Boating Accident/Death off Diamond Island [Archive] - Page 4

hazelnut

03-04-2010, 09:30 AM

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?

Yes because you are perfect and never make mistakes. Fod gods sake it was an error made on a CHAT forum. Dave was not sworn in under any court of law when he made the post. This is a chat forum where people post thoughts and ideas. For you to "doubt (his) judgement in other areas?" Who are you to judge anyone in area? Dave posted his thoughts and corrected them when his error was pointed out. If you have a "problem with this type of arena," then don't read it and don't post to it. Talk about riding in on your high horse and snubbing your nose at everyone. :rolleye2:

I too would rather ride with DAVE R any day because he actually displays characteristics of a GOOD pilot. One who can admit an error in judgement and correct it. Other than stubborn captains or pilots who think they are above all infallible. Those are the captains and pilots I'd be avoiding at all cost. Those are the guys that worry me.

Seaplane Pilot

03-04-2010, 09:47 AM

VtSteve

03-04-2010, 11:22 AM

I don't know exactly what point they started from on Governors Island, but let's say it's 10 miles. It was said it took them about three hours to get from Governors Island to the site of the crash. The Judge said around 10 minutes should be the norm. She's the judge, but probably misspoke, she's not on trial here. If you chart the route from the Wolf Trapp at around 11:00 PM, to GI then back towards Sleeper, in bad conditions, allowing 15 - 25 minutes or so while they were on GI, you'd have an approximate idea as to their speed of travel. Conditions probably worsened that night coming back from GI, so maybe they started real slow, especially around the Witches area. It's quite possible she thought she was in the clear later on and thought she knew exactly where she was.

All of this info will come out at the trial, so I'd not get too excited about the 10 minute remark. I know from my GPS, I can get trip info, mileage info, average speed, trace my footprints and all of that. Possibly this type of data will be presented as well.

The trial starts next week, so no need for snarly posts. Perhaps Rocky can take it up with the Judge, since it was her statement that started the math problem. :rolleye2:

Dave R

03-04-2010, 11:29 AM

Hey, no worries folks. Let's keep this on topic. I was completely wrong with my post and it was correct for rockythedog to call me out on it.

I was not offended, but I do appreciate folks sticking up for me.

NoBozo

03-04-2010, 11:50 AM

I've always wondered how you get a modern 38 foot boat under the bridge at Wolfeboro to get to the Wolf Trap which is in Back Bay, in the first place. Even a GFBL (which this boat was not) ...without a windshield is fairly high off the water. I have to duck when I go under that bridge in my 20 footer without a windshield. Flag staffs down.

The only alternative is to Walk around from the Wolfeboro town docks...in cruddy weather. A bit of a hike. :look: NB

VtSteve

03-04-2010, 12:04 PM

As usual, Dave, you handled it with grace and humility :)

IF quoted correctly, I think more importantly, it is the Judge that needs to review her statements. But distance aside, the conditions and the routing of that night's trip make for a interesting journey into deteriorating conditions. I would not want to make it myself.

rockythedog

03-04-2010, 12:10 PM

Awesome, I've been buttonholed and outed at the same time. From day one I have closely followed this tragic accident and it's horrific consequences, reading most every post and coming away with the feeling that this is some sort of volleyball game to see which side can score the most points. Would you not agree that this is a most sensitive and critical juncture? Is it asking too much from either side to thoughtfully consider what you put out there? It will soon be up to 12 people to decide what the facts of this case are. Can you give it a break till then. Afterwords they'll be plenty of time for you all to pick apart the bones of the verdict.

Airwaves

03-04-2010, 12:21 PM

I believe Governor's Island is just a reference point for non-boaters. I thought I had read (no I am not going back to look it up) that they were headed to Sleepers after playing the annual practical joke on her father at his place at Pendleton Beach. More non-boaters/non Winni users would be familiar with Governor's Island than the Pendleton Beach reference.

trfour

03-04-2010, 08:23 PM

Trial set to start Monday; http://citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100302/GJNEWS02/703029873/0/CITIZEN

SIKSUKR

03-05-2010, 10:02 AM

I thought I had read (no I am not going back to look it up) that they were headed to Sleepers after playing the annual practical joke on her father at his place at Pendleton Beach.

That is correct AW.

VtSteve

03-05-2010, 08:25 PM

Trial set to start Monday; http://citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100302/GJNEWS02/703029873/0/CITIZEN

That was a pretty good article, someone did their homework.

fatlazyless

03-06-2010, 05:23 AM

If Attorney Jimmie Moir can bring home the bacon, I definately expect to see him roar past Buoy 3 in a nice, new Formula SS-370 express cruiser with the name DEFINING NEGLIGENCE on the stern.

Defining negligence....Attorney Jimmie Moir got the Thornton 25-year old guy out of the state prison...who in 2006 crossed the center line in the Rt 49-Thornton S-curve and killed three 54 year olds who were riding on two Harleys....defining negligence

In a 3-1 split decision, in June 2009, the judges on the New Hampshire supreme court reversed a lower court conviction of negligence because in the opinion of Supreme Court Justice Linda Dalianis, the driver crossing the center line for some unknown reason is not negligence.

Two 50-something couples, driving two Harley Davidsons, two men and two women, in June 2006, were struck head on, in the middle of the daytime, by a car that wandered across the center line, killing three and injuring the fourth.

After serving about three years of a twelve year sentence, Attorney Jimmie Moir won his client in an appeal before the NH Supremes.....because that incident did not constitute negligence.......defining negligence!

DEFINING NEGLIGENCE....sounds like a good name for a nice big boat!

...ladies & gentlemen of the jury.....what is negligence? ....the failure to use reasonable care....doing something that a reasonable & prudent person would not do...

ApS

03-06-2010, 06:03 AM

That was a pretty good article, someone did their homework.
Update from yesterday found at that link:
http://citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100305/GJNEWS02/703059846/0/CITNEWS0101

:confused: In this entire case so far, a new word now appears: :rolleye1:

"Jurors...will see the boat she was allegedly driving when it struck the rocky shoreline of Diamond Island."

secondcurve

03-06-2010, 09:39 AM

That is very interesting. I have been thinking about what type of defense has the potential to be successful in this case and I've been unable to come up with anything that seems to provide a reasonable doubt. Intoxication will be indisputable one way or the other with blood evidence and even if totally sober how can't she be found negligent after running into an island at a high rate of speed? It seems like an open an shut case, but it could be possible that she wasn't driving the boat.

secondcurve

03-06-2010, 09:42 AM

Attorney James Moir of Concord, who is representing Blizzard, filed a motion asking trial Judge Kathleen McGuire to ask prospective jurors a number of questions before they could be selected to sit on the panel. Key among them was whether they had formed any opinions regarding people "who own or operate large powerboats" and if they had an opinion concerning whether there should be a speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Talk about a Red Herring!!!!!

Newbiesaukee

03-06-2010, 10:49 AM

I am not an attorney and I have been following the thread from the beginning and prefer the system to run its course. But, I do not see that these are unreasonable questions for either the defense or the prosecution to ask a jury pool in this case;and it might cut both ways. A person who has strong feelings either pro or con the speed limit or who owns or doesn't own a "large" power boat might have very different feelings but these feelings could influence their deliberations...one way or the other. The idea is to have none of these feelings and to be impartial. I realize that reasonable people with strong feelings CAN be impartial. Unfortunately, the real world may not work that way, but I do not see it as a "red herring" as the feelings and conscious or unconscious feelings may have a direct bearing on the impartiality of a juror. To me, it is not different to ask a juror in a rape case if he or she has a close relative who has been raped; or, in a malpractice case if anyone is a physicican or is closely related to one. If you were on trial in this case, would you want a strong advocate for speed limits to be on your jury? I would like to believe that jurors are impartial regardless, but it ain't necessarily so.

Pineedles

03-06-2010, 10:50 AM

Both this trial and the disposition of SB 464 are happening next week. Trial starts Monday and is expected to last till March 11th. SB 464 is being considered on March 11th.

John A. Birdsall

03-06-2010, 11:27 AM

I am not sure that I read this, but could it be that she was not operating the boat, that one of the other two was because she knew she was impaired?

To me that would make sense, since she most certainly should have the knowledge of the lake being a co-owner of a marina.:look:

Newbiesaukee

03-06-2010, 11:34 AM

I guess that would be a nice argument for the defense to make....but would not the other survivor be able to testify as to who was driving?

Mr. V

03-06-2010, 02:44 PM

Hmmmm...

Conspicuous in her absence from the either the Defendant's or the State's witness list is the second passenger, the one who survived with a broken jaw: Nicole Shinopolous, from Massachusetts.

This is very curious.

I assume she's a friend of the defendant; have they reached some "confidential settlement" of her personal injury claim, such that she no longer has a dog in this fight?

Can she not found, or does she refuse to testify as the State would want her to?

Moir didn't list her as a witness, so it seems she won't testify on Blizzard's behalf.

Were she to testify truthfully, she'd be able establish the facts as they unfolded on that dark and stormy night.

So I ask: will she testify, and if not, why not?

NoBozo

03-06-2010, 03:27 PM

Wolfeboro_Baja

03-06-2010, 11:06 PM

Hmmmm...

Conspicuous in her absence from the either the Defendant's or the State's witness list is the second passenger, the one who survived with a broken jaw: Nicole Shinopolous, from Massachusetts.

This is very curious.According to the Concord Monitor article on 3/1/2010 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100301/FRONTPAGE/3010303&template=single), Nicole Shinopulos is on the state's witness list.

Shinopulos, who suffered facial injuries in the crash, is on the state's witness list. And Blizzard will join jurors on the first day of the trial to view her damaged powerboat.

fatlazyless

03-07-2010, 07:02 AM

Wondering if Nicole will be considered a friendly or a hostile witness by Jimmie the Belknap county attorney?

After all, Nicole was there onboard so she probably knows who was driving the boat at the time?

Dr Tom Rock's testimony could be a good indication with regard to who was driving the boat as well?

Who knows.....the deceased Stephanie could turn out to be Erica's best friend in life and in death...by taking the rap for driving the boat?

Is that the plan for defense attorney Jimmie Moir.....time will tell.....soon enough?

It's definately a trial case for the two Jimmie's.......Jimmie Carrol - Belknap County Attorney vs Jimmie Moir - defense attorney and former prosecutor for the New Hampshire attorney general's office.

Seaplane Pilot

03-07-2010, 08:29 AM

Just remember one thing:

Innocent until proven guilty.

John A. Birdsall

03-07-2010, 09:33 AM

Well if that is the case so much for that possibility. However, perhaps the deceased was driving, Blizzard seen what was coming and she took over the helm too late.
It is ashame that these things end up in a court. No matter who was driving the death of there friend will haunt them forever

fatlazyless

03-07-2010, 11:58 AM

It is ashame that these things end up in a court.

Here's something to think about....the documented legal title on this lawsuit is: "The People of the State of New Hampshire verses Erica Blizzard", ....as best that I know.

lawn psycho

03-07-2010, 07:07 PM

According to the Concord Monitor article on 3/1/2010 (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100301/FRONTPAGE/3010303&template=single), Nicole Shinopulos is on the state's witness list.

Makes sense. Now the question will be if Nicole Shinopulos has or is planning to file a civil lawsuit. The defense could exploit that's the case since she would then have something to gain. Makes you wonder how much liability insurance was on the boat. Lawyers/sharks will swarm wherever the money is.

There is no win-lose in this case. Send her to jail and what does that do for anyone at this point? This usually comes down to $$$$$$$$ which you can be assured with be dealt with in a civil lawsuit.

Don't operate impaired. Don't ride with friends who are impaired. Neither individual in aforementioned cases would be using proper judgement if they did....

SteveA

03-07-2010, 07:29 PM

More reporting on the awful accident and upcoming trial. It contains comments from the Beaudoin family. Mr. Baudoin's' comments help keep this all in perspective.

IMHO, regardless of the outcome of this trial, and any subsequent trials, the whole thing is a tragedy that has profound effects on everyone involved.

http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/former-head-of-boating-association-faces-trial-in-boating-death

ApS

03-08-2010, 06:17 AM

Just remember one thing:

Innocent until proven guilty.

Then you just gotta love this lawyer (http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:yWJGlDd7UtcJ:www.lothsteinlaw.com/DwiVictories.htm+trial,+%22killed-her-passenger%22&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) with a list of his New Hampshire court "victories": :rolleye1:

"… a tragic accident that killed her passenger and best friend. Ted Lothstein and co-counsel filed a motion to suppress blood test results that showed Jennifer M. had an incriminating blood alcohol level...

"After hearings, the trial court granted both motions. After much of the evidence had been suppressed, the State agreed to drop the alcohol impairment indictment and the parties reached a negotiated settlement involving consequences far less than the typical outcome of a DWI-fatality case in this State."

(Emphases are the site's).

WakeUp

03-08-2010, 06:19 AM

"Send her to jail and what does that do for anyone at this point?" Are you serious? Let's be clear: What it does is hold people responsible for their actions. Nothing more, nothing less.

lawn psycho

03-08-2010, 07:53 AM

"Send her to jail and what does that do for anyone at this point?" Are you serious? Let's be clear: What it does is hold people responsible for their actions. Nothing more, nothing less.

You apparently don't understand how the system is screwed up. Feel free to search my other post(s) regarding drunk driving/boating. If the legislature had a back bone and wanted to significantly reduce OUIs, first offense would be mandatory six months in jail.

However, folks on thie board seemed to miss the points made by what FLL previously posted. The problem is the differential justice applied to offenders. Your BAC will absolutely impact the sentence. Ever heard of "aggravated DUI". Differential "justice" is built into the OUI laws for something that's in practice the identical crime.

I am sure Blizzard has a lot of coins to pay for a defense, Joe Blow with no assets would get screwed. Until enforcement and penalties are made uniform, I still say Blizzard going to jail will do nothing for her or society.

The WHOLE thing is about money. Civil lawsuits, state makes money on OUI fines and fees, insurance companies get higher rates, police make money off OUI, prosecuters make money off OUI, judges make money off OUI, driving education instructors make money off OUI. Oh yeah and the NH liquor store at the Portsmouth traffic circle has a big yellow banner saying to "stock up, tax-free". So the State of NH gets the bonus of taxing the booze too. So who in the money chain has incentive to erradicate OUI? Follow the money, as it leads you to many answers to why things don't change (ergo OUI, healthcare, etc)

I have an uncle and a cousin both killed by drunk drivers (seperate accidents). My grandfather had a personal meeting with Bush I on this very topic. I've got the pictures and article in my desk drawer. He also wrote a book about the loss of his son (my uncle). I don't think my grandparents ever really got over it. So don't tell me what "the system" does or does not do......

Seaplane Pilot

03-08-2010, 08:58 AM

Quote from the Fox News article:

"...when her 37-foot speed boat crashed into a ledge"...

I'm surprised they could find an impartial jury in Laconia.

codeman671

03-08-2010, 09:43 AM

Wolfeboro_Baja

03-08-2010, 10:09 AM

Makes sense. Now the question will be if Nicole Shinopulos has or is planning to file a civil lawsuit. The defense could exploit that's the case since she would then have something to gain. Makes you wonder how much liability insurance was on the boat. Lawyers/sharks will swarm wherever the money is.
I haven't heard anything about Nicole but according to SteveA's "MyFoxBoston" link, Beaudoin's parents do not wish Blizzard to go to jail (I also heard something similar on WMUR news).
Edgar Beaudoin said he and his wife, both 79, do no(t) wish to see Blizzard go to prison.

"It wouldn't be worth it," Beaudoin said, of punishing Blizzard. "The poor girl, she made the mistake of her lifetime. This is a mistake she will never forget."

Mr. V

03-08-2010, 03:55 PM

Even more sad than that is the fact that there is actually a National College of DUI Defense...

Sure, you say that NOW, but when it is your bacon in the fire, who you gonna call?

Some lawyers are better at playing the game, at manipulating people, than are others.

Your post reminds me off that famous quote in Shakespeare's King Henry VI: "The first thing we must do is kill all the lawyers."

VtSteve

03-08-2010, 09:55 PM

Then you just gotta love this lawyer (http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:yWJGlDd7UtcJ:www.lothsteinlaw.com/DwiVictories.htm+trial,+%22killed-her-passenger%22&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) with a list of his New Hampshire court "victories": :rolleye1:

(Emphases are the site's).

It's a game for sure, but shear volume presents problems at courts too.

Don't detest the game players too much APS, many times, you use tactics that share some of the very same code of ethics. Win at all costs. If there's gaming to be done, people will game it.

RI Swamp Yankee

03-08-2010, 10:01 PM

The Conway Daily Sun today (March 8) had this link to an AP hosted story about the trial.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NH_BOAT_FATAL_TRIAL_NHOL-?SITE=NHCOD&SECTION=STATE&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-03-08-13-56-52

With the headline:

State: Boat driver in fatal NH crash legally drunk

VtSteve

03-08-2010, 10:42 PM

Mr. V

03-09-2010, 01:15 AM

This one was more descriptive

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/northeast/view.bg?articleid=1238211&srvc=news&position=recent

"Belknap County Attorney James Carroll tells jurors that Erica Blizzard had a blood-alcohol count one and a half times the legal limit for driving when the boat she was piloting struck a ledge on Lake Winnepesaukee.
"

That would make the level around a .12.

I recall getting clients off on their DWI charges when their BA was .14 and sometimes .15.

The legal limit out here used to be .15.

The client would usually get pulled over for swerving or driving poorly, but then after the arrest, if they blew below the .15 requirement they would beat it, being legally deemed not intoxicated.

So how fair is it to lower it (to .08 out here) and convict today for what was not a crime yesterday?

.12 really will not lead to significant impairment, in the real world, at least for a seasoned drinker, which I suspect she is.

She could beat this rap ...

codeman671

03-09-2010, 09:32 AM

Sure, you say that NOW, but when it is your bacon in the fire, who you gonna call?

Some lawyers are better at playing the game, at manipulating people, than are others.

Your post reminds me off that famous quote in Shakespeare's King Henry VI: "The first thing we must do is kill all the lawyers."

My bacon won't be in the fire...

I am not "anti-lawyer", but think it is a bit much that there is an actual college with the sole purpose of defeating DWI cases.

That would make the level around a .12.

Keep in mind that the results were drawn probably a few hours after the accident. Figure in response time to the scene after the call was made to report it, extracation, transport to Laconia, etc. That puts her even higher, at a level that would certainly impair judgement even as Mr V. mentions, for a seasoned drinker. One of the sites I saw online gave a generic 0.015% off your BAC for every hour without alcohol consumption. If this is the case, the actual BAC at the time of the incident could have been 0.15%+.

VtSteve

03-09-2010, 09:53 AM

I recall getting clients off on their DWI charges when their BA was .14 and sometimes .15.

The legal limit out here used to be .15.

The client would usually get pulled over for swerving or driving poorly, but then after the arrest, if they blew below the .15 requirement they would beat it, being legally deemed not intoxicated.

So how fair is it to lower it (to .08 out here) and convict today for what was not a crime yesterday?

.12 really will not lead to significant impairment, in the real world, at least for a seasoned drinker, which I suspect she is.

She could beat this rap ...

The legal limits were changed to .08 at the bequest (lobbying), of the insurance industry, for apparently obvious reasons. The Feds gave the limit teeth by withholding highway funds, and effective way to get their way. There are far too many subjective, and technical data used in whether a person is impaired or not to get into that lengthy discussion. Three beers on an empty stomach can cause more impairment than several drinks over a few hours with food. Everyone is different, and so are the circumstances.

Since the BAL is one of two primary accusations for the State, the other being too fast for conditions/improper lookout, it will weigh heavily in this case. There was another case that would have delivered a far more serious penalty, if the perp had stayed around long enough to be tested shortly thereafter.

I hope for all families concerned this trial really is over this week, so they can go on with their shaken lives. I hope the reports on this forum will be contained to instruction and reflective, and be devoid of personal statements or agendas. Everyone needs to know what happened, and realize that you really cannot let your guard down. One slip up, and a tragedy can happen to anyone, anytime. The consequences to people and their families and friends are horrific, so I try to post as if this tragedy impacted me personally, and respect all those that might be reading.

secondcurve

03-09-2010, 06:53 PM

Mr. V

03-09-2010, 07:53 PM

"How Fair"? I think very fair. Don't forget she crashed her boat into an island and killed someone.

Point taken.

BUT, why proscribe conduct today which was perfectly acceptable yesterday?

That doesn't seem fair.

Whether she was drunk or not, Blizzard should be sued, and sued hard, for her negligence.

Maybe hard enough to collect all the available insurance, then start cleaning her out of her personal / family assets.

Reduce her from "rich girl" to "poor girl."

Just sic some sharp lawyers on her.

fatlazyless

03-09-2010, 08:05 PM

For driving a boat, it should be about a .18, since you gonna get seasick any way so what's the difference. Plus, all boaters like to drink. Boating and drinking just naturally go together....everyone knows that?

For cdl truck drivers, it 0.02, federal law enforced in all 50 states, and it stays on your driving record for something like 15 years.

So, here's the deal..... let it be .02 for truckers..... and .18 for boaters....add the two together....what's do you gut...you gutta .20 ... a nice round number .20....and everybody is happy....all is groovy!

hancoveguy

03-09-2010, 11:36 PM

Actually... The legal limit established by the Federal Motor Carrier Association for CDL truck drivers in all 50 states is .04 BAC. As a former professional tractor trailer driver, a current law enforcement officer and a current boat owner and enthusiast, the legal limit for boating should also be .04. The reasoning behind this is that, speaking from experience, a boat is every bit as technically difficult to operate as a tractor trailer is but in different ways and therefore requires the same elevated level of care.

Just my .02 cents (pun intended)...

fatlazyless

03-10-2010, 06:12 AM

Found this post over in the Union Leader's email opinions....sounds like it could be a better plan of legal advice.....how's it sound to you?

"So it appears her defense will be: 'I may have been legally drunk but I was not impaired and it was just a tragic coincidence that I ran into an island at high speed in the dead of night in the rain and my friend was killed.' Wouldn't it be refreshing if for once a defendant admitted the truth and asked for mercy from the court instead of trying to wiggle out of her responsibility? Her attorney's attempt to defend the indefensible in the trial will likely do more damage to her reputation than the accident and publicity have already done. It didn't have to be this way."

Skip M., Ossipee

Ryan

03-10-2010, 03:19 PM

Found this post over in the Union Leader's email opinions....sounds like it could be a better plan of legal advice.....how's it sound to you?

"So it appears her defense will be: 'I may have been legally drunk but I was not impaired /TRIM/

I also found this post....

45 during the day and 25 at night are fast speeds and fast enough. If those speed limits had been in effect that night then perhaps the defendant would have taken her boat with twin 425 horsepower motors to the ocean instead of the lake. In the ocean it would have been much harder to run into an island. So I say make the speed limits permanent and it will not only slo people down but maybe save a life or two!
- F. L. Less, Meredith, NH

ishoot308

03-10-2010, 03:27 PM

Point taken.

BUT, why proscribe conduct today which was perfectly acceptable yesterday?

That doesn't seem fair.

Whether she was drunk or not, Blizzard should be sued, and sued hard, for her negligence.

Maybe hard enough to collect all the available insurance, then start cleaning her out of her personal / family assets.

Reduce her from "rich girl" to "poor girl."

Just sic some sharp lawyers on her.

What if she's innocent...

codeman671

03-10-2010, 06:22 PM

fatlazyless

03-10-2010, 06:31 PM

Sorry to disappoint you Ryan, but the U.L. post from F L Less was not from me. Could be it's the same person with the same disingenuous modus operandi as from June, 2008, shortly after the night of the Diamond Island incident/accident.

NoBozo

03-10-2010, 07:22 PM

Is anyone Local ...sitting in on the trial..? NB

Pineedles

03-10-2010, 08:31 PM

This trial will take its own course. BWI levels now or old DWI percentages, reasonable or unreasonable speed, who was the Cappy or not, may or may not be brought before the jury.

As an example for all to see, it will be an eye opener hopefully!

Slowly but surely we are being shown that one's own behavior must be accounted for. The age of "It's not my fault" will hopefully be shown to be an unacceptable reason for unacceptable behavior. I am not convicting anyone with this statement, only saying that there was fault in this incident, and someone needs to take the responsibilty. Who do you think is responsible?

Mr. V

03-10-2010, 09:13 PM

What if she's innocent...

Hello, OJ.

My point is that a person could be adjudged NOT GUILTY of a crime, yet still be found substantially liable in tort.

Nothing hurts the rich like taking away their money: the best punishment.

Don't just settle for the insurance money: that is painless.

Sieze their assets, go for the jugular.

Let's just hope the claimants don't blow the statute of limitations.

No, I'm not angling for the job: I'm a divorce lawyer (although in my field have an affinity for the jugular).

ApS

03-11-2010, 09:05 AM

:look: (with apologies to Sen. John Edwards) :o

Quote from the Fox News article:

"...when her 37-foot speed boat crashed into a ledge"...

I'm surprised they could find an impartial jury in Laconia.

From the Concord Monitor:

"...when she crashed her 37-foot performance boat off Diamond Island..."

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100310/FRONTPAGE/3100348

NoBozo

03-11-2010, 10:56 AM

Just Sold

03-11-2010, 11:02 AM

The defense's expert witness from JurisPro Expert Witness Directory's web site. http://www.jurispro.com/CaptainRobertCronin He is supposed to be testifying today.

Northeast Watercraft Reconstruction Specialists investigates and reconstructs pleasure craft, personal watercraft and near coastal commercial collisions. These are the types of vessels the staff at NeWARS operate and are experts in and around. This allows NeWARS to provide the level of expertise expected in a watercraft reconstruction investigation.
The NeWARS professional's has over thirty-five years of law enforcement experience and equivalent sea time, backed by a skilled technical staff that can investigate, analyze and reconstruct a watercraft collision and present the findings in court.
Founder and lead investigator Robert J. Cronin is a USCG licensed Master with over twent-five years of full time law enforcement experience. Mr. Cronin has investigated over 700 collisions of various types ranging from industrial vehicle fatalities to his specialty of watercraft collision investigaton. Mr. Cronin is also a watercraft accident reconstruction training facilitor and instructor.
NeWARS is a Newburyport MA based company and is available to travel as required.
Come visit us at WWW.newars.com (http://WWW.newars.com) or Email Captain Robert Cronin at specialist@newars.com

Resume: http://www.jurispro.com/files/documents/doc-78523912-resume.pdf

Mink Islander

03-11-2010, 12:18 PM

I have seen the crash site and the Verticle Wall the boat hit. If she had been maybe 30 yards more to the right, she would have cruised right by without a scratch in over 30 feet of water.

Anybody here that has Not hit a rock or dinged a prop at one time or another....in broad daylight and stone sober..??? Just wondering.

It's kinda like.."He Who has Not Sinned ......."etc. NB

Comparing what happened here to dinging your prop? Really? So we should think about other drunk drivers the same way? After all, who hasn't had a fender bender when totally sober in broad daylight? So when a drunk mangles their car on a dark rainy night and kills a passenger, in your apologist view, that's no big deal and not a crime? Could happen to any of us so why blame them. Right? I wonder if you'd feel the same way if a drunk killed someone in your family. Just wondering.

Bear Islander

03-11-2010, 12:30 PM

I have seen the crash site and the Verticle Wall the boat hit. If she had been maybe 30 yards more to the right, she would have cruised right by without a scratch in over 30 feet of water.

Anybody here that has Not hit a rock or dinged a prop at one time or another....in broad daylight and stone sober..??? Just wondering.

It's kinda like.."He Who has Not Sinned ......."etc. NB

This is not at all like "He who has not sinned..". I suspect that the vast majority of fatal accidents could have benefited by someone being 30 yards to the right.

I have dinged quite a few props in 27 years on the lake but they were ALL at headway speed trying to get in or out of shallow water. What we are talking about here is hitting an ISLAND at a pretty good speed. Not clipping a submerged rock. Apples and Oranges.

Newbiesaukee

03-11-2010, 01:20 PM

Certainly I have not always been perfect piloting my boat...but tragic events such as we are discussing do serve to remind us the tremendous responsiblity we assume when we get behind the wheel...boat or car. Terrible things can happen to anybody, all we can do is to mitigate risk. Not drinking and driving, paying attention to weather conditions, etc are ways to minimize the chances that tragic events can occur. Our actions do have consequences.

alsadad

03-11-2010, 01:29 PM

So how fair is it to lower it (to .08 out here) and convict today for what was not a crime yesterday?

.12 really will not lead to significant impairment, in the real world, at least for a seasoned drinker, which I suspect she is.

She could beat this rap ...

Of course, we could go back to the day before yesterday, when it wasn’t unheard of for a drunk driver to face reduced criminal charges, or no charges at all, in the death or injury of another person, precisely because he was drunk. But I certainly don’t want to go back to that.

And as for a .12 BAC, if I’m driving on Moultonborough Neck Road, or some similar two-lane, twisting, turning road, late at night and I spy the headlights of another vehicle driving toward me, I know that I’d prefer that person was sober, regardless of whether he thinks that .12 will not lead to significant impairment. The same goes for waterways.

LIforrelaxin

03-11-2010, 04:12 PM

Folks, everyone is throwing out conjectures and statements here. What we all have to understand and realize is that everything is based on circumstances and the facts behind them. If Ms. Blizzard is convicted then the facts behind the circumstances that lead to the accident that night will show, she was negligent. Is she is not guilty then the facts behind the circumstances that lead to the accident that night will show that she was not negligent. Either way what we really need to do right now is wait and see what all the facts are. Through following the case in the media we should be able to do that. But lets not argue over weather someone is drunk or impaired at BAC .12 or not... The fact is that is where her BAC was and the law says she was drunk. End of that story. Now listen to the rest of the facts in the case.

People need to remember we can all talk and bicker about this case and in the end it really doesn't matter to us. However there is a family who has lost a daughter, one that had a daughter injured, and one that could loose a daughter to jail.....report and talk about facts please not conjecture.

ishoot308

03-11-2010, 04:14 PM

Hello Mr Sokolove;

I'm a divorce lawyer (although in my field have an affinity for the jugular).

That pretty much answers my question.

Thanks!

Dan

NoBozo

03-11-2010, 07:25 PM

Lets explore...and define this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident

The Alternative is Deliberate. :look: MY guess is the former. NB

PennyPenny

03-11-2010, 07:31 PM

Is anyone Local ...sitting in on the trial..? NB

I would think that a Belknap County jury are made up of locals. I would also hope that they are not reading this forum and forming a verdict based on it.

LIforrelaxin

03-11-2010, 07:38 PM

I would think that a Belknap County jury are made up of locals. I would also hope that they are not reading this forum and forming a verdict based on it.

I am sure that the jury has been given instructions not to talk about the case with anyone, in addition to that they are also told to stay away from all media of any type that could influence their opinion on the trial. That would include this forum.....

Pineedles

03-11-2010, 07:39 PM

I am sure that the judge's charge to the jury was clear.

NoBozo

03-11-2010, 07:40 PM

I would think that a Belknap County jury are made up of locals. I would also hope that they are not reading this forum and forming a verdict based on it.

My question was weather anyone....ie a Citizen, was sitting in the courtroom as an Observer NOT as a Juror. NB

tis

03-11-2010, 07:40 PM

And I am sure that those on the jury don't even know about this forum. If they knew anything about the case, they wouldn't be picked and if they read this forum, they couldn't miss reading SOMETHING about it.

NoBozo

03-11-2010, 08:01 PM

PennyPenny

03-11-2010, 08:03 PM

My question was weather anyone....ie a Citizen, was sitting in the courtroom as an Observer NOT as a Juror. NB

I think it would be very interesting to be an observer. Didn't mean to offend you. Either way it is still a sad ending.

NoBozo

03-11-2010, 08:08 PM

I think it would be very interesting to be an observer. Didn't mean to offend you. Either way it is still a sad ending.

No offence taken Penny. NB

Mink Islander

03-11-2010, 08:15 PM

getting people talking about what happened here is a really good thing, I think. Yeah, there's speculation. But if we are talking about such an important topic as boating at night and boating and drinking, then we're we raising awareness.

As an aside, this past Sunday night two recent graduates of Norwell High school, home for spring break, (both 18) were travelling down a road very near my house. Both were drunk. The driver lost control on a curve where the speed limit is 25 and hit a tree -- killing the passenger -- his best friend -- while he walked away with only scratches. In jail and charged with drunk driving and involuntary manslaughter. Chillingly familiar tale in only a slightly different context. Two lives ruined. Two families grieving.

There are lessons for life in this trial. Well worth talking about.

ApS

03-11-2010, 08:21 PM

"...Either way what we really need to do right now is wait and see what all the facts are..."
Facts can be sealed from all further inquiry. :confused: Evidence can be excluded for reasons unrelated to fact. :confused: :confused:

In other words, this legal system won't let us know the facts! :fire:

"...She could beat this rap..."
Agreed—she could, indeed.

As an attorney, you know that the defense expert's testimony will be carefully crafted to contradict Lt. Dunleavey's testimony. A defense expert (such as Captain Robert J. Cronin (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=121362&postcount=806)) can charge $10,000 for his useful crafting of words.

(And that's $10,000 per day!) :eek2:

LIforrelaxin

03-11-2010, 08:52 PM

So here are some Articles after googling "Erica Blizzard Trial"

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100311/NEWS03/100319995/1298/UPDATE

What I found most interesting in this article, is that Ms. Shinopolus, was also legally drunk but yet testified that she only had a beer and two mixed drinks over 4 hours leading up to the crash. Of course she also according to this article states that she remembers nothing of the crash.

Here are some other well written articles:

http://wbztv.com/wireapnewsma/Survivor.of.fatal.2.1553781.html

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100310/FRONTPAGE/3100348&template=page2

Take the time to read what is out there from a simple google search... it is all interesting to digest. But the other thing I have noted about all this information is you definitely need to digest it. And understand what is involved here. I wish I could have take the time to go to this trial, to hear all the testimony but I am making do with what I can get from the media. And so far I have convinced my self of several things based on the facts... Not on conjecture or speculation.... The facts are there, in between the line of BS the reporters fill the page with you just have to look....

But as I said in an early post I am not going to put anything out there until this is all over and I have digested as much as I can.

The only thing I will say at this moment is I am disappointed with the judge. It appears that while everyone else involved in the trial went and viewed the wreckage Ms. Blizzard was allowed to stay behind. I believe that the jury needed to see Ms. Blizzards reactions to the wreckage, which she apparently has never had to face.

LIforrelaxin

03-11-2010, 08:59 PM

getting people talking about what happened here is a really good thing, I think. Yeah, there's speculation. But if we are talking about such an important topic as boating at night and boating and drinking, then we're we raising awareness.

There are lessons for life in this trial. Well worth talking about.

MI,

I don't disagree with you. Talking about this information is good. However people are passing judgment before having all the facts before them. If there is only things I have realized about forums it is that they tend to become heated debates sometime based upon feelings. Instead of solid debates based on facts. When you are dealing with things involving the deceased and someones future you must make sure that you deal with facts. Because those people have family and friends, some of whom have already spoken up here. We need to respect them and the fact that they may see these posts.

May main point still is, don't put comments out there just to put comments out there. Back your statements by facts, make sure your not speculating because of something you have heard through the grape vine.

Ok I seriously need to get off my soap box!!!!!!!

secondcurve

03-11-2010, 09:38 PM

MI,

I don't disagree with you. Talking about this information is good. However people are passing judgment before having all the facts before them. If there is only things I have realized about forums it is that they tend to become heated debates sometime based upon feelings. Instead of solid debates based on facts. When you are dealing with things involving the deceased and someones future you must make sure that you deal with facts. Because those people have family and friends, some of whom have already spoken up here. We need to respect them and the fact that they may see these posts.

May main point still is, don't put comments out there just to put comments out there. Back your statements by facts, make sure your not speculating because of something you have heard through the grape vine.

Ok I seriously need to get off my soap box!!!!!!!

The facts are simple:

1)EB's friend boarded the boat and she is now dead;

2)EB was legally drunk when the accident occurred;

3)The boat EB was piloting was traveling too fast for the conditions/her ability to control the craft;

It is a sad situation and I don't think that a jail sentence is the answer. However, I am offended that she has pleaded innocent. I think a better alternative would have been to admit quilt and ask for forgiveness from the court/families involved and I think that forgiveness would have been granted. Instead we are wasting tax payer funds on this trial. EB could have taken the high road and become a crusader in the schools and boater safety courses to try and educate people about the perils of drinking and operating a boat. Instead, she has hired a slick attorney who is attempting to free her on a technicality.

LIforrelaxin

03-11-2010, 10:28 PM

It is a sad situation and I don't think that a jail sentence is the answer. However, I am offended that she has pleaded innocent. I think a better alternative would have been to admit quilt and ask for forgiveness from the court/families involved and I think that forgiveness would have been granted. Instead we are wasting tax payer funds on this trial. EB could have taken the high road and become a crusader in the schools and boater safety courses to try and educate people about the perils of drinking and operating a boat. Instead, she has hired a slick attorney who is attempting to free her on a technicality.

SC,

This is indeed the biggest thing I think people are missing here, and that is a fight for presumed innocence. Which is really what this trial is all about. It is only do to family financial resources that this trial came about. If this had been any regular Joe, I indeed believe the outcome would have been a guilty plead, with some minimal restitution.

However the facts are having their day in the court, and the story is getting told, I only hope people pay attention to the facts and take the time to digest the story and get the entire picture. The entire picture is understanding the circumstances of what happened and how it happened. Within this understanding is also the truth about what really brought this tragedy to about.

This incident can be used promote all kinds of things depending on how you depict the situation. But the truth is that the facts will show the situation for what it is, and what it is and isn't related too......

Mr. V

03-12-2010, 12:31 AM

Hello Mr Sokolove;

That pretty much answers my question.

Thanks!

Dan

What question?

"What if she's innocent?"

Nobody is "innocent," baby.

Nobody.

SteveA

03-12-2010, 06:34 AM

I wonder if this will turn out to be a basis for an appeal from either side.

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100312/GJNEWS02/703129892/-1/CITNEWS

Looks like the paper messed up.

chipj29

03-12-2010, 07:55 AM

SC,

This is indeed the biggest thing I think people are missing here, and that is a fight for presumed innocence. Which is really what this trial is all about. It is only do to family financial resources that this trial came about. If this had been any regular Joe, I indeed believe the outcome would have been a guilty plead, with some minimal restitution.
However the facts are having their day in the court, and the story is getting told, I only hope people pay attention to the facts and take the time to digest the story and get the entire picture. The entire picture is understanding the circumstances of what happened and how it happened. Within this understanding is also the truth about what really brought this tragedy to about.

This incident can be used promote all kinds of things depending on how you depict the situation. But the truth is that the facts will show the situation for what it is, and what it is and isn't related too......

I completely disagree with your statement that I bolded above. I don't have the statistics to back up my assertion, but I don't think that it is true that a "regular Joe" would plead guilty just because he was not rich. I can't speak from experience, as I have never been arrested. But if I was arrested for something, and believed that I was innocent (Ms. Blizzard states that she had 3 or 4 drinks in the 4 hours prior to the crash), I would fight it with every ounce of my being. No matter how much $$.

Happy Gourmand

03-12-2010, 08:28 AM

But the fact of the matter is..... the only place the facts are coming out in in the courtroom. I'm old enough and like to think I'm wise enough to take "facts" reported by the media with a grain of salt. Conjecture, speculation and heresay will have no bearing on the outcome of this case. I don't know the facts in this case, and, most likely, neither do most of you. I am confident that justice will be served. Some of us will agree with the outcome, some of us won't.
Either way, my thoughts and prayers are with all of the families affected by this tragic situation. Their lives will never be the same.

LIforrelaxin

03-12-2010, 09:01 AM

I wonder if this will turn out to be a basis for an appeal from either side.

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100312/GJNEWS02/703129892/-1/CITNEWS

Looks like the paper messed up.

Never having really paid attention to cases that end up in appeals I would have no idea.... Although definitely not fair to the jury who deserves the right to not have their photographs published... I can't really see the harm to the out come of the trial. The identity of those on a Jury for a trial become public knowledge in the end as part of the court documents anyways doesn't it?

Although I guess having said that the one thing this could give grounds for is that with the identities know through the photograph, the are more open to encounters outside the court room making jury tampering a bigger concern....

Hummm interesting stuff....

jmen24

03-12-2010, 09:12 AM

Never having really paid attention to cases that end up in appeals I would have no idea.... Although definitely not fair to the jury who deserves the right to not have their photographs published... I can't really see the harm to the out come of the trial. The identity of those on a Jury for a trial become public knowledge in the end as part of the court documents anyways doesn't it?

Although I guess having said that the one thing this could give grounds for is that with the identities know through the photograph, the are more open to encounters outside the court room making jury tampering a bigger concern....

Hummm interesting stuff....

Yes, the trial I sat on as a jurer was based upon an issue in the Laconia area and my name could be found in the article regarding its outcome (I did not give an interview, so I did not understand the reason, but anyway). I do not see an issue or a case of appeal for the jurers faces being published. Now if some intimidation is used because of this (and this would be the only reason that it should not have happened during the trial), than that would be a different story, but I would think that to be very unlikely situation given the parties involved.

fatlazyless

03-12-2010, 12:25 PM

Back on June 15, 2008, when this Diamond Island tragedy occurred, there were newspaper reports that the Father's Day prank was all about setting up, in the Governor's Island yard, some life-size, stand-alone, silhouette cardboard photos of President George W Bush with Dad's photo attached over the president's face. It was just a fun type of a family prank.

So, let's blame the whole mess on Bush.....he caused it!:rolleye1:
......

Today's March 12 www.cmonitor.com has a 12:47-pm update on today's Friday trial hearing.

Dave R

03-12-2010, 02:28 PM

I don't know the facts in this case, and, most likely, neither do most of you. I am confident that justice will be served.

I know enough facts to know that a person died due to the negligence of the person at the helm of that boat on that night. The only fact that has yet to be proven is who was actually at the helm. It does not matter if the person was drunk or sober, or if they were going 10 MPH or 50 MPH, you can't crash a boat into an island at night with enough force to kill someone, and not be criminally negligent.

IMO, all the prosecution needs to prove is who was at the helm. The rest of the unkown (to me) facts are simply supporting evidence that might alter the punishment, assuming the guilty party is not also the victim.

Phantom

03-12-2010, 02:29 PM

all about setting up, in the Governor's Island yard, some life-size, stand-alone, silhouette .

Part of the problem then ..... Cause Dad doesn't live on Govenor's Island
.
.
.

SIKSUKR

03-12-2010, 02:59 PM

I know enough facts to know that a person died due to the negligence of the person at the helm of that boat on that night. It does not matter if the person was drunk or sober, or if they were going 10 MPH or 50 MPH, you can't crash a boat into an island at night with enough force to kill someone, and not be criminally negligent.

IMO, all the prosecution needs to prove is who was at the helm. The rest of the unkown (to me) facts are simply supporting evidence that might alter the punishment, assuming the guilty party is not also the victim.

I've been staying quiet here reading these posts because I was an aquaintance of Erica and friend of Steph.
I've always thought your posts were fair and thoughtfull.
But wow Dave you know enough of the facts to state that even if she was sober and going 10 mph that she should be criminally neglegent. I guess so because you said you know enough of the facts already not even sitting on the jury! Sure wouldn't want you on my jury. So you know that there was nothing mechanical wrong with the boat and if there was she should still be criminally neglegent?
So then if your driving down the road with a passenger in the car and something occurs out of your control and you crash and kill your best friend then you should be held criminally neglegent reguardless? I'm not saying that is the case here but the trial is still in session.
I'm not here to stick up for Erica and don't like what I'm hearing from the trial up to now but this kind of "lynch em right now" attitude is downright scary.

LIforrelaxin

03-12-2010, 03:34 PM

I've been staying quiet here reading these posts because I was an aquaintance of Erica and friend of Steph.
I've always thought your posts were fair and thoughtfull.
But wow Dave you know enough of the facts to state that even if she was sober and going 10 mph that she should be criminally neglegent. I guess so because you said you know enough of the facts already not even sitting on the jury! Sure wouldn't want you on my jury. So you know that there was nothing mechanical wrong with the boat and if there was she should still be criminally neglegent?
So then if your driving down the road with a passenger in the car and something occurs out of your control and you crash and kill your best friend then you should be held criminally neglegent reguardless? I'm not saying that is the case here but the trial is still in session.
I'm not here to stick up for Erica and don't like what I'm hearing from the trial up to now but this kind of "lynch em right now" attitude is downright scary.

SIKSUKR,

I have been waiting for someone to post something like this. Not the part about be friends and / or acquaintances of the people involved. But rather about that fact that how can we pass judgment until the entire story is told.
What if the defense suddenly finds evidence that something mechanical was wrong, what if evidence is produced that Erica was indeed not the driver, what if, what ifs are plentiful. The issue here is that the entire story needs to be told.

There has been published testimony that has made no sense in this case. They tried to use the throttle positioning after the accident as evidence of something....well the picture shows sure enough one drive is in gear forward one drive is in gear reversed.... both throttles full ahead.... This tells me that someone hit the throttles during or after the collision..... because the boat wouldn't have gone nose first into the wall with the throttles like that....

People need to listen to the facts, listen to what their reasonable minds tell them. I think there will be enough information in the end to come to a reasonable conclusion based on facts, and not conjecture, I really do....

codeman671

03-12-2010, 04:29 PM

what if evidence is produced that Erica was indeed not the driver, what if, what ifs are plentiful. The issue here is that the entire story needs to be told.

I think it certainly would have come out from the two survivors that Erica was not driving the boat if this was the case. Let's face it, if Erica was not driving the boat she would not be the one on trial. If it was Nicole do you think Erica would be covering that up and risking jail time to do so plus huge litigation costs? If it was Stephanie I think it would have come out as well.

Even if there was a mechanical issue, there are enough ways to stop a boat. Throttles, shifters, keys, deadman, etc. Hell, even jump off. Not all of these would be disfunctional at once, if so the boat clearly should not have been on the water and I DOUBT that was the case. It was the captains responsibility to make sure the heading they were traveling was safe and free of obstructions. There were enough electronics, boating experience and knowledge of the lake to avoid the island. Lets face it, even if there was no chip in the chartplotter it still comes down to the pilot, whomever she was.

I feel that Dave was right. An accident happened, someone died, and it was ultimately because of the actions of the driver, alcohol or not. That can be considered negligent homocide, the negligence was hitting an island and killing someone because of the collision. Failure to maintain a proper lookout. I have no opinion on jail time, fines, really don't care as far as that is concerned.

As far as Siksukr, we are not talking about 10mph and sober. It is clear to everyone the boat was going faster than 10. I certainly do not think they were doing 50, the damage does not support it.

secondcurve

03-12-2010, 06:08 PM

If Erica blizzard wasn't driving the boat her attorney wouldn't have tried to throw out the BAC evidence against her. If there was something mechanically wrong with the boat I think a strong argument can be made that her alcohol impairment contributed to her inability to compensate for the boat's mechanical difficultly. However, it is pretty obvious that this isn't about a mechanical problem.

Yankee

03-12-2010, 07:38 PM

I think it certainly would have come out from the two survivors that Erica was not driving the boat if this was the case. Let's face it, if Erica was not driving the boat she would not be the one on trial. If it was Nicole do you think Erica would be covering that up and risking jail time to do so plus huge litigation costs? If it was Stephanie I think it would have come out as well.

Even if there was a mechanical issue, there are enough ways to stop a boat. Throttles, shifters, keys, deadman, etc. Hell, even jump off. Not all of these would be disfunctional at once, if so the boat clearly should not have been on the water and I DOUBT that was the case. It was the captains responsibility to make sure the heading they were traveling was safe and free of obstructions. There were enough electronics, boating experience and knowledge of the lake to avoid the island. Lets face it, even if there was no chip in the chartplotter it still comes down to the pilot, whomever she was.

I feel that Dave was right. An accident happened, someone died, and it was ultimately because of the actions of the driver, alcohol or not. That can be considered negligent homocide, the negligence was hitting an island and killing someone because of the collision. Failure to maintain a proper lookout. I have no opinion on jail time, fines, really don't care as far as that is concerned.

As far as Siksukr, we are not talking about 10mph and sober. It is clear to everyone the boat was going faster than 10. I certainly do not think they were doing 50, the damage does not support it.

I have stayed out of this rather distasteful discussion until now. However, this post is cogent in the regard of this matter. As a customer of Lakeport Marina, I feel terrible for Ms. Blizzard, and the consequencesa that she faces. Please let the legal process come to it's conclusion b4 commenting.

NoBozo

03-12-2010, 07:54 PM

It's about missing (or hitting) the island by a couple of degrees on a compass course from the starting point. What amazes me is all the Experts here... who have Never navigated a boat under those conditions...yet they are Armchair Experts. :look: Yea Yea..get me now. :) NB

VtSteve

03-12-2010, 08:01 PM

I know many people aren't seasoned night boaters, some are, most aren't. I was in a situation last year when just before heading home, a fairly dense fog descended over the lake. Not rainy or cold, just very dense fog. My GPS was not getting a proper signal, which is another story for another time :(

Anyway. There is a large reef about a mile out that ultra safe boaters (me) always go wide around and not cut inside to shore. I've traveled it quite frequently, but when I could see the lighted buoy. I could make out one faint light, but not the other. I slowed to headway speed and fixed on the light I could see. The GPS came back on finally, so I could see my tracks. Good thing. I was only about 100 yards from the Inside of the buoy I was to be Outside of :eek: I putted around to it, and the next outside marker and headed around the proper wide route.

If I had been on plane using my instincts, I'd probably have ground on the reef. My mind told me I did not know where I was exactly at that point, so I slowed to a crawl. Sometimes, it doesn't take drinking to cloud judgment (I had not and was not drinking). Sometimes all it takes is a carefree attitude and over confidence. Perhaps distractions of others. It happens. I'm pretty anal about how I boat, I always have a lookout, and Never assume I know exactly where I am. I look for landmarks, lights, points of reference. It's scary in the fog, and nobody should be out bounding about on the water in it.

Let's leave the legislative crap to those that have nothing else better to do than make silly arguments. This is boating 101 we're witnessing here, unfortunately, in a courtroom setting. It's also so sad for the parties involved. People not involved should take heed and learn from this, not throw grenades and kick in the darkness.

Seaplane Pilot

03-12-2010, 08:18 PM

Even if there was a mechanical issue, there are enough ways to stop a boat. Throttles, shifters, keys, deadman, etc. Hell, even jump off.

I'm not taking sides, nor am I picking on you, Codeman. However, this is very similar to the Toyota issues we're seeing all over the news now. Why did that guy in San Diego call 911 this week when his car was traveling 90+mph and he claimed could not stop it? First thing I thought of was why he didn't put it in neutral or shut it off? Bleep happens and everyone reacts differently under crisis circumstances.

I don't know anyone involved personally, but I see a lynch-mob attitude forming already. If she's found not guilty by a jury of her peers, the consensus will be that she bought her verdict, regardless of the facts in the case. If she's found guilty, then there will be some serious gloating by a certain lobbying group and their ilk. It's a bad situation, regardless of the outcome.

codeman671

03-12-2010, 08:50 PM

I'm not taking sides, nor am I picking on you, Codeman. However, this is very similar to the Toyota issues we're seeing all over the news now. Why did that guy in San Diego call 911 this week when his car was traveling 90+mph and he claimed could not stop it? First thing I thought of was why he didn't put it in neutral or shut it off? Bleep happens and everyone reacts differently under crisis circumstances.

I don't know anyone involved personally, but I see a lynch-mob attitude forming already. If she's found not guilty by a jury of her peers, the consensus will be that she bought her verdict, regardless of the facts in the case. If she's found guilty, then there will be some serious gloating by a certain lobbying group and their ilk. It's a bad situation, regardless of the outcome.

The Toyota problem is a widespread epidemic due to poorly manufactured products or inferior components. This is ONE case. Has anyone heard of other Formula's running out of control frequently??? If someone can't figure out how to stop their car in an emergency they need to go back to driving school. Neutral, a key switch, or slam it into reverse. People do react differently under extreme situations, I agree. Heading straight into an island, not even at an angle, tells a different story. IMO a story of failure to pay attention, failure to maintain a proper lookout. We are not talking about a few degrees on a compass, a few degree difference to avoid would have started a change of course way before the island.

NB, I have operated under severe weather conditions. I was on the lake that night, coming back from Wolfeboro coincidently but not at 2am. It was a nasty night. Were you? Have you?

I am not part of a lynch mob, I have no beef in this. I did not know any of them and I do not have any contempt towards anyone involved. I am against the SL as well and this clearly does not help our case. I am irritated though by some of the lame, irrational excuses people are making about this. The facts seem quite clear for those that wish to open their eyes and ears. BAC was proven, heading/direction of travel was clear based on where the boat was positioned, speed is estimated within a range that makes sense for the damage (and not excessive for night driving although probably too much based on visibility), and the outcome was tragic. Someone was driving the boat, they failed to avoid hitting an innanimate object (in this case an island) and someone died. This person died because of the actions of another. That is negligence.

I agree with innocent until proven guilty, but the base facts of it all are so clear that the driver was clearly guilty to some extent beyond any reasonable doubt. Whether or not she is found guilty of any/all charges as they sit is not my decision, but the outcome was caused by the driver. She is and will pay the price emotionally for the rest of her life. It does not help matters for the family that lost one of their own, and I applaud them for not wanting Erica to go to jail. I feel bad for all involved, no matter what side they are on.

NoBozo

03-12-2010, 09:53 PM

NB, I have operated under severe weather conditions. I was on the lake that night, coming back from Wolfeboro coincidently but not at 2am. It was a nasty night. Were you? Have you?

Hi Codeman. I was not out on the lake on the night in question. I think your post was mostly well intentioned.

In my case perhaps some of my background would clarify my position. I have sailed offshore and inshore for over 40 years. I have made two passages to Bermuda and return from Newport Rhode island in a 27 foot boat and then a 32 foot boat SOLO in both directions back in 1979 and 1981...Loran was in it's infantsy and GPS was unheard of. I used Celestial Navigation...Sextant and Tables, Dead Reconning, and Loran when it worked..... 24/7. In the larger boat it took 5 days..25 minutes on the outbound.

On the return trip in 1981 I ran in to a storm which lasted about 14 hours....almost all at night while the boat was doing over 7 knots in high seas, rain and spray under heavily reefed sails. The anemometer rarely went below 45 knots for over 5 hours. In the meantime there were boats from the Marion-Bermuda race heading OUTbound toward Bermuda within miles of my northward track. The distance between Newport and Bermuda is 635 miles.

The boat had a wind driven self steering gear. I was sitting at the Nav Station down below broadcasting "Securite..Securite" every few minutes on CH 16 VHF all night to alert other boats of my position. Every few minutes I would leave the cabin and go out on deck to have a look around for boats (and Cruise Ships) running lights.

All turned out well without incident. I didn't have any islands to miss.

So I guess what I'm saying is..I have some experience which allows me to opine on "bad weather navigation". No offence intended here....just my own experience.

Getting by Diamond Island in bad weather is like treading a needle. NB

VtSteve

03-12-2010, 10:16 PM

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100312/NEWS03/100319994/1298/UPDATE

FLL, this one's for you.

Hogwash, but good for questions in the jury's mind.

Mr. V

03-12-2010, 10:35 PM

The old "blood loss" argument.

Cute.

We'll see if the jury buys it.

Bet they don't ...

EllyPoinster

03-13-2010, 07:34 AM

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100312/NEWS03/100319994/1298/UPDATE

FLL, this one's for you.

Hogwash, but good for questions in the jury's mind.

The Union Leader has a similar story (http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Blood+alcohol+level+takes+ce nter+stage&articleId=3d244b24-0483-4ff2-a06a-7a1b30f4ffac)

Looks like we have a battle of the toxicologists and reasonable doubt.

Mr. V

03-13-2010, 09:47 AM

The argument of the defense would be laughable, were the matters at hand not so serious.

Now, I know that juries are not supposed to read newspaper articles or talk to people about issues presented at the trial; in theory, it prevents them from considering anything other than what they hear in the courtroom.

But if one of them were to stray from this admonition and spend twenty seconds doing a google search, do you know what they'd find"

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_blood_loss_affect_the_blood_alcohol_conte nt

Bam!

Newbiesaukee

03-13-2010, 12:25 PM

I also tried to investigate this on the internet. The Wiki answer is simplistic and assumes that there is a fixed and unchanged BAC. If this were true, then losing blood would NOT affect BAC. But this is not the real world situation. There are legitimate questions regarding how blood loss and shock could affect BAC. BAC is obviously related to the speed with which alcohol is absorbed into the blood (where it is measured) from the stomach/GI tract. If, for example, a person ingests alcohol and then almost immediately gets into an accident resulting in cardiovascular shock, then the alcohol absorption would be delayed. A blood sample taken very soon after an accident might have a low BAC because the alcohol has not yet been absorbed into the blood and cannot be measured.. As the person recovers, the alcohol is later absorbed so that 3 hours later the BAC is actually HIGHER than at the time of the accident. This kind of argument and data are on the internet. The argument that the defense has used in some of these DUI cases is that even though the later BAC is high, at the time of the accident, the alcohol has not yet entered the bloodstream. Therefore, it had not reached the brain and there was no impairment at the time of the accident even though the BAC well after the accident might be high.

I am not an attorney, I have no personal interest in this case and I agree that we should wait for all the information to be presented and wait for the jury make its statement. The circumstances in the case may well be different.

Even though the defense toxicologist may be a hired gun, a few minutes on the internet can determine she does have real credentials. Whether what she says is true in this particular case is certainly arguable and the prosecution must argue it.

My whole point is that things which seem simple and obvious are not always so. And Wikipedia does have its limitations.

Mr. V

03-13-2010, 03:06 PM

My whole point is that things which seem simple and obvious are not always so. And Wikipedia does have its limitations.

Agreed, wiki is far from authoritative.

I have to wonder about the empty beer cans found floating at the death scene, as will the jury.

Even if it can somehow be shown they were there from before, the jury will have to wonder what kind of person in this day and age is stupid enough to drink in a boat?

CGI3

03-13-2010, 09:37 PM

How come they didn't subpoena the guest check from the restaurant they dined at? Seems like a no brainer to me. From my understanding restaurants have to keep all records for 3 years? Samiam, true?

secondcurve

03-13-2010, 10:17 PM

How come they didn't subpoena the guest check from the restaurant they dined at? Seems like a no brainer to me. From my understanding restaurants have to keep all records for 3 years? Samiam, true?

Do you think the guest check will tell how much Vodka was poured into each drink? I am pretty sure it varies from bartender to bartender and bar to bar, etc.

partsman

03-14-2010, 07:07 AM

It is possible that the beer cans were in a trash receptacle inside the cabin, (for who knows how long). Judging by the looks of the bow, whatever was in that cabin certainly spilled its contents.

ApS

03-14-2010, 07:19 AM

Agreed, wiki is far from authoritative.

I have to wonder about the empty beer cans found floating at the death scene, as will the jury.

Even if it can somehow be shown they were there from before, the jury will have to wonder what kind of person in this day and age is stupid enough to drink in a boat?
Lt. Dunleavey once said (as a less-PC Sergeant) that 80% of Winnipesaukee boaters have alcohol on board. (Not me, though, I'm still trying to remember if full beer cans will float). :emb:

I think the flaw in Newbiesaukee's findings is that alcohol is absorbed very quickly in the stomach and all the mucous membranes that alcohol passes by. If Newbiesaukee is correct, (as in the defense's putative "blood-loss" theory), the empty beer cans would support a higher BAC when the BAC is taken later.

And speaking of the bow, The Concord Monitor is showing a photo of the heretofore missing bow section. It shows the "shoebox" manner of Formula fiberglass manufacturing prowess. :rolleye2:

Seen along the dark blue parts of the bow are the series of about five fractures that correspond with the concentric rows of fiberglass hull fragments embedded in that granite ledge. (Rows of fragments that can even be seen today).

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=CM&Date=20100309&Category=FRONTPAGE&ArtNo=3090304&Ref=AR&Profile=1012&border=0&MaxH=400&MaxW=336

It's just as well this boat isn't made in aluminum or steel—casualties would have been even worse, and a trial made unnecessary. :(

Plus, it wouldn't have been just the anchor that struck the cottage that morning, but the whole boat! :eek:

Tired of Waiting

03-14-2010, 08:14 AM

What question?

"What if she's innocent?"

Nobody is "innocent," baby.

Nobody.

And you practice law?

You must be right. I just re-read the U. S. Constitution and supporting documents. They do say " presumption of guilty!!!" How did I miss that before?

ToW

wifi

03-14-2010, 09:26 AM

It is possible that the beer cans were in a trash receptacle inside the cabin, (for who knows how long). Judging by the looks of the bow, whatever was in that cabin certainly spilled its contents.

How many times do you see a beer can floating by or cans tossed at the side of the road, then done your civic duty and picked them up. I know I do, several times per year. Hardly conclusive of anything other than the cans are there.

Mr. V

03-14-2010, 01:20 PM

My point: nobody is innocent, but not all are guilty.

It's a matter of semantics.

As for the floating beer cans not being conclusive proof: they don't have to be.

She can be convicted on nothing but circumstantial evidence: it happens all the time.

A jury out here just sentenced a guy to death based solely on circumstantial evidence: no DNA, no hair and fiber, no witnesses, no murder weapon: no direct evidence whatsoever.

Doesn't matter: not needed: he had a strong motive (jealousy and revenge) and his cell phone records placed him near the murder scene at the time: that is circumstantial evidence, and it convicted him.

So yeah, the floating beer cans are admissible as circumstantial evidence; it is up to the jury to determine what weight to give them.

FWIW, I think the testimony of the doctor who arrived immediately at the scene and found her slumped over the wheel (coupled to the facts that it is her boat, and her friend claims she wasn't too drunk to operate it) shows she was the driver, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Unless the jury goes OJ, I foresee the gray bar hotel in her immediate future.

EllyPoinster

03-14-2010, 05:28 PM

I have to wonder about the empty beer cans found floating at the death scene, as will the jury.

Even if it can somehow be shown they were there from before, the jury will have to wonder what kind of person in this day and age is stupid enough to drink in a boat?

It's perfectly legal to drink in a boat - even if you are driving it. You just can't be legally drunk. But, if I was on the jury, I would seriously doubt that anyone was drinking on a dark, rainy, foggy night.

Newbiesaukee

03-14-2010, 06:39 PM

One could imagine it might even be negligent to do so on such a night. Is that not part of what this trial is about?

VtSteve

03-14-2010, 09:29 PM

I missed this one, which perhaps, is the definitive story of this trial, arguments aside.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100310/FRONTPAGE/3100348

It confirms several things, even conservatively. The only thing left for the jury is the BUI question. Which is, as many said last year, why their is more than one count charged.

Fact is, there are many existing laws that are very useful in a case like this, and they are using the laws in place at that time to do their duty.

chipj29

03-15-2010, 07:29 AM

LIforrelaxin

03-15-2010, 08:29 AM

It is possible that the beer cans were in a trash receptacle inside the cabin, (for who knows how long). Judging by the looks of the bow, whatever was in that cabin certainly spilled its contents.

This is why the beer cans are really inconclusive evidence. They where added to the testimony try and sway the jury to a side, but ultimately they are really no proof of anything, unless they can be shown to have been unopened, or partially consumed. Unfortunately I have not heard an argument either way..All I have heard is that they where present. Hence this was useless information, as I have found most of the testimony in this trial.

In the end if I was on the jury I would be basing my decision based on what I could provide evidence off...

The question for me as to Ms. Blizzards guilt or innocent, has never been based on alcohol, but rather on the conditions of the night, what I would consider safe and prudent operation of the vessel that night, and weather or not I feel the she as the operator was really keeping a dutiful look out or more interested in being with her friends.

As far as punishment in this case, I think the worst punishment may have already been handed out, the question is will any further punishment really accomplish anything..... or is it only being sought for agenda reasoning.

Mink Islander

03-15-2010, 08:51 AM

Sunbeam lodge

03-15-2010, 09:08 AM

LIforrelaxin

03-15-2010, 09:19 AM

I have to admit, I have one here: Drunks driving boats too fast in bad conditions resulting in death and serious injury should be punished. That's why we have laws about both drinking and boating and proper operation of a boat. To me it doesn't really matter whether Erica killed her best friend or some total stranger, she and everyone else who boats need to understand there are consequences to exercising extremely bad judgement when operating a boat (or car for that matter) that results in something as extreme as the death of a passenger. It should serve as warning and in theory a deterrent. That's the idea, anyway.

I'd have much more sympathy for her personally if she had pleaded guilty but perhaps the state wouldn't cut her much of a deal given the strength of their case against her so she's just hoping she gets a better outcome through trial. Can't blame her for that. It is how our system is intended to work.

We should probably know the jury's conclusions this week. I'm not expecting any "OJ Surprise" here.

Agenda's are behind everything MI... Hell even I have an agenda here, with what I am saying and doing... and your right alcohol on a boat needs to be dealt with severly just like it does in a car.

As for sympathy for Ms. Blizzard, well yes more sympathy in my mind as she just accepted guilt. Which of course would have also been accompanied I feel by pleading to a lesser charge and she probably wouldn't be faced with jail time the way she is now. But that was here decision. And she will have to face the consequences... The worst of course I don't think is jail time, should she be found guilty... I believe the far worse punishment for someone like her, is that this trial has taken place in the media. I have relatives and friends from all over New England, and the country asking me about it. I believe that this will negatively effect her family, and their business. How bad is anyone's guess....

If there is an OJ surprise here, I will most likely have lost all faith in the legal system in this country.

As far as the trial is concerned I hope it is handed to the jury the front part of the week, and we do indeed have something before the week is out.

The Winnipsaukee lake community has been haunted by this and a few other horrible issues. Which have had far reaching effects, it is time get by these legal cases which have gained so much attention, out of the way so that the lake can be a place of peacefulness, and relaxation, with out attention to over shadowing events.

ApS

03-15-2010, 09:29 AM

Subtitled: "Letting a few FACTS get in the way". :rolleye2:

"...The only thing left for the jury is the BUI question...Fact is, there are many existing laws that are very useful in a case like this, and they are using the laws in place at that time to do their duty..."
1) Meaning, the law that was to have been amended to consider The Broads (where this crash took place) as a...um...an unlimited "free-zone"?

2) We haven't heard from the Defense's boat-crash reconstructionist.

In the Legal-Defense industry, lawyers will refer to him as a "hired gun" (And that's the polite term—which doesn't include the words "paid" and "liar". :rolleye1: )

3) As to the BUI question, Erica's passenger didn't help out any on the Defense theory of an artificially-elevated BAC:

"...As long as I've known her I've never seen her drink a beer," Shinopulos testified..."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NH_BOAT_FATAL_TRIAL_NHOL-?SITE=NHCON&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

4) As to the "errant" beer cans—could it get any worse than this?

"...And Moir said he has a witness who believes the empty beer cans floating near Blizzard’s crashed boat may not have been Blizzard’s, but rather trash from another boat. However, a state witness said yesterday afternoon, investigators found cans of the same kind of beer in the boat’s cabin...In addition, Marine Patrol officers found Bud Light cans, as well as two bottles of vodka, one unopened, in the cabin of the boat..."

http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:OknXEZTrMtIJ:ko-kr.facebook.com/note.php%3Fnote_id%3D360079763519+%22beer%22,+bliz zard,+investigators&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

codeman671

03-15-2010, 10:13 AM

Do Like they do in CSI, get fingerprints off the can, if someones future depends on it.

The State Crime Lab is extremely backed up on fingerprinting, although enough time has lapsed between the incident and now that it could have been done. Honestly it may have been done in the background and never brought forth if the evidence was inconclusive. Beer cans sitting in water would not be the best base to fingerprint from.

chipj29

03-15-2010, 10:45 AM

The State Crime Lab is extremely backed up on fingerprinting, although enough time has lapsed between the incident and now that it could have been done. Honestly it may have been done in the background and never brought forth if the evidence was inconclusive. Beer cans sitting in water would not be the best base to fingerprint from.

Even if they could pull a fingerprint from a beer can, what would that prove? Did she touch the can when it was bought (however long ago that may have been)? Did she touch the can when it was put on the boat (However long ago that may have been)? Were there fingerprints on an empty beer can-if so, when was it consumed? Last night, last week, last month?
In other words, presence of a beer can means absolutely nothing to this case. Presence of fingerprints on a beer can means nothing to this case.

Too many questions around beer cans, and I would suspect that if brought up, there is insufficient evidence to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

Tired of Waiting

03-15-2010, 11:08 AM

My point: nobody is innocent, but not all are guilty.

It's a matter of semantics.

OK, I guess I'll have to accept your strange explanation. You law guys/gals must live in a weird world to have it both ways.:rolleye1:

ToW

codeman671

03-15-2010, 11:32 AM

Even if they could pull a fingerprint from a beer can, what would that prove? Did she touch the can when it was bought (however long ago that may have been)? Did she touch the can when it was put on the boat (However long ago that may have been)? Were there fingerprints on an empty beer can-if so, when was it consumed? Last night, last week, last month?
In other words, presence of a beer can means absolutely nothing to this case. Presence of fingerprints on a beer can means nothing to this case.

Too many questions around beer cans, and I would suspect that if brought up, there is insufficient evidence to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

Definitely agreed. Proving the BAC one way or the other is the important thing, unless they could snag her in a lie. Say a store receipt showing the purchase that day and empties found on site after testifying that no beer was consumed. It is all in how the jury perceives it. With a jury trial the facts dont always have to be there to sway a decision. It is the jurors individual perceptions.

fatlazyless

03-15-2010, 11:42 AM

Today's March 15 www.cmonitor.com has a brief mid-day report and the defense put a boat accident reconstruction expert witness on the stand this morning, from Newburyport Mass, who testified that the evidence suggests the boat was going 18-20, and not the 30-32 as the Marine Patrol lieutenant testified.

For a 17000-lb, 37 foot boat, powered by twin 425-hp MerCruiser inboard-outboards, going 18-20 most likely would have the boat plowing through the water, as opposed to being up on plane at 30-32, and that would seem to be highly relevant to what happens running into a six foot high, solid granite outcropping. Speed would make a difference, dontcha you thinka?

...any expert incite from the peanut gallery on board here?

robmac

03-15-2010, 12:14 PM

IMHO,you would think angle and impact height on the bow and the granite ledge would help determine speed relevent to the vessal on plane and or plowing. Now I am no expert but doesn't common sense come into play?

Dave R

03-15-2010, 12:41 PM

VtSteve

03-15-2010, 04:31 PM

Subtitled: "Letting a few FACTS get in the way". :rolleye2:

1) Meaning, the law that was to have been amended to consider The Broads (where this crash took place) as a...um...an unlimited "free-zone"?

2) We haven't heard from the Defense's boat-crash reconstructionist.

I guess we have now. Personally, neither of these so-called accident recontructionists sound very believable. I'm not sure why you continue to do these selective, and extremely partial quotes APS. I haven't let any facts slip in this case that I know of, I've even read all of the innuendo and injected statements of agenda, from you. Roll your eyes all you want skippy, but the state has made their charges based on the laws in force at that time, and they are still very pertinent today. I'm quite sure you know that.

But just to make double sure, we can both examine and compare our own personal positions on this matter. I don't care if the boat was going 18 mph or 25 mph or 33 mph. If it was in that range, it was too fast. If the skipper was impaired, a double whammy should be levied. That's my position, and it's been a consistent one. I gave up hope that you'd ever grow up, but try to be at least a little less disingenuous.

Sorry in advance Don for the tone.

Time to wait out the outcome of this trial.

hazelnut

03-15-2010, 05:45 PM

This is pretty good journalism huh? What kind of boat and where? :laugh:

"Closing arguments have wrapped up in the trial of a New Hampshire woman charged with drunkenly piloting her speedboat into a ledge in Lake Winnepesaukee - killing her friend and injuring herself and a passenger."

Love the spelling of Lake Winnipesaukee by the way. Credible journalism at its best.

:rolleye1:

NoBozo

03-15-2010, 06:59 PM

I have a deep V boat and there is a speed "Threshhold" if you will. UNTIL the boat reaches a Comfortable speed..just "over the top" on plane..22-23 mph in my case...you are just plowing water. If I feel my speed is excessive ....at that point.. On Top..for whatever reason.. I SLOW down considerably to OFF Plane to maybe 7 mph. There is NO In-Between for an experienced skipper. PLOWING for me is NOT an option. I'm either ON Plane or I'm going 7mph or less.

SO: If she was Plowing..the BOW would be elevated and have struck higher than the top of the granite slab....so the upper part of the bow would have remained Intact and passed over the top of the slab.

My rememberance of the granite slab (Impact point) is a perfectly verticle rectangular slab..now I'm guessing...maybe 15-20 feet across and maybe 5 feet off the water at the top....which was horizontal. It almost seemed to me............it had been placed there by Man....But of course it was not...and she hit it at 90 degrees.

If she had been a few feet either side of that SLAB..she would have ended up ON the island and probably in one piece with only bruises and the boat bottom severely scraped and gouged.

Just my observation. NB

PennyPenny

03-15-2010, 07:04 PM

I actually met her for the first time at a baby shower on Sunday. She never let out a word or a tear regarding her daughter, Stephanie. She was just happy to be a guest at the baby shower of her great grandson to be. We should all be so humble.

VtSteve

03-15-2010, 08:54 PM

There's a lot of us parents out here Penny, that feel for them deeply. Hopefully none of us ever experience the loss, but we "know" it would be consuming. It may seem sometimes that the discussion gets too random, too removed from real life. That's not true at all for the most part. I think most of us care, and care quite a bit about loss of life and shattered dreams. Perhaps we care so much is sounds a bit callous, devoid of feeling.

In actuality, we all care about what happens out there, and feel deeply for the loss of life, and the deep grief of parents that will never be able to fill that hole in their hearts. Trust me on this, most of us know this could happen to any of us, our loved ones, our children, ourselves. In a moment's notice life can change. To respect the water is to fear it.

Stephanie's mom must be a very strong woman. I hope I never have to walk in her shoes, none of us does.

LIforrelaxin

03-15-2010, 10:18 PM

Well hopefully very soon we will be able to put this issue to bed with "official results" of the trial. Not that I don't believe given the out come everyone will have some opinions.... But hopefully by the end of tomorrow if not then Wednesday we will have some word. If the jury takes longer then that then, I will start getting very suspicious of having a hung jury for some reason or another....

ApS

03-16-2010, 05:14 AM

(Headline by The Citizen).

Today's March 15 www.cmonitor.com has a brief mid-day report and the defense put a boat accident reconstruction expert witness on the stand this morning, from Newburyport Mass, who testified that the evidence suggests the boat was going 18-20, and not the 30-32 as the Marine Patrol lieutenant testified.

For a 17000-lb, 37 foot boat, powered by twin 425-hp MerCruiser inboard-outboards, going 18-20 most likely would have the boat plowing through the water, as opposed to being up on plane at 30-32, and that would seem to be highly relevant to what happens running into a six foot high, solid granite outcropping. Speed would make a difference, dontcha you thinka?

...any expert incite from the peanut gallery on board here?
1) Check page 2 of this thread for dozens of wrong speculations. :rolleye1:

2) I'd previously guessed about 20-MPH+, but even without the hands-on testing that I'd suggested, I'm now agreeing with Lt. Dunleavey. (Certainly more than "the-expert-with-the-briefcase-from-out-of-town"). :rolleye2:

3) In fair weather, Diamond Island is a near-daily destination of mine—and you can't miss the crash site. :( Seen within a week of the crash, the outcropping is closer to 3-feet tall. The scale I'd included appears as the 2nd "attachment" below. The three black bands are placed one foot apart.

You can take a piece of paper and mark the three-foot spacing on it. Place the scale upright against the screen and you can see that it's less than three feet above the waterline shortly after the crash.

The subject boat would still have additional depth below the waterline, as there was a faint scrape on a somewhat-submerged rock.

4) It's true that striking the island 40-feet either way would have spared the boat—and maybe those aboard—but a neighboring cabin can be seen in the background. (This other cabin's roof can be seen at the first "attachment" at the very bottom of this post).

In this next photo, note the clear "ramp" of yard leading directly to it. :eek:

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=3141&stc=1&d=1256113577

5) A too-short anchor line was given as the reason for not waiting-out the weather, but any other anchored boat near Diamond Island's Broads location would have been in peril that night. :(

(Message: When you're not aware of the weather and caught "out", tie up to a private dock). :cool:

6) Although too-late a warning for the defendant—one week after the crash, a Jet-Ski was put out at a mooring nearby.

IMHO,you would think angle and impact height on the bow and the granite ledge would help determine speed relevent to the vessal on plane and or plowing. Now I am no expert but doesn't common sense come into play?
I think you're onto something...;)

Note the "concentric rings" previously mentioned in testimony.

At that time, the lowest ring was just two inches below the surface and would correspond to the deepest crack in the bow. I'm not conversant with the "bow-high attitude" of 37' speedboats, but a photo taken from the side of the same model boat—in both "plow" and high-speed modes—would demonstrate a range of speeds that would have made those marks on the granite outcropping.

(For a comparison, see the photo of the cracks in the bow (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=121695&postcount=856) earlier on this page).

BTW: Sgt. David Ouelette (a chatty NHMP officer whom I've had the privilege of meeting) has testified to the alcohol found on board: it includes two bottles of vodka, one of which is a ½-gallon size! :eek2:

(I've never seen such a big bottle of alcohol !)

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=FD&Date=20100311&Category=GJNEWS02&ArtNo=703119626&Ref=AR&MaxW=250
(Photo from The Citizen).

Testimony included alcohol detected on the Captain's breath. How much "normally-odorless" vodka would it take to be "detectable"? :confused:

The photo VtSteve referred to: (The defendant leaving the courthouse—after the jury found her Guilty). :rolleye1: :mad:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=CM&Date=20100319&Category=FRONTPAGE&ArtNo=3190304&Ref=AR&border=0&MaxH=400&MaxW=336
(Photo from The Concord Monitor).

]For what its worth,I also saw the site within a week and the outcropping as you call it it closer to 5 feet.The photo you posted gives you the scale you seek.The windows would be about 3 feet high based on a 7 foot wall that they are in. From my observation the highest point is at least 50% taller than the windows.

The windows are not in the same plane as the struck boulder; however, the added "lighthouse" is—almost. (Making it a very tall "lighthouse" !)

This photo included the "lighthouse"—an anonymous and tasteless addition—added in 2009. Even a year later, the embedded shreds of fiberglass still remain in the boulder.

At the bottom of this post shows the neighboring cabin behind the cottage, which has no protective granite along their shoreline.

I was told by the cottage owner that glass was found behind the cottage. :eek: I'm not buying the Defense's "slingshot-physics", and Lt. Dunleavey shouldn't have, either. :rolleye1: IMHO.

The last photo shows the relative distances between the cottages that were also in peril that night.

(In order from left to right: Dr. Rock's cottage, Cabin with "ramp", Crash-Scene with barge).

chipj29

03-16-2010, 06:39 AM

(Headline by The Citizen).

BTW: NHMP Sgt. David Ouelette (a chatty officer whom I've had the privilege of meeting) has testified to the alcohol found on board: it includes two bottles of vodka, one of which is a ½-gallon size! :eek2:

Testimony included alcohol detected on the Captain's breath. How much "normally-odorless" vodka would it take to be "detectable"? :confused:

APS, as I have stated in this thread twice now, the finding of alcohol on the boat, while it may create suspicions, does not PROVE anything. No less than 2 different people have testified under oath as to the amount of alcohol consumed that night. As far as I am aware, neither testimony included anything about drinking on the boat.

SIKSUKR

03-16-2010, 08:01 AM

In fair weather, Diamond Island is a near-daily destination of mine—and you can't miss the crash site. :( Seen within a week of the crash, the outcropping is closer to 2½-feet tall. Somewhere in my old computer there's a photo that shows the rock with a scale—in feet—I included with the marks of the crash. (Which I now need to dig out). :rolleye2:

For what its worth,I also saw the site within a week and the outcropping as you call it it closer to 5 feet.The photo you posted gives you the scale you seek.The windows would be about 3 feet high based on a 7 foot wall that they are in.From my observation the highest point is at least 50% taller than the windows.

lulu59

03-16-2010, 10:28 AM

2 hours.No verdict.The longer it goes the better it is for the defense.
Attorney James Moir hit it out of the park yesterday in his closing.Erica Blizzard was very composed,poised,remorseful and articulate.
A tragedy in every sense of the word.The nuances in this case are endless.
Hopefully justice shall prevail.

LIforrelaxin

03-16-2010, 04:21 PM

Apparently the jury remains out... according to this article, they will not be in session tomorrow, the jury will reconvene on Thurs. The Article also details that the jury is having trouble with only of of the Articles before them.... Interesting......

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=No+verdict+yet+in+boat+fatal +trial&articleId=740381d9-61f9-429b-b5dd-31d31531478f

Now knowing many of you are reading this, and some may have been on juries or know people that have.... is it "normal" that they would stop deliberations for a day... I know the article says someone has a commitment, and I am not trying to deny that it may be important... I am more curious as to how often something like this happens.

Scupper

03-16-2010, 05:58 PM

NoBozo

03-16-2010, 06:50 PM

Rattlesnake Guy

03-16-2010, 08:02 PM

Seeker

03-16-2010, 08:10 PM

secondcurve

03-16-2010, 08:23 PM

Rattlesnake Guy

03-16-2010, 08:29 PM

On one of my juror trials we skipped a day because the judge had to be somewhere, but we were told that up front. I'm editing because this was not while we were in deliberation. I would think that would make a difference.

We had a judge absent one of the days of our deliberation. He had another judge stand in while we worked. We actually gave our verdict to the pinch hitting judge.

Resident 2B

03-17-2010, 01:44 AM

No visiblity, can't see anything past the bow, don't slow down, hit a big island, alcohol involved, Wolfe Trap serves mixed drinks in PINT size glasses, beer cans in the water, vodka in the cuddy, spotty memory lapses at convienent times that are crucial, 18 miles an hour causes the boat to basically explode....hmm, let me think about this one.

Scupper,

Everyone should let the jury decide on the facts. This includes this you, a very opinionated, first-time poster.

Freedom of speech is one thing, deciding one's fate without complete knowledge is another. This is America. Let the process work. You are not part of this process, nor am I.

If you do not like this, please quickly go very far away. We are, for the most part, very fair people and we do not need your obviously, swayed opinion. There is too much pain on both sides of this for anyone like you, a first time poster, to comment.

Save your mindless comments for the NH Legislature. They might think you are credible, we surely will not! This is not Manchester, the stomping ground of WinnFabs. We are people that know the lake.

I could care less if you do not like my opinion. It is more important to me to let the process evolve.

R2B

Heaven

03-17-2010, 05:26 AM

If a juror had a death in the immediate family would they pause a day for that juror?

jrc

03-17-2010, 06:04 AM

Wow, why the venom for Scupper? He is not trying to sway the jury, they shouldn't be reading this site.

I read Erica's own account of the night and the collision from the newspaper. It's pretty much says what Scupper said. He just added the pint size glasses, which I have no knowledge of.

Now I may be duped by Scupper, his explode comment regarding the boat, got an instant appluase from guess who, but that could be coincidence.

SAMIAM

03-17-2010, 06:27 AM

Always suspicious when a new poster starts out with a highly charged subject. It's hard to take someone serious who hasn't posted enough to have a track record.....for example, a friend or family member of the prosecution could try and sway public opinion by coming on this forum.

Bear Island South

03-17-2010, 06:32 AM

Let me be the first to welcome you to the forum...and let me be the first to ask you to GO AWAY.. NB

so if scupper had 366 posts, maybe it wouldn't be viewed as a bad comment.
to be asked to "GO AWAY" is ridiculous, I 'm sure we could look back on some of your posts and point the finger. Scupper is not the first to form a negative opinion on this thread.
Maybe there should be a warning for new members, your first few hundred posts should have a positive view.

sunset on the dock

03-17-2010, 07:45 AM

so if scupper had 366 posts, maybe it wouldn't be viewed as a bad comment.
to be asked to "GO AWAY" is ridiculous, I 'm sure we could look back on some of your posts and point the finger. Scupper is not the first to form a negative opinion on this thread.
Maybe there should be a warning for new members, your first few hundred posts should have a positive view.

Though if you have something negative to say about winnfabs then negative first posts are not only allowed but encouraged.:laugh:

john60ri

03-17-2010, 08:25 AM

Hooray for Scupper! If his facts are accurate, this lady needs to go to jail. Her antics that night were like a drunken, grossly irresponsible teenager. And by the way, except for the Mt. Washington, I have NEVER been on a boat on the Lake.

Woodsy

03-17-2010, 09:22 AM

WOW!!! You have to love the lynch mob mentality! I tried to stay out of it but this is getting a bit out of hand...

The prosecution has presented the worst case possible (for Erica) scenario as to the events that occurred that fateful night.... The defense has presented the best case possible (for Erica).... somewhere in the middle lies the truth!

The wheels of justice are in motion and it’s up to the jury to weigh in ALL of the evidence presented by both sides. We only know whatever the newspapers & television stations have reported.... a small fraction of what the jury heard for evidence. The rest is rumor, conjecture and opinion!

Anyone who formulates their opinion (on any subject) based solely on what has been reported in the news is a boorish unintelligent moron. Minds are like parachutes... they only work when they are open!

The jury will decide Erica's fate... not anyone on this forum. Nobody should take any delight regardless of the outcome of the verdict. Unfortunately there are a few folks here who will... (either side) and that is precisely whats wrong with the lake...

Woodsy

Mr. V

03-17-2010, 10:34 AM

Scupper,

Everyone should let the jury decide on the facts. This includes this you, a very opinionated, first-time poster.

Freedom of speech is one thing, deciding one's fate without complete knowledge is another. This is America. Let the process work. You are not part of this process, nor am I.

If you do not like this, please quickly go very far away. We are, for the most part, very fair people and we do not need your obviously, swayed opinion. There is too much pain on both sides of this for anyone like you, a first time poster, to comment.

Save your mindless comments for the NH Legislature. They might think you are credible, we surely will not! This is not Manchester, the stomping ground of WinnFabs. We are people that know the lake.

I could care less if you do not like my opinion. It is more important to me to let the process evolve.

R2B

Nobody is trying to interfere with the judicial process; what do you think scupper is trying to do, interject himself in the actual court case?

Get real.

This is a message board on the internet.

In case you haven't noticed, the internet has changed how people comment and interact.

Not so cordial, not so old-school polite, more immediate and visceral.

It's a new world: best keep up or get out of the way.

Bravo scupper, and bravo those who post a differing viewpoint.

Just post, don't lurk.

Of course, our opinions mean nothing and will not have a scintilla of impact on the outcome of the court case.

This is a soapbox, nothing more.

RI Swamp Yankee

03-17-2010, 12:17 PM

... it’s up to the jury to weigh in ALL of the evidence presented by both sides. ...
And remember, the evidence the jury hears and sees it NOT what the public hears and sees. It is also a "given" that the news media has not reported ALL of what was said in court and they have not reported all of what was NOT said, or allowed, in court.

That being said, we just have to wait and see but that does not stop us from forming and expressing opinions, as I did way way back in this thread. ;)

chillininnh

03-17-2010, 12:33 PM

No amount of punishment levied upon her by a court of law and a jury of her peers will come close to the suffering she will endure living with the memory of this terrible tragedy.

Newbiesaukee

03-17-2010, 01:16 PM

What you say may well be true(although we do not know this for sure), but it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence in a trial. It may well affect the sentence if she is found guilty

Rattlesnake Guy

03-17-2010, 06:08 PM

If a juror had a death in the immediate family would they pause a day for that juror?

We had that case during the testimony phase. The juror was excused and the first alternate got promoted. It would be up to the judge if they were in the deliberative phase. If they dismiss the juror, they are supposed to start the deliberation over which is near impossible to do.

Scupper

03-17-2010, 06:32 PM

Let me be the first to welcome you to the forum...and let me be the first to ask you to GO AWAY.. NB

Obviously I struck a nerve with you NB. Note the length of my membership on this forum...since 2006. Yes, I have few posts, but I only post on issues that appear to have substance. This is one of them. I could care less about the sunset on a particular night, ice cream at Sibley's, debate over the speed limits, whining about being stopped by M.P., etc...

What I care about is the loss of a life, a passenger that had no say, no control over the operation of the boat, and can't be brought back to life. There seems to be a lynch mob mentality against anyone that doesn't feel sympathy for the operator responsible for this "accident."

NB, I have a daughter. If she was the victim in this case, I would want justice. Sympathy due to the operator's standing in the community, personal relationship, or emotion is misguided. Facts are clarity, emotion and denial are blinding to the facts.

For those of you that stuck up for me thanks! I'll post again in another hmm, four years when substance arises again.

john60ri

03-17-2010, 06:59 PM

Wow! Scupper is my new hero! I have a daughter too, and he's right - it's about the facts and it's about justice. Let the wheel of justice turn.

jrc

03-17-2010, 07:01 PM

I think lynch mob is a little strong, no one is even debating punishment, just guilty or not guilty.

First the jury must decide, but it is harmless now for us to give our opinions of her guilt or non-guilt. After the verdict, if she is found guilty, a judge will decide her fate. That's when arguements like she suffered enough already should come in.

My opinion is based almost solely on the .15 BAC. This is clearly over the limit. We decided as a society 20-30 years ago that if you drive while drunk and someone gets killed, you go to jail. You don't have to like it, or believe its a good idea, but its law. If you can get off the hook, when double the limit and three people are seriously hurt, one killed, when does the law apply?

If she was sober. Then it's tougher. But in her own words she lost all visibilty and then she sped up! I can't reconcile that action.

NoBozo

03-17-2010, 07:09 PM

Obviously I struck a nerve with you NB. Note the length of my membership on this forum...since 2006. Yes, I have few posts, but I only post on issues that appear to have substance. This is one of them. I could care less about the sunset on a particular night, ice cream at Sibley's, debate over the speed limits, whining about being stopped by M.P., etc...

What I care about is the loss of a life, a passenger that had no say, no control over the operation of the boat, and can't be brought back to life. There seems to be a lynch mob mentality against anyone that doesn't feel sympathy for the operator responsible for this "accident."

NB, I have a daughter. If she was the victim in this case, I would want justice. Sympathy due to the operator's standing in the community, personal relationship, or emotion is misguided. Facts are clarity, emotion and denial are blinding to the facts.

For those of you that stuck up for me thanks! I'll post again in another hmm, four years when substance arises again.

SCUPPER: I'll bet you wouldn't expect this response from me. YOUR Response to my post seems Quite Sincere and I respect ..even agree with parts of your stated position above. It is quite possable I mis-interpreted your original post. If I got it wrong....I apologize. NB

Scupper

03-17-2010, 07:22 PM

SCUPPER: I'll bet you wouldn't expect this response from me. YOUR Response to my post seems Quite Sincere and I respect ..even agree with parts of your stated position above. It is quite possable I mis-interpreted your original post. If I got it wrong....I apologize. NB

No harm, no foul.

SumoDog

03-17-2010, 07:28 PM

I think this case and many similar cases create an interesting question that I am sure the jury and all wrestle with - is an accident an accident or is someone always responsible and punishable for their actions. I truly believe that this was an accident - was it negligent on the defendants part - the jury will decide - but I have no doubt that the defendent did not leave that evening with the thought of wrecking her boat and her friend dying due to that action. Did her actions of the evening contribute to the sad event that occured - the jury will decide - I truly believe that we have to look at everyone involved - if she was OUI - should her friends have gotten on the boat with her? If they had any thoughts that she was unable to navigate the boat - why get on - I'm sure they all had cell phones - I've been with people that I concluded were unfit to drive - I did not get in the car with them. Had I and something terrible happen - didn't I just make a choice to risk my life and isn't that contributory negligence on my part? We seem to be (as a society) developing an attitude that nothing is our fault and someone should be blamed and sued. Whatever happen to taking responsibility for your actions - you screw up - pay the price. No jury verdict, sentence will bring the young woman back to her family and friends - that is the saddest thing. Everyone on that boat that evening had a choice - sadly it turned out to be a very bad choice all and a life ending choice for one.

Lakewinn1

03-17-2010, 07:31 PM

ApS

03-17-2010, 07:37 PM

1) A death in a juror's family would have the judge put an "alternate-juror" in. ("Alternate-jurors" are sitting in or beside the jury box and listening to the same testimony).

2) While "the wheels of justice are in motion", there are court rules that exclude evidence that could be prejudicial to the defendant. It is only upon hearing a verdict—and entering the penalty phase—that such evidence can be divulged. (Such as previous drunken convictions, such as here (http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:4c5mKH4CvA0J:www.metrowestdailynews .com/archive/x1275807762/Medway-boater-gets-3-5-yeras-in-prison-for-fatal-crash+%22long-lake%22,+convictions,+traffic,+massachusetts,+harr ison&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a)).

3) The first many minutes of a jury's deliberations are taken up by procedural matters assigned by the judge.

4) The Defense has presented the best case possible for Erica.

Seldom does the defense put their client in the witness chair, but the defense did just that!—as suggested here earlier (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=115248&postcount=693). :cool:

No visiblity, can't see anything past the bow, don't slow down, hit a big island, alcohol involved, Wolfe Trap serves mixed drinks in PINT size glasses, beer cans in the water, vodka in the cuddy, spotty memory lapses at convienent times that are crucial, 18 miles an hour causes the boat to basically explode....hmm, let me think about this one.
Comment—with Smilies suppressed.

1) Even the presence of the same brand of empty beer cans is "circumstantial evidence".

The defense maintained they were previously rounded-up by a neatnik-neighbor, and stored in her boat. That same boat was commandeered by the hero-rescuer-neighbor, Dr. Rock.

(The rescuer's boat belongs to neatnik-neighbor Ms. Stone).

2) Visibility is an unknown. Visibility isn't likely to be a factor at night, as visibility varies in the known conditions of fog and drizzle. (The "big waves" cited by the defendant shouldn't have been alluded to—IMHO).

3) The island isn't lighted.

4) One of the vodka bottles wasn't opened.

5) At night, you usually can't see much beyond the bow.

6) Memory "lapses" happen.

7) We don't know if she slowed down.

8) Diamond Island is 34 acres—not so "big".

9) Pint-sized glasses don't mean too much: we don't know if all the drinks were fully consumed. Remember, too, that the State of New Hampshire sells vodka, so it must be OK to have a bottle or two aboard.

10) The boat didn't "explode": it's mostly the fracturing of the manufacturer's low-end "shoe-box" construction that makes it look worse than it is.

The defense made much of the fact that the broken glass evidence can roll—or be "sling-shot"—far beyond the crash site and should be dismissed as real evidence of velocity.

11) Finally: Her lawyer says she wasn't intoxicated.

What's a jury to do? :confused:

TiltonBB

03-17-2010, 08:24 PM

Obviously I struck a nerve with you NB. Note the length of my membership on this forum...since 2006. Yes, I have few posts, but I only post on issues that appear to have substance. This is one of them. I could care less about the sunset on a particular night, ice cream at Sibley's, debate over the speed limits, whining about being stopped by M.P., etc...

What I care about is the loss of a life, a passenger that had no say, no control over the operation of the boat, and can't be brought back to life. There seems to be a lynch mob mentality against anyone that doesn't feel sympathy for the operator responsible for this "accident."

NB, I have a daughter. If she was the victim in this case, I would want justice. Sympathy due to the operator's standing in the community, personal relationship, or emotion is misguided. Facts are clarity, emotion and denial are blinding to the facts.

For those of you that stuck up for me thanks! I'll post again in another hmm, four years when substance arises again.

I am just curious, not passing judgement.

Do you think that the passenger who accompanies the driver for the evening and observes all of the alcohol the she drank (whatever the volume) bears any responsibility for her own demise?

If the jury decides that the alcohol was the determining factor in the accident would you think that the passenger should have refused to ride in the boat?

I'm not expressing an opinion, just asking a question.

ApS

03-18-2010, 04:43 AM

It is the Captain who is burdened with the judgment of safe passage—and who bears full responsibility regardless of the condition of the passengers. (Drunk, unruly, sick, injured—even unconscious).

jrc

03-18-2010, 06:03 AM

I am just curious, not passing judgement.

Do you think that the passenger who accompanies the driver for the evening and observes all of the alcohol the she drank (whatever the volume) bears any responsibility for her own demise?

If the jury decides that the alcohol was the determining factor in the accident would you think that the passenger should have refused to ride in the boat?

I'm not expressing an opinion, just asking a question.

In my opinion, the passenegers actions have no bearing on the criminal aspect of the incident. The actions could come into play in a civil trial.

In determining guilt, I don't think a defendent can say "I'm not guilty because my friends should have stopped me".

But in a civil trial the passenger or their family is suing for damages. The driver's lawyer could say the passenger should have known better, given the circumstances.

This is pure conjecture based on your question.

fpartri497

03-18-2010, 07:05 AM

One thing for sure Is no matter the outcome of this trial, EVERYBODY loses

:(

chipj29

03-18-2010, 07:31 AM

One thing for sure Is no matter the outcome of this trial, EVERYBODY loses
:(
I think that is the most factual statement in this thread.

NoRegrets

03-18-2010, 08:31 AM

Appling "guilt" in today's world.

A little over 30 years ago my brother took the family car out for the evening. There was an ice storm and he lost control and slid into the guardrails. No one was hurt but the sheet metal on the car was damaged. When he told my dad about the accident my dad said he would work out a way for my brother to pay for the repairs. My brother’s comment was that it wasn't his fault because of the conditions of the road. My father firmly replied that he made the choice to put the key in the ignition and move the vehicle. End of the discussion and my brother had to pay the cost to repair. I knew at that point the meaning of responsibility.

Somehow our society has evolved away for the intent of the law and favors the technicality of the law. Too often we see how money, power, or relationships win favors or pardons. Casual observance of these cases often can lead to cynicism over the process.

Drunk, not drunk, rating the visibility, mental conditions, or any other factors in the case may be used to set the severity of the punishment but I believe Erica "put the key in the ignition" and is responsible for the accident.

I have seen some very thoughtful posts and am thankful for the interchange between Scupper and NoBozo.

Sympathy and prayers to all who suffer loss through tragedies and let us all benefit from this incident by being reminded of the consequences that can happen if you are not careful.

fatlazyless

03-18-2010, 10:14 AM

And, on the other hand, if you cross the center line while totally sober and kill three and injure a fourth, a 25-year old Thornton male first sentenced to 12 years in NH prison recently had his case successfully appealed in NH Supreme Court by Atty James Moir. In June 2009, the NH Supreme Court voted 3-1 to over rule the conviction of a 25 year old male from Thornton who struck two Harley Davidsons head-on, in June 2006. By drifting across the center line of Route 49 in Thornton at the s-curve, he killed three and injured a fourth person, who were two married couples ages 53-54, all employed at an Indiana GM car dealer, who were in NH for motorcycle week. First, sentenced to 12 years in state prison, his convicton was over turned after serving about 2 1/2 years, when the NH Supreme Court decided that what he did did not constitute negligence.

He had a blood alcohol level of zero at the time. He did have a number of prior driving violations including moving violations, however that information was not allowed to be admitted during the trial.

Justice Linda Dalianis, speaking for the majority, said something like; " ...he crossed the center line for some unknown reason and that does not equal negligence."

In my personal opinion when it comes to determining negligence, it probably does not matter if you are legally drunk or just day-dreaming when you cross the center line, especially when the victim is a member of your family.

fatlazyless

03-18-2010, 10:59 AM

...www.cmonitor.com reports jury has made a decision and reached a verdict...

mcdude

03-18-2010, 11:13 AM

Here's the link to the SPECIFIC ARTICLE (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100318/NEWS03/100319983/1030)

11:53 a.m. Jurors convicted Erica Blizzard of negligent homicide for failing to keep a proper lookout but were unable to reach verdicts on the more serious charge of negligent homicide by intoxication for the fatal boat crash she had in 2008 .

The jury was also unable to reach a verdict on the third charge, aggravated driving while intoxicated.

Blizzard faces 3 1/2 years in state prison on her one conviction. Prosecutors can retry her on the other two charges but did not say immediately whether they will. She will be sentenced on April 21.

Steveo

03-18-2010, 11:14 AM

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100318/NEWS03/100319983/1030

Jurors convicted Erica Blizzard of negligent homicide for failing to keep a proper lookout but were unable to reach verdicts on the more serious charge of negligent homicide by intoxication for the fatal boat crash she had in 2008 .

The jury was also unable to reach a verdict on the third charge, aggravated driving while intoxicated.

SIKSUKR

03-18-2010, 12:14 PM

Here's WMUR's link to the guilty verdict.http://www.wmur.com/news/22876656/detail.html

Airwaves

03-18-2010, 12:47 PM

In order for me to get a balanced overview of what was happening at the trial I had to read four individual newspaper's coverage of the trial.

It was interesting to see what each chose to report and leave out of their coverage, but by reading all four I got a pretty good idea of what was happening although certainly not as complete as if I had been there.

First it was apparent from the start that the defense was shooting to plant reasonable doubt into the minds of the jury, and they did a good job at that.

Alcohol consumption. The questions raised by the defense experts, along with testimoney from the waitress and I seem to recall a detail cop being questioned by police and saying the three did not appear drunk, went a long way toward planting the seeds of doubt as to the BAC along with the medical testimony regarding when the body stops processing food and alcohol.

The private accident reconstruction expert that was identified by some of the papers as a Deputy Sheriff for Middlesex County of MA also raised doubts as to the MPs reconstruction of the accident regarding speed. The private experts questioned the glass fragments found on the roof of the cottage that the MP said showed the speed at impact to be 31 to 33mph. It was a rainy windy night and there is no way of knowing if the glass fragments landed there or were blown there.

Erica's own testimony that she came down off plane when the visibility went to zero but went back on plane because the rocking of the boat was making them all sick also points to her caution and since I have read that her boat would plane at somewhere between 18 and 20 mph that coincides with the defense expert's thinking.

It was not surprising that they found her guilty of not keeping a proper lookout because short of saying it was just an accident and no one's fault they had to do something. I would think an argument could be made that she did keep a proper lookout. Based on her testimony the lookout (her) failed to see anything...so is that not keeping a proper lookout?

Remember, it is the burden of the state to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that what they claim happen actually did. Obviously in the minds of some of the jurors the state failed to meet that threashold.

Those are my thoughts based on reading the coverage of the trial from the 4 newspapers, I don't know any of the players involved either personally or professionally, these are just my observations.

Dave R

03-18-2010, 01:39 PM

I would think an argument could be made that she did keep a proper lookout. Based on her testimony the lookout (her) failed to see anything...so is that not keeping a proper lookout?

The act of hitting the island made it impossible to convince me (and the jury, apparently) that she kept a proper lookout. The whole point of keeping a proper lookout is not to make sure the stuff you hit is truly hard to see, but to avoid hitting stuff and slow to a safe speed if visibility requires it.

VtSteve

03-18-2010, 02:44 PM

The act of hitting the island made it impossible to convince me (and the jury, apparently) that she kept a proper lookout. The whole point of keeping a proper lookout is not to make sure the stuff you hit is truly hard to see, but to avoid hitting stuff and slow to a safe speed if visibility requires it.

Absolutely Dave. No way am I going past trolling speed on a night like that. Her own testimony made me shake my head a couple of times, but that's what happens in trials.

I'm surprised that the estimated time spent on the trial was about right, I thought there would be more. I'm sorry to say this, but given the time elapsed since this accident, I was underwhelmed at both of the accident reconstruction "experts". The jury seemed pretty easily persuaded to doubt the State's case on BUI as well, which I believe is more the State's fault than the jury's, but just a guess.

There's never a good ending to any of these stories, and I certainly wish nobody any malice. Possibly the memory of this accident can prevent another (it's already made me think of my anchor line).

My condolences to everyone involved personally with this tragedy, and hopefully, your lives can return to some semblance of normality.

seanmcd

03-18-2010, 04:45 PM

It seems like a just verdict based on the facts as I understand them. Now what will be more interesting is what the results of the PSI (Pre Sentencing Investigation) are, and what punishment Blizzard receives.

I think the judge will give substantial weight to the wishes of the victims family. That they were best friends out doing the same thing together, I suspect that she may never spend a day in prison. Likely she will get a suspended sentence with fines and some sort of community service
requirement.

The State seems to have done a good job on the case.

RIP to Beaudoin.

Airwaves

03-18-2010, 04:49 PM

seanmcd

03-18-2010, 04:53 PM

The jury seemed pretty easily persuaded to doubt the State's case on BUI as well, which I believe is more the State's fault than the jury's, but just a guess.

I tend to think it may have been more a matter of the jury doing what they usually do, grab onto the charge that is easiest to understand. There is always some 'negotiation' in the jury room, and absent 12 people who completely agree on every charge, they often go with the easiest to prove charge. In this case that was obviously the Neg Homicide 'failure to keep proper lookout.'

**I should add that as I recall, the Neg Homicide with the BUI is an A Felony, while the charge the jury went with is a B Felony. It is a substantial difference in sentence.

Mr. V

03-18-2010, 04:58 PM

The prosecutor should retry her on the hung jury counts.

To do otherwise is a denial of justice.

topwater

03-18-2010, 05:09 PM

Thank God COMMON SENSE prevailed. We all knew she was guilty, now the whole world knows she is ! She probably will appeal, just so she can have alittle more FREE time. Don (webmaster), can we now lock this up like you did the speed limit thread? Lets move on to spring thaw and possible record ice out.
By the way, I noticed in the Weirs Times this week, on the same page as the map of Winnie, there is a nice list of YEARS/DATES:) of ice out since 1888.

LIforrelaxin

03-18-2010, 05:13 PM

I am just raising the question of what is a "proper" lookout.

It seemed to me in reading the coverage that she was doing everything she could in attempting to locate navigational aides she relied on, to me that would constitute a "proper" lookout.

The fact that she still hit the island says that she should have stopped or slowed the boat to headway speed when visibility went to zero but that was not what the jury found her guilty of.

So the question is the definition of "proper" lookout. Focusing ahead of the boat into the night would be considered proper, until you hit something? Then it is not proper even though conditions were such that the lookout could not see the object?

I'm just pointing out that an argument could me made.

Proper lookout is definitely not something that is going to get defined the same way by every person. And I really don't believe was the proper way to define the charge that she was ultimately convicted of. However that may be the only way the could charge her, with what was definable by law.

Proper lookout really just refers to the visual aspects of make sure you are aware of your surroundings, and proximity to things.

Truly in this case the better why to define what Ms. Blizzard is guilty of is negligent operation. This would there for include not keep a proper lookout, as well as operation of her vessel in a safe and prudent manor. Visually she didn't keep a good lookout, which was in part hampered by operating her boat at a speed prudent for the situation. If you can't see past the bow of the boat, you shouldn't be moving at more then headway speed.

I had long been thinking of a fitting closing point to make in this thread... summing up my feelings of how this accident as well as others have been use to falsely create fear where there shouldn't be any. But I have decided not to.

This was a sad sad situation. How much of a roll alcohol played here I have no idea, and from reading what I have read, have been left with many questions to ponder. Which will hopefully drive me to do some research and understand things better.

Do I believe the state should hand down the harshest punishment possible. Yes, not because I believe Ms. Blizzard is a horrible, unremorseful person, but because I have and always will believe in punishing people to the fullest extent of the law. In actuality I don't believe any punishment the state can levy can be as bad as the quilt she lives with every day knowing what happened the dark night.

The only thing I walk away from all this the slightest bit disappointed in, is that I got the feeling that the state didn't assemble the case that they should have. Maybe I am wrong, but maybe I am not. I do believe the state case could have been stronger then it was.

To all the families and people involved, I hope that this trial puts this issue to rest. Now is the time that we all need to let this issue go, and let the wounds heal. Certainly we have all gained a new perspective from watching this, and could discuss things for along time. But we need to respect that it is over and allow, the community and the lake itself to move on.

john60ri

03-18-2010, 05:29 PM

Airwaves

03-18-2010, 06:44 PM

LIforrelaxin, actually the charge I would have brought is negligent operation of a boat as you suggest. However that is not what was presented to the jury. They found her guilty of failure to keep a proper lookout and that is fine, as I stated I am only basing my observation on what I read in the newspapers, I wasn't in the courtroom. However it seems to me that AN ARGUMENT could be made regarding the word PROPER. Based on what I read she did maintain a proper lookout. What she failed to do was to maintain headway speed...so the charge was probably inappropriate.

john60ri...a boat underway at speed in weather is a much more stable vessel than one not underway or at headway speed in the same weather. So according to her testimony she came down off plane but because of the condition of the waves on the lake, and the rocking the pitching of the boat, it was making everyone sick, so she went back up on plane to avoid the rocking that was producing motion sickness.

Just so everyone is clear. I am not defending Blizzard or the jury or criticizing the prosecution. I am pointing out that based on what I read in the newspapers she was facing the wrong charge in once case and will in all likelihood face a retrial for the charges in the hung jury based on the sentence.

But I find the definition of "proper" something that should be looked at.

Slickcraft

03-18-2010, 06:49 PM

I just have one question about Airwaves' summary of the trial. She said "she came down off plane when the visibility went to zero, but went back on plane because the rocking of the boat was making them all sick". I ask you boaters out there: Is this testimony credible under the circumstances of the crash? It doesn't sound right to me, but I am not a boater. Can anyone explain this?

If I was plowing along at say 15mph and the visibility went to zero I would drop down to headway speed and ask any on board to help keep watch. I have been there having to transport a grandchild to the ER from Welch at night in the fog. I really wanted to be going a lot faster but suppressed the urge.

A boat is more stable on plane than plowing along but if you can't see past the bow you are driving blind.

secondcurve

03-18-2010, 08:50 PM

3 1/2 years probably is a reasonable punishment. Hopefully, she gets it all and the state chooses not to retry her (and waste money) on the two charges that the jury was deadlocked on. I would have preferred a guilty plea and her request for leniency. I think in that circumstance leniency would have been granted in combination with a heavy community service requirement and some good would have come from this tragedy.

Anytime someone climbs into a boat like that after 3 1/2 drinks (her version) in the dead of the night in dicey weather you are guilty of negligence in my opinion. The BAC evidence backs this position up, but she had a good attorney and he was able to convince one or two jurors that there was a reasonable doubt.

nellies

03-18-2010, 09:00 PM

I'm kind of new to this bizarre forum regarding the boat that hit Diamond Island, etc,etc,, I've taken the time to read back through all the comments written during (almost) the past two years and I really find it quite interesting how many of you are ready to immediately condem and how many of you are ready to condon what happened when in fact not one of you was on the boat that night and really have no idea what happened beside what you read, hear or see in the media. You're all so riteous: if it was your daughter I suppose you want blood, if on the other hand it's you daughter on trail you want acquittal. The last time I checked, in the United States OF America, according to our Constituion you are innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers, afetr hearing the evidence presentesd by the prosecution and the defense. I don't find it amusing that so many of you have such opinion regarding guilt or innocense when you weren't there when it happened. At the end of the day if it was your daughter, on trail, for an accident that occurred taking the life of your daughters best friend and someone whom you considered to be a great friend, as well, how would you react. Empathy, has a simple definition: Walk IN MY Shoes, before passing judgement. I've been on the Lake W for 64 years, I've been a resident since 1982, the Lake can be a nightmare, from time to time, and we all from time to time take liberties with our knowledge and experience with the lake trying to beat Mother Nature. The jury has decide Erika's fate, as it should, based upon the evidence presented. I did attend the trial, one day, so if you didn't don't sit back and second guess what was presented.

Seadoo

03-18-2010, 09:22 PM

nellies,

you hit the nail right on the head. I did too sit in on the trial for not 1 day but 3, and you said everything i would have said.

THANKS!!

Airwaves

03-18-2010, 09:53 PM

I agree that the postings prior and during the trial we probably off the wall. But since the verdict was rendered, and since Nellies and Seadoo say they attended at least portions of the trial, please give us some insight into what happened beyond what was reported in the newspapers since that is our only source of information.

What did they get wrong/right/leave out/embelsih etc that we don't know about?

bigpatsfan

03-18-2010, 09:55 PM

I also agree with Nellies post.

I wasn’t in the court room and I really do not feel comfortable passing judgment on someone based on reading a 150 word story in the paper.

Both the defense and the prosecution made their case and in the end 12 people made their decision based on the facts presented.

As for the actions of this board, not too long ago, a number of people went crazy hanging out some poor guy who had his boat sink on him. Without any facts other than the fact that a boat sank they went on a rant saying what this person should have done and how much better a boater they were.

Point is there are many people that have a holier than I view.

Lucky1

03-18-2010, 10:51 PM

There was definitely some finding about this case in the news today. I do not know the facts.

I do know that I would not drink and drive and would not get in a car or a boat with someone who would drink and drive either. The whole thing is a tragedy for many it seems. Nothing we enter here can change that. It is just sad and friends did things that they were not supposed to be doing and one died as a result. It has happened before and will happen again. Education and example and talking about how things like this happen if people do not act responsibily might be helpful.

NoRegrets

03-19-2010, 02:16 AM

None of these posts can be of personal knowledge and even if there were several survivors that were on the vessel that night I would bet they would have differing accounts of the incident. That is the nature of individual observations based on each persons life-long experiences.

If it is upsetting to read peoples opinions in a semi-public forum you should not do it. You are now judging and condeming everyone on the thread by your standards and opinion and doing the same activity that you are complaning about. There is a benefit to venting and sharing opinions through discussions. The process of composing a post takes an effort that includes writing your thoughts. Some postings are better than others but each one does allow the poster to practice a style of communication that insures we will not forget the horrible event and hopefully prevent future accidents.

To your point - There are some that comdem the people and I do agree that is the courts job but there were many that speculate on the facts and by doing so it forces one to contemplate or reflect what they would do in that situation. There are some posts that many found insulting and boil your blood but try to skip over them or respond if moved to. I personally believe 80% add value and advance the experience of Winnipesaukee. JMHO.

ApS

03-19-2010, 05:59 AM

NR: Nicely said. :)

Question: For those who attended, was this a trial by six jurors or twelve?

Juries of twelve are common in Capital-Murder cases—not this kind. (Juries of six are said to be more easily hamstrung in decision-making). :rolleye1:

One thing for sure Is no matter the outcome of this trial, EVERYBODY loses :(
But not to the same degree as one did. :(

If a civil trial against this defendant follows—as in OJ Simpson's case—everyone paying a boating-insurance premium definitely loses.

That said, NH law makes an exception for an insurance payout when the insured is found to be a felon (http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:GHRNwohx-bQJ:bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/392/392.F3d.1.04-1778.04-1751.html+insurance,+felony,+littlefield,+hartman, +winnipesaukee&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a). (I don't know what happens when a jury finding is later reversed).

"...3 1/2 years probably is a reasonable punishment. Hopefully, she gets it all and the state chooses not to retry her (and waste money) on the two charges that the jury was deadlocked on..."
1) The defendant was found "Guilty" on the least of the charges.

(In our court system, there is no finding of "Innocent"—and a 3½-year confinement isn't going to happen).

2) The Court and State witnesses are paid regardless of their activity: As FLL points out, an appeal could find the penalty overturned by the NH Supreme Court.

3) IMHO, if there was ever a case for revocation of a boater certification—this is it.

(The remaining "25-horsepower option" can be especially instructive in boat handling safety). :cool:

Nellies—First...Welcome to the forum. :)

1) "Empathy" in this case is a two-edged sword.

As the near-daily operator of boats less than 22-feet long, I'm not wishing to share any part of this lake with this particular felon. Like the Littlefield case, "big" boating—after sunset—has become a "stern taskmaster" :(

2) If you've been following the newspapers' "comments"...well...:eek2: enough said on that! :eek:

"Threading the needle" meant passage between two shorelines 2000-feet apart! Her purported use of a fathometer is better than nothing, and would have allowed a few hundred yards of warning...BUT...to quote Airwaves' fav-or-ite rule: :rolleye2:

RULE 6
Safe Speed
"Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions."

_____________________

"The sea is a stern mistress (http://books.google.com/books?id=fxjJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=%22the-sea-is-a-stern-mistress%22,&source=bl&ots=DxWJSsnRjz&sig=VKxnVodcpQTHaCMCW_ppxtKR-9E&hl=en&ei=dyqjS_ewFYGBlAeOufD4CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CCEQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=%22the-sea-is-a-stern-mistress%22%2C&f=false)...She demands from her sons both vigilance and skill in her service, and for the man who fails her the penalty is death...".
—Ajax

OCDACTIVE

03-19-2010, 10:00 AM

Great post Noregrets.

Frankly, we now have a verdict. The court system has done its job and justice has been determined.

Why do people continue to make posts that are only hurting all those involved.

There is nothing more productive that can come from this thread. The conjecture and speculations have been drawn out to no end and now it is just becoming shameless. Lets have some respect for all those involved and finally put this entire situation behind us and learn from what has happened.

I would think that if other issues have been shut down because there is no more productive comments that can be made then this is another case where the same respect and logic should also be stopped.

I would hope that this thread would be shut down now that it is finally over.

NoBozo

03-19-2010, 10:34 AM

What would it cost to establish a Lighted Mark on the southwest corner of Diamond Island...maybe just like the one on Parker Island.

Whenever I transit from Wolfeboro to Winter Harbor at night I ALWAYS go outside the island ..using that fixed lighted mark, just to be safe, rather than try and find the unlighted marks on the inside channel that I use in daylight. Just wondering. :look: NB

Dave R

03-19-2010, 12:35 PM

chipj29

03-19-2010, 01:36 PM

I am absolutely appalled (yet not surprised) at most of the comments that have been posted in the article on unionleader.com regarding the outcome of this trial. Disgusting in every way.

BroadHopper

03-19-2010, 01:48 PM

That's an excellent idea. I think that long stretch from the witches to Diamond needs a nav-aid.

A number of things came up to help make the lake safer. Contact SBONH if you feel that we need a specific law on the books to make the lake safer.

Having a light bouy on The Broads side of Diamond Island is a good one. Even on a good night Diamond can be missed.

One item suggested a couple of years ago and I feel has merits is making Cattle Landing Pass a no wake zone on weekends. This area is very busy and I have seen too many near misses.

Another item is to allow overnight stay in inclement weather at all public docks in NH. Twice I was ask to leave. Both in different towns. One night it was raining so hard, the MP tied up to the dock. And I was TOLD to leave. Another night, the LEO gave me a ticket on the spot. I would rather pay the ticket than try to navigate The Broads in pea soup fog. In the name of safety you should be allowed to stay.

I strongly feel, replacing 'Reasonable and Prudent' with USCG Rule 6. 'Reasonable and Prudent' is a vague statement. Rule 6 will give the MP 'more teeth' when being challenge in the courts.

Feel free to let me know of your thoughts.

Dave R

03-19-2010, 02:10 PM

Having a light bouy on The Broads side of Diamond Island is a good one. Even on a good night Diamond can be missed.

There already is one on the Broads side; FL25 off the end of Rattlesnake is a good landmark. I'd like to see one just southwest of the southwest corner of Diamond Island. It would be a perfect place for one as you head from FL71/FL28 at the witches toward Alton Bay. Presently, Diamond Island hides FL24 by Treasure Island, so it's tough to get a visual fix on a good waypoint. With a light where NoBozo suggested, you could easily make your way from one FL to the next, like you can heading up into Center Harbor from the Broads (FL7 to FL83 to FL6 to FL5), or heading into Alton Bay from the Broads (FL22 to FL67 to FL23). I love having the FLs to confirm that I am on the course that my chartplotter says I am.

jrc

03-19-2010, 04:09 PM

A number of things came up to help make the lake safer. Contact SBONH if you feel that we need a specific law on the books to make the lake safer.

Having a light bouy on The Broads side of Diamond Island is a good one. Even on a good night Diamond can be missed.

One item suggested a couple of years ago and I feel has merits is making Cattle Landing Pass a no wake zone on weekends. This area is very busy and I have seen too many near misses.

Another item is to allow overnight stay in inclement weather at all public docks in NH. Twice I was ask to leave. Both in different towns. One night it was raining so hard, the MP tied up to the dock. And I was TOLD to leave. Another night, the LEO gave me a ticket on the spot. I would rather pay the ticket than try to navigate The Broads in pea soup fog. In the name of safety you should be allowed to stay.

I strongly feel, replacing 'Reasonable and Prudent' with USCG Rule 6. 'Reasonable and Prudent' is a vague statement. Rule 6 will give the MP 'more teeth' when being challenge in the courts.

Feel free to let me know of your thoughts.

I agree with all your suggestions. I thinks reasonable and prudent is OK but augmenting with USCG Rule 6 is good as well.

I was reading your dock stories and thinking about the trial. If they found the visibilty too bad and anchored until it improved, they would be breaking the law against anchoring a houseboat at night. Now a ticket for illegal anchoring is worth it to avoid death and injury, but the law should not encourage bad choices.

NoBozo

03-19-2010, 05:18 PM

I was reading your dock stories and thinking about the trial. If they found the visibilty too bad and anchored until it improved, they would be breaking the law against anchoring a houseboat at night. Now a ticket for illegal anchoring is worth it to avoid death and injury, but the law should not encourage bad choices.

This is one of the "Unintended Consiquences" that (perhaps) agenda driven enacted laws can cause. I would have just stayed tied up to the town docks at Wolfeboro for the night. No problem. :)

But WAIT: I know this is Against The Law ...and I don't need a hassle from the WPD or the MP tonight. SO: I get underway. After all, I don't have ANY visions of Death and Destruction on my mind. It will probably be an unpleasent trip..but I'm confident I can get to where I'm going.........

Just Too Much Common Sense goin on here. SO: Who WINS..?? :look: NB

secondcurve

03-19-2010, 06:42 PM

This is one of the "Unintended Consiquences" that (perhaps) agenda driven enacted laws can cause. I would have just stayed tied up to the town docks at Wolfeboro for the night. No problem. :)

But WAIT: I know this is Against The Law ...and I don't need a hassle from the WPD or the MP tonight. SO: I get underway. After all, I don't have ANY visions of Death and Destruction on my mind. It will probably be an unpleasent trip..but I'm confident I can get to where I'm going.........

Just Too Much Common Sense goin on here. SO: Who WINS..?? :look: NB

She made it to her father's house so she could have tied up there.

NoBozo

03-19-2010, 07:11 PM

She made it to her father's house so she could have tied up there.

YUP: Good point.........How FAR could she have gone....Maybe she could have made it to another Waypoint. MY point was ..If the LAW had allowed..maybe she wouldn't have HAD to get underway and make the next Waypoint.

Not trying to raise a ruckus..just some thought...maybe learn something ...NB

sa meredith

03-20-2010, 09:14 AM

Just a quick thought/question I have, as this thread seems to be starting to wind down... I have my own opinion on the matter, and without a long detailed post, would simply state that I believe justice is not being served. If her financial situation was different, I believe the outcome would be quite different...but when you can afford the best defense lawyers that money can buy...well you tend to get better results.
Anyway...my question...
I have plenty of boating experience on the lake...encountered my share of tough situations, made mistakes navigating, been caught if terrible weather...normal stuff every boater has experienced.
But all in the day time. I have never boated at night, and would really not know the first thing about it.
There has been much discussion about Erica coming off plane when visibilty went to zero, but because of the boat getting tossed, she decided to throttle back up a bit. So, I ask, when visibility is zero...AT NIGHT, BY THE WAY... when would it ever be a good idea to travel above headway speed?! You can't see...don't know what might be floating in the water ahead of you, but power up because people are not feeling well? "Lean over the side and toss, and while you're there, shout out if you happen to see anything".
Really though...is driving the boat at 18 MPH in zero visibilty an accepted practice? Curious what boaters with more experince than me might think.

BroadHopper

03-20-2010, 10:16 AM

I would docked or anchor the boat and wait. I have done that a number of times. When I anchor off shore, it does not seem to be a problem. The MP seems to realize the safety issue. It is the town LEOs at public docks that are telling you to move on.

On the other hand, if I had radar, lorance, or GPS, it may have been different. I still need a proper look out.

BlackCatIslander

03-20-2010, 10:21 AM

I know that if I am in my boat and the visibility is zero I would never go above headway speed and I would have my spotlight in use. I have been on the lake over 30 years and know that it is very easy to get disoriented very easily in the fog. Even with gps caution is necessary.

NoRegrets

03-20-2010, 10:38 AM

Great segway SAmeredith and maybe this could start a new thread.

GPS places you on the breadcrumbs you left behind and shows the map with your position on it so by itself you can move providing you have visibility so I agree with BCI.

Radar will pick up other movable objects when visibility becomes impared. You must become familiar and practice - practice - and practice with this equipment ao you can adjust for rain, humidity, and waves to maximize your accuracy. When tuned for the condition you can become fairly safe. Most radars can also set alarms if it picks up on an object in a configured zone. I will create 2 zones around 300 feet and 500 feet ahead of me and an audible alarm goes off if a marker, boat, obstruction or anything that reflects the radar comes within the zones as we are under way. On one occasion my alarm triggered and0 it was a flock of ducks. Did I emphasize that PRACTICE is imperative?

It is easy to become disoriented in fog even with the equipment so that is when the compass and chart become important. One time I was sure I was looking in one direction but all my equipment told me otherwise. It was a bad feeling so I shut down competely and verified with all my equipment and I was wrong.

I am sure there are other possibilities and use of teh equipment but I do find it liberating and exhilerating to navigate in all types of conditions. With my current knowledge and experience I would NOT go on plane without radar in limited visibility conditions. This includes bright sunshine.

The poorest condition we encountered was leaving Center Harbor and we could not see the end of the bow. It took us over 2 hours of focused navigation to get to the back side of Governer's Island. We were very confident we were safe and posed no danger to anyone elso. As soon as we got into the broads the fog lifted. Great experience.

Erica's testomy included a statement that the conditions were getting her passengers sick so she decided to pick up the speed (paraphrased by me) was interesting and it is true that headway speed in waves can be awful. I would think a faster "plowing" approach with the bow up would stablize the rocking sensation but if you hit an object at that speed (maybe 8- 12 MPH) the results would be different. Not judging but just pondering. What do you all think.

Thanks for the post SAMeredith.

Ice Out Monday!!!! maybe?

Airwaves

03-20-2010, 10:45 AM

Secondcurve
She made it to her father's house so she could have tied up there.
According to the testimony the weather the visibility turned south AFTER she left her father's house.

BroadHopper

03-20-2010, 11:53 AM

Secondcurve

According to the testimony the weather the visibility turned south AFTER she left her father's house.

Classic example of New England weather. I noticed a lot of small crafts find out the hard way as they try to navigate The Broads. :eek:

trfour

03-20-2010, 05:56 PM

http://citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100319/GJNEWS02/703199897/0/CITIZEN

SAMIAM

03-20-2010, 06:59 PM

After reading some of the posts today......it's clear we didn't even need that jury.....these folks have it all figured out.Why even bother with a trial when we have so many experts right here?

RI Swamp Yankee

03-20-2010, 07:02 PM

.......is driving the boat at 18 MPH in zero visibilty an accepted practice? ....
I posted this way back in this thread but the Coast Guard does have not only an opinion but a rule:

RULE 6
SAFE SPEED
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

I tend to value their opinion and experience.

NoBozo

03-20-2010, 07:19 PM

From my experience at sea (well away from land and lights) on a dark night. This doesn't affect everybody. It doesn't happen to me...BUT..some people are affected by loss of visual orientation ...boat rockin and rollin combined with the loss of a Visible Horizon.......resulting in Sea Sickness. Thats puking.

It has something to do with the inner ear..equalibrium..lack of a visual horizon combination. I can't explain the particulars.

I have seen Macho guys turn to MUSH under these conditions. :look:

My Advice: Do NOT go down into the cabin..night or day..if you feel sea sick. Stay OUT in the cockpit with fresh air and a visual horizon. :) NB

sa meredith

03-20-2010, 07:35 PM

After reading some of the posts today......it's clear we didn't even need that jury.....these folks have it all figured out.Why even bother with a trial when we have so many experts right here?

Curious if this post is pointed at me?
My honest thought is that thereis just too much evidence that alcohol played a rolled here...way too much. The .15 alone would normally be enough.
But the right attorney can show any evidence to be circumstancial...and that's what I believe happened here.
Maybe I'm wrong.
But here is a captain who grew up on the lake. She can probably navigate and operate a large boat as well,if not better,than anyone who reads this forum. And yet we are to believe she made the decisions that she did, with a clear head? Doesn't add up.
I think many people in the area know her, and consider her a friend, so they get their ire up when they comment on this matter. But the events of the evening seem to have taken a course that intoxication would explain.
Not trying to offend anyone. This is just my opinion.

ApS

03-20-2010, 08:27 PM

"...But the events of the evening seem to have taken a course that intoxication would explain.
Not trying to offend anyone. This is just my opinion..."

Starting with post #900, there does seem to be a "too-wide support" for alcohol on board a boat. :eek2:

hazelnut

03-20-2010, 08:46 PM

Curious if this post is pointed at me?
My honest thought is that thereis just too much evidence that alcohol played a rolled here...way too much. The .15 alone would normally be enough.
But the right attorney can show any evidence to be circumstancial...and that's what I believe happened here.
Maybe I'm wrong.
But here is a captain who grew up on the lake. She can probably navigate and operate a large boat as well,if not better,than anyone who reads this forum. And yet we are to believe she made the decisions that she did, with a clear head? Doesn't add up.
I think many people in the area know her, and consider her a friend, so they get their ire up when they comment on this matter. But the events of the evening seem to have taken a course that intoxication would explain.
Not trying to offend anyone. This is just my opinion.
I wouldn't think it was pointed at you SA I for one think you raise some very interesting points of view. A lot of your thoughts are pretty spot on. In that visibility if all accounts are accurate the only prudent speed should have been no wake speed. I've been there and done that and it can be scary. I was out on a night when visibiltiy went to zero I limped back to the weirs at No Wake from beyond governers and eagle. When I came into weirs my course was off about 25 yard or so. Thankfully I had the lights from the beach to guide me and I was traveling at 5 mph.

VtSteve

03-20-2010, 09:05 PM

Whatever... These two look pretty darn happy to me. Probably relieved that it's finally over.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100319/FRONTPAGE/3190304

Airwaves

03-20-2010, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by RI Swamp Yankee
I posted this way back in this thread but the Coast Guard does have not only an opinion but a rule:

RULE 6
SAFE SPEED
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

I tend to value their opinion and experience.
As do I, unfortunately NH has never adopted Rule 6.

SAMIAM

03-21-2010, 06:46 AM

Not at all, SA...I've always enjoyed your posts. That was kind of tongue in cheek, referring to the fact that none of us were privy to the information that the jury got in order to render a decision.

sa meredith

03-21-2010, 06:57 AM

Whatever... These two look pretty darn happy to me. Probably relieved that it's finally over.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100319/FRONTPAGE/3190304

While I'm sure the smiles are from some measure of relief knowing that the trial is over, my best guess would be that Stephanie Beaudoin's family can't bring themselves to smile at all, when considering this event.

ApS

03-21-2010, 07:15 AM

For what its worth,I also saw the site within a week and the outcropping as you call it it closer to 5 feet.The photo you posted gives you the scale you seek.The windows would be about 3 feet high based on a 7 foot wall that they are in.From my observation the highest point is at least 50% taller than the windows.
The paddle is marked with four black bands, for a scale of three feet—total.

ETA:
After subtracting two inches for late-season change in water depth, compare the largest marking on the granite to the deepest damage on the boat.

On the boat, measure up three feet from the keel. This boat was going much faster than it should have been. :rolleye2:

PC31

03-21-2010, 07:54 AM

sa meredith

03-21-2010, 09:38 AM

Were you intoxicated when you wound up in the witches? Obviously the prosecutor did not prove that .15 was accurate.

Really...you think that an appropriate analogy???!!! Really???
Strange, but I'll bite...
Visibilty was simply as far as the eye can see...bright sunny day. No real reason to not be cruising along.
There were no beer can/bottles empty/full on board. No booze of any kind.
I had not spent 5 hours in a bar that day.
I had consumed no alcohol in the previous 24 hours.
Realizing my insanely stupid/ careless error, I STOPPED IN TIME!

I don't want to do battle with you...really.
But you think these are the same things?

Honestly...my only real questions here, are given her amount of experience (which I believe to be substancial), how can she have made some of the deciisons that she did.
Really, it comes down just one decision...she stated visibility went to zero...but powered back up because her passengers were feeling ill.
That does not sound like the logic of a clear thinking person.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

RI Swamp Yankee

03-21-2010, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by RI Swamp Yankee
As do I, unfortunately NH has never adopted Rule 6.
True, it just points out what the prudent, experienced would/should do.

brk-lnt

03-21-2010, 06:53 PM

Just a quick thought/question I have, as this thread seems to be starting to wind down... I have my own opinion on the matter, and without a long detailed post, would simply state that I believe justice is not being served. If her financial situation was different, I believe the outcome would be quite different...but when you can afford the best defense lawyers that money can buy...well you tend to get better results.

Just to play devils advocate...

So which is it, are the poor under-served, or are the wealthy over-served?

I've certainly heard detailed accounts of over-zealous public prosecutors that have put innocent people (and by innocent I mean people later acquitted by DNS evidence, etc.) away because those people couldn't afford a proper defense.

Can you blame someone for using all of their available resources to try to escape a conviction? Do you think in this case Erica should have gone with a public defender? Would you do things differently if you were in the same position with the same resources?

chipj29

03-22-2010, 07:38 AM

Starting with post #900, there does seem to be a "too-wide support" for alcohol on board a boat. :eek2:

There is nothing wrong (legally and morally) with having alcohol on a boat. Just because there is alcohol on a boat does not mean that the person piloting the boat has been drinking. It doesn't mean that anyone on the boat has been drinking. And it does not mean that any person on the boat is drunk.

The presence of alcohol on a boat means just one thing...that there is alcohol on a boat. Nothing more, nothing less. So yes, I am saying that as long as it is legal, it is perfectly acceptable.

sa meredith

03-22-2010, 08:24 AM

Just to play devils advocate...

So which is it, are the poor under-served, or are the wealthy over-served?

I've certainly heard detailed accounts of over-zealous public prosecutors that have put innocent people (and by innocent I mean people later acquitted by DNS evidence, etc.) away because those people couldn't afford a proper defense.

Can you blame someone for using all of their available resources to try to escape a conviction? Do you think in this case Erica should have gone with a public defender? Would you do things differently if you were in the same position with the same resources?

It's like this... people are quick to say, "well, let's not rush to judgement. Let the judge and jury decide"
Well, using that same logic, let's not be naive and think that a judge and jury cannnot be mislead, by a sharp lawyer, who can make the evidence look exactly the way he wants it to. See: OJ.
In this case, admitted they were in bar for 5 hours, admitted they were drinking, had booze and empties on board, tested at .15, made very poor decisions that a normal thinking person would have a hard time agreeing with...but OUI? Of course not.

fatlazyless

03-22-2010, 08:30 AM

NoRegrets

03-22-2010, 08:34 AM

Alcohol does a good job of removing ink marks from vinyl upholstery, plus it cleans paint brushes used with BIN primer-sealer. Two excellent reasons to carry alcohol on board:laugh:! For a skipper out navigat'n in a $150,000 Formula 370 SS, maintaining a good supply of Grey Goose would most certainly be an appropriate application:D!

I was getting so serious but your post just changed my day! Thanks.

VtSteve

03-22-2010, 10:09 AM

Alcohol does a good job of removing ink marks from vinyl upholstery, plus it cleans paint brushes used with BIN primer-sealer. Two excellent reasons to carry alcohol on board:laugh:!

For a skipper out navigat'n in a $150,000 Formula 370 SS, maintaining a good supply of Grey Goose would most certainly be an appropriate application:D!

Never knew that, how utterly good taste :rolleye2:

I think the Formula is a lot closer to $400k than 200k. It's a fashionable express cruiser. I could use my boat as a tender for it :laugh:

Excalibur

03-22-2010, 11:10 AM

I have waited for the outcome and to learn all the facts in this case. It effected me as a frequent night boater on the lake and I believed it has made me more cautious even on a lake I know like the back of my hand.

I was saddened for the loss and hardship it has caused, and felt it could of happen anyone else on the lake that boats at night. Alcohol is always on your mind to jump to conclusion, "they must have been drunk to hit a island". But many things impair our judgment, and being late at night, fatigue is a major cause of accidents.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/fatigue-wheel-root-serious-traffic-accidents.html

So I hope for all of us that enjoy the lake, to keep a respect for it.

LIforrelaxin

03-22-2010, 12:52 PM

. But many things impair our judgment, and being late at night, fatigue is a major cause of accidents.

As I watched the trial unfold and read what I could. And then knowing what I know about fatigue I have always, and will always wonder what role fatigue played in this case. Unfortunately as Alcohol is always a much more volatile subject in these case it got all the attention.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't believe that Erica was stone cold sober that night. But was the fatigue from a long day involved in this accident every bit as much as the alcohol... I personally believe it was.... I believe it very well could have been the driving force to get to the destination that night for a good nights sleep. Instead of anchoring somewhere and waiting the bad weather out.

A thought for everyone to think about here... The last time you had two or three drinks...(assuming you don't have 2 or 3 drinks every night)... how quickly do you feel fatigued and ready to head off to bed.

VtSteve

03-22-2010, 09:48 PM

Typically, days spent lounging around in the sun will make me a bit fatigued, whether I've had drinks or not. Standing at the helm for extended period will fatigue my back, so this year I tried the new Sperry (ASV) anti-shock-vibration gimmick shoe. So far, after a week, my back feels much more relaxed after days on hard surfaces.

Many people know what it's like to be so tired, the lines on the road seem to be your only focus. It's very hard to concentrate on what's up ahead at that stage. Can't say I've ever felt that in a boat, the air usually makes me alert.

But I doubt fatigue played much of a part in this case, who knows? In rain and limited visibility, anything can happen. She couldn't see anything, but thought she was ok due to one reading. It wasn't a great choice. Personally, I've never, ever been sick or dizzy on a lake in a boat, driving or not. And I'm quite sure that I would never take a reading of 70' of water as an indication of being safe. Anyone that's ever boated on any lake knows that 70' can become deeper, or shallower, real quick. We have a spot out front here by a reef, it goes from almost 350' to 8' inside of a quarter mile.

All we can do now is take it all in, and realize that we're not as good as our minds think we are. We were told that as HS kids, again in college, and by adult age, everyone just hopes most of us listened. But in the end Ex, as an adult, I know that neither fatigue, nor alcohol was to blame here. Those two items are choices and actions made by the operator. Accidents can, and will, happen to even the most careful skipper. But each situation is different.

Everyone has their own common sense, or even sympathetic sense, of what this accident entailed. The details of the start to finish trip have all been laid out during the trial for all to see. All I can say after all of this is that the last picture I saw from court was a little disturbing, although many predicted it.

For the rest of us, we all know there are very serious responsibilities that come with piloting a boat of any kind. Nobody's perfect, but at least we try to take these things seriously.

ApS

03-23-2010, 05:54 AM

No amount of punishment levied upon her by a court of law and a jury of her peers will come close to the suffering she will endure living with the memory of this terrible tragedy.
1) Would you support a revocation of this captain's boating certificate? :confused:

2) If so—keeping in mind the summons-penalties—for how long? :confused:

There is nothing wrong (legally and morally) with having alcohol on a boat. Just because there is alcohol on a boat does not mean that the person piloting the boat has been drinking. It doesn't mean that anyone on the boat has been drinking. And it does not mean that any person on the boat is drunk.

The presence of alcohol on a boat means just one thing...that there is alcohol on a boat. Nothing more, nothing less. So yes, I am saying that as long as it is legal, it is perfectly acceptable.
1) Interesting insertion of morally into the debate: :rolleye2: How about in automobiles? For truckers? For train engineers? :eek2:

2) To ask the Union Leader's headline-question again:

"Horrible Accident or Drunken Crash?" (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=No+verdict+yet+in+boat+fatal +trial&articleId=740381d9-61f9-429b-b5dd-31d31531478f)

:cool: Keep in mind the following FACTS:

BAC of defendant Blizzard: .15
BAC of decedent Beaudoin: .14 (http://www.boston.com/yourtown/burlington/articles/2010/03/15/pilot_in_nh_fatal_boat_crash_thought_she_had_depth/)
BAC of injured-passenger Shinopoulos: .09

3) To the well-being of our fellow boaters, passengers and shoreline dwellers—while burdened with a Captain's responsibility, every one of us owes the highest and most-rigid of standards.

IMHO

chipj29

03-24-2010, 01:50 PM

1) Interesting insertion of morally into the debate: :rolleye2: How about in automobiles? For truckers? For train engineers? :eek2:

What is so morally wrong with me having alcohol in my vehicle, whether it be a boat or car? I won't argue with the truck or train, as those are completely different scenarios. One should not carry alcohol in a business vehicle. Where I work there are rules against that.

Again, the vehicle (my personal vehicle) is being used as transportation. It is perfectly legal. Alcohol is perfectly legal to purchase, transport and even drink. I know that is hard to believe, but it is still legal to drink alcohol. The horror. :rolleye2:
If it was morally wrong for me to carry alcohol in my car, how would I get it home from the store?
If it was morally wrong for me to carry alcohol in my boat, how would I get it to my island home (if I had an island home for example)? How would I get it from my lakefront home, to a friends house where I was staying the night?

If alcohol was not morally acceptable, how would I drink the blessed sacrament in church?

Seriously APS, alcohol is legal and morally accepted by most people.

Let me give you one scenario here. I was driving home from work one Friday, and stopped to pick up a 30 pack to enjoy over the weekend, perhaps with some friends. While driving home from the store, I was pulled over for speeding. Other than a speeding ticket, what am I being charged with for transporting the alcohol to my house? What do my neighbors think of me for bringing home some beer...in my car? :eek:

fatlazyless

03-24-2010, 06:11 PM

What is so morally wrong with me having alcohol in my vehicle, whether it be a boat or car?

For a moral opinion....talk to your moral adviser, ....for a legal opinion....New Hampshire has a state statute commonly known as the "open container law" which outlaws an open alcoholic beverage to be within the vehicle while on the road, and means an open beer can, wine bottle, liquor bottle with its' cork, tab, screw top, etc., being removed.

Understand you can purchase facsimile faux cans of soda that look like Coke or Pepsi that fit over a beer can and presumably disquise the open beer from the eyes of law enforcement but not necessarily from their noses.

secondcurve

03-24-2010, 06:19 PM

What is so morally wrong with me having alcohol in my vehicle, whether it be a boat or car? I won't argue with the truck or train, as those are completely different scenarios. One should not carry alcohol in a business vehicle. Where I work there are rules against that.

Again, the vehicle (my personal vehicle) is being used as transportation. It is perfectly legal. Alcohol is perfectly legal to purchase, transport and even drink. I know that is hard to believe, but it is still legal to drink alcohol. The horror. :rolleye2:
If it was morally wrong for me to carry alcohol in my car, how would I get it home from the store?
If it was morally wrong for me to carry alcohol in my boat, how would I get it to my island home (if I had an island home for example)? How would I get it from my lakefront home, to a friends house where I was staying the night?

If alcohol was not morally acceptable, how would I drink the blessed sacrament in church?

Seriously APS, alcohol is legal and morally accepted by most people.

Let me give you one scenario here. I was driving home from work one Friday, and stopped to pick up a 30 pack to enjoy over the weekend, perhaps with some friends. While driving home from the store, I was pulled over for speeding. Other than a speeding ticket, what am I being charged with for transporting the alcohol to my house? What do my neighbors think of me for bringing home some beer...in my car? :eek:

Chip:

She killed someone and she was drunk based upon scientific evidence, as APS aptly notes above. While the jury didn't find her guilty on two of the three charges, they didn't find her innocent either. The jury did find her guilty of negligently operating her boat.

The sentencing will be interesting. My guess is that the judge will go heavy on the jail time given that he likely wasn't fooled by Blizzard's slick attorney.

VitaBene

03-24-2010, 06:38 PM

1) Would you support a revocation of this captain's boating certificate? :confused:

2) If so—keeping in mind the summons-penalties—for how long? :confused:

1) Interesting insertion of morally into the debate: :rolleye2: How about in automobiles? For truckers? For train engineers? :eek2:

2) To ask the Union Leader's headline-question again:

"Horrible Accident or Drunken Crash?" (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=No+verdict+yet+in+boat+fatal +trial&articleId=740381d9-61f9-429b-b5dd-31d31531478f)

:cool: Keep in mind the following FACTS:

3) To the well-being of our fellow boaters, passengers and shoreline dwellers—while burdened with a Captain's responsibility, every one of us owes the highest and most-rigid of standards.

IMHO

APS, I will be completely honest and say that 95% of the times that my boat is on the water, there is alcohol on board. I will also tell you that 100% of the time the operator is sober.

You seem to have focused on the "on board" part. Standards should not include (or in this place preclude) what can be carried onboard a boat, tractor trailer or automobile.

Please understand I have no tolerance for drunk operators. I think Ms. Blizzard got off easy legally.

A good operator is a good operator and what he/she carries on board will not change that. Of course, the opposite is true.

NoBozo

03-24-2010, 06:40 PM

Understand you can purchase facsimile faux cans of soda that look like Coke or Pepsi that fit over a beer can and presumably disquise the open beer from the eyes of law enforcement but not necessarily from their noses.

I Had NO IDEA about such an option. Never heard of such a thing. No need to. SO How would YOU know such things....?? :look: Just wondering...???..............:confused: NB

fatlazyless

03-24-2010, 06:51 PM

OCDACTIVE

03-24-2010, 07:12 PM

NoBozo

03-24-2010, 07:15 PM

...faux, slip-over disquiser cans?.....by reading about them in this forum.....like where else? ...and no doubt available on the internet. Ever notice how law enforcement tends to sniff beverage containers during traffic stops as they know about all the tricks...

NOPE: Can't say I have ever noticed law enforcement "Sniffing' beverage containers during traffic stops. Havn't been in a Traffic Stop since I was a teenager...maybe around 1961 or so. Maybe I need to get Stopped to get up to date. :D :D NB

sa meredith

03-24-2010, 07:58 PM

There hasn't been one substantial post regarding the case, in hand, in days.. Perhaps someone should start a alcohol and boating thread so that the continuous conjecture can stop.

There is nothing more that can be said that hasn't been said already until April 21st. So lets have some respect for everyone involved and move the conversation elsewhere.

I would take issue with your statement...
I posed what I thought a very legit question.
And so, I ask you....
I've read many of your posts, and clearly you are a skilled/experienced boater. So tell me...under what circumstances, would you travel, at night, at 18MPH, in zero visibility, in a non emergency situation?

OCDACTIVE

03-24-2010, 08:04 PM

I would take issue with your statement...
I posed what I thought a very legit question.
And so, I ask you....
I've read many of your posts, and clearly you are a skilled/experienced boater. So tell me...under what circumstances, would you travel, at night, at 18MPH, in zero visibility, in a non emergency situation?

Start a new thread and I will be happy to answer night driving questions, my habits etc.

Also it was not directed at you.. I have found this thread has become offensive in many posts (not yours) to those partys involved on both sides. Every bit of evidence that has been brought to light as been discussed, elaborated on, even speculated on to no ends.

To continue to discuss other issues under this topic in my opinion is disrespectful to the families and we should let it rest until there is any more information or news brought to light.

But again if you want to discuss night driving or alcohol in boats I would be more then happy to discuss my views and safety on the lake at your convenience. Just in a different thread.

sunset on the dock

03-25-2010, 04:56 AM

Slickcraft

03-25-2010, 05:25 AM

Looks like someone thinks speed limits on our highways aren't necessary either. If I were writing a book I couldn't even dream this stuff up!

From Laconia Citizen.....citizen.com

Laconia:
Blizzard cited for going 84 mph while talking on cell phone

Link to the story:
http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100325/GJNEWS02/703259607/-1/CITIZEN

secondcurve

03-25-2010, 05:46 AM

Start a new thread and I will be happy to answer night driving questions, my habits etc.

Also it was not directed at you.. I have found this thread has become offensive in many posts (not yours) to those partys involved on both sides. Every bit of evidence that has been brought to light as been discussed, elaborated on, even speculated on to no ends.

To continue to discuss other issues under this topic in my opinion is disrespectful to the families and we should let it rest until there is any more information or news brought to light.

But again if you want to discuss night driving or alcohol in boats I would be more then happy to discuss my views and safety on the lake at your convenience. Just in a different thread.

OCDACTIVE:

It looks like there is some new information on Blizzard. Care to comment? Clearly she is a menace not only on our waterways but on our roadways. I'm sure it wasn't her fault maybe her gas pedal was defective like all those Toyota's. I think if I were her I'd also change my vanity plate, but that is just me.