Boating Accident/Death off Diamond Island

[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.

[fatlazyless]

Today's March 15 www.cmonitor.com has a brief mid-day report and the defense put a boat accident reconstruction expert witness on the stand this morning, from Newburyport Mass, who testified that the evidence suggests the boat was going 18-20, and not the 30-32 as the Marine Patrol lieutenant testified.

For a 17000-lb, 37 foot boat, powered by twin 425-hp MerCruiser inboard-outboards, going 18-20 most likely would have the boat plowing through the water, as opposed to being up on plane at 30-32, and that would seem to be highly relevant to what happens running into a six foot high, solid granite outcropping. Speed would make a difference, dontcha you thinka?


...any expert incite from the peanut gallery on board here?

[robmac]

IMHO,you would think angle and impact height on the bow and the granite ledge would help determine speed relevent to the vessal on plane and or plowing. Now I am no expert but doesn't common sense come into play?

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Today's March 15 www.cmonitor.com has a brief mid-day report and the defense put a boat accident reconstruction expert witness on the stand this morning, from Newburyport Mass, who testified that the evidence suggests the boat was going 18-20, and not the 30-32 as the Marine Patrol lieutenant testified.

For a 17000-lb, 37 foot boat, powered by twin 425-hp MerCruiser inboard-outboards, going 18-20 most likely would have the boat plowing through the water, as opposed to being up on plane at 30-32, and that would seem to be highly relevant to what happens running into a six foot high, solid granite outcropping. Speed would make a difference, dontcha you thinka?


...any expert incite from the peanut gallery on board here?

Boattest.com has it getting on plane around 15 MPH and weighing 14,400 lbs. I would also say that the death and injuries, combined with a smashed-up boat are a pretty good indication that the speed was too high for the conditions; and that the prosecution should just point that out....

[ApS]

(Headline by The Citizen).

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Today's March 15 www.cmonitor.com has a brief mid-day report and the defense put a boat accident reconstruction expert witness on the stand this morning, from Newburyport Mass, who testified that the evidence suggests the boat was going 18-20, and not the 30-32 as the Marine Patrol lieutenant testified.

For a 17000-lb, 37 foot boat, powered by twin 425-hp MerCruiser inboard-outboards, going 18-20 most likely would have the boat plowing through the water, as opposed to being up on plane at 30-32, and that would seem to be highly relevant to what happens running into a six foot high, solid granite outcropping. Speed would make a difference, dontcha you thinka?

...any expert incite from the peanut gallery on board here?

1) Check page 2 of this thread for dozens of wrong speculations.

2) I'd previously guessed about 20-MPH+, but even without the hands-on testing that I'd suggested, I'm now agreeing with Lt. Dunleavey. (Certainly more than "the-expert-with-the-briefcase-from-out-of-town").

3) In fair weather, Diamond Island is a near-daily destination of mine—and you can't miss the crash site. Seen within a week of the crash, the outcropping is closer to 3-feet tall. The scale I'd included appears as the 2nd "attachment" below. The three black bands are placed one foot apart.

You can take a piece of paper and mark the three-foot spacing on it. Place the scale upright against the screen and you can see that it's less than three feet above the waterline shortly after the crash.

The subject boat would still have additional depth below the waterline, as there was a faint scrape on a somewhat-submerged rock.

4) It's true that striking the island 40-feet either way would have spared the boat—and maybe those aboard—but a neighboring cabin can be seen in the background. (This other cabin's roof can be seen at the first "attachment" at the very bottom of this post).

In this next photo, note the clear "ramp" of yard leading directly to it.



5) A too-short anchor line was given as the reason for not waiting-out the weather, but any other anchored boat near Diamond Island's Broads location would have been in peril that night.

(Message: When you're not aware of the weather and caught "out", tie up to a private dock).

6) Although too-late a warning for the defendant—one week after the crash, a Jet-Ski was put out at a mooring nearby.

Originally Posted by robmac

IMHO,you would think angle and impact height on the bow and the granite ledge would help determine speed relevent to the vessal on plane and or plowing. Now I am no expert but doesn't common sense come into play?

I think you're onto something...

Note the "concentric rings" previously mentioned in testimony.

At that time, the lowest ring was just two inches below the surface and would correspond to the deepest crack in the bow. I'm not conversant with the "bow-high attitude" of 37' speedboats, but a photo taken from the side of the same model boat—in both "plow" and high-speed modes—would demonstrate a range of speeds that would have made those marks on the granite outcropping.

(For a comparison, see the photo of the cracks in the bow earlier on this page).

BTW: Sgt. David Ouelette (a chatty NHMP officer whom I've had the privilege of meeting) has testified to the alcohol found on board: it includes two bottles of vodka, one of which is a ½-gallon size!

(I've never seen such a big bottle of alcohol !)


(Photo from The Citizen).

Testimony included alcohol detected on the Captain's breath. How much "normally-odorless" vodka would it take to be "detectable"?

The photo VtSteve referred to: (The defendant leaving the courthouse—after the jury found her Guilty).


(Photo from The Concord Monitor).

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

]For what its worth,I also saw the site within a week and the outcropping as you call it it closer to 5 feet.The photo you posted gives you the scale you seek.The windows would be about 3 feet high based on a 7 foot wall that they are in. From my observation the highest point is at least 50% taller than the windows.

The windows are not in the same plane as the struck boulder; however, the added "lighthouse" is—almost. (Making it a very tall "lighthouse" !)

This photo included the "lighthouse"—an anonymous and tasteless addition—added in 2009. Even a year later, the embedded shreds of fiberglass still remain in the boulder.

At the bottom of this post shows the neighboring cabin behind the cottage, which has no protective granite along their shoreline.

I was told by the cottage owner that glass was found behind the cottage. I'm not buying the Defense's "slingshot-physics", and Lt. Dunleavey shouldn't have, either. IMHO.

The last photo shows the relative distances between the cottages that were also in peril that night.

(In order from left to right: Dr. Rock's cottage, Cabin with "ramp", Crash-Scene with barge).

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

(Headline by The Citizen).

BTW: NHMP Sgt. David Ouelette (a chatty officer whom I've had the privilege of meeting) has testified to the alcohol found on board: it includes two bottles of vodka, one of which is a ½-gallon size!

Testimony included alcohol detected on the Captain's breath. How much "normally-odorless" vodka would it take to be "detectable"?

APS, as I have stated in this thread twice now, the finding of alcohol on the boat, while it may create suspicions, does not PROVE anything. No less than 2 different people have testified under oath as to the amount of alcohol consumed that night. As far as I am aware, neither testimony included anything about drinking on the boat.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

In fair weather, Diamond Island is a near-daily destination of mine—and you can't miss the crash site. Seen within a week of the crash, the outcropping is closer to 2½-feet tall. Somewhere in my old computer there's a photo that shows the rock with a scale—in feet—I included with the marks of the crash. (Which I now need to dig out).

For what its worth,I also saw the site within a week and the outcropping as you call it it closer to 5 feet.The photo you posted gives you the scale you seek.The windows would be about 3 feet high based on a 7 foot wall that they are in.From my observation the highest point is at least 50% taller than the windows.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

For what its worth,I also saw the site within a week and the outcropping as you call it it closer to 5 feet.The photo you posted gives you the scale you seek.The windows would be about 3 feet high based on a 7 foot wall that they are in.From my observation the highest point is at least 50% taller than the windows.

The paddle is marked with four black bands, for a scale of three feet—total.

ETA:
After subtracting two inches for late-season change in water depth, compare the largest marking on the granite to the deepest damage on the boat.

On the boat, measure up three feet from the keel. This boat was going much faster than it should have been.

[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