|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
14th May 2015, 06:51 AM | #1 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
|
Angelika Graswald
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? |
14th May 2015, 07:26 AM | #2 |
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,812
|
6. Gorgeous (not guilty)
|
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right? |
|
14th May 2015, 09:07 AM | #3 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
7. Latvian (guilty)
|
14th May 2015, 09:33 AM | #4 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 11,311
|
let's hear it for the idea that interrogations should be recorded
I would like to hear a recording of the putative confession.
|
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz) |
|
14th May 2015, 09:39 AM | #5 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
|
|
14th May 2015, 10:23 AM | #6 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
|
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-...13-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-...13-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. |
14th May 2015, 10:32 AM | #7 | |||
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
|
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. |
|||
14th May 2015, 11:24 AM | #8 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
|
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. |
14th May 2015, 11:42 AM | #9 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
|
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. |
14th May 2015, 11:43 AM | #10 |
Unsaviory
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,629
|
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? |
14th May 2015, 12:04 PM | #11 |
Non credunt, semper verificare
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
|
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.
|
14th May 2015, 12:47 PM | #12 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
|
|
14th May 2015, 12:52 PM | #13 |
Non credunt, semper verificare
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
|
*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. |
14th May 2015, 01:14 PM | #14 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
|
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?
Quote:
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. |
14th May 2015, 01:41 PM | #15 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
|
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. |
14th May 2015, 01:41 PM | #16 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
|
14th May 2015, 01:51 PM | #17 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
|
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. |
14th May 2015, 02:00 PM | #18 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
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. |
14th May 2015, 02:07 PM | #19 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
|
Are we likely to see that any time soon?
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. 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...". Are you putting any effort into finding this out at all? One Google search and I found this: http://www.fishingfury.com/20130726/...angerous-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. 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. |
14th May 2015, 02:26 PM | #20 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
|
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. 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. |
14th May 2015, 02:44 PM | #21 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
|
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
|
14th May 2015, 02:48 PM | #22 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 7,051
|
Quote:
What's practically beaming? Doing a cartwheel-shades of Amanda? Singing Hotel California! Scandalous!!! |
14th May 2015, 02:54 PM | #23 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
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. |
14th May 2015, 02:57 PM | #24 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
|
|
14th May 2015, 03:26 PM | #25 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
|
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.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
14th May 2015, 03:28 PM | #26 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
|
|
14th May 2015, 03:57 PM | #27 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
|
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.
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? |
14th May 2015, 04:20 PM | #28 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
|
There isn't any need and I haven't suggested there was.
Quote:
|
14th May 2015, 04:33 PM | #29 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
|
It's on a bunch of the reports:
Quote:
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. |
14th May 2015, 05:35 PM | #30 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
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. |
15th May 2015, 12:10 AM | #31 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
|
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. |
15th May 2015, 12:13 AM | #32 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
|
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.
|
15th May 2015, 01:25 AM | #33 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
|
|
15th May 2015, 01:58 AM | #34 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
|
|
15th May 2015, 02:29 AM | #35 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
|
|
15th May 2015, 02:29 AM | #36 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
|
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.
|
15th May 2015, 02:33 AM | #37 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
|
|
15th May 2015, 03:15 AM | #38 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
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. |
15th May 2015, 05:05 AM | #39 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Guilford
Posts: 13,037
|
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.
|
15th May 2015, 05:23 AM | #40 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|