Boating Accident/Death off Diamond Island

[2Blackdogs]

Waterbaby wrote,
No matter how many times I read this, I cannot make it relevant to this thread.
That's because, "You ain't going to learn what you don't want to know"

But that's my fault as well, for using an NHRBA abbreviation repeated most often at this Winni.com forum.

A.I.S. stands for "Alcohol Induced Stupidity", a term much repeated by the NHRBA. Didn't the NHRBA shoot itself in the foot with A.I.S., or what?

I also neglected to include the quotes I was answering. These were:

Big Kahuna's.
It might have been Erica's boat, but who says she was driving? Maybe she was letting someone else drive, that may explain a lot.
A survivor, last described as "incoherent" at the scene, has confessed that everyone on board was drinking alcohol at a Wolfeboro bar scene. The driver was found at the helm. As of this morning, Big Kahuna's quote, therefore, is moot. (Note the correct spelling of moot, Skip. One could learn a lot from OSO's risk-takers, but safety for other boaters, expression of self, spelling, and grammar aren't among those things at OSO).

Wolfetrap may very well sell canned beer, but it's become painfully obvious that a Lake Winnipesaukee "party-hardy" atmosphere prevails among NHRBA officials.

They, in their self-congratulatory and collective stupors, conduct a not-so-stealthy endangerment upon us Winni boaters. Like Littlefield.

Skip wrote,
All Departments in this State utilize neighboring community experts, each County Attorney's Office, the State Attorney General's Office, the NH State Police, the State Police Crime Lab and a long list of private and federal agencies to assist in all levels of evidence gathering and criminal investigation and prosecution.
And that's why Littlefield's prosecution turned out so swell?

Dick Flynn never saw a political pie he wouldn't stick his finger into.

If citizens don't hold the NHMP's feet to the fire in this case, the underfunded and disfunctional regime commanded by the former, mostly invisible, Safety Director will assure that PC will rule the waves instead of reason.

Lt. Dunleavy may not attribute his "shooting star" success to Dick Flynn, but you'll notice that Dunleavy, a personal and influental friend of some here, is being supported in this forum with full public access. That is to say, a politically-supported, bootlicking presence. PC run amok.

This disgraced "Safety Director" managed to throw in one last monkey wrench. You'll recall "The Survey" please.

And Nightwing's.

If LT. Dunleavy said 28mph, then that is what it was.
Ditto for the above. Politically-supported PC run amok.

Now, where are the benefits of a "Rule 6" for Winni in this case?

And my much-criticized "rule of thumb" will have my family going to Boston for any major surgery, and not to Laconia.

In short, I hope this investigation is more thorough than Littlefield's.

[COWISLAND NH]

WOW 2Blackdogs you seem to be very angry. Why not hate the drunk drivers instead of the boaters who go faster then you? To categorize every boater who has a go fast boat as drunken reckless captains is just not right. Both highly publicized accidents that have been discussed on this thread are related to the operator under the influence (speculation). I just can not see your point on justifying a speed limit related to these accidents. Have you every seen a couple of teenagers not paying attention on their jet skies or an overcrowded boat full of excited kids with dad pulling them in a tube....accidents happen...I've seen it 1st hand!

[kthy66]

2Blackdogs you really need to come out of your shell hon and tell us how you really feel... :rolleye2:

More info this morning in the Citizen

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080625/GJNEWS02/450254824/-1/CITNEWS

[SIKSUKR]

FATJACK is Back

[Skip]

FATJACK is Back

You beat me to it.....I hereby nominate you Chief of the Missing Posters Bureau! :D

[4Fun]

2Blackdogs you really need to come out of your shell hon and tell us how you really feel... :rolleye2:

More info this morning in the Citizen

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080625/GJNEWS02/450254824/-1/CITNEWS

It looks like they did not take samples for 9 hours after the crash. Is it possible to get an accurate reading after that amount of time passes?

I assume they took two samples an hour apart to determine the time but how accurate can that be?

[Jeti]

It looks like they did not take samples for 9 hours after the crash. Is it possible to get an accurate reading after that amount of time passes?

I assume they took two samples an hour apart to determine the time but how accurate can that be?

Number of units drunk - Number of hours since last drink = Alcohol content

For example: A person drinks 6 pints of an ordinary strength beer (12 units), finishing drinking at 11pm. They start work at 8am the following day. (9 Hours later).

12 Units - 9 hours = 3. In this scenario, the person could still have 3-4 units of alcohol left in their body whilst driving to work the following day - risking both Police prosecution and the safety of others. 3-4 Units will bring most men to the USA legal driving limit of 80mg/dl and 3 units for most women.

[Newbiesaukee]

Although there is some variability, two points on the curve and knowledge of alcohol metabolism, etc. would allow you to extrapolate and come up with an accurate estimate of alcohol blood level at the time of the accident.

[Skip]

It looks like they did not take samples for 9 hours after the crash. Is it possible to get an accurate reading after that amount of time passes?

I assume they took two samples an hour apart to determine the time but how accurate can that be?


Jeti & Newbi have answered your question correctly. The procedures utilized by the NHMP to obtain the two samples over a fixed time are well established and Court accepted practices.

Once again (hateful diatribes to the contrary) the NHMP appears to be following all accepted protocol in what appears to be a thorough and fair investigation.

[Rose]

If citizens don't hold the NHMP's feet to the fire in this case, the underfunded and disfunctional regime commanded by the former, mostly invisible, Safety Director will assure that PC will rule the waves instead of reason.


If you're going to rip someone else a new one for their spelling, you better make certain all of yours is correct. Or maybe your spellchecker is dysfunctional.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Once again (hateful diatribes to the contrary) the NHMP appears to be following all accepted protocol in what appears to be a thorough and fair investigation.

Well said Skip. The realists know it will be thorough and fair. However, the conspiracy theorists on this forum have already concluded that the results of the investigation (should said results not determine the outcome that said theorists hope for), will have been fixed. Atrocious.

[chipj29]

If you're going to rip someone else a new one for their spelling, you better make certain all of yours is correct. Or maybe your spellchecker is dysfunctional.

Atta girl! :cheers:

[Seaplane Pilot]

FATJACK is Back

SS: Does Fat Jack = 2 Black Dogs?

[VtSteve]

Well said Skip. The realists know it will be thorough and fair. However, the conspiracy theorists on this forum have already concluded that the results of the investigation (should said results not determine the outcome that said theorists hope for), will have been fixed. Atrocious.

They pretty much have to, they're only concerned about one issue, and it's become very apparent that their only real focus is a certain boating niche. Since the Littlefield accident is usually part of every heated discussion by a couple of these "concerned citizens", I can only think that that accident blinded them permanently. Speed wasn't a biggie in that case, alcohol was. The fact that he was piloting a Baja made their eyes permanently red whenever they see a GF boat. Regardless of all the boating accidents that happen resulting from alcohol, the only dangerous boaters in their mind are the GF crowd. It's more of a vendetta for a select group, some others just joined because it seemed like the thing to do. But when you talk about enforcement and existing laws being broken, they all clam right up.

There are some very good and decent people on board that support the speed limits. There are a couple of real flakes that appear to be blinded by hate. Reason be darned. Their comments from the beginning of this developing story are downright sickening.

[Steveo]

The reports stated that she was traveling southeast headed toward Sleepers. I'm trying to understand two things, First, where on the island did she hit. Was she attempting to go between Diamond and Rattlesnake and hit on the north side of the island or was she attempting to go betwen Diamond and the mainland and hit the west side. And second, was she coming from Wolfeboro (Wolfetrap) or from Pentleton Beach at the time.

[VitaBene]

Waterbaby wrote,

That's because, "You ain't going to learn what you don't want to know"

But that's my fault as well, for using an NHRBA abbreviation repeated most often at this Winni.com forum.

A.I.S. stands for "Alcohol Induced Stupidity", a term much repeated by the NHRBA. Didn't the NHRBA shoot itself in the foot with A.I.S., or what?

I also neglected to include the quotes I was answering. These were:

Big Kahuna's.
A survivor, last described as "incoherent" at the scene, has confessed that everyone on board was drinking alcohol at a Wolfeboro bar scene. The driver was found at the helm. As of this morning, Big Kahuna's quote, therefore, is moot. (Note the correct spelling of moot, Skip. One could learn a lot from OSO's risk-takers, but safety for other boaters, expression of self, spelling, and grammar aren't among those things at OSO).

Wolfetrap may very well sell canned beer, but it's become painfully obvious that a Lake Winnipesaukee "party-hardy" atmosphere prevails among NHRBA officials.

They, in their self-congratulatory and collective stupors, conduct a not-so-stealthy endangerment upon us Winni boaters. Like Littlefield.

Skip wrote,

And that's why Littlefield's prosecution turned out so swell?

Dick Flynn never saw a political pie he wouldn't stick his finger into.

If citizens don't hold the NHMP's feet to the fire in this case, the underfunded and disfunctional regime commanded by the former, mostly invisible, Safety Director will assure that PC will rule the waves instead of reason.

Lt. Dunleavy may not attribute his "shooting star" success to Dick Flynn, but you'll notice that Dunleavy, a personal and influental friend of some here, is being supported in this forum with full public access. That is to say, a politically-supported, bootlicking presence. PC run amok.

This disgraced "Safety Director" managed to throw in one last monkey wrench. You'll recall "The Survey" please.

And Nightwing's.


Ditto for the above. Politically-supported PC run amok.

Now, where are the benefits of a "Rule 6" for Winni in this case?

And my much-criticized "rule of thumb" will have my family going to Boston for any major surgery, and not to Laconia.

In short, I hope this investigation is more thorough than Littlefield's.

And the phrase that you have incorrectly used on at least 2 posts is "party hearty"

[Bear Islander]

They pretty much have to, they're only concerned about one issue, and it's become very apparent that their only real focus is a certain boating niche. Since the Littlefield accident is usually part of every heated discussion by a couple of these "concerned citizens", I can only think that that accident blinded them permanently. Speed wasn't a biggie in that case, alcohol was. The fact that he was piloting a Baja made their eyes permanently red whenever they see a GF boat. Regardless of all the boating accidents that happen resulting from alcohol, the only dangerous boaters in their mind are the GF crowd. It's more of a vendetta for a select group, some others just joined because it seemed like the thing to do. But when you talk about enforcement and existing laws being broken, they all clam right up.

There are some very good and decent people on board that support the speed limits. There are a couple of real flakes that appear to be blinded by hate. Reason be darned. Their comments from the beginning of this developing story are downright sickening.

I don't think the controversy that has taken place since the accident is pro-speed limit against anti-speed limit. The pro limit-regulars have not posted negative. This is mostly a new group more interested in the accident than in HB847.

An accident like this will draw a crowd. Like the crowds that hang around the court house when a big name trial is taking place. There is no courtroom yet so they hang around this forum. This thread has has 27,000+ views in a week and a half.

I personally believe we should wait for more information and let feelings cool before trying to dissect what happened. In any event it is only one accident. One accident should not make OR break speed limits no matter what happened.

I think Lt. Dunleavy will do his job and go where the evidence leads him.

[codeman671]

The reports stated that she was traveling southeast headed toward Sleepers. I'm trying to understand two things, First, where on the island did she hit. Was she attempting to go between Diamond and Rattlesnake and hit on the north side of the island or was she attempting to go betwen Diamond and the mainland and hit the west side. And second, was she coming from Wolfeboro (Wolfetrap) or from Pentleton Beach at the time.

I believe they had been in Wolfeboro earlier, gone to Pendleton, and were heading south back to Sleepers. I think that as you are heading towards the northern end of Diamond, she hit on the left side of Dr. Rock's log cabin a few hundred feet down. I have not been to the scene as I see no reason to, but have been to Dr. Rock's place before.

[RI Swamp Yankee]

.. How fast were they going again? I don't recall reading what the investigators determined their speed to be? ...
Correct, it hasn't been determined what the actual number was but whatever it was it was higher than the definition of safe speed. If the actual speed was lower than the safe speed, the operator would have been able to "take proper and effective action to avoid collision".

Safe Speed

A safe speed is a speed less than the maximum at which the operator can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and stop within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

In establishing a safe operating speed, the operator must take into account visibility; traffic density; ability to maneuver the vessel (stopping distance and turning ability); background light at night; proximity of navigational hazards; draft of the vessel; limitations of radar equipment; and the state of wind, sea, and current.

[Airwaves]

Orignally posted by RI Swamp Yankee
Safe Speed

A safe speed is a speed less than the maximum at which the operator can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and stop within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

In establishing a safe operating speed, the operator must take into account visibility; traffic density; ability to maneuver the vessel (stopping distance and turning ability); background light at night; proximity of navigational hazards; draft of the vessel; limitations of radar equipment; and the state of wind, sea, and current.
That would be USCG NAV Rule 6, which doesn't exist in New Hampshire or Lake Winnipesaeukee.

When I offered it up as a compromise to the useless 45/25 speed limit not a single supporter of speed limits went for it...now you're quoting it? Why?

[VtSteve]

I don't think the controversy that has taken place since the accident is pro-speed limit against anti-speed limit. The pro limit-regulars have not posted negative. This is mostly a new group more interested in the accident than in HB847.

An accident like this will draw a crowd. Like the crowds that hang around the court house when a big name trial is taking place. There is no courtroom yet so they hang around this forum. This thread has has 27,000+ views in a week and a half.

I personally believe we should wait for more information and let feelings cool before trying to dissect what happened. In any event it is only one accident. One accident should not make OR break speed limits no matter what happened.

I think Lt. Dunleavy will do his job and go where the evidence leads him.

Well regarding your assessment, I agree with you BI. But if you look at the various posts from way back to current, you'll note that almost every single accident has one thing in common. That one thing is not speed.

Some people are pretty PO'd by this accident, well, not really. They are using the "WHO" to demonstrate their complete ignorance of boating accidents, past and present. They really do believe that this accident strengthens their pro speed limit case. I know they are really PO'd at the thought that the possible outcome will be that, once again, they are wrong.

They, have an agenda. Safety isn't that agenda. Kinda like the two party political system, birds of a feather may unite, but scoundrels often take center stage. You already know two of the scoundrels.

In case I haven't mentioned it specifically, I personally think you're good people.

[2Blackdogs]

It's not exactly a conspiracy, but why was this news conference been called in the middle of the week? Oftentimes, controversial bills are signed on a Friday to dumb-down the public's reactions to his signature over a weekend.

Nobody outside of government circles knows the BAC readings, but the Governor might have asked prosecutors today and called a news conference promptly upon hearing bad news.

That way, he has "culpable deniability" to an extreme BAC level returned by clinicians and can distance himself from that cloud of misery hanging over the NHRBA, with whom he probably has posed for pictures.

Skip, You missed on your guess. My treatment here doesn't rise to the level that another member has had to endure. Maybe fire your new Chief and pick up where you left off?
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=27313&postcount=36

Kathy writes,

2Blackdogs you really need to come out of your shell hon and tell us how you really feel... :rolleye2:
So? I ran out of Decaf two days ago. Ingestion of certain liquids can have deleterious effects on the well-being of individuals and others.

And don't call me hon.

[VtSteve]

Correct, it hasn't been determined what the actual number was but whatever it was it was higher than the definition of safe speed. If the actual speed was lower than the safe speed, the operator would have been able to "take proper and effective action to avoid collision".

Safe Speed

A safe speed is a speed less than the maximum at which the operator can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and stop within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

In establishing a safe operating speed, the operator must take into account visibility; traffic density; ability to maneuver the vessel (stopping distance and turning ability); background light at night; proximity of navigational hazards; draft of the vessel; limitations of radar equipment; and the state of wind, sea, and current.


As usual, let me interject the What If. Drunks don;t generally pay attention to those type of things. Not making a judgement, but it has become the norm for many years of accidents.

[VtSteve]

It's not exactly a conspiracy, but why was this news conference been called in the middle of the week? Oftentimes, controversial bills are signed on a Friday to dumb-down the public's reactions to his signature over a weekend.

Nobody outside of government circles knows the BAC readings, but the Governor might have asked prosecutors today and called a news conference promptly upon hearing bad news.

That way, he has "culpable deniability" to an extreme BAC level returned by clinicians and can distance himself from that cloud of misery hanging over the NHRBA, with whom he probably has posed for pictures.

Skip, You missed on your guess. My treatment here doesn't rise to the level that another member has had to endure. Maybe fire your new Chief and pick up where you left off?
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=27313&postcount=36

Kathy writes,


So? I ran out of Decaf two days ago. Ingestion of certain liquids can have deleterious effects on the well-being of individuals and others.

And don't call me hon.

So what if the skipper's BAL was 2.0? What's you smart arse reply to that? Maybe they should pass a law sting it's too high to drive a boat?

Give it a rest Blackdog. You're not a positive influence for anyone's side. You obviously have an axe to grind, and could give a darn about any facts.

[Resident 2B]

I don't think the controversy that has taken place since the accident is pro-speed limit against anti-speed limit. The pro limit-regulars have not posted negative. This is mostly a new group more interested in the accident than in HB847.

An accident like this will draw a crowd. Like the crowds that hang around the court house when a big name trial is taking place. There is no courtroom yet so they hang around this forum. This thread has has 27,000+ views in a week and a half.

I personally believe we should wait for more information and let feelings cool before trying to dissect what happened. In any event it is only one accident. One accident should not make OR break speed limits no matter what happened.

I think Lt. Dunleavy will do his job and go where the evidence leads him.

BI,

Great words, great advice and a great post!

Folks, please wait for the facts and trust that the authorities will do a thorough and complete job. We all need to be fair and react to facts, not speculation.

Things are in good hands and we should not jump to any conclusions.

R2B

[NASCARNH]

The reports stated that she was traveling southeast headed toward Sleepers. I'm trying to understand two things, First, where on the island did she hit. Was she attempting to go between Diamond and Rattlesnake and hit on the north side of the island or was she attempting to go betwen Diamond and the mainland and hit the west side. And second, was she coming from Wolfeboro (Wolfetrap) or from Pentleton Beach at the time.

I took these pictures the morning of the crash. I was fishing out of Ames Farm and could see that there had been a mishap on Diamond.
<a href="http://s206.photobucket.com/albums/bb287/fishlakewinni/?action=view&current=DSCF3056.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb287/fishlakewinni/DSCF3056.jpg" border="0" alt="Misty Mornin"></a>

<a href="http://s206.photobucket.com/albums/bb287/fishlakewinni/?action=view&current=DSCF3061.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb287/fishlakewinni/DSCF3061.jpg" border="0" alt="Misty Mornin"></a>

[kthy66]

And don't call me hon.
hmmm,, touchy touchy...
Better than calling you what you truly are (webmaster doesnt like those words)
bahahahahaha,, :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[codeman671]

I took these pictures the morning of the crash. I was fishing out of Ames Farm and could see that there had been a mishap on Diamond.


Great shots. I thought it hit to the other side of Dr. Rock's. I have not been down at all to see the scene.

[Lake Boater]

It is sad that the loss of human life in this tragedy as well as serious injuries are over shadowed by people shouting about their own agenda`s. I have painfully read all these comments and it just proves that humans are extremley more ignorant at times then compassionate. I have been boating on Winni since I was 5 years old and have had my own boat up there for the last 25 years. Yes the lake has changed and unfortunatly so have the people that live on it and use it. For the good or the bad it is what it is.90% of you people making these comments about speed/drinking/not paying attention or Erica Blizzards stand on issues and beliefs, should look at yourself in the reflection of such a beautiful lake we are so fortunate to have and ask yourself what if it was my family going through this.Lets turn our thoughts and prayers to the injured and the dead and let the politicians do what they are so good at, and that is being ignorant idiots carrying soap boxes and setting them where anybody will listen. Boaters as a whole are a big family so lets all stop the finger pointing and turn our efforts into helping with the healing process....... Again this is just my opinion.. and I am not afraid to sign my posts..

Rich Turcotte

[2Blackdogs]

hmmm,, touchy touchy...
Better than calling you what you truly are (webmaster doesnt like those words)
bahahahahaha,, :laugh::laugh::laugh:
And don't call me hon should have been followed with a :D. But I forgot.

[2Blackdogs]

Codeman, I have been to the scene. The details below are for the lower photo only.

The impact area is a bright pink smear, about the size of those plastic wading pools. It lies hidden mid-way between the twin-outboard boat and the blue crane in the lower photo. It lies hidden behind that boat, and is not 6' tall, as reported here on day one.

The anchor-strike location is a dent below the living room window at the end of the white, J-shaped, object which may be a canopy or awning of some sort. The photo is dark, so it could be the "radar bar" of the crashed boat.

(Or, the house's middle window of the three grouped above the twin-outboard boat).

[RI Swamp Yankee]

That would be USCG NAV Rule 6, which doesn't exist in New Hampshire or Lake Winnipesaeukee.
Also referred to as International Rule 6. There is a watered down version in the NH boating license course, Chapter 3.

3 -Maintain a safe speed.
Safe speed is the speed that ensures you will have ample time to avoid a collision and can stop within an appropriate distance. Safe speed will vary depending on conditions such as wind, water conditions, navigational hazards, visibility, surrounding vessel traffic density, and the maneuverability of your boat or PWC. Always reduce speed and navigate with extreme caution at night and when visibility is restricted.

http://www.boat-ed.com/nh/course/p3-3_encounteringothers.htm


When I offered it up as a compromise to the useless 45/25 speed limit not a single supporter of speed limits went for it...now you're quoting it? Why?I avoided that 45/25 "debate" like the plague. The very tragic accident in this thread brought to mind that rule from the course I took LONG ago.

[sa meredith]

...talk about a thread that many people are turning to, to find the latest information about a terrible event turning into mindless dribble.

[webmaster]

The comments on signing posts have been moved to their own thread (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6270).

Please don't hijack.

[RI Swamp Yankee]

Originally Posted by Airwaves
When I offered it up as a compromise to the useless 45/25 speed limit not a single supporter of speed limits went for it...now you're quoting it? Why?

I avoided that 45/25 "debate" like the plague. The very tragic accident in this thread brought to mind that rule from the course I took LONG ago.Iintended to add:
With all the talk about what speed the boat was going and if it was over / under 25 there was a rule that had higher precedence. There does need to be a defined maximum that applies to ideal conditions. The condidions that night were not ideal so rule 6 applies.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by RI Swamp Yankee
The condidions that night were not ideal so rule 6 applies.
Unfortunately Rule 6 does NOT apply because it is not the law in New Hampshire. NH has not adopted it so it does not exist. I think it should, but it does not.

There has been much debate about the NH Boating Rules Guide and actual law and the language is different. The RSA covering what you are talking about deals with Negligent Operation of a boat. (I don't recall the RSA number off the top of my head) but it appears to fall short of Rule 6 which is why I advocated for the adoption of Rule 6 vs HB847. It would have added a tool to the Marine Patrol arsenal that would NOT cost additional money and addressed the safety issue that supporters of HB847 at least initally claimed was their concern.

At this point I agree with sa meredith, this thread is supposed to be for actual information regarding this tragic accident.

I am guilty of hijacking so I will refrain from other thoughts about Rule 6 until we actually know what happened.

If you'd like to start another thread to debate the merits of Rule 6 vs the NH RSA I'd love to take part in that!

AW

[Waterbaby]

If you're going to rip someone else a new one for their spelling, you better make certain all of yours is correct. Or maybe your spellchecker is dysfunctional.

All Right, Rose!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh::cheers:

[RI Swamp Yankee]

Unfortunately Rule 6 does NOT apply because it is not the law in New Hampshire. NH has not adopted it so it does not exist. ...Absolutely correct, I worded that badly. I should have said, Rule 6 should apply if you are a prudent boater. All of my boating took place in waters where that rule did apply, seemed like common sense. Same as the paved highway, speed limit may be 65 but when the rain and fog set in a prudent speed may be 45.

[RI Swamp Yankee]

Added note: A version of rule 6 will go into effect 1-1-09 with HB847 (RSA 270)

[Sandy Beach]

BI,

Great words, great advice and a great post!

Folks, please wait for the facts and trust that the authorities will do a thorough and complete job. We all need to be fair and react to facts, not speculation.

Things are in good hands and we should not jump to any conclusions.
R2B I agree with BI and R2B.

All we really know is that a terrible tragedy took place. I feel badly for all those touched by the event.

We do not know the cause. Some people and alleged news reporters are quick to judge and draw conclusions. They would rather sensationalize the story instead of reporting unbiased facts.

I'm not yet convinced that this is an accident! IMHO it is too much of a coincidence regarding the timing and people involved. It would be horrific if foul play was involved but it is a possibiliy.

It was a new boat with dealer plate. It could have been a malfunction. A magnet of some sort altering the compass. An electrical mis-calibration throwing the chartplotter off. Was there a failure of the throttle or steering or both? There are so many possibilities besides alcohol and speed. Let the authorities investigate and report.

In the meantime, pray for all those affected. Whatever the cause is, this is a sad event for everyone.

[NHKathy]

...talk about a thread that many people are turning to, to find the latest information about a terrible event turning into mindless dribble.

and as I said in an earlier post (on another page!):

This thread has gotten WAY out of hand...
This site is where to go for a source of valuable info about the Lakes Region, but every day when I log in lately, this thread is always there on top as having the newest post, and it's mostly (not all) just back and forth arguing - hardly any new, informative information...
There are almost 300! posts in this thread, and a handful or maybe a dozen or two, are actually informative!
My condolences go out to the families involved, and prayers for recovery to the 2 women that were injured.
Any new update on those injured?

[RI Swamp Yankee]

... It could have been a malfunction. A magnet of some sort altering the compass. An electrical mis-calibration throwing the chartplotter off. Was there a failure of the throttle or steering or both? There are so many possibilities besides alcohol and speed. ....No matter what the machinery it still boils down to the operator being responsible for the vessel and being able to stop or avoid within the visible distance. Speed was a factor.

[chipj29]

No matter what the machinery it still boils down to the operator being responsible for the vessel and being able to stop or avoid within the visible distance. Speed was a factor.

While the first part is true, if a mechanical failure occurred at a point where it would have been impossible to change course, then speed would have nothing to do with it.
Speed may have been a factor, but the CAUSE of the accident would still be machanical failure.

[kjbathe]

I just saw the photos of the accident site above and my reaction is, wow, she didn't miss by much -- a hundred yards further to the right and she's clear. Easy mistake on a foggy night, but no less tragic :(

[Sandy Beach]

While the first part is true, if a mechanical failure occurred at a point where it would have been impossible to change course, then speed would have nothing to do with it.
Speed may have been a factor, but the CAUSE of the accident would still be machanical failure.

Mechanical failure could mean a kink or something in the throttle line somehow caused a sudden and unexpected increase in speed. The driver would not have intended to travel at that speed.

Still I am bothered by the "coincidence". I'm waiting for authorities to rule out foul play. The speed limit is a highly charged and passionate issue for some people. An extremely small percent of those people could be irrational enough or unbalanced (sick) enough to consider making their point by facilitating something like this. I would hate for that to be the case but we just don't know yet.

I pray for all those touched by the tragedy regardless of the cause.

[VitaBene]

Mechanical failure could mean a kink or something in the throttle line somehow caused a sudden and unexpected increase in speed. The driver would not have intended to travel at that speed.

Still I am bothered by the "coincidence". I'm waiting for authorities to rule out foul play. The speed limit is a highly charged and passionate issue for some people. An extremely small percent of those people could be irrational enough or unbalanced (sick) enough to consider making their point by facilitating something like this. I would hate for that to be the case but we just don't know yet.

I pray for all those touched by the tragedy regardless of the cause.

I'm sorry, but I think this type of conjecture is uncalled for and somewhat ridiculous. This is far worse speculation than anything that has been written in previous posts (except your earlier little hand grenade you taossed in). For one thing, this family has access to dozens of boats, new and used-a person with malicious intent would have no clue what boat they were taking. Second, the boat had already travelled a good distance before the incident. Had the cause been tampering, it would likely have shown up well before it did.

As has been said time and time again, let's wait for the results before assessing any type of blame or casting aspersions against anyone. The only thing we know for sure now is that the boat was going too fast for the conditions.

[twoplustwo]

I'm sorry, but I think this type of conjecture is uncalled for and somewhat ridiculous. Dittoooooo.

The speculation surrounding this tragedy has been bad enough without conspiracy theorists, the grassy knoll, and Professor Plumb with the lead pipe in the ballroom. :rolleye1:

[4Fun]

I'm sorry, but I think this type of conjecture is uncalled for and somewhat ridiculous. Dittoooooo.

The speculation surrounding this tragedy has been bad enough without conspiracy theorists, the grassy knoll, and Professor Plumb with the lead pipe in the ballroom. :rolleye1:

I wouldn't rule out foul play yet. It's possible some of the "speed limit" folks were on shore pointing magnets at her boat. That would certainly mess up the compass. Or maybe they painted a tunnel in the island like Wiley E. Coyote There were reports of an Acme delivery truck in the area that night.:rolleye2:

[2Blackdogs]

VitaBene writes,

As has been said time and time again, let's wait for the results before assessing any type of blame or casting aspersions against anyone. The only thing we know for sure now is that the boat was going too fast for the conditions.[/QUOTE]
The problem with "wait", is that as soon as any legal charges are filed, the lawyers will have prepared statements saying, "We will demonstrate that they were not drinking, those weren't their beer cans, there is no evidence that they were in Wolfeboro, they were not legally drunk, that their instrumentation was not faulty, that they were lured to that location by abandoned magnetic Navy devices, that is was not their anchor that hit the house, that the wrong person was placed at the helm by inept police detectives....etc."

All the details that we can gather here from the scene will keep us from being dumbed-down for that media assault by trained......errrrrrrr......a trained team in the legal profession.

[fatlazyless]

Anyone remember when a different boat, about ten years ago or so, crashed into the dock and shoreline of Eagle Island in the nightime?

It was reported in the newspaper that when the fire department got there, the first words of the boat driver was something like: "This island is not supposed to be here. According to my gps, this island is in the wrong place!"

If I remember, his gps was running on a 'road' cartridge, and not a proper 'water' cartridge, or somethin, or other?

[hockeypuck]

Everyone is a critic and I have no clue what happen on that night in question, except that it was a tragedy to all involved.
Imagine this for one moment. Pick a large parking lot, like to a mall or something, one that you have been to 100's of times. Go there at 2:00 in the morning with heavy cloud cover, maybe throw in a downpour and no lights on in the parking lot. Now turn off your head lights and drive around at 25 miles an hour. Even though you are familiar with the location of light poles and the location of stores, chances are an accident is about to happen.
You could say poor judgement, but who among us has never been guilty of poor judgement. Could be a mechanical problem, an investigation may find that. Could be other factors involved. NO matter, it's still a tragedy. The best that can come out of this is that other boaters will take extra precautions so that it doesn't happen again.

[2Blackdogs]

Anyone remember when a different boat, about ten years ago or so, crashed into the dock and shoreline of Eagle Island in the nightime?

It was reported in the newspaper that when the fire department got there, the first words of the boat driver was something like: "This island is not supposed to be here. According to my gps, this island is in the wrong place!"

If I remember, his gps was running on a 'road' cartridge, and not a proper 'water' cartridge, or somethin, or other?

From ten years ago, you have an excellent memory. And he did use those same words.

It may be those with poor memories who end up as he did.

The NHMP discouraged him from his anchoring overnight in your area. He said he had another destination in mind, and "ran the plotter". That's always a mistake as BoaterEd.com noted.....you "run the boat"......always....

The plotter showed no lake details, so he THOUGHT he'd parallel Rt. 3. An island unexpectedly entered those thoughts.

My own thoughts are that the emergence of GPS on Winni poses serious questions for slower boaters out at night, or any anchored at night. FLL's boater could have been from out of state, where overnight anchoring is perfectly fine.

It's scary enough that a "cruise control" has been designed for boats. Even scarier, a plotter hooked up to an autopilot can "even drive itself"! A sailboat under sail was once cut in half by a cruiser a witness described saying, "nobody was seen at either helm station".

Trust the plotter alone in fog, with or without GPS?

[Justenuff]

Being a slow boater on the lake, I have only a passive interest in speed limits (unless being targeted by a fast boat), but one thing strikes me as being interesting about the continuation of this thread:

Some boaters on the lake would rather trust their electronic devices (compasses included) rather than their own senses.

To me, it is the equivalent of traveling route 93 in a blinding snowstorm. The sign says I can do 65 mph, the gps says I am on the road, do I still forge ahead, or do I slow to a speed where my senses can be trusted? (even if it is a stop!)

My boat gps occasionally shows me on land, even though I am at sail or at mooring (it is a garmin). I trust that these electronic devices are not 100% foolproof, so I use all my available senses.

I have been out on the lake at nite many times. If I don't know where I am, I slow down and stop until I can get my bearings. If I still have a problem, I move very slowly until I can make a better reckoning. My speed is a direct relationship to my ability to navigate.

On one occasion, I was out with sails up around 11 pm. It was a dark, foggy nite, and I was making my way from Wolfeboro to West Alton. (my boat had all the nav lights on as required) As I was at sail, I could hear the roar of the other boaters around me, but had no visual sighting. At one point, a motor seemed to be bearing down on me. I flashed my 1 million cp lamp at the sail, and around the boat, but the sound kept coming closer. Finally, I had to point the lamp directly at the boat sound and startled the operator who managed to swerve to miss me at about 100'. Obviously, the operator was travelling too fast for conditions.

My point is simple, electronic devices are no substitute for common sense. If you can't determine where you are or what is in front of you, then you should be slowing down or stopping and moving extremely cautiously. If this was the case in this accident, then perhaps a tragedy could have been averted.

My sympathies to all who were hurt or lost their lives.

[Airwaves]

Justenuff based on your post you seem like a good and prudent boater, someone who knows how to enjoy sailing and boating and do it safely. I don't get this however:
Some boaters on the lake would rather trust their electronic devices (compasses included) rather than their own senses.
I've been on the pages for a couple of years and I don't recall anyone on the forum even hinting at that, and outside of 2BD's post above, even hinting that someone was doing that causing an accident.

A GPS is a tool, like a compass and chart, to help you navigate etc. It's still up to you, the skipper, to make sure you've got everything under control.

I still use paper.

[sa meredith]

I'll be very glad when I open this thread, and instead of reading the same things (stated slightly differently) over and over and over and over and over again, we actually get some new information about the cause of the accident or the health of Erica.
The point, counter point, for this thread (now over 300 strong) has run it's course...in my opinion.

[wildwoodfam]

It's still up to you, the skipper, to make sure you've got everything under control.

There are an awful lot of "skippers" out there who a) don't know the difference between starboard and port, b) couldn't tell you the difference between an anchor knot and a sailors knot, nor do they know how to tie a boat at the dock (that one I have witnessed first hand - a guy looping his line around and around and around the piling....then walking away. I then un looped it and re-tied it - only to have him come back screaming at me to "step away from my boat!!!" Luckily for me another person on the dock was able to let this maniac know I was actually HELPING HIM OUT! and c) could not give a care in the world as to right of way, no-wake rules, and courtesy at the docks, let alone what to do in case of bad weather, running at night or in the fog. Actually had one buddy ask me why we were cruising so slowly back to my docks one night coming from Wolfeboro to LI (which is a pretty easy ride.) I asked him - "how far ahead of the boat are you able to see anything?" His reply - "What does that matter - throttle it up and get us home!!!" All I can say is - he owns a boat and its on Lake Winnipesaukee, and when I see him heading out at night, I am glad to be in home port!

My point??? While many boaters on Winni are good skippers - there are many who are not - and do not have things under control.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by wildwoodfamMy point??? While many boaters on Winni are good skippers - there are many who are not - and do not have things under control.
And if you read my post again, what does the part that you quoted actually say and how are you in disagreement with it?
Airwaves:
It's still up to you, the skipper, to make sure you've got everything under control.

[2Blackdogs]

wildwoodfam writes,
I have witnessed first hand - a guy looping his line around and around and around the piling....then walking away.
Maybe it was Winni's Wild-West influence showing. Isn't that what Cowboys always do when they "tie up the reins" in Westerns? :D

*S A Meredith*, in dire need of any new developments here, needs to check this newscast.

http://robocaster.com/nashuatelegraph/podcast-episode-home/apps-pbcs_dll-article$aid=-20080625-news02-726346467/officials-looking-into-whether-alcohol-played-role-in-crash-boat-driver-prominent-foe-of-speed-limits.aspx

You may have to "read" it twice, but if I've "read" it correctly, the NHMP released BWI data prematurely!

Like Littlefield, another BWI charge may be imperiled in NH courts without a legal defense team having lifted a finger. :(

[Skip]

...You may have to "read" it twice, but if I've "read" it correctly, the NHMP released BWI data prematurely!...

You can read it three or four times, and your conclusion is still in error on two major counts.

First, the NHMP released nothing. The documents that were released, the search warrant with supporting affadivit, was released prematurely by the Court, not the NHMP. There has already been a full accounting by the court and the release has no bearing on the investigation, save for embarassing a court clerk.

Second, no "BWI data" was released, either prematurely or in any other manner. Once again, what was released was a copy of the search warrant and the supporting affadavit which was used to obtain a blood sample to determine blood alcohol content. The results of that sample, your so called "BWI data", remains sealed pending final investigation results.

[Seaplane Pilot]

wildwoodfam writes,

Maybe it was Winni's Wild-West influence showing. Isn't that what Cowboys always do when they "tie up the reins" in Westerns? :D (

Speaking of the Wild West...You give me the impression that you want to schedule the hanging tomorrow at sundown. Have a little respect, will you, until the investigation is complete and the facts are presented.

[NHKathy]

I'll be very glad when I open this thread, and instead of reading the same things (stated slightly differently) over and over and over and over and over again, we actually get some new information about the cause of the accident or the health of Erica.
The point, counter point, for this thread (now over 300 strong) has run it's course...in my opinion.

When will this stop?!
This is now in it's 4 page! :eek2:
I'm getting really sick of seeing the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again!
ANY UPDATE ON THE INJURED ????
(then again, there could have been an update mixed in between all of this -and I missed it... :mad: )

[RI Swamp Yankee]

I'll be very glad when I open this thread, and instead of reading the same things (stated slightly differently) over and over and over and over and over again, we actually get some new information about the cause of the accident or the health of Erica.
The point, counter point, for this thread (now over 300 strong) has run it's course...in my opinion.
I think it is safe to say one expects a forum to contain opinions. Perhaps you should try a newspaper if you don't want to see opinions and personal comments.

[VtSteve]

Boy, ya really nailed that one BD. :emb:

The headline articles may have been premature, but we have a boat on plane with some beer cans. There was more detail in some other articles, but mostly related to the warrant.

I don't think anything's been jeopardized in the case, there's still the pesky facts to deal with, none of which we have.

[kthy66]

When will this stop?!
This is now in it's 4 page! :eek2:
I'm getting really sick of seeing the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again!
ANY UPDATE ON THE INJURED ????
(then again, there could have been an update mixed in between all of this -and I missed it... :mad: )

If your so sick of it then stop reading it.. simple solution to a simple problem

[sa meredith]

If your so sick of it then stop reading it.. simple solution to a simple problem

I'm sorry KTHY66, but you're wrong to post what you did, and I think it is a little rude.
Where else would you like us to look to find the latest news on this event. Many people close to this situation are memebers of this forum, and we depend on them to post info when they get it. So, when this thread pops up with a new post, it's frustrating to click in, scoll all the way down to only find THE SAME EXACT THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN. OFTEN DIFFERENT WORDS, BUT THE SAME THINGS. POINT, COUNTER POINT, POINT, COUNTER POINT.
We all get it... ok???? Speed, dark, light, rain, fog, drinking, not drinking, gps, radar, speed limits, no wake zone, Dr's. camp, IT'S ALL BEEN SAID!

Why would you tell her to stop reading it???? I'm sure all she wants is some real info about the health of Erica, or the cause of the accident.

[SIKSUKR]

ANY UPDATE ON THE INJURED ????
(then again, there could have been an update mixed in between all of this -and I missed it... :mad: )

I talked with a good friend of mine on Tuesday who visited Erica this past Sunday.He said he thought she was doing much better and considering the magnitude of this accident,her spirits were ok.I believe her condition is now listed as satisfactory.I don't have any info on Nicole.

[GWC...]

Blizzard was unconscious. Her face was swollen and there were cuts on her chin. She was in critical condition when she was hospitalized; she was discharged Monday.


http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080703/GJNEWS02/631333799/-1/CITIZEN

[Ropetow]

My prayers are with both of them.

[2Blackdogs]

The leak referred to by the Nashua Telegraph means that we hear one week earlier of a criminal case investigation going forward.

Leaked or not, the message returns us to possible criminal charges in this case, the word "planing", drinking at a lakeside restaurant, the possibility of "overserving" (seen here in a previous boating case), and the question whether canned beer is sold at that location or not. These did not become "un-facts" because someone here says so.

Technical details tell us that a minimum of 19mph is required for this cruiser to plane. Typically, an automobile accident at 10mph produces no injuries whatsoever, even for those not belted in, and even without airbag deployment.

So we're left with extrapolations, and 19 mph doesn't do it for me.

Myself, I consider any "determinations of blood alcohol content" to be emphatically ***BWI data***, Skip, whether exculpatory or probative. I see "the embarrassing release" as damaging to any jury pool in this state, and a "change of venue" demanded, perhaps to Maine.

No, not to Maine, forget Maine.

The link provided previously can't be "read" at all, because it's a Podcast! Having it read aloud brings reality to the listener.....and just what a juror would hear. The likelihood of a jury can't be ignored in this case.

You'll have to cut and paste the link to the address bar to hear it. And there is no legal word spelled "affadavit".

[Joe Kerr]

...
So, when this thread pops up with a new post, it's frustrating to click in, scroll all the way down to only find THE SAME EXACT THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
. ...

sa meredith You are doing it backwards. This method might help relieve some of your frustration. View the forum in Linear Mode. When you want to see the newer posts on a page hit the End button on your keyboard. The display will jump directly to the end of the page without scrolling. Then you scroll up a few posts to see what's new.

This tragedy is horrible regardless of any personal agendas. I don't think it is fair to assume anything about the situation or even if there is probable cause for any court involvement.

We do not know what happened. We do not know if there will be charges or any court involvement and even if we did know, we are all innocent until proven guilty.

This is not a good time for anyone involved or touched by this terrible accident.

[Lakepilot]

I always just hit the > character in the lower right corner of the last post box and no matter how many posts or pages it brings me to the last post. Then I go up from there.

[chmeeee]

Better yet, click on the button to the left of the thread title, it takes you directly to the first post since the last time you viewed the forum.

[2Blackdogs]

This was photographed on the line of trajectory, with the white area being the impact site. The anchor strike is directly in line, having hit just below the window.

What appears as white in color is light pink. The outer, circular, margins show how the hull collapsed upon impact.

This is obviously NOT a 5 foot wall as speculated on here earlier.

[EricP]

This was photographed on the line of trajectory, with the white area being the impact site. The anchor strike is directly in line, having hit just below the window.

What appears as white in color is light pink. The outer, circular, margins show how the hull collapsed upon impact.

This is obviously NOT a 5 foot wall as speculated on here earlier.

How much of that wall is below the water line?

[codeman671]

This is obviously NOT a 5 foot wall as speculated on here earlier.

No, but not too far from it. Probably pushing 4 feet anyhow. Compare it to the window height from the bottom of the house as a gauge.

[SIKSUKR]

Based on my caculations from the picture on my screen that wall would be about 4 ft 8 1/2 inches at it's highest point.The granite wall measures 13/16ths on my screen and the house wall measures 1 3/8ths.Divide those 2 numbers and you get the granite being.59% of the house.Based on an 8 ft house wall x .59 that = 4 ft 8.6 inches.Is that so far from 5 ft?What the heck is your point anyway?

[VitaBene]

Based on my caculations from the picture on my screen that wall would be about 4 ft 8 1/2 inches at it's highest point.The granite wall measures 13/16ths on my screen and the house wall measures 1 3/8ths.Divide those 2 numbers and you get the granite being.59% of the house.Based on an 8 ft house wall x .59 that = 4 ft 8.6 inches.Is that so far from 5 ft?What the heck is your point anyway?

Thanks Sik, I was going to do that math but you beat me to it- it looked close to me, too!

[2Blackdogs]

I'm sure the investigation has the height measured exactly. There's no better way to determine terminal velocity than that.

The amount of hull out of the water at collision can be easily measured based on the widest scuff marks on the ledge. Just compare that measurement to the widest comparable damage on the hull. A comparison-speed with the same amount of hull out of the water with an identical Formula performance cruiser can determine the speed when striking the island.

The depth of the ledge below the waterline is immaterial.

The 5 foot guess, posted earlier, was retracted by the author.

For comparison, this cruiser collision appeared at Boat-Ed.com., having struck a berm. There were no injuries in this collision.

[VtSteve]

Always important to add "Performance Cruiser" to the sentence. I'd suspect the water level was higher back then, so five feet may be a stretch. I think the boat would have sustained more bottom damage if it had struck at plowing speed, maybe even ran up on the wall a bit. Not really germaine to any argument, I think everyone has indicated the boat was somewhere on plane at the time of impact. The damage from the berm impact you show seems far worse to me.

I'd still guess 25 to 30. Any faster and I'd have to believe the damage would be far greater. But I'm not even close to having the knowledge to arrive at anything more than a WAG. I'm more focused on the why and how of it. I know you have other intentions.

Now that I know there are adult adolescents that go about revving their engines, and bombing down waterways late at night after drinking, I'm against GFBL boats. Once the speed limit is put into place, there will no longer be drunken, obnoxious boaters on the lake.

[Winnipesaukee]

Once the speed limit is put into place, there will no longer be drunken, obnoxious boaters on the lake.


Kind of like how there are no longer 150' violations since the law was put into place. :rolleye2:

I'm neither for nor against a speed limit, but that was sarcasm, right?

[VtSteve]

Yup, Yup it was

[B R]

http://www.wmur.com/family/17175493/detail.html#-

[kthy66]

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080813/GJNEWS02/250255604/-1/CITNEWS08

[kjbathe]

When the Dr. Rock report was broadcast last night, the reporter said the driver of the boat died. I questioned what I thought I had heard, but she repeated it again at the end of the broadcast. Today's online posting reads a little differently, noting that a passenger died, but the final paragraph still reads as though the driver died in the crash.

I'm not splitting hairs here in terms of the reporting or writing -- I think she just made a mistake. But after seeing last night's broadcast, I was wondering if the reporter knew something the rest of us had yet to learn.

[chipj29]

When the Dr. Rock report was broadcast last night, the reporter said the driver of the boat died. I questioned what I thought I had heard, but she repeated it again at the end of the broadcast. Today's online posting reads a little differently, noting that a passenger died, but the final paragraph still reads as though the driver died in the crash.

I'm not splitting hairs here in terms of the reporting or writing -- I think she just made a mistake. But after seeing last night's broadcast, I was wondering if the reporter knew something the rest of us had yet to learn.

I heard the exact same thing on the 11pm newscast. It definately perked my ears up. I read the online article today, it says Erica was released from the hospital.
Poor reporting? Or perhaps the facts have been reported wrong from the start...who was really driving the boat?

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

To rephrase WMUR's old slogan, "No one knows New Hampshire like we do!", let me offer a new slogan for WMUR, "No one screws up news reporting in New Hampshire like we do!"

They are the worst when it comes to reporting the news with frequent typos in the on-screen banners, mis-pronounced names of people AND places, incorrect locations on their map of NH when talking about a particular city/town; the list goes on and on!!

[Skip]

To rephrase WMUR's old slogan, "No one knows New Hampshire like we do!", let me offer a new slogan for WMUR, "No one screws up news reporting in New Hampshire like we do!"

They are the worst when it comes to reporting the news with frequent typos in the on-screen banners, mis-pronounced names of people AND places, incorrect locations on their map of NH when talking about a particular city/town; the list goes on and on!!

Boy, I have to agree with you 110%!

But I actually have a better motto for our "if it bleeds it leads" station.

No one scares New Hampshire like we do....

And their website? My gosh, what a convoluted confusing mess....

But I am wayyyyy off topic here and apologize for same!

Sorry, my rant for the day....but if you are depending on WMUR for accurate and timely coverage on New Hampshire events, you definitely need to broaden your horizons!

[pats fan]

If you think they are bad try reading The Laconia Citizen! They have reported before that a one year old was arrested for driving after revocation of his license and in the same police log reported a 3 year old who was arrested for being drunk. We had a great time for a few weeks emailing the editor every day with every single error that we found. He was rather offended and asked what we had against him. We told him nothing against him, just shocked that the local paper was so poorly written and had so many grammatical and factual errors. Sorry for the quick hijack! Just had to point out the disaster that The Ictizen is. Maybe if enough of us point out errors to the editor he will hire a proof reader.

[Lakesrider]

Baja, I had to laugh. You are so right. WMUR is not on the leading edge of news reporting. Skarupa is the only good thing they have going for it. I couldn't believe it when I watched the Maine news channel getting a guided tour of the tornado wreckage and the WMUR team kept saying they weren't allowed in. Plain embarrassing if you ask me.

Anyway....So who knows what is going on with this investigation? Has any criminal charges been filed. I haven't heard anything about it lately other than the doctor getting a merit citation. I'd like to get a copy of that guys accident scene statement, as to whether he thought alcohol was involved.

I don't agree with the parking lot analogy myself. This woman was the president of a boating Association. She should have known better than to even take the lines off the dock. She should have known her speed was too great for the conditions. Period. She could just as easily called for a taxi. She has no excuse in my eyes at all. I'm also interested to see if this gets swept under the rug because of political ties, and community standings.

[Bear Islander]

Baja, I had to laugh. You are so right. WMUR is not on the leading edge of news reporting. Skarupa is the only good thing they have going for it. I couldn't believe it when I watched the Maine news channel getting a guided tour of the tornado wreckage and the WMUR team kept saying they weren't allowed in. Plain embarrassing if you ask me.

Anyway....So who knows what is going on with this investigation? Has any criminal charges been filed. I haven't heard anything about it lately other than the doctor getting a merit citation. I'd like to get a copy of that guys accident scene statement, as to whether he thought alcohol was involved.

I don't agree with the parking lot analogy myself. This woman was the president of a boating Association. She should have known better than to even take the lines off the dock. She should have known her speed was too great for the conditions. Period. She could just as easily called for a taxi. She has no excuse in my eyes at all. I'm also interested to see if this gets swept under the rug because of political ties, and community standings.

I don't think there are any taxis that will take you to Sleepers Island at 2 AM.

The authorities know they are under a microscope on the one. Nothing is going to be "swept under the rug".

[SIKSUKR]

Anyway....So who knows what is going on with this investigation? Has any criminal charges been filed. I haven't heard anything about it lately other than the doctor getting a merit citation. I'd like to get a copy of that guys accident scene statement, as to whether he thought alcohol was involved.

I don't agree with the parking lot analogy myself. This woman was the president of a boating Association. She should have known better than to even take the lines off the dock. She should have known her speed was too great for the conditions. Period. She could just as easily called for a taxi. She has no excuse in my eyes at all. I'm also interested to see if this gets swept under the rug because of political ties, and community standings.

Interesting how you ask IF alchohol was involved and how the investigation is going and then proceed to comdemn her without any official facts at all.You know something the rest of us don't or are you just another troll that needs to stir the pot and give your totally biased opinion based on zero official info.Oh that's right,you already stated that investigation probably won't mean much because it will be "swept under the rug".I really don't understand peoples thinking sometimes.

[topwater]

Interesting how you ask IF alchohol was involved and how the investigation is going and then proceed to comdemn her without any official facts at all.

My question is, WHY HAS THERE BEEN NO OFFICIAL FACTS BROUGHT OUT??
I have refrained from commenting on the topic since it happened. A blood test had to have been taken, what? no information on it? If it was a car accident with the same results, you would know within days if alcohol was involved or not. As someone else mentioned, is it because who she is that information is not being let out? We all know that old adage " IT'S NOT WHAT YOU KNOW IT'S WHO YOU KNOW " . Most of us are saying to ourselves, Who is out on Winnie at that hour who hasn't been where alcohol was being served!!. 1+1=2.
I do not know anyone that was involved so I am not trying to prosecute anyone here, but this hopefully will end soon, and we will know the TRUTH. IMHO if this was some POOR TEENAGER from laconia, we would already know and this thread would have gone away a long time ago.

[Tank151]

Interesting how you ask IF alchohol was involved and how the investigation is going and then proceed to comdemn her without any official facts at all.You know something the rest of us don't or are you just another troll that needs to stir the pot and give your totally biased opinion based on zero official info.Oh that's right,you already stated that investigation probably won't mean much because it will be "swept under the rug".I really don't understand peoples thinking sometimes.

SIKSUKR - Kudos to your response! Everyone here already has a conviction on this tragic accident and the operator of the boat and WITHOUT facts! Great detective work?

[tony1122]

What about the gun that was found on the boat that night?
Who gun was it ?

[sa meredith]

Post number 1?????
Gun???????
Will it ever stop?
I am curious though..I thought the results were due? Anyone know the timetable.
I, for one, am quite familiar with a boater "losing their way."

[chipj29]

Post number 1?????
Gun???????
Will it ever stop?
I am curious though..I thought the results were due? Anyone know the timetable.
I, for one, am quite familiar with a boater "losing their way."

Can't be anything but a troll...

[webmaster]

Can't be anything but a troll...Could be. I'll give tony1122 the rest of the day to post where he got this information or some corroboration. If he doesn't his post will be removed.

Thanks to everyone who reported the post.

[tony1122]

a mp officer that was on the boat that night

[ishoot308]

Since when is it illegal to have a firearm on your boat????

Dan

[parrothead]

The gun is kinda irrelevant when there was no evidence that it was fired. If it existed at all.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Oh man what's next, are we going to hear how the CIA projected a false image of the island to cause the crash because one of the occupants learned the "truth" about WTC #7 ?

[Bear Islander]

Since when is it illegal to have a firearm on your boat????

Dan

Dan

Depends on the type of firearm and if its loaded.



RSA 207:7

II. No person shall have or carry, in or on a motor vehicle, OHRV, or aircraft, whether moving or stationary, a cocked crossbow, a loaded rifle or loaded shotgun, or a rifle or shotgun with a cartridge in a magazine or clip attached to the gun.

III. No person shall have in or on a boat or other craft while being propelled by mechanical power, or in a boat or other craft being towed by a boat or other craft propelled by mechanical power, a cocked crossbow, a loaded rifle or loaded shotgun, or a rifle or shotgun with a cartridge in a magazine or clip attached to the gun.

You also can't hunt deer or bear on the islands.

[Airwaves]

I have stayed out of the fray until now.

I just want to point out that based on what has been written by Skip quoting NH Media at the end of July, and based on a conversation I had with a colleague who works the NH beat prior to the article in the Citizen. I think it's reasonable to assume that the NHMP has decided to seek an indictment.

Why do I say this? The accident occurred on Father's Day and we are now approaching Labor Day. If it were a cut and dry case one way or the other an arraignment would have had already happened or the case would have had already been closed.

I don't know the indictment process in NH so don't jump all over me if the NHMP isn't the agency that legally seeks an indictment.

So I would speculate...there's that word again...that if anyone knows the schedule of the Grand Jury and how and when indiictments are handed down and released, that is the time table to be looking at.

Of course just because an indictment is sought before a Grand Jury it doesn't mean an indictment is automatically handed down, pretty close to it but not automatic.

It's been my experience in MA that indictments are sought to speed up the process of charging someone with a serious crime not to slow the process down unless the evidence is not concrete and the prosecution wants a "second opinon" so to speak.

I am sure Skip or others will correct me if I'm wrong about how it works in NH, but as I understand the process, if you are brought before a Grand Jury as the target of an investigation the prosecutiion lays out its evidence but the target doesn't have defense counsel present and it's all done in secret, closed to the public. It's a one way argument and usually the prosecution gets the indictment.

On the other hand if a person is arraigned in court shortly after the "offense" and pleads not guilty a "probable cause" court hearing is scheduled. That hearing is open to the public, defense is there and presents prelimiary arguments as well as the prosecution and the magistrate or judge decides if there is "probable cause" to proceed to trial.

I may have skipped a step or two but that's the jist of it as I understand the process.

So, because no one has dropped the case declaring that there was no crime and this was just a terrible accident but no one has been arrested or arraigned, I will draw the SPECULATIVE conclusion that at this point it's going to end up before a Grand Jury.

BTW, if there was a gun I doubt that it would be entered into evidence because to my knowledge there was no gunplay. Many merchants that deal in cash carry guns, even in Mass!

[HUH]

Dan

Depends on the type of firearm and if its loaded.



RSA 207:7

II. No person shall have or carry, in or on a motor vehicle, OHRV, or aircraft, whether moving or stationary, a cocked crossbow, a loaded rifle or loaded shotgun, or a rifle or shotgun with a cartridge in a magazine or clip attached to the gun.

III. No person shall have in or on a boat or other craft while being propelled by mechanical power, or in a boat or other craft being towed by a boat or other craft propelled by mechanical power, a cocked crossbow, a loaded rifle or loaded shotgun, or a rifle or shotgun with a cartridge in a magazine or clip attached to the gun.

You also can't hunt deer or bear on the islands.

Says cocked or loaded.. With a licence to carry you can do both.. No there is no hunting on the islands.. at least until the poulation explodes and the herd is starving to death, do they call in the "enviromentalists".

[GWC...]

You also can't hunt deer or bear on the islands.
So, what is the name given to the occasional event that occurs on Long Island?

What's up with the Long Island deer hunt?
An annual archery hunt takes place on Long Island in Moultonboro, N.H. It is open only to bow hunters who have obtained written landowner permission on a form that can be picked up at Fish and Game headquarters in Concord; or individuals can call the Wildlife Division at (603) 271-2461 to request a form by mail. Attached to the forms are the pertinent rules and laws that govern this hunt. The hunt begins the first weekday in October and runs through December 15 except for certain weekends and holidays that are outlined in the rules. Once the landowner forms are completed, permits must be purchased at Fish and Game headquarters starting August 1.

http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Hunting/faqs_hunting.htm

[Mee-n-Mac]

RSA 207:7

III. No person shall have in or on a boat or other craft while being propelled by mechanical power, or in a boat or other craft being towed by a boat or other craft propelled by mechanical power, a cocked crossbow, a loaded rifle or loaded shotgun, or a rifle or shotgun with a cartridge in a magazine or clip attached to the gun.


So you're saying the Zuni's mounted on deck are legal but the twin BMG50's that pop out the side ports are best kept hidden ....

[Bear Islander]

So, what is the name given to the occasional event that occurs on Long Island?



http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Hunting/faqs_hunting.htm

Well first thing.... Long Island isn't really an island, is it. If you drive to your cabin you don't live on an island.

There is special permission for hunting on Long because of the exploding deer population. A number of years ago they had to bring in a sharpshooter to reduce the herd.

[HUH]

Well first thing.... Long Island isn't really an island, is it. If you drive to your cabin you don't live on an island.

There is special permission for hunting on Long because of the exploding deer population. A number of years ago they had to bring in a sharpshooter to reduce the herd. A "bridged island" is not a peninsula.

[Airwaves]

HELLO!!! :offtopic:

And the posts regarding gun rights, hunting on an island and whether Long Island is a real island because there's a bridge have to do with the Diamond Island accident...HOW?

Another Hi-Jacked Thread

:offtopic:

[chipj29]

In my opinion, even if there was a gun, who cares? As far as we know, there has been no mention of a gun by anyone involved in the accident. We should not even be discussing it...complete waste of time.

[sa meredith]

So folks...you all realize you gave this gun poster (post #1) exactly what he was looking for. You know that, right?

[gtxrider]

Dan

Depends on the type of firearm and if its loaded.



RSA 207:7

II. No person shall have or carry, in or on a motor vehicle, OHRV, or aircraft, whether moving or stationary, a cocked crossbow, a loaded rifle or loaded shotgun, or a rifle or shotgun with a cartridge in a magazine or clip attached to the gun.

III. No person shall have in or on a boat or other craft while being propelled by mechanical power, or in a boat or other craft being towed by a boat or other craft propelled by mechanical power, a cocked crossbow, a loaded rifle or loaded shotgun, or a rifle or shotgun with a cartridge in a magazine or clip attached to the gun.

You also can't hunt deer or bear on the islands.

It does not mention if a hand gun is allowed.

[Kamper]

All my comments on guns are deleted so further thread jacking is not encouraged.

[KonaChick]

WOW, very enlightening post about guns. I can't imagine why anyone would feel the need to be locked and loaded while boating on Winni...and to think all I carry with me when I'm boating is my sunscreen!! :laugh:

[VitaBene]

Kona LOL, but if you are permitted to carry you can't leave your weapon in your car (unless gun locked and really secure. It is usually better to take it with you, though I can't imagine carrying on Winni either!!

[chipj29]

The gun discussion in this thread should be dropped IMO. The poster who brought it up has no factual evidence that there was any kind of gun involved in this incident. Move it to a new thread, please!!

[Tank151]

chipj29

I agree! There is NO factual evidence of a gun on this vessel. Let's drop it NOW!

[KonaChick]

I don't like reading the gun comments either and tried to add some levity to the situation with my post but on the same token people have posted lots of things here that haven't been factually based and no one is demanding that those be stopped. What gives? If you think someone is a troll ignore their posts, it's simple! Just my 2 cents......

[codeman671]

The gun discussion in this thread should be dropped IMO. The poster who brought it up has no factual evidence that there was any kind of gun involved in this incident. Move it to a new thread, please!!

Whether or not a gun was on the boat makes absolutely no difference in the cause or the outcome of the accident. Why even bring it up?

[Lakegeezer]

Its been two and a half months since the incident occured. What is the typical delay before public information is released? It had a big impact on the lake community, well beyond those involved and their friends, yet there has been little official information made public. At this point, what's wrong with a little speculation, even if absurd. Maybe it will spur the authorities to put out enough information to change the focus of attention to what really happened.

[ishoot308]

Its been two and a half months since the incident occured. What is the typical delay before public information is released? It had a big impact on the lake community, well beyond those involved and their friends, yet there has been little official information made public. At this point, what's wrong with a little speculation, even if absurd. Maybe it will spur the authorities to put out enough information to change the focus of attention to what really happened.


Because of the magnitude of the situation (death involved), I am sure all investigative parties want to ensure they dot their "I's" and crosss their "T's" before releasing anything publicly. I would rather they wait to make sure that whatever is released is based solely on fact and test results, not rumor, speculation, or pending results. Premature conjecture only hurts all parties involved.

Let's all wait patiently and see what the facts are in this devastaing situation.

The only real fact we all know now is that a Father lost his Daughter on Fathers day, and that is tragic...

Dan

[Kamper]

Its been two and a half months since the incident occured. What is the typical delay before public information is released? ...

A year, or more, is not uncommon.

[Skip]

According to the NHMP the case remains active and under review.

Latest details can be read at the Citizen HERE. (http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080913/GJNEWS02/709136908/-1/CITIZEN)

[Winnipesaukee]

Who cares if there was a gun onboard? If there was, good for them.

[AC2717]

Operator of boat in fatal crash charged with negligent homicide

By GAIL OBER
gober@citizen.com


Article Date: Friday, December 12, 2008
The Gilford woman who was allegedly driving the boat that struck the rocks off Diamond Island this June has been indicted by a Belknap County grand jury on two counts of negligent homicide.

Erica Blizzard, 34, was also indicted on one court of aggravated driving while intoxicated for the Father's Day collision that killed Stephanie Beaudoin of Meredith.

The two counts reflect the decision of Belknap County District Attorney James Carroll to present two different theories of the alleged homicide to a jury.

No trial date has been scheduled.

[Skip]

..anyone know how your boat insurance policy works w/ regard to a negligent homicide indictment.........ouch?...

It should have no bearing on your current policy, as an idictment is not an indication of guilt or innocence; it means the grand jury found enough evidence to warrant a trial.

For those who would like to read the brief news report at the Citizen, please go HERE. (http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081212/GJNEWS02/712129838/-1/CITIZEN)

[AC2717]

Insurance is for "stupidity" and I AM NOT SAYING SHE WAS STUPID!
In other words her insurance will react no matter what she did, unless the insurance comopany was mis-informed or lied to on the application, but even then that would mean a cancellation of the policy in a certain amount of time, but even if this was the case, which it obviously is not, if the policy was in force at the time, then it would have to pay out. Now they have a rgith to defend you in a lawsuit as you transfer your rights, but this is a criminal case and unless there is some sort of insurance for that, which I am not sure there is? then the insurance will not take care of the case. There is usually a clause in every insurance policy that if there was a criminally negligent act comitted (and found to be committed is included), They have a right to deny a claim that YOU make for PD and liability against your policy, but in most cases, such as this one, they will still pay to third parties in this type of event, but have fun trying to get standard insurance for the rest of your life, you will be stuck in the pool forever paying higher than average prices due to your experience.

[ApS]

"...anyone know how your boat insurance policy works w/ regard to a negligent homicide indictment..."
The indictment can't help the effect on future premiums; however, a final decision reached four years ago after a series of under-the-radar court appeals might assist in understanding the provisions of your particular policy. Coverage can be excluded depending on criminal court findings (http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2004/12/21/48902.htm):

"...[The Federal Court's] finding that coverage was excluded under the provision in Section B regarding "any loss, damage or liability willfully, intentionally or criminally caused or incurred by an insured person..."
In other words, any civil suit decision comes "out of your hide" (and not your insurance policy) if you have the above provision in your policy.

[tis]

And as you know if you have served on Grand Jury, only one side is presented ( no defense) and very few are NOT indicted.

[VitaBene]

Wow, what an incredible mess, 2008 has got to be a year she just wants to forget about. How the heck did this happen?

If the indictment is true (and as far as the BUI is concerned I doubt they would have bothered with it if the BAC did not support it), it happened because she got on a boat impaired and drove it in to an island while going too fast for the conditions.

[jeffk]

Not with boats, cars, jet skis, snowmobiles, motorcycles, or ATVs.

And it's probably not too smart to be skiing, horse riding, using power equipment, and a whole bunch of other stuff while drinking either.

The CDC estimates that every year
13,470 people are killed in alcohol related car crashes,
255,000 people are injured,
$51 BILLION in damage is done.

This is for cars only.

And it doesn't begin to touch on the anguish and grief left behind in the wake of the destruction.


We don't seem to be able to learn this lesson.
And we tolerate the behaviors that create the problem.

We'll see how this plays out in court but I agree that the charges would not have been brought without significant evidence of alcohol impairment, specifically the aggravated DWI charge, which then strengthens (in my mind) the negligent homicide charge.

This is really sad.

[Airwaves]

"...two counts of negligent homicide..."

Two?

[RI Swamp Yankee]

"...two counts of negligent homicide..."

Two?

From the Citizen story link (http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081212/GJNEWS02/712129838/-1/CITIZEN) posted earlier:

The two counts reflect the decision of Belknap County District Attorney James Carroll to present two different theories of the alleged homicide to a jury.

It looks like the Grand Jury found either / both may apply.

[Skip]

You are correct Swampy!

HERE (http://www.theunionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Woman+indicted+in+powerboat+ crash&articleId=d5231f04-1319-4c80-a6cc-939fe8074a2c) are further details regarding the recent indictment and a recap of the crash, from the on-line edition of the Union Leader.

[fatlazyless]

What needs to be done? The time has come for seatbelts in boats. New Hampshire needs to require a boating seatbelt law.

Hey Rep Sherman Packard, the state rep who said about a hundred times that " 'you know what' is a solution look'n for a problem."....Sherm.... buddy....how about sponsoring a NH boat seat belt law?

Could make doing kayak eskimo rolls a snap!:D

A seatbelt can be very helpfull.

Last spring, she had a Fastech 35'er w/ twin 525hp V8's for sale for $452,000. Got to wonder if that comes with seatbelts? And, maybe the price has been reduced?

[Phantom]

There is a lot of coverage (obviously) of the incident & Erica. But does anyone know what happened to Nicole Shinopules? She seems to fly completely under the "press" radar. Never heard/read much of anything other than she was taken to Lahey Clinic after the accident.

I'm not being goulish .............. simply genuinely interested!!

[AC2717]

What needs to be done? The time has come for seatbelts in boats. New Hampshire needs to require a boating seatbelt law.

Hey Rep Sherman Packard, the state rep who said about a hundred times that " 'you know what' is a solution look'n for a problem."....Sherm.... buddy....how about sponsoring a NH boat seat belt law?

Could make doing kayak eskimo rolls a snap!:D

A seatbelt can be very helpfull.

Last spring, she had a Fastech 35'er w/ twin 525hp V8's for sale for $452,000. Got to wonder if that comes with seatbelts? And, maybe the price has been reduced?

thik of it this way, say the boat flips or goes belly up for whatever reason. then you could drown. More Protection from ourselves is not the answer, better awareness is. The Government has too much already to make us protect ourselves from ourselves. This kind of stuff always come up one some rich or connected family has a issue go wrong and then the mother, all be it she can have a point, goes on a crusade to "PRotect other children from the same issues" Granted this has its uses with Pedifiles and what not, but not oen it comes to me not being able to parent or loose freedoms because of someone else's mistake

Ok off the soap box now

[chipj29]

What needs to be done? The time has come for seatbelts in boats. New Hampshire needs to require a boating seatbelt law.

Hey Rep Sherman Packard, the state rep who said about a hundred times that " 'you know what' is a solution look'n for a problem."....Sherm.... buddy....how about sponsoring a NH boat seat belt law?

Could make doing kayak eskimo rolls a snap!:D

A seatbelt can be very helpfull.

Last spring, she had a Fastech 35'er w/ twin 525hp V8's for sale for $452,000. Got to wonder if that comes with seatbelts? And, maybe the price has been reduced?

I know you are not being serious...but would you like to be strapped into any kind of vessel that is taking on water, or even under water?

[fatlazyless]

For doing eskimo rolls in a kayak, it would be very helpfull, because it would make you one with the kayak. It would improve the paddle-ability too. And a seatbelt can be unlocked in a snap.

For just walking down the sidewalk, someone should invent a personal seatbelt with a self-contained airbag!:D

No....seatbelts could be helpfull in a boat...but should be optional...."it's you life & your choice."

So, does Wal-Mart sell a seatbelt kit? Seatbelts would have been helpfull on that expensive 37' Formula boat that drove straight into a large outcropping of granite bedrock..........ouch.

..............

Seen all the reader comments in today's Union Leader?

[wifi]

..... someone should invent a ....self-contained airbag!:D....

What an opening... :laugh:

[SIKSUKR]

Sometimes that self contained airbag does not know when to deflate his agenda. He can very insensitive to others feelings. I for one am very offended. Give it a rest.

[Mee-n-Mac]

What an opening... :laugh:

I was thinking the same thing ! Must ... put down .... the keyboard .... walk away ... aaargghhh .... ;)

[Mee-n-Mac]

Seatbelts would have been helpfull on that expensive 35' Formula boat that drove straight into a big flat vertical rock .

I was thinking a working GPS w/obstacle avoidance would have been a better idea. Or a low powered forward looking radar (like those we are starting to see in cars). Or a designated skipper.

Next time you're in Walmart see if any of those are on sale.

re: the personal airbag for walking down the street ... how would you deactivate it so it doesn't go off when ... you know ... you feel the urge to throw down and do 10 ?

[twoplustwo]

This tragedy isn't well served by your unique attempts at humor, FLL.

[BroadHopper]

This tragedy isn't well served by your unique attempts at humor, FLL.

This tragedy does not deserve humor.

[Skip]

Three families have been utterly devastated by this crash.

The legal system is now going to determine ultimate responsibility.

My gosh, its the height of the Holiday season.

Could we please leave the sophmoric and insensitive attempts at humor out of the conversation? :(

[4Fun]

Were there any details of the BAC made public? I personally think there is a big difference in .08 vs .1 or .2somehting....

[Airwaves]

I guess I am a little confused about why the double negligent homicide charge.

This is from a blog by the law firm Burke & Eisner (http://nhlawblog.com/2008/12/13/winnepesaukee-boat-accident-operator-indicted/) commenting on the Blizzard indictment
Negligent homide is a class B felony and the penalty could be up to 7 years in prison. Negligent homicide that occurs while operating a vehicle or boat while under the influence of alcohol or drugs is a class A felony and the penalty could be up to 15 years in prison.
So is there an issue with the BAC? It seems to me that the prosecutor appears to be trying for the class A felony but may not have the evidence to convict her of that and get the longer penalty so he's bringing the second charge to try to make sure that one of the charges stick?

I note in reading the blog from the law firm that the penalty is not the same for both classes of felony as the Union Leader article stated.
Union Leader: She can only be convicted on one of the charges, both of which carry penalties of up to 15 years in prison.

[jeffk]

Since it seems to me that a vigorous defense would probably challenge any prosecution evidence that it could, the prosecutor may just be trying to be thorough by preparing the second charge. It might also be leverage to force a plea.

It seems to me that defending against the general negligence charge will be very difficult since it is based on what a "reasonable person" would do and almost every boat accident can show some form of negligence, too fast for conditions, insufficient lookout, zigged when you should have zagged, etc.

This is all just speculation since we don't know many critical facts of the case nor what the strategy of the prosecution or defense will be.

[ApS]

"...I was thinking a...low powered forward looking radar (like those we are starting to see in cars).
BMW has that option: it flashes a dash light visible only to the driver—and vibrates the steering wheel.

"...This is all just speculation since we don't know many critical facts of the case nor what the strategy of the prosecution or defense will be..."
We seldom see terms such as the prosecution's theories of the case, nor The Citizen's use of the terms "alleged driver" and "alleged homicide".

In reading the media's tea-leaves, this may prove to be a difficult trial. I'm seeing the machinations of the defense already in this case: some might call it suborning of a witness.

"...What is the typical delay before public information is released...?"
Bad news for politicians are released on Fridays before a weekend: really bad news is released on a Friday before a holiday weekend.

What incentive would there be to delay this release until the week before the Christmas holiday? :confused: Would it be to minimize open discussions?

"...The legal system is now going to determine ultimate responsibility..."
After appeals, "determining ultimate responsibility" shouldn't take long. As we have seen (http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:SPrBKWZwUH4J:www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article%3FDate%3D20071219%26Category%3DGJNEWS02%26 ArtNo%3D709126805%26SectionCat%3D%26Template%3Dpri ntart+littlefield,+paroled-after,+new-hampshire&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us), jail time (if even warranted in this case) could be as long as four years away—right? :rolleye1:

"...Not with boats, cars, jet skis, snowmobiles, motorcycles, or ATVs...And it's probably not too smart to be skiing, horse riding, using power equipment, and a whole bunch of other stuff while drinking either..."
In fog, a New Hampshire aircraft pilot has a good chance of flying into "Cumulo-granitus".

Among boating terms, I prefer the terms piloting or navigating to "driving": "Driving" suggests casual travel. As we have seen time and again, boating—like flying—is serious business. :(

[Skip]

...Since it seems to me that a vigorous defense would probably challenge any prosecution evidence that it could, the prosecutor may just be trying to be thorough by preparing the second charge. It might also be leverage to force a plea...

Hi Jeff,

You are absolutely correct, and this is standard procedure especially in cases involving alcohol and/or drugs and homicides.... plus a list of other felony offenses.

As an example, the Littlefield case involved multiple indictments.

Its a common practice that has been utilized for decades across the Country.

[Airwaves]

There is one more count to the indictment handed down that I am not familiar with. This is taken from the NH law firm blog I linked to in my last post.
one count of aggravated driving
What does that mean?

[trfour]

Airwaves, i think it means a simple case of road rage...

[Skip]

There is one more count to the indictment handed down that I am not familiar with. This is taken from the NH law firm blog I linked to in my last post.

What does that mean?

Elements of both the Union Leader story and the blog you cite are in error. That is why the best and only reliable source is the Belknap County Attorney's Office.

She is charged with negligent homicide in a dual indictment, a common practice in cases like this.

The stronger indictment is the aggravated DWI accusation with death resulting. This is a Class A felony, with a possible penalty of imprisonment in excess of seven years.

A "fall back" indictment, in case the State cannot get a conviction on the impairment evidence they intend to introduce, will be negligent homicide based on some aspects of the operation of the vessel that night. Less the proof of alcohol or drug impairment, Negligent Homicide is a Class B felony with possible imprisonment not to exceed 7 years.

For those wishing to research the matter further, penalty definitions can be found under RSA 625:9 and Negligent Homicide information can be found by perusing RSA 630:3.

Hope this clears it up a little better....

[Airwaves]

So is the third indictment the one actually involving an "accident"?

From Skip:
A Class A felony penalty is IN EXCESS OF 7 YEARS if she is convicted of being above the legal BAC.

A Class B felony penaly is NOT TO EXCEDE 7 YEARS is if she is convicted of NOT being above the legal BAC.

So the Aggrivated driving charge is if she is convicted of being.... ????

[Skip]

So is the third indictment the one actually involving an "accident"?



So the Aggrivated driving charge is if she is convicted of being.... ????

As I stated earlier, both the Union Leader & the blog you cite have erroneous information.

There is no "aggravated driving" charge as there is no such RSA. Possibly the blog meant to state "aggravated driving while intoxicated".

There are 2 indictments presenting 2 different theories. Both indictments are for negligent homicide. The leading indictment is the Class A felony charge of negligent homicide/aggravated BWI. The second indictment, a Class B felony, is for negligent homicide due to operation.

It appears to me that both articles were mangled by inappropriate editing. A fairly common occurence within the news media and also in blogs where more than one individual is responsible for content.

[Airwaves]

Or...you could answer the question if you are able without being insulting and snarky!

[Skip]

Or...you could answer the question if you are able without being insulting and snarky!

You're welcome.

Have a very Merry Christmas! :)

[Sunrise Point]

Skip,

Thank you for your latest posts. I did not find them snarky or insulting at all but very informative.

[Resident 2B]

Or...you could answer the question if you are able without being insulting and snarky!

Snarky - sarcastically critical or mocking and malicious

Not hardly! :look:

Skip, thanks for all the unbiased legal and general wisdom you bring to this forum.

R2B

[RI Swamp Yankee]

Skip,
Thank you for your latest posts. I did not find them snarky or insulting at all but very informative.

This thread needs a "Thank You" button so I could also agree with that thought.

[ApS]

"...I did not find them snarky or insulting at all but very informative..."
Legal views can be expressed as opinions; worse, they can be misleading instruments through omissions. However, only the last paragraph can be construed as an opinion:

"...It appears to me that both articles were mangled by inappropriate editing. A fairly common occurence within the news media and also in blogs where more than one individual is responsible for content..."
In clear agreement with that media-bashing sentiment, Canadian newspaper columnist—and New Hampshire resident—Mark Steyn wrote this past Friday (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/tax-make-new-2261987-kennedy-land):

"...I loved the American newsrooms you saw in movies like "The Front Page," full of hard-boiled, hard-livin' newspapermen. By the time I got there myself, there were no hard-boiled newspapermen, just bland, anemic newspaperpersons turning out politically correct snooze sheets of torpid portentousness..." :emb:

Airwaves (as a member of the media) would, of course, see some "snarkiness" in Skip's post. :rolleye2:

[Pine Island Guy]

Or...you could answer the question if you are able without being insulting and snarky!

I've read and reread Skip's response and only see it as stating the facts and very explanatory!

Happy Christmas to all and to all a goodnight... PIG

[trfour]

Have a Very Merry Christmas Everyone!

Card; http://www.jacquielawson.com/viewcard.asp?code=XE13117730

[secondcurve]

I've read and reread Skip's response and only see it as stating the facts and very explanatory!

Happy Christmas to all and to all a goodnight... PIG

Agreed. Skip is a valuable asset and he is explains things well. I didn't find his post insulting to anyone. Keep up the good work Skip.

[Airwaves]

APS got the sentence that Skip wrote that I found insulting given that Skip knows what I do for a living.
It appears to me that both articles were mangled by inappropriate editing. A fairly common occurence within the news media
I certainly know criminal lawyers and others who don't hold the investigative powers of many police officers in high esteem but I haven't used those comments to insult Skip.

I was asking legit questions trying to get inside the head of the prosecutors in this case.

Of course it was Skip that posted the link to the Union Leader article for "further details regarding the recent indictment" that he later said was "mangled by inappropriate editing". Nice research.

[jeffk]

I was asking legit questions trying to get inside the head of the prosecutors in this case.

Of course it was Skip that posted the link to the Union Leader article for "further details regarding the recent indictment" that he later said was "mangled by inappropriate editing". Nice research.

If it comes from the media then it must be correct?

The media do make frequent mistakes in reporting. They go with what they think they know even if it is incorrect. You kept trying to get the forum to answer questions based on incorrect information, even after it was pointed out that it was likely to be incorrect.

Skip initially pointed out a source of information. When he realized that that source was incorrect and causing confusion he pointed out that it was incorrect, explained what was going on, and referenced a more reliable source. This was both helpful and responsible.

Further, this is a discussion forum. No one here is obligated to provide "researched" answers. We share our knowledge freely and sometimes go beyond the call and dig up more info when we can. Newspapers and other media on the other hand DO have a public obligation to provide factual information and not just gossip.

There was no snarkiness involved unless you are carrying a big chip on your shoulder.

[Resident 2B]

As I stated earlier, both the Union Leader & the blog you cite have erroneous information.

There is no "aggravated driving" charge as there is no such RSA. Possibly the blog meant to state "aggravated driving while intoxicated".

There are 2 indictments presenting 2 different theories. Both indictments are for negligent homicide. The leading indictment is the Class A felony charge of negligent homicide/aggravated BWI. The second indictment, a Class B felony, is for negligent homicide due to operation.

It appears to me that both articles were mangled by inappropriate editing. A fairly common occurence within the news media and also in blogs where more than one individual is responsible for content.

Above is Skip's post. As everyone can see, there was no use at all of bold font in his post. However, some posters have replaced normal font with bold font when quoting Skip.

My opinion is when you quote someone, you should not 'bold-up' normal font to imbellish your position. That is clearly adding spin to enhance your point and really unfair.

I have no idea why some choose to jump all over a poster that has clearly gone out of his way to answer questions being asked by other posters, including themselves. I just do not get it.



R2B

[brk-lnt]

My opinion is when you quote someone, you should not 'bold-up' normal font to imbellish your position. That is clearly adding spin to enhance your point and really unfair.


R2B

I don't think he was doing that to embellish his position, just to point out the "offending" comment. Had he NOT bolded it, I (and likely several others) might have never realized the offensive statement in question. Otherwise, I do agree with the sentiment of your post, but I don't think that was the case here.

The above being said, it does seem that "the media" often gets facts wrong, mangles things they don't understand and leaps to conclusions as if it's an Olympic event at times.

Skip always seems like a decent guy in his replies, I doubt he was trying to rankle anyone purposefully. If the linked-to article or comments contained errors, it's hardly his fault for pointing that out.

[Resident 2B]

I don't think he was doing that to embellish his position, just to point out the "offending" comment. Had he NOT bolded it, I (and likely several others) might have never realized the offensive statement in question. Otherwise, I do agree with the sentiment of your post, but I don't think that was the case here.

The above being said, it does seem that "the media" often gets facts wrong, mangles things they don't understand and leaps to conclusions as if it's an Olympic event at times.

Skip always seems like a decent guy in his replies, I doubt he was trying to rankle anyone purposefully. If the linked-to article or comments contained errors, it's hardly his fault for pointing that out.

I can see your point about highlighting.

My concern was, and still is, that some readers that did not read Skip's post would think Skip put some of the words in bold, which could be considered insulting to some readers. I saw no insult or ill intent in any of Skip's posts. That is my main point.

Merry Christmas and a Happy and Safe New Year to you and yours!

R2B

[Airwaves]

Here is how it works with media. The County Attorney releases the information to media usually via press release. Media looks at it and writes the story. If the reporter is good then he/she asks questions from the various sides of the story that were unanswered in the press release. Otherwise it's news via press release. (See Bush White House Press Corps)

Skip points to the Belknap County Attorney as the ultimate source of the indictment information and is correct on that point. However since the Belknap County Attorney does not post that particular public information on his website we (you and I ) can only see the information in the indictment from the press release (?) that he issued to NH media.

Jeffk wrote:
If it comes from the media then it must be correct?

Nope, just because it comes from media it is not automatically correct but there is a reasonable chance it is.

Since Skip quotes a NH media source...and the source I quoted was a NH law firm...

Skip quotes the Manchester Union Leader to provide us "further information" but later he trashes his own source and then blames my profession generally for routinely mangling information.

Didn't he read the Union Leader article first? If he did read it before linking us to it then he apparently was okay with it until I raised question about it.

Skip does not provide a link to the Belknap County Attorney, that he says is the ultimate source and, through his postings, leads one to believe that he has seen in order to provide us with the information he says his linked source (Union Leader) got wrong. He only states that media got it wrong again...hmmm No bashing there.

As a few of you got, I highlighted the offensive ignorant comment written by Skip.

Many of you take what Skip says as gospel. You should rethink that opinion.

I am evil, I am media, we question authority and then we tell YOU what we have learned. At least the good ones do.

[Lakepilot]

I have seen many times when the media is either incorrect or intentionally biased with one sided stories. I never assume the media is accurate.

Skip has clarified the issues for me relative to this tragedy much more then any of the media articles. His input is wanted an necessary.

He doesn't speak just to hear himself talk and he doesn't appear to have an ax to grind like others.

[EricP]

I have seen many times when the media is either incorrect or intentionally biased with one sided stories. I never assume the media is accurate.

Skip has clarified the issues for me relative to this tragedy much more then any of the media articles. His input is wanted an necessary.

He doesn't speak just to hear himself talk and he doesn't appear to have an ax to grind like others.

I agree, thanks Skip for providing clear information.

[Phantom]

My Gawd Airwaves --- Give it a break!!

Until this bickering of yours ( a one sided view of a personal attack), this was an informative thread.

Happy Holidays .............. be thankful

[NoBozo]

I too am impressed with the knowledge that Skip lends to this Forum. There is no doubt Skip knows his Stuff. SO: Where does Skip get this knowledge? Just a concerned citizen? ......Just wondering. NoBozo

[ITD]

Snip

I am evil, I am media, we question authority and then we tell YOU what we have learned. At least the good ones do.

Too few good ones, that's the problem. The media deserves it's reputation.




Check this so called journalist out:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/11/06/odd-job-matthews-says-his-role-make-obama-presidency-success




CHRIS MATTHEWS: Yeah, well, you know what? I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work, and I think that --
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Is that your job? You just talked about being a journalist!http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/static/2008/11/2008-11-06MSNBCMJMatthews.jpg
MATTHEWS: Yeah, it is my job. My job is to help this country.
Matthews wasn't done with his odd new job description . . . An incredulous Scarborough kept pressing, astonished at such a complete 180 from Matthews's repeated insistence during the Bush presidency that he had to hold the government accountable.SCARBOROUGH: Your job is the make this presidency work?
MATTHEWS: To make this work successfully. This country needs a successful presidency.

[chipj29]

I too am impressed with the knowledge that Skip lends to this Forum. There is no doubt Skip knows his Stuff. SO: Where does Skip get this knowledge? Just a concerned citizen? ......Just wondering. NoBozo

I believe that Skip has mentioned in the past that he used to be in law enforcement.

[SIKSUKR]

Skip has proven himself countless times on his accuracy of the law.Nuff said.

[BroadHopper]

This post needs a thank you button.

[jeffk]

Nope, just because it comes from media it is not automatically correct but there is a reasonable chance it is.
I disagree. Media tells stories, not necessarily the truth. Reporters talk to sources who may or may not provide accurate information. When it comes time to print the paper the story is written with what the reporter thinks that they know. Further, other people can edit the original story, sometimes skewing the original information. What we get is the best effort that can be produced in a limited time frame given the resources available.

In several instances where I have been in the know, I read the story in the paper and wondered where they got their incorrect information.

Further, in followup stories, as information evolves, the new information is often presented without comment that the original story was inaccurate.


Skip points to the Belknap County Attorney as the ultimate source of the indictment information and is correct on that point. However since the Belknap County Attorney does not post that particular public information on his website we (you and I ) can only see the information in the indictment from the press release (?) that he issued to NH media.

Since Skip quotes a NH media source...and the source I quoted was a NH law firm...

Skip quotes the Manchester Union Leader to provide us "further information" but later he trashes his own source and then blames my profession generally for routinely mangling information.

Since Belknap County is the agreed ultimate source, if there is confusion about the content of the indictment it would make sense to go to the original source rather than to keep quoting the media article or a blog.

I would suggest that Skip did not reference Belknap initially because he knew it was not accessible on line. When he realized there was confusion he added his knowledge of the law, and I assume, information from people he is acquainted with in the department.

The NH Law firm source that you quote in turn quotes the Laconia Daily Sun for it's information about the indictment, another media source that probably got it's information from the same press release that the Union Leader did. We're not chasing our tails here are we? Further, is there any reason to believe that this law firm has any special insight into this case?

Didn't he read the Union Leader article first? If he did read it before linking us to it then he apparently was okay with it until I raised question about it.

Skip gave a pointer to a publicly accessible source of information. He did not state that the article was absolutely accurate and he is not responsible for it's content. As questions arose he provided more information in a responsible manner.

Many of you take what Skip says as gospel. You should rethink that opinion.


Skip has, time and time again, provided well reasoned responses to questions of law, usually providing detailed references (RSAs) for those wanting to follow up. When additional questions have come up he has calmly and respectfully provided more details, examples, and occasionally his opinion on the law. On the occasion that he has missed a nuance of the law he has graciously accepted correction or extension of his original premise.

I don't take anyone's information as gospel but when someone consistently provides rational and respectful commentary backed up with solid references I consider that person as a very good source.

It seems that you have your own problems with law enforcement people and that seems to bias your views.

[JDeere]

Skip has, time and time again, provided well reasoned responses to questions of law, usually providing detailed references (RSAs) for those wanting to follow up. When additional questions have come up he has calmly and respectfully provided more details, examples, and occasionally his opinion on the law. On the occasion that he has missed a nuance of the law he has graciously accepted correction or extension of his original premise.


I agree with the above quote!

Merry Christmas!

[Skip]

Hadn't visited this thread in a bit so I just noticed the kind words thrown my way....and just wanted to give a belated thanks to all of you!

Geesh, some of you even made me blush!!!! :)

Anyway, Happy New Year to all of you and above all else , please be safe!

Skip

[ApS]

"...I am evil, I am media, we question authority and then we tell YOU what we have learned. At least the good ones do..."
I've personally made newsprint on two occasions as a teen:

News item 1)
I was struck and injured by an outboard while swimming in Lake Winnipesaukee. :eek:

I swam under a moored boat and surfaced under an outboard motor that was tilted up out of the water. (With a minor cut to my scalp, requiring a trip to the ER, where the tale got to the press). :rolleye2:

News item 2)
I was a fatality in a car wreck. :eek: :eek:

I'd had a wreck the day before—with no injuries to either party—but fortunately I was present when my folks first encountered that morning's newsprint report and read that account aloud to me. :eek: :eek: :eek:

That said, when you read an account like "your fatal wreck", you look at safety altogether differently. :(

[M/V_Bear_II]

So, how is this 'accident' different from the fatal car driving accidents experienced by US Senators Ted Kennedy, or New Hampshire's Styles Bridges?

Well, for starters, this one was in a boat.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Well, for starters, this one was in a boat.

And charges were filed. Looks like there will be a trial. Maybe that robed lady holding the balance beam will be served. What was the point again ?

[Jeti]

From the LaDaSun, earlier this week, there's new info.

She waived arraignment and pleaded not guilty. The court says no boat driving, no contact with the deceaseds' family, and received a $75,000 bond. Her lawyer is Attorney Moir from Manchester. Trial is set to begin in May or June.

So, how is this 'accident' different from the fatal car driving accidents experienced by US Senators Ted Kennedy, or New Hampshire's Styles Bridges? Senator Bridges has a section of Route 93, as well as the NH governor's mansion named after him, and he supposedly was the driver of a black Packard that killed a young woman pedestrian in Bow in 1938.

In many countries, such as in Mexico, a similar boating accident would get settled out of court.

Kennedy's head is imploding for the unjust death he caused.. What goes around come around they say!! The rat crawled home and did not get bagged & tagged for being wasted!!

[Skip]

Defendant's attorney is attempting to have the results of her blood test excluded. Story from today's Citizen can be read HERE. (http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090404/GJNEWS02/704049881/-1/CITIZEN)

[jeffk]

Well, this is not really a surprise move as part of a vigorous defense. This is the essential evidence for the charge that includes BWI. If it is excluded that charge will be very difficult to prove.

It also shows a weakness of getting a blood sample from a third party (hospital) rather than the police drawing it themselves. It required a warrant that can be challenged.

We still don't know what the BAC was. We now know that Shinopolous said they had a couple of drinks earlier, didn't finish them, and didn't think that Blizzard was drunk. Her testimony doesn't sound very damning since the same could be said for a majority of people that go out for the evening but it does establish they were drinking.

Given the seriousness of the accident I would think that might justify the warrant but I'm not sure how much wiggle room there is in "probable cause". It is based on whether a "reasonable man" would conclude that a crime HAS been committed based on the facts available, in this case as presented in the warrant.

It seems to me the warrant was a little sloppy. Drinking is not a crime. Is 2 drinks excessive drinking (which is a crime when operating a vehicle) ? How long ago did they drink? How much was really consumed? Were the beer cans from an outing last week? If the warrant required convincing evidence of legal intoxication it seems lacking.

All that said, I will make a guess that the BAC was over the limit, why bother to exclude evidence that doesn't hurt you? The BAC may get tossed out but the reality will remain.

This remains a tragedy.

[secondcurve]

"All that said, I will make a guess that the BAC was over the limit, why bother to exclude evidence that doesn't hurt you? The BAC may get tossed out but the reality will remain."

The above sentence sums it up nicely. Why exclude the evidence if it doesn't implicate you?

[ApS]

"...Why exclude the evidence if it doesn't implicate you...?"
Excluded BAC evidence won't be heard by the jury. :(

(Until after the trial, that is). :rolleye1:

[HUH]

I can't understand rabid need to fully prosecute Ms Blizzard just because she was a speed limit opponent. It was an accident, yes alchohol may have been a contributing factor but nonetheless it was an accident. Does anyone realy think Ms Blizzard intentionaly meant to harm her friends? :confused:

[Dave R]

I can't understand rabid need to fully prosecute Ms Blizzard just because she was a speed limit opponent. It was an accident, yes alchohol may have been a contributing factor but nonetheless it was an accident. Does anyone realy think Ms Blizzard intentionaly meant to harm her friends? :confused:

I don't think her involvement with the speed limit situation makes a bit of difference; she killed someone. If she was indeed drunk, she needs to be punished harshly. If she was sober, she still needs to be punished. She was obviously operating in an unsafe manner, even if she did not mean to be.

I oppose the speed limit.

[Lakewinn1]

Dave R...

Let's let the facts and evidence by presented & viewed by a jury of her peers before we pass judgement !

If she was impared and or guilty of a monor boat violation she should receive punishment but lets not pre-judge her on what we think we know.....

[jeffk]

I can't understand rabid need to fully prosecute Ms Blizzard just because she was a speed limit opponent. It was an accident, yes alchohol may have been a contributing factor but nonetheless it was an accident. Does anyone realy think Ms Blizzard intentionaly meant to harm her friends? :confused:

If it hadn't been an accident she would be up on worse charges, like murder.

No, of course it was not her intent to kill her friend. However her intent and my sympathy have no bearing on anything. The law says, and rightly so, that you can not contribute to someone's death and just say "Oops, So sorry. My bad."

The operator of a vehicle is responsible for damages done by that vehicle.

I would think the only extenuating circumstance would be if something serious happened to the mechanicals of the boat like the throttle jammed or the steering failed. No one has suggested that is what happened.

If she is proven guilty she will pay the penalty, as any of us would in the same situation. This is justice.

[secondcurve]

Dave R...

Let's let the facts and evidence by presented & viewed by a jury of her peers before we pass judgement !

If she was impared and or guilty of a monor boat violation she should receive punishment but lets not pre-judge her on what we think we know.....

If the results of the blood alcohol test showed she wasn't impaired when she hit the island her attorney would allow them in as evidence because they would prove her innocence. The only reason to try and stop them from being admitted into evidence is because they show she was over the legal limit. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

[Turtle Boy]

Does anyone know what has happened to the NHRBA? I've noticed that their website has gone missing.

[brk-lnt]

Does anyone know what has happened to the NHRBA? I've noticed that their website has gone missing.

Not sure that is relevant to this thread, other than as a mechanism to incite unrest.

[HUH]

I don't think her involvement with the speed limit situation makes a bit of difference; she killed someone. If she was indeed drunk, she needs to be punished harshly. If she was sober, she still needs to be punished. She was obviously operating in an unsafe manner, even if she did not mean to be.
"She needs to be punished if she was sober".. WOW :confused:

[NoBozo]

I guess maybe I'm being a little ...stupid.. .Maybe I'm thinking too much. There were three persons in the boat. It would seem they were not forced to climb aboard. They were all presumably having a good time ...prior to the accident.

If the NON drivers were NOT drunk..and they boarded the boat of their own free will....OR: If the NON drivers WERE drunk and boarded the boat of there own free will.....Do they not bear any responsibility for THEIR actions? SO: Is the driver MORE Guilty of Indiscretions than the passengers... in either case? Why single out the driver for prosecution? Seems to me they were all contributors to the final result. Just wondering.

[secondcurve]

I guess maybe I'm being a little ...stupid.. .Maybe I'm thinking too much. There were three persons in the boat. It would seem they were not forced to climb aboard. They were all presumably having a good time ...prior to the accident.

If the NON drivers were NOT drunk..and they boarded the boat of their own free will....OR: If the NON drivers WERE drunk and boarded the boat of there own free will.....Do they not bear any responsibility for THEIR actions? SO: Is the driver MORE Guilty of Indiscretions than the passengers... in either case? Why single out the driver for prosecution? Seems to me they were all contributors to the final result. Just wondering.

The answer is the responsibility rests solely with the operator. When an operator takes control of a vehicle/boat, it is incumbent upon he/she to handle the vehicle/boat in a manner that is consistent with applicable laws. Forcing passengers to make split second evaluations of operators is not practical and would place an unfair burden upon them. Imagine getting on a bus, a plane or in a taxi and being forced to evaluate the operator?

[secondcurve]

"She needs to be punished if she was sober".. WOW :confused:

I believe Dave's point is she could be responsible for reckless driving even if she were not impaired by alcohol.

[Dave R]

Dave R...

Let's let the facts and evidence by presented & viewed by a jury of her peers before we pass judgement !

If she was impared and or guilty of a monor boat violation she should receive punishment but lets not pre-judge her on what we think we know.....

Not pre-judging, she did kill someone. It's not like the island crashed into the boat.

[jrc]

...I would think the only extenuating circumstance would be if something serious happened to the mechanicals of the boat like the throttle jammed or the steering failed. No one has suggested that is what happened...

Assuming the BAC is excluded and taken out of the equation, then she is charged with Negligent Homicide. There is a big gray area between broken mechnicals and negligence.

It's by no means a guarantee that a jury will find her guilty of negligence, it gets into a judgement call. Was she going too fast, did she have a proper lookout, was she distracted, it gets messy in a hurry. If you take booze out of the picture, this is a much different case.

An accident that causes a death is not automatically a homicide.

[SIKSUKR]

I'll address 2 questions here:

First,If Erica's BAC was just under .08 she would still be considered impaired so I could understand why it would want to be excluded.

Second,do you believe that any vehicle accident that does not involve alchohol should punish the operator for said accident?

[sunset on the dock]

Second,do you believe that any vehicle accident that does not involve alchohol should punish the operator for said accident?

Of course not. What Dave R is saying is only if negligence is involved, i.e talking on a cell phone, speeding, running a red light, etc.

[jeffk]

Assuming the BAC is excluded and taken out of the equation, then she is charged with Negligent Homicide. There is a big gray area between broken mechnicals and negligence.

It's by no means a guarantee that a jury will find her guilty of negligence, it gets into a judgement call. Was she going too fast, did she have a proper lookout, was she distracted, it gets messy in a hurry. If you take booze out of the picture, this is a much different case.

An accident that causes a death is not automatically a homicide.

I believe there is a concept in maritime law that you must do all you can to avoid a collision. The simple fact that she had a collision means she failed in her responsibilities as an operator. You can quibble over the specifics of exactly how that happened. Unless she could prove that she took all reasonable actions and was somehow prevented (someone grabbed the wheel, mechanical failure) from maneuvering the boat out of harm's way I think she will be shown responsible for the accident.

I agree juries are funny creatures and can do just about anything these days.


I'll address 2 questions here:

First,If Erica's BAC was just under .08 she would still be considered impaired so I could understand why it would want to be excluded.

Second,do you believe that any vehicle accident that does not involve alchohol should punish the operator for said accident?

1)You're probably right. Better to have nebulous information that she had "something to drink" than to to have factual information of alcohol use, even if it was under the limit.

2)I could postulate a scenario where a driver was going reasonably slow in winter conditions and hit glare ice and ended up killing someone. Do I think they should be "punished"? Probably not. The problem is that there is a major difference between operating a car and a boat. Operator responsibilities for cars are often very specific, you have lines on the road for Pete's sake. Operator responsibilities for a boat are much broader and easier to screw up. For example, what is a proper lookout? I think I could make a strong argument that hitting the island proves that the lookout was not "proper". I could also make the case that she hit the island because she was going too fast. Was there a GPS on the boat? Was she using it? There's no law that says you have to have a GPS or that you must use it but I could make the case that by not using available GPS, especially in fog, that she was not maintaining a proper lookout. The list is endless. Most of us make similar mistakes all the time but most of us don't end up running into an island. The collision changes everything.

I'm not trying to bash her. I'm very sympathetic to her. I just think once you have a boat collision of this magnitude it will be almost impossible to escape responsibility for it. And it you are responsible, legal consequences follow.

We'll see how it plays out.

[Dave R]

Second,do you believe that any vehicle accident that does not involve alchohol should punish the operator for said accident?

Not any accident, but I would like to see people punished more often than they are. People get issued tickets for speeding all the time, based on the fact that they might be more likely to have an accident becuase they are exceeding a limit, yet when someone actually has an accident, there's ofen no ticket issued. Seems backwards to me.

[Lakewinn1]

Not pre-judging, she did kill someone. It's not like the island crashed into the boat.''

Dave since you claim your not pre-judging what facts do you have that leads you to your opinion?

Why try her in the court of opinion when she will shortly be judged in a cout of law by her peers? We will have the verdict soon enough!

[VitaBene]

''

Dave since you claim your not pre-judging what facts do you have that leads you to your opinion?

Why try her in the court of opinion when she will shortly be judged in a cout of law by her peers? We will have the verdict soon enough!

Lakewinni, Dave did not say she was or was not guilty, he said if she was impaired she should be punished for the effect of her impairment. If she were not impaired she should be held responsible for her negligence because it is very obvious that the operator of that boat was speeding or impaired. If she was neither she would not have driven into an island. The definition of speeding at that time (pre-speed limit) was something like this:

"Speeding is operating at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent, taking into consideration weather and other operating conditions"

That is where part of the negligence comes in. By most accounts it was a foggy nights- she outran her visibility, and was going too fast for the conditions.

And not to put any more words into Dave's mouth I will state what I think- I believe that we are all too willing to call something an accident that was not. An accident is when you are carrying a big pile of laundry downstairs and you knock a picture off the wall and break it. It is not an "accident" when you are texting and speeding and have a collision and someone dies. Sometimes you have to look at inside yourself and say "yeah I screwed up, it was my fault"

[Bear Islander]

If the operator is impaired, it's not an accident.

It's a crime!

[Dave R]

''

Dave since you claim your not pre-judging what facts do you have that leads you to your opinion?



She crashed a boat into Diamond Island causing the death of a passenger onboard.

[EricP]

She crashed a boat into Diamond Island causing the death of a passenger onboard.

Actually until the facts are out we don't know that she did that or something happened to cause the boat to crash into the island. We all can agree that a death did occur as a result of the boat crashing into the island, we just don't know what lead to the crash (yet) and if a crime occured or a horrible accident happened. We'll know soon.

[ITD]

Sorry people, but if she wasn't impaired by alcohol or another illegal substance, she should be let go and left alone.

[jrc]

I believe there is a concept in maritime law that you must do all you can to avoid a collision. The simple fact that she had a collision means she failed in her responsibilities as an operator...

She is not being charged under maritime law. I think you are equating civil responsibility with being guilty of a crime. The burden of proof is very different. She does not have to prove anything, the state has to prove she was negligent beyond a reasonable doubt.

Remember, the jury will not include people that know Winnipesaukee at night or that know how hard it is to drive a boat at night. Or if her speed was unreasonable.

I'm not saying that she is innocent, just that without evidence of intoxication, this is far from a slam dunk. My guess is if the BAC evidence is excluded she walks with no jail time. Probably will be a plea bargain.

[Bear Islander]

What alcohol?

What accident?

What crime?

[jrc]

What's with all the semantic wrangling?

It's still an accident even if she was drop dead drunk and travelling 100 mph with her eyes closed. Just because it was an accident doesn't mean it wasn't a serious crime. No one believes she meant to hit the island and kill her friend, so it has to be an accident. It can still be a crime.

Same goes with impaired. She's charged with being intoxicated. She's suspected of drinking to much booze. Impaired can mean anything, tired, drowsy, upset, or sick with a cold.

You can't change the English language just because something makes you mad.

[Lakewinn1]

Lakewinni, Dave did not say she was or was not guilty, he said if she was impaired she should be punished for the effect of her impairment. If she were not impaired she should be held responsible for her negligence because it is very obvious that the operator of that boat was speeding or impaired. If she was neither she would not have driven into an island. The definition of speeding at that time (pre-speed limit) was something like this:

"Speeding is operating at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent, taking into consideration weather and other operating conditions"

That is where part of the negligence comes in. By most accounts it was a foggy nights- she outran her visibility, and was going too fast for the conditions.

And not to put any more words into Dave's mouth I will state what I think- I believe that we are all too willing to call something an accident that was not. An accident is when you are carrying a big pile of laundry downstairs and you knock a picture off the wall and break it. It is not an "accident" when you are texting and speeding and have a collision and someone dies. Sometimes you have to look at inside yourself and say "yeah I screwed up, it was my fault"

VitaBene please read post #442....... Dave R seems to come across as if he has facts not just his opinion 9this is where we do not agree). While I agree with most of your points .. my point is that we all have opinions but I think we should let her be judged by her peers......If she's found guilty I agree she should be punished If she's not well you get the idea....

[Dave R]

VitaBene please read post #442....... Dave R seems to come across as if he has facts not just his opinion 9this is where we do not agree). While I agree with most of your points .. my point is that we all have opinions but I think we should let her be judged by her peers......If she's found guilty I agree she should be punished If she's not well you get the idea....


I stand by my statement that she crashed a boat into Diamond Island and that a person died because of it. Not sure how anyone could possibly disagree with that. Her lawyers are not going to argue that she did not hit the island or that no one really died. That's just silly. The best they can hope for is to shift blame to some mechanical failure or weather distraction, but regardless of the outcome of the trial, we, as boaters, all know who was ultimately responsible, the skipper.

[Lakewinn1]

Dave my point of focus is that she should be tried in a court of law not in the court of public opinion.

Clearly understand that she crashed into Diamond a Island resulting in tragic fatality. It's understandable we all have our opinions however we have laws that govern us as a society ... so lets let the court of law determine her fate.

[codeman671]

I have to agree with Dave on this. It was ultimately her responsibility. Even taking the alcohol out of the equation she failed to maintain a proper lookout which resulted in the death of a friend. The boat had plenty of electronics, the boat is equipped with safety features such as a "dead-man" (not trying to make a tasteless pun) to stop the engines during an emergency situation, and she knows the lake as good as anyone. The island hasn't moved...

Even if something mechanical failed such as BOTH throttles jammed, the steering failed, etc there was still key switches to kill engines, the deadman to pull to stop them, and heck even a stern to jump off if they saw it coming. If someone can prove that her electronics were all out, the mechanical systems all failed at once just prior to crash and that the weather conditions were too poor to see then maybe I'd buy into it but that is highly unlikely.

No, she did not intend to kill her friend but I could see a negligent homocide case being a ruling. Ultimately it was still her fault/responsibility in the end.

[Dave R]

Dave my point of focus is that she should be tried in a court of law not in the court of public opinion.

Clearly understand that she crashed into Diamond a Island resulting in tragic fatality. It's understandable we all have our opinions however we have laws that govern us as a society ... so lets let the court of law determine her fate.


My goal here is to make people think about their actions in the future and prevent the next tragic accident. This accident has made me second guess some of my prior actions and will affect my future actions as well. The last thing I want to have happen here is for people to think "oh, it was just an accident that could not be avoided" and fail to make corrections in their own behavior while waiting for the jury to come back with a verdict. Regardless of the outcome of the trial, we can all learn from this accident.

[fpartri497]

Dave my point of focus is that she should be tried in a court of law not in the court of public opinion.

Clearly understand that she crashed into Diamond a Island resulting in tragic fatality. It's understandable we all have our opinions however we have laws that govern us as a society ... so lets let the court of law determine her fate.


( let the court determine her guilt or innocense )


Great Idea people, Let It go

:D

[sunset on the dock]

( let the court determine her guilt or innocense )


Great Idea people, Let It go

:D

OK, and I've seen many references here about letting the jury decide guilt or innocence, but it seems to me that this is a forum to discuss issues that may be inherently controversial....that's what a forum is all about (definition of forum: a public meeting or assembly for open discussion). No one expects to be judge or jury but it's not unreasonable to discuss facts and opinion here, otherwise we should all be moving to the weather forum. What seems unfortunate is when someone (for example who may be a friend of someone involved in the accident) wants to squelch reasonable and civil discussion of facts and opinion. It would be like saying that no one should be able to discuss the OJ trial before the verdict is in (and this case also drew national attention last June because of the inherent controversies involved).

[Lakewinn1]

I believe we are discussing and sharing our opinions as you suggest.

[KonaChick]

The court system will decide her fate however the hell that she lives everyday and will live for the rest of her life is her ultimate consequence. Jail time cannot even begin to compare to that....

[Dave R]

The court system will decide her fate however the hell that she lives everyday and will live for the rest of her life is her ultimate consequence. Jail time cannot even begin to compare to that....

That is exactly the kind of reponse I was hoping for. I want people to think about this tragedy every time they are at the helm, especially those of us that know the lake well enough to cruise "with confidence" at night. It can happen to anyone.

[ITD]

Was that for me BI? Still stirring it up I see. I'd even give you the benefit of the doubt, if you were in her circumstance.

The law seems pretty specific here, 0.08 blood level is intoxicated, furthermore 0.03 along with other evidence can be used to determine you are intoxicated.

Innocent until proven guilty, one of the premier premises of our judicial system. Apparently some don't believe in that, or are willing to throw it aside to promote their agenda and justify their methods in their own head.

[Mink Islander]

Sorry ITD, it certainly is not a case of "Sorry people, but if she wasn't impaired by alcohol or another illegal substance, she should be let go and left alone". Alcohol or or drugs would only impact some of the charges she faces -- it's seems likely a crime was committed regardless (manslaughter chief among them).

You simply don't run into an island at relatively high speed at night, in the rain without violating some pretty fundamental boating laws. Can any experienced boater on the lake say with a straight face that this could happen to anyone?? C'mon. Only if you all drive like idiots. I have to travel around 4 miles to get from Sheps to my place on Mink -- often at night. Sometimes when there's no moon, or there's fog or heavy rain. And you know what, you adjust your speed based on the conditions, regardless of how familiar they are with the area. You MUST keep an even more careful watch when visibility is reduced because it's hard enough to see other boats at night in clear moonlit conditions, let alone judge distances well or see things in your path. She should have been going very slow given how bad the conditions were. I remember that night. The skipper has the obligation to maintain a safe watch and to maintain a safe speed for the conditions -- neither seems to have happened here. My bet is the skipper was flying on instruments, relying on a GPS to navigate while blindly going far too fast. Pretty foolish. Someone died as a result. Others were seriously injured (including the skipper herself).

Regardless of her other suffering, she still has to answer the criminal charges and if convicted, receive her just punishment. I'm have some confidence that the courts will take into account her personal suffering and remorse if/when she's convicted/sentenced. I feel sorry for her and all the families affected here -- I truly do. She has quite a burden to carry the rest of her life.

I just hope we all keep in mind how preventable this whole thing was.

[Lakewinn1]

Mink Islander .... I agree ... well said!

[sa meredith]

Sorry people, but if she wasn't impaired by alcohol or another illegal substance, she should be let go and left alone.

While, if I stretch a bit, I can see your point, I'm not sure I agree.
I'm guessing what you mean is that an accident is something anyone can have. Just a very unfortunate set of circumstances that come together at the same time, and result in tragedy. No evil, or ill will intented, it just happens. Why should someone go to jail?
But, wouldn't her speed, in the darkness of a overcast, rainy night be consider negligent? Very poor judgement at best. Her very poor judgement, then tuned into something much worse. The event occured because she acted in this way. I would think an island would be a pretty easy thing to avoid. Even at night, if operating in a reasonable manner, I would think it would be easy to see you are approaching an island.

I guess there probably are some situations where a terrible/fatal accident could take place, and an operator should not go to jail. But this is not one of them.
I came very close to having a pretty bad accident on the lake this past summer (I posted the story on his forum) in the middle of a bright, sunny, crystal clear afternoon. Although I was alone, I wonder what would have happened if I had a passenger(s), and had critically wounded them. Tough to think about. But my guess is that the captain is responsilbe for the safety of their passengers at all times. No questions.

[Skip]

Obviously there is still a lot of emotion on both sides of this issue.

That said, I think both Mink Islander and Jeff K. have been pretty spot on with their input.

But let me bring everyone back to square one.

Yes, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

And yes, the defendant has opened herself to additional scrutiny by willingly accepting the very public role of president of the apparently now defunct NHRBA.

That said to date we know the following:

The State believes that the crash and subsequent death were caused by drugs and or alcohol. They had enough probable cause to convince a judge of the same, hence the warrant and subsequent blood samples. They also convinced a grand jury to offer up a Class A felony indictment based on this.

The defendant's attorneys are uncomfortable with the results of those tests are and excercising all legal ability to have that evidence suppressed.

The State, if unable to prove intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt, then feels that the operation of the boat that night at least rose to the level of negligent homicide. Hence, they convinced a grand jury to issue a dual indictment, with the second being a Class B felony.

To those who think that a conviction and jail time are not possible if the blood tests are excluded, I only need to remind you of the outcome and jail time of convicted felon Dan Littlefield. I understand ITD's point of view, but I will remind him that there are a lot of folks that have been imprisoned for causing death where intoxication has not been able to be established as the primary cause.

Once again, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. And an indictment is not a proof of guilt, as we are constantly reminded by the media.

But given that the defendant comes from a powerful family with extensive political connections, and has exposed herself to scrutiny by voluntarily assuming a high profile lobbying position, it is only human nature that people will take an extra interest in the case.

As others have said, collisions like this should simply not occur. A healthy and respectful discussion of the events surrounding this collision should be encouraged, if it simply prevents such an occurence from happening again, or educates folks by seeing exactly how our legal system operates.

Finally, nowhere in my above opinion do you see the word "accident" appear. I think the use of the word "accident" in tragedies like this is misleading. While I await the decision of a full and fair trial I have long ago established my personal opinion that this collision and subsequent injuries and death were not the result of an accident.

Now, like all of us, I await to see if a jury comes to some of the same conclusions I have come to believe are true.

[ITD]

No need to be sorry MI, that's your opinion and a pretty good argument. Here's one of my problems with this, I haven't been following this too closely but I don't believe any forensics have been published on this accident. We get back to the argument of what high speed is. In the end she was certainly going too fast because someone died in an accident. However I am having a very hard time believing she was going much over 20 or 25 mph. If I am right, the question I have is would a reasonable person think 25 mph is too fast at night. I would have to argue no, a reasonable person would think 25 mph is a safe speed at night, because we now have a law that implies that is so. This was an accident. If she was impaired by alcohol, then she should have to deal with the consequences. If not, then I think this is a case of bad luck that could happen to any of us, even if there is negligence involved. This Sokolove mentality that any one who is negligent needs to pay is BS. Everyone is negligent at one point or another in there lives, some are lucky and no one is hurt, others are not so lucky. If the families involved bring civil action, that's another matter.

[Skip]

... I am having a very hard time believing she was going much over 20 or 25 mph. If I am right, the question I have is would a reasonable person think 25 mph is too fast at night. I would have to argue no, a reasonable person would think 25 mph is a safe speed at night, because we now have a law that implies that is so...

I don't want to get in a back & forth with you ITD, I have much respect for you and your opinion. But I do have to clarify your position on the new law.

The new law mandates that the maximum speed you can travel at night on Winnipesaukee is 25 MPH. You can only operate up to that speed if conditions allow you to do so safely. If the conditions warrant a lower speed, such as fog, rain, crowded conditions or mechanical issues then you can still be guilty of negfligent operation at a speed less than 25. Do not forget the caveat contained within the law.....reasonable and prudent.

Back to the thread at hand. I think that unless a gross mechanical or temporary physical impairment occurred just prior to the collison, a reasonable person is going to conclude that striking an island and causing serious injury and death infers that the craft was not being operated at a reasonable and prudent speed given the conditions present that evening.

Time will tell....

[jrc]

Skip, I'm not clear what issue you have with the word accident. It's a perfectly good word to describe an unintended collision. But I'm not going to beat that dead horse.

My point is that with clear evidence of intoxication this is a slam dunk gulity verdict. Without the booze it get to be more of a challenge to get a jury to find her guilty. Littlefield left the scene, and there was plenty of evidence pointing to his intoxication. This really doesn't sit well with a jury. Sure she was a visible anti-speed limit cursader and that will work against her. I still think it depends on the facts of the case.

The jury will not be boaters. If the evidence comes out that she was traveling 25 mph and the new speed limit is 25 mph that will sway the jury. Sure we all know from driver's ed that you can't do the posted limit in bad weather, but we also all know from our everyday lives that most speed limits are set too low. We also have heard conflicting evidence on how bad the visibilty was. Non-boaters have no idea how dangerous it is to drive a boat fast in those conditions. Now if the speed evidence points to a much faster speeds, then the scale tips the other way.

We will just have to watch and see. I'm not saying that she is innocent, just that a jury may not convict her.

[Bear Islander]

As usual, Skip is the voice of reason.

In the last 30 years I have been unlucky enough to know 3 people killed by operators under the influence in 3 separate incidents (not accidents). Two of them were my employees. I no longer have any compassion, understanding or forgiveness for people that drink and drive.

If reading a thread like this makes just one person think twice, then the thread has value.

[overlook]

I believe there is a boating law that if you are convicted for a violation and the state can prove that any amount of alcohol was involved,( judgment does not need to be impaired or over the limit). You can be in violation of consuming while operating. I recall you can consume alcohol (under the limit)while operating but you cannot be in any boating violation and consuming. What the violation is called I do not remember.

2cents

[jeffk]

... If I am right, the question I have is would a reasonable person think 25 mph is too fast at night. I would have to argue no, a reasonable person would think 25 mph is a safe speed at night, ...

I would agree that 25 is safe if you have unimpaired visibility and know you are in a safe position to be going at that speed. I have several times at night
found myself uncertain of my position or with reduced visibility and I slowed to minimum speed or stopped. At that point 25 was not a safe speed. There is no absolute safe speed. It depends on the conditions and by descriptions that night it was foggy and visibility was limited. I have to believe she couldn't see the island because if she had she would have turned. A reasonable person would have stopped or slowed once visibility was limited.

I also think we are splitting semantic hairs over whether to call this an accident. One definition of an accident is "an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance". This event seems to qualify. However there are plenty of legal definitions of responsibility for damage or death as a result of such an accident. The law simply assigns a different level of consequence compared to damages or death caused with intent. People are held responsible and punished for accidents all the time and what she is charged with is only one example of such a law.

Here's a less charged example. If you hired a person to clear trees on your property and he dropped one on your house thereby damaging it wouldn't you expect him to pay for fixing the damage. Surely it was an "accident" but you would be legally entitled to compensation.

I had previously given an example of sliding on glare ice. I had such an accident but was fortunate enough not to kill anyone. I did damage someone's property and guess what, I had to pay for it. I was going only about 15 MPH, had snow tires, have anti-lock brakes, and there was absolutely nothing I could do to control the car. I got no ticket but I was still responsible.

Obviously those were civil rather than criminal examples but it establishes the principal of responsibility for accidental damage. For some accidents, such as negligent homicide, a criminal penalty is attached as well.

There is nothing unfair about her prosecution. Any one of us would be and should be subject to the same treatment. She has a chance to defend herself in the court and we'll see what the result is.

[Resident 2B]

As usual, Skip is the voice of reason.

In the last 30 years I have been unlucky enough to know 3 people killed by operators under the influence in 3 separate incidents (not accidents). Two of them were my employees. I no longer have any compassion, understanding or forgiveness for people that drink and drive.

If reading a thread like this makes just one person think twice, then the thread has value.

BI,

Great post!

The only value that comes out of these incidents is awakening those that think it will only happen to someone else. We all need to be very careful out there, and respect all of the current laws.

R2B

[VtSteve]

That is exactly the kind of reponse I was hoping for. I want people to think about this tragedy every time they are at the helm, especially those of us that know the lake well enough to cruise "with confidence" at night. It can happen to anyone.


I understood what you meant Dave. I've had a couple of those "experiences" which my mind thought long and hard about later on. It changed my view of things. I'm still Free Spirit, but I'm also regarded as one of the more cautious pilots out on the water. At least I hope I am.

Sometimes it takes a close call, or just a modest shake-up to get people to realize what's going on. I'm certainly not anal about safety and wearing swim caps in the water to fend off boats. But I take my responsibility as skipper very seriously. This year, I'm actually briefing newbies that come aboard.

[VtSteve]

I have several times at night
found myself uncertain of my position or with reduced visibility and I slowed to minimum speed or stopped. At that point 25 was not a safe speed. There is no absolute safe speed. It depends on the conditions and by descriptions that night it was foggy and visibility was limited. I have to believe she couldn't see the island because if she had she would have turned. A reasonable person would have stopped or slowed once visibility was limited.



Deja Vu Jeff. I once found myself heading towards a land mass and questioning myself as to why I didn't think it was the right way. I made a flimsy excuse to my passengers about a bug in my eye, then slowed to a stop.


I go too slow when it's less than perfect out at night, even in the daytime. But sometimes it's inevitable that you make mistakes. Some mistakes hurt worse than others. When others are in my boat, I'm pretty anal about it.

[Seadoo]

My goal here is to make people think about their actions in the future and prevent the next tragic accident. This accident has made me second guess some of my prior actions and will affect my future actions as well.

so dave if you are second guessing some of your prior actions you are admitting that you too make mistakes, we all do. Lets let the professionals choose her fate, give it a rest.

[VitaBene]

You are the the one who could have let this thread fall down on the forum, instead of posting a comment like that.

We have all made mistakes in our life, but few if any of us have driven a boat into an island resulting in a fatality. It is true that her fate will be decided in a court of law and she will be judged by a jury of her peers, however, this is a forum and people are entitled and encouraged to post their thoughts. Our esteemed webmaster is the arbitrar of what can be posted here.

[Tank151]

What alcohol?

What accident?

What crime?

You're already the prosecutor, jury and judge by posting this DUMB post? Tell me honestly, that YOU or one in your FAMILY has NEVER opperated a motor vehicle (i.e automobile, boat, motorcycle, etc. etc.) under the influence of ANY substance where they MAY HAVE jeopordized others? You are a DOPE!

[Winnipesaukee]

You're already the prosecutor, jury and judge by posting this DUMB post? Tell me honestly, that YOU or one in your FAMILY has NEVER opperated a motor vehicle (i.e automobile, boat, motorcycle, etc. etc.) under the influence of ANY substance where they MAY HAVE jeopordized others? You are a DOPE!

Are you kidding? The vast, vast, majority of this society have not.

[Resident 2B]

You're already the prosecutor, jury and judge by posting this DUMB post? Tell me honestly, that YOU or one in your FAMILY has NEVER opperated a motor vehicle (i.e automobile, boat, motorcycle, etc. etc.) under the influence of ANY substance where they MAY HAVE jeopordized others? You are a DOPE!

Tank,

Please see post #485 in this thread.

Some people have lost friends and family to people trying to operate while under the influence. Those that have lost loved ones feel the hurt for the rest of their lives.

Others believe that operating under is OK as long as they do not get caught.

Operating under is very wrong. It is also wrong to believe it is OK to do this. This is completely unacceptable in my mind.

Regarding the incident that is the subject of this thread, please let the legal process work. Let the evidence, the judge and the jury do their jobs.

R2B

[Tank151]

Tank,

Please see post #485 in this thread.

Some people have lost friends and family to people trying to operate while under the influence. Those that have lost loved ones feel the hurt for the rest of their lives.

Others believe that operating under is OK as long as they do not get caught.

Operating under is very wrong. It is also wrong to believe it is OK to do this. This is completely unacceptable in my mind.

Regarding the incident that is the subject of this thread, please let the legal process work. Let the evidence, the judge and the jury do their jobs.

R2B

Resident2B
I'm not condoning driving while under the influence! I too have had friends injured and or killed by OUI operators. BUT, many folks here on this forum have already convicting this young woman before the trial and EVIDENCE has even been presented to convict her? The Blizzard family also ha sto endure this tradegy!!! Yes, I agree let the judge and jury do their jobs! But please don't portray that I condone operating under the influence!

[VtSteve]

A very long time ago, I tried to make a point about agendas and facts with another poster. He said, and I quote,

2BD
"It was cloudy, but the visibility after midnight was fine for me. It was dark, but like it's always dark after midnight. Laconia Airport had three miles of visibility. The moon was full (Gibbous moon), and was overhead at 2AM. Posters at the BoaterEd.com forum are being very critical of operating this boat in fog. Those who witnessed conditions at the time know better.
"

Those who are seasoned, responsible boaters, will mostly agree that the two safest ways to handle poor visibility due to rain and/or fog are to a) don't go out on the water if possible, and b) slow down and keep a very vigilant lookout.

That was back in the bad old days of the SL debates. Many of us that didn't support the new law were swift to point out the conditions and other possible problems leading up to a horrific tragedy on the water. Many that did support the law did likewise. A small and quite vocal minority that only had a pro SL agenda, saw their agenda becoming meaningless. If pro SL folks were shown to be experienced boaters that cared about safety, and aware and respectful of conditions, and the perils of boating under the influence, they felt their agenda would be diminished.

Regardless of all the BS, we move on. As DaveR stated eloquently, if tragedies like this stick in our minds, and make us even more diligent in our own experiences, the discussions were all worth it. I know I think about things like this whenever I'm out on the water, and I know I'm not immune from either conditions or just flat out mistakes. There's been some great wisdom shared on these boards, and I think I'm not alone in thanking Don for handling it all in a respectful and mature manner.

And with that, I wish everyone out there a happy and safe boating season.

[Skip]

Channel 9 (WMUR-TV) is reporting this morning that Blizzard's defense team continue to argue to have the results of the blood sampling suppressed. The State is arguing that these tests, when revealed, will show the defendant was impaired at the time of the collision.

Most likely there will be some type of on-line report to be referenced later this morning.

[Lakewinn1]

Does anyone know the specific court date & location? Will the public be able to view the proceedings?

[Bear Islander]

You're already the prosecutor, jury and judge by posting this DUMB post? Tell me honestly, that YOU or one in your FAMILY has NEVER opperated a motor vehicle (i.e automobile, boat, motorcycle, etc. etc.) under the influence of ANY substance where they MAY HAVE jeopordized others? You are a DOPE!


Yes, I can tell you honestly that neither I nor any member of my family has ever operated a vehicle under the influence of any substance. In our family it simply is not done. PERIOD!

I guess, from you comment, operating under the influence is not uncommon with you. That makes you the dope. Or on dope!