Boating Accident/Death off Diamond Island

[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.

[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......

[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?

[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.

[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"