If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Remember the woman who "accidentally" pushed her new husband off a cliff eight days after the wedding? Turns out he was blindfolded when he fell. Somebody's got some 'splaining to do   (cnn.com) divider line 89
    More: Followup, voluntary manslaughter, FBI Laboratory, premeditation  
•       •       •

9994 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Nov 2013 at 9:58 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



89 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-11-12 08:27:40 AM  
Don't stick your dick in crazyyyyyyyyy
 
2013-11-12 08:28:50 AM  
That's natural selection.
 
2013-11-12 09:04:30 AM  
Some people walk blindly into marriage, the others avoid it.
 
2013-11-12 09:15:38 AM  
"Hey honey, let me blindfold next to this large cliff"

only a newlywed would fall for this!


get it? fall? uck uck
 
2013-11-12 09:30:42 AM  
Maybe he got scared on the way down and decided to blindfold himself so he couldn't see the impact.
 
2013-11-12 10:00:52 AM  
There's kinky sex and then there's just stupid.
 
2013-11-12 10:01:45 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Maybe he got scared on the way down and decided to blindfold himself so he couldn't see the impact.


c.f. Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses.
 
2013-11-12 10:02:01 AM  
I don't think that's what they mean by "falling in love."
 
2013-11-12 10:02:33 AM  

FrancoFile: There's kinky sex and then there's just stupid. marriage.


ftfm.
 
2013-11-12 10:06:30 AM  
So was he rich, or what's the deal here?
 
2013-11-12 10:07:11 AM  
It's the man's fault. He was obviously abusing her and she was defending herself! She's innocent!
 
2013-11-12 10:07:17 AM  
As a jurisprudence fetishist, I, too, hope she gets off on technicality...

Seriously, though, the circumstantial evidence does strongly suggest manslaughter, if not murder, and the idea that the couldn't have been arguing because he was "wearing a blindfold" is ludicrous. If anything, I'd be more inclined to believe that she had planned it because he was wearing a blindfold - "hey, honey, let's do something... interesting..." Guy giggles, buys into the game, puts on blindfold. She pushes him off the cliff, pretends to discover the body, admits she lied, then claims it was an accident.
 
2013-11-12 10:07:59 AM  
Some new extreme sport, blindfolded cliffwalking?
 
2013-11-12 10:10:48 AM  
Overzealous game of Pin the Tail on the Donkey.

Nothing to see here, move along.
 
2013-11-12 10:14:17 AM  
The man's crazy wife somehow got him,
to the edge of a cliff, and then pushed him.
Her alibi during grilling,
Was the push did no killing
Rather, it was the sudden stop at the bottom.
 
2013-11-12 10:15:53 AM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: It's the man's fault. He was obviously abusing her and she was defending herself! She's innocent!


Yes yes, the story already told us it was the man that fall't.
 
2013-11-12 10:20:07 AM  

HailRobonia: Marcus Aurelius: Maybe he got scared on the way down and decided to blindfold himself so he couldn't see the impact.

c.f. Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses.


also see "Traal, Ravenous Bugblatter Beast Of"
 
2013-11-12 10:24:03 AM  
Of course, if you bothered to read the article, Subby, you'd find that the evidence of the blindfold is "we found a scrap of cloth in the river," and it was never presented to the grand jury, and it contradicts the prosecution's theory that they were arguing and she pushed him.

Also, there's this:
The report, which alleges an FBI interrogator inappropriately touched Graham's knee during the interview, states that almost an hour and a half of Graham's interrogation was not recorded, despite the necessary equipment being on hand. Failing to preserve such evidence, which includes Graham's first admission that she had previously lied, is a violation of Graham's rights, the defense brief says.

FBI: "She totally confessed during the interrogation. You know, during the part when we stopped recording. But she did totally did - you can trust us, our handwritten notes, and this new evidence that we mysteriously found weeks later."
 
2013-11-12 10:26:35 AM  

Theaetetus: Of course, if you bothered to read the article, Subby, you'd find that the evidence of the blindfold is "we found a scrap of cloth in the river," and it was never presented to the grand jury, and it contradicts the prosecution's theory that they were arguing and she pushed him.

Also, there's this:
The report, which alleges an FBI interrogator inappropriately touched Graham's knee during the interview, states that almost an hour and a half of Graham's interrogation was not recorded, despite the necessary equipment being on hand. Failing to preserve such evidence, which includes Graham's first admission that she had previously lied, is a violation of Graham's rights, the defense brief says.

FBI: "She totally confessed during the interrogation. You know, during the part when we stopped recording. But she did totally did - you can trust us, our handwritten notes, and this new evidence that we mysteriously found weeks later."


This story has turned into a clusterf*ck of epic proportions. How do you not record the first 90 minutes, and then ask her to "paraphrase" what she said?

These guys must have worked the O.J. investigation...
 
2013-11-12 10:26:38 AM  
Just wanted to point out that from what's been released so far, the prosecution's blindfold theory is extremely weak.  All we know so far is that apparently a piece of fabric was found on a shoal in the river at some unknown distance from the body, and that the piece of fabric by some measure was DNA linked to the victim.  Claiming that the piece of fabric was used as a blindfold and that the victim was wearing it when he went off the cliff is a pretty big stretch.  Plus, as the defense attorney points out in the article, based on the timing of the DNA testing, the blindfold theory was most likely not presented to the grand jury.  It's entirely possible that this whole blindfold story is just grandstanding by the prosecution to try to force a plea deal.
 
2013-11-12 10:26:58 AM  
It was a trust exercise for newlyweds.  Obviously he failed.
 
2013-11-12 10:28:07 AM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: It's the man's fault. He was obviously abusing her and she was defending herself! She's innocent!


Shove it up your piehole, princess. I think the incidence of women taking responsibility for their lives runs about the same as the numbers of men taking responsibility for their lives.

It's not our fault that you have bad taste in women and only know the ones who lie to you.
 
2013-11-12 10:28:08 AM  
He always hiked that way, it makes it more extreme.
 
2013-11-12 10:28:24 AM  
There should be a rule that, if the cops record part of something, and then mysteriously fail to record another part, the jury should be instructed to draw a negative inference that anything the cops say occurred during that time is likely false, unless they can prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
2013-11-12 10:33:29 AM  
I was doing blindfolded cliff hiking back in the 80's before a lot of people even knew about it.
 
2013-11-12 10:41:46 AM  
He was just testing the theory that if you walk around while blind, the "Magoo effect" will ensure that if you step off an edge, something will miraculously swing into position to save you from falling.
 
2013-11-12 10:43:59 AM  

FormlessOne: As a jurisprudence fetishist, I, too, hope she gets off on technicality...

Seriously, though, the circumstantial evidence does strongly suggest manslaughter, if not murder, and the idea that the couldn't have been arguing because he was "wearing a blindfold" is ludicrous. If anything, I'd be more inclined to believe that she had planned it because he was wearing a blindfold - "hey, honey, let's do something... interesting..." Guy giggles, buys into the game, puts on blindfold. She pushes him off the cliff, pretends to discover the body, admits she lied, then claims it was an accident.


Or he had a bandana on his head or around his neck (early July I would still have one with me in case mosquitoes were bad and I needed to cover my face). His body wasn't found blindfolded. They found a "piece of cloth" in the river. It would be really stupid to blindfold somebody and risk having the body found that way if you're big plan is to say "Oopsie, accident!" Granted, she may be that stupid.

Prosecutors are probably city folk who've never gone hiking and wouldn't know why someone would carry a bandana or neck sock in the woods.
 
2013-11-12 10:44:21 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: "Hey honey, let me blindfold next to this large cliff"

only a newlywed would fall for this!


get it? fall? uck uck


I'll tumble for you
 
2013-11-12 10:44:55 AM  
Trust fall?
 
2013-11-12 10:46:57 AM  

positronica: Just wanted to point out that from what's been released so far, the prosecution's blindfold theory is extremely weak.  All we know so far is that apparently a piece of fabric was found on a shoal in the river at some unknown distance from the body, and that the piece of fabric by some measure was DNA linked to the victim.  Claiming that the piece of fabric was used as a blindfold and that the victim was wearing it when he went off the cliff is a pretty big stretch.  Plus, as the defense attorney points out in the article, based on the timing of the DNA testing, the blindfold theory was most likely not presented to the grand jury.  It's entirely possible that this whole blindfold story is just grandstanding by the prosecution to try to force a plea deal.


I imagine falling off a cliff would normally end up with a load of your DNA appearing on most things up and down the coastline for some way in either direction.
 
2013-11-12 10:47:44 AM  

EatsCrayons: FormlessOne: As a jurisprudence fetishist, I, too, hope she gets off on technicality...

Seriously, though, the circumstantial evidence does strongly suggest manslaughter, if not murder, and the idea that the couldn't have been arguing because he was "wearing a blindfold" is ludicrous. If anything, I'd be more inclined to believe that she had planned it because he was wearing a blindfold - "hey, honey, let's do something... interesting..." Guy giggles, buys into the game, puts on blindfold. She pushes him off the cliff, pretends to discover the body, admits she lied, then claims it was an accident.

Or he had a bandana on his head or around his neck (early July I would still have one with me in case mosquitoes were bad and I needed to cover my face). His body wasn't found blindfolded. They found a "piece of cloth" in the river. It would be really stupid to blindfold somebody and risk having the body found that way if you're big plan is to say "Oopsie, accident!" Granted, she may be that stupid.

Prosecutors are probably city folk who've never gone hiking and wouldn't know why someone would carry a bandana or neck sock in the woods.


She IS that stupid. IIRC from the original story, after she pushed him off, when the cops asked where he was, she said "he left with friends." No matter that she actually had an alibi in the form of "he was standing near the cliff and then he tripped and fell over," or some equally plausible thing. Nope, he left with some anonymous friends, officer, yeah, that's the ticket!

/was hiking in Zion and Bryce Canyon with wife recently, we joked about that dolt
 
2013-11-12 10:50:48 AM  
FTA: "The report, which alleges an FBI interrogator inappropriately touched Graham's knee during the interview, states that almost an hour and a half of Graham's interrogation was not recorded, despite the necessary equipment being on hand. Failing to preserve such evidence, which includes Graham's first admission that she had previously lied, is a violation of Graham's rights, the defense brief says."

Well THAT'S believable. Yeah, that's the ticket.
 
2013-11-12 10:51:40 AM  

HailRobonia: The man's crazy wife somehow got him,
to the edge of a cliff, and then pushed him.
Her alibi during grilling,
Was the push did no killing
Rather, it was the sudden stop at the bottom.


Couple on a cliff,
Then she hands him a blindfold,
For his own safety.
 
2013-11-12 10:51:51 AM  
This is why I think all cliffs should have fencing.

Also, because I'm not left-handed.
 
2013-11-12 11:00:02 AM  
What's going on in here?
 
2013-11-12 11:01:41 AM  

I_Can't_Believe_it's_not_Boutros: This is why I think all cliffs should have fencing.


Fencing on a cliff?

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-11-12 11:02:27 AM  
I'm sure it was just some wacky mishap.
 
2013-11-12 11:02:52 AM  
I'm no criminal mastermind, but don't you think a murder during the honeymoon is just a bit too conspicuous ?
 
2013-11-12 11:04:49 AM  
Is this really the sort of thing we need to be covering on Fark?

/let Tumblr have this one
//ba-dum-tsch
 
2013-11-12 11:05:32 AM  

xria: I imagine falling off a cliff would normally end up with a load of your DNA appearing on most things up and down the coastline for some way in either direction.


This is what I thought.
 
2013-11-12 11:06:11 AM  
They were playing "pin the ground on the bridegroom", a classic honeymoon game among asshole Uzbeks.

Great success!
 
2013-11-12 11:08:15 AM  

Fano: She IS that stupid. IIRC from the original story, after she pushed him off, when the cops asked where he was, she said "he left with friends." No matter that she actually had an alibi in the form of "he was standing near the cliff and then he tripped and fell over," or some equally plausible thing. Nope, he left with some anonymous friends, officer, yeah, that's the ticket!


Maybe, but then he'd actually have to be equally moronic to put a blindfold on by the top of a cliff. It's a lot more believable to me that he'd be carrying something as mundane as a bandana or muff, because it's an ordinary, common thing to have when you're hiking.

Like the hoofprints in Kansas are probably from horses, not zebras.
 
2013-11-12 11:10:13 AM  
This is why "Pin-The-Tail on the Donkey--Cliff Version" was banned.
 
2013-11-12 11:17:56 AM  

EatsCrayons: Fano: She IS that stupid. IIRC from the original story, after she pushed him off, when the cops asked where he was, she said "he left with friends." No matter that she actually had an alibi in the form of "he was standing near the cliff and then he tripped and fell over," or some equally plausible thing. Nope, he left with some anonymous friends, officer, yeah, that's the ticket!

Maybe, but then he'd actually have to be equally moronic to put a blindfold on by the top of a cliff. It's a lot more believable to me that he'd be carrying something as mundane as a bandana or muff, because it's an ordinary, common thing to have when you're hiking.

Like the hoofprints in Kansas are probably from horses, not zebras.


I don't believe the bandana thing, FWIW. But didn't she send a text to a friend saying "the problem will be solved tonight" or some such?
 
2013-11-12 11:24:47 AM  

mediablitz: This story has turned into a clusterf*ck of epic proportions. How do you not record the first 90 minutes, and then ask her to "paraphrase" what she said?

These guys must have worked the O.J. investigation...


 Probably done on purpose. Selectively editing conversations is a staple of getting convictions. I saw one once where they used the fact that during the interrogation the suspect stated the exact height of the victim. This was the main evidence used to prove he was not a complete stranger to her and had never seen her before as he claimed, and the jury convicted based almost solely on that. Many, many years later DNA exonerated him. The follow-up investigation turned up more tape.
 Turns out the investigators had directly told him that precise measurement twice, moments earlier, in a part of the interrogation they 'lost' at the first trial. They sure didn't lose the part of the tape just minutes afterward when they asked him to repeat how tall she was though...

/This is why you don't talk to cops, -ESPECIALLY- when you are innocent.
 
2013-11-12 11:25:30 AM  

Fano: The Stealth Hippopotamus: "Hey honey, let me blindfold next to this large cliff"

only a newlywed would fall for this!


get it? fall? uck uck

I'll tumble for you


The romance between you two is such a cliffhanger!
 
2013-11-12 11:31:08 AM  

Fano: EatsCrayons: Fano: She IS that stupid. IIRC from the original story, after she pushed him off, when the cops asked where he was, she said "he left with friends." No matter that she actually had an alibi in the form of "he was standing near the cliff and then he tripped and fell over," or some equally plausible thing. Nope, he left with some anonymous friends, officer, yeah, that's the ticket!

Maybe, but then he'd actually have to be equally moronic to put a blindfold on by the top of a cliff. It's a lot more believable to me that he'd be carrying something as mundane as a bandana or muff, because it's an ordinary, common thing to have when you're hiking.

Like the hoofprints in Kansas are probably from horses, not zebras.

I don't believe the bandana thing, FWIW. But didn't she send a text to a friend saying "the problem will be solved tonight" or some such?


I was to the effect of her having second thoughts and "If you don't hear from me after tonight, something happened".

I don't buy her self-defense bullcrap, and she admitted she lied to the investigators. Her lawyer is/was trying to get that to be inadmissible. This whole thing reeks of "I shouldn't have married him. Wait! I know how to take care of this!  Hey honey! Put on this blindfold so we can try something kinky here near this cliff!"   *SHOVE*
 
2013-11-12 11:31:11 AM  

Theaetetus: There should be a rule that, if the cops record part of something, and then mysteriously fail to record another part, the jury should be instructed to draw a negative inference that anything the cops say occurred during that time is likely false, unless they can prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.


Rules of Evidence.  Read it sometime, pretty interesting, and there are free outlines available on the internet.

And not recording part of an interview is Investigation 101.  I do it all the time.  Agree to talk "off the record".  Target incriminates themselves.  Act nonchalant.  Kill time a little bit with some filler questions, state that we've wandered far off the beaten path and need to get back on the record to get an official statement - rules are rules, after all.  More filler questions, then subtly ask questions you know will have to be answered in a way that will repeat the previous incrimination.

Of course, it sounds like the investigators here botched the whole thing, but there ya go.
 
2013-11-12 11:32:21 AM  
He fell for her twice.
 
2013-11-12 11:35:09 AM  
media.247sports.com
 
2013-11-12 11:42:01 AM  
I just wanted to say I love the fact they used a picture of him wearing a shirt saying "Boobies make me smile" in the video
 
2013-11-12 11:42:10 AM  
The magic blindfold theory.
 
2013-11-12 11:50:30 AM  

zulius: Fano: The Stealth Hippopotamus: "Hey honey, let me blindfold next to this large cliff"

only a newlywed would fall for this!


get it? fall? uck uck

I'll tumble for you

The romance between you two is such a cliffhanger!


Please don't leave us hanging here!
 
2013-11-12 12:00:09 PM  
an artist's rendering of the events that took place
i.imgur.com
 
2013-11-12 12:07:31 PM  

cryinoutloud: Princess Ryans Knickers: It's the man's fault. He was obviously abusing her and she was defending herself! She's innocent!

Shove it up your piehole, princess. I think the incidence of women taking responsibility for their lives runs about the same as the numbers of men taking responsibility for their lives.

It's not our fault that you have bad taste in women and only know the ones who lie to you.


You get back what you put out into the world. Gee, I wonder why so many "nice guys" wind up with insane hosebeasts...
 
2013-11-12 12:13:19 PM  
Omg, I f@&king killed him!
 
2013-11-12 12:28:23 PM  
Maybe she was going to shoot him, offered the blindfold and a cigarette but he decided to jump.
 
2013-11-12 12:33:13 PM  

docmattic: HailRobonia: Marcus Aurelius: Maybe he got scared on the way down and decided to blindfold himself so he couldn't see the impact.

c.f. Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses.

also see "Traal, Ravenous Bugblatter Beast Of"


So, you're implying she started reading him poetry so bad, he blindfolded himself & jumped?

/One of the secrets of a long marriage is to never stand near a cliff with your spouse.
//...or a train track.
///...or a busy highway.
////probably not a bad idea to keep the guns locked up as well.
//Just sayin'
 
2013-11-12 01:06:57 PM  
FTA: Johnson grabbed her by the arm and she removed it, pushing Johnson [from behind] simultaneously and accidentally sending him off the cliff, according to court documents.

The complaint against her says, "Graham stated she could have just walked away, but due to her anger, she pushed Johnson with both hands in the back and as a result, he fell face first off the cliff."



I still don't understand the physics of how that is supposed to work. A larger, stronger person grabs your arm, you remove it and now instead of facing each other somehow you're behind him so you can "accidentally"  push him off a cliff that you "forgot" was there, I guess. Or there was no arm grabbing and she just pushed him off.
 
2013-11-12 01:09:00 PM  
She will get off.  Liberals have made it where women can kill their children and call it a "choice" and also murder their husbands in cold blood as long as they claim they were "abused".  For a party that claims women are equal to men the whole platform is based on the fact that women possess to personal agency and can't be held responsible for their actions.  As usual, their line of equality is nothing more then bigotry.
 
2013-11-12 01:09:41 PM  
If you were my husband, I would push you off a cliff
if you were my wife..ah shiat..
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH splot
 
2013-11-12 01:17:07 PM  
Having been dragged through the family court system, there's one thing I've learned.  It's ALWAYS the mans fault. Even if she pushed him, he obviously did something to provoke it. Poor girl must have been abused somehow to lead her to do this.  She was just protecting herself.  Yeah. Can't you people see, SHE'S the victim here!  The State should pay her greatly for having such a dangerous cliff!  Think of the pain and suffering she must be going through!

/good thing this won't go through family court
 
2013-11-12 01:32:06 PM  

Theaetetus: Of course, if you bothered to read the article, Subby, you'd find that the evidence of the blindfold is "we found a scrap of cloth in the river," and it was never presented to the grand jury, and it contradicts the prosecution's theory that they were arguing and she pushed him.


Came to say this.

Its not news, its CNN.
 
2013-11-12 01:46:50 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: Some people walk blindly into marriage, the others avoid it.


...and we are done in three.

Well played, Sir.
 
2013-11-12 01:48:15 PM  

Fano: EatsCrayons: FormlessOne: As a jurisprudence fetishist, I, too, hope she gets off on technicality...

Seriously, though, the circumstantial evidence does strongly suggest manslaughter, if not murder, and the idea that the couldn't have been arguing because he was "wearing a blindfold" is ludicrous. If anything, I'd be more inclined to believe that she had planned it because he was wearing a blindfold - "hey, honey, let's do something... interesting..." Guy giggles, buys into the game, puts on blindfold. She pushes him off the cliff, pretends to discover the body, admits she lied, then claims it was an accident.

Or he had a bandana on his head or around his neck (early July I would still have one with me in case mosquitoes were bad and I needed to cover my face). His body wasn't found blindfolded. They found a "piece of cloth" in the river. It would be really stupid to blindfold somebody and risk having the body found that way if you're big plan is to say "Oopsie, accident!" Granted, she may be that stupid.

Prosecutors are probably city folk who've never gone hiking and wouldn't know why someone would carry a bandana or neck sock in the woods.

She IS that stupid. IIRC from the original story, after she pushed him off, when the cops asked where he was, she said "he left with friends." No matter that she actually had an alibi in the form of "he was standing near the cliff and then he tripped and fell over," or some equally plausible thing. Nope, he left with some anonymous friends, officer, yeah, that's the ticket!

/was hiking in Zion and Bryce Canyon with wife recently, we joked about that dolt


People do weird stuff in a panic.  If it was genuinely an accident she probably still would have felt guilty and thought rolling the dice with the BS story was better than admitting culpability in the accident.

Innocent until proven guilty and all that I would say the police/prosecution is the stupid ones here.  Their not building a very good case with missing interrogation audio and whatnot.   If the facts are as stated the blindfold accusation is pretty spurious.  It really doesn't even make any sense.

The best thing that points to her guilt is why she was going to break it off with him and chose that location to do it.
 
2013-11-12 02:01:36 PM  

FLMountainMan: Theaetetus: There should be a rule that, if the cops record part of something, and then mysteriously fail to record another part, the jury should be instructed to draw a negative inference that anything the cops say occurred during that time is likely false, unless they can prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.

Rules of Evidence.  Read it sometime, pretty interesting, and there are free outlines available on the internet.


Yes, and? Which one of the FRE or the various applicable state rules of evidence has any bearing on what I just said?

And not recording part of an interview is Investigation 101.  I do it all the time.   Agree to talk "off the record".  Target incriminates themselves.  Act nonchalant.  Kill time a little bit with some filler questions, state that we've wandered far off the beaten path and need to get back on the record to get an official statement - rules are rules, after all.  More filler questions, then subtly ask questions you know will have to be answered in a way that will repeat the previous incrimination.

Of course, it sounds like the investigators here botched the whole thing, but there ya go.


You mean "lie"? Yes, I know lying is part of investigation 101. That's exactly why I think juries should draw a negative inference whenever it's likely that you're lying by purposely avoiding making a contemporaneous record. Don't like it, then keep the recording on. Or, give the interrogated person a tape recorder and let them make their own record. Why should people who care about justice make it easy for you to lie?
 
2013-11-12 02:05:50 PM  
In fact, I'd go even farther and say that when you "do it all the time" and "agree to talk 'off the record'", you likely are  not turning off your recording device. After all, what if, unprompted, they immediately confess? You'd want that record. In fact, the only time in which you'd turn off your recording device is when you know ahead of time that  you are going to something illegal or improper. The very fact that you don't have a recording, during a time period in which making a recording was under your sole control, means that you probably did something you didn't want recorded... and juries should take a very harsh view of anyone who does that, particularly if they later rely on either the recording or their report of what occurred.

Hence why I say, if you have a recording that is missing a crucial time period, then anything you claim happened during that time period should be presumed false, because Occam's Razor says it probably is.
 
2013-11-12 02:11:10 PM  
I just don't see "push off a cliff" as a viable premeditated murder strategy.  There's too much that could go wrong.  The guy could have decided that standing at the edge of a cliff while arguing with his crazy girlfriend was a bad idea.  He could have resisted being pushed.  He could have grabbed her in a panic and taken her with him.  The guy could forget to look down and thereby become immune to gravity's effects.  Or he could clutch at the one root sticking out from the cliff face and hang there until help arrived.  OK, the last two are from cartoons- but the point remains: this is not someone with an ounce of sense or foresight could possibly consider as a method of offing her boyfriend.

I totally buy an argument leading to pushing and shoving and ending up in an accidental death.  Relationships get intense at the end, and you could easily forget (or be so distraught that you just don't care) that you were on a cliff's edge.  Occam's Razor is pointing squarely at manslaughter (if anything), and it's mere chance that it's her that's in the hot seat and him that's dead.

All that aside, the woman's an idiot for lying to the police with a completely unbelievable story.  All she had to say was that he was clowning around, she begged him to stop being an ass, but he continued to walk along the edge and then overbalanced and fell.
 
2013-11-12 02:54:31 PM  

EatsCrayons: Fano: She IS that stupid. IIRC from the original story, after she pushed him off, when the cops asked where he was, she said "he left with friends." No matter that she actually had an alibi in the form of "he was standing near the cliff and then he tripped and fell over," or some equally plausible thing. Nope, he left with some anonymous friends, officer, yeah, that's the ticket!

Maybe, but then he'd actually have to be equally moronic to put a blindfold on by the top of a cliff. It's a lot more believable to me that he'd be carrying something as mundane as a bandana or muff, because it's an ordinary, common thing to have when you're hiking.

Like the hoofprints in Kansas are probably from horses, not zebras.


Why horses? Why not a donkey, or a deer? What about bovine creatures?
 
2013-11-12 03:04:21 PM  

Theaetetus: FLMountainMan: Theaetetus: There should be a rule that, if the cops record part of something, and then mysteriously fail to record another part, the jury should be instructed to draw a negative inference that anything the cops say occurred during that time is likely false, unless they can prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.

Rules of Evidence.  Read it sometime, pretty interesting, and there are free outlines available on the internet.

Yes, and? Which one of the FRE or the various applicable state rules of evidence has any bearing on what I just said?

And not recording part of an interview is Investigation 101.  I do it all the time.   Agree to talk "off the record".  Target incriminates themselves.  Act nonchalant.  Kill time a little bit with some filler questions, state that we've wandered far off the beaten path and need to get back on the record to get an official statement - rules are rules, after all.  More filler questions, then subtly ask questions you know will have to be answered in a way that will repeat the previous incrimination.

Of course, it sounds like the investigators here botched the whole thing, but there ya go.

You mean "lie"? Yes, I know lying is part of investigation 101. That's exactly why I think juries should draw a negative inference whenever it's likely that you're lying by purposely avoiding making a contemporaneous record. Don't like it, then keep the recording on. Or, give the interrogated person a tape recorder and let them make their own record. Why should people who care about justice make it easy for you to lie?


It's not lying to say that you will agree to not record the conversation and then not record the conversation.

I get the feeling you'd be pretty fun to interview.
 
2013-11-12 03:09:07 PM  
sounds like she stood her ground, or cliff face, or whatever.
 
2013-11-12 03:09:44 PM  

FLMountainMan: Theaetetus: FLMountainMan: Theaetetus: There should be a rule that, if the cops record part of something, and then mysteriously fail to record another part, the jury should be instructed to draw a negative inference that anything the cops say occurred during that time is likely false, unless they can prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.

Rules of Evidence.  Read it sometime, pretty interesting, and there are free outlines available on the internet.

Yes, and? Which one of the FRE or the various applicable state rules of evidence has any bearing on what I just said?

And not recording part of an interview is Investigation 101.  I do it all the time.   Agree to talk "off the record".  Target incriminates themselves.  Act nonchalant.  Kill time a little bit with some filler questions, state that we've wandered far off the beaten path and need to get back on the record to get an official statement - rules are rules, after all.  More filler questions, then subtly ask questions you know will have to be answered in a way that will repeat the previous incrimination.

Of course, it sounds like the investigators here botched the whole thing, but there ya go.

You mean "lie"? Yes, I know lying is part of investigation 101. That's exactly why I think juries should draw a negative inference whenever it's likely that you're lying by purposely avoiding making a contemporaneous record. Don't like it, then keep the recording on. Or, give the interrogated person a tape recorder and let them make their own record. Why should people who care about justice make it easy for you to lie?

It's not lying to say that you will agree to not record the conversation and then not record the conversation.


Of course, nothing is actually "off the record", contrary to your agreement.

I get the feeling you'd be pretty fun to interview.

Particularly when I pull out my own recorder, yes.
 
2013-11-12 03:15:54 PM  

Theaetetus: In fact, I'd go even farther and say that when you "do it all the time" and "agree to talk 'off the record'", you likely are  not turning off your recording device. After all, what if, unprompted, they immediately confess? You'd want that record. In fact, the only time in which you'd turn off your recording device is when you know ahead of time that  you are going to something illegal or improper. The very fact that you don't have a recording, during a time period in which making a recording was under your sole control, means that you probably did something you didn't want recorded... and juries should take a very harsh view of anyone who does that, particularly if they later rely on either the recording or their report of what occurred.

Hence why I say, if you have a recording that is missing a crucial time period, then anything you claim happened during that time period should be presumed false, because Occam's Razor says it probably is.


You have a conclusion, and are doing everything you can to justify it.  Really, read the rules of evidence or a primer on investigations.  Or even a basic psychology textbook. Or even Florida law that prohibits recorded conversation without the consent of both parties (absent a warrant or various other legal devices).

I doubt I can change your mind, but here goes:

You go off the record to get the individual to talk.  Most people, even innocent people are much more reluctant to talk with the conversation recorded.  If they confess, you can't use it (you actually usually can, but the defense attorney will pick it apart), but you can get clues to other ways to get circumstantial evidence to prove your case.  For instance, if the person says they walked down such and such street carrying the bag of cash, you get camera footage from businesses on that street showing the perp carrying the bag.  It's not rocket science.

Really, drop the "fark the pigs" stuff for a bit and think about how you would go about doing it.

And again, I'm not saying that some cops and state attorneys don't do shiatty things like what you've attempted to coherently describe above.  I am saying that not recording conversations is not, by itself, indicative of any sort of prosecutorial misconduct.
 
2013-11-12 03:17:37 PM  

Theaetetus: Of course, nothing is actually "off the record", contrary to your agreement.


That statement is accurate neither theoretically nor practically.
 
2013-11-12 03:32:09 PM  
FLMountainMan:You have a conclusion, and are doing everything you can to justify it.  Really, read the rules of evidence or a primer on investigations.

I've read and studied both the FRE and my state's rules extensively as part of passing the bar. Do you have a particular rule in mind? Or is this just a "I can't actually cite anything in support of what I'm saying, so I'm going to throw out a vague 'read the rules' in the hopes that (a) you won't bother, and (b) haven't done so previously"? Because that isn't going to work.

Or even a basic psychology textbook. Or even Florida law that prohibits recorded conversation without the consent of both parties (absent a warrant or various other legal devices).

Maybe  you should go back and read the law. You're referring, of course, to Fl. Stat. 934.03, that prohibits recorded conversation without the consent of both parties  except (2)(a)(3)(c) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for an investigative or law enforcement officer or a person acting under the direction of an investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception and the purpose of such interception is to obtain evidence of a criminal act.
And since we're talking about cops recording interrogations where, by definition, the cop is a party to the communication, it's explicitly legal (not to mention the fact that it's also to obtain evidence of a criminal act).

So, you've vaguely said "read the rules" without actual citation, and you've cited a Florida law that says the exact opposite of what you claim.

If you're trying to support an argument that cops are credible, you're not helping.

I doubt I can change your mind, but here goes:

You go off the record to get the individual to talk.  Most people, even innocent people are much more reluctant to talk with the conversation recorded.  If they confess, you can't use it (you actually usually can, but the defense attorney will pick it apart), but you can get clues to other ways to get circumstantial evidence to prove your case.  For instance, if the person says they walked down such and such street carrying the bag of cash, you get camera footage from businesses on that street showing the perp carrying the bag.  It's not rocket science.


Or, you  claim they said they walked down such and such street, but in reality, they said nothing of the sort, and you swore out a false warrant as a fishing expedition. Of course, who can prove that - you supposedly turned off the recording (but did you? Or did you just "lose" that particular tape when it didn't contain anything useful and may actually include exculpatory evidence that you're required by law to hand over to the defense?).
 
2013-11-12 03:42:11 PM  

SharkaPult: zulius: Fano: The Stealth Hippopotamus: "Hey honey, let me blindfold next to this large cliff"

only a newlywed would fall for this!


get it? fall? uck uck

I'll tumble for you

The romance between you two is such a cliffhanger!

Please don't leave us hanging here!


Don't worry you didn't miss much, it's all down hill from here.
 
2013-11-12 03:49:17 PM  

Theaetetus: FLMountainMan:You have a conclusion, and are doing everything you can to justify it.  Really, read the rules of evidence or a primer on investigations.

I've read and studied both the FRE and my state's rules extensively as part of passing the bar. Do you have a particular rule in mind? Or is this just a "I can't actually cite anything in support of what I'm saying, so I'm going to throw out a vague 'read the rules' in the hopes that (a) you won't bother, and (b) haven't done so previously"? Because that isn't going to work.

Or even a basic psychology textbook. Or even Florida law that prohibits recorded conversation without the consent of both parties (absent a warrant or various other legal devices).

Maybe  you should go back and read the law. You're referring, of course, to Fl. Stat. 934.03, that prohibits recorded conversation without the consent of both parties  except (2)(a)(3)(c) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for an investigative or law enforcement officer or a person acting under the direction of an investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception and the purpose of such interception is to obtain evidence of a criminal act.
And since we're talking about cops recording interrogations where, by definition, the cop is a party to the communication, it's explicitly legal (not to mention the fact that it's also to obtain evidence of a criminal act).


You're an attorney?  LOL.  Go ahead and think again about the logical conclusion of how you've (mis)interpreted that - cops in Florida never need an excuse to tape any conversations they have and all the tapes they make are admissible as evidence.

Or, you  claim they said they walked down such and such street, but in reality, they said nothing of the sort, and you swore out a false warrant as a fishing expedition. Of course, who can prove that - you supposedly turned off the recording (but did you? Or did you just "lose" that particular tape when it didn't contain anything useful and may actually include exculpatory evidence that you're required by law to hand over to the defense?).

You would have a difficult time getting a warrant (at least I would) based on what someone supposedly during an unrecorded conversation.

Look, I'm really not going to debate this much longer because you don't have any sort of practical experience.  It's like talking to Ben Franklin about how the internal combustion engine works.

.
 
2013-11-12 03:54:12 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: cryinoutloud: Princess Ryans Knickers: It's the man's fault. He was obviously abusing her and she was defending herself! She's innocent!

Shove it up your piehole, princess. I think the incidence of women taking responsibility for their lives runs about the same as the numbers of men taking responsibility for their lives.

It's not our fault that you have bad taste in women and only know the ones who lie to you.

You get back what you put out into the world. Gee, I wonder why so many "nice guys" wind up with insane hosebeasts...


It's the frog in the boiling pot of water.  Some of them have a way of slowly ramping up the crazy and you wake up one day realizing you've been soaking in it.
 
2013-11-12 03:58:33 PM  

FLMountainMan: Theaetetus: FLMountainMan:You have a conclusion, and are doing everything you can to justify it.  Really, read the rules of evidence or a primer on investigations.

I've read and studied both the FRE and my state's rules extensively as part of passing the bar. Do you have a particular rule in mind? Or is this just a "I can't actually cite anything in support of what I'm saying, so I'm going to throw out a vague 'read the rules' in the hopes that (a) you won't bother, and (b) haven't done so previously"? Because that isn't going to work.

Or even a basic psychology textbook. Or even Florida law that prohibits recorded conversation without the consent of both parties (absent a warrant or various other legal devices).

Maybe  you should go back and read the law. You're referring, of course, to Fl. Stat. 934.03, that prohibits recorded conversation without the consent of both parties  except (2)(a)(3)(c) It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for an investigative or law enforcement officer or a person acting under the direction of an investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception and the purpose of such interception is to obtain evidence of a criminal act.
And since we're talking about cops recording interrogations where, by definition, the cop is a party to the communication, it's explicitly legal (not to mention the fact that it's also to obtain evidence of a criminal act).

You're an attorney?  LOL. Go ahead and think again about the logical conclusion of how you've (mis)interpreted that - cops in Florida never need an excuse to tape any conversations they have and all the tapes they make are admissible as evidence.


Yes, that's true, provided they're doing so as part of their employment. Do you disagree? The statute is quoted right there.
But step back for a minute and think logically: would the government really pass a law that prevents law enforcement officers from making recordings of interrogations if they don't have the permission of the suspect? Has any government in the history of recording devices ever done such a thing? No.

Also, according to your profile, you're an attorney, too... so how did you completely manage to misread such a simple statute in your jurisdiction, particularly when it's one that applies to your own actions, according to your statements above? Or are you really just a JD who never managed to pass the bar? Because falsely holding yourself out as an attorney is... problematic.

Or, you  claim they said they walked down such and such street, but in reality, they said nothing of the sort, and you swore out a false warrant as a fishing expedition. Of course, who can prove that - you supposedly turned off the recording (but did you? Or did you just "lose" that particular tape when it didn't contain anything useful and may actually include exculpatory evidence that you're required by law to hand over to the defense?).

You would have a difficult time getting a warrant (at least I would) based on what someone supposedly during an unrecorded conversation.


Bwaahahaha! The FBI never records interrogations, as a matter of policy. They also never have a problem getting warrants.

Look, I'm really not going to debate this much longer because you don't have any sort of practical experience.  It's like talking to Ben Franklin about how the internal combustion engine works.

Based on your above misinterpretations of your state statutes, your hand-waving "read the rules", and incorrect statements regarding ease of obtaining warrants, your "I'm not going to debate this any more because... uh...  youdon't have any sort of practical experience! Yeah, that's the ticket. I'm sure everyone will believe that that's why I'm not going to keep posting" rings hollow.

But by all means, run off. I think we've done pretty well at proving my point about why the credibility of government investigators should be suspect.
 
2013-11-12 04:09:05 PM  
i42.tinypic.com
 
2013-11-12 04:25:28 PM  

mediablitz: Theaetetus: Of course, if you bothered to read the article, Subby, you'd find that the evidence of the blindfold is "we found a scrap of cloth in the river," and it was never presented to the grand jury, and it contradicts the prosecution's theory that they were arguing and she pushed him.

Also, there's this:
The report, which alleges an FBI interrogator inappropriately touched Graham's knee during the interview, states that almost an hour and a half of Graham's interrogation was not recorded, despite the necessary equipment being on hand. Failing to preserve such evidence, which includes Graham's first admission that she had previously lied, is a violation of Graham's rights, the defense brief says.

FBI: "She totally confessed during the interrogation. You know, during the part when we stopped recording. But she did totally did - you can trust us, our handwritten notes, and this new evidence that we mysteriously found weeks later."

This story has turned into a clusterf*ck of epic proportions. How do you not record the first 90 minutes, and then ask her to "paraphrase" what she said?

These guys must have worked the O.J. investigation...


Hey, hey there! You know OJ is innocent. That whole thing was an obvious murder-suicide drempt up by Goldman. And Kado agreed to plant evidence to frame OJ, because OJ wouldn't let him drive the Bently or use the pool after midnight.
 
2013-11-12 05:16:36 PM  
She lied? "At this point, what difference does it make?"
 
2013-11-12 05:53:47 PM  
Well, with some males, it would be easy peasy to premeditate this.  There's a type of guy who will either *always* stand right at the edge of the cliff, or will do so with only a little prompting (or get your camera out).  It's pretty predictable.  The ones who stand at the edge and then turn around to talk to you are the worst.

If you can fit the murder into someone's known weak spots, so much the better.  Like putting a rattlesnake inside a Louis Vuitton handbag while visiting the desert.

Sort of like that cartoon above (people did used to ride in trailers, bless their hearts).
 
2013-11-12 07:21:18 PM  

lordaction: She will get off.  Liberals have made it where women can kill their children and call it a "choice" and also murder their husbands in cold blood as long as they claim they were "abused".  For a party that claims women are equal to men the whole platform is based on the fact that women possess to personal agency and can't be held responsible for their actions.  As usual, their line of equality is nothing more then bigotry.


Wow, that one impressive strawman you've got there.
 
2013-11-12 07:52:49 PM  

trappedspirit: It's the frog in the boiling pot of water. Some of them have a way of slowly ramping up the crazy and you wake up one day realizing you've been soaking in it.


Hey, I know that. I was married to one of them. But I don't blame every man in the world for my bad choice.
 
2013-11-12 08:36:40 PM  

Cognitive Displaysia: EatsCrayons: Fano: She IS that stupid. IIRC from the original story, after she pushed him off, when the cops asked where he was, she said "he left with friends." No matter that she actually had an alibi in the form of "he was standing near the cliff and then he tripped and fell over," or some equally plausible thing. Nope, he left with some anonymous friends, officer, yeah, that's the ticket!

Maybe, but then he'd actually have to be equally moronic to put a blindfold on by the top of a cliff. It's a lot more believable to me that he'd be carrying something as mundane as a bandana or muff, because it's an ordinary, common thing to have when you're hiking.

Like the hoofprints in Kansas are probably from horses, not zebras.

Why horses? Why not a donkey, or a deer? What about bovine creatures?


I'm with you on donkeys, but I think the others are even-toed ungulates... Offering that gentle suggestion in the interest of forensic accuracy. No offense intended.
 
2013-11-12 08:54:02 PM  
I think she took the blindfold off his lifeless body and threw it in the river when she returned and "discovered" him.
 
2013-11-12 08:55:41 PM  

Sybarite: Don't stick your dick in crazyyyyyyyyy


Is that a transcript of his last words?
 
2013-11-13 02:40:08 AM  

Theaetetus: In fact, I'd go even farther and say that when you "do it all the time" and "agree to talk 'off the record'", you likely are  not turning off your recording device. After all, what if, unprompted, they immediately confess? You'd want that record. In fact, the only time in which you'd turn off your recording device is when you know ahead of time that  you are going to something illegal or improper. The very fact that you don't have a recording, during a time period in which making a recording was under your sole control, means that you probably did something you didn't want recorded... and juries should take a very harsh view of anyone who does that, particularly if they later rely on either the recording or their report of what occurred.

Hence why I say, if you have a recording that is missing a crucial time period, then anything you claim happened during that time period should be presumed false, because Occam's Razor says it probably is.


The kind of person who would actually kill another person is not necessarily going to use the same brand of logic as you and I (or any brand of logic, for that matter). I think my money is on her flipping out and pushing him in the back in a rage.

Although honestly it's not bad if you can pull it off. If there are no witnesses, it's their word against yours. If you are willing to stick to your guns and endure the press, go for it. If it's not a perfectly sheer cliff I'm sure all that CSI "he landed too far out for this to have been an accident" stuff doesn't work (if it ever does).
 
Displayed 89 of 89 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report