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

[wfgodot]

Good morning! Wet a.m. here near Hudson USA.

 

[cutter99]

I don't see her smirking in the photo mentioned above as much as she is biting her lip. It is one moment in time and who knows what this girl is experiencing.

It is so hard to make a judgement in this case at this point. You are looking at a woman whose foundational culture is very different than that of Americans. Even if she has been here for 15-20 years, that does not necessarily mean she has command of English.

Are there some glaring things here that raise suspeciation? Yes, especially her social media accounts. But, could they be a sign of immaturity and cultural differences? It is a possibility!

 

[BunnyHop]

Hi guys, I'm out.
I prefer to wait for real testimony.

Best. :loveyou:

 

[OldSteve]

"I don't think she said that," Graswald's attorney Richard Portale told ABC News today. "I think if she said it, it would be memorialized. They would have it on video, but I don't think she said it."

Previous thread I had hoped LE taped their questioning of her to support what's being said - from the above appears they did not. If I'm on the jury, that's not good, and it raises doubt.

Read more: http://www.wjla.com/articles/2015/0...nce-s-kayak-da-says-114276.html#ixzz3bupNDZtJ
Follow us: @ABC7News on Twitter | WJLATV on Facebook

 

[Hatfield]

Previous thread I had hoped LE taped their questioning of her to support what's being said - from the above appears they did not. If I'm on the jury, that's not good, and it raises doubt.

Read more: http://www.wjla.com/articles/2015/0...nce-s-kayak-da-says-114276.html#ixzz3bupNDZtJ
Follow us: @ABC7News on Twitter | WJLATV on Facebook

LE usually tapes all formal interviews I think so I would hope they would have the questioning of her on tape as evidence. Either audio or video with audio would do.

If they dont have that, I agree it will raise doubt and would essentially be a
he said/she said with the police VS the defense in what was said.

Irregardless of the interviews there are some things that dont make sense to me with her actions.

Like how come she did not try to get close enough with her boat to let him hang on. Or why didnt she throw him her life jacket since she was comfortably in her kayak.

Any eye witnesses from the rescuers will be helpful too.
If it is like was claimed where they said she pretty much just jumped in the water as they approach then that has me thinking this is not looking good for her.

The sheer fact that she was close enough to jump in the water tells me she could have done much more before the rescuers got there if she was that close to him.

This just smells right now. It smells as bad as the eels in the Hudson if they still have eels like I remember from a long time ago. LOL

 

[Hatfield]

Here is a link that shows and explains the type of drain plug they may have had in their kayaks.

Plastic type kayaks could still float as water came in but it sure would not make it very bouyant as more and more water got in. He should have noticed right away if the plug was missing but maybe he had a bail pail with him. Kinda strange about the plug being missing.

ETA--I see there are different types of drain areas. Some models have a bilge area inside the hull and so maybe it would not be that noticeable if the plug was missing until the kayak got sluggish to paddle and sat lower in the water. Some plugs are located on the outside of the kayak around the water line. It all depends what kind he had.


BTW

http://www.topkayaker.net/KayakData/BuyGuides/DrainPlugs.asp

 

[Hatfield]

The whole life jacket thing seems kind of strange by itself. Most everyone I have ever seen in a kayak always wears one. Kayaks are not like regular boats and so wearing a life jacket is not really optional when kayaking. So I am wondering why the man didnt have his with him.

Why would he even go out in a Kayak on the Hudson in choppy cold water without a life jacket on? Something sounds fishy about that.

That area where they were is a very wide area of the Hudson. Its a nice scenic area of the river.

 

[cutter99]

Not a kayaker, but my guess would be that you are taught to NOT take off your life jacket and attempt to give it to someone in trouble, as it would then put two people at risk as opposed to one.

Life vests are optional when kayaking. You may always choose to wear one, just like I always choose to wear a seat belt, but they are not attached to the kayak. Because they are not attached to the kayak, who is to say his was not forgotten at home? Sometimes people get complacent and think because there has never been and issue previously, why should this time be any different.

No one but AG knows how close she got to VV. Who is to say she didn't try to pull him onto her kayak or have him grab a paddle.

Hypothermia can cause people to do extremely strange things. If she had already been in the water before help arrived, she may have gone back in once they got there as a reaction to hypothermia.

I'm not sure which way this case could go, but I also know that it is no slam dunk for the prosecution!

 

[Hoosgirl]

Hi guys, I'm out.
I prefer to wait for real testimony.

Best. :loveyou:

I will miss your insight, BunnyHop!

 

[hot cawfeee]

I would think its SOP for the interview to be taped....how ever with town budgets being what they are, extra money may not be on hand.
hhmmmmmm....the tv watcher in me (Cold Justice) has me leaning toward SOP.

 

[silly1]

The whole life jacket thing seems kind of strange by itself. Most everyone I have ever seen in a kayak always wears one. Kayaks are not like regular boats and so wearing a life jacket is not really optional when kayaking. So I am wondering why the man didnt have his with him.

Why would he even go out in a Kayak on the Hudson in choppy cold water without a life jacket on? Something sounds fishy about that.

That area where they were is a very wide area of the Hudson. Its a nice scenic area of the river.

Not to mention that our state law requires wearing a life vest on any boat/personal watercraft under 21 feet from Nov 1 through May 1. I can't imagine that he was unaware of the law. I think it's possible, but not probable.

 

[Hatfield]

Not to mention that our state law requires wearing a life vest on any boat/personal watercraft under 21 feet from Nov 1 through May 1. I can't imagine that he was unaware of the law. I think it's possible, but not probable.

Yeah, just seems so strange. Pure speculation on my part but I was thinking along the lines of what if he really did have one and somehow she made sure he could not grab it and she sunk it or something.

 

[gitana1]

If I am repeating many apologies ( need to finish reading thread 1).....I think HIPPA extends to media not to LE and it would be in relation to her case so unless someone at the hospital talks (possible someone may ) its not likely we are going to find out anything pre-trial.

I also agree that there was pre-mediation here ..... motive is always a little confounding I think. If its just about insurance money she can kiss that good bye----and if his sexual tastes were not to her liking, then why stay with him and agree to marry him ? She isnt a child and to quote Mama Cawfee "has been around the block a few times".

Has her family spoken out at all ??? I would think a family member would come to the US and offer support.

Maybe she felt trapped because without his financial support she couldn't live well. His insurance policy would help her though.

 

[gitana1]

Gitana or anyone else who is familiar with the court process,

The next step is the preliminary hearing. If I understand right, this is where the DA has to show the strength of his case and what evidence he has. Does he have to present every piece of evidence and all witnesses he has at this time? Will this be when he has to stop holding things close to the vest so to speak? Or can he release just enough information that convinces the judge he has a case? Just curious. If he can hold things back, what would be the benefit?

They do not have to show all their evidence and typically they don't. The standard of proof at preliminary hearings is probable cause not beyond a reasonable doubt. So they don't need to show much. Just enough to get past the hearing. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-difference-between-preliminary-hearing-trial.html

The state must reveal things to the defense during discovery. They hold back as long as they can to avoid tipping their hand.

 

[gitana1]

LE usually tapes all formal interviews I think so I would hope they would have the questioning of her on tape as evidence. Either audio or video with audio would do.

If they dont have that, I agree it will raise doubt and would essentially be a
he said/she said with the police VS the defense in what was said.

Irregardless of the interviews there are some things that dont make sense to me with her actions.

Like how come she did not try to get close enough with her boat to let him hang on. Or why didnt she throw him her life jacket since she was comfortably in her kayak.

Any eye witnesses from the rescuers will be helpful too.
If it is like was claimed where they said she pretty much just jumped in the water as they approach then that has me thinking this is not looking good for her.

The sheer fact that she was close enough to jump in the water tells me she could have done much more before the rescuers got there if she was that close to him.

This just smells right now. It smells as bad as the eels in the Hudson if they still have eels like I remember from a long time ago. LOL

I believe she's guilty. However, she intimated on social media that she herself was struggling and wished she could've "paddled harder" to save him. So I'm not sure she would've wanted to give up her own life jacket in those conditions and in a high wave situation, it might not have been possible to get to where he could climb on.

 

[gitana1]

Not a kayaker, but my guess would be that you are taught to NOT take off your life jacket and attempt to give it to someone in trouble, as it would then put two people at risk as opposed to one.

Life vests are optional when kayaking. You may always choose to wear one, just like I always choose to wear a seat belt, but they are not attached to the kayak. Because they are not attached to the kayak, who is to say his was not forgotten at home? Sometimes people get complacent and think because there has never been and issue previously, why should this time be any different.

No one but AG knows how close she got to VV. Who is to say she didn't try to pull him onto her kayak or have him grab a paddle.

Hypothermia can cause people to do extremely strange things. If she had already been in the water before help arrived, she may have gone back in once they got there as a reaction to hypothermia.

I'm not sure which way this case could go, but I also know that it is no slam dunk for the prosecution!

His friends are to say. They say he was diligent and never would've kayaked without a life jacket:

Friends of Vinny say he never, ever, ever would have gone out into the river without a life jacket on because he was an outdoorsman and he respected the outdoors and understood that anything at any time could happen. So they thought that was very odd, that he had no life jacket on bit she did. http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1505/04/ng.01.html

 

[sunflowerchick]

His friends are to say. They say he was diligent and never would've kayaked without a life jacket:

Despite what the friends say, I don't find that odd at all and I also don't think it points to her guilt (if she is, in fact, guilty).

I think it is possible they were drinking that night. I also think it is possible that he forgot his life vest and chose to go without it for whatever reason. I don't know why he would do that but I think it is likely.

 

[gitana1]

Despite what the friends say, I don't find that odd at all and I also don't think it points to her guilt (if she is, in fact, guilty).

I think it is possible they were drinking that night. I also think it is possible that he forgot his life vest and chose to go without it for whatever reason. I don't know why he would do that but I think it is likely.

That's fair. It is possible. You're right. And I don't think his lack of a life jacket on its own shows her guilt either. But none of these cases are other than the sum of their parts.

Me? I'm going with what's probable. And I feel like I will better find out what that is via neutrals who have no reason to frame him or create a crime where none exists, etc., and people who knew and loved him, over the one arrested for his murder, whose post "accident" behavior reeks.

 

[wfgodot]

He also wore neither a wet nor dry suit and his kayak itself was said by other kayakers to be ill-suited for Hudson conditions. Add that to no personal flotation device and his status as a responsible outdoorsman sags a bit. Graswald's to blame for all this though, I suspect?

She seems the very stereotype of the mysterious woman from a foreign culture, come to these shores to bewitch and destroy our menfolk doesn't she. And flaunting convention that way later, positively the shrew. Or at least that's the xenophobic subtext of much of what I'm reading here.

 

[silly1]

He also wore neither a wet nor dry suit and his kayak itself was said by other kayakers to be ill-suited for Hudson conditions. Add that to no personal flotation device and his status as a responsible outdoorsman sags a bit. Graswald's to blame for all this though, I suspect?

She seems the very stereotype of the mysterious woman from a foreign culture, come to these shores to bewitch and destroy our menfolk doesn't she. And flaunting convention that way later, positively the shrew. Or at least that's the xenophobic subtext of much of what I'm reading here.

I don't see her as much of a mysterious woman who came to the US to destroy our men. That would be some far-fetched conspiracy theory to me. What I do see is a woman who possibly cares too deeply about issues and may have an extreme sense of right/just and wrong/unjust. Which may lead her to do the unthinkable and what would be unexpected of her. There were several things mentioned in articles that points to her having extreme reactions in the moment to things that are ultimately trivial (not wanting to give up her cat and lying down behind a car; storming out of staff meetings.) I think it may be very real that she felt trapped in whatever her circumstances were and tried to figure a way out. Doesn't mean it will ever make sense to us, but it must have made sense to her at the time. In my opinion, we have a woman here who is not what I would call completely evil but may have completed the ultimate evil act. I definitely predict we will see some documentaries or lifetime movies about this in the future.