Boating Accident/Death off Diamond Island

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

According to the Concord Monitor article on 3/1/2010, Nicole Shinopulos is on the state's witness list.

Makes sense. Now the question will be if Nicole Shinopulos has or is planning to file a civil lawsuit. The defense could exploit that's the case since she would then have something to gain. Makes you wonder how much liability insurance was on the boat. Lawyers/sharks will swarm wherever the money is.

There is no win-lose in this case. Send her to jail and what does that do for anyone at this point? This usually comes down to $$$$$$$$ which you can be assured with be dealt with in a civil lawsuit.

Don't operate impaired. Don't ride with friends who are impaired. Neither individual in aforementioned cases would be using proper judgement if they did....

[SteveA]

More reporting on the awful accident and upcoming trial. It contains comments from the Beaudoin family. Mr. Baudoin's' comments help keep this all in perspective.

IMHO, regardless of the outcome of this trial, and any subsequent trials, the whole thing is a tragedy that has profound effects on everyone involved.

http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/...-boating-death

[WakeUp]

"Send her to jail and what does that do for anyone at this point?" Are you serious? Let's be clear: What it does is hold people responsible for their actions. Nothing more, nothing less.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by WakeUp

"Send her to jail and what does that do for anyone at this point?" Are you serious? Let's be clear: What it does is hold people responsible for their actions. Nothing more, nothing less.

You apparently don't understand how the system is screwed up. Feel free to search my other post(s) regarding drunk driving/boating. If the legislature had a back bone and wanted to significantly reduce OUIs, first offense would be mandatory six months in jail.

However, folks on thie board seemed to miss the points made by what FLL previously posted. The problem is the differential justice applied to offenders. Your BAC will absolutely impact the sentence. Ever heard of "aggravated DUI". Differential "justice" is built into the OUI laws for something that's in practice the identical crime.

I am sure Blizzard has a lot of coins to pay for a defense, Joe Blow with no assets would get screwed. Until enforcement and penalties are made uniform, I still say Blizzard going to jail will do nothing for her or society.

The WHOLE thing is about money. Civil lawsuits, state makes money on OUI fines and fees, insurance companies get higher rates, police make money off OUI, prosecuters make money off OUI, judges make money off OUI, driving education instructors make money off OUI. Oh yeah and the NH liquor store at the Portsmouth traffic circle has a big yellow banner saying to "stock up, tax-free". So the State of NH gets the bonus of taxing the booze too. So who in the money chain has incentive to erradicate OUI? Follow the money, as it leads you to many answers to why things don't change (ergo OUI, healthcare, etc)

I have an uncle and a cousin both killed by drunk drivers (seperate accidents). My grandfather had a personal meeting with Bush I on this very topic. I've got the pictures and article in my desk drawer. He also wrote a book about the loss of his son (my uncle). I don't think my grandparents ever really got over it. So don't tell me what "the system" does or does not do......

[Seaplane Pilot]

Quote from the Fox News article:

"...when her 37-foot speed boat crashed into a ledge"...

I'm surprised they could find an impartial jury in Laconia.

[ApS]

(with apologies to Sen. John Edwards)

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Quote from the Fox News article:

"...when her 37-foot speed boat crashed into a ledge"...

I'm surprised they could find an impartial jury in Laconia.

From the Concord Monitor:

"...when she crashed her 37-foot performance boat off Diamond Island..."

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...NTPAGE/3100348

[NoBozo]

I have seen the crash site and the Verticle Wall the boat hit. If she had been maybe 30 yards more to the right, she would have cruised right by without a scratch in over 30 feet of water.

Anybody here that has Not hit a rock or dinged a prop at one time or another....in broad daylight and stone sober..??? Just wondering.

It's kinda like.."He Who has Not Sinned ......."etc. NB

[Mink Islander]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

I have seen the crash site and the Verticle Wall the boat hit. If she had been maybe 30 yards more to the right, she would have cruised right by without a scratch in over 30 feet of water.

Anybody here that has Not hit a rock or dinged a prop at one time or another....in broad daylight and stone sober..??? Just wondering.

It's kinda like.."He Who has Not Sinned ......."etc. NB

Comparing what happened here to dinging your prop? Really? So we should think about other drunk drivers the same way? After all, who hasn't had a fender bender when totally sober in broad daylight? So when a drunk mangles their car on a dark rainy night and kills a passenger, in your apologist view, that's no big deal and not a crime? Could happen to any of us so why blame them. Right? I wonder if you'd feel the same way if a drunk killed someone in your family. Just wondering.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

I have seen the crash site and the Verticle Wall the boat hit. If she had been maybe 30 yards more to the right, she would have cruised right by without a scratch in over 30 feet of water.

Anybody here that has Not hit a rock or dinged a prop at one time or another....in broad daylight and stone sober..??? Just wondering.

It's kinda like.."He Who has Not Sinned ......."etc. NB

This is not at all like "He who has not sinned..". I suspect that the vast majority of fatal accidents could have benefited by someone being 30 yards to the right.

I have dinged quite a few props in 27 years on the lake but they were ALL at headway speed trying to get in or out of shallow water. What we are talking about here is hitting an ISLAND at a pretty good speed. Not clipping a submerged rock. Apples and Oranges.

[Newbiesaukee]

Certainly I have not always been perfect piloting my boat...but tragic events such as we are discussing do serve to remind us the tremendous responsiblity we assume when we get behind the wheel...boat or car. Terrible things can happen to anybody, all we can do is to mitigate risk. Not drinking and driving, paying attention to weather conditions, etc are ways to minimize the chances that tragic events can occur. Our actions do have consequences.

[Just Sold]

The defense's expert witness from JurisPro Expert Witness Directory's web site. http://www.jurispro.com/CaptainRobertCronin He is supposed to be testifying today.

Northeast Watercraft Reconstruction Specialists investigates and reconstructs pleasure craft, personal watercraft and near coastal commercial collisions. These are the types of vessels the staff at NeWARS operate and are experts in and around. This allows NeWARS to provide the level of expertise expected in a watercraft reconstruction investigation.
The NeWARS professional's has over thirty-five years of law enforcement experience and equivalent sea time, backed by a skilled technical staff that can investigate, analyze and reconstruct a watercraft collision and present the findings in court.
Founder and lead investigator Robert J. Cronin is a USCG licensed Master with over twent-five years of full time law enforcement experience. Mr. Cronin has investigated over 700 collisions of various types ranging from industrial vehicle fatalities to his specialty of watercraft collision investigaton. Mr. Cronin is also a watercraft accident reconstruction training facilitor and instructor.
NeWARS is a Newburyport MA based company and is available to travel as required.
Come visit us at WWW.newars.com or Email Captain Robert Cronin at specialist@newars.com


Resume: http://www.jurispro.com/files/docume...912-resume.pdf

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Makes sense. Now the question will be if Nicole Shinopulos has or is planning to file a civil lawsuit. The defense could exploit that's the case since she would then have something to gain. Makes you wonder how much liability insurance was on the boat. Lawyers/sharks will swarm wherever the money is.

I haven't heard anything about Nicole but according to SteveA's "MyFoxBoston" link, Beaudoin's parents do not wish Blizzard to go to jail (I also heard something similar on WMUR news).

Edgar Beaudoin said he and his wife, both 79, do no(t) wish to see Blizzard go to prison.

"It wouldn't be worth it," Beaudoin said, of punishing Blizzard. "The poor girl, she made the mistake of her lifetime. This is a mistake she will never forget."

[RI Swamp Yankee]

The Conway Daily Sun today (March 8) had this link to an AP hosted story about the trial.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...03-08-13-56-52

With the headline:

State: Boat driver in fatal NH crash legally drunk

[VtSteve]

This one was more descriptive

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/nat...osition=recent

"Belknap County Attorney James Carroll tells jurors that Erica Blizzard had a blood-alcohol count one and a half times the legal limit for driving when the boat she was piloting struck a ledge on Lake Winnepesaukee.
"

That would make the level around a .12.

[Mr. V]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

This one was more descriptive

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/nat...osition=recent

"Belknap County Attorney James Carroll tells jurors that Erica Blizzard had a blood-alcohol count one and a half times the legal limit for driving when the boat she was piloting struck a ledge on Lake Winnepesaukee.
"

That would make the level around a .12.

I recall getting clients off on their DWI charges when their BA was .14 and sometimes .15.

The legal limit out here used to be .15.

The client would usually get pulled over for swerving or driving poorly, but then after the arrest, if they blew below the .15 requirement they would beat it, being legally deemed not intoxicated.

So how fair is it to lower it (to .08 out here) and convict today for what was not a crime yesterday?

.12 really will not lead to significant impairment, in the real world, at least for a seasoned drinker, which I suspect she is.

She could beat this rap ...

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Mr. V

I recall getting clients off on their DWI charges when their BA was .14 and sometimes .15.

The legal limit out here used to be .15.

The client would usually get pulled over for swerving or driving poorly, but then after the arrest, if they blew below the .15 requirement they would beat it, being legally deemed not intoxicated.

So how fair is it to lower it (to .08 out here) and convict today for what was not a crime yesterday?

.12 really will not lead to significant impairment, in the real world, at least for a seasoned drinker, which I suspect she is.

She could beat this rap ...

The legal limits were changed to .08 at the bequest (lobbying), of the insurance industry, for apparently obvious reasons. The Feds gave the limit teeth by withholding highway funds, and effective way to get their way. There are far too many subjective, and technical data used in whether a person is impaired or not to get into that lengthy discussion. Three beers on an empty stomach can cause more impairment than several drinks over a few hours with food. Everyone is different, and so are the circumstances.

Since the BAL is one of two primary accusations for the State, the other being too fast for conditions/improper lookout, it will weigh heavily in this case. There was another case that would have delivered a far more serious penalty, if the perp had stayed around long enough to be tested shortly thereafter.

I hope for all families concerned this trial really is over this week, so they can go on with their shaken lives. I hope the reports on this forum will be contained to instruction and reflective, and be devoid of personal statements or agendas. Everyone needs to know what happened, and realize that you really cannot let your guard down. One slip up, and a tragedy can happen to anyone, anytime. The consequences to people and their families and friends are horrific, so I try to post as if this tragedy impacted me personally, and respect all those that might be reading.

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by Mr. V

I recall getting clients off on their DWI charges when their BA was .14 and sometimes .15.

The legal limit out here used to be .15.

The client would usually get pulled over for swerving or driving poorly, but then after the arrest, if they blew below the .15 requirement they would beat it, being legally deemed not intoxicated.

So how fair is it to lower it (to .08 out here) and convict today for what was not a crime yesterday?

.12 really will not lead to significant impairment, in the real world, at least for a seasoned drinker, which I suspect she is.

She could beat this rap ...

"How Fair"? I think very fair. Don't forget she crashed her boat into an island and killed someone.

[Mr. V]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

"How Fair"? I think very fair. Don't forget she crashed her boat into an island and killed someone.

Point taken.

BUT, why proscribe conduct today which was perfectly acceptable yesterday?

That doesn't seem fair.

Whether she was drunk or not, Blizzard should be sued, and sued hard, for her negligence.

Maybe hard enough to collect all the available insurance, then start cleaning her out of her personal / family assets.

Reduce her from "rich girl" to "poor girl."

Just sic some sharp lawyers on her.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by Mr. V

Point taken.

BUT, why proscribe conduct today which was perfectly acceptable yesterday?

That doesn't seem fair.

Whether she was drunk or not, Blizzard should be sued, and sued hard, for her negligence.

Maybe hard enough to collect all the available insurance, then start cleaning her out of her personal / family assets.

Reduce her from "rich girl" to "poor girl."

Just sic some sharp lawyers on her.

What if she's innocent...

[Mr. V]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

What if she's innocent...

Hello, OJ.

My point is that a person could be adjudged NOT GUILTY of a crime, yet still be found substantially liable in tort.

Nothing hurts the rich like taking away their money: the best punishment.

Don't just settle for the insurance money: that is painless.

Sieze their assets, go for the jugular.

Let's just hope the claimants don't blow the statute of limitations.

No, I'm not angling for the job: I'm a divorce lawyer (although in my field have an affinity for the jugular).

[ishoot308]

Hello Mr Sokolove;

Originally Posted by Mr. V

I'm a divorce lawyer (although in my field have an affinity for the jugular).

That pretty much answers my question.

Thanks!

Dan

[NoBozo]

Lets explore...and define this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident

The Alternative is Deliberate. MY guess is the former. NB

[Mr. V]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

Hello Mr Sokolove;



That pretty much answers my question.

Thanks!

Dan

What question?

"What if she's innocent?"

Nobody is "innocent," baby.

Nobody.

[Tired of Waiting]

Originally Posted by Mr. V

What question?

"What if she's innocent?"

Nobody is "innocent," baby.

Nobody.

And you practice law?

You must be right. I just re-read the U. S. Constitution and supporting documents. They do say " presumption of guilty!!!" How did I miss that before?

ToW

[Mr. V]

My point: nobody is innocent, but not all are guilty.

It's a matter of semantics.

As for the floating beer cans not being conclusive proof: they don't have to be.

She can be convicted on nothing but circumstantial evidence: it happens all the time.

A jury out here just sentenced a guy to death based solely on circumstantial evidence: no DNA, no hair and fiber, no witnesses, no murder weapon: no direct evidence whatsoever.

Doesn't matter: not needed: he had a strong motive (jealousy and revenge) and his cell phone records placed him near the murder scene at the time: that is circumstantial evidence, and it convicted him.

So yeah, the floating beer cans are admissible as circumstantial evidence; it is up to the jury to determine what weight to give them.

FWIW, I think the testimony of the doctor who arrived immediately at the scene and found her slumped over the wheel (coupled to the facts that it is her boat, and her friend claims she wasn't too drunk to operate it) shows she was the driver, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Unless the jury goes OJ, I foresee the gray bar hotel in her immediate future.

[Sunbeam lodge]

Originally Posted by Mr. V

My point: nobody is innocent, but not all are guilty.

It's a matter of semantics.

As for the floating beer cans not being conclusive proof: they don't have to be.

She can be convicted on nothing but circumstantial evidence: it happens all the time.

A jury out here just sentenced a guy to death based solely on circumstantial evidence: no DNA, no hair and fiber, no witnesses, no murder weapon: no direct evidence whatsoever.

Doesn't matter: not needed: he had a strong motive (jealousy and revenge) and his cell phone records placed him near the murder scene at the time: that is circumstantial evidence, and it convicted him.

So yeah, the floating beer cans are admissible as circumstantial evidence; it is up to the jury to determine what weight to give them.

FWIW, I think the testimony of the doctor who arrived immediately at the scene and found her slumped over the wheel (coupled to the facts that it is her boat, and her friend claims she wasn't too drunk to operate it) shows she was the driver, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Unless the jury goes OJ, I foresee the gray bar hotel in her immediate future.

Do Like they do in CSI, get fingerprints off the can, if someones future depends on it.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Sunbeam lodge

Do Like they do in CSI, get fingerprints off the can, if someones future depends on it.

The State Crime Lab is extremely backed up on fingerprinting, although enough time has lapsed between the incident and now that it could have been done. Honestly it may have been done in the background and never brought forth if the evidence was inconclusive. Beer cans sitting in water would not be the best base to fingerprint from.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by codeman671

The State Crime Lab is extremely backed up on fingerprinting, although enough time has lapsed between the incident and now that it could have been done. Honestly it may have been done in the background and never brought forth if the evidence was inconclusive. Beer cans sitting in water would not be the best base to fingerprint from.

Even if they could pull a fingerprint from a beer can, what would that prove? Did she touch the can when it was bought (however long ago that may have been)? Did she touch the can when it was put on the boat (However long ago that may have been)? Were there fingerprints on an empty beer can-if so, when was it consumed? Last night, last week, last month?
In other words, presence of a beer can means absolutely nothing to this case. Presence of fingerprints on a beer can means nothing to this case.

Too many questions around beer cans, and I would suspect that if brought up, there is insufficient evidence to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by chipj29

Even if they could pull a fingerprint from a beer can, what would that prove? Did she touch the can when it was bought (however long ago that may have been)? Did she touch the can when it was put on the boat (However long ago that may have been)? Were there fingerprints on an empty beer can-if so, when was it consumed? Last night, last week, last month?
In other words, presence of a beer can means absolutely nothing to this case. Presence of fingerprints on a beer can means nothing to this case.

Too many questions around beer cans, and I would suspect that if brought up, there is insufficient evidence to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

Definitely agreed. Proving the BAC one way or the other is the important thing, unless they could snag her in a lie. Say a store receipt showing the purchase that day and empties found on site after testifying that no beer was consumed. It is all in how the jury perceives it. With a jury trial the facts dont always have to be there to sway a decision. It is the jurors individual perceptions.

[Tired of Waiting]

Originally Posted by Mr. V

My point: nobody is innocent, but not all are guilty.

It's a matter of semantics.

OK, I guess I'll have to accept your strange explanation. You law guys/gals must live in a weird world to have it both ways.

ToW

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Mr. V

Point taken.

BUT, why proscribe conduct today which was perfectly acceptable yesterday?

That doesn't seem fair.

Whether she was drunk or not, Blizzard should be sued, and sued hard, for her negligence.

Maybe hard enough to collect all the available insurance, then start cleaning her out of her personal / family assets.

Reduce her from "rich girl" to "poor girl."

Just sic some sharp lawyers on her.

I sense some of the same ambulance chasing tendencies reappearing that you have been accused of in the past. Are you putting in your resume for the job?

[fatlazyless]

Sorry to disappoint you Ryan, but the U.L. post from F L Less was not from me. Could be it's the same person with the same disingenuous modus operandi as from June, 2008, shortly after the night of the Diamond Island incident/accident.

[NoBozo]

Is anyone Local ...sitting in on the trial..? NB

[Pineedles]

This trial will take its own course. BWI levels now or old DWI percentages, reasonable or unreasonable speed, who was the Cappy or not, may or may not be brought before the jury.

As an example for all to see, it will be an eye opener hopefully!

Slowly but surely we are being shown that one's own behavior must be accounted for. The age of "It's not my fault" will hopefully be shown to be an unacceptable reason for unacceptable behavior. I am not convicting anyone with this statement, only saying that there was fault in this incident, and someone needs to take the responsibilty. Who do you think is responsible?

[PennyPenny]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

Is anyone Local ...sitting in on the trial..? NB

I would think that a Belknap County jury are made up of locals. I would also hope that they are not reading this forum and forming a verdict based on it.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by PennyPenny

I would think that a Belknap County jury are made up of locals. I would also hope that they are not reading this forum and forming a verdict based on it.

I am sure that the jury has been given instructions not to talk about the case with anyone, in addition to that they are also told to stay away from all media of any type that could influence their opinion on the trial. That would include this forum.....

[tis]

And I am sure that those on the jury don't even know about this forum. If they knew anything about the case, they wouldn't be picked and if they read this forum, they couldn't miss reading SOMETHING about it.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by tis

And I am sure that those on the jury don't even know about this forum. If they knew anything about the case, they wouldn't be picked and if they read this forum, they couldn't miss reading SOMETHING about it.

Do ya think.?? NB

[Pineedles]

I am sure that the judge's charge to the jury was clear.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by PennyPenny

I would think that a Belknap County jury are made up of locals. I would also hope that they are not reading this forum and forming a verdict based on it.

My question was weather anyone....ie a Citizen, was sitting in the courtroom as an Observer NOT as a Juror. NB

[PennyPenny]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

My question was weather anyone....ie a Citizen, was sitting in the courtroom as an Observer NOT as a Juror. NB

I think it would be very interesting to be an observer. Didn't mean to offend you. Either way it is still a sad ending.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by PennyPenny

I think it would be very interesting to be an observer. Didn't mean to offend you. Either way it is still a sad ending.

No offence taken Penny. NB

[PennyPenny]

I actually met her for the first time at a baby shower on Sunday. She never let out a word or a tear regarding her daughter, Stephanie. She was just happy to be a guest at the baby shower of her great grandson to be. We should all be so humble.

[VtSteve]

There's a lot of us parents out here Penny, that feel for them deeply. Hopefully none of us ever experience the loss, but we "know" it would be consuming. It may seem sometimes that the discussion gets too random, too removed from real life. That's not true at all for the most part. I think most of us care, and care quite a bit about loss of life and shattered dreams. Perhaps we care so much is sounds a bit callous, devoid of feeling.

In actuality, we all care about what happens out there, and feel deeply for the loss of life, and the deep grief of parents that will never be able to fill that hole in their hearts. Trust me on this, most of us know this could happen to any of us, our loved ones, our children, ourselves. In a moment's notice life can change. To respect the water is to fear it.

Stephanie's mom must be a very strong woman. I hope I never have to walk in her shoes, none of us does.

[LIforrelaxin]

Well hopefully very soon we will be able to put this issue to bed with "official results" of the trial. Not that I don't believe given the out come everyone will have some opinions.... But hopefully by the end of tomorrow if not then Wednesday we will have some word. If the jury takes longer then that then, I will start getting very suspicious of having a hung jury for some reason or another....

[lulu59]

• 2 hours.No verdict.The longer it goes the better it is for the defense.
• Attorney James Moir hit it out of the park yesterday in his closing.Erica Blizzard was very composed,poised,remorseful and articulate.
• A tragedy in every sense of the word.The nuances in this case are endless.
• Hopefully justice shall prevail.

[LIforrelaxin]

Apparently the jury remains out... according to this article, they will not be in session tomorrow, the jury will reconvene on Thurs. The Article also details that the jury is having trouble with only of of the Articles before them.... Interesting......

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...d-31d31531478f

Now knowing many of you are reading this, and some may have been on juries or know people that have.... is it "normal" that they would stop deliberations for a day... I know the article says someone has a commitment, and I am not trying to deny that it may be important... I am more curious as to how often something like this happens.

[Scupper]

No visiblity, can't see anything past the bow, don't slow down, hit a big island, alcohol involved, Wolfe Trap serves mixed drinks in PINT size glasses, beer cans in the water, vodka in the cuddy, spotty memory lapses at convienent times that are crucial, 18 miles an hour causes the boat to basically explode....hmm, let me think about this one.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by Scupper

No visiblity, can't see anything past the bow, don't slow down, hit a big island, alcohol involved, Wolfe Trap serves mixed drinks in PINT size glasses, beer cans in the water, vodka in the cuddy, spotty memory lapses at convienent times that are crucial, 18 miles an hour causes the boat to basically explode....hmm, let me think about this one.

Let me be the first to welcome you to the forum...and let me be the first to ask you to GO AWAY.. NB

[Bear Island South]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

Let me be the first to welcome you to the forum...and let me be the first to ask you to GO AWAY.. NB

so if scupper had 366 posts, maybe it wouldn't be viewed as a bad comment.
to be asked to "GO AWAY" is ridiculous, I 'm sure we could look back on some of your posts and point the finger. Scupper is not the first to form a negative opinion on this thread.
Maybe there should be a warning for new members, your first few hundred posts should have a positive view.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Bear Island South

so if scupper had 366 posts, maybe it wouldn't be viewed as a bad comment.
to be asked to "GO AWAY" is ridiculous, I 'm sure we could look back on some of your posts and point the finger. Scupper is not the first to form a negative opinion on this thread.
Maybe there should be a warning for new members, your first few hundred posts should have a positive view.

Though if you have something negative to say about winnfabs then negative first posts are not only allowed but encouraged.

[john60ri]

Hooray for Scupper! If his facts are accurate, this lady needs to go to jail. Her antics that night were like a drunken, grossly irresponsible teenager. And by the way, except for the Mt. Washington, I have NEVER been on a boat on the Lake.

[Scupper]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

Let me be the first to welcome you to the forum...and let me be the first to ask you to GO AWAY.. NB

Obviously I struck a nerve with you NB. Note the length of my membership on this forum...since 2006. Yes, I have few posts, but I only post on issues that appear to have substance. This is one of them. I could care less about the sunset on a particular night, ice cream at Sibley's, debate over the speed limits, whining about being stopped by M.P., etc...

What I care about is the loss of a life, a passenger that had no say, no control over the operation of the boat, and can't be brought back to life. There seems to be a lynch mob mentality against anyone that doesn't feel sympathy for the operator responsible for this "accident."

NB, I have a daughter. If she was the victim in this case, I would want justice. Sympathy due to the operator's standing in the community, personal relationship, or emotion is misguided. Facts are clarity, emotion and denial are blinding to the facts.

For those of you that stuck up for me thanks! I'll post again in another hmm, four years when substance arises again.

[john60ri]

Wow! Scupper is my new hero! I have a daughter too, and he's right - it's about the facts and it's about justice. Let the wheel of justice turn.

[jrc]

I think lynch mob is a little strong, no one is even debating punishment, just guilty or not guilty.

First the jury must decide, but it is harmless now for us to give our opinions of her guilt or non-guilt. After the verdict, if she is found guilty, a judge will decide her fate. That's when arguements like she suffered enough already should come in.

My opinion is based almost solely on the .15 BAC. This is clearly over the limit. We decided as a society 20-30 years ago that if you drive while drunk and someone gets killed, you go to jail. You don't have to like it, or believe its a good idea, but its law. If you can get off the hook, when double the limit and three people are seriously hurt, one killed, when does the law apply?

If she was sober. Then it's tougher. But in her own words she lost all visibilty and then she sped up! I can't reconcile that action.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by Scupper

Obviously I struck a nerve with you NB. Note the length of my membership on this forum...since 2006. Yes, I have few posts, but I only post on issues that appear to have substance. This is one of them. I could care less about the sunset on a particular night, ice cream at Sibley's, debate over the speed limits, whining about being stopped by M.P., etc...

What I care about is the loss of a life, a passenger that had no say, no control over the operation of the boat, and can't be brought back to life. There seems to be a lynch mob mentality against anyone that doesn't feel sympathy for the operator responsible for this "accident."

NB, I have a daughter. If she was the victim in this case, I would want justice. Sympathy due to the operator's standing in the community, personal relationship, or emotion is misguided. Facts are clarity, emotion and denial are blinding to the facts.

For those of you that stuck up for me thanks! I'll post again in another hmm, four years when substance arises again.

SCUPPER: I'll bet you wouldn't expect this response from me. YOUR Response to my post seems Quite Sincere and I respect ..even agree with parts of your stated position above. It is quite possable I mis-interpreted your original post. If I got it wrong....I apologize. NB

[Scupper]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

SCUPPER: I'll bet you wouldn't expect this response from me. YOUR Response to my post seems Quite Sincere and I respect ..even agree with parts of your stated position above. It is quite possable I mis-interpreted your original post. If I got it wrong....I apologize. NB

No harm, no foul.

[SumoDog]

I think this case and many similar cases create an interesting question that I am sure the jury and all wrestle with - is an accident an accident or is someone always responsible and punishable for their actions. I truly believe that this was an accident - was it negligent on the defendants part - the jury will decide - but I have no doubt that the defendent did not leave that evening with the thought of wrecking her boat and her friend dying due to that action. Did her actions of the evening contribute to the sad event that occured - the jury will decide - I truly believe that we have to look at everyone involved - if she was OUI - should her friends have gotten on the boat with her? If they had any thoughts that she was unable to navigate the boat - why get on - I'm sure they all had cell phones - I've been with people that I concluded were unfit to drive - I did not get in the car with them. Had I and something terrible happen - didn't I just make a choice to risk my life and isn't that contributory negligence on my part? We seem to be (as a society) developing an attitude that nothing is our fault and someone should be blamed and sued. Whatever happen to taking responsibility for your actions - you screw up - pay the price. No jury verdict, sentence will bring the young woman back to her family and friends - that is the saddest thing. Everyone on that boat that evening had a choice - sadly it turned out to be a very bad choice all and a life ending choice for one.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by Scupper

Obviously I struck a nerve with you NB. Note the length of my membership on this forum...since 2006. Yes, I have few posts, but I only post on issues that appear to have substance. This is one of them. I could care less about the sunset on a particular night, ice cream at Sibley's, debate over the speed limits, whining about being stopped by M.P., etc...

What I care about is the loss of a life, a passenger that had no say, no control over the operation of the boat, and can't be brought back to life. There seems to be a lynch mob mentality against anyone that doesn't feel sympathy for the operator responsible for this "accident."

NB, I have a daughter. If she was the victim in this case, I would want justice. Sympathy due to the operator's standing in the community, personal relationship, or emotion is misguided. Facts are clarity, emotion and denial are blinding to the facts.

For those of you that stuck up for me thanks! I'll post again in another hmm, four years when substance arises again.

I am just curious, not passing judgement.

Do you think that the passenger who accompanies the driver for the evening and observes all of the alcohol the she drank (whatever the volume) bears any responsibility for her own demise?

If the jury decides that the alcohol was the determining factor in the accident would you think that the passenger should have refused to ride in the boat?

I'm not expressing an opinion, just asking a question.

[ApS]

It is the Captain who is burdened with the judgment of safe passage—and who bears full responsibility regardless of the condition of the passengers. (Drunk, unruly, sick, injured—even unconscious).

[jrc]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

I am just curious, not passing judgement.

Do you think that the passenger who accompanies the driver for the evening and observes all of the alcohol the she drank (whatever the volume) bears any responsibility for her own demise?

If the jury decides that the alcohol was the determining factor in the accident would you think that the passenger should have refused to ride in the boat?

I'm not expressing an opinion, just asking a question.

In my opinion, the passenegers actions have no bearing on the criminal aspect of the incident. The actions could come into play in a civil trial.

In determining guilt, I don't think a defendent can say "I'm not guilty because my friends should have stopped me".

But in a civil trial the passenger or their family is suing for damages. The driver's lawyer could say the passenger should have known better, given the circumstances.

This is pure conjecture based on your question.

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by Scupper

No visiblity, can't see anything past the bow, don't slow down, hit a big island, alcohol involved, Wolfe Trap serves mixed drinks in PINT size glasses, beer cans in the water, vodka in the cuddy, spotty memory lapses at convienent times that are crucial, 18 miles an hour causes the boat to basically explode....hmm, let me think about this one.

Scupper's comments could be worded more compassionately, but unfortunately those are the facts.

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Scupper

No visiblity, can't see anything past the bow, don't slow down, hit a big island, alcohol involved, Wolfe Trap serves mixed drinks in PINT size glasses, beer cans in the water, vodka in the cuddy, spotty memory lapses at convienent times that are crucial, 18 miles an hour causes the boat to basically explode....hmm, let me think about this one.

Scupper,

Everyone should let the jury decide on the facts. This includes this you, a very opinionated, first-time poster.

Freedom of speech is one thing, deciding one's fate without complete knowledge is another. This is America. Let the process work. You are not part of this process, nor am I.

If you do not like this, please quickly go very far away. We are, for the most part, very fair people and we do not need your obviously, swayed opinion. There is too much pain on both sides of this for anyone like you, a first time poster, to comment.

Save your mindless comments for the NH Legislature. They might think you are credible, we surely will not! This is not Manchester, the stomping ground of WinnFabs. We are people that know the lake.

I could care less if you do not like my opinion. It is more important to me to let the process evolve.

R2B

[Heaven]

If a juror had a death in the immediate family would they pause a day for that juror?

[jrc]

Wow, why the venom for Scupper? He is not trying to sway the jury, they shouldn't be reading this site.

I read Erica's own account of the night and the collision from the newspaper. It's pretty much says what Scupper said. He just added the pint size glasses, which I have no knowledge of.

Now I may be duped by Scupper, his explode comment regarding the boat, got an instant appluase from guess who, but that could be coincidence.

[SAMIAM]

Always suspicious when a new poster starts out with a highly charged subject. It's hard to take someone serious who hasn't posted enough to have a track record.....for example, a friend or family member of the prosecution could try and sway public opinion by coming on this forum.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by Heaven

If a juror had a death in the immediate family would they pause a day for that juror?

We had that case during the testimony phase. The juror was excused and the first alternate got promoted. It would be up to the judge if they were in the deliberative phase. If they dismiss the juror, they are supposed to start the deliberation over which is near impossible to do.

[Mr. V]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

Scupper,

Everyone should let the jury decide on the facts. This includes this you, a very opinionated, first-time poster.

Freedom of speech is one thing, deciding one's fate without complete knowledge is another. This is America. Let the process work. You are not part of this process, nor am I.

If you do not like this, please quickly go very far away. We are, for the most part, very fair people and we do not need your obviously, swayed opinion. There is too much pain on both sides of this for anyone like you, a first time poster, to comment.

Save your mindless comments for the NH Legislature. They might think you are credible, we surely will not! This is not Manchester, the stomping ground of WinnFabs. We are people that know the lake.

I could care less if you do not like my opinion. It is more important to me to let the process evolve.

R2B

Nobody is trying to interfere with the judicial process; what do you think scupper is trying to do, interject himself in the actual court case?

Get real.

This is a message board on the internet.

In case you haven't noticed, the internet has changed how people comment and interact.

Not so cordial, not so old-school polite, more immediate and visceral.

It's a new world: best keep up or get out of the way.

Bravo scupper, and bravo those who post a differing viewpoint.

Just post, don't lurk.

Of course, our opinions mean nothing and will not have a scintilla of impact on the outcome of the court case.

This is a soapbox, nothing more.

[fatlazyless]

...www.cmonitor.com reports jury has made a decision and reached a verdict...

[mcdude]

Here's the link to the SPECIFIC ARTICLE

11:53 a.m. Jurors convicted Erica Blizzard of negligent homicide for failing to keep a proper lookout but were unable to reach verdicts on the more serious charge of negligent homicide by intoxication for the fatal boat crash she had in 2008 .

The jury was also unable to reach a verdict on the third charge, aggravated driving while intoxicated.

Blizzard faces 3 1/2 years in state prison on her one conviction. Prosecutors can retry her on the other two charges but did not say immediately whether they will. She will be sentenced on April 21.

[Steveo]

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...100319983/1030

Jurors convicted Erica Blizzard of negligent homicide for failing to keep a proper lookout but were unable to reach verdicts on the more serious charge of negligent homicide by intoxication for the fatal boat crash she had in 2008 .

The jury was also unable to reach a verdict on the third charge, aggravated driving while intoxicated.

[ApS]

1) A death in a juror's family would have the judge put an "alternate-juror" in. ("Alternate-jurors" are sitting in or beside the jury box and listening to the same testimony).

2) While "the wheels of justice are in motion", there are court rules that exclude evidence that could be prejudicial to the defendant. It is only upon hearing a verdict—and entering the penalty phase—that such evidence can be divulged. (Such as previous drunken convictions, such as here).

3) The first many minutes of a jury's deliberations are taken up by procedural matters assigned by the judge.

4) The Defense has presented the best case possible for Erica.

Seldom does the defense put their client in the witness chair, but the defense did just that!—as suggested here earlier.

Originally Posted by Scupper

No visiblity, can't see anything past the bow, don't slow down, hit a big island, alcohol involved, Wolfe Trap serves mixed drinks in PINT size glasses, beer cans in the water, vodka in the cuddy, spotty memory lapses at convienent times that are crucial, 18 miles an hour causes the boat to basically explode....hmm, let me think about this one.

Comment—with Smilies suppressed.

1) Even the presence of the same brand of empty beer cans is "circumstantial evidence".

The defense maintained they were previously rounded-up by a neatnik-neighbor, and stored in her boat. That same boat was commandeered by the hero-rescuer-neighbor, Dr. Rock.

(The rescuer's boat belongs to neatnik-neighbor Ms. Stone).

2) Visibility is an unknown. Visibility isn't likely to be a factor at night, as visibility varies in the known conditions of fog and drizzle. (The "big waves" cited by the defendant shouldn't have been alluded to—IMHO).

3) The island isn't lighted.

4) One of the vodka bottles wasn't opened.

5) At night, you usually can't see much beyond the bow.

6) Memory "lapses" happen.

7) We don't know if she slowed down.

8) Diamond Island is 34 acres—not so "big".

9) Pint-sized glasses don't mean too much: we don't know if all the drinks were fully consumed. Remember, too, that the State of New Hampshire sells vodka, so it must be OK to have a bottle or two aboard.

10) The boat didn't "explode": it's mostly the fracturing of the manufacturer's low-end "shoe-box" construction that makes it look worse than it is.

The defense made much of the fact that the broken glass evidence can roll—or be "sling-shot"—far beyond the crash site and should be dismissed as real evidence of velocity.

11) Finally: Her lawyer says she wasn't intoxicated.

What's a jury to do?

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

Apparently the jury remains out... according to this article, they will not be in session tomorrow, the jury will reconvene on Thurs. The Article also details that the jury is having trouble with only of of the Articles before them.... Interesting......

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...d-31d31531478f

Now knowing many of you are reading this, and some may have been on juries or know people that have.... is it "normal" that they would stop deliberations for a day... I know the article says someone has a commitment, and I am not trying to deny that it may be important... I am more curious as to how often something like this happens.

I had the pleasure of 3 jurys last summer. If they have to replace one of the jurors while they are in deliberation, they theoretically have to restart the deliberative process from scratch. Taking the day off may be more attractive than starting over or burning up an alternate.

[Seeker]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

Apparently the jury remains out... according to this article, they will not be in session tomorrow, the jury will reconvene on Thurs. The Article also details that the jury is having trouble with only of of the Articles before them.... Interesting......

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...d-31d31531478f

Now knowing many of you are reading this, and some may have been on juries or know people that have.... is it "normal" that they would stop deliberations for a day... I know the article says someone has a commitment, and I am not trying to deny that it may be important... I am more curious as to how often something like this happens.

On one of my juror trials we skipped a day because the judge had to be somewhere, but we were told that up front. I'm editing because this was not while we were in deliberation. I would think that would make a difference.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by Seeker

On one of my juror trials we skipped a day because the judge had to be somewhere, but we were told that up front. I'm editing because this was not while we were in deliberation. I would think that would make a difference.

We had a judge absent one of the days of our deliberation. He had another judge stand in while we worked. We actually gave our verdict to the pinch hitting judge.

[chillininnh]

No amount of punishment levied upon her by a court of law and a jury of her peers will come close to the suffering she will endure living with the memory of this terrible tragedy.

[Newbiesaukee]

What you say may well be true(although we do not know this for sure), but it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence in a trial. It may well affect the sentence if she is found guilty

[fatlazyless]

For driving a boat, it should be about a .18, since you gonna get seasick any way so what's the difference. Plus, all boaters like to drink. Boating and drinking just naturally go together....everyone knows that?

For cdl truck drivers, it 0.02, federal law enforced in all 50 states, and it stays on your driving record for something like 15 years.

So, here's the deal..... let it be .02 for truckers..... and .18 for boaters....add the two together....what's do you gut...you gutta .20 ... a nice round number .20....and everybody is happy....all is groovy!

[hancoveguy]

Actually... The legal limit established by the Federal Motor Carrier Association for CDL truck drivers in all 50 states is .04 BAC. As a former professional tractor trailer driver, a current law enforcement officer and a current boat owner and enthusiast, the legal limit for boating should also be .04. The reasoning behind this is that, speaking from experience, a boat is every bit as technically difficult to operate as a tractor trailer is but in different ways and therefore requires the same elevated level of care.

Just my .02 cents (pun intended)...

[fatlazyless]

Found this post over in the Union Leader's email opinions....sounds like it could be a better plan of legal advice.....how's it sound to you?

"So it appears her defense will be: 'I may have been legally drunk but I was not impaired and it was just a tragic coincidence that I ran into an island at high speed in the dead of night in the rain and my friend was killed.' Wouldn't it be refreshing if for once a defendant admitted the truth and asked for mercy from the court instead of trying to wiggle out of her responsibility? Her attorney's attempt to defend the indefensible in the trial will likely do more damage to her reputation than the accident and publicity have already done. It didn't have to be this way."

Skip M., Ossipee

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Found this post over in the Union Leader's email opinions....sounds like it could be a better plan of legal advice.....how's it sound to you?

"So it appears her defense will be: 'I may have been legally drunk but I was not impaired /TRIM/

I also found this post....

45 during the day and 25 at night are fast speeds and fast enough. If those speed limits had been in effect that night then perhaps the defendant would have taken her boat with twin 425 horsepower motors to the ocean instead of the lake. In the ocean it would have been much harder to run into an island. So I say make the speed limits permanent and it will not only slo people down but maybe save a life or two!
- F. L. Less, Meredith, NH

[alsadad]

Originally Posted by Mr. V

So how fair is it to lower it (to .08 out here) and convict today for what was not a crime yesterday?

.12 really will not lead to significant impairment, in the real world, at least for a seasoned drinker, which I suspect she is.

She could beat this rap ...

Of course, we could go back to the day before yesterday, when it wasn’t unheard of for a drunk driver to face reduced criminal charges, or no charges at all, in the death or injury of another person, precisely because he was drunk. But I certainly don’t want to go back to that.

And as for a .12 BAC, if I’m driving on Moultonborough Neck Road, or some similar two-lane, twisting, turning road, late at night and I spy the headlights of another vehicle driving toward me, I know that I’d prefer that person was sober, regardless of whether he thinks that .12 will not lead to significant impairment. The same goes for waterways.

[LIforrelaxin]

Folks, everyone is throwing out conjectures and statements here. What we all have to understand and realize is that everything is based on circumstances and the facts behind them. If Ms. Blizzard is convicted then the facts behind the circumstances that lead to the accident that night will show, she was negligent. Is she is not guilty then the facts behind the circumstances that lead to the accident that night will show that she was not negligent. Either way what we really need to do right now is wait and see what all the facts are. Through following the case in the media we should be able to do that. But lets not argue over weather someone is drunk or impaired at BAC .12 or not... The fact is that is where her BAC was and the law says she was drunk. End of that story. Now listen to the rest of the facts in the case.

People need to remember we can all talk and bicker about this case and in the end it really doesn't matter to us. However there is a family who has lost a daughter, one that had a daughter injured, and one that could loose a daughter to jail.....report and talk about facts please not conjecture.

[Mink Islander]

getting people talking about what happened here is a really good thing, I think. Yeah, there's speculation. But if we are talking about such an important topic as boating at night and boating and drinking, then we're we raising awareness.

As an aside, this past Sunday night two recent graduates of Norwell High school, home for spring break, (both 18) were travelling down a road very near my house. Both were drunk. The driver lost control on a curve where the speed limit is 25 and hit a tree -- killing the passenger -- his best friend -- while he walked away with only scratches. In jail and charged with drunk driving and involuntary manslaughter. Chillingly familiar tale in only a slightly different context. Two lives ruined. Two families grieving.

There are lessons for life in this trial. Well worth talking about.

[LIforrelaxin]

So here are some Articles after googling "Erica Blizzard Trial"

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...95/1298/UPDATE

What I found most interesting in this article, is that Ms. Shinopolus, was also legally drunk but yet testified that she only had a beer and two mixed drinks over 4 hours leading up to the crash. Of course she also according to this article states that she remembers nothing of the crash.

Here are some other well written articles:

http://wbztv.com/wireapnewsma/Surviv...2.1553781.html

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...template=page2

Take the time to read what is out there from a simple google search... it is all interesting to digest. But the other thing I have noted about all this information is you definitely need to digest it. And understand what is involved here. I wish I could have take the time to go to this trial, to hear all the testimony but I am making do with what I can get from the media. And so far I have convinced my self of several things based on the facts... Not on conjecture or speculation.... The facts are there, in between the line of BS the reporters fill the page with you just have to look....

But as I said in an early post I am not going to put anything out there until this is all over and I have digested as much as I can.

The only thing I will say at this moment is I am disappointed with the judge. It appears that while everyone else involved in the trial went and viewed the wreckage Ms. Blizzard was allowed to stay behind. I believe that the jury needed to see Ms. Blizzards reactions to the wreckage, which she apparently has never had to face.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Mink Islander

getting people talking about what happened here is a really good thing, I think. Yeah, there's speculation. But if we are talking about such an important topic as boating at night and boating and drinking, then we're we raising awareness.


There are lessons for life in this trial. Well worth talking about.

MI,

I don't disagree with you. Talking about this information is good. However people are passing judgment before having all the facts before them. If there is only things I have realized about forums it is that they tend to become heated debates sometime based upon feelings. Instead of solid debates based on facts. When you are dealing with things involving the deceased and someones future you must make sure that you deal with facts. Because those people have family and friends, some of whom have already spoken up here. We need to respect them and the fact that they may see these posts.

May main point still is, don't put comments out there just to put comments out there. Back your statements by facts, make sure your not speculating because of something you have heard through the grape vine.

Ok I seriously need to get off my soap box!!!!!!!

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

MI,

I don't disagree with you. Talking about this information is good. However people are passing judgment before having all the facts before them. If there is only things I have realized about forums it is that they tend to become heated debates sometime based upon feelings. Instead of solid debates based on facts. When you are dealing with things involving the deceased and someones future you must make sure that you deal with facts. Because those people have family and friends, some of whom have already spoken up here. We need to respect them and the fact that they may see these posts.

May main point still is, don't put comments out there just to put comments out there. Back your statements by facts, make sure your not speculating because of something you have heard through the grape vine.

Ok I seriously need to get off my soap box!!!!!!!

The facts are simple:

1)EB's friend boarded the boat and she is now dead;

2)EB was legally drunk when the accident occurred;

3)The boat EB was piloting was traveling too fast for the conditions/her ability to control the craft;

It is a sad situation and I don't think that a jail sentence is the answer. However, I am offended that she has pleaded innocent. I think a better alternative would have been to admit quilt and ask for forgiveness from the court/families involved and I think that forgiveness would have been granted. Instead we are wasting tax payer funds on this trial. EB could have taken the high road and become a crusader in the schools and boater safety courses to try and educate people about the perils of drinking and operating a boat. Instead, she has hired a slick attorney who is attempting to free her on a technicality.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

It is a sad situation and I don't think that a jail sentence is the answer. However, I am offended that she has pleaded innocent. I think a better alternative would have been to admit quilt and ask for forgiveness from the court/families involved and I think that forgiveness would have been granted. Instead we are wasting tax payer funds on this trial. EB could have taken the high road and become a crusader in the schools and boater safety courses to try and educate people about the perils of drinking and operating a boat. Instead, she has hired a slick attorney who is attempting to free her on a technicality.

SC,

This is indeed the biggest thing I think people are missing here, and that is a fight for presumed innocence. Which is really what this trial is all about. It is only do to family financial resources that this trial came about. If this had been any regular Joe, I indeed believe the outcome would have been a guilty plead, with some minimal restitution.

However the facts are having their day in the court, and the story is getting told, I only hope people pay attention to the facts and take the time to digest the story and get the entire picture. The entire picture is understanding the circumstances of what happened and how it happened. Within this understanding is also the truth about what really brought this tragedy to about.

This incident can be used promote all kinds of things depending on how you depict the situation. But the truth is that the facts will show the situation for what it is, and what it is and isn't related too......

[SteveA]

I wonder if this will turn out to be a basis for an appeal from either side.

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...892/-1/CITNEWS

Looks like the paper messed up.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by SteveA

I wonder if this will turn out to be a basis for an appeal from either side.

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...892/-1/CITNEWS

Looks like the paper messed up.

Never having really paid attention to cases that end up in appeals I would have no idea.... Although definitely not fair to the jury who deserves the right to not have their photographs published... I can't really see the harm to the out come of the trial. The identity of those on a Jury for a trial become public knowledge in the end as part of the court documents anyways doesn't it?

Although I guess having said that the one thing this could give grounds for is that with the identities know through the photograph, the are more open to encounters outside the court room making jury tampering a bigger concern....

Hummm interesting stuff....

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

Never having really paid attention to cases that end up in appeals I would have no idea.... Although definitely not fair to the jury who deserves the right to not have their photographs published... I can't really see the harm to the out come of the trial. The identity of those on a Jury for a trial become public knowledge in the end as part of the court documents anyways doesn't it?

Although I guess having said that the one thing this could give grounds for is that with the identities know through the photograph, the are more open to encounters outside the court room making jury tampering a bigger concern....

Hummm interesting stuff....

Yes, the trial I sat on as a jurer was based upon an issue in the Laconia area and my name could be found in the article regarding its outcome (I did not give an interview, so I did not understand the reason, but anyway). I do not see an issue or a case of appeal for the jurers faces being published. Now if some intimidation is used because of this (and this would be the only reason that it should not have happened during the trial), than that would be a different story, but I would think that to be very unlikely situation given the parties involved.

[fatlazyless]

Back on June 15, 2008, when this Diamond Island tragedy occurred, there were newspaper reports that the Father's Day prank was all about setting up, in the Governor's Island yard, some life-size, stand-alone, silhouette cardboard photos of President George W Bush with Dad's photo attached over the president's face. It was just a fun type of a family prank.

So, let's blame the whole mess on Bush.....he caused it!
......

Today's March 12 www.cmonitor.com has a 12:47-pm update on today's Friday trial hearing.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

all about setting up, in the Governor's Island yard, some life-size, stand-alone, silhouette .

Part of the problem then ..... Cause Dad doesn't live on Govenor's Island
.
.
.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

SC,

This is indeed the biggest thing I think people are missing here, and that is a fight for presumed innocence. Which is really what this trial is all about. It is only do to family financial resources that this trial came about. If this had been any regular Joe, I indeed believe the outcome would have been a guilty plead, with some minimal restitution.
However the facts are having their day in the court, and the story is getting told, I only hope people pay attention to the facts and take the time to digest the story and get the entire picture. The entire picture is understanding the circumstances of what happened and how it happened. Within this understanding is also the truth about what really brought this tragedy to about.

This incident can be used promote all kinds of things depending on how you depict the situation. But the truth is that the facts will show the situation for what it is, and what it is and isn't related too......

I completely disagree with your statement that I bolded above. I don't have the statistics to back up my assertion, but I don't think that it is true that a "regular Joe" would plead guilty just because he was not rich. I can't speak from experience, as I have never been arrested. But if I was arrested for something, and believed that I was innocent (Ms. Blizzard states that she had 3 or 4 drinks in the 4 hours prior to the crash), I would fight it with every ounce of my being. No matter how much $$.

[Happy Gourmand]

But the fact of the matter is..... the only place the facts are coming out in in the courtroom. I'm old enough and like to think I'm wise enough to take "facts" reported by the media with a grain of salt. Conjecture, speculation and heresay will have no bearing on the outcome of this case. I don't know the facts in this case, and, most likely, neither do most of you. I am confident that justice will be served. Some of us will agree with the outcome, some of us won't.
Either way, my thoughts and prayers are with all of the families affected by this tragic situation. Their lives will never be the same.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by The Phantom Gourmand

I don't know the facts in this case, and, most likely, neither do most of you. I am confident that justice will be served.

I know enough facts to know that a person died due to the negligence of the person at the helm of that boat on that night. The only fact that has yet to be proven is who was actually at the helm. It does not matter if the person was drunk or sober, or if they were going 10 MPH or 50 MPH, you can't crash a boat into an island at night with enough force to kill someone, and not be criminally negligent.

IMO, all the prosecution needs to prove is who was at the helm. The rest of the unkown (to me) facts are simply supporting evidence that might alter the punishment, assuming the guilty party is not also the victim.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I know enough facts to know that a person died due to the negligence of the person at the helm of that boat on that night. It does not matter if the person was drunk or sober, or if they were going 10 MPH or 50 MPH, you can't crash a boat into an island at night with enough force to kill someone, and not be criminally negligent.

IMO, all the prosecution needs to prove is who was at the helm. The rest of the unkown (to me) facts are simply supporting evidence that might alter the punishment, assuming the guilty party is not also the victim.

I've been staying quiet here reading these posts because I was an aquaintance of Erica and friend of Steph.
I've always thought your posts were fair and thoughtfull.
But wow Dave you know enough of the facts to state that even if she was sober and going 10 mph that she should be criminally neglegent. I guess so because you said you know enough of the facts already not even sitting on the jury! Sure wouldn't want you on my jury. So you know that there was nothing mechanical wrong with the boat and if there was she should still be criminally neglegent?
So then if your driving down the road with a passenger in the car and something occurs out of your control and you crash and kill your best friend then you should be held criminally neglegent reguardless? I'm not saying that is the case here but the trial is still in session.
I'm not here to stick up for Erica and don't like what I'm hearing from the trial up to now but this kind of "lynch em right now" attitude is downright scary.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

I've been staying quiet here reading these posts because I was an aquaintance of Erica and friend of Steph.
I've always thought your posts were fair and thoughtfull.
But wow Dave you know enough of the facts to state that even if she was sober and going 10 mph that she should be criminally neglegent. I guess so because you said you know enough of the facts already not even sitting on the jury! Sure wouldn't want you on my jury. So you know that there was nothing mechanical wrong with the boat and if there was she should still be criminally neglegent?
So then if your driving down the road with a passenger in the car and something occurs out of your control and you crash and kill your best friend then you should be held criminally neglegent reguardless? I'm not saying that is the case here but the trial is still in session.
I'm not here to stick up for Erica and don't like what I'm hearing from the trial up to now but this kind of "lynch em right now" attitude is downright scary.

SIKSUKR,

I have been waiting for someone to post something like this. Not the part about be friends and / or acquaintances of the people involved. But rather about that fact that how can we pass judgment until the entire story is told.
What if the defense suddenly finds evidence that something mechanical was wrong, what if evidence is produced that Erica was indeed not the driver, what if, what ifs are plentiful. The issue here is that the entire story needs to be told.

There has been published testimony that has made no sense in this case. They tried to use the throttle positioning after the accident as evidence of something....well the picture shows sure enough one drive is in gear forward one drive is in gear reversed.... both throttles full ahead.... This tells me that someone hit the throttles during or after the collision..... because the boat wouldn't have gone nose first into the wall with the throttles like that....

People need to listen to the facts, listen to what their reasonable minds tell them. I think there will be enough information in the end to come to a reasonable conclusion based on facts, and not conjecture, I really do....

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

what if evidence is produced that Erica was indeed not the driver, what if, what ifs are plentiful. The issue here is that the entire story needs to be told.

I think it certainly would have come out from the two survivors that Erica was not driving the boat if this was the case. Let's face it, if Erica was not driving the boat she would not be the one on trial. If it was Nicole do you think Erica would be covering that up and risking jail time to do so plus huge litigation costs? If it was Stephanie I think it would have come out as well.

Even if there was a mechanical issue, there are enough ways to stop a boat. Throttles, shifters, keys, deadman, etc. Hell, even jump off. Not all of these would be disfunctional at once, if so the boat clearly should not have been on the water and I DOUBT that was the case. It was the captains responsibility to make sure the heading they were traveling was safe and free of obstructions. There were enough electronics, boating experience and knowledge of the lake to avoid the island. Lets face it, even if there was no chip in the chartplotter it still comes down to the pilot, whomever she was.

I feel that Dave was right. An accident happened, someone died, and it was ultimately because of the actions of the driver, alcohol or not. That can be considered negligent homocide, the negligence was hitting an island and killing someone because of the collision. Failure to maintain a proper lookout. I have no opinion on jail time, fines, really don't care as far as that is concerned.

As far as Siksukr, we are not talking about 10mph and sober. It is clear to everyone the boat was going faster than 10. I certainly do not think they were doing 50, the damage does not support it.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

"...Either way what we really need to do right now is wait and see what all the facts are..."

Facts can be sealed from all further inquiry. Evidence can be excluded for reasons unrelated to fact.

In other words, this legal system won't let us know the facts!

Originally Posted by Mr. V

"...She could beat this rap..."

Agreed—she could, indeed.

As an attorney, you know that the defense expert's testimony will be carefully crafted to contradict Lt. Dunleavey's testimony. A defense expert (such as Captain Robert J. Cronin) can charge $10,000 for his useful crafting of words.

(And that's $10,000 per day!)