GUILTY NY - Vincent Viafore, 46, Newburgh, 19 April 2015 - #2

[Hope4More]

Here is the ME opinion

The indictment alleges that Graswald intentionally killed Mr. Viafore. The allegations include that Graswald
killed her fiancé by, among other ways, removing a plug from his kayak so that it would fill with water, and
tampering with his paddle. It is also alleged that she moved the paddle away from him as he was struggling to
stay afloat with water temperatures in the 40 degree range, and failed to render him assistance including timely
calls for help.
District Attorney Hoovler thanked the New York State Police for their investigation of the case. In addition,

http://www.orangecountygov.com/file...oovler_Announces_Indictment_in_Kayak_Case.pdf

I really don't understand how prosecutors can justify charging this as homicide.

Their tampered plug and paddle assertions can easily be demolished by her defense attorney, and she can just as readily explain why she picked up his paddle, as she apparently told LE that she had.

If reporting is accurate, LE was originally satisfied that this was an accident, but changed their minds for two reasons: that she was not acting sufficiently bereaved, and because there were inconsistencies in her story.

The "inconsistencies in her story" seem to be essentially one, that she first told LE that she had exited her own boat in an attempt to save him, and later, that she had not.

I keep thinking- and hoping- that LE's suspicions are more firmly grounded than what's been reported.

She did call 911, stayed on the phone for 15 minutes, and gave the operator every reason to believe that Vincent had drowned by the end of the call.

She never told 911 she had left her boat to try to help him. What she said was that it was really windy, the waves were rough, and that she couldn't paddle to him.

There would be no reason to stage a jumping into the water after the call. Why bother? And no reason to claim she jumped in during the call...as that would be an impossibility.

If she said she jumped in before she made the call I can understand why LE would find that curious....it raises the great big question of how she managed to get back in the boat, not to mention , to get back in the boat AND to keep the struggling Vincent in eyesight.

Don't know why she would make that claim (if she did), but one possible reason is that she felt guilty about not being able to rescue him and blamed herself for not doing enough, which IMO is a perfectly understandable response (though lying about it....not so much).

 

[JerseyGirl]

If she did intend to kill him, why did she call 911? If it were me (just sayin'), I think I would have tossed my cellphone in the Hudson and, when eventually rescued, I would say that during the time I was trying to save him my phone fell in the water and I couldn't call. Why bother with a phone call and be scrutinized by it after the fact?

 

[DexterMorgan]

I agree that they confused her language barrier. English is her 2nd language and they tried to twist everything. Just imagine being interviewed for 18hrs in a foreign country where you are speaking a 2nd language. Certain meanings of phrases are different and LE exploited that.

Jmo. The defense should have gotten that interview tossed out. And they should show jurors that the plug didn't cause this and that she thought the bf had the plug put in before going out on the water days later.

 

[Hope4More]

So, in NY involuntary manslaughter is called "second degree manslaughter, " and the accused need not have deliberately caused the death of her victim.

Perhaps prosecutors will argue that :

Even if one doesn't believe she deliberately tampered with his boat or paddle in order to harm or kill him, that she should still be found guilty of second degree manslaughter, because of her alleged inaction and delayed actions.

As in, she saw him in the ice cold water, struggling. By her own account she says Vincent told her that he didn't think he was going to make it. Rather than calling 911 at that point, she told him "pfft, of course you will," and delayed calling for many more minutes.

She also told LE that she had gone into the river to help him, when she had not (which she later admitted); she either capsized or threw herself in fully 20 plus minutes later, when she saw rescue boats heading towards her.

By her own admission she was close enough to Vincent, after he capsized, to be able to converse with him, and yet she told 911 that it was too windy and the water too rough for her to be able to reach him by paddling.

Her lies about trying to assist him indicate a consciousness of guilt. And the extremely long and deadly delay in calling 911 indicates that she had no intention of helping Vincent, that she was instead "euphoric," as she's stated, that he was dying, and that she would be free of him.

Her failure to assist him, when she knew he would die if she did not, meets the definition of second degree manslaughter.

 

[wfgodot]

CBS:

Making facts fit the theory in N.Y. kayak murder case?

CORNWALL-ON-HUDSON, N.Y. -- "It is capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

These words, spoken by the fictional detective Sherlock Holmes back in the late 1800s, aptly describe the first missteps taken by police during an investigation that ultimately leads to a wrongful conviction. These words also describe the reason behind why Angelika Graswald sits in jail, charged with murder.
---

the rest at the link

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

So, in NY involuntary manslaughter is called "second degree manslaughter, " and the accused need not have deliberately caused the death of her victim.

Perhaps prosecutors will argue that :

Even if one doesn't believe she deliberately tampered with his boat or paddle in order to harm or kill him, that she should still be found guilty of second degree manslaughter, because of her alleged inaction and delayed actions.

As in, she saw him in the ice cold water, struggling. By her own account she says Vincent told her that he didn't think he was going to make it. Rather than calling 911 at that point, she told him "pfft, of course you will," and delayed calling for many more minutes.

She also told LE that she had gone into the river to help him, when she had not (which she later admitted); she either capsized or threw herself in fully 20 plus minutes later, when she saw rescue boats heading towards her.

By her own admission she was close enough to Vincent, after he capsized, to be able to converse with him, and yet she told 911 that it was too windy and the water too rough for her to be able to reach him by paddling.

Her lies about trying to assist him indicate a consciousness of guilt. And the extremely long and deadly delay in calling 911 indicates that she had no intention of helping Vincent, that she was instead "euphoric," as she's stated, that he was dying, and that she would be free of him.

Her failure to assist him, when she knew he would die if she did not, meets the definition of second degree manslaughter.

I don't think there is a legal duty to assist, and certainly not if assisting means putting yourself at risk.

I can't imagine what the prosecution is thinking.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Lilibet]

CBS:

Making facts fit the theory in N.Y. kayak murder case?


the rest at the link

Thanks. Very interesting. Here is more on Jim Trainum. It appears he learned about false confessions the hard way and took the lesson to heart eventually.

http://www.businessinsider.com/this-american-life-interviews-jim-trainum-2013-10

But when his first false confession heard his interview, she sued him and the PD. I wonder how it will play out with AG. It seems that AG has gone through something similar. Of course, we still don't know if there is other damning evidence. I'm beginning to doubt it. JMO

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/...merican-life-revelations-of-false-confession/

 

[Hope4More]

I don't think there is a legal duty to assist, and certainly not if assisting means putting yourself at risk.

I can't imagine what the prosecution is thinking.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Based on what's been made public so far, IMO they seem to be assuming rather than thinking, sadly.

 

[e-sherlockholmes]

So, in NY involuntary manslaughter is called "second degree manslaughter, " and the accused need not have deliberately caused the death of her victim.

Perhaps prosecutors will argue that :

Even if one doesn't believe she deliberately tampered with his boat or paddle in order to harm or kill him, that she should still be found guilty of second degree manslaughter, because of her alleged inaction and delayed actions.

As in, she saw him in the ice cold water, struggling. By her own account she says Vincent told her that he didn't think he was going to make it. Rather than calling 911 at that point, she told him "pfft, of course you will," and delayed calling for many more minutes.

She also told LE that she had gone into the river to help him, when she had not (which she later admitted); she either capsized or threw herself in fully 20 plus minutes later, when she saw rescue boats heading towards her.

By her own admission she was close enough to Vincent, after he capsized, to be able to converse with him, and yet she told 911 that it was too windy and the water too rough for her to be able to reach him by paddling.

Her lies about trying to assist him indicate a consciousness of guilt. And the extremely long and deadly delay in calling 911 indicates that she had no intention of helping Vincent, that she was instead "euphoric," as she's stated, that he was dying, and that she would be free of him.

Her failure to assist him, when she knew he would die if she did not, meets the definition of second degree manslaughter.

At one point of brainstorming, I was thinking about this theory being a possibility too.

The victim may have capsized the kayak and fell into the water on his own.

Maybe the suspect kinda wanted him gone or she was angry at him, or whatever it was, simply didn't go and save him right away. Maybe she chose to let him suffer a bit. But things got serious. Water was cold. The suspect might not have known how fast it was until the suspect's muscles seized in the cold water and couldn't swim anymore. The suspect drowned very quickly. Perhaps the suspect then feels guilty over not helping him. Maybe the suspect also realizes it looks guilty on her part too. Maybe at that point, the suspect jumps into the water to make it seem like she couldn't have done anything because she couldn't even help herself.

And if this theory is true, not saving someone is not a manslaughter case though.

 

[Colie]

Seems like Angelika just likes to talk . Keep it up baby. So we maybe be hearing more from her.

This is one of the papers that limits the # of articles.

Graswald back in court, accused of violating gag order

emailprintCOMMENT 0 1
Angelika Graswald in Orange County Court with her lawyer, Richard Portale, for arguments over a proposed gag order.HEATHER YAKIN/Times Herald-Record | Angelika Graswald in Orange County Court with her lawyer, Richard Portale, for arguments over a proposed gag order. Graswald faces second-degree murder and other charges in the drowning death of her fiancé, Vincent Viafore, as they Kayaked on the Hudson River.
Posted Oct. 1, 2015 at 3:15 PM
Updated Oct 1, 2015 at 3:19 PM

GOSHEN -- Angelika Graswald and her lawyer were back in Orange County Court after prosecutors accused them of violating an agreement to stop airing the case in the media because Graswald was scheduled to sit down with an ABC news show.
Graswald is facing second-degree murder charges in the drowning death of her fiancé, Vincent Viafore, as they kayaked in April on he Hudson River. The defense maintains that his death was accidental. Prosecutors say she tampered with his equipment to cause him to capsize and drown. The case has attracted international media attention.[modsnip]

http://www.recordonline.com/article/20151001/NEWS/151009915

 

[cutter99]

The prosecutors should be crapping their pants about Angelika talking to the media. Every time she does, it just goes to show their attempts to railroad her!

The CBS story did absolutely nothing to help the prosecutor's case. The video of her supposed "confession" alone made the investigating officers look like they were leading her and did not portray them in any positive light whatsoever.

I bet they wanted a gag order. I bet they wanted it very badly!

 

[wfgodot]

The prosecutors should be crapping their pants about Angelika talking to the media. Every time she does, it just goes to show their attempts to railroad her!

The CBS story did absolutely nothing to help the prosecutor's case. The video of her supposed "confession" alone made the investigating officers look like they were leading her and did not portray them in any positive light whatsoever.

I bet they wanted a gag order. I bet they wanted it very badly!

Exactly. I suppose it's appropriate, given its setting, that the prosecution's case smells as fishy as it certainly, at this point, does. No wonder it wants to control the chumming of the waters of the jury pool.

 

[cutter99]

After watching the video of Angelika's interrogation and seeing how her body language changes over the ridiculous amount of time she is interrogated, I would be concerned if I were involved in that interrogation in any way. You can see her becoming physically tired over time- I can only imagine what her mental state is like.

Interestingly enough, this month's (October) Reader's Digest has a story about a man who made a false confession to a murder after similar interrogation tactics. It is titled "I Confess". http://www.rd.com/culture/two-men-confess-murder/

 

[JerseyGirl]

"The media turned this into a confession," Portale argued, and 200 million viewers saw TV coverage of those press conferences. "In fact, after an 11-hour interrogation, she didn't confess to killing Vincent Viafore. She never did.”

She has been meeting with ABC - no cameras, no microphones, just talking - since July, Portale said, because she wants people to know she’s not a killer.

Freehill said he wouldn't gag Graswald, but Portale is barred from being there to steer the conversation.

http://www.recordonline.com/article/20151001/NEWS/151009915

 

[Hope4More]

"The media turned this into a confession," Portale argued, and 200 million viewers saw TV coverage of those press conferences. "In fact, after an 11-hour interrogation, she didn't confess to killing Vincent Viafore. She never did.”

She has been meeting with ABC - no cameras, no microphones, just talking - since July, Portale said, because she wants people to know she’s not a killer.

Freehill said he wouldn't gag Graswald, but Portale is barred from being there to steer the conversation.

http://www.recordonline.com/article/20151001/NEWS/151009915

The prosecution is complaining about HER talking to the media? The same folks who released all that info about her "guilt" and who the few minutes of incriminating responses she gave in a many hours long interrogation?

That takes some serious chutzpah ...

 

[frisson]

The prosecution is complaining about HER talking to the media? The same folks who released all that info about her "guilt" and who the few minutes of incriminating responses she gave in a many hours long interrogation?

That takes some serious chutzpah ...

I think she is guilty.

 

[Niner]

So - wasn't there a hearing on October 6th? Anything "new" on this case?

TIA!

 

[Renee110]

ditto.. on is there no anything new on this case?

 

[JerseyGirl]

So - wasn't there a hearing on October 6th? Anything "new" on this case?

TIA!

Conferences in the case are next scheduled for October 16.

http://www.newsweek.com/vince-viafore-kayaker-autopsy-homicide-371066

 

[wfgodot]

Poughkeepsie Journal:

Wrongful death suit against Graswald may follow criminal trial

Cart before the horse; is it a signal they fear she'll be found innocent in a criminal trial and will thus seek their pound of flesh (as it were) via a civil case??

Long article, worth a look.