“Any experienced paddler wears a P.F.D. all the time, every time, period... You would never see a professional paddler without it, whether you’re on a pond or in the Mediterranean. It’s a big deal.”The main evidence against the woman seems to be her statement that "it felt good knowing he was going to die." If you had deviously set up that boating accident in advance, wouldn't you shut up about that? Of course those who commit premeditated murder feel good when the scheme plays out as planned. But these cold-blooded evildoers are trying to get away with it, to make it look like an accident. Why, after all that planning and the satisfaction of seeing things go according to plan, would you blow it by talking? It's easy for the defense lawyer to give a different spin to "it felt good knowing he was going to die." This poor, traumatized woman was grasping at an explanation: Why did this happen? In a crazed state of mind, witnessing the struggle and the inevitable death that grasped at the poor man, she arrived at the notion that it was good. It's all good. Everything happens for a reason. It was his time. He died doing what he loved. That's how ordinary people come to terms with death.
Other mistakes included the outerwear the couple wore and the vessels they were in. Until mid-May, when the Hudson’s water temperature reaches 60 degrees, experienced kayakers wear either a dry suit or a wet suit. The couple wore neither...
[T]hose kayaks, experts says, were probably the least suited to conditions on the Hudson.... “White-water kayaks are short, and there’s little or no flotation... It’s the worst choice for the Hudson.”...
Some white-water kayaks have drain plugs... Mr. Viafore’s plug was in the couple’s apartment and that it had been pulled out of the kayak some time ago. In theory, a missing plug would not cause the kayak to flood since the hole is small...
UPDATE, May 25, 2015: "The body was discovered just north of the United States Military Academy at West Point on Saturday, not far from where the couple launched their kayaks. The body was transferred to the Orange County morgue, where an autopsy was planned. No official statement has been issued by the medical examiner."
Posts
45 comments:
A whitewater kayak? The guy died of stupid.
"Evildoers"? You sound like Bush all of a sudden.
“Vincent went out to the island in those waters, at that time of day, with no life vest and no plug and a few beers,”
Hold my beer! Watch this!
So, if she did plan this and then made that statement, would that make her the world's stupidest murderer?
I disagree with your comparison of the statement that she "felt good he was going to die" is the same as people finding solace by saying that someone died doing what they loved (or that everything happens for a purpose.) I clicked through the links and see that English isn't her native language though, so I suppose it's possible that she was awkwardly expressing some sentiment like that. The link also says she knew she was the beneficiary of his life insurance policy and that she had talked about what she would do with the money, so....
I wonder if the her utterance was recorded and the context of the statement. Other than that, there is no real evidence.
Once the scenario? Her fiance was stupid and she took advantage of his stupidity by turning over his kayak?
She didn't place his dead body in the kayak did she?
1) They kayaked with the kayaks they owned, whether appropriate or not. Was she in a long one and he was in a white water version? No.
2) The drain plug is on the top and it is small. If it is so choppy that water can get in, then it is bad enough to roll the boat completely over.
3) Are their photos of him kayaking without a PFD on previous occasions? This would be an indication of his recklessness.
4) Did she have a dry suit?
I see a very weak case.
I'm not sure what a 'professional kayaker' is, but no, experienced kayakers don't all wear PFDs at all times in all conditions.
But, that said, to go out in waters that cold without a wet or dry-suit is really stupid. And personally, I won't go offshore in big water in a sit-inside kayak at all, even if it is a sea-kayak. I'll stick with the sit-on-top sea kayak -- stable, self-bailing, and I know I can climb back aboard. I can live with it being a little slower.
f you had deviously set up that boating accident in advance, wouldn't you shut up about that?
This is an argument that never works.
Once one has begun carrying out a plan to actually kill someone, the normal person's ability to understand/predict one's thinking/behavior is hugely diminished.
"If you were going to do x, why would you do y?" Doesn't have a natural, logical answer when most of us would never, ever do x.
would that make her the world's stupidest murderer
It is my understanding that many murderers are stupid.
I still don't understand how this guy making a series of dumb decisions is murder. Unless she pushed him in. Is there any evidence of that?
Ann was just mocking the "master criminal" defense and now she's endorsing it?
The English-as-a-second-language + grief + reckless-husband defense is plenty good enough here.
If Vincent Viafore was an experienced kayaker:
Though the police described the couple as experienced kayakers
And
“Any experienced paddler wears a P.F.D. all the time, every time, period
Therefore it follows that Vincent Viafore must have had on a P.F.D.
But...
Mr. Viafore, 46, whose body has yet to be recovered, did not have a life jacket, the police said.
How do they know that if his body was not recovered?
They didn't both leave it home, because Angelika Graswald had one on.
Is it the contention here that she persuaded him somehow not to wear a life jacket? (by say, "forgetting" hers and having him give her his?)
It's a proven scientific fact that the criminal always returns to the scene of the crime.
This is a case for Laslo:
"According to the news report, Ms. Graswald said the police found her diary, in which she had written that Mr. Viafore wanted to have a sexual threesome and that she wished he were dead. She said she had written that in a momentary flash of anger and did not mean it. She also said the police thought she had tampered with Mr. Viafore’s kayak, which has been recovered."
"it felt good knowing he was going to die.".....That's how ordinary people come to terms with death.
Uh, what? I'll accept that some people say odd things that don't come across as they are intended in extraordinarily stressful circumstances. But to describe this reasoning as "ordinary" isn't a stretch, it's a Knievelesque setup over a gaping chasm. There's no plausible set of steps from one place to the other.
Agree with Maybee the reasoning is flawed. Killing someone for money is already stupid because cops investigate based on motive. If you have an obvious motive to have killed a murder victim you're more likely to be wrongly convicted than you are wrongly exonerated. So claiming any particular action is too stupid to have occurred isn't compelling.
Also for Laslo: "A native Latvian, she also speaks Russian and still struggles with English, he said."
Although I have not been able to find reference to the incident in a quick look at the web, I vaguely recall that back in the late 70's or early 80's, 2 young women took a kayak into Narragansett Bay off Rhode Island during an approaching hurricane...and lost their lives. They may have been students of the URI Marine Biology program. The incredibly questionable judgement was stunning, but maybe it was akin to the surfers who run out into storms to catch the good waves. At any rate, those rocky waters up there are nothing to mess with on a bad day, and it is hard to imagine that anyone would have honestly felt up to that challenge.
"Ann was just mocking the "master criminal" defense and now she's endorsing it?"
Well, good point, but let's examine it.
In the case we talked about yesterday, a woman killed her son and carved him up into pieces to dispose of the body. She claimed there was a man who coerced her to do all that, and her lawyer said it would be stupid to say that if it wasn't true, so you should believe it precisely because it's such a terrible excuse. She did the acts though, and she's trying to recharacterize the meaning of the acts. Some man made her do it.
In this kayak case, we don't know exactly how the man died and we don't even have his body to examine, but the prosecution is only claiming that he died in a boating incident in which we know that he did about 5 very stupid things (described in the article) that can account for his death. The ONLY thing that seems to be turning it into murder is evidence not of the woman's actions but of her mental state, and I'm saying it would be stupid to have said that if indeed she were the sort of person who had set up the accident and seen her premeditated plan succeed. That is, she would have needed to be someone capable of planning all that, very devious. Would that same person unnecessarily blurt out a confession when she didn't need to, when the plan had succeeded?
In the first case, the prosecution met its burden of proof, presumably in part using the old inference that people mean the consequences of their actions. Her ridiculous story did not raise a reasonable doubt.
In the second case, we have no action, just a shred of evidence of state of mind relating to knowledge that the man died. The prosecution needs to try to meet its heavy burden by using that to raise an inference that she performed the action that caused his death, even where we have evidence galore that he died in what was an accident.
but no, experienced kayakers don't all wear PFDs at all times in all conditions.
Most of the experienced kayakers in my kayak club don't wear a PDF in the summer (this is in a fjord). I always wear it except if it's very warm, in which case I keep in the kayak.
Seriously?
What does a woman have to do before you will blame her for her actions and make her responsible for them?
Some man made her do it.
Isn't that every woman's defense, every time?
I get that there doesn't appear to be enough evidence at this point, but still think it sounds like a good bit of circumstantial evidence that may weigh against her if so e other (physical) evidence comes to light.
I don't think the analysis works, to say that she had to have been clever to come up with the plan so then wouldn't have said something that sounds like a confession. There could be any number of reasons for that congruence, including stress (maybe she is good at planning in advance but not in thinking on her feet), guilty conscience, or overconfidence/ hubris.
It's easy for the defense lawyer to give a different spin to "it felt good knowing he was going to die."
Seriously?
If I hear of somebody's death in an accident and say "good riddance" but had no potential to be involved in the death, there's reasonable doubt.
If I say "good riddance" and had access to the equipment they were using at the time of their death, things get hazier rather quickly.
And removing a drain plug is not, as a friend of mine likes to say, rocket surgery.
*incongruence*
Most of the experienced kayakers in my kayak club don't wear a PDF in the summer (this is in a fjord). I always wear it except if it's very warm, in which case I keep in the kayak.
Yep. If it's warm enough that you'd swim in the water (and you're a good swimmer), why would you always wear a PFD when kayaking? In case you accidentally whack yourself on the head with the paddle as you fall out of the boat?
There's not much in that story to justify charging her with murder. Either they left out an important detail or the prosecutor is trying to help Ms. Graswold cope with her near-widowhood by leaving his municipality open to a major lawsuit for malicious prosecution.
Although I have not been able to find reference to the incident in a quick look at the web, I vaguely recall that back in the late 70's or early 80's, 2 young women took a kayak into Narragansett Bay off Rhode Island during an approaching hurricane...and lost their lives.
This kind of thing happens around here in the Great Lakes quite often. Here are some incidents from just the last couple of months:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/opinion/ct-ptb-icy-water-capsize-st-0419-20150417-column.html
http://www.windsorsquare.ca/archives/82835/kayakers-rescued-from-detroit-river
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2015/04/cadillac_man_treated_for_hypot.html
If it's warm enough that you'd swim in the water (and you're a good swimmer), why would you always wear a PFD when kayaking? In case you accidentally whack yourself on the head with the paddle as you fall out of the boat?
Do people get stuck in their kayaks when they have that spray thing on? That's about the only reason I could think of.
I mean, it's good safety practice to wear your life jacket on boats and in boats and all that, but how many people do?
Of course, I don't go out kayaking on the ocean so I don't know.
What does a woman have to do before you will blame her for her actions and make her responsible for them?
5/20/15, 11:07 AM
Did she make him use that kayak? Did she make him not use a wet or dry suit? Did she make him not use a PDF? What does a man have to not do before he becomes responsible for his choices?
Rather than murder I would charge her with attempted suicide for going out into those conditions equipped like that. No PFD, no dry (or wet) suit, wrong boats and (lacking plug) badly maintained, apparently no appreciation for how quickly hypothermia will mess you up, apparently no appreciation for how wind and current were going to make things exponentially harder on the return leg, apparently no skill with rescue technique.
Funny way to murder somebody, where you put yourself in (almost) exactly as much danger.
What does a man have to not do before he becomes responsible for his choices?
Men are always responsible, not only for their actions, but the actions of any random women in the area, especially if it involves giving the women something.
I would suggest the following for consideration:
Media reports claim that the victim drowned, or at the least, slipped under the water and disappeared at 7:15 PM. The suspect did not call 911 until 7:40 PM, and during the call, deliberately capsized her kayak while claiming she was trying to rescue her fiancé (who had been gone some 25 minutes at this point). Independent witnesses saw her turn the kayak over.
The suspect made a number of statements to police, and eventually admitted to the delayed call, the deliberate capsize, and more, including the life insurance policies, the tampered kayak prone to sinking, etc.
As to her continuing to talk to the cops, I suggest this is not uncommon among criminals, especially among amateur crooks, who are supreme egotists (and egoists as well I suppose), and think their natural brilliance will serve them well when dealing with the stupid, unsophisticated cops. BTW, this is not completely unheard in court either, when a defendant insists on testifying, against the advice of counsel, secure in the knowledge he/she will talk the jury into an acquittal. Of course, what usually happens is the fast track to a conviction, because the jury sees right through the BS.
The case seems based mainly on the defendant's confession, which the defense is now calling "coerced".
why would you always wear a PFD when kayaking? In case you accidentally whack yourself on the head with the paddle as you fall out of the boat?
There's a big difference between kayaking in whitewater where there are rocks and in a body of water like the Hudson. In the former, you'd always wear a PFD and a helmet to protect your head from rocks. There's little chance of hurting your head by hitting a kayak or kayak paddle as they are either, plastic, fiberglass or a light weight composite. It would make more sense to wear a helmet in a bathtub than kayaking in the Hudson.
I thought there were hidden impediments under the water around that island (Bannerman Island) that made it dangerous to go out there at certain times of day when the tide was low, but not low enough to expose what was there. Something to do with the arsenal (that amazing castle structure).
I expect this case will be on Dateline in another year or so! Keith Morrison is probably already gearing up.
"I don't think the analysis works, to say that she had to have been clever to come up with the plan so then wouldn't have said something that sounds like a confession. There could be any number of reasons for that congruence, including stress (maybe she is good at planning in advance but not in thinking on her feet), guilty conscience, or overconfidence/ hubris."
Of course, that's the argument for the prosecution and it's great when there is substantial evidence that she did the act. But it's woefully inadequate when it's the basis for inferring that she did it. They both exposed themselves to great danger. She survived and he did not. She was wearing a PFD and he was not.
"why would you always wear a PFD when kayaking? In case you accidentally whack yourself on the head with the paddle as you fall out of the boat?"
I'm picturing the dead guy going on in this vein as the woman nagged him about needing to wear it because I've been trying to imagine scenarios in which a nonmurderer would come out of that experience saying "it felt good knowing he was going to die."
I dunno, but I think I see a mattress in her future.
The question is, will the judge let her drag it into the court room?
No body. Any other witnesses?
She's Latvian and barely speaks English. Is she a citizen? Green card?
I don't understand how she murdered him. The plug wouldn't make much difference and he died largely due to his own neglect. Maybe she paused for too long in rescuing him. Is that murder? And what could she have done? He wasn't wearing a life vest so what was she going to do?
If the plug mattered, he would see it was missing. It was just one more lax thing he's responsible for.
@ Ann -
You seem to be suggesting the suspect planned this very clever murder, and it's unlikely that she would then confess to the cops after the intellectual effort put into the crime. This was not exactly the crime of the century. How long after until she was arrested? Several days? She was a moron, her story fell apart almost immediately and she then compounded her arrogance by waiving Miranda - assuming she would snow these dumb cops - which is kind of typical of the entire effort. She sat for a prolonged interrogation, broke down and copped to the crime. She's done I'd guess, unless the confession gets suppressed, all the posts here that's she a victim of the mean cops notwithstanding.
She did it. And she got caught, because she thought she was smarter than the rest of us. Like a lot of murderers who are now guests of the state. But she didn't plan on that 25 minute gap getting discovered, say. There's probably more we don't know yet too. I'll take a wild guess, and say the cops also have some emails, or something similar that describe how she's going to off the BF, maybe how she's getting ready to come into a large sum of money, that kind of thing. Because she's an idiot and probably couldn't keep quiet.
But I guess we'll all see.
There's a lot of evidence that this woman did something malign. At least one of the commenters has listed some of the evidence, including the delayed call and witnesses who state that she turned her kayak over.
The evidence does not consist solely of her statement, which I admit would be a poor basis for prosecution. But the statement, combined with the delayed call, combined with the witnesses and initial lies, plus the motive of the life insurance, do provide basis for arrest, investigation and probably prosecution.
Whether they have enough evidence to make the case that she connived at murder or she simply connived at death by accident remains to be seen. There is not a legal responsibility to call 911 or to rescue, so there has got to be some shaky ground there.
I would hazard that an individual this egotistical and self-absorbed may have been very reckless in her statements to others.
Several accounts state that she confessed to tampering with the kayak. Perhaps they are referring to the plug being out, but at least one account also says that his boat filled with water and then capsized so I suspect there may be more to this than we currently know.
Gahrie @ 11:17 - that's entirely unwarranted. A law professor naturally thinks about the evidence and certainly SHOULD.
If you charge for murder, you have to be able to prove murder, or come close enough to it to convince a jury.
The problem with proving murder in an accident case is that it's hard to cause a kayak accident. It's perfectly possible to postulate here that this woman did not try to save the man from the consequences of his own recklessness, but is that murder? Under the law, no, it is not.
If they find the body and there's drugs or a blow to the head or something like that, maybe. Otherwise, the defense starts out with a huge advantage.
Even the statement in question doesn't prove murder.
An American Tragedy.
"Do people get stuck in their kayaks when they have that spray thing on?"
Spray skirts have a quick release of some sort. Mine does.
I don't kayak much anymore, but I used to kayak a lot. Mostly in a mountain lake (SoCal, but it got below freezing in Winter). The lake itself never froze, but the edges did. It was a 14.5' touring kayak though, so really stable.
Experienced kayakers know how to roll and how to get back into their kayak if they fall out. I sometimes was playing around and turned over, sometimes swimming the 20' to shore, sometimes getting back in. I had a hand pump to bail the water out (another essential tool).
Whitewater kayaks are really unstable, turn easy and don't have the same kind of deck accessories I had.
I also did ocean kayaking, bays and harbors, occasionally open sea. I wore a PFD for the latter. Though, it was always stored in my kayak for emergencies. Anytime I might not be able to swim to shore, I wore it.
Experienced kayakers know how to roll and how to get back into their kayak if they fall out.
I went kayaking in Colorado on a rapid for the first time and fell out in rapids and was fine (well actually I fell out several times but the other times were clear water). It wasn't fun, but I just held onto the paddle and floated.
I can't figure out what actually happened here at all, especially if this wasn't white water...
I don't understand how she murdered him.
I don't either. I think I would need more than 'there was no cap' which didn't kill him on the way out and didn't need to kill him on the way in. Time delay in a call is not a murder, and could be easily explained if her phone was somewhere waterproof or hard to get to (or in the car). Water and phones don't mix well.
Post a Comment