Boating Accident/Death off Diamond Island

[rrr]

The State is arguing that these tests, when revealed, will show the defendant was impaired at the time of the collision.

Skip-

If the defense were to prevail, could it be construed that this statement would taint the jury pool? Are we looking at a change of venue next?

[Skip]

Skip-

If the defense were to prevail, could it be construed that this statement would taint the jury pool? Are we looking at a change of venue next?

No...this is standard legal wrangling.

While we readers and posters here are keenly aware of the situation, there are plently of folks within the jurisdiction of the Belknap Superior Court that have not followed nor shown any interest in this case.

However, the defendant's high profile coupled with the family's financial resources will most likely prolong this trial, as most defendants do not have the same type of legal resources as this one does.


Unfortunate as it is, in too many cases there truly are two types of justice. Justice for those with financial resources, and streamlined justice for those without. That is truly not the case in many instances, but begs that we all keep a close eye on this particular trial as it winds it way through the Halls of Justice.

As for another question posed, unless a negotiated plea is reached the trial will be posted and open to the public. I do not believe an actual trail date has been set yet, but I may have missed it. Either way I am sure the details of any upcoming trial will be in the media and posted here well before it takes place.

[MeEscape]

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!

Absolute statements are always risky for a human being to declare.

Never a cup o’ joe for the ride? An over the counter cold tablet? Too much sun on a hot summer day? An unfinished agrument, say on speed limits? Aren’t we are always under the influence of something, substance, or emotion. Those influences are what cause accidents and why there are civil consequences, the question is, for courts of law, is it criminal in each specific instance.

If you can accurately speak with such certainty, you are a far better human being than I. Or maybe just years and years younger!!:laugh:

[ironhorsetim]

Skip, say someone were facing a 7-15 year sentence if found guilty and they were to plead quilty before trail, what (in your opinion) would the sentence be? I know all cases are different but just an educated guess.

[Skip]

Skip, say someone were facing a 7-15 year sentence if found guilty and they were to plead quilty before trail, what (in your opinion) would the sentence be? I know all cases are different but just an educated guess.

Fair question but it would have to be on a case-by-case basis to even begin to speculate on an issue such as that.

As for the case before us, jury selection re: State v. Erica Blizzard is scheduled to begin in the Belknap Superior Court on May 26.

[sunset on the dock]

Skip, say someone were facing a 7-15 year sentence if found guilty and they were to plead quilty before trail, what (in your opinion) would the sentence be? I know all cases are different but just an educated guess.

I would also think that a guilty plea might have some unwanted consequences regarding the almost inevitable civil suits which will follow the criminal trial.

[ironhorsetim]

I understand,the reason I asked was a similar case I'm watching on a vehicle (little off topic) but thank you both

[chipj29]

Fair question but it would have to be on a case-by-case basis to even begin to speculate on an issue such as that.

As for the case before us, jury selection re: State v. Erica Blizzard is scheduled to begin in the Belknap Superior Court on May 26.


LACONIA, N.H. -- Jury selection for a Gilford, N.H., woman charged in the Lake Winnipesaukee boating death of her friend has been scheduled for May 26.

Erica Blizzard, 35, of Laconia, has been charged with negligent homicide and aggravated driving while intoxicated. Stephanie Beaudoin, 34, of Meredith, N.H., was killed in the crash last Father's Day. Blizzard and passenger Nicole Shinopolous, of Burlington, Mass., were injured.

The Citizen reported that Blizzard's lawyer is arguing that the results of his client's blood test should be thrown out. James Moir said a Marine Patrol affidavit failed to show probable cause that the test results from the blood samples would prove intoxication.

Moir said the affidavit fails to state how much the women drank and when, where some beer cans were found or how they relate to the crash or the driver.
http://www.wmur.com/news/19239882/detail.html

[jeffk]

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.
...

I would hope that the State has a much better argument than that the evidence shows impairment. For this consideration it doesn't matter what the evidence SHOWS, it matters that it was obtained legally. Only if was obtained legally does it matter what the evidence is. Since the State didn't address the LEGALITY of obtaining the blood I would speculate they are in trouble on this issue.

I would also note the specific word used by the State, "impaired". This is a BAC of around .05 - .07 which most women hit after one or two drinks. Since the State didn't use the term intoxicated (or similar) I would speculate that the BAC was under .08 (legal intoxication). If this is the case I would think the more serious charge of negligence while being intoxicated will be very difficult to get a conviction on. This is all based on the State using precise language, which I would expect that they would.

I visited a website that stated that "impairment begins with the first drink" and this is obviously true. However, it is not a practical judgment to say that someone who has had one drink is under the influence. Possibly not even two drinks over a period of a couple of hours. With respect to BI and others I don't know many people who go out to dinner and don't have at least one drink, possibly two and I am NOT a party person nor are most people I know.

If the BAC gets thrown out completely it's going to weaken that aspect of the second negligence charge as well. As I have said before I think it almost impossible to evade a general conviction on boating negligence of some type but I am getting the feel that alcohol will not be a major legal factor in that negligence.

[secondcurve]

"The Citizen reported that Blizzard's lawyer is arguing that the results of his client's blood test should be thrown out. James Moir said a Marine Patrol affidavit failed to show probable cause that the test results from the blood samples would prove intoxication."

Doesn't running straight into an island at high rate of speed provide enough probable cause to conduct a blood test to check for intoxication and allow the evidence to be entered into the case?

[jeffk]

"The Citizen reported that Blizzard's lawyer is arguing that the results of his client's blood test should be thrown out. James Moir said a Marine Patrol affidavit failed to show probable cause that the test results from the blood samples would prove intoxication."

Doesn't running straight into an island at high rate of speed provide enough probable cause to conduct a blood test to check for intoxication and allow the evidence to be entered into the case?

The problem is in who collects the blood and for what purpose.

If an officer at the scene or at the hospital ordered the blood be drawn no warrant would have been needed because a vehicle accident happened and someone was killed. I believe the law actually says blood for BAC should be collected from all people involved in the accident. This seems NOT to have happened.

Later, after enough time had passed that it would have been pointless to draw a BAC, the police went to the hospital to compel that blood drawn there (for medical purposes) be used to obtain a BAC. This DOES require a warrant and for the warrant to be granted probable cause needed to be shown that intoxication was likely. It seems that the warrant conveniently left out part of the passenger's testimony that they had not drank very much and that Erica did NOT seem impaired. Providing only damning testimony and leaving off exonerating testimony is not a good thing to do and jeopardizes the validity of the warrant and that is why it is being challenged.

I had written about this on this thread before about the differences between blood being drawn under the orders of an officer vs. blood drawn by a hospital and then compelled as evidence. The first is a much stronger, cleaner evidence and here we see example of this.

Of course it's up to the court to decide if the warrant was defective. My gut says it was. We'll see.

[Lakewinn1]

The problem is in who collects the blood and for what purpose.

If an officer at the scene or at the hospital ordered the blood be drawn no warrant would have been needed because a vehicle accident happened and someone was killed. I believe the law actually says blood for BAC should be collected from all people involved in the accident. This seems NOT to have happened.

Later, after enough time had passed that it would have been pointless to draw a BAC, the police went to the hospital to compel that blood drawn there (for medical purposes) be used to obtain a BAC. This DOES require a warrant and for the warrant to be granted probable cause needed to be shown that intoxication was likely. It seems that the warrant conveniently left out part of the passenger's testimony that they had not drank very much and that Erica did NOT seem impaired. Providing only damning testimony and leaving off exonerating testimony is not a good thing to do and jeopardizes the validity of the warrant and that is why it is being challenged.

I had written about this on this thread before about the differences between blood being drawn under the orders of an officer vs. blood drawn by a hospital and then compelled as evidence. The first is a much stronger, cleaner evidence and here we see example of this.

Of course it's up to the court to decide if the warrant was defective. My gut says it was. We'll see.


Thanks for the clarity.... Good information to think about!

[Lakepilot]

I'll second the thanks for the clarification.

[VitaBene]

The problem is in who collects the blood and for what purpose.

If an officer at the scene or at the hospital ordered the blood be drawn no warrant would have been needed because a vehicle accident happened and someone was killed. I believe the law actually says blood for BAC should be collected from all people involved in the accident. This seems NOT to have happened.

Later, after enough time had passed that it would have been pointless to draw a BAC, the police went to the hospital to compel that blood drawn there (for medical purposes) be used to obtain a BAC. This DOES require a warrant and for the warrant to be granted probable cause needed to be shown that intoxication was likely. It seems that the warrant conveniently left out part of the passenger's testimony that they had not drank very much and that Erica did NOT seem impaired. Providing only damning testimony and leaving off exonerating testimony is not a good thing to do and jeopardizes the validity of the warrant and that is why it is being challenged.

I had written about this on this thread before about the differences between blood being drawn under the orders of an officer vs. blood drawn by a hospital and then compelled as evidence. The first is a much stronger, cleaner evidence and here we see example of this.

Of course it's up to the court to decide if the warrant was defective. My gut says it was. We'll see.

And that, folks, is why you get the best lawyer money can buy.

[PennyPenny]

I would plead guity. As A forum member and reading everything and being unbiased,if I were the defendant at this point I would save myself and my family the cost of a lawyer. I,in my heart of hearts, believe she was drinking and/or impaired. Probably the girls with her were having a good time and never thought anything would happen to them. As God would have it, it didn't turn out that way. I do believe the driver of the boat, Erica Blizzard, is responbible for the the death of her friend. IMO

[Skip]

A Superior Court judge has found that the NHMP did indeed have probable cause in drawing Blizzard's blood sample and the evidence will be admissable in her trial. A short story can be found HERE (http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090429/GJNEWS02/904299876/-1/CITIZEN) with a full story to follow in the Citizen later in the day.

[ApS]

"...I would plead guilty..."
Fifty years ago, guilty pleas were not unusual. Today, the system will take all your money first and drag the case through the courts until the jury is left with little to base their decision upon.

Picking a jury is scheduled for later this month. In most jurisdictions, such dates for picking a jury are "throw-away dates".

"...if I were the defendant at this point I would save myself and my family the cost of a lawyer..."
The "cost of a lawyer" could be a year or two longer in the slammer. (Or acquittal altogether on a technicality).

"...Doesn't running straight into an island at high rate of speed provide enough probable cause to conduct a blood test to check for intoxication and allow the evidence to be entered into the case...?"
'Looks like the judge saw it your way and cited "exigencies":

Thursday, April 30, 2009
"...Blood evidence taken from the operator of a boat involved in a fatal accident on Lake Winnipesaukee last summer can be used against her, a judge has ruled...on Monday Superior Court Judge Kathleen McGuire ruled that Marine Patrol had probable cause to believe that Blizzard was intoxicated and, as a result, blood samples were lawfully taken from the suspect.

"McGuire ruled evidence that Blizzard drove a boat headlong into an island at an unreasonable rate of speed given the weather conditions provided the probable cause Marine Patrol needed to believe the defendant had been drinking alcohol and that evidence of intoxication would be found in the defendant's blood..."
http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090430/GJNEWS02/704309867/-1/CITNEWS


ETA:
To save some time, ALL subsequent April links are to the same article as the above.

More from the above account:


"...Photographs of the controls of the boat taken by Marine Patrol the night of the crash show the steering wheel in a straight-ahead position.

"The shift lever for one of the engines was in full position while the shifter for the second engine was in reserve [reverse] at almost full throttle.

"All of the gauges were normal and at least one of the engines had broken its mount..."

[Skip]

"The Citizen reported that Blizzard's lawyer is arguing that the results of his client's blood test should be thrown out. James Moir said a Marine Patrol affidavit failed to show probable cause that the test results from the blood samples would prove intoxication."

Doesn't running straight into an island at high rate of speed provide enough probable cause to conduct a blood test to check for intoxication and allow the evidence to be entered into the case?

According to this FULL STORY (http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090430/GJNEWS02/704309867/-1/CITIZEN) now appearing on the Citizen, that is the exact same conclusion the Judge came to in determining probable cause existed to obtain the blood.

Also, in new details emerging, the blood seized late the next day was not the only sample obtained. At least six samples were seized including one just two hours after the collision while Blizzard was still at LRGH. Now, by having a string of samples taken at varying times after the accident the State can clearly use the sampling data to establish an extremely accurate BAC at the time of the collsion.

As this story reveals more and more of the night in question it appears to me that the State is building an extremely strong case.

Trial pre-hearings are scheduled to begin next Wednesday.

[jeffk]

This is why, despite all the speculation we do here, you need to wait for the trial for ALL the information to be brought forward.

[VtSteve]

Don't know about the position of the controls being an indication of anything. She was said to be slumped over the controls when found, and after that impact, they might possibly have been moved in erratic directions. The passenger that survived stated a speed of 25 to 30.

News stories like these have been making the rounds all over the nation. Let's hope they can prevent similar incidents.

[4Fun]

Don't know about the position of the controls being an indication of anything. She was said to be slumped over the controls when found, and after that impact, they might possibly have been moved in erratic directions. The passenger that survived stated a speed of 25 to 30.

News stories like these have been making the rounds all over the nation. Let's hope they can prevent similar incidents.


I agree about the controls and the steering angle. They could have been anywhere before impact. I don't see how it would be relevant anyway. There is no doubt she hit this Island and there is no doubt she was't aiming for it on purpose.

The outdrives hitting on the bottom could alter the angle of steering and I doubt she would put one engine in reverse on purpose...

[Skip]

Every detail of the vessel, including full inspection (with photographs) of every conceivable mechanical part appear to have been meticulously documented by the investigators. This is standard in a criminal investigation. If anything were omitted then the defense would try to raise some suspicion that the State may have been hiding some intricate piece of evidence that would exonerate their client.

The original position of the controls discovered at the scene of the crime are important details as to their operational capability as determined later during further forensic analysis. Remember, to assign maximum culpability to Blizzard the State will need to show there was no mechanical issues that contributed to this deadly collision.

As this case unfolds over the next several weeks it appears that the State, in my opinion, has learned some valuable lessons from the Littlefield crime and done an excellent job in gathering the pertinent evidence necessary to pursue their criminal charges against Blizzard. The admission of the blood evidence, especially since we now know it was obtained in a very timely manner, is a tremendous victory for the prosecution.

It will be very interesting watching the legal wrangling that will ensue the next several months, as this will be a closely watched and highly publicized trial.

[Dave M]

The outdrives hitting on the bottom could alter the angle of steering and I doubt she would put one engine in reverse on purpose...

Isn't it possible that she saw the island at the last second and tried to put it
full throttle in reverse but was able to grab one of them or felt the prop hit
bottom and tried to do the same thing.

Speculation of course. In any case it shouldn't have happened.

Dave M

[Mee-n-Mac]

A Superior Court judge has found that the NHMP did indeed have probable cause in drawing Blizzard's blood sample and the evidence will be admissable in her trial. A short story can be found HERE (http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090429/GJNEWS02/904299876/-1/CITIZEN) with a full story to follow in the Citizen later in the day.

And here's a link to the aforementioned full story (http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090430/GJNEWS02/704309867/-1/CITIZEN).

[VtSteve]

Just from reading the stories, and of course, Skip's great interpretation, I'd have to say from my perspective it looks like the MP and other authorities did a pretty good job. For a case of this kind, and the issues and the people involved, it looks like they covered their bases carefully.

Of course there will be more details to come out this year. But looking back since it happened, I think many here were pretty much on target with the general nature of the discussion. More importantly, many of us were on target with what is required for safety in boating.

[ApS]

For more than a decade, scientists have already known about the toll alcohol takes on boaters. :cool:


Accident Analysis & Prevention: Human error in recreational boating

Background:
"...One contributor to this toll is alcohol-influenced operation of boats. Our study objective was to determine the prevalence of alcohol-influenced motor boat operation, and describe its relationship to demographic factors and other risk behaviors.

[B]Methods:"...a randomly dialed national telephone survey contacted 5238 adult respondents who reported on their operation of motor boats, alcohol use, and other potential injury risk behaviors. Data were weighted to obtain national estimates and percentages.

Results: Of 597 respondents who operated a motor boat...31% (206 respondents) reported doing so at least once while alcohol-influenced.

Alcohol-influenced operation of a motor boat was significantly more likely among males, individuals between 25 and 34 years of age, and those with greater than a college education.

Alcohol-influenced motor boat operation was also more common among those who drove motor vehicles while alcohol-influenced, and those who drove a motor vehicle without using a seat belt.

Conclusions: To decrease alcohol-influenced boating, new strategies should be developed. Strategies used to decrease drinking and driving motor vehicles may prove adaptable to preventing alcohol-influenced boating. More effective means of monitoring alcohol-influenced boating is needed.

Alcohol use by passengers on boats should not be overlooked as a problem.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5S-4M4KR24-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=12274c3d8dbb7fcd5bc82b3d4de1bfae

Questions:
Weren't each of the three aboard this boat 34 years of age? :eek:

Does Common Sense take a break between the ages of 25 and 34? :confused:

Do other Winnipesaukee-users in this age group ignore their automobile seatbelt (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=46559&postcount=31) usage also? :rolleye2:

[VtSteve]

Common sense isn't all that common when viewing the big picture. Those of us that think we have common sense, pretty much knew what the causes of this tragedy were. Not that many choices really. It's a little late in these threads to bring it all back. Just reading the Conclusions part of the study you posted should be enough to get you back on track.

[Bear Islander]

...It's a little late in these threads to bring it all back...

After the accident we were told to keep quiet and not speculate because it was all too new. And I agreed.

Now it is to LATE to talk about it?




It will never be to LATE to learn from a tragedy like this.

[VtSteve]

After the accident we were told to keep quiet and not speculate because it was all too new. And I agreed.

Now it is to LATE to talk about it?




It will never be to LATE to learn from a tragedy like this.

I fully agree BI. I didn't mean it that way at all, (decided not even to mention what I meant. Don's a gracious host. Many know what I meant). It's always important to discuss what can happen in the real world, regardless of circumstances. All we can do as boaters is be cautious, and try to learn from mistakes like these.

Accidents can and do happen, even when people are trying to be cautious. I'm sure everyone has an occasional lapse or two, and we all have to remain as diligent as possible.

In that spirit, I'd recommend the following. How about a safe boating thread? It could contain a helpful series of navigation posts, broken out however it evolves. Perhaps a more static discussion of rules and regs, dos and don'ts.

Some that is pretty fluent and experienced at chart/GPS integration could benefit newbies as well as old timers.

I just thought that a constructive section could be erected.

[Jeti]

I fully agree BI. I didn't mean it that way at all, (decided not even to mention what I meant. Don's a gracious host. Many know what I meant). It's always important to discuss what can happen in the real world, regardless of circumstances. All we can do as boaters is be cautious, and try to learn from mistakes like these.

Accidents can and do happen, even when people are trying to be cautious. I'm sure everyone has an occasional lapse or two, and we all have to remain as diligent as possible.

In that spirit, I'd recommend the following. How about a safe boating thread? It could contain a helpful series of navigation posts, broken out however it evolves. Perhaps a more static discussion of rules and regs, dos and don'ts.

Some that is pretty fluent and experienced at chart/GPS integration could benefit newbies as well as old timers.

I just thought that a constructive section could be erected.

she is toast and should serve time for being wasted and taking the life of another.... Lots of time!! The fact that she lawyer ed up and tried to block key evidence is a sign of guilt. Its pathetic really..

[Skip]

After a pre-trial hearing yesterday, Blizzard has been succesful in obtaining a five month delay for the start of the trial, moving it from May until at least October. She is also having her attorney file a number of motions to once again throw out the blood tests which would, as the State has claimed, show she was impaired at the time when she struck the island.

The full story can be read HERE (http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090507/GJNEWS02/705079855/-1/CITIZEN) in this morning's Citizen.

[VitaBene]

After a pre-trial hearing yesterday, Blizzard has been succesful in obtaining a five month delay for the start of the trial, moving it from May until at least October. She is also having her attorney file a number of motions to once again throw out the blood tests which would, as the State has claimed, show she was impaired at the time when she struck the island.

The full story can be read HERE (http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090507/GJNEWS02/705079855/-1/CITIZEN) in this morning's Citizen.

But she has the best defense that money can buy..... at what cost to the taxpayers???

[secondcurve]

But she has the best defense that money can buy..... at what cost to the taxpayers???

That is an excellent point, all of this is costing the tax payers a fortune.

We have the best legal system in the world, but obviously this case shows some of its imperfections. Blizzard drove her boat into an island at a high rate of speed and killed someone. If that isn't reason enough for law enforcement to get blood samples without a warrant I'm not sure what is.

[Skip]

That is an excellent point, all of this is costing the tax payers a fortune.

We have the best legal system in the world, but obviously this case shows some of its imperfections. Blizzard drove her boat into an island at a high rate of speed and killed someone. If that isn't reason enough for law enforcement to get blood samples without a warrant I'm not sure what is.

Excellent point.

And yes, while we do have the best system in the world, sadly there are two tiers of justice in this country. One for those with money, and another for those without.

The delays, constant frivolous motions coupled with attempts to garner pity for the defendant are all made possible by the amount of money you have to attempt to delay or de-rail the inevitable.

To me it is also great testament to the true character of the defendant.

And that's my editorializing for the day.....;)

[SIKSUKR]

she is toast and should serve time for being wasted and taking the life of another.... Lots of time!! The fact that she lawyer ed up and tried to block key evidence is a sign of guilt. Its pathetic really..

Pathetic is people who that have made judgements without knowing facts. She was wasted? The one person that would know better than any of you was on the boat and said she only had a few and in her opinion Erica was not impaired at all.

Blizzard drove her boat into an island at a high rate of speed and killed someone.

The same onboard witness said they were traveling at appr. 25 mph. This is a high rate of speed?

Stephanie was a friend of mine so I feel the pain of losing her but some of you posting here are way out of line.

[VtSteve]

I have no idea what the reality of the situation was on that fateful morning, and hope never to be in the same position myself. I think it's just wisdom on the part of the lawyers to get the trial postponed until after summer. They probably feared a circus of publicity, with the new law and the beginning of summer happening at the same time. BUT, I note in the article that she is scheduled to have more surgery in early July. So I'll leave that up to the judge's discretion that the continuance made sense.

Without knowing the facts, I'd just have to rely on my gut feelings as to the continued attempts to get the results ruled inadmissible. Too many factors involved. If the results were a .01 it would be a negative, obviously a zero would be ideal. Given their attempts, it's obviously not a zero. A big negative regardless of the actual level.

Sure, it would be nice for all involved in the case to sit down and hear the truth. The consequences can be scary, and with enough resources, sometimes there are none. I don't know any of the people involved, nor their character or personal behaviors. I'd like to think that if such a thing happened while I was skipper, I'd man up and just tell the story. Especially so given the relationships of those involved. I hope I never will know what I'd do, and hope nobody else does either.

But the circumstance surrounding an accident in bad weather which involves driving onto an island demands answers. The best case scenario is that someone screwed up, went off course and juts plain blew it. There are a lot of different scenarios between that and what anyone would consider the worst case for the skipper. Only those on board really know what went down.

I'm not a legal mind by any means. But my personal judgment on the warrant and the samples is this. I believe the Judge did good by pointing out that the circumstances gave probable cause to obtain them. In addition, I cannot fathom a legal system working the way her lawyer stated it does. That meaning, a Judge would presumably not authorize a warrant to obtain the samples if her best friend states she did not "appear" under the influence, and just took her statements at face value. If the system worked that way, cases would never be prosecuted.

[beantowntechy]

I am a former veteran and I love my country to death, but I wouldn't be so quick to label our legal system as the best in the world. I'll refrain from giving any examples as I don't want to go off subject (and open up a can of worms), but I'm sure everyone can think of 50 bad examples.

Anyway, my condolences to all those impacted by this tragedy.

[Pineedles]

I have no personal connection to any of the parties involved, but I can't help from being upset at the seemingly "blood thirsty" feelings on behalf of some. What personal gain does anyone get from the defendant's conviction or for that matter the penalty that may be imposed. There has been suffering going on and whatever the potential penalty received is, no matter how severe, it will pale in comparison to the pain of knowing that you have caused the death of a friend.

[DC Pointer]

I have no personal connection to any of the parties involved, but I can't help from being upset at the seemingly "blood thirsty" feelings on behalf of some. What personal gain does anyone get from the defendant's conviction or for that matter the penalty that may be imposed. There has been suffering going on and whatever the potential penalty received is, no matter how severe, it will pale in comparison to the pain of knowing that you have caused the death of a friend.

I second that Pineedles. I have been following this thread since the beginning. Never really had much to say or add. But I agree wholeheartedly. Most are not "blood thirsty," but few are. The people involved in this TRADGEDY are tormented enough. I was taught not to "spit up in the air." Have some class.

[sa meredith]

Well guys, I'm not sure where to fall on this one. While I am not "blood thirsty", I do find some things troublesome.
First of all, I just don't think, at this point, it is speculation to say her actions caused the death of another person. This seems obvious.
Secondly, she was most likely under the influence during these actions. This seems clear because of the motions to suppress the blood sample evidence. (I don't think you would try to suppress evidence that worked in your favor)

We are now a year after the fact (or very close anyway) and now learn her attorney has made a successful attempt to push the trial back another 6 months. Only her $$$$ (or family's $$$) and sharp attorneys are delaying justice. Would the same be true if blue collar "work a day" Joe, who could not pay for a good defense, crashed his boat and killed a fishing buddy??? I say no, no, a thousand times no.
I'm sorry, but I find her attempt to suppress the blood sample evidence, based on the fact that MP did not have probable cause, absolutely shameful. She drove a speed boat into an island. Enough said. Probable cause??? Damn right!
I honestly feel bad for all involved. Really. The girls and their families. And yes, Erica, I'm sure, is already paying the penalty and finding it difficult to live everyday life.
But I've read enough about delays and suppressing legit evidence. I say, it is time to face the music.
Just my thoughts....

[Sman]

What if for some legal reason they toss out the blood test and/or she was not drunk, is she still facing jail time for a different charge?

I understand alchohol makes any punishment far more extensive, but is it the differnce between prison time and no prison time?

[VtSteve]

Nobody seems to care about the Why in the delay. The article clearly states that she is due for another surgery in early July. It would only make sense to delay a trial that may very well last through and past that time period.

Not my opinion, just the whole point for the delay.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Well guys, I'm not sure where to fall on this one. While I am not "blood thirsty", I do find some things troublesome.
First of all, I just don't think, at this point, it is speculation to say her actions caused the death of another person. This seems obvious.
Secondly, she was mostly likely under the influence during these actions. This seems clear because of the motions to suppress the blood sample evidence. (I don't think you would try to suppress evidence that worked in your favor)
{snip}
Just my thoughts....

Let me play contrarian. What if the BAC evidence says she was at 0.025. While not meeting the legal definition for being "intoxicated" the prosecutor might argue that she was impaired (which is the term bandied about in the story). The defense now has to defuse a hot button issue and I suspect any jury is predisposed to be more negative when alcohol is involved. So the, well a, question becomes how impaired was she and then did this impairment even factor into the incident. I know people who get stupid after a couple of drinks and others who aren't overly affected. Imagine a case where you have 2 beers with lunch and then as you leave the parking lot you are hit by another car. The state decides to prosecute you for driving impaired (in addition to whatever else happens to the other guy). You claim it was only 2 beers ! The state claims that you might have avoided the other car except for the alcohol and besides you were still "impaired". What would you want your attorney to do ?

As for hitting the island I wonder when does it become a crime and when is it an accident ? Some years ago an ederly man hit Rattlesnake I (very low speed) and broke some bones IIRC. Pretend it had been a broken neck and not his. I think the stated cause was that a neighbor had turned on some lights which the boater had confused for his own and thus he came into the wrong part of the island. So was this an accident or was his speed excessive for the situation, resulting in hitting the island with (in our newly revised scenario) severe injuries (or a death is you care to equalize the 2 situations) ? No matter what the skipper screwed up and is culpable but is he/she guilty of a crime ?

In this case I just don't know enough to make an informed judgement. If the rain and/or fog had knocked visibilty down enough then she shouldn't have been on plane. I lean in that direction. But I don't know what the conditions were there and then. I know that 3 hours earlier the cloud cover was hovering over the lake making it dark but there wasn't a problem seeing, at lake level, up Alton Bay.

If I've understood her course that night (and I'm not sure I do, I think she was running the slot between Diamond and Rattlesnake coming from Wolfeboro) then I find it hard to understand how she misjudged her position relative to the NW end of Rattlesnake so much as to hit Diamond I. FL 25 is there to help. Did she not see it ? If so why not ? Did she just misjudge the turn needed to clear Diamond or did she see some lights on shore and mistakenly think she was in the clear when she wasn't. Was she paying attention at the helm or gabbing it up with her friends ? Did any alcohol in her affect any of her abilities or would the same thing have happened if she hadn't touched a drop ?

I just don't know enough to make a call.

[secondcurve]

Pathetic is people who that have made judgements without knowing facts. She was wasted? The one person that would know better than any of you was on the boat and said she only had a few and in her opinion Erica was not impaired at all.



The same onboard witness said they were traveling at appr. 25 mph. This is a high rate of speed?

Stephanie was a friend of mine so I feel the pain of losing her but some of you posting here are way out of line.

25MPH is a High rate of speed in many circumstances. I think the facts speak for themselves.

[Steveo]

If I've understood her course that night (and I'm not sure I do, I think she was running the slot between Diamond and Rattlesnake coming from Wolfeboro) then I find it hard to understand how she misjudged her position relative to the NW end of Rattlesnake so much as to hit Diamond I. FL 25 is there to help. Did she not see it ? If so why not ? Did she just misjudge the turn needed to clear Diamond or did she see some lights on shore and mistakenly think she was in the clear when she wasn't. Was she paying attention at the helm or gabbing it up with her friends ? Did any alcohol in her affect any of her abilities or would the same thing have happened if she hadn't touched a drop ?

I just don't know enough to make a call.

Just an FYI:

That was not her course. She was coming from the Weirs area (Penelton Beach) heading SE. She was trying to go between Diamond and the mainland (nears Ames Farm) and was heading to her camp on Sleeper Island. She hit the very southwestern tip of Diamond.

[Phantom]

If I've understood her course that night (and I'm not sure I do, I think she was running the slot between Diamond and Rattlesnake coming from Wolfeboro) .


Mee-n-Mac -- As I understand it her course was NOT what you describe.

My understanding: Erica left Wolfboro and boated to her father's house to play a Fathers Day prank with pictures on his front lawn at Pendleton Shores. From there she left and headed to to friends house (where I believe she was staying) on (or near) Sleeper Island. Thus if you mentally follow her course that would take her from her fathers house -- for sake of argument call it the Govenors Isl Bridge -- eithor North or South of the Witches (it doesn't matter), North of Locke Island and then almost a straight line (keeping Diamond & Rattlesnake to the North) to Sleeper. She obviously did not have her bearings (or conditions pervailed) where she was too far "left" of course.

Other than clearing THAT up, I have no intent of being sucked into this thread.

[NHDOLFAN]

If Erica's pain and suffering is enough to elude legal ramifications, then she should save her parents, the parents of the deceased and the state the time and money that would be involved.

While she killed someone, her quality of life has changed forever from what I have read. Could she be better off under house arrest for a period of time, be made to teach boater safety courses with an emphasis on the affects of alcohol and perform community service? The community service could encompass her talking with students at local schools and such about her decisions and the impact they had.

Just some thoughts to what I believe is going to be a long drawn out trial with a lot of $$$ spent that could be put to better use!

[ITD]

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty people. We still don't know the whole story and I still have a problem with the state's definition of impaired. The speculation and down right lynch mob mentality of some on this list make me wonder if this lady will ever get a fair trial......

[Jeti]

Pathetic is people who that have made judgements without knowing facts. She was wasted? The one person that would know better than any of you was on the boat and said she only had a few and in her opinion Erica was not impaired at all.


The same onboard witness said they were traveling at appr. 25 mph. This is a high rate of speed?

Stephanie was a friend of mine so I feel the pain of losing her but some of you posting here are way out of line.

Lets cut through the fog here! The state is charging her with alternate counts of negligent homicide; that she was either under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the crash or that she failed to keep a proper lookout. She is also charged with one count of aggravated driving while intoxicated. The fact that she is pushing back and trying to kick out the evidence is speaking volumes, that is what I am reading from all of this. Remember just my opinion......Prosecution, has witness and blood evidence that seems to prove their case I will assume.

If she was not impaired, and not drinking or drunk, I would assume that she would not have a problem with presenting the results. Lets hope that judgment is fair and balanced. If the evidence that is about to be presented shows no impairment, then I stand correct and will own it. However, if shows negligence I think the maximum sentence should be warranted. I lost a brother to a drunk driver, so pathetic as my comments my seem to you, I have little tolerance for such actions!

[Mee-n-Mac]

Just an FYI:

That was not her course. She was coming from the Weirs area (Penelton Beach) heading SE. She was trying to go between Diamond and the mainland (nears Ames Farm) and was heading to her camp on Sleeper Island. She hit the very southwestern tip of Diamond.

Mee-n-Mac -- As I understand it her course was NOT what you describe.

My understanding: Erica left Wolfboro and boated to her father's house to play a Fathers Day prank with pictures on his front lawn at Pendleton Shores. From there she left and headed to to friends house (where I believe she was staying) on (or near) Sleeper Island. Thus if you mentally follow her course that would take her from her fathers house -- for sake of argument call it the Govenors Isl Bridge -- eithor North or South of the Witches (it doesn't matter), North of Locke Island and then almost a straight line (keeping Diamond & Rattlesnake to the North) to Sleeper. She obviously did not have her bearings (or conditions pervailed) where she was too far "left" of course.

Other than clearing THAT up, I have no intent of being sucked into this thread.


Thanks for the correction ! That makes more sense now and paints a somewhat different picture.

[fatlazyless]

Any way you slice this accident, it's a huge tragedy for a whole bunch of people....for everyone except the defense attorney.....and even he probably regrets it even as he keeps track of his billable hours.

As you may or may not know, there was a skilled medical surgeon at the smashed up Formula boat, attending to the victims, at 2am, out by Diamond Island, on that rainy & stormy night, almost immediately after it occurred. Now, that's a very fortunate occurance, all things considered.

Having him there was definately a piece of good luck. Got to wonder if his actions made the difference between one dead or possibly two dead? If he were not there at the scene, considering the severity of her injury, what would be different today?

[Tank151]

she is toast and should serve time for being wasted and taking the life of another.... Lots of time!! The fact that she lawyer ed up and tried to block key evidence is a sign of guilt. Its pathetic really..

Another Judge and Jury heard from? Why don't you wait for the facts Judge Judy!!!

[sa meredith]

Another Judge and Jury heard from? Why don't you wait for the facts Judge Judy!!!

While I think his/her post was a bit harsh... "...lots of time" etc.,
I think it completely reasonable for people to be losing patience waiting for this situation to draw to a close. Close to a year now (which indeed seems about right) but now another 5 months. Ok, yeah, another surgery...fine.
And then what about in 5 months...what then?
What bothers me more than anything, really, is this: The defense taking a postion that the MP did not have probable cause to collect a blood sample. Just baffling...she hit an island, in the middle of the night, at 20/25 MPH, and there were beer cans found on the scene....if this in not probable cause, I'd like someone (maybe Skip) to explain what is.

[VtSteve]

They have to do something to bide the time, and earn a bit more. Defense attorneys often have a huge job to do in the wake of a mountain of evidence. I would think they'd start with the laws governing the gathering and acceptability of evidence, and they apparently have. It's a nasty case all around, and I doubt she'll come out smelling like a rose regardless of the outcome.

My own personal opinion is simply based on what everyone outside the case knows. Given that, I'd say they not only had probably cause to gather the samples, but would have been negligent had they not done so. It is sad to see some cases where insurmountable evidence is thrown out due to improper procedures being used. I'm not the Judge, and I certainly don't have the information they do.

It's a sad case all around for everyone, and I'd be happy I'd be delighted to never read about another on remotely similar to it. But sadly, every year there are several like it. While the percentage of boating accidents and/or fatalities is very, very low given the number of boats in the country, incidents like this really hurt the most. She has a family and friends, and it was Father's Day weekend, that's what I remember the most.

[Jeti]

Another Judge and Jury heard from? Why don't you wait for the facts Judge Judy!!!


Negligent homicide 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

[ApS]

"...there was a skilled medical surgeon at the smashed up Formula boat, attending to the victims, at 2am...Having him there was definitely a piece of good luck. Got to wonder if his actions made the difference between one dead or possibly two dead...?"
This site noted that the doctor received a merit citation (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=78970&postcount=339) for his "above the call of duty" actions that early morning.

Actually, "good luck" would extend to the lake's level in June: Another foot lower, and any surviving boaters would have been much worse off, even though they were in a 9-ton boat.

Another foot higher (or had a dock been there) would have resulted in a wooden lakefront cottage becoming part of the crash scene. :(

Edited to add:

Those wondering about the amount of night vision needed for this time of the year, may want to look outside now that nearly a year has passed. For no reason at all, I woke up at 2:32AM and glanced outside (in this third day—and night—of this drizzly rain spell we're having). I had no difficulty seeing branches silhouetted against a dim cloudy sky.

From now on, there will be an increasing amount of light until mid-June.

[VtSteve]

The good doctor sure went out of his way on that awful night, and he most likely did save someone from further injuries, possibly death.

Imagine the seriousness of the accident if the boat had been a small bowrider at cruising speed. Not much left of it I suspect.

[Audiofn]

She has a wright to put up a strong defense. Don't be mad that she is doing so. Know that if she is found guilty that the evidece must have been strong and that the jury got it correct. Contraty to what another poster earlier said I do beleive that this is the best system that is out there. I certainly have not seen better. Not perfect and can be frustrating but it is about as good as it gets.

[Pine Island Guy]

Several years ago when my kids were getting their drivers licenses we had a long talk about responsibility… I made it very clear to them that if they did something stupid behind the wheel that resulted in an accident or arrest (including drinking, speeding, texting, etc), they would have to take responsibility for their own actions and I would not hire a high priced attorney, make excuses for them, etc. I suggested that if anything like that ever happened, they should stand before the judge, explain what happened, plead guilty, accept the punishment, and most importantly learn from their mistake. There were plenty of news articles I could show them about drinking and driving with deadly consequences, only to be followed by articles where the defendant “hired the best lawyer money could buy”, and were able to have key evidence tossed out and the defendant walked. I assured them that the only lawyer they would have would be what they could afford on their own earnings or a public defender.

So of course it did happen, luckily with no injuries or lasting damage… and my son represented himself in court, pled guilty, performed his community service, and biked to work for 30 days. I’m sure he was thinking he had the worst parents in the world, parents of his friends made calls and got their kids off scot-free… However I’m still proud of the way he handled it and believe that it had a positive affect on him in the long run.

There is a lot of discussion on this forum about laws enacted in NH and the fact it is becoming a “nanny state” and that people need to take responsibility for their own actions. It seems like most laws are not written for the masses, but for the few exceptions. Most people exercise good judgment, are cognizant of their affect on their fellow humans, and generally behave in what is expected in a civilized society.

Here is a perfect example of someone that is hiding behind their lawyer, trying every tactic in the book for dismissal or delay, and not coming forward and taking responsibility for their own actions. This case will be undoubtedly be used for reasoning why more laws needed to be enacted – the same way the Littlefield one was… it is unfortunate for everyone…

Just my thoughts… PIG

[VtSteve]

That was a great post.

I might add that in Littlefield, many others were party to the crime by letting him leave the dock. He apparently just hid until later in that case? But I'm not sure what laws would have to be added or changed to help out. He came up from behind another boat and essentially ran over them. He wasn't going some crazy speed, he was impaired.

The second case involves some people out on a very foggy/rainy whatever night, early in the wee hours. They hit a wall in front of an island.

I agree with you on the first case. For the second case that happened last summer, not enough information to go on yet. We pretty much know, but trying to be somewhat fair.

[jrc]

I can't imagine not using every legal means to defend myself or my family, if accused of a crime.

Yes, even if I committed the crime. Now, I like most of the people (maybe even all of you) on this forum, will never commit an intentional and serious crime. The only intentional crime I will or have commited are traffic violations and other similar things. I will defend myself from these whenever the defense is less pain than the punishment.

So if I'm ever accused of a serious crime, I will either be innocent or I will have commited the crime unintentionally. In either case, I will mount a vigorous defense.

The state has huge prosecutory powers, they have the power of the police, and unlimited manpower and budgets compared to even a rich defendent. They should be forced to really prove their case and convince a jury. The defense must use every legal means to disrupt this process. Anything else undermines the system.

I don't know if Ms Blizzard commited a crime. I do know that she did not intend to commit a crime. So I believe she has the right to force the state to prove its case. Prove that she did commit a crime, prove that the police followed all the rules of evidence put in place to protect all of us, prove that the laws are fair and justly applied. She has these rights and would be fool not to use them.

That said, if she was drunk, I hope they end up locking her up.

PIG, I don't mean to belittle your decision and your choice on how you raised your children.

[4Fun]

The state has huge prosecutory powers, they have the power of the police, and unlimited manpower and budgets compared to even a rich defendent. They should be forced to really prove their case and convince a jury. The defense must use every legal means to disrupt this process. Anything else undermines the system.

This sums it up. Regardles if she is guilty or not, her actions trying to undermine the case actually helps all of us by keeping the police and procecution honest. The special procedures to handle blood, evidence, etc are there to also protect the innocent. Imagine if everyone just rolled over because the police said you were guilty. Imagine if sloppy police work could land you in jail. Doesen't sound like a free society to me...The system actually works.

[VtSteve]

Sloppy police work does land some in jail. It also has the reverse action, where guilty people are turned loose. This is a case where a "maybe" could be the legal issue the prosecution hinges their story on. Bad Judgement appears to be less than a "maybe", and looks more like a "probable".

Either way, it's a sad ending. Life happens and so does chit everyday.

The sad part of this story, other than the personal tragedy and grief, is that most of last year's arguments have nothing to do with it.

[Turtle Boy]

The sad part of this story, other than the personal tragedy and grief, is that most of last year's arguments have nothing to do with it.



Come on, give it up. Despite Don's rules, some of you just have to keep on whining about a perceived loss of your inalienable rights.

[VtSteve]

Come on, give it up. Despite Don's rules, some of you just have to keep on whining about a perceived loss of your inalienable rights.

Not whining at all there TB. Everyone has right to be safe out there. Heck, many of us fully supported more funding for the MP, and a bigger crackdown on the real problems on many bodies of water. I agree 100% with the Marine Patrol's position. Perhaps you should read it. It has some pretty good information about their funding sources, and their problems.

I try to help enforcement out on the water by alerting them to issues. That is, If I can find them. I was boarded by the CG last year late in the season. Nice to see they check and inspect for spark arresters and the like now, good idea. We had a nice chat since I was one of about eight boats on the lake. Just chatted about issues, problem boaters and areas, kayaking in the middle of the channel They stay in touch with the local and state police on the water as well. They're always looking to focus their limited resources on problem areas.

[chipj29]

Come on, give it up. Despite Don's rules, some of you just have to keep on whining about a perceived loss of your inalienable rights.

Who was whining in this thread?

[Pine Island Guy]

The state has huge prosecutory powers, they have the power of the police, and unlimited manpower and budgets compared to even a rich defendent. They should be forced to really prove their case and convince a jury. The defense must use every legal means to disrupt this process. Anything else undermines the system.

I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, I have no connection to law enforcement, and I do agree we have the best judicial system in the world... however remember is is incumbent on the prosecution to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. And while the police certainly have a lot of manpower, they are also tied to standards that the defense is not... it seems like sometimes evidence is tossed out on the craziest of technicalities (i.e. the police forgot to add AM or PM after the time on the summons, etc)... while good for the defendent, sometimes it means a killer goes free (anyone remember the OJ trial and the evidence that wasn't allowed in court?). Also let's not forget that their "unlimited budgets" are paid for by all of us through our taxes, and when a case is pretty clear-cut, wouldn't you rather have the defendent plead guilty and not have the town/state spending our money to hire high-priced experts and dragging a trial out?

Now of course there my other opinion... in our own town of Hollis a good friend of mine and local farmer is accused of growing weed(s) in addition to his vegetables... in this case I think he wasn't doing anyone else any harm and the police did overstep their bounds and he should defend himself to the max! So there you go, I guess every situation is different and so are opinions, which helps keep life interesting :)

PIG, I don't mean to belittle your decision and your choice on how you raised your children.

You should be thanking my son, he saved you some tax dollars by pleading guilty - he was busted in Hollis :)

enjoy the lake, we all agree on that! PIG

[jrc]

...

enjoy the lake, we all agree on that! PIG

On this we agree!

Everything else, not so much.

[Nadia]

It took me almost three hours to read this thread in it's entirety. I've finally come to the end of it. Lots of opinions, premature speculation and genuine prayers. My opinion of the poster and it's content would change drastically from post to post, yet what matters to me so much is that a very special person's life was cut drastically short, and having witnessed first hand the strength of the friendship Erica and Stephanie shared, I'm not sure I would want to be in Erica's place right now. I'm sure there are times she wishes it was her too, or her instead.

I guess I could be accused of being slightly numb or maybe just engrossed in my new life as a mother and many other changes, and the fact that Nadia's is now closed. I was just recently made aware that the Stephanie and Erica who were involved in this accident were the Stephanie and Erica who were guaranteed to visit our restaurant 2-3 times per week. They were wonderful customers, friends and a joy to be around. However, I never knew their last names, so I did not put two and two together when I read this thread initially, or even the newspapers. I was on a first name basis with most of my customers. The only name I recognized was Dr. Rock who was also a good friend and a frequent patron. His heroic and selfless actions were directly in line with his character.

I am also a patient at Laconia Clinic where Stephanie was employed and have been there several times only to note she was not at her desk. I put it off thinking she was possibly busy or out to lunch. By the time her office became occupied by another employee I had been made aware that this Stephanie everyone was talking about was indeed "that girl". Her smile was indeed infectious and she was a fun person to be around. I always waved to her in her office when in to see the Doctor. This is a tragic loss and I can't get beyond that thought right now to express anything else on top of the fact I suppose I have no desire to speculate. If Erica was indeed drinking irresponsibly I would never believe her intentions were to kill Stephanie and injure herself and her friend. And like I said before, I would NOT want to be in her shoes even if she is aquitted or found not guilty! For the rest of her life she will carry this tragedy in the form of a heavy emotional burden and her life will never be the same. I'm still in shock even after months of time passing by. My prayers are with the families of these women and on the other hand...

it seems like sometimes evidence is tossed out on the craziest of technicalities (i.e. the police forgot to add AM or PM after the time on the summons, etc)... while good for the defendent, sometimes it means a killer goes free (anyone remember the OJ trial and the evidence that wasn't allowed in court?).

It does seem obsurd to any reasonable, prudent person I agree. However, the justice system in this great country of ours has evolved into one that is designed to set 100 guilty people free before incarcerating 1 innocent person. Although this may seem ludicrous and anger people, you will be real happy it is designed this way if you or a loved one are ever in the Defendant's seat, and don't think you or anyone else is immune to it. Despite such desperate measures I do believe innocent people still go to jail, but the number is as low as it's going to get especially with the sophisticated DNA testing and resources that law enforcement has access to. A murderer can be tied to a crime scene from a single strand of hair left at the scene of the crime. Yet in order to get a conviction, the Prosecution has to be on their toes if they want justice served. It is what it is. If they didn't have to put AM or PM on the ticket then eventually it would lead to other things being excused, and before you know it the entire system has lost it's cause. They have to have their ducks in a row. Anyone who doesn't like it is free to move to another country. I direct this comment not at PIG or anyone here, just saying in general.

The most important thing I have to say is PLEASE be safe on the lake this summer. One life lost is one too many...

[TiltonBB]

You can be accused of being numb!

You are just what an accused person needs!

She is accused of operating the boat under the influence and you (in another long, long post full of "I" "my" and other "It's all about me" references) help your "friend" by publicly posting that she spent several nights a week for hours each time in a lounge. That's what friends are for.

This post, combined with your long, long, long Lobster Pound posts (rants) may indicate it is time for you to put the computer away before you do any more damage to your "friends" or local businesses.

NOTE: If you read this post now it may not make as much sense. Nadia has removed !0,000 to 15,000 words of her original post wherin she claims that Erica and Stephanie spent several nights a week for several hours at at time in the lounge at the now defunct "Nadia's"

[pats fan]

Wow and Hole Cow, Nadia! I think on this one I have to agree with Tilton BB. When I first read your initial post I thought the same thing as BB. I thought it was certainly giving those people who do not know Erica some ammunition to say, "Well, there you go. Another barfly kills someone after a drunken night." I do not know if Erica has a tendency to drink too much but after reading your post I have to admit I immediately started thinking she must be a pretty big drinker. Most people do not spend 2 or 3 nights a week for hours at a time in a bar NOT drinking. I don't think he/she was trying to attack you. I think he/she was trying to point out to you that you were not helping Erica's reputation by your comments. As for working on making your posts not quite so long...good luck with that!

[Nadia]

I stated they frequented the lounge. Not the bar, or cocktail lounge. Nor did I say they drank any alcoholic drinks. Here are the definitions for you to see:

From www.thefreedictionary.com, the definition of lounge as opposed to the definition of bar.

lounge (lounj)
v. lounged, loung·ing, loung·es
v.intr.
1. To move or act in a lazy, relaxed way; loll: lounging on the sofa; lounged around in pajamas.
2. To pass time idly: lounged in Venice till June.
v.tr.
To pass (time) in a lazy, relaxed, or idle way: lounged the day away.
n.
1. A public waiting room, as in a hotel or an air terminal, often having smoking or lavatory facilities.
2. A cocktail lounge.
3.
a. A living room.
b. A lobby.
4. A long couch, especially one having no back and a headrest at one end.

bar 1 (bär)
n.
1. A relatively long, straight, rigid piece of solid material used as a fastener, support, barrier, or structural or mechanical member.
2.
a. A solid oblong block of a substance, such as soap or candy.
b. A rectangular block of a precious metal.
3. Sports
a. A horizontal bar
b. A horizontal rod that marks the height to be cleared in high jumping or pole vaulting.
4. A standard, expectation, or degree of requirement: a leader whose example set a high bar for others.
5. Something that impedes or prevents action or progress. See Synonyms at obstacle.
6. A ridge, as of sand or gravel, on a shore or streambed, that is formed by the action of tides or currents.
7. A narrow marking, as a stripe or band.
8.
a. A narrow metal or embroidered strip worn on a military uniform indicating rank or service.
b. Chiefly British A small insignia worn on a military decoration indicating that it has been awarded an additional time.
9. Heraldry A pair of horizontal parallel lines drawn across a shield.
10. Law
a. The nullification, defeat, or prevention of a claim or action.
b. The process by which nullification, defeat, or prevention is achieved.
11. The railing in a courtroom enclosing the part of the room where the judges and lawyers sit, witnesses are heard, and prisoners are tried.
12. A place of judgment; a tribunal.
13. Law
a. Attorneys considered as a group.
b. The profession of law.
14. Music
a. A vertical line drawn through a staff to mark off a measure.
b. A measure.
15. Variant of barre.
16.
a. A counter at which drinks, especially alcoholic drinks, and sometimes food, are served.
b. An establishment or room having such a counter.

However; since it seems to be a common misunderstanding so far, and to avoid further controversy I will be glad to edit my post so no one thinks I am implying they were doing things they were not. The Lobster Pound issue is old, boring and non-related. Much to your dismay I am no longer affiliated with the Weirs Beach Lobster Pound. I voluntarily left on May 15, 2009. My severance had nothing to do with this forum or any of it's contents or member comments. Stop whining, trolling, cross threading, beating dead horses, speculating and breathing while your at it. You are pushing your personal agenda because your mad at remarks made to you by several people in another thread, including myself. Now your running into your own neighbors on here who are deducting from the credibility of your posts and painting a true picture of your miserable, negative character off the forum. I have zero respect for anyone who condones and threatens cruelty and violence towards animals. Your own neighbors have verified you are an inconsiderate jerk. Get off my case, your not getting the rise out of me your looking for. In fact your going on ignore. There are medications and people who are qualified to help people as angry and hateful as you are.

My now "defunct" restaurant actually was leased to TD Bank North after nearly 13 years of success for no other reason then they made me an offer I could not refuse. Now I see what your true issue with me is...
But I still think you should consider a highly qualified shrink...

My apologies for my response to TiltonBB's high-jack. It has no place here.

PatsFan, just because you summized something similar does not make what he said to me okay.

:rolleye2::laugh::rolleye2:

[pats fan]

Nadia,
My response and the response by TiltonBB were totally appropriate in accordance with your long rant and previous post. You have gone back and deleated your approx 100 line rant to TiltonBB and made changes to your post that I responded to. If you want to have an adult exchange keep things as they are originally posted, don't go back and make changes so future posts by others look incorrect. I told you that saying "Erica and Stephanie used to frequent your lounge 2-3 times per week for hours at a time" was not in Erica's best interst. You have now changed it to say in your restaurant. That is fine, as it may help her reputation, but it certainly makes others, such as me, look like I posted something incorrectly. I do not know if Erica drinks too much or even at all, I do not personally know her. I just felt bad for her because your original post made her sound like a barfly. Clearly you felt foolish about your 100 line babbling to BB, therefore removed it. That is good, since most of it made little to no sense, but be fair to other posters and keep things original so our responses are fitting.

Thank you for the definitions of lounge Vs. bar. I stand corrected. It was my error to think the young ladies were spending hours at a time, 2-3 nights per week having adult beverages in your lounge. Based on your definitions I now understand that they were simply relaxing on couches in their jammies in your waiting area. My mistake. Again, I feel terrible about Erica's and Stephanie's situation and am NOT saying anything bad about Erica. I was trying to help her by nicely telling you that you were not helping her image to say what you Originally said.

[Pine Island Guy]

i was just having some friendly banter with my neighbor JRC, and holy smoke, what popped out of the woodwork, this sure is fun :)

free entertainment!

hoping for a sunny funny weekend -PIG

[Nadia]

Nadia,
My response and the response by TiltonBB were totally appropriate in accordance with your long rant and previous post. You have gone back and deleated your approx 100 line rant to TiltonBB and made changes to your post that I responded to. If you want to have an adult exchange keep things as they are originally posted, don't go back and make changes so future posts by others look incorrect. I told you that saying "Erica and Stephanie used to frequent your lounge 2-3 times per week for hours at a time" was not in Erica's best interst. You have now changed it to say in your restaurant. That is fine, as it may help her reputation, but it certainly makes others, such as me, look like I posted something incorrectly. I do not know if Erica drinks too much or even at all, I do not personally know her. I just felt bad for her because your original post made her sound like a barfly. Clearly you felt foolish about your 100 line babbling to BB, therefore removed it. That is good, since most of it made little to no sense, but be fair to other posters and keep things original so our responses are fitting.

Thank you for the definitions of lounge Vs. bar. I stand corrected. It was my error to think the young ladies were spending hours at a time, 2-3 nights per week having adult beverages in your lounge. Based on your definitions I now understand that they were simply relaxing on couches in their jammies in your waiting area. My mistake. Again, I feel terrible about Erica's and Stephanie's situation and am NOT saying anything bad about Erica. I was trying to help her by nicely telling you that you were not helping her image to say what you Originally said.

I made changes to my post so you and TiltonBB would stop whining Now what is your agenda pats fan? You've followed me into two threads where TiltonBB and I are not seeing eye to eye and are attempting to help him "save face". I admit I could have chosen better wording BUT I will not admit that I was trying to imply Erica or Stephanie drank frequently, because that was not my intention. If TiltonBB had said it a little nicer, he may have gotten a different response, however he insisted upon trying to humiliate and annoy me AGAIN, and throwing Lobster Pound BS in my face. It's over. Move on, and grow up. And now, he has made a complete spectacle of himself and is trying to get out of the spot light, and now you are following him around trying to stick up for him. Pathetic. It's fair for him (and you) to say that my wording sounded odd, wrong, stupid, whatever...but the rest of it was uncalled for. I am not embarrassed about anything I say--that's why I reveal my true identity. As far as my definitions, you not only stand corrected once, but twice. "Hole Cow" is typically spelled "Holy Cow".

[sa meredith]

Nadia.....doesn't it ever get old?

[Nadia]

Nadia.....doesn't it ever get old?

More then you could ever imagine. :rolleye1: I really wish people would just let by gones be by gones. But with the reference to my "defunct" restaurant (which is verbatim what another member said to me not long ago) I now truly know what the problem is. More so, it's shameful to be bringing this nonsense into a thread of this nature. I'm very sad about this accident, as are other people....so if my wording initially stated otherwise I assure you it was an overlook. My bad. That's why I fixed it.

Back on topic, I have two questions: Is the charge negligent homicide? I've got a good question for Skip if that is the charge...I need to pick your brain!

Did they base that charge on any specific findings? Like her BAC for instance, if there was one? I know the answers are in this thread somewhere but their kind of difficult to find with so many other things to sort through.

[Breakwater]

Erica is charged with;

- negligently causing the death of another while operating under the influence
-negligently causing the death of another by failing to keep a proper look out and striking an island which resulted in death
-Operated a boat under the influence and causing a crash that resulted in serious injuries.

[Nadia]

Erica is charged with;

- negligently causing the death of another while operating under the influence
-negligently causing the death of another by failing to keep a proper look out and striking an island which resulted in death
-Operated a boat under the influence and causing a crash that resulted in serious injuries.

Thank you for that information. Skip, like I said I want to pick your brain, but your all welcome and free to answer.

Erica is charged with negligence because her behavior/s resulted in Stephanie's death & the injury of another. The Court will refer to the four elements of negligence when making it's decision. One element is that if it were not for Erica's negligent behavior (being under the influence/not keeping proper look-out), Stephanie would not have lost her life, and Nicole would not be injured. Is it fair to say, in Erica's defense, if the weather conditions were indeed: foggy, misty, unusually dark and proven extremely difficult to navigate in even for an even more experienced captain, this accident would have taken place anyway? If I were her Attorney and I said, demonstrated, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this accident took place solely because of the weather, how do you think Prosecution would counter? I wonder if this is an avenue her Attorney will explore, and how he/she would prove abnormally foul weather was to blame? That the accident would have taken place even if she did keep proper look-out and was not under the influence of alcohol? Is it possible one could make this mistake and it truly was just an accident?

[NoBozo]

Here's the problem I have in this case....and any case where someone is navigating the lake at night. Ericas boat was not a "Cheapy". Any boat like that would have a "Moving Map GPS". I have a 20' runabout..and I have a Moving Map GPS. Pretty bullit proof...it glows in the dark. At night I pay attention to the GPS.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Thank you for that information. Skip, like I said I want to pick your brain, but your all welcome and free to answer.

Erica is charged with negligence because her behavior/s resulted in Stephanie's death & the injury of another. The Court will refer to the four elements of negligence when making it's decision. One element is that if it were not for Erica's negligent behavior (being under the influence/not keeping proper look-out), Stephanie would not have lost her life, and Nicole would not be injured. Is it fair to say, in Erica's defense, if the weather conditions were indeed: foggy, misty, unusually dark and proven extremely difficult to navigate in even for an even more experienced captain, this accident would have taken place anyway? If I were her Attorney and I said, demonstrated, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this accident took place solely because of the weather, how do you think Prosecution would counter? I wonder if this is an avenue her Attorney will explore, and how he/she would prove abnormally foul weather was to blame? That the accident would have taken place even if she did keep proper look-out and was not under the influence of alcohol? Is it possible one could make this mistake and it truly was just an accident?

Her attorney better have another argument IMO. Cruising about on plane in rain or fog so thick that she couldn't see and react to the island in her path in time to avoid the collision is negligence. That's speed too fast for the prevailing conditions and something an experienced boater should know. Dr Rock's testimony re: the conditions there at that time will be interesting. If the visibility was unlimited then the argument has to be the island was too dark to be seen and Erica thought she knew where she was but was in error. Without GPS or such and w/o visual cues the prosecutor might well argue that no reasonable person would be so sure and so again it becomes negligent operation. In any case it'll all play out in court and no doubt be reported as was the Littlefield case, so we'll see then.

[Just Sold]

In 2005 an "experienced boater" ran aground on Rattlesnake Is at night while trying to approach an unlighted dock. So it can happen to anyone anytime.
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2157&highlight=Crash+Rattlesnake

[VtSteve]

I've had that happen myself, only to find that the spotlights blinded me coming in. Finding your own dock in pitch black darkness can be a challenge. I wish the moon were full all the time, but I imagine that would have other consequences as well

[Tank151]

Thank you for that information. Skip, like I said I want to pick your brain, but your all welcome and free to answer.

Erica is charged with negligence because her behavior/s resulted in Stephanie's death & the injury of another. The Court will refer to the four elements of negligence when making it's decision. One element is that if it were not for Erica's negligent behavior (being under the influence/not keeping proper look-out), Stephanie would not have lost her life, and Nicole would not be injured. Is it fair to say, in Erica's defense, if the weather conditions were indeed: foggy, misty, unusually dark and proven extremely difficult to navigate in even for an even more experienced captain, this accident would have taken place anyway? If I were her Attorney and I said, demonstrated, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this accident took place solely because of the weather, how do you think Prosecution would counter? I wonder if this is an avenue her Attorney will explore, and how he/she would prove abnormally foul weather was to blame? That the accident would have taken place even if she did keep proper look-out and was not under the influence of alcohol? Is it possible one could make this mistake and it truly was just an accident?

Nadia,

Enough already! I hope you're not married? If you are, your husband must be whittled down... poor guy!

[Nadia]

Tank151,
A one minute investigation into your posting history and your user profile, along with your "classy" response to me reveals the following information:

A. You are the text-book definition of an internet troll
B. You have a history of randomly insulting people
C. You flame, use foul language, call family of the deceased "dopes", and encourage operating under the influence in a thread about a tragic boating accident.

How I got lucky enough to be the next person you bark at, I have no idea. Glancing at your behavior in the other thread regarding this topic you have established a regular pattern. When the words get too big for you, and the conversation a little too complex, you start throwing around obscenities and stamping your feet for attention :laugh: Yes I am married, and no my husband is not whittled. Why do you ask? Is your wife indeed...a Tank? :eek: My husband would kick your you know what from one end of the Lakes Region to the other. Here are my suggestions: Go to your Doctor, and become heavily medicated. I think some Paxil may be in order. Crawl back under the rock you came out from and stay there. The world is a scary place for people with your mentality--

[Seadoo]

Here's the problem I have in this case....and any case where someone is navigating the lake at night. Ericas boat was not a "Cheapy". Any boat like that would have a "Moving Map GPS". I have a 20' runabout..and I have a Moving Map GPS. Pretty bullit proof...it glows in the dark. At night I pay attention to the GPS.

hmm interesting it is ALMOST as if you THINK you know what you are talking about. Im going to take a wild guess and say that your 20 foot runabout gps system was installed after so. Ever taken a look at the prices on the GPS systems that come with formula boats?? (they are cheap and not worth the money) In most cases it is more "bang for your buck" to get one after market.

[VtSteve]

why SKIP is now a new member named Breakwater?

[Audiofn]

hmm interesting it is ALMOST as if you THINK you know what you are talking about. Im going to take a wild guess and say that your 20 foot runabout gps system was installed after so. Ever taken a look at the prices on the GPS systems that come with formula boats?? (they are cheap and not worth the money) In most cases it is more "bang for your buck" to get one after market.

Not quite sure what you are talking about the Formula GPS's not being good. The GPS in the boat being driven should have looked something like this.

[Skip]

why SKIP is now a new member named Breakwater?

Nope Steve, you didn't miss anything.

I have no idea who breakwater is....but I can assure you that I do not have a duplicate account here.

Skip

[VtSteve]

I must have been temporarily dazed by the good weather we had here this weekend. I wasn't even in a lounge or anything :laugh:

[sa meredith]

Tank151,
A one minute investigation into your posting history and your user profile, along with your "classy" response to me reveals the following information:

A. You are the text-book definition of an internet troll
B. You have a history of randomly insulting people
C. You flame, use foul language, call family of the deceased "dopes", and encourage operating under the influence in a thread about a tragic boating accident.

How I got lucky enough to be the next person you bark at, I have no idea. Glancing at your behavior in the other thread regarding this topic you have established a regular pattern. When the words get too big for you, and the conversation a little too complex, you start throwing around obscenities and stamping your feet for attention :laugh: Yes I am married, and no my husband is not whittled. Why do you ask? Is your wife indeed...a Tank? :eek: My husband would kick your you know what from one end of the Lakes Region to the other. Here are my suggestions: Go to your Doctor, and become heavily medicated. I think some Paxil may be in order. Crawl back under the rock you came out from and stay there. The world is a scary place for people with your mentality--

I ask again.....doesn't it get old????!!!!!
Remember, Nadia, one person cannot have an augument, it indeed takes two.
I have engaged in playful banter with many members of this forum, and at times, although it was not my intention, it has turned ugly.
Your banter ALWAYS turns ugly. Why?
And, you are the only poster on this board, I believe, that threatens with physical violence...as you have in this post. I know of another time, which was in a PM to me. I still have it. There is simply no room for that on this forum, and frankly, I'm surprised Don puts up with it.

[Audiofn]

Tank151,
A one minute investigation into your posting history and your user profile, along with your "classy" response to me reveals the following information:

A. You are the text-book definition of an internet troll
B. You have a history of randomly insulting people
C. You flame, use foul language, call family of the deceased "dopes", and encourage operating under the influence in a thread about a tragic boating accident.

How I got lucky enough to be the next person you bark at, I have no idea. Glancing at your behavior in the other thread regarding this topic you have established a regular pattern. When the words get too big for you, and the conversation a little too complex, you start throwing around obscenities and stamping your feet for attention :laugh: Yes I am married, and no my husband is not whittled. Why do you ask? Is your wife indeed...a Tank? :eek: My husband would kick your you know what from one end of the Lakes Region to the other. Here are my suggestions: Go to your Doctor, and become heavily medicated. I think some Paxil may be in order. Crawl back under the rock you came out from and stay there. The world is a scary place for people with your mentality--

One could easily think that this post is talking about you. You have broken about every forum rule with this one post!

[alsadad]

I have followed this thread with increasing incredulity over the last several days. While Nadia is not [U]solely[U] to blame for this, someone who truly cares for her should gently remove the keyboard from her grasp and urge her to take a time-out before it's too late.

[Merrymeeting]

Thanks alsadad. You've diplomatically stated what I and I'm sure others have been thinking for several days too.

[OCDACTIVE]

One could easily think that this post is talking about you. You have broken about every forum rule with this one post!

I have stayed out of this completely because I am already known for very spirited conversation but all I have to say is:

Audiofin - I applaud you. You hit it right on the head.

I am surprised webmaster hasn't stepped in on this as of yet. Talking about things going down hill quickly.

[pats fan]

Oh, come on Guys, don't encourage Don to put a "bark collar" on her.* This is good entertainment!

[VtSteve]

Oh, come on Guys, don't encourage Don to put a "bark collar" on her.* This is good entertainment!

Just be thankful she's not cooking for us. Taste tester anyone? ba da bing, ba da boom.... Ok, I guess I've covered cheap jokes.

Just not the kind of thread one wants to see this type of stuff on. But Nadia's young and just a little bit cocky. I was there once, so why knock others. I'll just give the same advice many gave me, don't burn bridges, keep it tame, learn by reading and listening, not always trying to power through.

[NoBozo]

hmm interesting it is ALMOST as if you THINK you know what you are talking about. Im going to take a wild guess and say that your 20 foot runabout gps system was installed after so. Ever taken a look at the prices on the GPS systems that come with formula boats?? (they are cheap and not worth the money) In most cases it is more "bang for your buck" to get one after market.


You are Funny Seadoo. I presume by your screen name that your mode of nautical transportation is a Seadoo...or shall we say JetSki. No problem there. To each his own.

My own background is as follows..In Brief: I sailed my own boat to Bermuda and back..Singlehanded, in 1979, and did it again in 1981. I used Celestial Navigation. There was no GPS then and LORAN "C" was only coming on line in it's infantsy. I have followed modern navigation developments since then and GPS WORKS. It doesn't matter how much you pay for GPS...the only thing different is "Features". The accuracy is pretty much the same.

SO: YES: I think I know what I'm talking about.

[Seadoo]

You are Funny Seadoo. I presume by your screen name that your mode of nautical transportation is a Seadoo...or shall we say JetSki. No problem there. To each his own.

My own background is as follows..In Brief: I sailed my own boat to Bermuda and back..Singlehanded, in 1979, and did it again in 1981. I used Celestial Navigation. There was no GPS then and LORAN "C" was only coming on line in it's infantsy. I have followed modern navigation developments since then and GPS WORKS. It doesn't matter how much you pay for GPS...the only thing different is "Features". The accuracy is pretty much the same.

SO: YES: I think I know what I'm talking about.

wow congrats you know a SEA DOO is a jet ski, nothing gets by anyone on this forum.

also congrats on sailing you own boat to bermuda and back, and singledhanded wow you must feel great!

The funny thing about all the computers that run our lives is that they misread data and sometimes are worse then boating the "old" way, using land points around the water ways to help one get from point A to point B. Regaurdless on what GPS system one is using they still do fail more so in the rain and stormy weather, as it was that night.

[hazelnut]

Regaurdless on what GPS system one is using they still do fail more so in the rain and stormy weather, as it was that night.

???? WHAT ???? You make this comment based on what evidence? :confused:

Can anyone back up this statement. Does GPS fail in the rain?

[chipj29]

wow congrats you know a SEA DOO is a jet ski, nothing gets by anyone on this forum.

also congrats on sailing you own boat to bermuda and back, and singledhanded wow you must feel great!

The funny thing about all the computers that run our lives is that they misread data and sometimes are worse then boating the "old" way, using land points around the water ways to help one get from point A to point B. Regaurdless on what GPS system one is using they still do fail more so in the rain and stormy weather, as it was that night.

Don't forget, Sea Doo also makes and sells boats. ;)

[TomC]

???? WHAT ???? You make this comment based on what evidence? :confused:

Can anyone back up this statement. Does GPS fail in the rain?

rain, moisture, fog, heavy cloud cover (any atmospheric condition that is "conductive") can attenuate RF. So it isn't necessarily a matter of "failing", but a degradation that may result in less frequent positional updates due to weak(er) signals. In the extreme, yes, loss of signal could occur which would render the device inoperative.

[Pineedles]

I know my Garmin has a hard time "Locating Satellites" when it I turn it on if there are storm clouds and rain; but it eventually comes on-line. It sometimes messages "Waiting for Better Accuracy" if it is really cloudy.

[VtSteve]

Technically, Jet Ski is the brand name for Kawasaki I believe.

[brk-lnt]

???? WHAT ???? You make this comment based on what evidence? :confused:

Can anyone back up this statement. Does GPS fail in the rain?

His statement doesn't seem that far fetched. GPS systems receive signals from satellites. When there is weather, it stands to reason that the already relatively weak signals could be affected, making it harder for the device to lock on and get an accurate reading.

There are many reasons why things like GPS and LORAN-C should be considered navigational AIDs and not replacements for familiarity with the water you're operating in.

[hazelnut]

OK I guess... I've never had it happen to my Standard Horizon in any cloud cover whatsoever, or rain. I also had a hard time finding evidence of failure of GPS in rain and clouds online. I'll take your word for it that it has happened to you though.

[ishoot308]

I know my Garmin has a hard time "Locating Satellites" when it I turn it on if there are storm clouds and rain; but it eventually comes on-line. It sometimes messages "Waiting for Better Accuracy" if it is really cloudy.

The problem I have had with GPS accuracy on the lake is the loss of "WAAS" (Wide Area Augmentation System) which keeps your GPS accurate within 3 meters. For the life of me I can't understand why in such an open area I keep losing the WAAS signal on my GPS, and for some reason it seems worse this year than last. Does anyone else have this problem on the lake???

Without WAAS, accuracy can be as much as 100 meters off and I have personally seen this inaccuracy on my GPS. I have rarely loss total GPS / satellite signal however.

GPS is a another extra wonderful tool to HELP with navigation but should never be relied upon totally. It is NOT fail proof and it is never 100% accurate.

Dan

[upthesaukee]

see this article

http://www.landairsea.com/gps-tracking-blog/do-weather-conditions-affect-gps-accuracy/

[codeman671]

OK I guess... I've never had it happen to my Standard Horizon in any cloud cover whatsoever, or rain. I also had a hard time finding evidence of failure of GPS in rain and clouds online. I'll take your word for it that it has happened to you though.

I have had issues with my Standard Horizons (I have had the CP155C, CP175C and currently have a CP180I) in the past on crappy nights. It does happen. Sometimes they have problems acquiring a link in inclement weather.

[sa meredith]

Can you imagine being on the boat that night if a false GPS reading was indeed the cause of the accident?! Holy Christ! Stop and think about it for a second...try to put yourself there.
Cruising along, happy to be with good friends, and laughing about the prank you had just pulled. Maybe a small "glow on" from a beer or three (come on now, we've all been there) trusting your GPS in the fog and rain, because, well, it has never failed you before, not once. Blasting along, but keeping a close watch on your GPS screen, staying right on course, and then out of nowhere, AN ISLAND! Way too late to do a darn thing, except thing, "Wow, this really going to suck!"

[Skip]

While all of this talk of GPS accuracy and anomalies is fascinating we must all remember one thing:

Regardless of GPS, RADAR, compass, depthfinders or the like a captain, at all times, must maintain a proper lookout. Maintaining a proper lookout is one of the most basic rules of seamanship that everyone must master and understand before taking the helm.

Failure of an installed navigational aid, or the inability to interperet such aid accurately is never an excuse for not maintaining a proper lookout, or operating your craft at an appropriate speed with regards to surrounding water & atmospheric conditions!

[luckypete]

greetings all,

here's another link to check out

http://www8.garmin.com/aboutGPS/waas.html

[brk-lnt]

Can you imagine being on the boat that night if a false GPS reading was indeed the cause of the accident?! Holy Christ! Stop and think about it for a second...try to put yourself there.
Cruising along, happy to be with good friends, and laughing about the prank you had just pulled. Maybe a small "glow on" from a beer or three (come on now, we've all been there) trusting your GPS in the fog and rain, because, well, it has never failed you before, not once. Blasting along, but keeping a close watch on your GPS screen, staying right on course, and then out of nowhere, AN ISLAND! Way too late to do a darn thing, except thing, "Wow, this really going to suck!"

I am not relating this comment to the accident referenced in this thread specifically...

IMO, anyone who needs a TV screen to navigate at night needs to stay off the damn water. GPS, especially on a small inland lake, is a sanity check, not an auto pilot.

So, no, I cannot picture the scene you describe because there is no way I would EVER trust an electronic device to guide me in close quarters at speeds that could cause harm to vessel or person if it malfunctioned.

[BroadHopper]

Another thing you should keep in mind about GPS accuracy. The DOD owns and operates the Global Positioning System. in case of an attack on the US govt. DOD can and will change the gps algorithm. This is too confuse the enemy/attacker(s) if they use GPS for tracking their 'smart' ammunitions.

A buddy od mine who serve in the Armed Forces told me this little tidbit.

If your GPS goes crazy we must be under attack! :eek:

[Woodsy]

For those of you who might like a little better GPS reception...

http://www.gilsson.com/

Woodsy

[sa meredith]

I am not relating this comment to the accident referenced in this thread specifically...

IMO, anyone who needs a TV screen to navigate at night needs to stay off the damn water. GPS, especially on a small inland lake, is a sanity check, not an auto pilot.

So, no, I cannot picture the scene you describe because there is no way I would EVER trust an electronic device to guide me in close quarters at speeds that could cause harm to vessel or person if it malfunctioned.

I think you may have misinterpeted my intent...it was not to offer an excuse as to what happened, or even an explanation. Also, it was not to say needing a GPS (day or night) is right or wrong. The post was for none of those things...I simply said "imagine" if this is what happen. And how shocking an event it would have been.
You say you cannot picture (imagine) the scene I describe? Do you lack an imagination? How do you watch TV, Movies, or read books????

[hazelnut]

I am not relating this comment to the accident referenced in this thread specifically...

IMO, anyone who needs a TV screen to navigate at night needs to stay off the damn water. GPS, especially on a small inland lake, is a sanity check, not an auto pilot.



Best point made yet! It is scary to think about someone with their head buried in a 12 inch screen cruising along at night!!!:eek:

I understood what you meant sa meredith and yes I agree if that were ever to happen I could imagine the boater being scared to death... if they survived the impact.

[sa meredith]

Yes, of course it is wrong to be cruising along, with your head buried in a screen...or even really NEEDING the screen in the first place. No one could argue against that. Wrong and dangerous.

I was simply sharing an image that popped into my head.
Not trying to start any trouble.

[Lakepilot]

Had an airplane with GPS in it. Have thousands of hours IFR and hundreds flying in the rain and the GPS never failed (due to the rain). We have Direct TV and it has been known to fail during heavy rain and thunderstorms.

[brk-lnt]

I think you may have misinterpeted my intent...it was not to offer an excuse as to what happened, or even an explanation. Also, it was not to say needing a GPS (day or night) is right or wrong. The post was for none of those things...I simply said "imagine" if this is what happen. And how shocking an event it would have been.
You say you cannot picture (imagine) the scene I describe? Do you lack an imagination? How do you watch TV, Movies, or read books????

No worries, I understood where you were coming from. You usually seem to be rational, so I got the spirit of your post. My reply wasn't meant to be lobbed at you in an accusatory manner, sometimes text doesn't translate very well, and I often tend to be kind of direct in my replies.

Could I "imagine" it from the perspective of another person, yes, of course. Could I imagine myself in that scenario? Not really?

[4Fun]

Had an airplane with GPS in it. Have thousands of hours IFR and hundreds flying in the rain and the GPS never failed (due to the rain). We have Direct TV and it has been known to fail during heavy rain and thunderstorms.

Different frequencys react differently to weather. My XM radio antenna can have 1' of snow on it and work fine. Direct TV hardly works at all in the snow. I would say GPS is pretty resiliant. Mine works great all the time even in some heavy snow when snowmobiling.

Maybe she was "flying on instruments"....

[fatlazyless]

As everyone knows, the Diamond Island boat crash took place on June 16, 2008, at about 2am, which is one year ago today.

For the driver of the boat it's had to be a very long year, but for her deceased close friend it's had to be a forever year. Nothing that happens in the Belknap County legal process will bring her back.

[lakershaker]

I am not relating this comment to the accident referenced in this thread specifically...

IMO, anyone who needs a TV screen to navigate at night needs to stay off the damn water. GPS, especially on a small inland lake, is a sanity check, not an auto pilot.


I completely agree. GPS gives people a false sense of security, and when they are heads-down, they may be going the right way, but not aware of other boats around - which unfortunately don't show up on GPS. And even if there is radar on the boat, not all boats show on radar. I think "instument flying" at night on the lake is a huge problem, and with the proliferation of GPS, it's only going to get worse.

There is no substitute for first hand knowledge of the lake and a good current chart. The GPS is as stated in other posts a nice double check, but can't be the primary means of getting around at night. You need your head up, your night vision, and a strong ability to navigate using any visible landmarks and nav aides. If you can't, you shouldn't be on the water at night - you are risking not only your life but everyone else in the area's as well.

[jeffk]

I use GPS to fix my position at night and then constantly check against what I can see. For example, if the GPS says I should be approaching a flasher I locate that flasher and lock on to it visually until I can locate my next point of reference. If my visibility is compromised the first thing to go is SLOW DOWN! probably to headway speed until I can obtain another visual fix.

In essence, when traveling at significant speed I can always see my next visual marker AND I can always confirm my position on GPS. If I lose confidence in either I slow down until I am confident in both again. I also use a general compass heading as confirmation. I know that heading home is generally a N heading and check that every now and then as well.

[ApS]

I guess we'll hear eventually of any GPS involvement in this collision: It's my understanding that a GPS can record the passage it has taken.

"...GPS gives people a false sense of security, and when they are heads-down...even if there is radar on the boat, not all boats show on radar...I think "instument flying" at night on the lake is a huge problem, and with the proliferation of GPS, it's only going to get worse...You need your head up, your night vision..."
Even when equipped with radar, fathometers, and incredible measures to preserve night vision, the U. S. Navy ran three ships aground one foggy winter night in Canada. Occurring within 1 mile and 10 minutes of each other, that 15-kt collision with land was the subject of the book, Standing into Danger, by Carrie Brown. (Available at Amazon and elsewhere (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-04,GGLD:en&q=%22standing%2Dinto%2Ddanger%22).) The two smallest ships were of the Navy's Destroyer class!

When Googling the book's availability, results included night-vision (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-04,GGLD:en&q=%22standing%2Dinto%2Ddanger%22) (Coast Guard .pdf files), and then to invention (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22standing-into-danger%22,+%22night-vision%22&hl=en&safe=off&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-04,GGLD:en&start=10&sa=N). The Dutch have apparently invented night-vision imagery (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524865.900) that makes night appear as though "shot in broad daylight"—in full color!

Will technology introduce still another screen to the helm that will make "heads-up" night boating obsolete?

What a concept! :confused:

[jrc]

I use GPS to fix my position at night and then constantly check against what I can see. For example, if the GPS says I should be approaching a flasher I locate that flasher and lock on to it visually until I can locate my next point of reference. If my visibility is compromised the first thing to go is SLOW DOWN! probably to headway speed until I can obtain another visual fix.

In essence, when traveling at significant speed I can always see my next visual marker AND I can always confirm my position on GPS. If I lose confidence in either I slow down until I am confident in both again. I also use a general compass heading as confirmation. I know that heading home is generally a N heading and check that every now and then as well.


I use a similar technique when night boating. You must use all the data you can when boating in limited visibility. That means your eyes, and your GPS or radar (if equipped). I also use my depth finder. If the GPS says it should be 50 feet deep and my depth finder says 20 feet, I slow down figure out what going on. Usually its the depth finder whacking out on something. You have to be a fool not to use all the tools you have, none of them are perfect, all of them can give you false data once in awhile, even your own eyes.

[VtSteve]

I use a similar technique when night boating. You must use all the data you can when boating in limited visibility. That means your eyes, and your GPS or radar (if equipped). I also use my depth finder. If the GPS says it should be 50 feet deep and my depth finder says 20 feet, I slow down figure out what going on. Usually its the depth finder whacking out on something. You have to be a fool not to use all the tools you have, none of them are perfect, all of them can give you false data once in awhile, even your own eyes.

I think that's what's most important here. Some fixate on GPS or whatever being the only thing that's right or wrong. But even during the daylight hours, it's important to be aware of everything around you, including what's up front and behind, a complete 360 viewpoint. It's equally dangerous to either fixate your eyes on a screen while piloting a boat as it is to have your eyes peeled dead ahead, with no regard to the port or starboard viewpoints.

Obviously, some folks have a deep felt dislike of all things electronic, while others believe 100% in them. But I think most of us have a valuable cynicism that understands what you just stated. Our own eyes can betray us sometimes just as a GPS can. It pays dividends to understand that, and proceed with caution.

[ITD]

While all of this talk of GPS accuracy and anomalies is fascinating we must all remember one thing:

Regardless of GPS, RADAR, compass, depthfinders or the like a captain, at all times, must maintain a proper lookout. Maintaining a proper lookout is one of the most basic rules of seamanship that everyone must master and understand before taking the helm.

Failure of an installed navigational aid, or the inability to interperet such aid accurately is never an excuse for not maintaining a proper lookout, or operating your craft at an appropriate speed with regards to surrounding water & atmospheric conditions!

Skip, thanks for injecting a dose of common sense into this part of this thread. Anyone who fixates on a GPS while driving a boat is an accident waiting to happen. The first and most important thing to do while navigating a boat is to watch where you are going. This includes at night. The big lake theory of collision avoidance doesn't work. You are sharing the lake with thousands of other people, your attention should never be fixated on a gps screen or any other screen for that matter. Your main focus should be in front of or around your boat using the gps and other tools as reference/backup.

[Mee-n-Mac]

In 2005 an "experienced boater" ran aground on Rattlesnake Is at night while trying to approach an unlighted dock. So it can happen to anyone anytime.
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2157&highlight=Crash+Rattlesnake

I think I mentioned this very accident sometime earlier in the thread. So to put some balance back into the discusssion it might well be argued that visibility was limited (to ground level) but not "zero" that night and Erica seeing the shoreline lights, thought she was the proper distance from shore. I've run the route I now believe she was taking that night countless times and the shoreline isn't dark in that area. Most nights I don't consult the GPS (coming back that route) until after I'm home and find that my deviation from the programmed route is negligible. So could it have been a simple error ... sure. Again the testimony of her friend onboard and Dr Rock as to the conditions that night will narrow a lot of the speculation as to what happened.

[Mink Islander]

Failure to maintain a safe watch and going too fast for the conditions.

If you can't see something bearing dead ahead and consequently hit it with such force that you destroy the boat, kill a passenger and severely injure the two other individuals in the boat (including yourself), it's no simple error. It's reckless behavior by the operator and a clear violation of a number of fundamental boating laws. Seems to me, the only question here is whether she was legally impaired by alcohol and therefore compounded her legal problems that night. The rest appears pretty open and closed.

I think we all feel sympathy for the situation. It's a huge tragedy for all involved. No, she didn't head out that night planning to crash her boat and kill her friend. But she did operate the boat in a manner that was reckless given the conditions and CAUSED an major accident with a fatality as a result. Yes CAUSED it. It was entirely avoidable and she alone owns that. She needs to be held accountable for her actions and boaters need to learn from this so it doesn't happen again.

We can't just excuse this away as some random "could have happened to anyone" situation. If you think this could happen to you, then you should consider the possibility that you are taking extreme and unnecessary risks when you boat at night and are potentially a hazard to yourself and others. We should all believe we're operating in a manner where this type accident COULDN'T happen to us. Because it really shouldn't be possible if you are a competent, cautious and sober captain.

[jrc]

Wow its amazing, why even have a trial, just read a few newpaper articles, write a few forum posts, talk to some friends and then start building the gallows.

[Mink Islander]

Remember this?


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.


You wrote it in this thread. I guess it's okay for YOU to have an opinion that she will walk based on your slant on the information, but everybody else is off base if they take an alternate view?

Little hypocritical, don't you think??

[jrc]

...

Little hypocritical, don't you think??

Maybe, but I was guessing at an outcome, not declaring her guilty or innocent. Maybe a subtle difference.

I still think she will get off pretty easy, if the booze evidence is surpressed or if she wasn't drunk. I still think she will easily be convicted if she was drunk.

If she was drunk, she is pretty much automatically guilty in my opinion and in practice and in that case I hope she goes to jail.

If she was not drunk, then I would really like to hear all the evidence before I made an decision. It gets into degrees of negligence and visibilty and conditions and a whole bunch of other factors. Accidents do happen, even to competent, cautious and sober captains.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Failure to maintain a safe watch and going too fast for the conditions.

If you can't see something bearing dead ahead and consequently hit it with such force that you destroy the boat, kill a passenger and severely injure the two other individuals in the boat (including yourself), it's no simple error. It's reckless behavior by the operator and a clear violation of a number of fundamental boating laws. Seems to me, the only question here is whether she was legally impaired by alcohol and therefore compounded her legal problems that night. The rest appears pretty open and closed.

I think we all feel sympathy for the situation. It's a huge tragedy for all involved. No, she didn't head out that night planning to crash her boat and kill her friend. But she did operate the boat in a manner that was reckless given the conditions and CAUSED an major accident with a fatality as a result. Yes CAUSED it. It was entirely avoidable and she alone owns that. She needs to be held accountable for her actions and boaters need to learn from this so it doesn't happen again.

We can't just excuse this away as some random "could have happened to anyone" situation. If you think this could happen to you, then you should consider the possibility that you are taking extreme and unnecessary risks when you boat at night and are potentially a hazard to yourself and others. We should all believe we're operating in a manner where this type accident COULDN'T happen to us. Because it really shouldn't be possible if you are a competent, cautious and sober captain.

Out of curiousity, what charges should have been brought against the person mentioned in JustSold's recent post ? Sure there wasn't a death and I don't believe any alcohol was involved but still he hit Rattlesnake hard enough to break bones (if that matters).

[codeman671]

I think I mentioned this very accident sometime earlier in the thread. So to put some balance back into the discusssion it might well be argued that visibility was limited (to ground level) but not "zero" that night and Erica seeing the shoreline lights, thought she was the proper distance from shore. I've run the route I now believe she was taking that night countless times and the shoreline isn't dark in that area.

Just curious about your comment of shoreline lights in that area. Diamond Island does not have electricity last time I checked, so unless someone was running a generator or had a crapload of candles going that island would have been pitch black. There is not a lot of houses in that area of the island either. I have been to Dr. Rock's house before. If you are talking about lights on the mainland I can understand however visibility was crap that night and that would be misleading... Just sayin'

[ApS]

"...You have to be a fool not to use all the tools you have, none of them are perfect, all of them can give you false data once in awhile, even your own eyes..."
While in Long Island Sound's notorious fog, I've had occasion to stop altogether and use my ears. Though what I heard was actually traffic noise along the shoreline, I thought it was surf along the shoreline. (No matter, my location was then plotted to suit the shoreline).

I've learned to develop and to trust my senses and among all the senses—to trust my eyes the most.

One example of using those senses was just last Tuesday: Totally unexpected, I smelled cigar smoke wafting off a calm, quiet, and empty lake. :confused: I turned upwind and there—about ½-mile away—was an oversized cruiser at anchor! :rolleye2: :cool:

"...It's equally dangerous to either fixate your eyes on a screen while piloting a boat as it is to have your eyes peeled dead ahead, with no regard to the port or starboard viewpoints..."
I'm at a loss to describe any Jet-Skis or bass boats running onto Winnipesaukee shorelines—especially as their number is so large here!

Bass boats in particular run in dim morning fog: Because of the nature of their respective helms, they are focused dead-ahead all the time.

"...the only question here is whether she was legally impaired by alcohol..."
In taking that first drop of alcohol, the first casualty will always be Judgment.

"...that island would have been pitch black..."
It's because of that fact that I proposed that docks be fitted with a blue-colored solar light—right here at the forum in 2005. :cool:

There was, of course, the usual skepticism: :rolleye2:
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18848&postcount=5

I wonder how this skepticism plays out this June? :rolleye1:

Point being: Even at the darkest hour—in fog—on a lake—in June—and with the moon in the night sky, the sky overhead will provide a lighter contrast against which to silhouette shorelines.

__________________

[Mink Islander]

I guess it's how the term is used. Accident that is. Preventable accident? Accident caused by reckless behavior? As I said earlier, I don't think this is a "could of happened to anyone" situation and the way we throw around "accident" makes it sound like it was just fate that caused this tragedy. No blame need be assigned.

The reality is that the accident happened because the captain made some terrible judgements -- and killed someone as a result. Had she followed even the most common sense rules of boating, this would never have happened. That's the real tragedy here. It highlights the dangers of boating at night and in bad weather and the heightened level of caution required by the captain in those situations.

Unless there's some new evidence (mechanical failure, etc.) that we haven't heard yet, then, yes, I am highly confident she will be convicted of the primary charges. What does she have as a defense?

It's the BWI charge that's more difficult to prove, though it sounds like the State has a much better case (stronger direct evidence) here than they did with Mr. Littlefield. Lose on that charge and the penalty will be much harsher.

I expect that the court will take into account her suffering, contrition, etc. but I'll be surprised if she walks with no jail time at all. Someone died as a direct result of her actions. Personal suffering or not, that's a pretty serious crime. Even some modest jail time will highlight for everyone that this wasn't "just an accident".

[Mee-n-Mac]

Just curious about your comment of shoreline lights in that area. Diamond Island does not have electricity last time I checked, so unless someone was running a generator or had a crapload of candles going that island would have been pitch black. There is not a lot of houses in that area of the island either. I have been to Dr. Rock's house before. If you are talking about lights on the mainland I can understand however visibility was crap that night and that would be misleading... Just sayin'

I agree that Diamond I is usually very dark, in contrast with Rattlesnake which often has lights, especially that house that has the "runway" lighting. But my reference was to the shoreline lights on the mainland. IIRC there's a mooring feild with a fairly well lit cluster of condos on the shore before you get to Diamond I. Now if visibility was bad enough that these couldn't be seen then you have to wonder about the wisdom of being on plane. If they were seen and she was using them to judge her distance from shore then it becomes a more understandable mistake.

[VtSteve]

I use a similar technique when night boating. You must use all the data you can when boating in limited visibility. That means your eyes, and your GPS or radar (if equipped). I also use my depth finder. If the GPS says it should be 50 feet deep and my depth finder says 20 feet, I slow down figure out what going on. Usually its the depth finder whacking out on something. You have to be a fool not to use all the tools you have, none of them are perfect, all of them can give you false data once in awhile, even your own eyes.

While in Long Island Sound's notorious fog, I've had occasion to stop altogether and use my ears. Though what I heard was actually traffic noise along the shoreline, I thought it was surf along the shoreline. (No matter, my location was then plotted to suit the shoreline).

I've learned to develop and to trust my senses and among all the senses—to trust my eyes the most.

One example of using those senses was just last Tuesday: Totally unexpected, I smelled cigar smoke wafting off a calm, quiet, and empty lake. :confused: I turned upwind and there—about ½-mile away—was an oversized cruiser at anchor! :rolleye2: :cool:

I hope this wasn't on a clear morning with good visibility :confused: Fog is a very real hazard, both on land and at sea.



I'm at a loss to describe any Jet-Skis or bass boats running onto Winnipesaukee shorelines—especially as their number is so large here!

Bass boats in particular run in dim morning fog: Because of the nature of their respective helms, they are focused dead-ahead all the time.

Two points here. I know personally that bass boats and Jet-Skis typically do not run at lower cruising speeds. So you point out that two classes of craft, both that typically run at faster speeds than most (bass boats typically at Much faster speeds, and you say they are "focused Dead-Ahead all the time". So we have craft going fast that never look to the sides or behind them? I agree that they should concentrate the majority of their attention to what's in front, but boats coming in from the port or starboard side, out of their concentrated field of vision can be hazardous to their health.

I'm amazed that these two craft classes, which you point out are in large numbers, haven't been involved in many accidents. Would this indicate that their speeds aren't a dangerous factor, that maybe something else might be in play as to why other boats that are operating at slower speeds, and are presumably in lesser numbers, have more accidents?


BTW, I think your suggestion for lights on docks is a very good one. Excellent idea.

[chipj29]

Two points here. I know personally that bass boats and Jet-Skis typically do not run at lower cruising speeds. So you point out that two classes of craft, both that typically run at faster speeds than most (bass boats typically at Much faster speeds, and you say they are "focused Dead-Ahead all the time". So we have craft going fast that never look to the sides or behind them? I agree that they should concentrate the majority of their attention to what's in front, but boats coming in from the port or starboard side, out of their concentrated field of vision can be hazardous to their health.

I'm amazed that these two craft classes, which you point out are in large numbers, haven't been involved in many accidents. Would this indicate that their speeds aren't a dangerous factor, that maybe something else might be in play as to why other boats that are operating at slower speeds, and are presumably in lesser numbers, have more accidents?
BTW, I think your suggestion for lights on docks is a very good one. Excellent idea.
I think one of the reasons regarding bass boats and jet skis not being involved in many accidents might be the fact that jet skis are not legal at night, and there typically are not a lot of bass boats on the water at night. They are usually in bed, since they have to get up so early in the AM to do their fishing! ;)

Another reason for jet skis might be the maneuverability of the craft. They can see all around them and avoid potential probs fairly easily-if the operator is looking around and not only straight ahead. ;)

[VtSteve]

Good points on the night time variances, forgot to mention them. There are countless examples of PWC accidents all over the country every year, no need for more at night. Heck, there are many PWC collisions with docks and other boats each year in broad daylight :eek:

As always, there are accidents that are just plain accidents, can't really eliminate them. I would say most accidents are the result of inattention, poor skills, alcohol, shear stupidity and thrill seekers, and I'm sure somewhere down on that list is someone focused on their little screen.

But the fact remains that all over the country we have bass boats doing well north of 70 and they seem to be fine for the most part, and people running over boats and hitting islands that are doing less than 30. Seems to me you need to go fast to be safe.

[BroadHopper]

But the fact remains that all over the country we have bass boats doing well north of 70 and they seem to be fine for the most part, and people running over boats and hitting islands that are doing less than 30. Seems to me you need to go fast to be safe.

No wonder I have been 'incident' free for over 50 years. I go tooo fast! :laugh:

[VtSteve]

Exactly :rolleye2:

Perhaps people that go faster concentrate more.

[winnilover]

Thoughts and prayers go out to the families of these women. Sadly it seems everyone has forgotten that these are human beings not just the breaking news of the day. Sad !

[sa meredith]

If you read all 700+ posts, YOU'LL FIND PLENTY OF THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS!
PLENTY!
These last few post have had much to do with GPS, and it's proper use, and little to do with the accident. Everyone understands the ruined lives, and the horrible aftermath of this event for Erica.
Her justice has been delayed, probably a bit too long, but who knows.
You want to send out thoughts and prayers? Fine, Great.
Where were you a year ago?!
Don't be be critical of the thread in your first post...it's not becoming.
No one has treated it as breaking news for many many months now.
Anyway....welcome to the Forum.

[BrownEyedGirl]

If you read all 700+ posts, YOU'LL FIND PLENTY OF THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS!
PLENTY!
These last few post have had much to do with GPS, and it's proper use, and little to do with the accident. Everyone understands the ruined lives, and the horrible aftermath of this event for Erica.
Her justice has been delayed, probably a bit too long, but who knows.
You want to send out thoughts and prayers? Fine, Great.
Where were you a year ago?!
Don't be be critical of the thread in your first post...it's not becoming.
No one has treated it as breaking news for many many months now.
Anyway....welcome to the Forum.

:eek: Yikes! Way to welcome someone! :rolleye2:

[winnilover]

sa meredith . I wasn't trying to be critical of others in my post , while reading some of the post I was just overwhelmed with what the families were going through during this tragedy, I have had something similar happen to someone close to me many years ago.I have called the Lake my sanctuary for over 20 years and I guess it just hit home. My sincere apologies. Thank you for your comment and I appreciate your advice and your welcome.

[Tank151]

Tank151,
A one minute investigation into your posting history and your user profile, along with your "classy" response to me reveals the following information:

A. You are the text-book definition of an internet troll
B. You have a history of randomly insulting people
C. You flame, use foul language, call family of the deceased "dopes", and encourage operating under the influence in a thread about a tragic boating accident.

How I got lucky enough to be the next person you bark at, I have no idea. Glancing at your behavior in the other thread regarding this topic you have established a regular pattern. When the words get too big for you, and the conversation a little too complex, you start throwing around obscenities and stamping your feet for attention :laugh: Yes I am married, and no my husband is not whittled. Why do you ask? Is your wife indeed...a Tank? :eek: My husband would kick your you know what from one end of the Lakes Region to the other. Here are my suggestions: Go to your Doctor, and become heavily medicated. I think some Paxil may be in order. Crawl back under the rock you came out from and stay there. The world is a scary place for people with your mentality--

Nadia,

Based on your numerous and lengthy threads you have WAY TO MUCH time on your hands! Your one whos knows alot about NOTHING and a little bit about ALOT!

[ApS]

"...what charges should have been brought against the person mentioned in JustSold's recent post...he hit Rattlesnake hard enough to break bones (if that matters)..."
'Never saw any follow-up articles on that Rattlesnake Island crash. Perhaps the damage didn't exceed the newest NH threshhold of $2000. :confused:

If he was badly hurt, he could already have missed the deadline for reporting the injury. (And I wouldn't have felt comfortable reporting it in his place). :(

(That new $2000 threshhold is a very likely reason we don't read of Jet-Ski "crashes" on this lake, and why "Safety" is improving. :rolleye2: )


"...I hope this wasn't on a clear morning with good visibility...Fog is a very real hazard, both on land and at sea..."
1) New York's Long Island Sound is filled with high-speed automobile ferries, and I don't trust their use of technology.

2) Those ferries are managed by some who are considered among the demographic already scientifically known for poor risk management of selves—those 26 to 34-year-old boaters. They are also the most likely to use "texting". :eek: (Already responsible for dozens of fatalities on land).

3) Fog is normally intense on The Sound and can last all day. Fog keeps those who have built on the hills overlooking Lake Winnipesaukee from a morning view of the lake!

"...Accidents do happen, even to competent, cautious and sober captains..."
"...As always, there are accidents that are just plain accidents, can't really eliminate them..."Radio traffic announcements use "crashes", "collisions", and "roll-overs".

The word "accident" is mentioned 34 times just on this one page! "Accident" has been over-used: I have an "accident" when I injure myself. Perhaps those who have selected the word "accident" are also perpetual supporters of Senator Kennedy's" accident"—and willingly continue him in office. :confused: :(

"...There are countless examples of PWC accidents all over the country every year, no need for more at night...there are many PWC collisions with docks and other boats each year in broad daylight :eek:
Some areas of the country prohibit Jet-Ski operation within 300 yards (or even further) from shore. One Florida county prohibits Jet-Skis for 12-miles (http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:OfI508pPAYsJ:www.bluewaternetwork.o rg/reports/rep_pwc_listofregs.pdf+%22lake-tahoe%22,+pwc,+shore&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)!

"...Perhaps people that go faster concentrate more..."
How about self-preservation?

Bass boats only have about 8 feet of fiberglass ahead of the helm—and not the cocoon of 5-tons to 8-tons of fiberglass we've seen in the collisions with other boats and islands here.

With their vision focused directly forwards—by self-preservation and by boat design—you don't see bass-boaters or Jet-Skiers taking pictures of their wakes. :rolleye1: (Or their passengers either, for that matter).

[sa meredith]

Um Tank....don't know if you noticed, but I don't think that's going to be a problem anymore.

[VtSteve]

I'm perfectly OK with calling what happened in this case a CRASH, or a COLLISION, even a SCREW UP.

You insist on trying to fill people's responses in for them, while ignoring their responses. In the Wake Picture "incident", it's pretty clear to everyone that it wasn't the Skipper taking it. If you continue to throw barbs in like this, your credibility will not go any higher. If you can't address the facts, stop making them up.

DOUBLE-THINK comes to mind.

We have a group that actually thinks PLANE (boating reference) is a bad word, a SKEERY word. Boating at night is something akin to jumping off a cliff for some. But the real dangers and the real issues are never addressed. I wonder why this is?

[Mee-n-Mac]

Never read of any follow-up articles: Perhaps the damage didn't exceed the newest NH threshhold of $2000. :confused: That new threshhold is a very likely reason we don't read of Jet-Ski "crashes" on this lake, and why "Safety" is improving. :rolleye2:



Perhaps you could explain why the threshold of $2000 applies in this case. As you well know when there's an injury an accident report must be filed. The damage limit doesn't apply. Just thought people reading might want the true facts.

[Mee-n-Mac]

If you continue to throw barbs in like this, your credibility will not go any higher. If you can't address the facts, stop making them up.

You are new here aren't you .... ;)

[John E]

FWIW we were at Lake Wylie NC a month ago for a Mastercraft reunion.

One of our group was heading home around 10 pm at wake speed because they were unfamiliar with the lake. They were having trouble with their bow light, but the stern was functioning.

They were in a 20' boat and got T boned by a bass boat estimated to be going 45 mph.:eek: I can't imagine going that fast without a clear view of what is approaching. Though my friend's bow light was possibly out, they could have just as well been anchoring and have been hit.

Somehow none of the 9 involved were hurt. Just shaken up. And a couple of totaled boats.

[VtSteve]

You are new here aren't you .... ;)

I was trying to be civil. :rolleye2:

[Paugus Bay Lake Girl]

Blood test results OK'd in boating fatal
Laconia:

By BEA LEWIS
bwheel@metrocast.net


Thursday, April 30, 2009
Blood evidence taken from the operator of a boat involved in a fatal accident on Lake Winnipesaukee last summer can be used against her, a judge has ruled.

Erica Blizzard, 35, of 65 Gold St. in Lakeport, who is charged in the accident which claimed the life of one of the boat's two passengers, had sought to disallow blood alcohol test results from being introduced as evidence, claiming that investigators failed to show probable cause when they obtained a judge's permission to take blood samples.

But on Monday Superior Court Judge Kathleen McGuire ruled that Marine Patrol had probable cause to believe that Blizzard was intoxicated and, as a result, blood samples were lawfully taken from the suspect.

McGuire ruled evidence that Blizzard drove a boat headlong into an island at an unreasonable rate of speed given the weather conditions provided the probable cause Marine Patrol needed to believe the defendant had been drinking alcohol and that evidence of intoxication would be found in the defendant's blood.

Investigators allege that Blizzard was the driver of a 2008 Formula 370 SS and was traveling southeasterly "on plane" when the vessel struck Diamond Island in Gilford on June 15, 2008 at around 2:30 a.m.

In addition to claiming the life of Stephanie Beaudoin, 34, of Meredith, another passenger, Nicole Shinopolous of Burlington, Mass., suffered a fractured jaw. Blizzard also suffered serious facial injuries that required surgery.

The impact of the crash demolished the bow of the boat and apparently broke Beaudoin's neck, killing her instantly, according to Dr. Thomas Rock, an orthopedic surgeon who lives on the island and who rushed to help after hearing the crash. Rock rowed to the sinking boat with his wife and saw Blizzard slumped over the controls of the boat, court records indicate.

Blizzard is charged with alternate counts of negligent homicide, charging that she was either under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the crash that resulted in the death of one of her passengers or that she failed to keep a proper lookout. She is also charged with one count of aggravated driving while intoxicated.

Court records also show that it was rainy and foggy when the boat hit the rocky shoreline of the island and that Shinopolous told Marine Patrol they were traveling at about 25 or 30 mph when the accident occurred.

Photographs of the controls of the boat taken by Marine Patrol the night of the crash show the steering wheel in a straight-ahead position.

The shift lever for one of the engines was in full position while the shifter for the second engine was in reserve at almost full throttle.

All of the gauges were normal and at least one of the engines had broken its mount. Fiberglass was embedded in a granite ledge about five feet off shore, showing the point of impact by the boat, according to court records.

Attorney James Moir of Concord, who is representing Blizzard, had argued for the results of his client's blood test to be thrown out.

Belknap County Attorney Jim Carroll maintained that the state was relying upon exigency as a legally valid exception to the warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Part I, Article 19 of the New Hampshire Constitution.

He argued Marine Patrol had to act fast since Blizzard was being transferred to Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, which placed her beyond the immediate control of local law enforcement.

The state seized six samples of Blizzard's blood, some taken by Lakes Region General Hospital as part of efforts to save her life, court records indicate. The first sample was taken two hours after the crash.

Moir had argued that Marine Patrol lacked probable cause to obtain the warrants it used to seize samples of Blizzard's blood taken at LRGH and DHMC, where she was later transferred for treatment of her injuries.

The affidavit filed by Marine Patrol Lt. Tim Dunleavy, Moir argued, failed to show probable cause that the test results from the blood samples would prove intoxication. Judge McGuire disagreed.

"The state has also met its burden of showing exigent circumstances, given that this accident occurred in the middle of the night when obtaining a warrant is more difficult," the court wrote.

The judge also cited the "evanescent nature of blood alcohol evidence making its preservation impossible without removing samples from the body."

An affidavit filed with the court cites Shinopolous telling a Marine Patrol officer that the trio drank alcohol at the Wolfe-Trapp in Wolfeboro earlier in the day and Marine Patrol's discovery of "several" empty beer cans at the crash site.

Moir said the affidavit was defective because it failed to state how much the woman drank, exactly when, where the beer cans were found or how they relate to the crash or the driver.

In discovery materials Moir said Shinopolous told Marine Patrol Sgt. Joshua Dirth they had "two drinks, if that" and reported that the defendant and Beaudoin had "Grey Goose and cranberry" but did not finish their drinks.

Moir challenged whether Judge Edward Gordon would have signed the warrants had that information been included in the affidavit, as well as Shinopolous' opinion that Blizzard wasn't drunk.

She was interviewed by Marine Patrol two days after the crash and asked whether she thought Blizzard was impaired. She replied, "No," prompting Sgt. Dirth to inquire, "None at all?"

"No, I carried on conversations with her; she seemed to really be about herself; there was nothing that would make me think she was impaired at all," Shinopolous said.

Blizzard remains free on $75,000 personal recognizance bail. A pretrial hearing has been set for next Wednesday with jury selection now scheduled for May 26.

[kara1]

My heart goes out to the families affected by this tragedy.

[codeman671]

Blood test results OK'd in boating fatal
Laconia:

By BEA LEWIS
bwheel@metrocast.net


Thursday, April 30, 2009
Blood evidence taken from the operator of a boat involved in a fatal accident on Lake Winnipesaukee last summer can be used against her, a judge has ruled.

Erica Blizzard, 35, of 65 Gold St. in Lakeport, who is charged in the accident which claimed the life of one of the boat's two passengers, had sought to disallow blood alcohol test results from being introduced as evidence, claiming that investigators failed to show probable cause when they obtained a judge's permission to take blood samples.

But on Monday Superior Court Judge Kathleen McGuire ruled that Marine Patrol had probable cause to believe that Blizzard was intoxicated and, as a result, blood samples were lawfully taken from the suspect.

McGuire ruled evidence that Blizzard drove a boat headlong into an island at an unreasonable rate of speed given the weather conditions provided the probable cause Marine Patrol needed to believe the defendant had been drinking alcohol and that evidence of intoxication would be found in the defendant's blood.

Investigators allege that Blizzard was the driver of a 2008 Formula 370 SS and was traveling southeasterly "on plane" when the vessel struck Diamond Island in Gilford on June 15, 2008 at around 2:30 a.m.

In addition to claiming the life of Stephanie Beaudoin, 34, of Meredith, another passenger, Nicole Shinopolous of Burlington, Mass., suffered a fractured jaw. Blizzard also suffered serious facial injuries that required surgery.

The impact of the crash demolished the bow of the boat and apparently broke Beaudoin's neck, killing her instantly, according to Dr. Thomas Rock, an orthopedic surgeon who lives on the island and who rushed to help after hearing the crash. Rock rowed to the sinking boat with his wife and saw Blizzard slumped over the controls of the boat, court records indicate.

Blizzard is charged with alternate counts of negligent homicide, charging that she was either under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the crash that resulted in the death of one of her passengers or that she failed to keep a proper lookout. She is also charged with one count of aggravated driving while intoxicated.

Court records also show that it was rainy and foggy when the boat hit the rocky shoreline of the island and that Shinopolous told Marine Patrol they were traveling at about 25 or 30 mph when the accident occurred.

Photographs of the controls of the boat taken by Marine Patrol the night of the crash show the steering wheel in a straight-ahead position.

The shift lever for one of the engines was in full position while the shifter for the second engine was in reserve at almost full throttle.

All of the gauges were normal and at least one of the engines had broken its mount. Fiberglass was embedded in a granite ledge about five feet off shore, showing the point of impact by the boat, according to court records.

Attorney James Moir of Concord, who is representing Blizzard, had argued for the results of his client's blood test to be thrown out.

Belknap County Attorney Jim Carroll maintained that the state was relying upon exigency as a legally valid exception to the warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Part I, Article 19 of the New Hampshire Constitution.

He argued Marine Patrol had to act fast since Blizzard was being transferred to Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, which placed her beyond the immediate control of local law enforcement.

The state seized six samples of Blizzard's blood, some taken by Lakes Region General Hospital as part of efforts to save her life, court records indicate. The first sample was taken two hours after the crash.

Moir had argued that Marine Patrol lacked probable cause to obtain the warrants it used to seize samples of Blizzard's blood taken at LRGH and DHMC, where she was later transferred for treatment of her injuries.

The affidavit filed by Marine Patrol Lt. Tim Dunleavy, Moir argued, failed to show probable cause that the test results from the blood samples would prove intoxication. Judge McGuire disagreed.

"The state has also met its burden of showing exigent circumstances, given that this accident occurred in the middle of the night when obtaining a warrant is more difficult," the court wrote.

The judge also cited the "evanescent nature of blood alcohol evidence making its preservation impossible without removing samples from the body."

An affidavit filed with the court cites Shinopolous telling a Marine Patrol officer that the trio drank alcohol at the Wolfe-Trapp in Wolfeboro earlier in the day and Marine Patrol's discovery of "several" empty beer cans at the crash site.

Moir said the affidavit was defective because it failed to state how much the woman drank, exactly when, where the beer cans were found or how they relate to the crash or the driver.

In discovery materials Moir said Shinopolous told Marine Patrol Sgt. Joshua Dirth they had "two drinks, if that" and reported that the defendant and Beaudoin had "Grey Goose and cranberry" but did not finish their drinks.

Moir challenged whether Judge Edward Gordon would have signed the warrants had that information been included in the affidavit, as well as Shinopolous' opinion that Blizzard wasn't drunk.

She was interviewed by Marine Patrol two days after the crash and asked whether she thought Blizzard was impaired. She replied, "No," prompting Sgt. Dirth to inquire, "None at all?"

"No, I carried on conversations with her; she seemed to really be about herself; there was nothing that would make me think she was impaired at all," Shinopolous said.

Blizzard remains free on $75,000 personal recognizance bail. A pretrial hearing has been set for next Wednesday with jury selection now scheduled for May 26.

That article was dated back over 2 months ago...

[Paugus Bay Lake Girl]

NH boating fatal trial delayed 5 months


LACONIA, N.H. (AP) - The trial of a woman charged in a 2008 boating crash on Lake Winnipesaukee that killed 1 of her passengers has been postponed until Oct. 13 so she can have more surgery to repair injuries she suffered in the crash.

The attorney for Erica Blizzard, James Moir of Concord, and Belknap County Attorney Jim Carroll agreed to the continuation and it was approved during an in-chambers meeting with Judge Bruce Mohl, The Citizen reported.

The trial had been scheduled for May 26.

According to court filings, Blizzard is scheduled to have surgery at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon on July 9. She reportedly suffered facial injuries, a lower back fracture and bleeding in her brain when the boat she was piloting hit Diamond Island in rainy, foggy weather.


Information from: Citizen, http://www.citizen.com

[sa meredith]

NH boating fatal trial delayed 5 months


LACONIA, N.H. (AP) - The trial of a woman charged in a 2008 boating crash on Lake Winnipesaukee that killed 1 of her passengers has been postponed until Oct. 13 so she can have more surgery to repair injuries she suffered in the crash.

The attorney for Erica Blizzard, James Moir of Concord, and Belknap County Attorney Jim Carroll agreed to the continuation and it was approved during an in-chambers meeting with Judge Bruce Mohl, The Citizen reported.

The trial had been scheduled for May 26.

According to court filings, Blizzard is scheduled to have surgery at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon on July 9. She reportedly suffered facial injuries, a lower back fracture and bleeding in her brain when the boat she was piloting hit Diamond Island in rainy, foggy weather.


Information from: Citizen, http://www.citizen.com

This article was posted here on May 7, 2009...post #531. And discussed pretty harshly for a week or so.
Where ya been??????

[VtSteve]

Her surgery is scheduled for tomorrow..... I wish her well, hope all goes well.

[BrownEyedGirl]

This article was posted here on May 7, 2009...post #531. And discussed pretty harshly for a week or so.
Where ya been??????

Not everyone checks the forum 20 times a day......

[hazelnut]

Not everyone checks the forum 20 times a day......

Ok but 20 times a month would have covered this..... :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[sa meredith]

Not everyone checks the forum 20 times a day......

Was not trying to start trouble. Just saying...that info is certainly pertinent to this very lengthy thread, and I would think it would be obvious the article was posted. That's all.

But since you brought it up...
May 7th......July 8th So 6 or 7 times a year would have it covered.
Once every 7 weeks or so...

Hazelnut...check your PMs. After 3 today, no computer for me for 10 days.

[BrownEyedGirl]

Not looking for trouble either, just an observation :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[ironhorsetim]

This weeks papers about a Laconia man getting 2.5-8 years for the death of his girlfriend (on a bike). Anyone think this will be a sign of things to come in this case? How about it Skip what's your opinion? :confused:

[Pineedles]

I haven't heard any news on this for a while. But my main intention here is that I don't like to see the posts stop at 666.

[ironhorsetim]

:fire: :fire: It was kind of eeeerie

[VtSteve]

The trial was postponed until October if memory serves me.

[ApS]

A similar R.I. case (alcohol, boating, acquaintance dies), was resolved this summer with only a 2½ years minimum-confinement sentence:

http://www.projo.com/news/content/GREENBERG_SENTENCING_07-23-09_ISF52CH_v18.3ead4c8.html

(Though it seems like there should be a 2nd-offense penalty law written for such sentences).

[SIKSUKR]

Your starting to sound like M&M now.:laugh:

[fatlazyless]

A negligent homicide decision for a triple death, head-on collision between a car and two motorcycles in Thornton NH in June 2006 was reversed on appeal in the NH Supreme Court in June 2009. The driver of the car had had no alcohol and crossing the yellow center line for some unknown reason was voted by the judges 3-1 as not meeting the definition of negligence.


As I see things, it seems like the severity of the collision with three deaths and a 4th severly injured, should be considered in determining negligence, alcohol or no alcohol.

What were the three judges thinking? Why is this triple death now considered to be a tragic accident and not a crime what with the 20-something year old male driver having been released from a 12 year sentence for his time served ?

[RI Swamp Yankee]

A similar R.I. case (alcohol, boating, acquaintance dies), was resolved this summer with only a 2½ years minimum-confinement sentence:

http://www.projo.com/news/content/GREENBERG_SENTENCING_07-23-09_ISF52CH_v18.3ead4c8.html

(Though it seems like there should be a 2nd-offense penalty law written for such sentences).

Sad case, kid should have gotten more. There is a real teenage drinking problem in that town and the parents think the police are unfair to arrest kids for drinking ... and driving. The judge in that case was an idiot for blaming the Police Chief for not going after teenage drinking (which was not true) but the real problem is the parents that condone teen drinking. A case of the privileged (read rich) few literaly getting away with murder.

Not directly Winni related so it may be :offtopic:

[Mee-n-Mac]

As I see things, it seems like the severity of the collision with three deaths and a 4th severly injured, should be considered in determining negligence, alcohol or no alcohol.

What were the three judges thinking? Why is this triple death now considered to be a tragic accident and not a crime what with the 20-something year old male driver having been released from a 12 year sentence for his time served ?

The difference between a tragic accident and a crime is easy to illustrate. A bee flies into your car and gets stuck between your eyeball and your glasses. You swerve across the road as a result and head-on another car killing 9 infants. Most would call this a tragic accident.

Constrast this with dropping a pickle out of your $1 meal and then drifting across the road as you fish around the car to retrieve said pickle. You hit no car but the local PD witnesses it all. This is negligent driving (IMO).

The severity of the outcome may play a part in the punishment/sentencing phase but should have no part in determining whether a crime was committed.

[ironhorsetim]

:Your starting to sound like M&M now.:laugh:
:offtopic:
Did you mean...
Eminem the candy or...
M&M the wrapper...lol.get it wrapper (rapper) :laugh: ;) :laugh:
Sorry, couldn't resist

[Mee-n-Mac]

Your starting to sound like M&M now.:laugh:

:
:offtopic:
Did you mean...
Eminem the candy or...
M&M the wrapper...lol.get it wrapper (rapper) :laugh: ;) :laugh:
Sorry, couldn't resist

Wha dis ?!? Some phool be gankin my game ? For shizlle ? That's just wack. Wizzle best be findin his own rhyme. Peace out.

[fatlazyless]

What determines if an accident was avoidable or negligent depends on who is doing the determining and examining the driver's sobriety. If the driver was drunk then determining negligence is a 'no-brainer.'

I've heard of a trucking company of 18-wheel, tractor-trailers which considers hitting a moose to be an avoidable accident on their driver's record. Why is that? Because a moose is so much larger than a deer and should be easy to see and to avoid.

The company is based in Alabama :D!

"Well, hush my puppies....if you all cannot see a great big moose up ahead and steer around that, then it's your own damn fault......yessir!"

Now, that's one company's opinion, Southern style. ...:D

[Airwaves]

Orignially posted by FLL
I've heard of a trucking company of 18-wheel, tractor-trailers which considers hitting a moose to be an avoidable accident on their driver's record. Why is that? Because a moose is so much larger than a deer and should be easy to see and to avoid.
More likely it's because a Moose hit can cause considerable damage $$$ to the tractor! They are just as hard to see in the dead of night.

[trfour]

CDL, and Boating operation, are two different animals.

Quote; "Well, hush my puppies....if you all cannot see a great big moose up ahead and steer around that, then it's your own damn fault......yessir!"

:offtopic:

However, you are a dear, and you know how we love you! :)

PS, please sign up for the special Winnepesaukee.com FLL commensurate trophy.

[OCDACTIVE]

It was reported this morning that the trial has been postponed until January 2010.

[DEJ]

This time it is the State that is holding up the process. Below is a quote from the Citizen on line article.

"The attorney for Erica Blizzard, James Moir of Concord, said the state has not been able to obtain an expert report on toxicology issues, so he has not been able to prepare a report in response. The New Hampshire Union Leader reports Belknap County Attorney Jim Carroll did not object to the request."

[VtSteve]

Did their computer lock up or something?

[Skip]

Story this morning in the Citizen about the latest delay. Can be read in full by clicking HERE. (http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091001/GJNEWS02/710019676/-1/CITIZEN)

[fatlazyless]

...in today's Dec 30 www.unionleader.com., January 18....jury selection scheduled in Belknap County court...

Nobody asked me but I just think that drinking and boating is totally different from drinking and driving, and therefore the drinking laws simply Do Not Apply! Boating and beer goes together like cake and ice cream, like hotdogs and mustard, like peanuts and popcorn, like boating and beer....see what I mean!

Especially, when you consider that this accident happened at 2pm out in the middle of a totally deserted lake with no other boaters.....so where is the harm with boating and a wee small can of beer, or two .....gee whiz?

[drhankz]

Especially, when you consider that this accident happened at 2pm out in the middle of a totally deserted lake with no other boaters.....so where is the harm with boating and a little beer.....gee whiz?

How about 2 AM or have you been sipping ADULT Beverages Already :liplick:

[robmac]

Or perhaps on the way home from church after sipping a little sacramental wine maybe FLL.

[SIKSUKR]

...in today's Dec 30 www.unionleader.com., January 18....jury selection scheduled in Belknap County court...

Nobody asked me but I just think that drinking and boating is totally different from drinking and driving, and therefore the drinking laws simply Do Not Apply! Boating and beer goes together like cake and ice cream, like hotdogs and mustard, like peanuts and popcorn, like boating and beer....see what I mean!

Especially, when you consider that this accident happened at 2pm out in the middle of a totally deserted lake with no other boaters.....so where is the harm with boating and a wee small can of beer, or two .....gee whiz?

As friend of both the driver and the victim, I see very little humor in your post FLL. Do you ever think about how some of your insensitive posts will effect others?

[Gilligan]

...in today's Dec 30 www.unionleader.com., January 18....jury selection scheduled in Belknap County court...

Here is a working link to the story mentioned by FLL.


Jury selection next month in homicide trial (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Jury+selection+next+month+in +homicide+trial&articleId=5a142437-717c-4537-9fef-7411b0c85f64)

Interesting comments appear after the story. It seems that the GPS data for Diamond Island was possibly altered at the time of the accident.

[sa meredith]

Off topic, I know. But worth mentioning.
Very soon this thread will have 100,000 views. I assume this is a forum record. And one that will probably stand for quite a while.

On another note, after gassing up one morning this past summer, I ran in for a couple bags of ice, as myself and two friends somehow ended up with a warm 30 pack of Bud Light. Although I had never met her, the person behind the counter at the marina was quite obviously Erica.
And it's funny...it instantly served as a reminder as to what can happen when people become careless, and mix in a few drinks. Suddenly, cruising the lake with the boys, and tipping a few in the process, didn't seem like such a good idea.

[OCDACTIVE]

In all honesty while driving my boat I have a zero tolerence policy for myself. People on the boat can have what ever the like but I can't see taking the risk... Especially with a GFB I already stand out. I usually will go to the Naswa and they laugh at the amount of sprite with limes I will drink.

I am not saying this is what everyone should do but it is just my 2 cents.

The specifics and evidence have not yet been brought to light and I think it is in very bad taste to take a tragic accident and make speculations.

All I know is it is something we all can learn from and make the lake a safer place.

[trfour]

In all honesty while driving my boat I have a zero tolerence policy for myself. People on the boat can have what ever the like but I can't see taking the risk... Especially with a GFB I already stand out. I usually will go to the Naswa and they laugh at the amount of sprite with limes I will drink.

I am not saying this is what everyone should do but it is just my 2 cents.

The specifics and evidence have not yet been brought to light and I think it is in very bad taste to take a tragic accident and make speculations.

All I know is it is something we all can learn from and make the lake a safer place.

Sprite with lime has been my choice as well. Another very refreshing drink is Diet tonic water with lime, after all, if you're a captain and driving the boat, you're passengers are trusting YOU, and as a captain we need to give the trust back in safe passage!

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Off topic, I know. But worth mentioning.
Very soon this thread will have 100,000 views. I assume this is a forum record. And one that will probably stand for quite a while.

I believe that Don has said that 100,000 views means a 100,000 unique viewers and not a 1000 people looking a 100 times. Truly a big number.

[ApS]

1) Another 2008 Massachusetts fatal collision (http://www.boattest.com/Resources/view_news.aspx?NewsID=3852)—also "faulting" GPS—resulted in a ten-year supervised probation, a three-year ban from boating, a one-year suspended sentence, a five-year revocation of boating license, and a three-month suspension of driver's license. Alcohol was not a factor.
—January, 2010 Soundings magazine—no other resolution of this case was found at Google. (!)

2) Learning of quite obviously Erika (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=115234&postcount=689)—and putting on my unaccustomed F. Lee Bailey hat—this is the one rare case that I would put the defendant on the witness stand.

(In a wordless plea for sympathy :( ).

3) If you slowly cruised past the crash scene this season, you'd see somebody has added a rather tasteless lighthouse model. :confused: :rolleye1:

"...Interesting comments appear after the story. It seems that the GPS data for Diamond Island was possibly altered at the time of the accident..."
A GPS display that is staggered can't be a helpful defense in the face of BWI evidence. :rolleye1:

[EricP]

Off topic, I know. But worth mentioning.
Very soon this thread will have 100,000 views. I assume this is a forum record. And one that will probably stand for quite a while.



I believe that Don has said that 100,000 views means a 100,000 unique viewers and not a 1000 people looking a 100 times. Truly a big number.

It is technically possible and very likely some were counted more than once, but still a very impressive showing.

[Grady223]

In all honesty while driving my boat I have a zero tolerence policy for myself. People on the boat can have what ever the like but I can't see taking the risk... Especially with a GFB I already stand out. I usually will go to the Naswa and they laugh at the amount of sprite with limes I will drink.

I am not saying this is what everyone should do but it is just my 2 cents.

The specifics and evidence have not yet been brought to light and I think it is in very bad taste to take a tragic accident and make speculations.

All I know is it is something we all can learn from and make the lake a safer place.

Everyone should do it - there should be a zero tolerance for drinking and operating a boat; they don't mix.

[Tank151]

As friend of both the driver and the victim, I see very little humor in your post FLL. Do you ever think about how some of your insensitive posts will effect others?

Fat Lazy Less' comments are very insensitive and hope the folks here on the forum realize what a dope he really is!

[Kamper]

It's the same responsibility as operating any equipment, or activity that involves risk to yourself or others. You also have to consider the "risk to others" as the efforts that could be made by rescue personnel. Every year some responders are involved in accidents on their way to incidents and are hurt or killed along with other people at that scene. People can also be hurt during the rescue attempt when fuel tanks explode, equipment fails or somebody simply slips.

Only a fool would express that drinking and boating is without risk. The proof of that is the accidents we see where alchohol is listed as a factor.

[BroadHopper]

In all honesty while driving my boat I have a zero tolerence policy for myself. People on the boat can have what ever the like but I can't see taking the risk... Especially with a GFB I already stand out. I usually will go to the Naswa and they laugh at the amount of sprite with limes I will drink.

I am not saying this is what everyone should do but it is just my 2 cents.

The specifics and evidence have not yet been brought to light and I think it is in very bad taste to take a tragic accident and make speculations.

All I know is it is something we all can learn from and make the lake a safer place.

I travel with my daughters and my grandchildren. Not only is it a responsible thing to do, it set a good example to the younger generations.

My girl friend's sister was involved in a BUI accident, and I respect her wish that there will be no drinking. It's common sense and the right thing to do.

[Mink Islander]

What a stretch that argument will be. Driving a boat late at night -- in the rain -- and fog -- on plane -- after knocking back a few -- but relying on your GPS to keep you from running into anything? What about maintaining a safe watch? Your GPS doesn't see other boats! What about driving too fast for the conditions? If you'd been going slower (a lot slower), the impact wouldn't have been so catastophic and probably a life would have been spared. No, the captain owns full responsibility for this accident.

Moreover, I think telling the court you were relying on your electronics to keep you out of trouble and that a failure there caused the accident would seem to support a wreckless boating argument not excuse causing the accident.

But when you have little defense, I guess you try any argument.

[Mink Islander]

FLL is known (notorious?) for obtuse, sometimes sarcastic and yes, even offensive posts. But please don't make things worse by violating other posting rules. The forum has an ignore feature for a reason. Try that instead please.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

He has a strong reputation of saying outrageous things to stir things up. I am not convinced he believes half of what he says. (At least that is what I tell myself)

As far as my experience with GPS. Sometimes I have seen the unit shift my position. I try to establish that the unit is accurately synchronized every time I turn it on.

[wifi]

He has a strong reputation of saying outrageous things to stir things up. .....

Its more political spin than anything else..

[Seeker]

Its more political spin than anything else..

Yep, Thank you Don for the ignore button.

[fatlazyless]

Today's Jan 5 www.citizen.com has an update. It describes the numerous personal injuries in some detail and they certainly sound bad enough to be terminal......a terrible accident-crash! Definately, not a happy situation...

[sa meredith]

Honestly....this is just plain foolish. I believe this the second, third, fourth, maybe fifth delay????
How many times can her attorney do this? Seriously? Maybe someone (SKIP?) knows?
I believe the last delay, was for the same exact reason...scheduled surgery. At what point does a "scheduled" court date take precedence?!
Is it possible, this is some type of tactic the defense is using? I realize she is very much in need of ongoing medical care, but it certainly could be carried out after the trial, whether she is incarcerated or not.

[jmen24]

Honestly....this is just plain foolish. I believe this the second, third, fourth, maybe fifth delay????
How many times can her attorney do this? Seriously? Maybe someone (SKIP?) knows?
I believe the last delay, was for the same exact reason...scheduled surgery. At what point does a "scheduled" court date take precedence?!
Is it possible, this is some type of tactic the defense is using? I realize she is very much in need of ongoing medical care, but it certainly could be carried out after the trial, whether she is incarcerated or not.

But if it is after and she is in fact incarcerated, then we the taxpayers fit the bill for her medical care, I say let her get it all done first.
If I were the judge I would make certain that is was completed in a timely manner, not this wait two weeks before each trial date, I am certain that her doctors have a timeline set in place for each surgury and what is required after, I believe it is called "care planning".

[Woodsy]

Sa...

The state isn't going to have a problem with this delay.... getting the jurors out on the ice to visit the crash site would be a difficult chore at best....

My money is on a trial after ice-out....

Woodsy

[Just Sold]

Judge McGuire will retire April 2 so this could mean a new Judge if the trial is delayed further.
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2010701059856

[fatlazyless]

As a long time fan of tv shows Dragnet & Perry Mason, it seems like the numerical blood alcohol level is a very important number as to how the State of NH decides to prosecute any motor vehicle, driving related death.

What is the threshold blood alcohol level for DUI in this specific boating incident? Is it 0.08?

So, if the Belknap County Attorney can present the court and jury of 12 a blood alcohol level of .08 as opposed to .0799, it legally makes a big change in how the attorney designs their plan of prosecution.

With a local jury of 12 intelligent & serious jurors, isn't it a distinct possibilty they decide 'not guilty' in consideration of all the pain and suffering already endured? By incarcerating the indicted boat driver, who is the State of NH punishing and who is the State protecting? What is the mission of the State of NH's system for justice in a criminal case like this one?

As we all know, the deceased women was not a stranger but a very close friend of the boat driver. If the deceased person was the mother or sister of the boat driver, would that substantially change the State's plan of prosecution? Does the relationship between the two have any bearing on the prosecution or on the jury's decision?

If the blood alcohol level is 0.08, does that in the mind of the prosecutor, who follows state legal procedure, basically trump a death of a close friend relationship as the prosecutor designs his plan of prosecution?

If Perry Mason were teaching a first year classroom of law students, what would he say?

[OCDACTIVE]

I think speculating on the facts of the case is in extreme bad taste. The trial will occur soon enough and when the information is brought to light then we can draw our own conclusions. Until then to speculate, discuss, reflect, or make conjecture is frankly disrespectful to the unfortunate soul that was lost. IMO

If you want to discuss the merits of BWI I am sure we can start a BWI thread and have at it.

[BroadHopper]

I think speculating on the facts of the case is in extreme bad taste. The trial will occur soon enough and when the information is brought to light then we can draw our own conclusions. Until then to speculate, discuss, reflect, or make conjecture is frankly disrespectful to the unfortunate soul that was lost. IMO

If you want to discuss the merits of BWI I am sure we can start a BWI thread and have at it.

As a cousin of the deceased, I can't ask for a better statement. I would ask the webmaster out of respect to close this topic, if this taste continue.

[fatlazyless]

A new article in today's January 7 www.citizen.com says a jury will be picked in the first week of March, and the trial will start on the second week.

I for one would definately not want to be one of the 12 jurors, and could probably get excused by the defense attorney after pointing out the various comments I've made in this thread.

People working in the NH justice system as police officers, prosecutors, lawyers, court officers and judges probably get mentally grounded over time with dealing with the difficult personal issues associated with their job. To be a defendant must be no picnic...sympathy extended to all involved.

[SIKSUKR]

Sounds like some kind of an apology I guess.:confused:

[Airwaves]

It will be interesting to see if ANYONE that reads or participates on http://www.Winnipesaukee.com/forums will be allowed to sit on the jury?

With over 101,000 views on the Diamond Island Accident thread alone, it could become a factor in a fair trial. I wonder if that will be one of the questions that the prosecution and/or defense will ask during jury selection during the exclusion process.

HERE (http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100107/GJNEWS02/701079674/-1/CITIZEN) is the article mentioned by FLL

[Lucky1]

Don't drink and drive... not boats, cars, trains, planes. People die.
Don't text and drive....not boats, cars, trains, planes. People die.
Don't do drugs and drive......not boats, cars, trains, planes. People die.
I did not read the article so I am not taking any point of view on the case that was cited in the link.

Driving safely is hard enough with all the nuts out there today without making your brain less alert.

Everyone stay safe and hope that we all have a Happy 2010!!!

[jrc]

It will be interesting to see if ANYONE that reads or participates on http://www.Winnipesaukee.com/forums will be allowed to sit on the jury?

...

If I was called to jury duty on a case like this, I'd be ready to show the judge and lawyers my comments on the forum. Then I let them decide if it disqualified me.

I feel like I'm an honest person and could still make a fair judgement, even given comments I made here. But I could also understand them wanting someone who didn't already have wrtten opinions.

Now, just reading about the case should not disqualify you.

[BroadHopper]

Sounds like some kind of an apology I guess.:confused:

The Hartman, Litchfield, Boudoin, Blizzard families are very upset about a handful of supporters that express nothing but hate against boaters. They wish these people will take their agenda elsewhere and rightly so. I should know, I am a good friend with connection to these families.

I have live on this lake all my life. So has my father. We can connect ourselves to Leander lavallee, The Irwins, The Calllahans and The Goodhues. they have made this lake a great lake to be on. I disdain what the lake has become. No longer do I see a friendly wave from boaters that have been a tradition in the past. No longer do I see boaters respecting other boaters and no longer do I see the camaraderie between boat owners and waterfront property owners. The lake has become a battleground.

Sorry to rant Don, but enough is enough, these folks are beyond apologetic.

[Yosemite Sam]

The Hartman, Litchfield, Boudoin, Blizzard families are very upset about a handful of supporters that express nothing but hate against boaters. They wish these people will take their agenda elsewhere and rightly so. I should know, I am a good friend with connection to these families.

I have live on this lake all my life. So has my father. We can connect ourselves to Leander lavallee, The Irwins, The Calllahans and The Goodhues. they have made this lake a great lake to be on. I disdain what the lake has become. No longer do I see a friendly wave from boaters that have been a tradition in the past. No longer do I see boaters respecting other boaters and no longer do I see the camaraderie between boat owners and waterfront property owners. The lake has become a battleground.

Sorry to rant Don, but enough is enough, these folks are beyond apologetic.

Why would anyone open up a thread in a forum when they know that there will be negative comments or frivolity being made against someone that they know.
Everyone in this forum knows that FLL likes to joke around and get people to loosen up a little bit. I don’t think that makes him a bad person or that he is trying to slander anyone with his comments. If I thought he was slandering someone, I would be the first to ask that he be banned from this forum. However he has not done that and I think some of the comments made about him are unfair.

Why don’t we let the webmaster make the decision as to whether anyone is doing something wrong with their comments.

[sunset on the dock]

Some good points, YS and I find it a bit tiresome that a couple of posters take such offense to the discussion of said accident. THIS IS A FORUM!!! Look up the definition! If anyone is truly offended by a discussion of the details regarding this accident because they have some personal connection to the participants or it interferes with their agenda then they have should just stay away from the thread altogether. As far as Broadhopper's comment about "nothing but hate against boaters"...the forum record shows a barrage of very negative comments(yes, hateful) from him aimed at so many who have an opposing view of how the lake should be managed.

[SIKSUKR]

...in today's Dec 30 www.unionleader.com., January 18....jury selection scheduled in Belknap County court...

Nobody asked me but I just think that drinking and boating is totally different from drinking and driving, and therefore the drinking laws simply Do Not Apply! Boating and beer goes together like cake and ice cream, like hotdogs and mustard, like peanuts and popcorn, like boating and beer....see what I mean!

Especially, when you consider that this accident happened at 2pm out in the middle of a totally deserted lake with no other boaters.....so where is the harm with boating and a wee small can of beer, or two .....gee whiz?

I find most of FLL's post entertaining as well but that does not dismiss the over the top ones. How does making light of drinking and boating with a death resulting become ok your eyes? I find nothing funny at all having a laugh at the expense of a deceased woman.

[fatlazyless]

Actually, as I recall at the time I wrote that, I was not intending to be sarcastic. I was looking at the situation as someone who knows that beer and boating is pretty common. In my mind, as someone familiar with Diamond Island, what was a very small & easy turn of the steering wheel resulted into a huge human disaster. I'm sorry for any pain my comments, as perceived by you, may have caused and apologize for that. As someone who has experienced the sudden death of a brother-in-law, I recall how angry his death made me, at the time.

Determining whether a forum post is straight-ahead or sarcastic is not always so easy, and a different readers can interpret the same post differently.

What else can I say here? I need to go back and reread what I said in that quoted post of mine...hold-on...

Ok...just reread it ...and can understand how it could be interpreted to be sarcastic when one considers all my other posts....however....driving a boat and driving a car are in fact very very different. Car safety is usually a matter of a couple feet, while boat safety is frequently in a wide open space with 360-degree choice of steering.....so long time habits of boating and beer are still happening probably by a good number of boaters.

I was definately not trying to make a sarcastic comment but more thinking along the lines that it is not too unusual boating activity and was just a very small steering error. Boat steering errors have happened to me plenty times, and I think "is there rocks down below"...and "hope this works out ok" and know it's very easy to go astray on Winnipesaukee.

And, I apologize for stepping on anyone's feelings here.

[Yosemite Sam]

Actually, as I recall at the time I wrote that, I was not intending to be sarcastic. I was looking at the situation as someone who knows that beer and boating is pretty common. In my mind, as someone familiar with Diamond Island, what was a very small & easy turn of the steering wheel resulted into a huge human disaster. I'm sorry for any pain my comments, as perceived by you, may have caused and apologize for that. As someone who has experienced the sudden death of a brother-in-law, I recall how angry his death made me, at the time.

Determining whether a forum post is straight-ahead or sarcastic is not always so easy, and a different readers can interpret the same post differently.

What else can I say here? I need to go back and reread what I said in that quoted post of mine...hold-on...

Ok...just reread it ...and can understand how it could be interpreted to be sarcastic when one considers all my other posts....however....driving a boat and driving a car are in fact very very different. Car safety is usually a matter of a couple feet, while boat safety is frequently in a wide open space with 360-degree choice of steering.....so long time habits of boating and beer are still happening probably by a good number of boaters.

I was definately not trying to make a sarcastic comment but more thinking along the lines that it is not too unusual boating activity and was just a very small steering error. Boat steering errors have happened to me plenty times, and I think "is there rocks down below"...and "hope this works out ok" and know it's very easy to go astray on Winnipesaukee.

And, I apologize for stepping on anyone's feelings here.



Thank you very much FLL!!

I have never read any of your posts as being sarcastic. I think you speak from the heart and add a lot to this forum :). More forum members should stop trying to be someone that they aren't and try to be more tolerant of opinions that don't agree with how they feel.

We all have different experiences in life as well as educational back grounds which make forums interesting at times. To stop someone from being themselves would make this a very boring forum.
.
.
.
.

[SIKSUKR]

FLL, you're a big man in my eyes. It takes a real man to offer an apology. My concern about the flavor of that post was if any family members were reading it. It really should not be directed at me as I am only an aquaintance and not family. This proves to me that you are the good natured man that most of your posts portray. I have moved on.

[RI Swamp Yankee]

Judge McGuire will retire April 2 so this could mean a new Judge if the trial is delayed further.
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2010701059856
Maybe not per this quote from the story:
She will assume senior active status and will remain eligible to sit as a judge when needed.

[Merrymeeting]

Sorry to rant Don, but enough is enough, these folks are beyond apologetic.

I often ignore or avoid the controversial topics on this (and other) forums. But this statement I cannot ignore.

As someone who maintains websites far smaller and less volitile than this one, I don't think this is a fair burden to place on Don. He did not sign up to be judge and jury (though too often, that is the job of a moderator)

It's a fine line between constructive debate and needing to serve as judge and arbitor. Don does a wonderful job on this website keeping it focused on topics related to the Lakes Region. Let's not put too much of a burden on him that he reconsiders why he's doing this!

[Steveo]

Is this still on schedule for March 1st or has there been another delay

[LIforrelaxin]

Is this still on schedule for March 1st or has there been another delay

I did a little searching around and it appears still slated for March. If there is going to be any further delay it will not come out until the March time frame...

In reading the couple of articles I did today, I was struck by something I didn't like. It appears that the delay in January to have the trial in March was so that Ms. Blizzard could have surgery, and be allowed adequate time to recover, and that this was related to injuries suffered in the accident.

Now My question is this, at this point, I can't image any surgery she needed to under go was life threatening. Necessary well that is a different story, and it may have very well been. But the question is, could the surgery have taken place after the Trial. Now grant you by asking for the delay Ms Blizzard has waived her right to a speedy trial. But my concern is for all the other people involved and effected by this tragedy. Don't they have a right for this trial to have taken place and the issue resolved.

In short although Ms. Blizzard surgery may have been necessary, is it right to delay a trial, because of non life threatening surgery? Or is this another defense tactic, to try and put more time in between the incident and the trail so as to hopefully remove the spotlight of the incident form the trial.

[Woodsy]

LI....

The surgery my not be life threatening, however once in she is in state custody it will be the state who has to pay for the surgeries....

I would also expect one more delay... I doubt they are going to make the jury travel over the ice on the lake in March to visit the accident scene...

Woodsy

[Yosemite Sam]

Regardless of how I might feel about certain laws on Lake Winni and how this accident happened, I have real heart felt sympathy for Ms Blizzard and her family.
I have two daughters a little older that Erica and I don’t know how I could possibly go through what her family must be going through now.

[sa meredith]

Regardless of how I might feel about certain laws on Lake Winni and how this accident happened, I have real heart felt sympathy for Ms Blizzard and her family.
I have two daughters a little older that Erica and I don’t know how I could possibly go through what her family must be going through now.

Well...at least her family can see her, talk with her, offer support, try to comfort her...
How about the family of the girl who was killed????
My guess is that they probably would like some measure of closure. And for that, the trial must take place.

[fatlazyless]

Typically, whenever a police chief, police officer, judge or state, county, or local prosecutor is asked to comment on any one individual case they have a two word reply: NO COMMENT!. And, then they say something like "let the legal process work" or "the jury has spoken" or "we look forward to a fair and impartial trial......and thankyou very much for asking."

Believe the whole premise in criminal law is it is: The people of the State of New Hampshire verses (an individual's name), and the mission of the state criminal code is to protect the public at large.

...sic...."If the glove don't fit....you must aquit!"

Perry Mason's tv school of law........ayuh!

[Pineedles]

I think people are growing impatient because they are not used to the course of the law. The law/justice will happen when all things can be considered fair. Thank God for the United States of America.

BTW, course means "the path of travel" It may be long, short, circumnavigated, but eventually it gets there.

[NoRegrets]

Regardless of how I might feel about certain laws on Lake Winni and how this accident happened, I have real heart felt sympathy for Ms Blizzard and her family.
I have two daughters a little older that Erica and I don’t know how I could possibly go through what her family must be going through now.

Well said.....Nothing can change the outcome of that night. The blame and trial will not change the torn hearts and spirits of this part of Winni's history.

[fatlazyless]

It's probably a good idea to not prejudge a trial and assume a verdict.......you really need to let the trial take place and no doubt the blood alcohol level will be a key piece in the process......after all....Attorney James Moir's motion to have the blood alcohol level not be admitted into evidence was denied by the judge in April 2009. In today's NH legal system, the blood alcohol level number seems like it can be a very big deal.

On January 5, 2010, the www.citizen.com article by Bea Lewis refers to the April 2009 ruling with a quote from Judge Kathleen McGuire in Belknap Superior Court who ruled that the defendant "drove a boat headlong into an island at an unreasonable rate of speed was the probable cause Marine Patrol needed to believe the defendant had been drinking alcohol and that evidence of intoxication would be found in the defendant's blood."

www.citizen.com google 1/05/10

[Mr. V]

If the defendant has any brains, she'll accept a plea bargain.

I foresee a harsh sentence if she wastes the court's time and is convicted.

[ApS]

"...In today's NH legal system the blood alcohol level number seems like it can be a very big deal..."
Like, alcohol impairs judgment or something? :confused:

[OCDACTIVE]

Seriously some of these posts are extremely hurtful to everyone involved. Please have some compassion. Lets wait to see what comes out of the trial before judgement is passed.

I am surprised that this thread hasn't been shut down yet.

[PennyPenny]

Well...at least her family can see her, talk with her, offer support, try to comfort her...
How about the family of the girl who was killed????
My guess is that they probably would like some measure of closure. And for that, the trial must take place.

Well said SA Meredith. The victims family wonders every day what is next for them. I know there is an upcoming birth of a grandson in the near future that will probably put a smile on their faces.:):)

[fatlazyless]

Today's Monday, March 1, www.laconiadailysun.com, reports that jury selection is scheduled to start today in Belknap County Superior Court, located in Laconia, and the trial testimony is scheduled to begin next week, on Monday, March 8.

Here's one paragraph from the the center of the 15 paragraph article written by Ed Engler.

"Presumably, the foundation of the state's case against Blizzard is an analysis of the blood that was drawn from her by medical personnel shortly after the accident. Her attorney, James Moir of Concord, last year tried to have evidence excluded from the trial on the grounds the state had lacked probable cause to obtain her medical records but that pleading was rejected by the court."
.....

Today's www.citizen.com and www.concordmonitor.com also have articles and the Monitor has some new info in it that may interest readers.

[codeman671]

From the Monitor:

"He described Shinopulos as somewhat disorientated during questioning at the hospital. And in her ruling on the blood test evidence, McGuire called Shinopulos's timing "questionable" because the ride from Governor's Island to Sleeper's Island should take only 10 minutes. "


Ten minutes??? In what? That run especially at night, should take more than 10 minutes unless you are really flying.

[rockythedog]

"The women then headed south, through a light rain,towards Sleeper Island in Alton." If the weather conditions that night can be described as light rain, then the wind storm and the damages of last week are only scattered debris and a few power outages. Shame on you Mr Engler and the editor of The Laconia Scum for such biased reporting. Just like the "anointed one". if you can't get the facts straight make something up.

[Dave R]

From the Monitor:

"He described Shinopulos as somewhat disorientated during questioning at the hospital. And in her ruling on the blood test evidence, McGuire called Shinopulos's timing "questionable" because the ride from Governor's Island to Sleeper's Island should take only 10 minutes. "


Ten minutes??? In what? That run especially at night, should take more than 10 minutes unless you are really flying.

It's less than 4 miles from the middle of Governers ot the middle of Sleepers. You could do it in 10 minutes at 24 MPH.

[rockythedog]

Don't know what chart you're using Dave R, maybe the one from the middle of the Wier's Times? According to my Bizer chart from the middle of Govoner's to the middle of Sleepers is almost 10 miles. Do us a favor and post when the Mischief Managed will be out so we can stay safely at the dock.

[Mink Islander]

And for what it's worth, the +/- 5 miles from Shep Browns to my home on Mink would have taken waaaay longer than 10 minutes that night and it's an extremely familiar route with several light buoys along the way. It was raining and foggy and nearly moonless that night. Only thing that would have made conditions worse would have been high winds.

[Resident 2B]

And for what it's worth, the +/- 5 miles from Shep Browns to my home on Mink would have taken waaaay longer than 10 minutes that night and it's an extremely familiar route with several light buoys along the way. It was raining and foggy and nearly moonless that night. Only thing that would have made conditions worse would have been high winds.

It is almost ten miles and when you factor in having to get safely past the Witches on a dark, rainy and foggy night, it would be foolish to think this trip could be made in less than 30 minutes, given the conditions. Shinopulos is way off base with a 10 minute estimate, even during the day.

R2B

[Dave R]

Don't know what chart you're using Dave R, maybe the one from the middle of the Wier's Times? According to my Bizer chart from the middle of Govoner's to the middle of Sleepers is almost 10 miles. Do us a favor and post when the Mischief Managed will be out so we can stay safely at the dock.

Yup, I was incorrect, I was using the wrong scale. Seemed kinda short to me when I measured it, Double checked my math, but not the scale. Should be 7.75 miles.

[codeman671]

Yup, I was incorrect, I was using the wrong scale. Seemed kinda short to me when I measured it, Double checked my math, but not the scale. Should be 7.75 miles.

And that is probably calculating a straight line.

I used to make a 50-55mph run in a 30' Monterey from my place on Mark to the Alton docks, it was always 30 minutes if I pushed it hard all the way. Clear conditions during the day, or clear night conditions prior to the speed limit.

[VitaBene]

Don't know what chart you're using Dave R, maybe the one from the middle of the Wier's Times? According to my Bizer chart from the middle of Govoner's to the middle of Sleepers is almost 10 miles. Do us a favor and post when the Mischief Managed will be out so we can stay safely at the dock.

Rocky,

I will take my chances with Dave on the lake- more so than with most people I see out there.

[secondcurve]

Agreed. Dave is always insightful on boating issues. Also, when he makes a mistake (which doesn't occur often), he is not afraid to acknowledge his error as he did here. It's too bad others on the board aren't as quick to admit to their mistakes.

[rockythedog]

Maybe if this thread was about the correct way to read a chart I wouldn't have been so critical of Dave, but considering the topic don't you think attention to facts is paramount? That's the problem with this type of arena. Somebody can post anything without having to back it up. So if your reckless with with what you choose to post for people to read, why shouldn't I doubt your judgment in other areas?