RR0004
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2008
- Messages
- 19,987
- Reaction score
- -26
BBM- wonder if he has re-thought that statement a million times since Stephany Flores' murder.
GUILTY NY - Vincent Viafore, 46, Newburgh, 19 April 2015 - #2
- Thread starter JerseyGirl
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
BBM- wonder if he has re-thought that statement a million times since Stephany Flores' murder.
- Joined
- May 15, 2013
- Messages
- 55,637
- Reaction score
- 192,598
Remembering Vincent Viafore: http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/remembering-vincent-viafore/3/
____
PEOPLE story, including interview with Portale on Saturday http://www.people.com/article/angelika-graswald-interrogation-video-vincent-viafore
____
PEOPLE story, including interview with Portale on Saturday http://www.people.com/article/angelika-graswald-interrogation-video-vincent-viafore
- Joined
- May 15, 2013
- Messages
- 55,637
- Reaction score
- 192,598
"Death On The Hudson" The 48-Hours full episode, segment extras and transcript (scroll down on landing page) is available on CBS.com here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/interrogation-video-raises-key-questions-in-new-york-kayak-murder-case/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/interrogation-video-raises-key-questions-in-new-york-kayak-murder-case/
cutter99
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2012
- Messages
- 960
- Reaction score
- 3,105
I am not sure how you can argue with the science that was presented. It was proven that the missing plug had little to no effect in the capsizing of Vincent's kayak. It was proven that 3-4 foot waves would have dumped more than enough water into the hull of the kayak to capsize it. They proved both that removing the ring from the paddle and even taking the paddle from Vincent were not the cause of his death.
Vincent chose NOT to wear a life vest. He chose to get in the water without one. Angelika chose to wear one. It is most likely the reason she is still here today.
I avidly ride horses. I choose to wear a helmet every time I ride. I cannot force anyone, particularly another adult, to wear a helmet. I can tell them why they should, I can deny them access to one of my horses or my property if they chose to not wear a helmet, but in the end, it is THEIR CHOICE!
I was married to a man, an avid road biker, who refused to wear a helmet. Even the fact we had a small child, who needed her father in her life for various reasons, did not contribute to his decision to wear a helmet. No one else was going to tell him what to do with HIS life. It got to the point that the other people he biked with no longer want to ride with him due to the lack of helmet.
You can hear the panic in Angelika's voice in the 911 call. She denies any involvement in his death initially in the police interview, and then 6 hours into it starts to crumble. You can hear officers leading her and her then parroting them after she tells them she needs to get home to her kitten. LE does make it sounds like if she tells them what they want to hear, she gets to leave and go home to her comfort zone!
I was previously on the fence but this has swayed me that this woman is being railroaded.
Vincent chose NOT to wear a life vest. He chose to get in the water without one. Angelika chose to wear one. It is most likely the reason she is still here today.
I avidly ride horses. I choose to wear a helmet every time I ride. I cannot force anyone, particularly another adult, to wear a helmet. I can tell them why they should, I can deny them access to one of my horses or my property if they chose to not wear a helmet, but in the end, it is THEIR CHOICE!
I was married to a man, an avid road biker, who refused to wear a helmet. Even the fact we had a small child, who needed her father in her life for various reasons, did not contribute to his decision to wear a helmet. No one else was going to tell him what to do with HIS life. It got to the point that the other people he biked with no longer want to ride with him due to the lack of helmet.
You can hear the panic in Angelika's voice in the 911 call. She denies any involvement in his death initially in the police interview, and then 6 hours into it starts to crumble. You can hear officers leading her and her then parroting them after she tells them she needs to get home to her kitten. LE does make it sounds like if she tells them what they want to hear, she gets to leave and go home to her comfort zone!
I was previously on the fence but this has swayed me that this woman is being railroaded.
Mountaingazer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2013
- Messages
- 1,596
- Reaction score
- 591
I know it might hinder some investigations, but they really have to implement a limit to how long a person can be questioned.
I personally become suspicious of any "confession" obtained after 6 or more hours of interogation.
I personally become suspicious of any "confession" obtained after 6 or more hours of interogation.
Can anyone say witness for sale? I'm really not all that sure as to what happened, but I'll take whatever this guy has to say with a ton of salt. MOO
gitana1
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- May 31, 2005
- Messages
- 29,412
- Reaction score
- 230,368
MEs always look at the whole picture. Not just the body. That IS impartial. I am sure MEs know the difference between pre and post mortem bruising and that both can occur. Unlike us, they have actual medical degrees and do this for a living.
gitana1
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- May 31, 2005
- Messages
- 29,412
- Reaction score
- 230,368
Why? Every single thing he said with respect to Natalie Holloway's case was totally true. Despite the fact that it is clear Van Der Sloot killed her. Everything the ME stated was true.
e-sherlockholmes
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2015
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 2
This case is a tough one. I think the prosecution's case is weak. So far, they have IMO produced weak circumstantial evidence to match an equally weak theory of the crime. However, I think the accused does somewhat fit a psychological profile of someone who might be in a position to murder their lover. I think this is party the reason why law enforcement have been going after her so strongly.
[Off topic remark]
As a kayaker, let me just say that you should always wear a life vest. You certainly should not be drinking and kayaking. Also, if you're ever going to choose kayaks as a serious kayaker, almost always never choose the kind the victim chose.
Those kayaks are known as recreational kayaks. They are only ever good for extremely calm and flat waters. They perform extremely poorly in rough waters and where there are strong currents. You basically can't move anywhere or you'd be expending a lot of energy to move very little. Very inefficient hull design.
The only good thing about them is they literally are the dirt cheapest option available at most places and are relatively compact in size. Around $500 or so and you can be an owner of these things brand new, whereas the other more efficient and larger kayaks or specialty kayak varieties can go for thousands of dollars and up.
Also, one should consider getting a skirt for the kayak too. Every kayaker knows water goes in through the cockpit opening. A skirt helps prevent this problem. But a skirt is not without its own sets of problems because they introduce new problems. They make escaping from the kayak harder, and so when overturned with a skirt on, you need to know what to do to escape. Otherwise you are stuck upside down in the water and can drown. So, skirts are definitely not without hazards and are for more experienced professionals.
Like all things, one should never go out of one's comfort zone in outdoors sports. All sports carry risk. Some sports will require certain preparations and gear. For kayaking, some waters and some of the journey that one wishes to take, may very well ideally require a certain type of kayak and require a level of experience and a skirt. Otherwise, don't do it. I think the kinds of recreational kayaks this couple used on that journey in those waters is probably inappropriate. Not unless they had a skirt or had a water pump on board to pump water out when it gets too full. And definitely a life vest is required.
[Off topic remark]
As a kayaker, let me just say that you should always wear a life vest. You certainly should not be drinking and kayaking. Also, if you're ever going to choose kayaks as a serious kayaker, almost always never choose the kind the victim chose.
Those kayaks are known as recreational kayaks. They are only ever good for extremely calm and flat waters. They perform extremely poorly in rough waters and where there are strong currents. You basically can't move anywhere or you'd be expending a lot of energy to move very little. Very inefficient hull design.
The only good thing about them is they literally are the dirt cheapest option available at most places and are relatively compact in size. Around $500 or so and you can be an owner of these things brand new, whereas the other more efficient and larger kayaks or specialty kayak varieties can go for thousands of dollars and up.
Also, one should consider getting a skirt for the kayak too. Every kayaker knows water goes in through the cockpit opening. A skirt helps prevent this problem. But a skirt is not without its own sets of problems because they introduce new problems. They make escaping from the kayak harder, and so when overturned with a skirt on, you need to know what to do to escape. Otherwise you are stuck upside down in the water and can drown. So, skirts are definitely not without hazards and are for more experienced professionals.
Like all things, one should never go out of one's comfort zone in outdoors sports. All sports carry risk. Some sports will require certain preparations and gear. For kayaking, some waters and some of the journey that one wishes to take, may very well ideally require a certain type of kayak and require a level of experience and a skirt. Otherwise, don't do it. I think the kinds of recreational kayaks this couple used on that journey in those waters is probably inappropriate. Not unless they had a skirt or had a water pump on board to pump water out when it gets too full. And definitely a life vest is required.
e-sherlockholmes
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2015
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 2
[Drain Plug Theory]
The prosecution's theory about the accused taking out the drain plug as a means to murder him IMO doesn't hold much water, pun intended.
Because the victim did not use a skirt for the kayak (we can tell by some of the photos of the victim kayaking), most of the water will be coming in from the cockpit opening during rough waters. Anyone who kayaks in rough waters, like in a river or in the sea or windy lakes will realize this. This is why some people use skirts for their kayak to seal it up. I can almost guarantee without a skirt on, your kayak will be getting filled with water very quickly in rough waters. When it does, it becomes even harder to paddle as the boat sinks and becomes efficient.
However, to the prosecution's credit, it is true that without the drainage plug on the kayak, it will most definitely increase the rate in which the kayak takes on water in rough waters than had the hole been properly plugged. Waves come in one after another constantly. As more time passes stuck in the water, your kayak will take on even more water. But the amount of water the drainage hole takes in will be inconsequential to the amount of water you'd take through the cockpit opening. So much so, that clearly the main contributor to one's kayak sinking has to be the cockpit opening.
That being said, the question really is about the motivations of the accused in removing the plug in the first place. What was her intent for tampering with the kayak? Was there malicious intent and malice forethought?
-Was she physically responsible for removing the plug? If so, what was her purpose and motive for doing so? Did she reasonably assume that her actions will lead to bodily harm or death of the victim? Even if there were malicious intent, is it scientifically reasonable for her actions to have actually contributed to the fatal accident?
In the interviews, the accused admitted to removing the plug a while before the day of the accident. Did she mean for her actions to eventually hurt or kill the victim? I think it was established from the interviews that she did remove the plug to mess with him? This might be enough for a manslaughter charge, which is what the prosecution is seeking. He performed an action that definitely contributed to the boat sinking (albeit having little effect) and she did so with malicious intent.
The defense should probably be focusing on countering this confession as something of a false testimony from coercion. Maybe the victim misplaced the plug himself? Or maybe accused removed the plug from a prior outing with the purposes of draining the kayak but misplaced the plug afterwards? Lots of possibilities. If we accept her current testimony and motives for removing the plug, then it might be enough for manslaughter.
Basically its no different to someone poking holes in the break lines of a vehicle so that break fluid leaks over time and that ultimately causes a driver to have a vehicular accident sometime in the future.
Overall, I think it would have been weak if the prosecution used this evidence against the accused for a second degree murder charge. Manslaughter, which is what they are now pursuing, seems possible given the evidence.
The prosecution's theory about the accused taking out the drain plug as a means to murder him IMO doesn't hold much water, pun intended.
Because the victim did not use a skirt for the kayak (we can tell by some of the photos of the victim kayaking), most of the water will be coming in from the cockpit opening during rough waters. Anyone who kayaks in rough waters, like in a river or in the sea or windy lakes will realize this. This is why some people use skirts for their kayak to seal it up. I can almost guarantee without a skirt on, your kayak will be getting filled with water very quickly in rough waters. When it does, it becomes even harder to paddle as the boat sinks and becomes efficient.
However, to the prosecution's credit, it is true that without the drainage plug on the kayak, it will most definitely increase the rate in which the kayak takes on water in rough waters than had the hole been properly plugged. Waves come in one after another constantly. As more time passes stuck in the water, your kayak will take on even more water. But the amount of water the drainage hole takes in will be inconsequential to the amount of water you'd take through the cockpit opening. So much so, that clearly the main contributor to one's kayak sinking has to be the cockpit opening.
That being said, the question really is about the motivations of the accused in removing the plug in the first place. What was her intent for tampering with the kayak? Was there malicious intent and malice forethought?
-Was she physically responsible for removing the plug? If so, what was her purpose and motive for doing so? Did she reasonably assume that her actions will lead to bodily harm or death of the victim? Even if there were malicious intent, is it scientifically reasonable for her actions to have actually contributed to the fatal accident?
In the interviews, the accused admitted to removing the plug a while before the day of the accident. Did she mean for her actions to eventually hurt or kill the victim? I think it was established from the interviews that she did remove the plug to mess with him? This might be enough for a manslaughter charge, which is what the prosecution is seeking. He performed an action that definitely contributed to the boat sinking (albeit having little effect) and she did so with malicious intent.
The defense should probably be focusing on countering this confession as something of a false testimony from coercion. Maybe the victim misplaced the plug himself? Or maybe accused removed the plug from a prior outing with the purposes of draining the kayak but misplaced the plug afterwards? Lots of possibilities. If we accept her current testimony and motives for removing the plug, then it might be enough for manslaughter.
Basically its no different to someone poking holes in the break lines of a vehicle so that break fluid leaks over time and that ultimately causes a driver to have a vehicular accident sometime in the future.
Overall, I think it would have been weak if the prosecution used this evidence against the accused for a second degree murder charge. Manslaughter, which is what they are now pursuing, seems possible given the evidence.
e-sherlockholmes
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2015
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 2
[Removing paddle ring/lock]
This theory seems idiotic to me. It almost seems like law enforcement couldn't produce enough physical evidence against her, so they are throwing the book at her with this circumstantial evidence.
Yes, if prosecution can prove the accused tampered with the paddle with malicious intent and that it is reasonable to assume doing so will lead to loss of function of the paddle. But even without the paddle ring/lock, the paddle should still functions. After all, did the victim not successfully paddle to the island location without this ring on the paddle?
At what point did the accused supposedly maliciously removed the paddle ring? Was it before the whole trip began? Or was it while the couple were on the island (half way through the trip)? If it was the former, then this theory doesn't hold much water either because the victim had already demonstrated an ability to successfully use the paddle without the ring.
This theory seems idiotic to me. It almost seems like law enforcement couldn't produce enough physical evidence against her, so they are throwing the book at her with this circumstantial evidence.
Yes, if prosecution can prove the accused tampered with the paddle with malicious intent and that it is reasonable to assume doing so will lead to loss of function of the paddle. But even without the paddle ring/lock, the paddle should still functions. After all, did the victim not successfully paddle to the island location without this ring on the paddle?
At what point did the accused supposedly maliciously removed the paddle ring? Was it before the whole trip began? Or was it while the couple were on the island (half way through the trip)? If it was the former, then this theory doesn't hold much water either because the victim had already demonstrated an ability to successfully use the paddle without the ring.
I second that idiotic. Good grief. There's no mystery here at all that I can see. An inexperienced paddler went out on a river in the wrong boat, without a life jacket, after drinking, didn't wear a skirt to cover up the cockpit hole, stayed out too late, and was in no way prepared to deal with either the cold water or the rough conditions on the river.
As a very experienced kayaker, I can't count the number of times I've had to rescue folks like him out of (warmer) water, and it was annoying every time that they hadn't bothered to do anything right to take care of themselves.
As for how cold that water was. I've capsized while paddling in water that cold and colder, and it is a fact that it doesn't take very long at all to lose control of your limbs. Fingers don't grip, legs can't kick hard enough to keep your head above water..... it is VERY easy to start to panic, which of course decreases the odds of doing what you must to stay alive.
I've wondered from the first time I read about this about that plug accusation. I assumed the reporting must have been bad, because otherwise it is one of the most ridiculous accusations I've ever heard, that the removed plug meant she murdered him. Not having his cockpit covered with a skirt while paddling with waves crashing over the boat is why his boat filled up with water. I mean...DUH.
She took the plug out? So what, even if she had taken it out just before they went out on the river. That plug is absolutely meaningless to the boat's functioning. And the ring in the paddle being removed thing is just as absurd.
I can't imagine posting happy photos on Facebook the morning after as she did, but that wasn't a crime, or evidence of a crime. Neither is feeling ambivalent about a relationship. I don't think any crime was committed, and I'll be shocked if this makes it all the way to a jury, and if it does, that she's found guilty of anything at all.
Bruises and abrasions: Evidence of nothing. He could have had those from handling the boat on and off the island, or from being hit by the boat while he was in the water, or from scraping against objects in the water while he was alive and out of the boat.
Is the suggestion that she battered him after he came out of the boat in the water? That is highly unlikely. It takes a whole lot of strength and skill to hold a boat in position, even for a very short time, on any kind of moving water, much less a river with cresting waves, and holding position requires having your paddle in the water, not using it as a weapon.
No paddler in their right mind would take off their lifejacket in that situation.
1. It doesn't help paddler 1 in distress for paddler 2 to compromise their own safety.
2. She would have to put her paddle down to take off the life vest. Put it in the water and its gone. Put it on top of the boat in cresting water and it falls off and is gone.
As for helping him with her own boat. Again, it would take an experienced and strong paddler to even make the attempt. Even best possible case and she managed to paddle right up to him in the water, there is ZERO possibility he could have pulled himself up onto her boat. That's close to impossible to do even in perfectly flat still water.
For her to rescue him she would have had to be able to paddle up to where he was- -repeatedly, and he would have had to be able to grab onto the rope loop on the end of her boat, and then been able to hold onto it for the many minutes it took for her to reach shore.
It was never possible. Hypothermia alone would have precluded him from being able to hold on, even if she could have maneuvered her boat well enough to make the attempt.
Last thought (I promise :angel: )
How is this even manslaughter? HE chose to be in that boat. HE chose not to wear a life jacket or to put a skirt on his boat. HE chose to drink, not only before, but during their river trip.
Capsizing was almost inevitable. The plug had NOTHING to do with why he capsized, not did the supposed missing ring in the paddle that he had been using the whole time they were on the river.
So, HE is responsible for ending up in the Hudson's very cold water that day.
Did she do everything she possibly could to save him? I see that as the only possibly open question in this case, and it is a very subjective question, IMO. Even if she didn't try very hard to save him (and I'm not convinced that she didn't), I don't see how that meets the definition of manslaughter, much less second degree murder.
How is this even manslaughter? HE chose to be in that boat. HE chose not to wear a life jacket or to put a skirt on his boat. HE chose to drink, not only before, but during their river trip.
Capsizing was almost inevitable. The plug had NOTHING to do with why he capsized, not did the supposed missing ring in the paddle that he had been using the whole time they were on the river.
So, HE is responsible for ending up in the Hudson's very cold water that day.
Did she do everything she possibly could to save him? I see that as the only possibly open question in this case, and it is a very subjective question, IMO. Even if she didn't try very hard to save him (and I'm not convinced that she didn't), I don't see how that meets the definition of manslaughter, much less second degree murder.
Inthedetails
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2014
- Messages
- 26,298
- Reaction score
- 164,576
I could be mistaken, but I thought she confessed to moving the oar out of his reach. ??
e-sherlockholmes
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2015
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 2
Totally agreed about the cold water.
Guy was inebriated/drunk. Inexperienced. Rough seas. Crappy kayak. No life vest. Can he swim (not that it helps much in cold waters)? Just a bad idea all around. You can tell by their choice of kayak they are a weekend warrior type. Murder would have looked more likely if he was an experienced kayaker and this happened.
Just recently there was a similar incident with drunk kayakers on the Hudson river. In that case, it was not ruled a homicide. http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loca...iver-Kayak-Death-New-York-City-321553281.html
I don't know what she actually "confessed" to about the paddle, especially since LE twisted her words about taking the plug out into an admission that she had maliciously "tampered" with his boat.
But.... context, again. His boat takes on water and becomes too unstable to control. He flips over, and comes out of the boat. The water is extremely cold, and the first moments of full immersion are literally stunning, a shock to his system.
He either held onto his paddle or let it go in those few moments. If he held onto it, there is no way she could have taken it away from him, short of hitting him hard on his head or hands with her own paddle, and neither area is where the ME found bruising or abrasions.
IMO it's clear he let go of the paddle when he first went over (common) , or after a short while, when either hypothermia made it impossible to hold onto, or when he let go of it on purpose because it served no purpose to hold onto. (What he would have reached for, if he could think clearly and follow through, was the loop at the end of his boat. Holding onto that would help him float and would have been instinct to do for any experienced paddler).
A paddle is not a flotation device. It doesn't and can't do anything to help one stay afloat or to keep yr head above water. The only reason to hold into a paddle if you've come out of yr boat in the water is because chasing it downstream is a lot of work.
Which brings up the other obvious problem with this "confession" that she moved his paddle away from him. Once he let go of his paddle, it didn't stay near him. The river current would have taken it pretty quickly downstream....no extra help required to keep it away from him, even if any purpose was served to keep it away from him, and there simply wasn't any.