Boating Accident/Death off Diamond Island

[topwater]

Ok, I'll say it!!! WHAT A PIECE OF WORK SHE IS !! she deserves everything she is going to get, which I hope includes the kitchen table thrown at her. I said it before and I will say it again, She was quilty then, and she is quilty now.
Ocdactive, I agree with you about this thread, IMHO she is not worth wasting any more of my time on. That is my last ( Perry Mason Moment )!

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

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.

FLL, I know what the law is regarding OPEN containers. However that is not what APS and I were discussing. Nevermind the fact that there is NO law pertaining to open containers on boats.
I have made my point perfectly clear that the presence of alcohol means only that there was alcohol on the boat. That fact alone may of course raise suspicion that she was drinking, but it proves nothing.

Originally Posted by secondcurve

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.

I don't disagree with you at all. My point goes back to before the trial ended, where we were discussing the fact that there was alcohol on the boat. See above.

I am not condoning her actions in anyway. I am only stating that there is nothing wrong with alcohol (open or unopen container) being present on a boat. Period.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

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.

this is not new information concerning the tragic loss of life from a boating accident.

[sa meredith]

Although I have been very critical of Erica's decision making in the past week or so, part of me felt sympathy for her...as we all (or at least me) have made poor choices in our lives from time to time.
To be very honest, many years back, I thought nothing of mixing alcohol with operating a boat/ automobile...although on the boat, was always very careful to limit drinking to one or two per 4 hours. In the car, well, not so much...
Anyway...to me, two things in the past week speak very loudly to her character.
1. Allowing herself to be seen with a huge smile on her face following the verdict. I'm quite sure her victim and the vicitim's family can no longer smile. Save the celebration for private quarters.
2. This latest story of speeding/ changing lanes with no signal/ using a cell phone/ generally not paying attention while driving in the third lane.
Was there an open beer in the center console??!!
What a blatant show of disrespect for a person who just caught, what I believe, to be a nice break. No OUI conviction, after testing at .15, and admitting drinking.
Go easy for a while, Erica. 65 MPH, limit going out in public, etc etc...
I love the comment about..."...gee, I haven't been stopped in a really long time." Really?! Anything else you'd care to disclose?

[john60ri]

Since the saga continues, one final comment: When a defense attorney has to represent a client who is guilty as sin, what he and the client have to do is make up a "story" which will hopefully paint the client in a more favorable light. I did not buy the part of the story about her speeding up because her passengers were feeling sick. Did not sound credible to me, but maybe that's the best they could come up with. Whatever story they presented to the jury, it worked pretty well, since she was convicted only of negligence, not drunkenness or recklessness. It's all speculation, of course, and as I said, I am not a boater. I would love to read the transcript of the trial. As to the speeding incident, makes me think we're dealing with a real narcissistic personality here.

[sunset on the dock]

But let's give credit where credit is due...at least there was no report of any handgun in the car.

[Mr. V]

Has the prosecuting attorney given any indication as to whether he will retry her on the two hung jury counts?

It ain't over til it's over.

[Bear Islander]

It has been said here many times that we should "go easy" in our comments in deference to the family of the victim. Now we find out that in the almost two years since the accident, Erica has been driving around with "XTREME" on her license plate. It seems to me that is more of a slap in the face than anything that has been said here.

It shows a serious lapse in judgment and sensibility. Changing to a generic plate after the accident would have been prudent.

[DEJ]

The biggest lapse in judgement IMO are recent comments and remarks made here in this thread.

[GTO]

In trouble with the law again. I just heard on the radio that she was stopped last week , I think it said in Hampton on Rt 95, clocked at 85 mph. Good thing she wasn't driving a boat....then she's really be in trouble

[Scupper]

Tried to make me go to rehab, I said no, no, no.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by BI

Now we find out that in the almost two years since the accident, Erica has been driving around with "XTREME" on her license plate. It seems to me that is more of a slap in the face than anything that has been said here.

Criticize her for running into an island, criticize her for her lack of judgement, criticize her for speeding on 93 and talking on a cellphone...but to criticize her for her license plate? That's over the top even for you!

Nice piece on Channel 5 the other night.

[livefreeordie]

I can't believe the things you people have been saying on here. Have some respect. This could have happened to any one of us or one of our family members. One wrong decision could change everything. The best part about it is Erica is still a better boater than 90% of the people on here.... Its time to find something else to take up your day on this site.
Lets start a thread on how people should take a boating test on the water with there boat before they get there license. That would make this lake a bit safer don't you think.....

[hancoveguy]

Originally Posted by livefreeordie

I can't believe the things you people have been saying on here. Have some respect. This could have happened to any one of us or one of our family members. One wrong decision could change everything. The best part about it is Erica is still a better boater than 90% of the people on here.... Its time to find something else to take up your day on this site.Lets start a thread on how people should take a boating test on the water with there boat before they get there license. That would make this lake a bit safer don't you think.....

Well, maybe she can give us, the great unwashed, some boating lessons as a condition of her post-sentence probation...I for one would love to learn from her. I think O.J is giving cutlery lessons... Anyone interested?

Get real! A .15 is a .15 is a .15... Couldn't have happened to me. But lets see, it could have and did happen to all the people I arrested for OUI last year.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

I have followed this thread off and on since it started and have refrained from posting any comments due to the many unknowns, etc. This morning, however, when I read the account in the Citizen I could no longer stay silent.

This woman has got to represent the absolute worst of the me-first, I'm above the law, laws don't apply to me, I won't get caught (or if I do I'll get a high priced attorney and get off), not my problem, take no responsibility generation. She obviously made no attempt to learn from her little "boating mishap" knowing she could go on waving her middle finger at the world.

Her legal team has probably already determined that the trooper's radar gun was defective and that she really didn't change lanes without signalling because the trooper was looking the wrong way. Certainly there is nothing wrong with running over the trooper because because she was too busy entering numbers on her cell phone. This sounds like nothing more than a case of failure to keep a proper look out. If all you folks who believed her BS story during her recent trial still believe her, I've got several bridges to sell you.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by livefreeordie

...

....The best part about it is Erica is still a better boater than 90% of the people on here......

.

Sorry, I don't buy that. I think most boaters on this forum know enough to slow down when they can't see where they are going. And I'll bet that almost all of them have never been convicted of committing a homicide with their boat. That makes them "better boaters" than Erica.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by john60ri

"...When a defense attorney has to represent a client who is guilty as sin, what he and the client have to do is make up a "story" which will hopefully paint the client in a more favorable light..."

First, the court has the witness sworn—or, today, "affirmed"—to:

"Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

That said, Perjury is probably the least-enforced law on the books.

Second: That would be illegal for a lawyer. It is called "suborning of witnesses", and resulted in the recent impeachment of a President. (No conviction resulted).

IMO, in today's P-C world, the "vetting" of ALL Presidents has gone AWOL.

Originally Posted by NoBozo

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

The link is now broken, but FLL did, indeed, read of the "hiding a beer can" wrapper here:



Sold for the "discreet" boater.

It appeared about when Lake Norman, previously cited, departed from its "dry" county status. (Shortly after becoming a "wet" county, an airborne boat departed the lake, hit a guard rail, was hit by a car, spun, and flipped over onto its passengers (!) on Interstate 77.

Serious injuries resulted and beer cans were strewn in the median.



http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...=263602_263622

Today, for partying on a boat, you can also buy a "bong cover"!

With legal open containers on a boat, a legal firearm on a boat, with possibly stoned and legally-drunken passengers on a boat, may I be excused if I "wave-off" any future rescues?

[Merrymeeting]

Like others, I've followed this thread with passing interest, often amazed at the extreme views and comments on both sides.

Upon hearing stories of other troubles that friends children were in, mother always commented, "Be careful, you never know when you might be in their shoes."

As the father of children now in their late teens and early twenties, I had some sympathy for her situation and felt she had paid a horrible price, in many ways, for a stupid mistake that could have happened to many.

But this latest news changes things substantially for me. She's a menace and should recieve strong punishment for her actions. Imagine the outrage if she had hit or killed someone else during this latest fiasco, and she doesn't seem to be fazed at all.

[NoRegrets]

This young lady is self destructing. We do not need to "gang pile" when she is down. I do not see any purpose or value in attacking her personally, or each statement in the forum, or postureing for superior postion on this issue over other posters.

The Citizen article paints enough of a picture of the auto incident to give clues to her personal charactorists. We should trust the police quotes in the article. WMUR also did an article with no details except the speed stop.
The court system found her guilty....we will wait to see the penality placed on the crime.

Soemone has already stated the this event and subsequent story may become the topic of a book or movie. Let's sit back and see.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

It has been said here many times that we should "go easy" in our comments in deference to the family of the victim. Now we find out that in the almost two years since the accident, Erica has been driving around with "XTREME" on her license plate. It seems to me that is more of a slap in the face than anything that has been said here.

It shows a serious lapse in judgment and sensibility. Changing to a generic plate after the accident would have been prudent.

In a way, I agree with you BI. Although it shouldn't have any bearing on the case(s) at hand, it just might.

With that said, in the time after the accident, I think she had bigger and better things to worry about than changing her license plate. Does the article mention who the owner of the vehicle is?

[Mink Islander]

Originally Posted by livefreeordie

I can't believe the things you people have been saying on here. Have some respect. This could have happened to any one of us or one of our family members. One wrong decision could change everything. The best part about it is Erica is still a better boater than 90% of the people on here.... Its time to find something else to take up your day on this site.
Lets start a thread on how people should take a boating test on the water with there boat before they get there license. That would make this lake a bit safer don't you think.....

No this couldn't happen to any of us. That viewpoint on dangerous behavior is part of the problem on the lake and highways. We cannot tolerate this behavior if we want the lake/roads to be a safe place for all of us. It's our collective lives that these people put at risk. And highly publicized events like this are important reminders that each of us can be part of the problem through our own behavior. If you think this could happen to anyone, you're saying you could see YOURSELF doing the same thing that Ms. Xtreme has done. I don't buy that argument at all. Some of us know how to boat at night in poor weather. Some of us know how dangerous using cell phones and driving are and don't do it. Some of us don't drink and drive.

Thank goodness she didn't hit the statie.

Driving boats and cars is a priviledge, not a right -- I think she should lose both for a very very very long time.

Could have happened to anyone? I think not.

[lawn psycho]

OK, I have to open my mouth based on some of the comments. As someone who used to be a long distance commuter on both I-93, 101, I-95, I-89, there is no question she is not some aberration of what's on the road.

First, if I was out on bail you can bet I would be walking a straight line.

However in NH, you have to be doing over 30 MPH for the speed to be more than a simple speeding fine without some truly agregious action. I don't know what the speed limit is where she was stopped.

If a cop is on the side of I-93 waving his arms and then gets miffed at someone speeding by I have to call him an idiot. And you will find that 99.9%of the time I will support the police on their duties. Cars are whizzing by. If someone needs to be stopped, use the car that taxpayers provide you with blue lights on top to pull them over and issue the ticket. Playing frogger on I-93 is his stupidity.

Negligent driving? And how many tickets are written everyday for 80-84 MPH where the driver pulls away with a nice fine to go to the State coffers? Failure to use a signal? Seriously? You have got to be kidding me. I'll bet that officer doesn't use his own signal dozens of time per day.

I say he wanted to be a headline. This smells of overzealous IMO.

[tony1122]

Put the plate over the jail cell

[hancoveguy]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

OK, I have to open my mouth based on some of the comments. As someone who used to be a long distance commuter on both I-93, 101, I-95, I-89, there is no question she is not some aberration of what's on the road.

First, if I was out on bail you can bet I would be walking a straight line.

However in NH, you have to be doing over 30 MPH for the speed to be more than a simple speeding fine without some truly agregious action. I don't know what the speed limit is where she was stopped.

If a cop is on the side of I-93 waving his arms and then gets miffed at someone speeding by I have to call him an idiot. And you will find that 99.9%of the time I will support the police on their duties. Cars are whizzing by. If someone needs to be stopped, use the car that taxpayers provide you with blue lights on top to pull them over and issue the ticket. Playing frogger on I-93 is his stupidity.
Negligent driving? And how many tickets are written everyday for 80-84 MPH where the driver pulls away with a nice fine to go to the State coffers? Failure to use a signal? Seriously? You have got to be kidding me. I'll bet that officer doesn't use his own signal dozens of time per day.

I say he wanted to be a headline. This smells of overzealous IMO.

First of all, Stationary radar assignment is the safest and preferred method of speed/traffic enforcement. When you "use the car taxpayers provide you" you then have TWO people speeding and driving like idiots. How fast do you think a trooper needs to drive to catch up to a vehicle traveling 84 mph from a standing start? Easily around 100 mph, yeah thats way smarter than standing in the breakdown lane with a Neon green traffic vest that says "State Police" which, mind you, most drivers that are paying attention will easily see and slow down for. This is evidenced by the fact that, as we all know, there is a mini traffic jam every time rubberneckers see blue lights.

Second, there is a big push nation wide and certaininly state wide (with the new driving and texting law) to enforce distracted driving. The unsafe lane change needed to be noted and cited to prove the texting was a distraction.

Third, when a police officer has an interaction with someone that is either on probation or parole red flags pop up in the computer and very often dictate special considerations ie, calling of a probation officer, checking on pre and post trial release conditions, bail conditions etc...

Respectfully,
HCG

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by hancoveguy

First of all, Stationary radar assignment is the safest and preferred method of speed/traffic enforcement. When you "use the car taxpayers provide you" you then have TWO people speeding and driving like idiots. How fast do you think a trooper needs to drive to catch up to a vehicle traveling 84 mph from a standing start? Easily around 100 mph, yeah thats way smarter than standing in the breakdown lane with a Neon green traffic vest that says "State Police" which, mind you, most drivers that are paying attention will easily see and slow down for. This is evidenced by the fact that, as we all know, there is a mini traffic jam every time rubberneckers see blue lights.

Second, there is a big push nation wide and certaininly state wide (with the new driving and texting law) to enforce distracted driving. The unsafe lane change needed to be noted and cited to prove the texting was a distraction.

Third, when a police officer has an interaction with someone that is either on probation or parole red flags pop up in the computer and very often dictate special considerations ie, calling of a probation officer, checking on pre and post trial release conditions, bail conditions etc...

Respectfully,
HCG

Let's cut to the chase. Speeding violations are revenue enhancement.

Cops run 100MPH everyday to catch speeders every day. If traffic is heavy, the brake lights and slinky effect from the police car in the median or side of the road is actually as much of a hazard as the speeding, etc. There's a reason civil engineers design lanes to keep traffic moving.

I'm not debating that texting is unsafe. But, how many times are cops on their phone or radio while on patrol where technology exists to prevent it? Just playing devils advocate. I also think she was an idiot for breaking even a jaywalking law for someone in her circumstance. Negligent driving sounds like a stretch to me and if she did not have a hit, would have driven away with a speeding fine. Give her the big fat ticket for speeding and move on.

There are much better techniques to catch speeders than standing anywhere on I-93. State Police vest is highly visible? What about to the person riding next to SUVs or tractor trailers and the drivers view of anyone on the side of the road is blocked? May be safer on slower streets but on the highway, absolutely not.

[livefreeordie]

A day after the conviction, Blizzard was stopped by a state trooper on I-93 who said she was traveling 84 mph in a 65 mph zone. Prosecutors said the citation could be a factor in her sentencing.

State police said Blizzard was fumbling with her cell phone when she was seen speeding in a black SUV. The trooper said Blizzard was tailgating the car in front of her while she held a phone.

In his report, the trooper wrote that he "observed her quickly hold the phone out, look at it and then put it back to her ear."

The trooper said he realized she wasn't paying attention, and he had to steer "back into the high-speed lane to prevent being struck by her."

The trooper said he yelled at her to pull over while waving his arms. He said Blizzard "moved her phone away from her ear as she drove past" and then "stopped the vehicle rapidly, pulling into the breakdown lane."



This sounds so fabricated hahah... just a cop trying to get into the news...
How can the guy say she was tailgating then say she almost hit him when there was a car right in front of her. sounds like he was driving not sitting on the side of the road....
you realize 75% of the people on 93 are doing 75-80 MPH whats 4 more MPH

[hancoveguy]

Cops run 100 MPH everyday to stop speeders... Yup, should it be kept to a minimum, absolutely and this was an instance that an experienced, trained trooper deemed appropriate. I'll go with his jdgement, thanks. As far as other circumstances ie, SUV's, tractor trailers etc. Law enforcement deals with these situations appropriately, in other words, when they can not REASONABLY be seen or expect to be seen the practice shouldn't be undertaken and the trooper will typically back off the road to a safe distance until the situation to continue presents itself. If anyone has ever been passed, at highway speeds, within a few feet of any vehicle, much less a tractor trailer, they would know that the suction alone will pull you off your feet and into traffic if you are not paying attention.

HCG

[sa meredith]

Originally Posted by livefreeordie

I can't believe the things you people have been saying on here. Have some respect. This could have happened to any one of us or one of our family members. One wrong decision could change everything. The best part about it is Erica is still a better boater than 90% of the people on here.... Its time to find something else to take up your day on this site.
Lets start a thread on how people should take a boating test on the water with there boat before they get there license. That would make this lake a bit safer don't you think.....

Actaully, the end of your post makes a bit of sense. People needing to take a water test in there(sic) boat to get there(sic) license is not a bad idea. Think you meant "their", but who am I to say?

But, as for the rest of the post...I certainly agree one wrong decision can put a person's whole life into a tailspin. There is no question about that. However, I for one, think she made several bad decisions in a very brief period of time.
Let's assume for a moment that she is a more skilled/experienced boater than 90% of the poeple who read this forum ( I actaully stated something very similar to that a day or so ago) . Doesn't that make this whole thing worse?! If she is such a fantastic boater, what prompted her to decide 18 MPH IN ZERO VISIBITLY was a solid choice? My best guess is, she was not thinking clearly...add that to the .15, add that to 5 hours in bar, add that to the empties found on board, add that to the vodka bottle that they admitted to using to make a drink for the ride, and finally, add that to a sleek, smooth talking attorney, and the survey says?????????????
No OUI...thanks for playing!

[fatlazyless]

You know those bright green-yellow fluorescent 'state police' hi-visibility vests make it pretty obvious it's law enforcement up ahead there, as you cruise those Route 93 curvy hills.

If you are familiar with Route 93 northbound in New Hampton, close to Exit 23, then you know it's a two lane, 65-mph speed limit, interstate highway that runs along a rolling, hilly and forested landscape. The road was repaved smooth as can be, just last fall, by a federal stimilus funding grant with those big orange signs. It's a very attractive and picturesque highway, and would be a great location for a Hollywood movie to stage an 'xtreme' replay.

Lights....action....cameras....let's roll' em......


Maybe, Randy Quad to be the officer with Julia Roberts to be Erica?

[DEJ]

... and you can be the Judge and Jury.

[Just Sold]

Seems we hear what we want and somtimes it is not always correct and some here have indicated the officer was on the side of the road. From WMUR - it does not sound as if the officer was standing in the road on 93 or on the side in any way. Operative word "steer" Note that the high speed and breakdown lanes are referenced in the quoted report below so I doubt an officer ran across the highway. BTW State Police Cruisers have loud speaker systems and they can talk or yell at people using them.

"State police said Blizzard was fumbling with her cell phone when she was seen speeding in a black SUV. The trooper said Blizzard was tailgating the car in front of her while she held a phone.

In his report, the trooper wrote that he "observed her quickly hold the phone out, look at it and then put it back to her ear."

The trooper said he realized she wasn't paying attention, and he had to steer "back into the high-speed lane to prevent being struck by her."

The trooper said he yelled at her to pull over while waving his arms. He said Blizzard "moved her phone away from her ear as she drove past" and then "stopped the vehicle rapidly, pulling into the breakdown lane."

Blizzard allegedly apologized to the officer and said she was having trouble entering numbers into her phone. The trooper said that when he told her that she almost hit him, "she didn't appear affected."

[Pepper]

For the record, the report provided on WMUR is not correct. Sadly, they often get their stories mixed up, as they did in this instance. Trooper Taylor was, in fact, on the side of the road, and was observing the vehicle from a position outside his cruiser. It is for this reason that he was able to so carefully observe. It is also the reason he yelled for her to pull over - instead of using lights or siren. The facts are much more clearly spelled out in the articles published in both The Citizen, and The Laconia Daily Sun.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

If a cop is on the side of I-93 waving his arms and then gets miffed at someone speeding by I have to call him an idiot. And you will find that 99.9%of the time I will support the police on their duties. Cars are whizzing by. If someone needs to be stopped, use the car that taxpayers provide you with blue lights on top to pull them over and issue the ticket. Playing frogger on I-93 is his stupidity.

Regarding the above portion, I completely agree. I watched a trooper come literally within inches of his life when he walked from the breakdown lane into the right travel lane of I-93 to yell and point at a speeding vehicle in the left lane. There were 2 cars bearing down on him in the right lane, me (towing a trailer) and the car in front of me. The car in front of me was able to stop with inches to spare, and I came damn close to rear-ending the car. That in itself would have caused the car to hit the trooper. Just plain stupid on the troopers part.

[Steveo]

Originally Posted by Pepper

For the record, the report provided on WMUR is not correct. Sadly, they often get their stories mixed up, as they did in this instance. Trooper Taylor was, in fact, on the side of the road, and was observing the vehicle from a position outside his cruiser. It is for this reason that he was able to so carefully observe. It is also the reason he yelled for her to pull over - instead of using lights or siren. The facts are much more clearly spelled out in the articles published in both The Citizen, and The Laconia Daily Sun.

That is not how I interpret the Citizen's report:

Taylor's report states he was parked in a crossover on Interstate 93 conducting speed enforcement when he saw Blizzard's black 2007 GMC Yukon with the vanity plate "XTREME" in the passing lane, traveling at a high rate of speed, passing cars that were in the travel lane. He said he clocked the vehicle traveling at 84 mph. As he continued to watch the vehicle, Taylor observed it move to the travel lane without signaling. He said he stepped into the high-speed lane and waved his arms to slow traffic and when Blizzard's vehicle passed he observed the driver was holding a cell phone in her right hand and holding it up to her ear.

"I observed her quickly hold the phone out, look at it and then put it back to her ear," Taylor wrote in his report that was filled with Carroll's motion.

"Realizing the operator was not paying attention, I jumped back so as not to be struck by her vehicle and yelled at the top of my voice to 'Pull Over,' while motioning with my arms for her to do so," Taylor wrote.


1. He was parked in a "crossover" which is in the median so that authorized vehicles can get to other north or southbound lanes.

2. When Taylor first saw her she was in high speed lane

3. She then moved to the travel lane without signaling

4. Taylor then walked onto the high speed lane to signal Erica

5. He observed her with her cell phone and that she was not paying attention.

6. He jumped back on to the median when she went by. I have to assume she was still in the travel lane but Taylor was still worried she might drift into his lane due to lack of attentiveness.

7. He yelled and she stopped

8. I have to assume he got in his cruiser and drove to where Erica stopped.

[jrc]

Wow, I was surprised how quiet this forum was after the trial. People seemed a little afraid to talk about it. It's hard when you know some people on the forum must know the defendent and maybe the victim. Now I surprised how this latest news is being discussed.

This is really bad news for the defendent. The judge can use this latest event as information on sentencing. The procecutor will weigh this in his re-trial decision. Any re-trial runs the risk of this information coming in.

I still feel there should be a re-trial on the alcohol related charges. I really don't want to see two fatal collisions, obviously related to alcohol, where the driver is unpunished for the the alcohol. It really shakes my belief in the ability of the state to put teeth in alcohol enforcement.

I strongly believe that this is the most life threatening problem facing the lake. Sure 150' rule violations and wake damage have weight, but this is life or death stuff. Comment regarding licenses plates and guns on board seem out of place to me.

[Happy Gourmand]

.......negligent driving.... is it just me or is there a pattern here? And I have to wonder how many times she did it without being detected. Seems like her judgement is deficient. I'm thinking she will be having some time to contemplate her actions...and, hopefully, during that time, we won't have to worry about encountering her either on the water or on the road. My feelings of empathy towards her are much diminished since this second offense of negligence.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by livefreeordie

I can't believe the things you people have been saying on here. Have some respect. This could have happened to any one of us or one of our family members. One wrong decision could change everything. The best part about it is Erica is still a better boater than 90% of the people on here.... Its time to find something else to take up your day on this site.
Lets start a thread on how people should take a boating test on the water with there boat before they get there license. That would make this lake a bit safer don't you think.....

Well I was trying to stay away from this topic but sense the latest events I find myself once again not being able to keep my mouth shut.......

Lets start here with a on the water boat test --- Erica had been boating all her life, owning a 450K$ boat, I would say her driving a navigational skills where not in question.... that argument has no business in this thread. Weather that would make the lake safer or not is any ones question... On the road driving tests do such a wonderful job of keeping the roads safe.....

Now on to "this could happen to any of us" --- what exactly are you referring too.... The boat accident? The trial? The smooth move in the car? While accidents happen and yes they can happen to any off us, the smooth move Ms Blizzard pulled in her SUV, was plain stupidity... If she was smart, she would be staying at home, going to work and keeping a very low profile... apparently she is not... If I had just been convicted of negligence I wouldn't be driving up the road at 85 with my cell phone on being negligent even again.

Up until this I have felt as though there should be some leniency for Ms. Blizzard for her actions. As I felt up until now that living with what she had done to her friends should have had a life altering effect. However My opinion on that is changing. If she hasn't learned from her mistake then she indeed needs to be taught a harsh lesson....

[NoRegrets]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

Up until this I have felt as though there should be some leniency for Ms. Blizzard for her actions. As I felt up until now that living with what she had done to her friends should have had a life altering effect. However My opinion on that is changing. If she hasn't learned from her mistake then she indeed needs to be taught a harsh lesson....

Very well said and impossible to dispute.

[Pepper]

Steveo - you made my point much more clearly than I did!

I was disputing the report on WMUR, which suggested that the trooper was inside his car the entire time. Your breakdown of the Citizen article makes the point much easier to see.

Thanks!

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by The Phantom Gourmand

.......negligent driving.... is it just me or is there a pattern here? And I have to wonder how many times she did it without being detected. Seems like her judgement is deficient. I'm thinking she will be having some time to contemplate her actions...and, hopefully, during that time, we won't have to worry about encountering her either on the water or on the road. My feelings of empathy towards her are much diminished since this second offense of negligence.

I have to question if the trooper wrote the ticket for negligent driving *AFTER" having contacted any other official. Her attorney could subpeona the radio transmissions. They can also get his record of citations for speeding at 80-85 MPH and show how many were written as negligent driving. If someone other than the officer had a hand in what she was charged with, I think it may actually *HELP* her legal defense at sentencing.

Also, the statement about appearing to not be bothered or whatever she said is based on his personality and his perception of facial expressions. When you get into personal intrepretation like that in a report, I'm sorry but this trooper sounds like a real piece of work. Stick to the facts and don't try and spice up the report. The account said she did apologize.

I seriously question the officers details of the events. Go stand on an overpass on a major highway and watch cars go by. See just how much time you have to "observe". Hint: Don't blink

You can say I'm crazy but I have driven 80k/year at times in my life and could give a list a mile long of stupid moves I've seen the police do that put the public and themselves at risk on the road. I remember one time in MASS when I stopped at a contstruction zone during a major back-up and knocked on a troopers window to ask for directions. He jumped when he woke up No wonder the police fight so hard to keep those construction detail jobs under their control

I'm not cop bashing but I seriously think this trooper is trying to maxmize his opportunity. Don't misinterpret what I'm saying. Being on bail and at risk of going to big house she was an idiot for doing anything outside the law.

However, her actions on the highway occurs every hour/minute of the day. If you don't agree, you don't drive on the same roads I do. We need a different thread to discuss how to change the behavior.

[fatlazyless]

The March 27 www.cmonitor.com has a report on the Route 93, speeding-texting incident too, along with a number of informed and intelligent reader email replies. But, nothing from the state's biggest circulation newspaper, the Union Leader?

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

I have to question if the trooper wrote the ticket for negligent driving *AFTER" having contacted any other official. Her attorney could subpeona the radio transmissions. They can also get his record of citations for speeding at 80-85 MPH and show how many were written as negligent driving. If someone other than the officer had a hand in what she was charged with, I think it may actually *HELP* her legal defense at sentencing.

Also, the statement about appearing to not be bothered or whatever she said is based on his personality and his perception of facial expressions. When you get into personal intrepretation like that in a report, I'm sorry but this trooper sounds like a real piece of work. Stick to the facts and don't try and spice up the report. The account said she did apologize.

I seriously question the officers details of the events. Go stand on an overpass on a major highway and watch cars go by. See just how much time you have to "observe". Hint: Don't blink

You can say I'm crazy but I have driven 80k/year at times in my life and could give a list a mile long of stupid moves I've seen the police do that put the public and themselves at risk on the road. I remember one time in MASS when I stopped at a contstruction zone during a major back-up and knocked on a troopers window to ask for directions. He jumped when he woke up No wonder the police fight so hard to keep those construction detail jobs under their control

I'm not cop bashing but I seriously think this trooper is trying to maxmize his opportunity. Don't misinterpret what I'm saying. Being on bail and at risk of going to big house she was an idiot for doing anything outside the law.

However, her actions on the highway occurs every hour/minute of the day. If you don't agree, you don't drive on the same roads I do. We need a different thread to discuss how to change the behavior.

Why is it that everyone is at fault except Erica Blizzard ? She is incapable of exercising good judgment - PERIOD.

[NoRegrets]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

Why is it that everyone is at fault except Erica Blizzard ? She is incapable of exercising good judgment - PERIOD.

I'll bite at your question.....

I do not believe anyone is "defending" Erica and the accident in ony of the posts. Posters are only pointing out surrounding conditions and events based on experiences. This creates a rich thread of multiple perspectives by Winni Forum members. Their thoughts about speed traps, road conditions, or boating conditions are formed as the thread progresses and drifts from the origional post.

There is no "period" or forums would no longer exist.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

Why is it that everyone is at fault except Erica Blizzard ? She is incapable of exercising good judgment - PERIOD.

I agree with Lawn Psycho, but not in defense of what Erica did, I simply felt the report form the cop involved was a bit too subjective and it seemed like he had an axe to grind. Also, I find it amazing that all it takes is a moving violation and suddenly people who gave a convicted killer the benefit of doubt are only now convinced she's bad news.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Sorry if I was too definitive but I couldn't help but feel that there were excuses again being made for Erica's behavior. I agree that police are not always the most accurate but even if the trooper was only partially correct she was totally out of line and again showed extremely bad judgement. We all know that many drivers on Interstates do some pretty dumb things but that is no excuse for everyone driving recklessly, especially Erica.

[ApS]

She can beat this charge.

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

"...If she hasn't learned from her mistake then she indeed needs to be taught a harsh lesson...."

Mistake?

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

"...I seriously question the officers details of the events. Go stand on an overpass on a major highway and watch cars go by. See just how much time you have to "observe". Hint: Don't blink ...No wonder the police fight so hard to keep those construction detail jobs under their control ...However, her actions on the highway occurs every hour/minute of the day. If you don't agree, you don't drive on the same roads I do..."

Massachusetts "construction detail jobs" are mandated by Legislature. ("Overtime" rules for pensions need changing).

_____________________________________

"Don't blink"?

I think the LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) had adequate time for all of his observations—why?

Spend some time actually witnessing how LEOs do a "roadside stop". (Or try to launch from a trailer on route 109).

1) Absolutely nobody launching at the Libby Museum ramp can avoid blocking northbound traffic; however, it's the southbound traffic that's the problem.

If I see a logging truck is barreling towards our creeping trailer, I step into the roadway—put up my hand—and slow the vehicle ahead of that truck.

2) Plus, an example from those of us charged with enforcement in automobile racing:

When an infraction of a "no-contact rule" occurs, oftentimes the entire race car field is "black-flagged" in.

(Black flags are displayed around the track to signal the entire field to abandon the event and to enter the pits single-file. This is done to separate the driver from any others involved, and to "chill" discussions of the incident with others).

Once again, an official will step into the stream of "black-flagged" cars—raise his hand—and slow the vehicle ahead of the offender.

Hopefully, I've explained the concept here adequately.

Originally Posted by secondcurve:

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.

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE:

this is not new information concerning the tragic loss of life from a boating accident.
__________________
proud sbonh member - www.sbonh.org

Indeed, it is not:

1) LaPointe killed two after amassing 22 traffic convictions—in Massachusetts alone! (After how many tickets got "beaten"?)



(Boats assembled above, just an instant before the fatal crash).

2) While not fatal, the following was a close call. The boater who cut a kayak in half last season later proceeded to run over a pedestrian!!!

"...Knott drove away after the crash, but campus police were able to locate his vehicle in a nearby parking lot a short time later.

Prosecutors said Knott could hardly walk when a Breathalyzer showed his blood alcohol level at .18 and .20 -- twice the legal driving limit...Knott was also involved in an incident on Lake Sunapee on Aug. 6, New Hampshire Marine Patrol said. Officials said Knott was driving a power boat towing a water skier when he slammed into a kayak. The kayaker was able to jump out of the boat before the crash, officials said.

"I don't know anything about that. I can't tell you anything about that. I can tell you he has no record," defense attorney Thomas Drechsler said..."

Lastly:

LEOs don't make the laws: LEOs are charged by State Legislature with enforcement.

[fatlazyless]

It turns out that yesterday's Union Leader did run the Bea Lewis-Laconia Citizen report in their Saturday printed edition, front page with a somewhat negative title and a not-too-good photograph of Erica.

Apparently, the Union Leader added one paragraph to the end of Bea Lewis' article which quoted Attorney Moir as saying something like; "Why a moving violation has anything to do with this.....I simply do not understand?" ...in reference to why he and client Blizzard have a hearing to go to with with Judge McGuire and Prosecutor Carroll.

Maybe actor Tommy Lee Jones for Attorney James Moir?

[Seaplane Pilot]

Look, let's just plug in the electric chair and get this over with. Then maybe everyone can move on! Man oh man.

[tis]

When a person is being charged with something another incident has nothing to do with it-legally. It cannot be admitted in a court of law.

[Newbiesaukee]

Originally Posted by tis

When a person is being charged with something another incident has nothing to do with it-legally. It cannot be admitted in a court of law.

You are correct, but can it not be brought up in a sentencing hearing which seems to have more latitude and would be more relevant in this situation?

[Airwaves]

Interesting story in today's Boston Globe.

I am not sure how long it will be there before being archived, but this would certainly put a damper on evidence that is presented by prosecutors being accepted as fact without question!

[jeffk]

I haven't commented since the verdict so I might as well throw my 2 cents into the ante. I thought she would be convicted of negligence from the beginning. There is a HUGE responsibility on the operator of a boat to operate it flawlessly. Essentially, if there is a collision it is very difficult to avoid some type of responsibility for the collision. Since a death was involved this makes it even more of an issue. On a night that was described as extremely poor visibility it makes no sense to be traveling on plane. A prudent person would have been operating at headway speed. Further, I haven't seen why she wasn't using GPS? I know others have said theirs isn't always reliable but my experience has been very good with with mine. I might get a 10 ft error so I could hit a marker if I was cutting things too close, but an island? Sorry, not in my experience. When I am out at night I use GPS and sight to navigate. If either one fails I drop off plane to get my bearings. On the other hand if I have a clear GPS track and I can visually confirm it I am comfortable cruising at 45 MPH.

I am not against drinking but there is just no excuse for irresponsibility. Her BAC show she was legally drunk. My guess is the jury let her off on the alcohol conviction because they felt she was already paying a high price and would face jail time with the negligence conviction alone. It's not what the jury should have done but juries can make those kind of decisions. I think the challenges of night boating are significant. I drink very lightly on nights I am out, only one drink, possibly a second if I know I will be not leaving for a few hours. I don't need the extra disorientation at night. I think that's what a responsible boater should do. She was not acting responsibly.

I think she made a lot of stupid and even arrogant choices and her friend is dead because of it. She is going to pay a high price for her behavior. I'm not out for vengeance. I think it is a tragic situation for everyone involved but she has to accept the responsibility for her actions.

The driving incident underscores her mindset. 84 is pushing it pretty good. Using a cell phone in the manner described is foolish. She does what she wants and doesn't consider the cost. I guess after going through the accident I would have expected her to have become more circumspect. Sad.

[Airedale1]

Originally Posted by livefreeordie

75% of the people on 93 are doing 75-80 MPH whats 4 more MPH

1. It's excessive

2. If you are doing it while talking on cell phone, it's excessive, irresponsible and dangerous

3. If your are doing it while talking on a cell phone, changing lanes without signaling as you fly by a marked cruiser with a Trooper waving you down on a straight road, where if you were paying attention you should have spotted him a long time ago, on the day after you were released on personal recognizance by a jury of your peers, who found you guilty of a negligent homicide which resulted in the death of your friend and the maiming of yourself and another friend while you were the operator of a powerboat which struck an island in the dark, it is.............

Well, I have my own thoughts on what THAT is, lets see what the Judge says THAT is.

[hancoveguy]

Originally Posted by Airedale1

1. It's excessive

2. If you are doing it while talking on cell phone, it's excessive, irresponsible and dangerous

3. If your are doing it while talking on a cell phone, changing lanes without signaling as you fly by a marked cruiser with a Trooper waving you down on a straight road, where if you were paying attention you should have spotted him a long time ago, on the day after you were released on personal recognizance by a jury of your peers, who found you guilty of a negligent homicide which resulted in the death of your friend and the maiming of yourself and another friend while you were the operator of a powerboat which struck an island in the dark, it is.............

Well, I have my own thoughts on what THAT is, lets see what the Judge says THAT is.

I could not have said it better myself... Point #3 is the first and only example of an outstanding run-on sentence. Seriously Airedale, it was really well stated.

HCG

[Steveo]

On WMUR.com


http://www.wmur.com/news/22998417/detail.html


Important statement:

The county attorney said that the negligent driving charge could impact Blizzard's sentencing in April. She faces 3 1/2 to seven years in prison for negligent homicide due to failure to keep a proper lookout.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by tis

When a person is being charged with something another incident has nothing to do with it-legally. It cannot be admitted in a court of law.

I won't state it as fact but I believe that while other actions and even convictions cannot be brought up during the trial I believe it IS legitimate for them to be considered during sentencing. The judge is often allowed quite a bit of latitude if he thinks the circumstances warrant it and he is allowed to consider her whole record in making his decision. If this wasn't true you couldn't have "3 strikes and you're out" laws. Her showing flagrant irresponsibility right after having been convicted would certainly make me wonder if she has really learned anything from the accident.

[RI Swamp Yankee]

I just read the story about Ms Blizzard.

At the risk of being banned from this forum I have to say her actions and disregard for others defines the word stupid.

The day after her conviction she is speeding, negligent vehicle operation, almost hits a Trooper standing next to the road while fiddling with her cell phone instead of paying attention to the road.

That, to me, is a stupid, self centered, irresponsible attitude.

[Bear Island South]

Originally Posted by RI Swamp Yankee

I just read the story about Ms Blizzard.

At the risk of being banned from this forum I have to say her actions and disregard for others defines the word stupid.

The day after her conviction she is speeding, negligent vehicle operation, almost hits a Trooper standing next to the road while fiddling with her cell phone instead of paying attention to the road.

That, to me, is a stupid, self centered, irresponsible attitude.

I think there might be a lot of people who agree with your statement, read the comments from the Union article.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...3-5f55f22b88f0

[pah]

Drivers license was pulled this morning, pending sentencing on the boat charge.
Bail terms were revoked, she had to spend some time in jail while her family went to get the cash for the bail.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by RI Swamp Yankee

The day after her conviction she is speeding, negligent vehicle operation, almost hits a Trooper standing next to the road while fiddling with her cell phone instead of paying attention to the road.

I hate to say it (because I was fully convinced she was guilty of negligent homicide prior to the trial) but she is only being charged with these offenses, she has not been convicted. There's no "smoking gun" evidence (like a smashed up boat and a dead passenger) of any of these offenses. This could be nothing more than a vindictive police officer exaggerating about a perceived speeding offense.

[robmac]

Well I agree with you Dave, it's going to be how the judge feels about what the LEO reported in his report that'll tell how much it will affect sentencing. I would think as a smart person someone would be more careful when your facing a sentencing date coming up. Just my opinion

[sa meredith]

Originally Posted by Bear Island South

I think there might be a lot of people who agree with your statement, read the comments from the Union article.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...3-5f55f22b88f0

The comments posted under the article in the Union Leader are truly brutal...almost disturbing. Far worse than anything that has ever been posted on this forum, about any subject, at any time. And this coming from someone (me) who enjoys stiring the pot, and a good controversy. The worst ones are posted at the bottom...as they were the earliest.
Certainly not to be read by any members here, who might considered themselves thin skinned.
Some are just way way way over the line.

[jrc]

I wonder how many people here have posted there, a lot of common themes. One name look very familiar but he has denied being the same person before.

It's amazing how crazy people get when they think they are anonymous.

[WinnDixie]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

The comments posted under the article in the Union Leader are truly brutal...almost disturbing. Far worse than anything that has ever been posted on this forum, about any subject, at any time. And this coming from someone (me) who enjoys stiring the pot, and a good controversy. The worst ones are posted at the bottom...as they were the earliest.
Certainly not to be read by any memebers here, who might considered themselves thin skinned.
Some as just way way way over the line.

_____________________________________
Said to myself I would not get into this thread at all...ever...but...here I am. I have to agree with sa meredith. I have been reading the articles and comments in the Monitor and the Union Leader as this has gone on. I am amazed that a couple of them in this latest article...and you can easily tell which...have not been taken off. Highly inappropriate, and only a few "voices in the wilderness" seeming to point that out. A bad situation made worse.

[hancoveguy]

Originally Posted by pah

Drivers license was pulled this morning, pending sentencing on the boat charge.
Bail terms were revoked, she had to spend some time in jail while her family went to get the cash for the bail.

Nice...I guess there may be some justice in NH after all...albeit a modicum of justice but justice none the less.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by jrc

One name look very familiar but he has denied being the same person before.

No, that's definately not me posting as F.L.Less in the Union Leader. I have no idea who it might be? Every once in a blue moon, I'll post in the Union Leader and always use my real first name.

The six o'clock WMUR tv news tonight had about a 60-second video report on this morning's Belknap Superior Court hearing which included footage inside the court room and showed most all involved; defendant, prosecutor, defense, judge, and state trooper as he testified. Could be it will be replayed at 11-pm?

[NoBozo]

I can tell you one thing: ...I have been Biting My Lip BIG Time.. watching this thread progress. I wonder how many others feel the same....?? NB

[Merrymeeting]

Originally Posted by Dave R

This could be nothing more than a vindictive police officer exaggerating about a perceived speeding offense.

Let's forget about any percieved bias or editorializing by the officer.

Fact 1: She was driving significantly over the speed limit. She doesn't seem to be disputing this and it appears there are enough witnesses if needed.

Fact 2: While speeding, she was using her phone. A fact I'm sure can be verified through phone records, and one validated by her comments after being pulled over (unless you want to accuse the officer of outright fabrication)

Given the circumstances of the day before and her situation, even after you discount any believed bias or inappropriate reporting by the officer, her actions are one thing... STUPID!

The officer wouldn't have had a report to write if she didn't give him the opportunity.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Merrymeeting

Let's forget about any percieved bias or editorializing by the officer.

Fact 1: She was driving significantly over the speed limit. She doesn't seem to be disputing this and it appears there are enough witnesses if needed.

Fact 2: While speeding, she was using her phone. A fact I'm sure can be verified through phone records, and one validated by her comments after being pulled over (unless you want to accuse the officer of outright fabrication)

Given the circumstances of the day before and her situation, even after you discount any believed bias or inappropriate reporting by the officer, her actions are one thing... STUPID!

The officer wouldn't have had a report to write if she didn't give him the opportunity.

I was under the impression she was charged with going 19 MPH over the speed limit. I think that's considered a moving violation. I've been given friendly verbal warnings for worse speed violations. IMO, it's not a big deal; the state does not seem to think so either, as far as I know, they only require the payment of a fine, no court appearance. It's basicaly a radar tax.

I was also under the impression that using a mobile phone while driving was not illegal in NH. Might be dumb, but it's probably not illegal.

If the officer wished to charge her with "distracted driving" (assuming that's a crime in NH), I'd think he'd have good reason to paint her in the worst possible light in his report.

I agree that if she did indeed do the things the police officer reported, she was acting very stupidly, especially considering she was out on bail.

[robmac]

IMHO, a definate lack of good judgement. We'll only have to wait and see the legal fallout as a result.

[SAMIAM]

I don't think it shows very good judgement for a LEO to jump out into the road with traffic passing by at 70 mph.That's why they have blue lights.After what she's been through....sure ,she might have been distracted.Who hasn't.
I think that the trooper saw who it was and knew he'd get some face time with the media.Seems a little unusual to call the county attorney right after a traffic stop.

[hancoveguy]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

I don't think it shows very good judgement for a LEO to jump out into the road with traffic passing by at 70 mph.That's why they have blue lights.After what she's been through....sure ,she might have been distracted.Who hasn't.
I think that the trooper saw who it was and knew he'd get some face time with the media.Seems a little unusual to call the county attorney right after a traffic stop.

Originally Posted by lawn psycho
OK, I have to open my mouth based on some of the comments. As someone who used to be a long distance commuter on both I-93, 101, I-95, I-89, there is no question she is not some aberration of what's on the road.

First, if I was out on bail you can bet I would be walking a straight line.

However in NH, you have to be doing over 30 MPH for the speed to be more than a simple speeding fine without some truly agregious action. I don't know what the speed limit is where she was stopped.

If a cop is on the side of I-93 waving his arms and then gets miffed at someone speeding by I have to call him an idiot. And you will find that 99.9%of the time I will support the police on their duties. Cars are whizzing by. If someone needs to be stopped, use the car that taxpayers provide you with blue lights on top to pull them over and issue the ticket. Playing frogger on I-93 is his stupidity.
Negligent driving? And how many tickets are written everyday for 80-84 MPH where the driver pulls away with a nice fine to go to the State coffers? Failure to use a signal? Seriously? You have got to be kidding me. I'll bet that officer doesn't use his own signal dozens of time per day.

I say he wanted to be a headline. This smells of overzealous IMO.

First of all, Stationary radar assignment is the safest and preferred method of speed/traffic enforcement. When you "use the car taxpayers provide you" you then have TWO people speeding and driving like idiots. How fast do you think a trooper needs to drive to catch up to a vehicle traveling 84 mph from a standing start? Easily around 100 mph, yeah thats way smarter than standing in the breakdown lane with a Neon green traffic vest that says "State Police" which, mind you, most drivers that are paying attention will easily see and slow down for. This is evidenced by the fact that, as we all know, there is a mini traffic jam every time rubberneckers see blue lights.

Second, there is a big push nation wide and certaininly state wide (with the new driving and texting law) to enforce distracted driving. The unsafe lane change needed to be noted and cited to prove the texting was a distraction.

Third, when a police officer has an interaction with someone that is either on probation or parole red flags pop up in the computer and very often dictate special considerations ie, calling of a probation officer, checking on pre and post trial release conditions, bail conditions etc...

Respectfully,
HCG

[corollaman]

After her conviction for the boat accident, I felt a sense of mercy for her, she just made a very bad decision. I try to give people in situations like that the benefit of the doubt. However, since she went out and did another really stupid thing with a motor vehicle, I don't feel like she should be spared now. She wasn't watching the road when using the cell phone, she was doing 80+ MPH in a 65 MPH zone, and used no signal when changing lanes. Then she almost hits the cop. So, I don't think she should be allowed to ever drive any motor-driven vehicle again, and I now feel she deserves to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. She's used up her chances.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I was under the impression she was charged with going 19 MPH over the speed limit. I think that's considered a moving violation. I've been given friendly verbal warnings for worse speed violations. IMO, it's not a big deal; the state does not seem to think so either, as far as I know, they only require the payment of a fine, no court appearance. It's basicaly a radar tax.

I was also under the impression that using a mobile phone while driving was not illegal in NH. Might be dumb, but it's probably not illegal.

If the officer wished to charge her with "distracted driving" (assuming that's a crime in NH), I'd think he'd have good reason to paint her in the worst possible light in his report.

I agree that if she did indeed do the things the police officer reported, she was acting very stupidly, especially considering she was out on bail.

There is no law against using a cell phone to make phone calls in NH. Texting is however illegal.
There is a distracted driving law on the books as well.

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

I don't think it shows very good judgement for a LEO to jump out into the road with traffic passing by at 70 mph.That's why they have blue lights.After what she's been through....sure ,she might have been distracted.Who hasn't.
I think that the trooper saw who it was and knew he'd get some face time with the media.Seems a little unusual to call the county attorney right after a traffic stop.

But, one thing that I believe is being missed (or at least not mentioned) about the LEO stepping into the road is that this is 93 in New Hampton, on a weekday. How much traffic is on the highway at this time, in this location, not much. We are not talking playing frogger in Manchester, north of 101 split on a Friday or any day for that matter.

They do this on 89 north of exit 5 regularly, usually exit 7 southbound, but with multiple LEO's and they are all stationed together, one hits with the radar and the officer next to him walks out and points (both in a crossover), you then pull over to the waiting officer that walks up to your car on the shoulder. Happens very regularly in that location, believe it is completly luck of the draw, because I have been spared when a vehicle in front or behind me got pointed to and they were traveling the same speed.

I have not seen it done when traffic is heavier, not that we ever really see heavy traffic up this way on 89, but you get the idea.

Not calling you out Samiam, just your post spoke to my thought.

Samiam, you are probably close to right on about your second statement, or possibly felt that the punishment was not enough, complete speculation on my part, take it as that.

[John A. Birdsall]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I was under the impression she was charged with going 19 MPH over the speed limit. I think that's considered a moving violation. I've been given friendly verbal warnings for worse speed violations. IMO, it's not a big deal; the state does not seem to think so either, as far as I know, they only require the payment of a fine, no court appearance. It's basicaly a radar tax.

I was also under the impression that using a mobile phone while driving was not illegal in NH. Might be dumb, but it's probably not illegal.

If the officer wished to charge her with "distracted driving" (assuming that's a crime in NH), I'd think he'd have good reason to paint her in the worst possible light in his report.

I agree that if she did indeed do the things the police officer reported, she was acting very stupidly, especially considering she was out on bail.

************************************************** ***
Having the opportunity of being stopped by NH state police in February I was doing 71 mph in a 35 mph zone. The officer dropped it to 60 otherwise she would have to arrest me for Negligent driving. So its not just speeding. I was wrong, I was passing someone and realized the passing lane was ending faster then I thought so I stepped on the gas. Oh yeah, the officer was in the car directly behind me.

[Airwaves]

$75,000 bail for speeding...19 mph over the posted limit.

I have stayed out of the trooper jumping in front of oncoming traffic debate but as everyone who has driven on the highways has experienced they do walk out onto the roadway putting themselves in harms way.

$75,000 bail for speeding....nope, no witch hunt here!

Just reading the Concord Monitor story on this...

Trooper Ronald Taylor testified that he had tracked Blizzard's speed for about five seconds from 2,125 feet away as she approached him on I-93 northbound in New Hampton. He watched her pass a vehicle in the high-speed lane and move back into the travel lane behind two other cars.

Taylor then put his radar on the hood of his cruiser and stepped into the high-speed lane, waving his arms to slow down Blizzard and the two vehicles ahead of her. After the two vehicles had passed, Taylor, wearing a neon safety vest, said he stepped into the travel lane to signal Blizzard to stop.

So I am getting from this that his cruiser was parked in the median when he spotted Blizzard passing a car then falling back into the travel lane behind 2 other cars....so he stepped out into the high speed lane...then walked across the highway into the travel lane? The guy walked across both lanes of an interstate in front of on coming traffic????

Let the two cars in front of her go by then motioned for Blizzard to pull over...telling the court he didn't know who she was? Then called the proscutors office?

Nope, nothing fishy going on here! Move along folks...

[wifi]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

... his cruiser was parked in the median when he spotted Blizzard passing a car then falling back into the travel lane behind 2 other cars....so he stepped out into the high speed lane...then walked across the highway into the travel lane? The guy walked across both lanes of an interstate in front of on coming traffic????

Let the two cars in front of her go by then motioned for Blizzard to pull over...telling the court he didn't know who she was? Then called the proscutors office?

Nope, nothing fishy going on here.....

Heaven help someone in court, who unavoidably hits one of these guys walking in the middle of an Interstate, protected by his neon colored jacket, knowing there are speeding cars approaching.

So, is it worse to run into an island or have an island run into you? Forget I asked that!!!

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Just Sold

"...From WMUR - it does not sound as if the officer was standing in the road on 93 or on the side in any way. Operative word "steer" Note that the high speed and breakdown lanes are referenced in the quoted report below so I doubt an officer ran across the highway...The trooper said he realized she wasn't paying attention, and he had to steer "back into the high-speed lane to prevent being struck by her..."

Regarding this traffic stop:

I checked Google for every possible news source referencing "steer".

WMUR is the only source to use that word.

Originally Posted by WinnDixie

"...I have been reading the articles and comments in the Monitor and the Union Leader as this has gone on. I am amazed that a couple of them in this latest article...and you can easily tell which...have not been taken off. Highly inappropriate, and only a few "voices in the wilderness" seeming to point that out. A bad situation made worse..."

In forums where "inappropriate" remarks appear, it could be due to neighbors, friends, or relatives who have been victims of DUI drivers.

I look forward to a transcript of this trial: until then, I put the blame for those negative remarks on one or more members of the jury. They were high on empathy and sympathy—and inadequate in Logic and Reason.

[robmac]

They do it almost every Sunday morning on rt 3 north just passed exit 2 as you come around the bend and up the hill. Normally two LEOs one with the gun the other out pointing to pull over. I have seen only one doing it on a M/C and what a business they do ( mostly MA plates though how weird)

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

I look forward to a transcript of this trial: until then, I put the blame for those negative remarks on one or more members of the jury. They were high on empathy and sympathy—and inadequate in Logic and Reason.

Emotion over facts? You don't say????

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by corollaman

After her conviction for the boat accident, I felt a sense of mercy for her, she just made a very bad decision. I try to give people in situations like that the benefit of the doubt. However, since she went out and did another really stupid thing with a motor vehicle, I don't feel like she should be spared now. She wasn't watching the road when using the cell phone, she was doing 80+ MPH in a 65 MPH zone, and used no signal when changing lanes. Then she almost hits the cop. So, I don't think she should be allowed to ever drive any motor-driven vehicle again, and I now feel she deserves to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. She's used up her chances.

This is an example of the attitude here that has me puzzled. I just cannot imagine having any sympathy for someone who is fairly convicted of negligent homicide, especially when she pled "not guilty" and clearly was quite guilty. I would have been much more sympathetic if she had pled guilty, expressed regret, and taken her punishment knowing it was well-deserved.

The alleged speeding violation is a non-issue for me, I'm not a big fan of speed limits and really appreciate it when other people do me the favor of keeping LEOs busy. A speed trap is one of life's little pleasures for me, once I see one, odds are good there won't be another for a long ways.

The alleged distracted driver charges bother me a little more, but it's certainly quite prevalent on the roads these days and being a hard core motorcyclist, I've grown pretty used to stupid car drivers.

I cannot imagine being stupid enough to walk in front of 80+ MPH traffic on 93 knowing how prevalent distracted driving is. That's just suicidal.

[Misty Blue]

I have stayed out of this fracas until now because I have not had anything to say that had not already been said. I would like to throw out a couple of thoughts now...

First a horrible, horrible tragedy happened on the Lake. We can't make it go away. But what I can't understand is why this is BIG news? Yea, it's a big deal for us folks on the Lake and for the unfortunate people involved but why is it front page news for days and days in the papers and WMUR and big media? If the same event happened in a car on I-93 or on a snowmobile on a trail, same facts just different circumstances, same judgement that the press and the public would forget about it in short time.

Next, the cop.

I have been pulled over by the NHSP three times in the last 10 years. Twice for lights out and once for speeding in that stupid 35 MPH zone where 104 and I 93 meet. In every case the officers were courtious and very professional. No complaints.

I wasn't there and I don't trust what I read in the papers but I have to give the Trooper the bennifit of the doubt. The guy is a professional and I don't think that he has a wish. There is no way that he knew who was driving the speeding car prior to the stop. And by the way I don't care what the car was or what it's license plate says. After the pull over I expect that his onboard computer gave him a flag that the owner was recently convicted of a crime. If I were the cop this would set off alarm bells and I would take a hard look at this one.

Let's put this whole mess behind us.

Misty Blue.

[Airwaves]

Misty Blue

Yea, it's a big deal for us folks on the Lake and for the unfortunate people involved but why is it front page news for days and days in the papers and WMUR and big media?

Actually it wasn't.

It was covered locally every day by the two Laconia papers, the Concord Monitor and the Union Leader. Channel 9 is the only TV newscast in NH so they would certainly cover the story. I did not watch every night so I don't know how much they gave it but I doubt it was excessive.

The "big" media mentioned it via the AP at the beginning and end of the trial but many of the them did not run the story at all. The only other mention in the "big" media was when AP reported Erica had been stopped for speeding and again not all of them carried that story.

So while it seemed to be a huge deal all over the place it wasn't.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Misty Blue

I wasn't there and I don't trust what I read in the papers but I have to give the Trooper the bennifit of the doubt. The guy is a professional and I don't think that he has a wish. There is no way that he knew who was driving the speeding car prior to the stop. And by the way I don't care what the car was or what it's license plate says. After the pull over I expect that his onboard computer gave him a flag that the owner was recently convicted of a crime. If I were the cop this would set off alarm bells and I would take a hard look at this one.

I have to agree, he would have had to have KNOWN she was coming in order to get out in the road and try to initiate a stop. At 84 MPH, by the time he could read her plate (assuming he had a vendetta and was actively watching for the "XTREME" plate at all times), she would be long gone before he had time to react and note her actions.

This story doesn't seem like there was any malice involved on the officers part, I just think Erica had a bit of bad luck (to put it mildly).

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Misty Blue

First a horrible, horrible tragedy happened on the Lake. We can't make it go away. But what I can't understand is why this is BIG news? Yea, it's a big deal for us folks on the Lake and for the unfortunate people involved but why is it front page news for days and days in the papers and WMUR and big media? If the same event happened in a car on I-93 or on a snowmobile on a trail, same facts just different circumstances, same judgement that the press and the public would forget about it in short time.

This was a lightning rod issue because of her highly visible political position as the head of an organization which presented itself as an advocate for safe boating. She considered herself qualified and entitled to opine on proper,appropriate, and safe boating and hence qualified to influence legislation in this regard. The accident, when it happened, quickly went national because of the inherent irony involved and was the subject on several sites of a great deal of joking, sad as it was for all involved. The accident has subsequently influenced the way Concord views the lake and will undoubtedly continue to do so for some time. We also know that many of our legislators in Concord view this site and/or recreate on Winnipesaukee. In any case, we see this kind of intense media coverage when other public figures are caught in an action which compromises their professed philosophies. The matter stayed in the public eye after the verdict because of the similarly ironic aftermath the next day. Fortunately no one was injured on Rt. 93 and the injuries on Diamond Is.could have been even more significant if they been traveling at 25 -30 MPH instead of the 18 MPH put forth by the defense.
Unfortunately this matter will be in the public eye for some time to come with upcoming sentencing, possible retrial, and potential civil litigation. We can only hope that all the attention to this affair has increased public awareness of some of the safety issues on the lake and therefore positively influence boating safety.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Fortunately no one was injured on Rt. 93 and the injuries on Diamond Is.could have been even more significant if they been traveling at 25 -30 MPH instead of the 18 MPH put forth by the defense.

More significant than what? Somebody died????

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Unfortunately this matter will be in the public eye for some time to come with upcoming sentencing, possible retrial, and potential civil litigation. We can only hope that all the attention to this affair has increased public awareness of some of the safety issues on the lake and therefore positively influence boating safety.

She was found guilty of negligent homicide for failure to keep a proper lookout. If I follow your agenda correctly, I'm not sure what other safety issue will come to light here that is not already mandated by law in NH?

Please enlighten us.

[LDR4]

Let's put this whole mess behind us.
Misty Blue.

That is the smartest thing I have read on this forum relative to this matter.

Don't you all think that this subject has been beat to death for long enough?

It was a terrible tragedy. A person lost their life and the lives of two other women have been changed forever. There but for the grace of God, it could have been anyone of us or someone close to us.

Whether a person is rich, or poor, everyone deserves (and gets) their day in court. She did, and whether you agree or disagree with the outcome, the legal system has spoken and nothing anyone says on this forum is going to change anything that has or will occur with regard to this tragedy.

Spring is here, the lake is open, and we all got out of bed this morning to face a new day. Let's just enjoy the time we are here and focus on ourselves and our families and not critiquing something that we had (or have) no control over.

Personally I think it is time for Don to close this thread and have us all move on.

[DEJ]

Personally I think it is time for Don to close this thread and have us all move on.

I could not agree more.

[NoRegrets]

Maybe we should have a poll? Here is the situation, It is late at night on a weekend and the weather has degraded. You are responsible for the vessel and passengers. Do you:

a) Get up go to get home as quickly as possible?
b) Think about this incident and be very very cautious?

I think this thread has been valuable inspite of the jabs and soft insults . We will never be able to count the number of times it may have prevented a terrible accident.

[sa meredith]

Originally Posted by LDR4

Let's put this whole mess behind us.
Misty Blue.

That is the smartest thing I have read on this forum relative to this matter.

Don't you all think that this subject has been beat to death for long enough?

It was a terrible tragedy. A person lost their life and the lives of two other women have been changed forever. There but for the grace of God, it could have been anyone of us or someone close to us.

Whether a person is rich, or poor, everyone deserves (and gets) their day in court. She did, and whether you agree or disagree with the outcome, the legal system has spoken and nothing anyone says on this forum is going to change anything that has or will occur with regard to this tragedy.

Spring is here, the lake is open, and we all got out of bed this morning to face a new day. Let's just enjoy the time we are here and focus on ourselves and our families and not critiquing something that we had (or have) no control over.

Personally I think it is time for Don to close this thread and have us all move on.

Just curious...if you don't care for this thread, why do you click into it? Whether it is closed or not...if you have had your fill, look elswhere. Problem solved...

[LDR4]

Just curious...if you don't care for this thread, why do you click into it? Whether it is closed or not...if you have had your fill, look elswhere. Problem solved...

I did not state that I "did not care for the Thread" I simply stated my Opinion that it is (in MY Opinion) not serving any useful purpose any longer.

You can only beat a dead horse for so long.....

[LakeSnake]

Mayby its time for those circled around the horse with clubs in thier hands to take a moment to step back and think about how this discussion reflects on the fun/family oriented forum this is supposed to be.

[sa meredith]

I for one don't think it is a dead/closed issue. I believe the state is going to retry her on the OUI charge.

[robmac]

I agree the state will retry on the deadlocked issues.

[john60ri]

If she gets jail time, the state will not retry.

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by john60ri

If she gets jail time, the state will not retry.

I agree. My feeling is that the judge will look harshly upon the negligence charge since Ms. Blizzard didn't step-up and admit her guilt regarding the BUI charge. If my hunch is correct, Blizzard will get a stiff sentence and the state won't feel obligated to retry her on the BUI charge. The only problem with this outcome is that no real good comes from it. Had Blizzard owned up to her mistake, she could have become an advocate against BUI in the schools and communities surrounding Lake Winnipesaukee and probably avoided jail time. Now she likely will spend a number of years in the penal system costing the taxpayers big bucks with no positive coming from her recklessness.

Remember, when sentencing on the negligence charge the judge will likely have her own opinion on Blizzard's quilt regarding the BUI charge. She heard the same evidence during the trial and she will not dismiss the .15 BAC evidence as readily as the some members of the jury. She also will take into account Blizzard's reckless driving. I think she will get 5-years.

[NoBozo]

One thing you can say about this thread..forgetting the Topic for a moment.. you Learn WHO the other posters are. There IS a Divide. Some things are maybe best Left Alone when friends sit around and discuss things over a beer.

I've found over the years..with friends..you test the water and see if there is general agreement on some topic and if there is Not....just don't discus that topic again. Doesn't always work but you give it a shot. NB

Final Thought: I guess I've been pretty non-commital in my posts so far. Now I'll step up to the plate. Ericka stepped in some Poop... but I am Rooting For Her. NB

[sa meredith]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

One thing you can say about this thread..forgetting the Topic for a moment.. you Learn WHO the other posters are. There IS a Divide. Some things are maybe best Left Alone when friends sit around and discuss things over a beer.

I've found over the years..with friends..you test the water and see if there is general agreement on some topic and if there is Not....just don't discus that topic again. Doesn't always work but you give it a shot. NB

Final Thought: I guess I've been pretty non-commital in my posts so far. Now I'll step up to the plate. Ericka stepped in some Poop... but I am Rooting For Her. NB

Stephanie Beaudoin's family will be so very pleased to know this....

[secondcurve]

Final Thought: I guess I've been pretty non-commital in my posts so far. Now I'll step up to the plate. Ericka stepped in some Poop... but I am Rooting For Her. NB[/QUOTE]

That is an sad way to describe someone's unnecessary death. Stepping in some poop? You can root for Erica. I'm rooting for the deceased.