Graswald gets only 16 months to 4 years for kayak murder?!

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeah, I know, you saw the OP poster and was thinking huh? Regardless:

The woman who pleaded guilty to sabotaging her fiancé’s kayak shortly before he drowned on the couple’s 2015 trip on the Hudson River was sentenced on Wednesday to 16 months to four years in jail.

The woman, Angelika Graswald, had faced manslaughter and murder charges in the death of her fiancé, Vincent Viafore — whom prosecutors said she had watched drown, even moving a paddle out of his reach as he flailed in the water — and a sentence of 25 years to life imprisonment if convicted. In July, she pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide as part of a deal with prosecutors.

Ms. Graswald, 37, who was sentenced in Orange County Court in Goshen, N.Y., will be given credit for the two and half years she has already spent in jail since her arrest. She was expected to be released before the end of the year.

So, in case you have forgotten, there was this case of premeditated murder, where a woman sabotaged the kayak of her fiance, and helped him die.

In her guilty plea to criminally negligent homicide in late July, Ms. Graswald admitted she unplugged the kayak and was aware of the risky weather for the excursion. But, her lawyer said at the time, it was not an admission that she intended her fiancé to die.

There was video evidence of the drowning, and her story had so many holes. But somehow she is likely to be released by year's end after committing what sounds like premeditated murder.

 

[ZiprHead]

Sounds like lazy prosecutors to me.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sounds like lazy prosecutors to me.

I'm wondering what the defense claims would have been. In order to accept this plea... it just seems incredible. Granted, it sounds like she'll be deported, due to not being a US citizen...

...another reason why I'm surprised I was the first to post this.

But still, this reads very much like premeditated murder... a la Gene Tierney in some famous movie (yes, I remembered her name!).

 

[Derec]

Sounds like lazy prosecutors to me.

Sounds like female privilege, like Mary Winkler, Nikki Redmond and many more.
If it was a man doing this to woman, it never would have been allowed.

But no, it is considered dogma in our society, and especially on here, that there is somehow "male privilege" instead, despite all the evidence to the contrary. I hope somebody shivs this bitch in the shower before she is released ...

 

[LordKiran]

Sounds like lazy prosecutors to me.

Sounds like female privilege, like Mary Winkler, Nikki Redmond and many more.
If it was a man doing this to woman, it never would have been allowed.

But no, it is considered dogma in our society, and especially on here, that there is somehow "male privilege" instead, despite all the evidence to the contrary. I hope somebody shivs this bitch in the shower before she is released ...

Go back to In/Cel

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sounds like female privilege, like Mary Winkler, Nikki Redmond and many more.

Not really. This seems like a case of easy to demonstrate premeditated murder. She must have a great lawyer or something. Usually, you'd expect to hear a story about abuse or something, but all we hear are indications that she originally claimed it was an accident, but all the evidence indicated premeditation, and video evidence indicated her in the moment story was garbage.

If it was a man doing this to woman, it never would have been allowed.

That is likely the case here.

 

[thebeave]

That's just fucking great. Now there's gonna be another massive women's march with women wearing silly knitted pink jailhouse hats, carrying signs and chanting:

"Equal jail time for men and women!"

"What do we want?!"
"More jail time!"
"When do we want it?"
"Now!"

The fight for equality never ends, it seems.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

OK, but you're all forgetting the seventeen consecutive life terms she's also going to be serving for illegally dumping him in the lake. That wasn't environmentally friendly of her.

 

[Derec]

Go back to In/Cel

To where?

And do you really think it is ok for women to get away with premeditated murder with just a slap on the wrist merely because they have vaginas?

 

[Derec]

Not really. This seems like a case of easy to demonstrate premeditated murder. She must have a great lawyer or something.

It is a pretty clear case of premeditated murder, as was the Mary Winkler case. In the Nikki Redmond case, it was at least voluntary manslaughter, but she was acquitted completely. What all of these killers have in common is their gender.

Usually, you'd expect to hear a story about abuse or something, but all we hear are indications that she originally claimed it was an accident, but all the evidence indicated premeditation, and video evidence indicated her in the moment story was garbage.

The only reason she is getting off is female privilege. You are proving me right.

 

[laughing dog]

I think there are a couple of things to consider. First, her admission was part of the plea bargain. There is no guarantee that admission would have been forthcoming if the case had gone to trial. I can imagine the defense at trial claiming she had not removed the plug.

Second, there is no law requiring anyone to actively try to save someone who is in danger. Like it or not, you can watch someone die and not be guilty of a crime.

Third, according to her defense attorney in the OP article, there was some question about her understanding of her rights when the police interrogated her.

So, it looks to me that the prosecutors went for a sure conviction rather than risk a loss at trial. Which, of course, has nothing to do with "female privilege".

 

[Derec]

Which, of course, has nothing to do with "female privilege".

No, of course not. It's just coincidence that all these women keep getting away with their heinous crimes.

If it was a man murdering his fiancee, the same people defending this would be crying about "war on women", "toxic masculinity" and other feminist buzzwords. They would also be calling for life in prison at the very least, instead of saying how a slap on the wrist is somehow fair for callously taking a man's life. But that's feminism for you - an ideology that says that while men and women are equal, women are more equal then men.

P.S.: I guess I am lucky not being in relationship. A dangerous proposition these days.

 

[ZiprHead]

P.S.: I guess I am lucky not being in relationship. A dangerous proposition these days.

I agree. I can see a woman killing you. Then getting off for the crime.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think there are a couple of things to consider. First, her admission was part of the plea bargain.

She admits to removing the plug... only removing the plug. Not removing the paddle lock, no keeping the paddles away from him, not coming to his aid, lying to investigators, and conspiring to kill him.

There is no guarantee that admission would have been forthcoming if the case had gone to trial. I can imagine the defense at trial claiming she had not removed the plug.

Second, there is no law requiring anyone to actively try to save someone who is in danger. Like it or not, you can watch someone die and not be guilty of a crime.

Third, according to her defense attorney in the OP article, there was some question about her understanding of her rights when the police interrogated her.

And very likely, I think you have pointed out what might be the bigger problem. It'd be hard (impossible) to prove she premediated certain actions. The video will show she lied about coming to the aid of her fiance, but it gets fuzzy about liability for not coming to the aid, but it certainly would have been a very hard sell to a jury that she tried to save him. So while Premeditated murder was probably hard to sell, a lower murder charge probably couldn't have been too hard.

So, it looks to me that the prosecutors went for a sure conviction rather than risk a loss at trial. Which, of course, has nothing to do with "female privilege".

Well, she'd be getting out soonish, so heck, going to trial would have kept her in jail probably longer, even if acquitted, but on the other hand, this might stop her from passing Go, collecting $250,000 and staying in the country. But this is a very hard pragmatic pill to swallow.

 

[laughing dog]

No, of course not. It's just coincidence that all these women keep getting away with their heinous crimes.

Instead of focusing on the actual facts of the situation, you handwave something about "All these women". Do you have any statistics to quantify your statement? Please provide them along with a comparison with men getting away with their heinous crimes, so that interested parties can assess the extent of this problem.

If you cannot do so, then please try to understand why a rational and disinterested reader would conclude you are expressing an unsubstantiated and biased opinion.

If it was a man murdering his fiancee, the same people defending this would be crying about "war on women", "toxic masculinity" and other feminist buzzwords. They would also be calling for life in prison at the very least, instead of saying how a slap on the wrist is somehow fair for callously taking a man's life. But that's feminism for you - an ideology that says that while men and women are equal, women are more equal then men.

You are confusing your suppositions for fact. You have not presented one iota of evidence to indicate that this prosecutor was influenced by "female privilege".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If it was a man murdering his fiancee, the same people defending this would be crying about "war on women",

Defending? I think the term "explaining" is more appropriate. ld introduced some pragmatism that he felt was likely behind the prosecutions decision. That included:
- a defensive argument around Miranda
- bystander issue

These are legitimate legal issues that the prosecution would have to deal with. Add to that the difficulty in proving premeditation in a court, proving she modified the kayak as alleged, would be virtually impossible.

..."toxic masculinity" and other feminist buzzwords. They would also be calling for life in prison at the very least, instead of saying how a slap on the wrist is somehow fair for callously taking a man's life. But that's feminism for you - an ideology that says that while men and women are equal, women are more equal then men.

The best evidence against her would likely vanish because of Miranda violations. So premeditated murder goes out the window, you can thank the police officers for that. The prosecutor went for the sure thing that will likely send her packing back to Europe.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think there are a couple of things to consider. First, her admission was part of the plea bargain. There is no guarantee that admission would have been forthcoming if the case had gone to trial. I can imagine the defense at trial claiming she had not removed the plug.

Second, there is no law requiring anyone to actively try to save someone who is in danger. Like it or not, you can watch someone die and not be guilty of a crime.

Third, according to her defense attorney in the OP article, there was some question about her understanding of her rights when the police interrogated her.

So, it looks to me that the prosecutors went for a sure conviction rather than risk a loss at trial. Which, of course, has nothing to do with "female privilege".

What's the weather in hell? Other than your inability to count ("couple" = 3??) I agree with you 100%.

Such plea bargains almost always indicate shaky cases.

 

[laughing dog]

What's the weather in hell? Other than your inability to count ("couple" = 3??)

You seem enamored with Webster definitions -

Definition of couple
1 a :two persons married, engaged, or otherwise romantically paired
b :two persons paired together

The people were lined up in couples.

2 air, brace

needed a couple of bookends

3 :something that joins or links two things together: such as
a :two equal and opposite forces that act along parallel lines
b :a pair of substances that in contact with an electrolyte (see electrolyte 1) participate in a transfer of electrons which causes an electric current to flow
4 :an indefinite small number :few

(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/couple)

 

[bilby]

I think there are a couple of things to consider. First, her admission was part of the plea bargain. There is no guarantee that admission would have been forthcoming if the case had gone to trial. I can imagine the defense at trial claiming she had not removed the plug.

Second, there is no law requiring anyone to actively try to save someone who is in danger. Like it or not, you can watch someone die and not be guilty of a crime.

Third, according to her defense attorney in the OP article, there was some question about her understanding of her rights when the police interrogated her.

So, it looks to me that the prosecutors went for a sure conviction rather than risk a loss at trial. Which, of course, has nothing to do with "female privilege".

What's the weather in hell? Other than your inability to count ("couple" = 3??) I agree with you 100%.

Such plea bargains almost always indicate shaky cases.

Never mind using 'couple' to mean three; where's your criticism of Derec's use of 'all these women' in a thread in which only one woman is under discussion?

 

[barbos]

Why did she kill him? Had he forgotten some important anniversary?

Mr. Viafore, 46, was to be Ms. Graswald’s third husband, and authorities building the case argued her motive was to cash in on his hefty life insurance policies, about $250,000, to which she was entitled.

OK, I can see why. Now I wonder if previous husbands are alive