Boating Accident/Death off Diamond Island

[rrr]

Originally Posted by Skip

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

Skip-

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

[Skip]

Originally Posted by rrr

Skip-

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

No...this is standard legal wrangling.

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

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


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

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

[MeEscape]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Yes, I can tell you honestly that neither I nor any member of my family has ever operated a vehicle under the influence of any substance. In our family it simply is not done. PERIOD!

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

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

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

[ironhorsetim]

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

[Skip]

Originally Posted by ironhorsetim

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

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

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

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by ironhorsetim

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

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

[ironhorsetim]

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

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Skip

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by Skip

Channel 9 (WMUR-TV) is reporting this morning that Blizzard's defense team continue to argue to have the results of the blood sampling suppressed. The State is arguing that these tests, when revealed, will show the defendant was impaired at the time of the collision.
...

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

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

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

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

[secondcurve]

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

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

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lakewinn1]

Originally Posted by jeffk

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lakepilot]

I'll second the thanks for the clarification.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by jeffk

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

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

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

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

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

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

[PennyPenny]

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

[Skip]

A Superior Court judge has found that the NHMP did indeed have probable cause in drawing Blizzard's blood sample and the evidence will be admissable in her trial. A short story can be found HERE with a full story to follow in the Citizen later in the day.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by PennyPenny

"...I would plead guilty..."

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

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

Originally Posted by PennyPenny

"...if I were the defendant at this point I would save myself and my family the cost of a lawyer..."

The "cost of a lawyer" could be a year or two longer in the slammer. (Or acquittal altogether on a technicality).

Originally Posted by secondcurve

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

'Looks like the judge saw it your way and cited "exigencies":

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

"McGuire ruled evidence that Blizzard drove a boat headlong into an island at an unreasonable rate of speed given the weather conditions provided the probable cause Marine Patrol needed to believe the defendant had been drinking alcohol and that evidence of intoxication would be found in the defendant's blood..."
http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...867/-1/CITNEWS

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

More from the above account:

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

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

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

[Skip]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

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

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

According to this FULL STORY now appearing on the Citizen, that is the exact same conclusion the Judge came to in determining probable cause existed to obtain the blood.

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

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

Trial pre-hearings are scheduled to begin next Wednesday.

[jeffk]

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

[VtSteve]

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

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

[4Fun]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

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

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

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

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

[Skip]

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

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

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

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

[Dave M]

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

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

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

Dave M

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Skip

A Superior Court judge has found that the NHMP did indeed have probable cause in drawing Blizzard's blood sample and the evidence will be admissable in her trial. A short story can be found HERE with a full story to follow in the Citizen later in the day.

And here's a link to the aforementioned full story.

[VtSteve]

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

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

[ApS]

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

Accident Analysis & Prevention: Human error in recreational boating

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...c82b3d4de1bfae

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

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

Do other Winnipesaukee-users in this age group ignore their automobile seatbelt usage also?

[VtSteve]

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

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

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

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

Now it is to LATE to talk about it?




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

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

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

Now it is to LATE to talk about it?




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

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

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

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

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

I just thought that a constructive section could be erected.

[Jeti]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

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

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

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

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

I just thought that a constructive section could be erected.

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

[Skip]

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

The full story can be read HERE in this morning's Citizen.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Skip

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

The full story can be read HERE in this morning's Citizen.

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

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

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

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

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

[Skip]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

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

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

Excellent point.

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

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

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

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

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Jeti

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

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

Originally Posted by secondcurve

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

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

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

[VtSteve]

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

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

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

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

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

[beantowntechy]

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

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

[Pineedles]

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

[DC Pointer]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

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

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

[sa meredith]

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

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

[Sman]

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

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

[VtSteve]

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

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

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

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

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

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

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

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

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

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

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



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

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

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

[Steveo]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

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

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

Just an FYI:

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

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

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

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

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

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

[NHDOLFAN]

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

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

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

[ITD]

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

[Jeti]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

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


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

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

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

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

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Steveo

Just an FYI:

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

Originally Posted by Phantom

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

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

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

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

[fatlazyless]

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

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

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

[Tank151]

Originally Posted by Jeti

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

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

[sa meredith]

Originally Posted by Tank151

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

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

[VtSteve]

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

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

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

[Jeti]

Originally Posted by Tank151

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

Negligent homicide is a class B felony and the penalty could be up to 7 years in prison. Negligent homicide that occurs while operating a vehicle or boat while under the influence of alcohol or drugs is a class A felony and the penalty could be up to 15 years in prison

[ApS]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

"...there was a skilled medical surgeon at the smashed up Formula boat, attending to the victims, at 2am...Having him there was definitely a piece of good luck. Got to wonder if his actions made the difference between one dead or possibly two dead...?"

This site noted that the doctor received a merit citation for his "above the call of duty" actions that early morning.

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

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

Edited to add:

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

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

[VtSteve]

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

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

[Audiofn]

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

[Pine Island Guy]

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

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

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

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

Just my thoughts… PIG

[VtSteve]

That was a great post.

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

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

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

[jrc]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[4Fun]

Originally Posted by jrc

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

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

[VtSteve]

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

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

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

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

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

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

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

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

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

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

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

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

Who was whining in this thread?

[Pine Island Guy]

Originally Posted by jrc

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

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

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

Originally Posted by jrc

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

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

enjoy the lake, we all agree on that! PIG

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Pine Island Guy

...

enjoy the lake, we all agree on that! PIG

On this we agree!

Everything else, not so much.

[Nadia]

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Pine Island Guy

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

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

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

[TiltonBB]

You can be accused of being numb!

You are just what an accused person needs!

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

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

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

[pats fan]

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

[Nadia]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[pats fan]

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

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

[Pine Island Guy]

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

free entertainment!

hoping for a sunny funny weekend -PIG

[Nadia]

Originally Posted by pats fan

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

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

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

[sa meredith]

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

[Nadia]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

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

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

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

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

[Breakwater]

Erica is charged with;

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

[Nadia]

Originally Posted by Breakwater

Erica is charged with;

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

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

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

[NoBozo]

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

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Nadia

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

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

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

[Just Sold]

In 2005 an "experienced boater" ran aground on Rattlesnake Is at night while trying to approach an unlighted dock. So it can happen to anyone anytime.
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...sh+Rattlesnake

[VtSteve]

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

[Tank151]

Originally Posted by Nadia

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

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

Nadia,

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

[Nadia]

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

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

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

[Seadoo]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

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

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

[VtSteve]

why SKIP is now a new member named Breakwater?

[Audiofn]

Originally Posted by Seadoo

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

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

[Skip]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

why SKIP is now a new member named Breakwater?

Nope Steve, you didn't miss anything.

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

Skip

[VtSteve]

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

[sa meredith]

Originally Posted by Nadia

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

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

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

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

[Audiofn]

Originally Posted by Nadia

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

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

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

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

[alsadad]

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

[Merrymeeting]

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

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Audiofn

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

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

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

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

[pats fan]

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

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by pats fan

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

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

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

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by Seadoo

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

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

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

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

[Seadoo]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

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

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

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

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

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

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

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Seadoo

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

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

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