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

[JerseyGirl]

I could be mistaken, but I thought she confessed to moving the oar out of his reach. ??

I don't know if she confessed to that or not, but I do remember the telescope couple (or gentlemen) said they "witnessed" her pushing the oar away from him in the water.

IMHO, if the waves were choppy and the winds picked up, I could see her try to use her paddle to move his paddle closer and it could appear to the couple from THEIR distance that with currents and waves it may have looked like she was pushing it away.

But I thought I heard in the 48 HOURS report that she eventually got his paddle and attached it to her kayak and tried to paddle towards him. I could be mistaken...

 

[e-sherlockholmes]

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.

If we entertain the idea that the accused is guilty of murder, I think the prosecution would have to come up with a better theory than her keeping the drainage hole opened.

Did she flip his kayak over? Did she splash water into his kayak cockpit to fill him up? Did she knock him out with the paddle? Was he drugged up (beyond alcohol)? Did she use her paddle to keep him underwater from afar once he fell into the water? These links would have made for a more convincing murder case if they could prove such.

 

[e-sherlockholmes]

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.

To the prosecution's point, I can see their rationale for seeking manslaughter charges. It goes into her motives and her malice forethought.

Whether or not we agree that the unplugged drainage hole had the ability to sink the kayak, its actually more important to analyze what she thought.

If the accused thought opening the drainage hole can lead to higher likelihood of the victim's kayak sinking, then she had malicious intent to harm.

Can we then prove that she indeed tampered with the kayak?

Can we show that she recognizes opening the drainage hole increases the odds of water filling in the kayak?

Can we then prove that having the drainage hole unplugged increases the rate in which a kayak takes on water in rough seas?

I think the prosecution can prove all of this based on her testimony and based on the physical evidence. She admitted to tampering with the kayak. She admitted to doing so to mess with the victim. Furthermore, even as it is highly inconsequential, the fact is having the drainage hole open does contribute slightly to the kayak taking on more water.

Hence the manslaughter charge. When they were seeking the second degree murder charge, I thought that was pushing it. Manslaughter? Maybe they have a better chance of a case here.

 

[Hope4More]

Adding. Another allegation is that she took too long to call 911 after he capsized. That's an entirely subjective judgement, IMO. Neither of them had experience with cold water kayaking. If they had, he would never have gone out that day without a life jacket and without wearing a wetsuit.

If you don't know the risks of hypothermia, you don't know that full exposure to water that cold is an emergency situation. Paddlers flip all the time, and novice paddlers aren't particularly good at getting back into their boats in the middle of a river.

It seems reasonable to me that it took her awhile to realize he couldn't get back in the boat, and how bad the situation really was.

 

[e-sherlockholmes]

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.

Agreed. I think the defense can counter some of those points.

-It was a coerced confession.

-Perhaps her confession about opening the drainage hole on his kayak meant she used it to drain the kayak following another prior outing. She simply used the drainage hole as intended. And then the plug got misplaced. Lost. Then they went back out to sea recently without the plug. It was an unintentional mistake.

-Perhaps her confession about wanting him 'gone' was related to their rocky relationship. Kinda like kicking your spouse out of the bedroom to sleep on the couch after an argument; that kind of 'gone'. Not 'dead', citing language problems (she's Latvian).

-She was further downstream to his position, so it was extra hard for her to paddle against the current to save him in time.

 

[Lilibet]

I have never understood why people who say they are innocent confess to crimes, no matter how much pressure is placed on them. That doesn't excuse lengthy and high-pressure questioning tactics, but how can anyone think "giving LE what they want" is wise if they are innocent? Even if you don't know your rights, silence would be better than a false confession IMO. It just doesn't make sense to me. I would rather endure physical abuse than confess to something I didn't do. I don't mean to sound judgemental. I am sincerely curious. Am I missing something here?

Heading off to google false confessions...

 

[Hope4More]

To the prosecution's point, I can see their rationale for seeking manslaughter charges. It goes into her motives and her malice forethought.

Whether or not we agree that the unplugged drainage hole had the ability to sink the kayak, its actually more important to analyze what she thought.

If the accused thought opening the drainage hole can lead to higher likelihood of the victim's kayak sinking, then she had malicious intent to harm.

Can we then prove that she indeed tampered with the kayak?

Can we show that she recognizes opening the drainage hole increases the odds of water filling in the kayak?

Can we then prove that having the drainage hole unplugged increases the rate in which a kayak takes on water in rough seas?

I think the prosecution can prove all of this based on her testimony and based on the physical evidence. She admitted to tampering with the kayak. She admitted to doing so to mess with the victim. Furthermore, even as it is highly inconsequential, the fact is having the drainage hole open does contribute slightly to the kayak taking on more water.

Hence the manslaughter charge. When they were seeking the second degree murder charge, I thought that was pushing it. Manslaughter? Maybe they have a better chance of a case here.

It is impossible to overstate just how meaningless that plug is. She seems to have told LE she removed it from his kayak at an earlier time, for whatever reason. I saw the snippet of out of context interrogation during which LE is trying to get her to say she removed it out of malice.

I'm sorry, but whole notion of removed plug as evidence of murder is just silly. Let's say she did want to kill him on that kayak trip, and her plans included having his boat fill up with water so that he was forced out of the boat and into the water. BTW....kayaks don't sink, period, unless they are smashed into pieces, so if she wanted the boat to fill up with water it wasn't to have him sink.

If she wanted to make sure the boat filled up with water she would have convinced him to not put a skirt on, and to make sure he drowned, to not wear a jacket.

But...he would have had to agree.

 

[Hope4More]

I have never understood why people who say they are innocent confess to crimes, no matter how much pressure is placed on them. That doesn't excuse lengthy and high-pressure questioning tactics, but how can anyone think "giving LE what they want" is wise if they are innocent? Even if you don't know your rights, silence would be better than a false confession IMO. It just doesn't make sense to me. I would rather endure physical abuse than confess to something I didn't do. I don't mean to sound judgemental. I am sincerely curious. Am I missing something here?

Heading off to google false confessions...

I'm not sure she DID confess to either intentionally trying to harm him or to not trying to save him. The interrogation went on for 12 hours or so, right? And only a few minutes of it have been made public.

From what I've read, she actually continually said she did NOT want him dead, and that she wanted to marry him and have kids with him, though she sometimes felt stressed and unhappy with his alleged sexual demands and sometimes controlling/jealous behavior.

I've also read that 6 or more hours in she started agreeing with LE's leading questions, and that she may have done so because she just wanted to get out of that room. Stranger things have happened, especially if she had tried for 6 hours to tell them truths they simply refused to believe.

 

[JerseyGirl]

Can we then prove that she indeed tampered with the kayak?

No, she claimed she removed the plug months before the incident - in the winter -- when her kitten was playing with it. (in the 48 HOURS episode they went to a quick picture of the cat sitting inside the kayak's hull, meaning, yes, the cat did sometimes play in there.)

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/interrogation-video-raises-key-questions-in-new-york-kayak-murder-case/

 

[Lilibet]

I'm not sure she DID confess to either intentionally trying to harm him or to not trying to save him. The interrogation went on for 12 hours or so, right? And only a few minutes of it have been made public.

From what I've read, she actually continually said she did NOT want him dead, and that she wanted to marry him and have kids with him, though she sometimes felt stressed and unhappy with his alleged sexual demands and sometimes controlling/jealous behavior.

I've also read that 6 or more hours in she started agreeing with LE's leading questions, and that she may have done so because she just wanted to get out of that room. Stranger things have happened, especially if she had tried for 6 hours to tell them truths they simply refused to believe.

Thanks for your input. I'm back from googling (always educational) and I see what you are saying. I try not to base my opinions on what I think I would do in a situation, so it's instructive to read why and how often false confessions happen. I had no idea. From the lengthy "False Confession" article on Wikipedia...

According to the Innocence Project, approximately 25% of convicted criminals ultimately exonerated had, in fact, confessed to the crime.[SUP][4][/SUP] In Canada, courts of law have recognized as valid confessions that were acquired, even though the interrogators lied by suggesting they had substantial evidence against a given suspect when in fact they did not, something known as the "bluff" technique.[SUP][5][/SUP] The high pressure generated may push innocent individuals to produce a confession.[SUP][6][/SUP]

• Compliant false confessions are given to escape a stressful situation, avoid punishment, or gain a promised or implied reward. An example is the setting of a police interrogation; these are often conducted in stark rooms with no windows or objects other than a table and two chairs. For suspects, the room becomes reality, and this creates serious mental exhaustion for the individual being questioned. After enough time suspects may confess to crimes they did not commit to escape what feels like a helpless situation. Interrogation techniques such as the Reid technique try to suggest to the suspect that they will experience a feeling of moral appeasement if they choose to confess. Material rewards like coffee or the cessation of the interrogation are also used to the same effect. People may also confess to a crime they did not commit as a form of plea bargaining to avoid a harsher sentence. People who are easily coerced score high on the Gudjonsson suggestibility scale.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_confession

 

[e-sherlockholmes]

It is impossible to overstate just how meaningless that plug is. She seems to have told LE she removed it from his kayak at an earlier time, for whatever reason. I saw the snippet of out of context interrogation during which LE is trying to get her to say she removed it out of malice.

I'm sorry, but whole notion of removed plug as evidence of murder is just silly. Let's say she did want to kill him on that kayak trip, and her plans included having his boat fill up with water so that he was forced out of the boat and into the water. BTW....kayaks don't sink, period, unless they are smashed into pieces, so if she wanted the boat to fill up with water it wasn't to have him sink.

If she wanted to make sure the boat filled up with water she would have convinced him to not put a skirt on, and to make sure he drowned, to not wear a jacket.

But...he would have had to agree.

To law enforcement, the analogy here is like someone poking holes into the break lines of a vehicle so that fluid leaks over time. It tampering. And if this tampering contributed to deterioration or loss of functioning of the vehicle causing injury or death, then the tamperer committed a crime. Even if the breaks somewhat worked at the time of an accident.

To the prosecutors, they are probably more interested in what she thinks and her motives. Everyone has different levels of intelligence and analytical skills. Even if there were other methods to murder him, maybe this was the best she came up with while being at arms length with reasonable doubt to her benefit. Maybe she didn't want to murder him immediately. Maybe she is on the fence about it. Maybe she wanted to toy with him as a form of manipulation. Maybe the prosecution thinks she is a psycho out to get him by planting little seeds of destruction and seeing if they finally materialize or not.

An analogy is: its like how historically, some killers by long term poisoning have been shown to play around with the dosage and type of poison they administer to their victims. They are sociopaths. Theses killers would put the victim in different dangerous situations to see if any harm, destruction or death ensues. Its a sick game by these psychopaths. They are more interested in watching the response of their victims. They plant seeds of destruction and put their victims in harms way, as they watch and observe to see if anything bad actually happens. I don't think this is what is happening here, but the prosecutors probably think she planned and hoped something bad would happen, though she didn't outright do the deed.

 

[Hope4More]

To law enforcement, the analogy here is like someone poking holes into the break lines of a vehicle so that fluid leaks over time. It tampering. And if this tampering contributed to deterioration or loss of functioning of the vehicle causing injury or death, then the tamperer committed a crime. Even if the breaks somewhat worked at the time of an accident.

To the prosecutors, they are probably more interested in what she thinks and her motives. Everyone has different levels of intelligence and analytical skills. Even if there were other methods to murder him, maybe this was the best she came up with while being at arms length with reasonable doubt to her benefit. Maybe she didn't want to murder him immediately. Maybe she is on the fence about it. Maybe she wanted to toy with him as a form of manipulation. Maybe the prosecution thinks she is a psycho out to get him by planting little seeds of destruction and seeing if they finally materialize or not.

Its like how historically, some killers by long term poisoning have been shown to play around with the dosage and type of poison they administer to their victims. They are sociopaths. Theses killers would put the victim in different dangerous situations to see if any harm, destruction or death ensues. Its a sick game by these psychopaths. They are more interested in watching the response of their victims. They plant seeds of destruction and put their victims in harms way, as they watch and observe to see if anything bad actually happens.

LE can think like that all they want, but thinking isn't proving. It's also possible she took the plug out because she didn't want her cat to play with it and possible hide it where it could never be found, like one of my cats did with our bath plugs until we learned to chain them down.

 

[e-sherlockholmes]

No, she claimed she removed the plug months before the incident - in the winter -- when her kitten was playing with it. (in the 48 HOURS episode they went to a quick picture of the cat sitting inside the kayak's hull, meaning, yes, the cat did sometimes play in there.)

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/interrogation-video-raises-key-questions-in-new-york-kayak-murder-case/

Yeah I heard that while I was watching the 48 hours documentary. I didn't understand it though. Why would you open the plug if the cat wanted to play inside? Do cats know to manipulate the plug? Can they eat it? That makes little sense to me.

I would ask: Where is the kayak stored? How is it stored? (Mine for example is hoisted to the ceiling and upside down) Is the kayak just sitting willy nilly on the floor of the garage? How often does the cat chill out in the garage so much so you open the plug on the kayak? And how does opening the plug help the cat play anyway (I still don't understand)?

I meant, maybe if the defense can come up with a different theory for why she took the plug out. It wasn't just for the cat (which is a theory that doesn't seem to make sense and juries will think she made it up thus she will lose credibility). They can maybe explain that yes she opened it, but it was for draining the kayak, and served a dual purpose for helping the cat play, so she kept it unplugged in storage.

 

[e-sherlockholmes]

LE can think like that all they want, but thinking isn't proving. It's also possible she took the plug out because she didn't want her cat to play with it and possible hide it where it could never be found, like one of my cats did with our bath plugs until we learned to chain them down.

What about the other kayak? That one must have a plug too. If that other kayak (her kayak) has the plug secure on, the prosecution can ask why her kayak has the plug but his does not. Does the cat only play in one kayak and not the other?

Can the defense prove that the cat knows to target and play with the plug? The plug is also threaded and screwed on. It's not like other push pull kinds of plugs. It takes some dexterity and intelligence to manipulate by a cat. That doesn't mean the owner might not remove it anyway out of an abundance of caution.

I think her testimony though is what is working against her.

 

[Hope4More]

What I'm most looking forward to hearing is the ME's reasoning for concluding this was a homicide. I can't believe that reasoning is based solely on a missing boat plug.

The bruises and abrasions, then? That 2" abrasion needs to be consistent with being jabbed by a paddle, and the bruising on his left upper torso and arm? That I can't even conjecture up a likely malicious explanation for......

 

[Lilibet]

It sounds like the attorneys may be going for a "kitty defense." :cat:

 

[Hope4More]

What about the other kayak? That one must have a plug too. If that other kayak (her kayak) has the plug secure on, the prosecution can ask why her kayak has the plug but his does not. Does the cat only play in one kayak and not the other?

Can the defense prove that the cat knows to target and play with the plug? The plug is also threaded and screwed on. It's not like other push pull kinds of plugs. It takes some dexterity and intelligence to manipulate by a cat. That doesn't mean the owner might not remove it anyway out of an abundance of caution.

I think her testimony though is what is working against her.

Ok. I'll play defense team here.

He carried his own kayak from house to car, yes? Tied the boats onto a car? Carried his boat from the car to the river? Paddled for some long time before getting out on the island? Pulled his own boat out of the water onto the island? Launched his own boat from the island back into the water?

Ok.

How likely is it, then, that he never noticed that plug was missing ?

And, how significant could that missing plug possibly be, given that he was on the water for an extended time without the missing plug causing him to take on water, whether he was aware it was missing or not?


So... these charges against her rest upon her taking out a plug which wasn't the cause of the victim capsizing, of her tampering with his paddle, even though the missing ring had no effect whatsoever on his ability to use that paddle, and of her taking his paddle away from him after he capsized, even though that paddle doesn't work as a flotation device and was of no use to him whatsoever, unlike the seat cushion that DID serve as a flotation device that he was holding onto that she didn't attempt to remove?

 

[BunnyHop]

By chance, I happened to catch 48 hours that night.
IIRC, her previous bail was 3 Million, now it's 9 Million.

I seem to recall a clip from the show, that showed his car with the kayak on top.
There was only one boat, somehow, that stuck in my mind. Anyone else notice that?

 

[wfgodot]

o/t again a bit, but another guy drowns/woman survives recent kayak tale:

Body of missing kayaker found in Buffalo Bayou, Texas EquuSearch says

 

[Colie]

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