Boating Accident/Death off Diamond Island

[Woodsy]

WOW!!! You have to love the lynch mob mentality! I tried to stay out of it but this is getting a bit out of hand...

The prosecution has presented the worst case possible (for Erica) scenario as to the events that occurred that fateful night.... The defense has presented the best case possible (for Erica).... somewhere in the middle lies the truth!

The wheels of justice are in motion and it’s up to the jury to weigh in ALL of the evidence presented by both sides. We only know whatever the newspapers & television stations have reported.... a small fraction of what the jury heard for evidence. The rest is rumor, conjecture and opinion!

Anyone who formulates their opinion (on any subject) based solely on what has been reported in the news is a boorish unintelligent moron. Minds are like parachutes... they only work when they are open!

The jury will decide Erica's fate... not anyone on this forum. Nobody should take any delight regardless of the outcome of the verdict. Unfortunately there are a few folks here who will... (either side) and that is precisely whats wrong with the lake...


Woodsy

[RI Swamp Yankee]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

... it’s up to the jury to weigh in ALL of the evidence presented by both sides. ...

And remember, the evidence the jury hears and sees it NOT what the public hears and sees. It is also a "given" that the news media has not reported ALL of what was said in court and they have not reported all of what was NOT said, or allowed, in court.

That being said, we just have to wait and see but that does not stop us from forming and expressing opinions, as I did way way back in this thread.

[Lakewinn1]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

WOW!!! You have to love the lynch mob mentality! I tried to stay out of it but this is getting a bit out of hand...

The prosecution has presented the worst case possible (for Erica) scenario as to the events that occurred that fateful night.... The defense has presented the best case possible (for Erica).... somewhere in the middle lies the truth!

The wheels of justice are in motion and it’s up to the jury to weigh in ALL of the evidence presented by both sides. We only know whatever the newspapers & television stations have reported.... a small fraction of what the jury heard for evidence. The rest is rumor, conjecture and opinion!

Anyone who formulates their opinion (on any subject) based solely on what has been reported in the news is a boorish unintelligent moron. Minds are like parachutes... they only work when they are open!

The jury will decide Erica's fate... not anyone on this forum. Nobody should take any delight regardless of the outcome of the verdict. Unfortunately there are a few folks here who will... (either side) and that is precisely whats wrong with the lake...


Woodsy

Woodsy well said!

[nellies]

I'm kind of new to this bizarre forum regarding the boat that hit Diamond Island, etc,etc,, I've taken the time to read back through all the comments written during (almost) the past two years and I really find it quite interesting how many of you are ready to immediately condem and how many of you are ready to condon what happened when in fact not one of you was on the boat that night and really have no idea what happened beside what you read, hear or see in the media. You're all so riteous: if it was your daughter I suppose you want blood, if on the other hand it's you daughter on trail you want acquittal. The last time I checked, in the United States OF America, according to our Constituion you are innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers, afetr hearing the evidence presentesd by the prosecution and the defense. I don't find it amusing that so many of you have such opinion regarding guilt or innocense when you weren't there when it happened. At the end of the day if it was your daughter, on trail, for an accident that occurred taking the life of your daughters best friend and someone whom you considered to be a great friend, as well, how would you react. Empathy, has a simple definition: Walk IN MY Shoes, before passing judgement. I've been on the Lake W for 64 years, I've been a resident since 1982, the Lake can be a nightmare, from time to time, and we all from time to time take liberties with our knowledge and experience with the lake trying to beat Mother Nature. The jury has decide Erika's fate, as it should, based upon the evidence presented. I did attend the trial, one day, so if you didn't don't sit back and second guess what was presented.

[Seadoo]

nellies,

you hit the nail right on the head. I did too sit in on the trial for not 1 day but 3, and you said everything i would have said.

THANKS!!

[Airwaves]

I agree that the postings prior and during the trial we probably off the wall. But since the verdict was rendered, and since Nellies and Seadoo say they attended at least portions of the trial, please give us some insight into what happened beyond what was reported in the newspapers since that is our only source of information.

What did they get wrong/right/leave out/embelsih etc that we don't know about?

[bigpatsfan]

I also agree with Nellies post.

I wasn’t in the court room and I really do not feel comfortable passing judgment on someone based on reading a 150 word story in the paper.

Both the defense and the prosecution made their case and in the end 12 people made their decision based on the facts presented.

As for the actions of this board, not too long ago, a number of people went crazy hanging out some poor guy who had his boat sink on him. Without any facts other than the fact that a boat sank they went on a rant saying what this person should have done and how much better a boater they were.

Point is there are many people that have a holier than I view.

[Lucky1]

There was definitely some finding about this case in the news today. I do not know the facts.

I do know that I would not drink and drive and would not get in a car or a boat with someone who would drink and drive either. The whole thing is a tragedy for many it seems. Nothing we enter here can change that. It is just sad and friends did things that they were not supposed to be doing and one died as a result. It has happened before and will happen again. Education and example and talking about how things like this happen if people do not act responsibily might be helpful.

[NoRegrets]

None of these posts can be of personal knowledge and even if there were several survivors that were on the vessel that night I would bet they would have differing accounts of the incident. That is the nature of individual observations based on each persons life-long experiences.

If it is upsetting to read peoples opinions in a semi-public forum you should not do it. You are now judging and condeming everyone on the thread by your standards and opinion and doing the same activity that you are complaning about. There is a benefit to venting and sharing opinions through discussions. The process of composing a post takes an effort that includes writing your thoughts. Some postings are better than others but each one does allow the poster to practice a style of communication that insures we will not forget the horrible event and hopefully prevent future accidents.

To your point - There are some that comdem the people and I do agree that is the courts job but there were many that speculate on the facts and by doing so it forces one to contemplate or reflect what they would do in that situation. There are some posts that many found insulting and boil your blood but try to skip over them or respond if moved to. I personally believe 80% add value and advance the experience of Winnipesaukee. JMHO.

[OCDACTIVE]

Great post Noregrets.

Frankly, we now have a verdict. The court system has done its job and justice has been determined.

Why do people continue to make posts that are only hurting all those involved.

There is nothing more productive that can come from this thread. The conjecture and speculations have been drawn out to no end and now it is just becoming shameless. Lets have some respect for all those involved and finally put this entire situation behind us and learn from what has happened.

I would think that if other issues have been shut down because there is no more productive comments that can be made then this is another case where the same respect and logic should also be stopped.

I would hope that this thread would be shut down now that it is finally over.

[NoBozo]

What would it cost to establish a Lighted Mark on the southwest corner of Diamond Island...maybe just like the one on Parker Island.

Whenever I transit from Wolfeboro to Winter Harbor at night I ALWAYS go outside the island ..using that fixed lighted mark, just to be safe, rather than try and find the unlighted marks on the inside channel that I use in daylight. Just wondering. NB

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

What would it cost to establish a Lighted Mark on the southwest corner of Diamond Island...maybe just like the one on Parker Island.

Whenever I transit from Wolfeboro to Winter Harbor at night I ALWAYS go outside the island ..using that fixed lighted mark, just to be safe, rather than try and find the unlighted marks on the inside channel that I use in daylight. Just wondering. NB

That's an excellent idea. I think that long stretch from the witches to Diamond needs a nav-aid.

[chipj29]

I am absolutely appalled (yet not surprised) at most of the comments that have been posted in the article on unionleader.com regarding the outcome of this trial. Disgusting in every way.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Dave R

That's an excellent idea. I think that long stretch from the witches to Diamond needs a nav-aid.

A number of things came up to help make the lake safer. Contact SBONH if you feel that we need a specific law on the books to make the lake safer.

Having a light bouy on The Broads side of Diamond Island is a good one. Even on a good night Diamond can be missed.

One item suggested a couple of years ago and I feel has merits is making Cattle Landing Pass a no wake zone on weekends. This area is very busy and I have seen too many near misses.

Another item is to allow overnight stay in inclement weather at all public docks in NH. Twice I was ask to leave. Both in different towns. One night it was raining so hard, the MP tied up to the dock. And I was TOLD to leave. Another night, the LEO gave me a ticket on the spot. I would rather pay the ticket than try to navigate The Broads in pea soup fog. In the name of safety you should be allowed to stay.

I strongly feel, replacing 'Reasonable and Prudent' with USCG Rule 6. 'Reasonable and Prudent' is a vague statement. Rule 6 will give the MP 'more teeth' when being challenge in the courts.

Feel free to let me know of your thoughts.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Having a light bouy on The Broads side of Diamond Island is a good one. Even on a good night Diamond can be missed.

There already is one on the Broads side; FL25 off the end of Rattlesnake is a good landmark. I'd like to see one just southwest of the southwest corner of Diamond Island. It would be a perfect place for one as you head from FL71/FL28 at the witches toward Alton Bay. Presently, Diamond Island hides FL24 by Treasure Island, so it's tough to get a visual fix on a good waypoint. With a light where NoBozo suggested, you could easily make your way from one FL to the next, like you can heading up into Center Harbor from the Broads (FL7 to FL83 to FL6 to FL5), or heading into Alton Bay from the Broads (FL22 to FL67 to FL23). I love having the FLs to confirm that I am on the course that my chartplotter says I am.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

A number of things came up to help make the lake safer. Contact SBONH if you feel that we need a specific law on the books to make the lake safer.

Having a light bouy on The Broads side of Diamond Island is a good one. Even on a good night Diamond can be missed.

One item suggested a couple of years ago and I feel has merits is making Cattle Landing Pass a no wake zone on weekends. This area is very busy and I have seen too many near misses.

Another item is to allow overnight stay in inclement weather at all public docks in NH. Twice I was ask to leave. Both in different towns. One night it was raining so hard, the MP tied up to the dock. And I was TOLD to leave. Another night, the LEO gave me a ticket on the spot. I would rather pay the ticket than try to navigate The Broads in pea soup fog. In the name of safety you should be allowed to stay.

I strongly feel, replacing 'Reasonable and Prudent' with USCG Rule 6. 'Reasonable and Prudent' is a vague statement. Rule 6 will give the MP 'more teeth' when being challenge in the courts.

Feel free to let me know of your thoughts.

I agree with all your suggestions. I thinks reasonable and prudent is OK but augmenting with USCG Rule 6 is good as well.

I was reading your dock stories and thinking about the trial. If they found the visibilty too bad and anchored until it improved, they would be breaking the law against anchoring a houseboat at night. Now a ticket for illegal anchoring is worth it to avoid death and injury, but the law should not encourage bad choices.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by jrc

I was reading your dock stories and thinking about the trial. If they found the visibilty too bad and anchored until it improved, they would be breaking the law against anchoring a houseboat at night. Now a ticket for illegal anchoring is worth it to avoid death and injury, but the law should not encourage bad choices.

This is one of the "Unintended Consiquences" that (perhaps) agenda driven enacted laws can cause. I would have just stayed tied up to the town docks at Wolfeboro for the night. No problem.

But WAIT: I know this is Against The Law ...and I don't need a hassle from the WPD or the MP tonight. SO: I get underway. After all, I don't have ANY visions of Death and Destruction on my mind. It will probably be an unpleasent trip..but I'm confident I can get to where I'm going.........

Just Too Much Common Sense goin on here. SO: Who WINS..?? NB

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

This is one of the "Unintended Consiquences" that (perhaps) agenda driven enacted laws can cause. I would have just stayed tied up to the town docks at Wolfeboro for the night. No problem.

But WAIT: I know this is Against The Law ...and I don't need a hassle from the WPD or the MP tonight. SO: I get underway. After all, I don't have ANY visions of Death and Destruction on my mind. It will probably be an unpleasent trip..but I'm confident I can get to where I'm going.........

Just Too Much Common Sense goin on here. SO: Who WINS..?? NB

She made it to her father's house so she could have tied up there.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

She made it to her father's house so she could have tied up there.

YUP: Good point.........How FAR could she have gone....Maybe she could have made it to another Waypoint. MY point was ..If the LAW had allowed..maybe she wouldn't have HAD to get underway and make the next Waypoint.

Not trying to raise a ruckus..just some thought...maybe learn something ...NB

[sa meredith]

Just a quick thought/question I have, as this thread seems to be starting to wind down... I have my own opinion on the matter, and without a long detailed post, would simply state that I believe justice is not being served. If her financial situation was different, I believe the outcome would be quite different...but when you can afford the best defense lawyers that money can buy...well you tend to get better results.
Anyway...my question...
I have plenty of boating experience on the lake...encountered my share of tough situations, made mistakes navigating, been caught if terrible weather...normal stuff every boater has experienced.
But all in the day time. I have never boated at night, and would really not know the first thing about it.
There has been much discussion about Erica coming off plane when visibilty went to zero, but because of the boat getting tossed, she decided to throttle back up a bit. So, I ask, when visibility is zero...AT NIGHT, BY THE WAY... when would it ever be a good idea to travel above headway speed?! You can't see...don't know what might be floating in the water ahead of you, but power up because people are not feeling well? "Lean over the side and toss, and while you're there, shout out if you happen to see anything".
Really though...is driving the boat at 18 MPH in zero visibilty an accepted practice? Curious what boaters with more experince than me might think.

[BroadHopper]

I would docked or anchor the boat and wait. I have done that a number of times. When I anchor off shore, it does not seem to be a problem. The MP seems to realize the safety issue. It is the town LEOs at public docks that are telling you to move on.

On the other hand, if I had radar, lorance, or GPS, it may have been different. I still need a proper look out.

[BlackCatIslander]

I know that if I am in my boat and the visibility is zero I would never go above headway speed and I would have my spotlight in use. I have been on the lake over 30 years and know that it is very easy to get disoriented very easily in the fog. Even with gps caution is necessary.

[Airwaves]

Secondcurve

She made it to her father's house so she could have tied up there.

According to the testimony the weather the visibility turned south AFTER she left her father's house.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Secondcurve

According to the testimony the weather the visibility turned south AFTER she left her father's house.

Classic example of New England weather. I noticed a lot of small crafts find out the hard way as they try to navigate The Broads.

[trfour]

http://citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...9897/0/CITIZEN

[NoBozo]

From my experience at sea (well away from land and lights) on a dark night. This doesn't affect everybody. It doesn't happen to me...BUT..some people are affected by loss of visual orientation ...boat rockin and rollin combined with the loss of a Visible Horizon.......resulting in Sea Sickness. Thats puking.

It has something to do with the inner ear..equalibrium..lack of a visual horizon combination. I can't explain the particulars.

I have seen Macho guys turn to MUSH under these conditions.

My Advice: Do NOT go down into the cabin..night or day..if you feel sea sick. Stay OUT in the cockpit with fresh air and a visual horizon. NB

[NoRegrets]

Great segway SAmeredith and maybe this could start a new thread.

GPS places you on the breadcrumbs you left behind and shows the map with your position on it so by itself you can move providing you have visibility so I agree with BCI.

Radar will pick up other movable objects when visibility becomes impared. You must become familiar and practice - practice - and practice with this equipment ao you can adjust for rain, humidity, and waves to maximize your accuracy. When tuned for the condition you can become fairly safe. Most radars can also set alarms if it picks up on an object in a configured zone. I will create 2 zones around 300 feet and 500 feet ahead of me and an audible alarm goes off if a marker, boat, obstruction or anything that reflects the radar comes within the zones as we are under way. On one occasion my alarm triggered and0 it was a flock of ducks. Did I emphasize that PRACTICE is imperative?

It is easy to become disoriented in fog even with the equipment so that is when the compass and chart become important. One time I was sure I was looking in one direction but all my equipment told me otherwise. It was a bad feeling so I shut down competely and verified with all my equipment and I was wrong.

I am sure there are other possibilities and use of teh equipment but I do find it liberating and exhilerating to navigate in all types of conditions. With my current knowledge and experience I would NOT go on plane without radar in limited visibility conditions. This includes bright sunshine.

The poorest condition we encountered was leaving Center Harbor and we could not see the end of the bow. It took us over 2 hours of focused navigation to get to the back side of Governer's Island. We were very confident we were safe and posed no danger to anyone elso. As soon as we got into the broads the fog lifted. Great experience.

Erica's testomy included a statement that the conditions were getting her passengers sick so she decided to pick up the speed (paraphrased by me) was interesting and it is true that headway speed in waves can be awful. I would think a faster "plowing" approach with the bow up would stablize the rocking sensation but if you hit an object at that speed (maybe 8- 12 MPH) the results would be different. Not judging but just pondering. What do you all think.

Thanks for the post SAMeredith.

Ice Out Monday!!!! maybe?

[SAMIAM]

After reading some of the posts today......it's clear we didn't even need that jury.....these folks have it all figured out.Why even bother with a trial when we have so many experts right here?

[sa meredith]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

After reading some of the posts today......it's clear we didn't even need that jury.....these folks have it all figured out.Why even bother with a trial when we have so many experts right here?

Curious if this post is pointed at me?
My honest thought is that thereis just too much evidence that alcohol played a rolled here...way too much. The .15 alone would normally be enough.
But the right attorney can show any evidence to be circumstancial...and that's what I believe happened here.
Maybe I'm wrong.
But here is a captain who grew up on the lake. She can probably navigate and operate a large boat as well,if not better,than anyone who reads this forum. And yet we are to believe she made the decisions that she did, with a clear head? Doesn't add up.
I think many people in the area know her, and consider her a friend, so they get their ire up when they comment on this matter. But the events of the evening seem to have taken a course that intoxication would explain.
Not trying to offend anyone. This is just my opinion.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

"...But the events of the evening seem to have taken a course that intoxication would explain.
Not trying to offend anyone. This is just my opinion..."

Starting with post #900, there does seem to be a "too-wide support" for alcohol on board a boat.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Starting with post #900, there does seem to be a "too-wide support" for alcohol on board a boat.

There is nothing wrong (legally and morally) with having alcohol on a boat. Just because there is alcohol on a boat does not mean that the person piloting the boat has been drinking. It doesn't mean that anyone on the boat has been drinking. And it does not mean that any person on the boat is drunk.

The presence of alcohol on a boat means just one thing...that there is alcohol on a boat. Nothing more, nothing less. So yes, I am saying that as long as it is legal, it is perfectly acceptable.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

Curious if this post is pointed at me?
My honest thought is that thereis just too much evidence that alcohol played a rolled here...way too much. The .15 alone would normally be enough.
But the right attorney can show any evidence to be circumstancial...and that's what I believe happened here.
Maybe I'm wrong.
But here is a captain who grew up on the lake. She can probably navigate and operate a large boat as well,if not better,than anyone who reads this forum. And yet we are to believe she made the decisions that she did, with a clear head? Doesn't add up.
I think many people in the area know her, and consider her a friend, so they get their ire up when they comment on this matter. But the events of the evening seem to have taken a course that intoxication would explain.
Not trying to offend anyone. This is just my opinion.

I wouldn't think it was pointed at you SA I for one think you raise some very interesting points of view. A lot of your thoughts are pretty spot on. In that visibility if all accounts are accurate the only prudent speed should have been no wake speed. I've been there and done that and it can be scary. I was out on a night when visibiltiy went to zero I limped back to the weirs at No Wake from beyond governers and eagle. When I came into weirs my course was off about 25 yard or so. Thankfully I had the lights from the beach to guide me and I was traveling at 5 mph.

[VtSteve]

Whatever... These two look pretty darn happy to me. Probably relieved that it's finally over.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...NTPAGE/3190304

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by RI Swamp Yankee

I posted this way back in this thread but the Coast Guard does have not only an opinion but a rule:

RULE 6
SAFE SPEED
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

I tend to value their opinion and experience.

As do I, unfortunately NH has never adopted Rule 6.

[sa meredith]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

Whatever... These two look pretty darn happy to me. Probably relieved that it's finally over.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...NTPAGE/3190304

While I'm sure the smiles are from some measure of relief knowing that the trial is over, my best guess would be that Stephanie Beaudoin's family can't bring themselves to smile at all, when considering this event.

[PC31]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

Curious if this post is pointed at me?
My honest thought is that thereis just too much evidence that alcohol played a rolled here...way too much. The .15 alone would normally be enough.
But the right attorney can show any evidence to be circumstancial...and that's what I believe happened here.
Maybe I'm wrong.
But here is a captain who grew up on the lake. She can probably navigate and operate a large boat as well,if not better,than anyone who reads this forum. And yet we are to believe she made the decisions that she did, with a clear head? Doesn't add up.
I think many people in the area know her, and consider her a friend, so they get their ire up when they comment on this matter. But the events of the evening seem to have taken a course that intoxication would explain.
Not trying to offend anyone. This is just my opinion.

Were you intoxicated when you wound up in the witches? Obviously the prosecutor did not prove that .15 was accurate.

[sa meredith]

Originally Posted by PC31

Were you intoxicated when you wound up in the witches? Obviously the prosecutor did not prove that .15 was accurate.

Really...you think that an appropriate analogy???!!! Really???
Strange, but I'll bite...
Visibilty was simply as far as the eye can see...bright sunny day. No real reason to not be cruising along.
There were no beer can/bottles empty/full on board. No booze of any kind.
I had not spent 5 hours in a bar that day.
I had consumed no alcohol in the previous 24 hours.
Realizing my insanely stupid/ careless error, I STOPPED IN TIME!

I don't want to do battle with you...really.
But you think these are the same things?

Honestly...my only real questions here, are given her amount of experience (which I believe to be substancial), how can she have made some of the deciisons that she did.
Really, it comes down just one decision...she stated visibility went to zero...but powered back up because her passengers were feeling ill.
That does not sound like the logic of a clear thinking person.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

[RI Swamp Yankee]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

.......is driving the boat at 18 MPH in zero visibilty an accepted practice? ....

I posted this way back in this thread but the Coast Guard does have not only an opinion but a rule:

RULE 6
SAFE SPEED
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

I tend to value their opinion and experience.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

Just a quick thought/question I have, as this thread seems to be starting to wind down... I have my own opinion on the matter, and without a long detailed post, would simply state that I believe justice is not being served. If her financial situation was different, I believe the outcome would be quite different...but when you can afford the best defense lawyers that money can buy...well you tend to get better results.

Just to play devils advocate...

So which is it, are the poor under-served, or are the wealthy over-served?

I've certainly heard detailed accounts of over-zealous public prosecutors that have put innocent people (and by innocent I mean people later acquitted by DNS evidence, etc.) away because those people couldn't afford a proper defense.

Can you blame someone for using all of their available resources to try to escape a conviction? Do you think in this case Erica should have gone with a public defender? Would you do things differently if you were in the same position with the same resources?

[sa meredith]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

Just to play devils advocate...

So which is it, are the poor under-served, or are the wealthy over-served?

I've certainly heard detailed accounts of over-zealous public prosecutors that have put innocent people (and by innocent I mean people later acquitted by DNS evidence, etc.) away because those people couldn't afford a proper defense.

Can you blame someone for using all of their available resources to try to escape a conviction? Do you think in this case Erica should have gone with a public defender? Would you do things differently if you were in the same position with the same resources?

It's like this... people are quick to say, "well, let's not rush to judgement. Let the judge and jury decide"
Well, using that same logic, let's not be naive and think that a judge and jury cannnot be mislead, by a sharp lawyer, who can make the evidence look exactly the way he wants it to. See: OJ.
In this case, admitted they were in bar for 5 hours, admitted they were drinking, had booze and empties on board, tested at .15, made very poor decisions that a normal thinking person would have a hard time agreeing with...but OUI? Of course not.