48 Hours: Angelika Graswald
Did you see 48 Hours this past weekend? I just watched it.
Do I think Angelika Graswald gave a false confession?
Absolutely not. There are many elements that reveal this is not a false confession. No way, no how.
You might also like
71
replies
When will you share your thoughts?
I’m sorry. I am struggling right now caring for a family member who had surgery.
I am not convinced by the experiment of the kayak behind the
boat. A kayak going into the waves would let water into the kayak without a plug
on top. Otherwise why bother having a
plug? It’s there to keep water out. Also not all that water from a side wake is
going to enter when a man’s torso is filling the hole. Kayak’s also rock with the
waves, their bottoms are not fixed in place as it was on the back
of the boat so the kayak will tip away from the side wave meaning less water will enter.
I’ve been kayaking for 20 years, and in my experience, it’s true. One of the NY Times articles had the brand of the boats they paddled – Zet Kayaks. In this type of boat (they are called “high volume creek boats”) you can’t get enough water through the drain hole to make any kind of difference. You’d need at least 20-30 gallons (the boat volume is 80-100 gallons, depending on the exact model).
These boats are shaped for jumping waterfalls. They ride high up on the waves. To get even a little water through the drain hole, you need very short and steep waves. To get gallons worth of water through that hole, you’d need hours worth of continuous pounding. That kind of storm would’ve killed both of them and flooded half the state. More likely, such waves would’ve flipped his boat immediately, even before they would’ve flooded the cockpit.
Viafore’s death has all the hallmarks of an accident. They were not prepared for the conditions they encountered. They didn’t have the gear, the training, or even the foresight to check the weather forecast. They weren’t dressed for the water temperature, which was in the forties. Had he worn a wetsuit and a life jacket, he would’ve been alive today.
This was no accident. I’m sorry you are being fooled by a master manipulator.
It would be very, very difficult for anybody to make this look like an accident. Especially for somebody without much experience in kayaking. Too many things she didn’t have control over. And this does look like a typical kayaking accident.
Difficult to orchestrate? Not at all. I have kayaked many, many times in my life. I am a whitewater kayaker, Boris, and I could take anyone on more challenging lake, river or stream, and could easily get them to drowned in minutes. Easily. So many people are ignorant to the dangers of water. If Angelika understood hypothermia that day, that was the only tool she needed to get Vince to die. Simple as 1, 2, 3.
Air temp and water temp must be greater than 100 degrees when combined or hypothermia is a reality.
Hello Eyes! I’ve been under the impression that you weren’t familiar with the subject. I really have no opinion on how guilty Graswald sounds. You’re saying she sounds guilty, and I can’t really argue.
I am a whitewater kayaker
You are??? And you’re seriously suggesting Graswald was an expert paddler, and lead Viafore on this venture, knowing the risks?
Tell me, would you have gone out to Hudsons, in a cheap touring boat, without a skirt or float bags or a bailer, and not dressed for a water temperature, knowing that the forecast called for wind?
And if you did, what would’ve beenyour chances of surviving, if you accidentally flipped?
That’s a huge personal risk to take. I mean, Viafore had higher risk because he didn’t wear a PFD, but the rest of the risk factors were identical.
If she did, she would’ve worn a wetsuit, I think.
Anyway. I take it, your position is that Graswald knew more about kayaking than she lead on, right?
Perhaps. That sounds highly unlikely to me, but perhaps. That would make her Facebook foto (the one where she is shown in a kayak, without a skirt and holding a paddle upside-down), to be part of a plan.
Graswald didn’t have to know a lot about kayaking or be an expert to find, research or understand elevated risks or potential dangers that can cause death such as hypothermia.
Right. But if she knew at least some of the risks, wouldn’t she have taken precautions for herself against those risks? If her plan was to get him to flip, how would she accomplish it? How could she be sure that it would be Viafore, and not her or both of them, that would end up in the water?
Boris … Think about it. You can answer this yourself.
Look, if I knew the answer, I would’ve written it myself. Like I said before, I’m not emotionally invested in this. From the reports, Graswald doesn’t sound like a nice person at all.
But there’s got to be some kind of logic in her actions. If she knew the risks, but willingly chose to lead Viafore – then her life was in just as much danger than his, and it’s just blind chance that he drowned and she didn’t.
Are you saying this was an attempted murder/suicide?
Boris — You want to talk in black and white. If a person does A, then they must believe “B”. Human behavior has a wide spectrum, and you must consider every plausible element if you want to see the truth. You can’t say that because she knew there was danger that she would protect herself. She may not have, she may not have worried about herself because she felt mentally superior. There are hundreds of potentials and I am not going to explore each and every one with you. You have to do that on your own, but you can’t assume because you wouldn’t do something that someone else wouldn’t either. They very well may…
Well, perhaps I misunderstood. When you said “master manipulator”, it evoke in my mind an image of someone who plans things out carefully, with lots of attention to detail.
Please don’t get angry, but here’s how your position sounds to me:
* Graswald knew of the dangers of hypothermia ahead of time.
* She chose the timing of the trip so as to put Viafore at risk.
* She manipulated Viafore into going on the trip.
* She did not do anything to mitigate her own risk, aside from wearing the PFD.
* She was doing all this, at least in part, to receive the insurance money.
* Well ahead of time, she manipulated Viafore into making her the beneficiary of the insurance policies.
* She actually bragged of her plan to the police investigators.
* The method of murder was her suggesting the trip.
Do you see how this jumps between a “master manipulator with a detailed long-term plan” and “unstable and borderline suicidal, with no thought spared for the consequences of her actions”? Who would invest months of planning and put her life in danger to get the insurance money, just to throw it all away, so she can feed her cat? Also, do you see that nearly every single point is a supposition, and well nigh impossible to prove?
To which, if I read your last message correctly, you basically respond that people do crazy things in hundreds of various ways, and I can’t use my own experience to understand them, but that I should be able to work though through them by myself.
I have to hand it to you though: If your assumptions about Graswald are true, it actually could have happened this way.
Totally INACCURATE, sadly. I am willing to explore every potential aspect. It doesn’t mean anything is, but I consider what is possible. Her behaviors, actions, words and emotions do not support the story she is telling us, so I have to explore every other potential to find the truth. I just know things are not as she said. As to WHAT she believes, or what happened, that would take an investigation.
As a piece of advice, people who put their values into an investigation often fail to find the truth. You have to be open to all potentials.
Sorry, but which part of my post does this refer to? What did I get wrong?
What other way is there to arrive at the truth?
Excuse me for intervening but I think I know what Eyes is saying:
You have it all back to front and are making assumptions left, right and centre.
In Graswald’s interrogation what says doesn’t match her version of events. Further she admits to motivation and intent.
Because of these observations – if you are able to notice them – you would look into other possibilities for what could have occurred that day.
eg. Could she have murdered him or brought about his death?
Eyes supplied one of these scenarios, something which you didn’t do by the way as you automatically assumed she couldn’t have planned it. But in fact anyone would be aware that the weather and temperature were bad that day, so she could have used that. It makes perfect sense to me. ….Further she could have got him to drink more alcohol before they left the island so that he would be less physically and mentally capable. How easy would that have been for her to do? It’s not even a stretch of the imagination. They had plenty of cans of alcohol in a bag. When she said those cryptic words about ‘…I get, I keep,…’ I can see the possibility she took something off him, perhaps the cushion he could have used for flotation.
Do you see how an alternative explanation for events can be built up? There are other possibilities also but you have to look into them, not start with assumptions and then come to a simple conclusion. There is no need to put your values into an investigation, but that’s what most people do, and where they go wrong. The only time you might do that was if someone you were trying to understand was very nearly like you, because then it might give you insight into their behaviour.
Good post Brent.
So many times, people add their own logic in trying to understand why another person did something or didn’t do something.
The example is something like this: Well, if they really were planning a murder, they would have done this, otherwise, it doesn’t make sense, so they must not have planned.
This is sort of similar to a logical fallacy. When someone uses this logical argument, they bring their own biases and mindset in trying to understand the logic process of a …. murderer.
The reality is, you don’t always get answers that would make logical sense… to you. But they did to the murderer in the moment of what they did. And, not all murderers think of everything in planning their crime. They do miss things. All the time. And they often are not self aware of their own post-incident behavior, and what can be deduced from it. It’s why they get caught.
Very famous forensic evidence quote.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Yes that’s an appropriate quote. Haha I was trying to reinvent a wheel
Using this quote as a basis of accusing somebody of murder is, to say the least, disturbing.
Somewhat at odds with the concept of presumption of innocence.
Boris — You have just written a post that I find unacceptable and which I deleted. You put quotes around your words but say they are mine. This will not be tolerated. Stop trying to put words I did not say in my mouth, and let me speak for myself. You can talk about what you say, but don’t quote YOUR words as mine when I did not say them. I find that offensive, rude, libelous and you will be banned if you do it again.
I apologize. I assumed it was clear from the context that I was paraphrasing. I will not do so again. I edited the post, replacing the quotes with [paraphrase], but you already deleted it.
Which is why I’m trying to stick to “what”, rather than “why”.
See, I don’t disagree with you about the motive. Abusive relationship, insurance payout, craziness, cat didn’t like him, whatever. Not my area. You’re probably right, I have no opinion.
But no matter how solid your notion of her motive, you got to have credible method and opportunity.
You can’t say “she had solid motive, so she must’ve killed him somehow, doesn’t matter how”.
Here’s the thing: A murder includes the famous three elements – the motive, the method, and the opportunity. I never said Graswald didn’t have a motive. Reportedly, there were at least two motives – their (allegedly) abusive relationship and the (alleged) insurance payoff.
I’ve been saying that there’s no indication of the method and opportunity.
In essence, Eyes says “the motive is so clear, that there must have been method and opportunity!” and starts coming up with speculations, no matter how far fetched they may sound.
But I don’t base anything on the interrogation. I only look at the facts – such as, what their gear was, what the conditions were when they set out.
I can see how Eyes can get a clearer picture of the motive. I can even see how Eyes could get a glimpse of the method – if, that is, Graswald explained a credible method during the interrogation, or lied in such a way that Eyes could’ve seen through that. But this did not happen, or Eyes would’ve told me what that method was. Sorry, but I don’t buy the “she manipulated him into taking the trip while knowing the risks for Viafore but ignoring them for herself” as a method of murder.
If you read through our conversation, I came up with three scenarios. The most realistic one (actually more so than Eyes’ version) was Graswald adding sedative into Viafore’s water bottle while they were on the island. Another one was her hiring a diver accomplice. A third one was her shooting him with a tranquilizer dart while he was in the waves.
These are all wild speculations, not supported by any known physical evidence.
The reason I assume Graswald couldn’t have planned it, was because I don’t see a plan. in a planned murder, the victim is in significantly more risk than the murderer. Which was not the case here – the risk was the same for both of them, (I base this on their gear and the conditions).
The air was warm. Only the water was cold. This is a common trap that beginners fall into. Hence the kayakers’ mantra – “dress for the water temperature”. As in, not for the air temperature.
Same thing with the wind. When it is blowing against the current, it can cause unexpectedly high waves – but on land, it would be just a cool evening breeze, not a storm.
This kind of knowledge is rare outside paddling community.
If she used it, she used it to endanger them both equally.
Yes, she could have. Just like she could have spiked his drink with something more potent than alcohol, that wouldn’t show up on the tests (I don’t know, curare?) But this is pure speculation.
[…]
Yes, it’s quite easy to come up with them. Hey, it could’ve been alien abduction, and her behavior was weird because of the aftereffects of the mind probe.
The assumption I made (that Graswald didn’t know what she was doing) is based on the fact that she put herself in danger, just like many beginners do every year. I could be wrong on this one, but it’s – by far – the most likely explanation. It’s also supported by a picture from her blog, where she is holding a paddle upside-down. I would like to see at least some evidence to the contrary before dropping this assumption.
I haven’t put any value into the police investigation. So far, all they came up with was the brilliant theory of the murder by a drain plug. The investigators sound incompetent.
I’m thinking the tempers are starting to fly a bit high for my taste in this discussion. Have a nice day, everybody.
The thing is, she “tells us” very little of the story that isn’t told by their gear, the air and water temperatures, the weather, the time of day.
I can probably add a few more scenarios to the ones that we’ve already mentioned – but they are all far-fetched, and aren’t supported by the facts known so far (though they don’t contradict the known facts, either).
Here’s another question: Assuming Graswald actually wanted Viafore to die, so that she’d both be out of the relationship and get that life insurance money. And she got “lucky”, without having to work for it. No sophisticated plotting involved. Just a typical accident on the water that happened to “deliver”.
Would that still contradict the responses you’re seeing in the tapes?
Boris I think you’re making a huge assumption. What Granswald ‘tells’ Eyes is not the same as what she ‘tells’ us.
What Granswald seems to be telling ‘you’ is a story about kayaking and accidents that happen in bad conditions. You are really seeing a ‘story’ you already know because of your experience filter. But what you don’t see is important. Maybe you don’t see a manipulator telling a story. Maybe you don’t see her confessing without much pressure.
Eyes, just a reminder: This is an online discussion, for fun only. It doesn’t matter who’s right. Family situations are about 20 levels of priority higher. Go take care of your mom, hope she gets better soon.
Replying to myself here, but there’s an update: According to 48 hours, the kayak paddled by Viafore is not made by Zet Kayaks USA, but rather, it’s a Fusion 124, made by Future Beach.
This is a different type of kayak. The Fusion is not designed for whitewater – rather, it’s built for small lakes and calm rivers. It costs about half the price, too. Its shape is a lot less refined, and it can’t take the kind of punishment Zet can. No waterfalls.
This doesn’t drastically change my original assessment, but there are differences. A touring boat has a larger volume of air, but its cockpit hole is also larger. It also won’t ride up on the waves as high, meaning more water coming in through the cockpit.
I searched for the reviews, and here’s what I found: Several people complain about the boat design, and of the store handling their complaints. One user called the boat a “death trap”, several others agree.
(google for “Fusion 124 Dick’s Sporting Goods Fusion 124 Kayak By Future Beach”, on the website complaintsboard).
Apparently, the boat is known to fill up with water, become stern-heavy, and lose stability. The reviews don’t mention a drain plug – water comes in over the cockpit rim.
OK, the drain plug is insignificant and that type of kayak will easily fill with water in waves. I can accept that. But that is her explanation for seeing the kayak fill up and sink. Although in another video she said he was struggling with the waves and she just saw him flip. He is in the water close enough for her to get his paddle and hook it to her kayak. He apparently has a cushion to keep afloat, she is afloat in her kayak, but they get separated by the waves?? Or in her words ‘I get – I keep – the waves pulling me away from him, further and further.’
After he flipped, that was it. They had neither the gear, not the training required to save him. Without a wetsuit, he had maybe 20 minutes of active action, like swimming, before becoming impaired by hypothermia (assuming he survived the initial immersion shock).
We train paddlers to take control of the situation and do a kayak-assisted tow to shore, but neither one of them had this kind of training. It’s not something that can be invented on the spot. It needs to be practiced in a swimming pool first.
Because of the missing gear and training, their paddling outing was like a spacewalk: anything goes wrong, and you’re dead.
I remember once I tipped out of a kayak and towed it to shore while being caught in a large whirlpool, it took me a couple of rounds to get to land.
Unfortunately in this case the man seemed to sink out of sight as well. She managed to get rescued I think after ringing 911, but she only managed to keep hold of his paddle.
I’m not sure what’s the deal with her and the paddle, but it really doesn’t matter. As soon as Viafore went into the water, it became useless.
Normally, it’s important not to lose the paddle during a rescue, because after everybody is in their boats, you need it to resume paddling. But it’s only a priority if the plan is to get people back into the boats.
In their situation, a paddle had no immediate rescue value. It won’t help a person to stay afloat (not enough flotation in it), it makes it much harder to swim, and it’s very difficult to paddle if you’re trying to hold a second paddle in your hands. Chances are, she wasn’t thinking clearly and just grabbed it because it was within reach.
Assessing the situation and forming a plan is not something that comes naturally to most people when somebody is drowning nearby.
They had no way to get Viafore back into his boat aside from towing both of them to shore, which very well could’ve been impossible because of the conditions.
It really depends on the situation.
Usually, the waves will affect a boat differently than they do a swimmer. If the waves are strong enough, your choices are pretty much either to stay roughly perpendicular to them, or get turned sideways and wait them out, trying your best not to flip.
Staying next to a swimmer in the waves could be difficult, especially if he doesn’t have a PFD and sits low in the water.
I don’t know what her exact situation was, but being separated like this is not unlikely.
Hi Boris… what I find interesting is that Angelika did not have the same difficulty as Vince did in the water, and was able to stay afloat while dialing and speaking to the 911 operator. Why would they be in such different circumstances, given the peril of the water that evening?
I do agree with you that Vince pretty much did himself in: the drinking, no life vest, paddling in cold and rough water – it’s amazing the choices that people make when confronting nature. Angelika’s role may have been to hinder and/or choose not to help him – which amounts to some kind of murder charge, although I assume it would be a lesser one.
Well, I wasn’t there, so I can’t know the specifics. An unlucky wave? His higher body mass causing his boat to sit slightly lower in the water? I don’t know.
But this is how it usually happens – you rarely get the whole group in trouble at the same time. I don’t think she could’ve caused him to flip though – it’s quite difficult to flip a kayak while sitting in another kayak, especially in the waves. A beginner won’t be able to do it.
She probably dialed 911 when she was out of the waves. In the waves, you need both hands to stay in control.
It’s very difficult to tow a swimmer to shore, unless you both practice it in the pool first. If the swimmer is panicked, even an expert kayaker can’t do much. Without training, the swimmer will most likely flip the kayak over, so you get two victims.
Once he flipped, I don’t think she had an ability to help.
Something just occurred to me: If she is talking on the phone, not to mention holding his paddle, she’s definitely not paddling. Paddling is a two-handed activity.
She didn’t sound believable on the phone when she was with 911.
Also during interrogation she fills in a lot of the interrogators statements and confirms her meaning with little prompting.
‘Euphoric? Yea. …’
‘You felt that way?’
‘Yes, I still do.’ – She is videoed doing cartwheels a day later or so.
Different people handle grief and stress in different ways. But regardless of what she says, what is it that she supposedly did to cause him to die? Removing the drain plug is not a credible method of murder.
The theory about it causing the boat to fill up, doesn’t hold water (pardon the pun). It’s not just the lawyer’s expert talking – ask any experienced kayaker, they’ll confirm this.
“Different people handle grief and stress in different ways.” Yes, this is true, Boris, but sad people don’t do cartwheels and frolic like a vacation, as happy people don’t cry their eyes out and act depressed. There are markers within a normal spectrum that you are discounting and she is clearly out of the norm, which is a huge red flag, among a pile of other clues.
What’s even weirder, is that she flaunted it. She filmed herself doing so, and posted the videos and the pictures on the social media.
This is suspicious, yes. And more than a little bewildering. I don’t know how to process it, so I discount it. I mean, I could speculate about “I’m free!” versus “I got away with it!” versus “I survived!” reactions, but it wouldn’t add anything useful to the discussion.
Another reason I discount it, is because it doesn’t tell me anything about whether or not she actually did something to murder him.
“This is suspicious, yes. …. so I discount it. …. it wouldn’t add anything useful to the discussion.”
This is where, IMHO, you are absolutely wrong. Time and time again, behavior IS EVIDENCE. Her behavior gives us clues as to what’s going on, on the inside.
This is the behavior that doesn’t track with an individual who is totally innocent of the charges. It says volumes, IMHO.
This type of behavior would absolutely be admitted at trial. Post incident behavior, is entered into evidence time and time again at trial. The prosecution would present this behavior at trial, and then in closing arguments, give their reasoning as to what this behavior means.
This is why “discounting it” is a mistake.
What I said in the actual post, is that I don’t see how this could indicate whether or not Graswald did something to kill Viafore a week earlier. It could be interpreted either way, and my speculation wouldn’t add anything to our discussion, because I’m not a criminal psychiatrist.
Her “confession”, coerced or not, doesn’t include a credible method of murder. In this situation, removing a drain plug would have about as much effect as writing a post-it note “I wish you were dead”.
What killed Viafore was the lack of basic safety equipment and skills. They should not have been there. No cold water gear, no bailer pumps, no kayak rescue skills, no situational awareness (they should’ve checked the forecast for wind before setting out). Viafore didn’t even wear a safety jacket.
Boris, when I have time, I will address this. I completely and fully disagree with you.
By all means. I’m not emotionally invested in this one way or the other. My only interest in this case is that I’m a kayaker, and the police theory doesn’t make sense to me.
I happened to be in that area watching the local news when it happened, and I have been riveted! So glad Eyes is weighing in.
So far I agree with Eyes’ opinion. I watched the show with my mother. Her take was that the interrogation was terribly unfair, they twisted Angelika’s words and coerced her, etc.
And I could certainly see where she was coming from, but I saw something very different. I think she admitted wanting him dead, in a very cavalier manner, to the police, before they had her in the room with the camera. I believe she then said she was ready to talk and would go to the station with them.
Once in the room with the cameras, I think her whole demeanor changes, along with her answers. I think she did it that way on purpose, so that the police would become very frustrated and lose tempers quicker. She set then up to appear to coerce her.
U also believe 48 hours produced this episode to nudge audiences toward believing Angelica is innocent. I think they have more evidence (there was a witness mentioned on the news). And though I found the sequence of her ex-boyfriend, lying in his driveway, saying Give me the cat, in a fake Latvian accent, quite entertaining, I also found it odd that the episode said so little about her background, I think that is because she has done other strange or violent things, and that produces are trying to set up Angelica to be sympathetic for now, only to “shock” us later when it become very clear that she did it.
Here’s a question: Suppose, she thought herself guilty of murder. Suppose, she believed that removing a drain plug would kill Viafore, and confessed doing just that.
But in reality, a missing drain plug is nothing. It’s inconsequential. Viafore died because he wasn’t prepared for the conditions.
Would her belief make her guilty in the eyes of the law, if she didn’t commit murder in fact?
Have you ever heard of making something look like an accident to cover a murder? She admits she tried to do this, and then admits she wanted to be free of him. She even ADDS to it that she has NO regrets. The police didn’t lead her to say that or anything. She volunteers it. Listen to her!
But what is it that she actually did to murder him? I ask because I know very well how little control a beginner would have in a kayak when conditions start to deteriorate.
I guess, she could’ve shot him with a tranquilizer dart or something…
Tried to do what? Just because she’s glad he’s gone doesn’t mean he died by her own hands. This is not a confession; she is expressing her feelings about him and doesn’t regret SAYING it.
Usually people are convicted on evidence. What evidence is there that she caused his drowning ?
Hello, Eyes. Any update on a trial yet?
I haven’t heard anything yet…Anyone else?
When I saw that video about how she laid down in the driveway so he would give her back her cat, that’s when I fully understood her personality. I would have done that! She is a cat person completely obsessed. She said many times during that interrogation that she needed to get home to her cat. That’s what would have been on my mind… getting home to care for my cat. She’s just like me except the only difference is that not understanding our judicial system she thought that just finally telling them what they wanted to hear, (that she wanted him dead) would finally get her out of there so she could get home to her cat. Bottom line, the girl is innocent. We all behave in different ways and strange though it may seem, it doesn’t make her guilty. What seems strange to you is completely familiar to me. Lay down in the driveway for a cat?? I’m certain she was very proud of doing that. She knew he would never run over her, trusting soul that she is. That’s part of her vulnerability. Her friends who understood her would have reveled in the story. I don’t even know her and I did.
What you see as “trusting soul” I see as cold-hearted, manipulative woman with major mental issues.
I’ve seen this happen many times over the years. Someone who is not familiar with EFL’s skill, leaving lots of posts and explanations as to “why” the individual in question could be innocent. And that’s why, even though EFL sees what she sees, she “could be” wrong or is “certainly wrong” because of all these other arguments they bring up.
The problem is, an individual’s body language, word choice and facial expressions (or lack of true emotion) has already given them away. The individual has spoken on camera, and their body has betrayed their true feelings/motives.
This is what EFL’s sees, almost instantaneously, because she really is that damn good. She is a human deception detector.
It’s difficult for people to understand and trust a skill that they have zero understanding of. It’s like the people are blind, and you are trying to explain color and the various hues to them. How would you do that, so they could really understand what color is? This is where you are Boris. You are blind and EFL is telling you about all the beautiful colors she experiences.
Boris, listen to what EFL pointed out to you in the comments below. This is important. Pay attention. The suspect tells you right there, her true motive. EFL points this out and you reject it. EFL is giving you the clues, as to what it is she sees that convinces her, this was not a false confession. People will tell you who they are Boris, and you can learn to do some of what EFL does. Go back to her older cases, where she points out the clues that she saw. You will learn.
Hi Sprocket!
I tried to find whether this “EFL” is an innate ability or a learned skill. Did a quick search on the abbreviation, but couldn’t find a definition. It doesn’t help that the “EFL” abbreviation is somehow connected to “ESL” – which I’m used to meaning “English as a Second Language”. For now, I assume it’s a bit of both – an innate emphatic ability that can be enhanced by training. I didn’t even know EFL was a “thing” until this conversation.
Anyway, like I said in another post, when it comes to reading people’s expressions and body language, I’m quite useless. Makes certain types of interactions difficult – it would be handy to tell whether a car mechanic is telling the truth, for example.
So, I have my area of expertise, and Eyes (and you) have yours – while I’m quite ignorant of your field, and (evidently) you haven’t been exposed to mine. This case crosses the two fields in a very peculiar way.
Eyes (and, presumably, you) are saying that you can directly see Graswald’s guilt.
I assure you that I can see, just as well as you see that guilt, what actually transpired while they were on the water. What physically happened. What the boats did, what the water did, and what the bodies did, and what they could’ve done. There’s enough information in the reports to make it quite clear. I’ve seen similar scenarios play out many times – in reports, in friends’ accounts, and in person (except I was much better prepared and made it through). I’ve been involved in rescues and recoveries and read through many an analysis of the aftermath.
I’m not writing this to brag, but to illustrate that I too have a skill, with which you’re possibly unfamiliar, that comes from decades of dealing with water and kayaks. Somehow we need to figure out what could’ve happened to make both of us right.
One possibility is that Graswald hid some key fact. Like her being an expert paddler in disguise, or hiring a diver to sink Viafore’s boat, or slipping a sedative in his drink when they were on the island. Could Graswald have hidden something like that during her questioning?
Of course she could have – but it doesn’t mean she had that ability, or even needed it to carry out a plan to bring about someone’s death.
Back to another point:
To me, after your explanation of the plug, that information could still work to her advantage. Some water will enter the kayak, any water that enters that kayak ‘death trap’ would help her. But if she admits to removing it, the investigators might consider it significant, although she might in fact know it’s not significant. So the prosecuters/investigators have built a case on invalid points that are easy to show are wrong, as the defence lawyer seemed to do.
I’m not saying that’s what happened but it is a possibility that you probably haven’t thought about. You might have just assumed, like a manipulator would want you to, that the plug had absolutely had nothing to do with causing him to be in the water, so there is no proof for her doing anything to cause his death.
This is exactly what I took away from the show, I knew she had been involved in his death and had done so intentionally; but, the lawyer part of my brain was simultaneously ripping this case to shreds. The fact that a prosecutor asserts something in their narrative of a crime has little bearing on whether someone is guilty or innocent. It may impact the outcome of the trial, or the public perception of evidence, but it can not impact what happened in the past.
So what exactly are the ‘elements’, that is, word choice/facial expressions (could we see any?)/emotion/ body language, etc., that back up this opinion? Still waiting to hear more…. and suspect we’ll be waiting in vain.
Until then, do you really find it reasonable to ask people to blindly accept, without question, someone’s unexplained statements because they say they are an “expert”? I counted a few experts in that video, including the one who equals or exceeds the experience of EFL in his chosen field. Why not believe him ?
I am sorry I haven’t had time to respond. My mom was in the hospital and I have been caring for her after a surgery. I don’t make anyone wait in vain for nothing. I am sorry you are jaded to this degree.
I don’t have time to go back through the video yet. I apologize, But I will ask you this which is basic and anyone should see: Why would Angelika be a beneficiary on a boyfriend’s life insurance policy? Does that at least raise your eyebrows? She was because she asked him to be, and this is a clear indication of a manipulator. 99.9% of dating relationships do not have life insurance policies on each other, and those who do should be highly suspicious they are in danger. Sadly, Vince missed some pretty strong signals.
Another element that supports she was not lead into a false confession is her media interviews. She was not under pressure from the cops to do anything in those clips and yet she she demonstrates the exact same behavior.
I hope your mother’s recovery is going well. Yes, the life insurance sure raises my eyebrows! What sort of person would ask for that to be done: a manipulator. A definite motive for murder.
Thank you for your analysis, Eyes. I was on the fence. I wanted to empathize and believe her, but the only way to believe that would be to ignore so many strange things she said and did.
I hope you mother is recovering well.
She caused him to drown by removing the tiny drain plug from the TOP of the kayak?
Hard to believe that is listed on the official autopsy report by the medical examiner as a cause of the accident.
I don’t think anyone has come up with a credible way a person can cause another’s kayak to capsize in the middle of 4-5 foot waves….
I think people are confusing the fact that she obviously didn’t like him, wanted out of the relationship, and really didn’t care if he died, with whether or not she deliberately and intentionally CAUSED his death. I think he died of an accident and she didn’t really care, because she felt trapped in a relationship with someone she disliked. I think the confession is false but we are mixing up elements of the truth because it is TRUE that she didn’t care if he died. But did she actively premeditate and cause his death? The evidence doesn’t support that. He was intoxicated, wasn’t wearing a life vest, whether or not she removed the plug or ring on the paddle, that didn’t cause his death. She called 911 and tried to help him. What more could she have done? Jump in the water and drown with him? And she didn’t really care that he happened to die via an accident because she obviously hated him but felt trapped. She’s guilty of that and that is the truthful emotional cues we are seeing when she says she “wanted to be free” and “wanted him dead.” But I think she is actually innocent of murder.
I think you’ve got it exactly right. The more I watch her interrogation, the more obvious this becomes.
I agree with you 100%. She’s guilty of being happy she’s out of the relationship. She’s guilty of being the only one with the life jacket. She’s guilty of being the only one to survive. It’s no wonder she’s triggered the perception she’s lying–it’s because she feels guilty for being free. Where does his personal responsibility come in? Why hasn’t a judge stepped in and tossed this out? Facts are facts and nothing they claim she did could have possibly caused his death. Her boyfriend caused his own death by not wearing a life jacket and venturing out while drunk. How can she possibly be responsible for his own actions?
Greetings!
I am well versed in this “accident” and would like to join the debate here too, ok?
I just want to let folks know that it appears Vincent Viafore had a PFD on his kayak.
It appears to have been a Coast Guard Approved Type IV floatation device.
A Kent Seat Cushion with straps.
If anyone is interested, see what I’ve posted recently on WebSleuths or Injustice Anywhere.
You can see pix of Vincent’s PFD, and compare it to what Dicks Sporting Goods sells,
where Viafore most likely bought his kayak from.
I am very surprised none of the experts in this case have figured out that Vincent had a PFD.
I have Viafore’s same model of kayak, and have had it sink while out doing a test, paddling it with-out the drain-age plug screwed in in small waves. I believe that what Angelika did by removing Vincent’s drain-age plug was pre-meditated murder, because she would have known of at least 1 previous instance where it appears Vinny had water get inside of his kayak, as seen in many over-looked clues from a photo taken at Bannerman Island. She should not have removed his drain-age plug.
My opinions only,
RW