[Skip]

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

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

But let me bring everyone back to square one.

Yes, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

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

That said to date we know the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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