Winnipesaukee Forum - View Single Post

Skip · 01-03-2008, 09:09 AM

For the final time let me remind the reader that yes, Aps is correct in one tiny aspect of his opinion on this matter, speed did play a part in the conviction of Littlefiled.

How so?

An extensive investigation and re-creation of the accident led investigators to a reasonable belief that Littlefield was travelling approximatley 28 MPH at the time of the collision.

But given all the conditions present that evening the State opined and the jury and the NH Supreme Court concluded that the speed Littlefield was operating at was not a contributing factor to the accident, and that given his estimated speed and the environmental conditions he faced that night he easily should have been able to avoid a collision.

Therefore the jury's opinion, upheld by the NH Supreme Court, was that something else other than speed caused the collision and that something was the ultimate decision that imprisoned Littlefield.

And what was that something else? Again, a reading of the transcript of both the original trial and the appeal make it readily apparent. Littlefield was unable to maintain a proper lookout due in part to the amount of alcohol he had drank just prior to the collision.

Simple and obvious as that.

And the fact that Boating While Intoxicated laws with inherent criminal and civil penalties existed that evening that Littlefield chose to drink too much did nothing to deter him or three other adult passenges from preventing this crime.

The fact that there were children present during the drinking and subsequent collision did nothing to deter the crime.

The fact that a number of other horrific and well publicized alcohol related boating collisions have occured throughout the country prior to that night of drinking did nothing to prevent this crime.

And yet a handful out here wnat to continue to harangue that maybe a speed limit that night would have prevented Littlefield and his passengers from engaging in the course of action that ultimately led to this tragedy?

Oh, by the way.....in the horrific alcohol induced collision that Aps cites as the basis for his argument? Gee, there was a speed limit that night in that canal.

And it did nothing to prevent the deaths of six innocent people!

01-03-2008, 09:09 AM	#38
Skip Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Dover, NH Posts: 1,615 Thanks: 256 Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts	Don't let the verbiage cloud the facts..... For the final time let me remind the reader that yes, Aps is correct in one tiny aspect of his opinion on this matter, speed did play a part in the conviction of Littlefiled. How so? An extensive investigation and re-creation of the accident led investigators to a reasonable belief that Littlefield was travelling approximatley 28 MPH at the time of the collision. But given all the conditions present that evening the State opined and the jury and the NH Supreme Court concluded that the speed Littlefield was operating at was not a contributing factor to the accident, and that given his estimated speed and the environmental conditions he faced that night he easily should have been able to avoid a collision. Therefore the jury's opinion, upheld by the NH Supreme Court, was that something else other than speed caused the collision and that something was the ultimate decision that imprisoned Littlefield. And what was that something else? Again, a reading of the transcript of both the original trial and the appeal make it readily apparent. Littlefield was unable to maintain a proper lookout due in part to the amount of alcohol he had drank just prior to the collision. Simple and obvious as that. And the fact that Boating While Intoxicated laws with inherent criminal and civil penalties existed that evening that Littlefield chose to drink too much did nothing to deter him or three other adult passenges from preventing this crime. The fact that there were children present during the drinking and subsequent collision did nothing to deter the crime. The fact that a number of other horrific and well publicized alcohol related boating collisions have occured throughout the country prior to that night of drinking did nothing to prevent this crime. And yet a handful out here wnat to continue to harangue that maybe a speed limit that night would have prevented Littlefield and his passengers from engaging in the course of action that ultimately led to this tragedy? Oh, by the way.....in the horrific alcohol induced collision that Aps cites as the basis for his argument? Gee, there was a speed limit that night in that canal. And it did nothing to prevent the deaths of six innocent people!