Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Followup, voluntary manslaughter, FBI Laboratory, premeditation  
•       •       •

10008 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Nov 2013 at 9:58 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-11-12 08:27:40 AM  
4 votes:
Don't stick your dick in crazyyyyyyyyy
2013-11-12 10:28:24 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:28:07 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:24:03 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:07:17 AM  
2 votes:
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 09:30:42 AM  
2 votes:
Maybe he got scared on the way down and decided to blindfold himself so he couldn't see the impact.
2013-11-12 08:36:40 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:49:17 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:17:37 PM  
1 vote:

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


That statement is accurate neither theoretically nor practically.
2013-11-12 03:15:54 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:04:21 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:09:00 PM  
1 vote:
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 11:31:11 AM  
1 vote:

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 11:10:13 AM  
1 vote:
This is why "Pin-The-Tail on the Donkey--Cliff Version" was banned.
2013-11-12 11:06:11 AM  
1 vote:
They were playing "pin the ground on the bridegroom", a classic honeymoon game among asshole Uzbeks.

Great success!
2013-11-12 11:01:41 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:47:44 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:26:38 AM  
1 vote:
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 10:07:11 AM  
1 vote:
It's the man's fault. He was obviously abusing her and she was defending herself! She's innocent!
2013-11-12 10:01:45 AM  
1 vote:

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 09:15:38 AM  
1 vote:
"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 09:04:30 AM  
1 vote:
Some people walk blindly into marriage, the others avoid it.
2013-11-12 08:28:50 AM  
1 vote:
That's natural selection.
 
Displayed 23 of 23 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report