One more thing about egg shell skull cases. They depend on the perp not knowing about the vulnerability. It's a different ball game if the perp does know. Here, there is nothing our suspect does not know about the victim's vulnerability to death by drowning and/or hypothermia (or whatever you die from in cold water) and, what's more, there is nothing special about that vulnerability.

 

[anglolawyer]

I guess it may depend on things like what exactly the witnesses saw, and how bad her confession is. There also seems to be a Knox like issue of a delayed 911 call.

I guess she couldn't call until she made dry land and found a phone. Was there coverage in the area, or a red telephone box like this one?

 

[Samson]

From the thread so far, she is a feisty smooth talking and very articulate young woman. I am amazed any one could have suggested her language fluency was a factor.
However, her behaviour afterwards suggests innocence not guilt. Very remniscent of Knox, Lundy, Casey Anthony*, unless double bluffing all the way.
I think 50/50 is a good call so far.

* Casey Anthony comes into orbit because her child's death was almost certainly accidental, so behaviour is difficult to parse.

 

[anglolawyer]

On the question of the confession, I would be surprised if she were guilty and confessed. If you have what it takes to plan and execute a murder and recover yourself so much afterwards as to be happy about it, I can't see what a few hours in police custody could do to penetrate the defences. She isnt young and vulnerable, nor is she in an overly alien environment. I want to see the terms and circumstances in which she supposedly confessed and the text itself of course.

 

[shuttlt]

I guess she couldn't call until she made dry land and found a phone. Was there coverage in the area, or a red telephone box like this one?

If I understand it correctly, she watched him drown, waited 20 minutes, called 911 on her mobile and ended the call by throwing herself into the water.