Boating Accident

Sunbeam lodge · 04-16-2010, 06:26 AM

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...863/-1/CITIZEN
New article on boat accident. Anyone want to guess the outcome based on what has happened so far?

The Eagle · 04-16-2010, 07:09 AM

Hi SunBeam,
I have wondered why no one mentioned the trial all through the trial. It stayed pretty much "out of the public," here on the forum, but I too, wonder what forum members think. I will give my "thoughts," and I hope I don't get beat to death for them, but they are only MY thoughts.
First, I have to think (regardless of the drinking, because it was never proven she was legally drunk), it was most likely just an accident. We all know how fast, and sudden, lake conditions change. We see storms come so quickly during the day, I can only imagine a storm sneaking in at night. Sure they were "fooling around," going to pull a prank on her Dad..so what! That's what kids do, and it's all in fun. They were all good friends, and meant no harm to anyone, or anything. So, it was just an accident, that could have happened to you, or me, or anyone else. The fact that she was a "high Profile person," in the Lakes Region, in effect, makes her a "Prime Target," to set an "example." I personaly (and I Stress Personaly) think she has paid a high enough price for a life altering accident. Her best friend was killed, her other best friend injured, and she, herself, severely injured and disfigured, FOR LIFE! She is going to see the cause and effects of her misjudgemet, and the effects of a storm at night, every day, for the rest of her life. She doesn't need (and shouldn't) to go to jail, to be reminded of it. If everyone of us who have ever been involved in an accident (of any type) were put on public trial, and sent to jail, we'd most likely, all have some kind of criminal record. It's time to call it, what it was, a tragic and horrible accident. Nothing more, nothing less! I have never met this poor woman, and I feel for her and her friends. I followed the trial, and know all the details, so I feel I am not speaking out of turn. We all need to accept the fact, that in our lives, accidents DO happen, and this was one of them! And I think we have ALL learned something from her accident!
There, I've said my two cents worth.
"The Eagle"

Eagle · 04-16-2010, 07:52 AM

For someone 'extremely fragile', she sure didn't have a problem speeding and texting while driving, or cracking a big smile when they were removing her handcuffs.

That lawyer ought to be tarred and feathered.

fatlazyless · 04-16-2010, 08:01 AM

For the record, the Union Leader email posts in today's paper on this subject from F L Less are not from me. Someone with bad faith and bad intention is writing them to deceive........and it's NOT me! ..

LIforrelaxin · 04-16-2010, 08:03 AM

At this point I have no guess on the out come. But that Lawyer makes my stomach turn. What a scum bucket tactic to try and keep his client out of jail.
I have a very heartless and unsympathetic mind when it comes to crime and punishment. You do the crime you pay the time. She was convicted by a panel of her peers the law has a minimum and maximum penalty. Which involves Jail time... Therefore she goes to jail period end of story... for how long that is the judges decision, even if it is a week with probation after words a week in a cell is a long time to rethink what you have done.

Although I feel for everyone involved in this tragedy I see this latest move as one to circumvent the laws of the land because "she is special". That argument is old tired and I am sorry it time to start punishing people they way they need to be punished. Harshly and swiftly. I am sorry her face is all screwed up but that doesn't excuse her from jail, no way no how. The problem in this country is we moved away from public punishment. Hang murders on the gallows was to much ( and I will agree with that one), chain gangs where cruel and unusual punishment. But you know what when hard time was hard time, the crime rates where lower....the percentage of the population in jail was less....being in screwing up in life and being convicted of a major crime means punishment, and that what needs to happen here... not a get out of jail card .....

Sunbeam lodge · 04-16-2010, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Eagle

Hi SunBeam,
I will give I have wondered why no one mentioned the trial all through the trial. It stayed pretty much "out of the public," here on the forum, but I too, wonder what forum members think.

O.K. One side of me agrees< BUT>
If this was some middle class guy that got in an accident that killed someone and couldn't pass a breathalizer test and beer cans next to the vehicle and could not afford a good lawyer to find guys that picked up beer cans along the highway, there fore they probably didn't belong to the driver. Can we now compare averyone else that gets in this situation with this case even though he does not have a good lawyer. I doubt the results will be the same.
Most middle class people try to follow tax laws (within reason) however, if you could afford an expensive tax attorney you could avoid those pesky taxes.
It just says if you can afford it Laws dont' necessarily apply to you. For instance you may have to earn $1800 before taxes for a vacation, but if you are a businessman you can fly to expensive locations go fishing and talk ab out business and it reduces your taxes .
The poor don't pay, the rich are smarter and they don't pay but the guy in the middle supports the whole system
Just My thoughts.

SAMIAM · 04-16-2010, 09:45 AM

Tell that to Dan Littlefield...........that theory didn't work out too wll for him.

Eagle · 04-16-2010, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

Tell that to Dan Littlefield...........that theory didn't work out too wll for him.

Yes, but he was a man, not a woman.

NHBoat70 · 04-16-2010, 10:53 AM

Why doesn't someone just give her a helmet or face mask, possibly similar to the one like Hannibal Lecter, when she goes to prison. That could possibly a solution...she deserves jail time for her irresponsible actions.

sa meredith · 04-16-2010, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Eagle

Hi SunBeam,
I have wondered why no one mentioned the trial all through the trial. It stayed pretty much "out of the public," here on the forum, but I too, wonder what forum members think. I will give my "thoughts," and I hope I don't get beat to death for them, but they are only MY thoughts.
First, I have to think (regardless of the drinking, because it was never proven she was legally drunk), it was most likely just an accident. We all know how fast, and sudden, lake conditions change. We see storms come so quickly during the day, I can only imagine a storm sneaking in at night. Sure they were "fooling around," going to pull a prank on her Dad..so what! That's what kids do, and it's all in fun. They were all good friends, and meant no harm to anyone, or anything. So, it was just an accident, that could have happened to you, or me, or anyone else. The fact that she was a "high Profile person," in the Lakes Region, in effect, makes her a "Prime Target," to set an "example." I personaly (and I Stress Personaly) think she has paid a high enough price for a life altering accident. Her best friend was killed, her other best friend injured, and she, herself, severely injured and disfigured, FOR LIFE! She is going to see the cause and effects of her misjudgemet, and the effects of a storm at night, every day, for the rest of her life. She doesn't need (and shouldn't) to go to jail, to be reminded of it. If everyone of us who have ever been involved in an accident (of any type) were put on public trial, and sent to jail, we'd most likely, all have some kind of criminal record. It's time to call it, what it was, a tragic and horrible accident. Nothing more, nothing less! I have never met this poor woman, and I feel for her and her friends. I followed the trial, and know all the details, so I feel I am not speaking out of turn. We all need to accept the fact, that in our lives, accidents DO happen, and this was one of them! And I think we have ALL learned something from her accident!
There, I've said my two cents worth.
"The Eagle"

OK...couple things...
First, are you serious about the trial not being discussed on this forum, or was that sarcasm? It was discussed every day. Every aspect of it. Over and over and over and over and over again. The thread has over 1100 replies and is the single most viewed topic in the history of this forum with 140,000 + views.
And, while I don't wish to start the whole debate all over again, I would say I strongly disagree with you.
"Just an accident"? "not drunk"? Are you for real?
BOC .15 (should be enough evidence right there). Admitted to being in a bar for 5 hours. Admitted that the open vodka bottle on the boat was for a drink they made "for the ride". Empty beer cans on the boat.
I think I want you to be on my jury if I should ever be accused of OUI.
"Just an accident"? Everyone involved admits visibility was zero. WHICH MEANS YOU CAN'T SEE 5 FEET IN FRONT OF YOU! No one disputes this fact. Zero visibility. Yet she powered back up from headway speed to 28MPH. I ask you...this is a decision a clear thinking person makes???
Negligent no matter how you slice it. Sorry, not "just an accident".

Heaven · 04-16-2010, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eagle

For someone 'extremely fragile', she sure didn't have a problem speeding and texting while driving, or cracking a big smile when they were removing her handcuffs.

That lawyer ought to be tarred and feathered.

I have stayed completly out of this conversation for a couple of reasons,
one, I am not a boater,
two, I believe that this should be tried in the courtroom as we don't have the information as presented to the jury.

But I am disgusted with the several posts that make a judgment based on a photograph of her (or anyone) smiling, or based on any expression photographed at all. She (or anyone) may simply have been momentarily being polite to (in this case) a police office who is removing her cuffs.

To extrapolate that expression into some proof of guilt, or proof of mindset at all, is ridiculous.

For crips sake, quit already.

Mee-n-Mac · 04-16-2010, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Eagle

Hi SunBeam,
I have wondered why no one mentioned the trial all through the trial. It stayed pretty much "out of the public," here on the forum, but I too, wonder what forum members think.

FYI ... see the last 200 or so posts.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=6190

Little Bear · 04-16-2010, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunbeam lodge

O.K. One side of me agrees< BUT>
If this was some middle class guy that got in an accident that killed someone and couldn't pass a breathalizer test and beer cans next to the vehicle and could not afford a good lawyer to find guys that picked up beer cans along the highway, there fore they probably didn't belong to the driver. Can we now compare averyone else that gets in this situation with this case even though he does not have a good lawyer. I doubt the results will be the same.
Most middle class people try to follow tax laws (within reason) however, if you could afford an expensive tax attorney you could avoid those pesky taxes.
It just says if you can afford it Laws dont' necessarily apply to you. For instance you may have to earn $1800 before taxes for a vacation, but if you are a businessman you can fly to expensive locations go fishing and talk ab out business and it reduces your taxes .
The poor don't pay, the rich are smarter and they don't pay but the guy in the middle supports the whole system
Just My thoughts.

I just sent my 6-figure check to the IRS yesterday. Don't tell me we don't pay! I'm sick of listening to this crap that the "rich" don't pay. I bust my butt in my business, earn a decent living, and all I hear about is that we're the bad guys. Maybe Mr. Obama should start paying for good lawyers so the poor people and "UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS" can get equal justice. He seems to be trying to make everything else equal given his "trickle up poverty" policies. Ok, Erica's family had money and paid for a decent attorney. Anyone in the same position would take the same approach, don't tell me otherwise.

topwater · 04-16-2010, 03:59 PM

Thank you sa meridith !!! I could not believe anyone else didn't say that any sooner. COMMON SENSE, when did it get thrown out the window? Not guilty, cmon !!! If, I mean when she does get jail time, maybe she can get BUBBAETTE to protect her while she is in there?

4 for Boating · 04-16-2010, 04:38 PM

One the accident: The whole thing just makes you think about how your life can change in the blink of an eye. Driver of the boat, one of the passengers, a family member or relative of anyone involved, makes me feel fortunate with my life.

Having said that and on the Tax Topic: We are middle class hard working and getting the stuffing punched out of us with taxes. Without some extensions to the current Bush guidelines in place, we could go as high as 39% next year not counting any health care add on fee! .39 out of every $1.00 with some 48% of the country not paying any federal income tax?????

Merrymeeting · 04-16-2010, 04:47 PM

While I agree with many of the points stated about taxes, please don't let this become a political discussion! We can do that elsewhere!

Don's job is hard enough as it is...

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=9483

jeffk · 04-17-2010, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Eagle

... First, I have to think (regardless of the drinking, because it was never proven she was legally drunk), it was most likely just an accident. We all know how fast, and sudden, lake conditions change. We see storms come so quickly during the day, I can only imagine a storm sneaking in at night. Sure they were "fooling around," going to pull a prank on her Dad..so what! That's what kids do, and it's all in fun. They were all good friends, and meant no harm to anyone, or anything. So, it was just an accident, that could have happened to you, or me, or anyone else. The fact that she was a "high Profile person," in the Lakes Region, in effect, makes her a "Prime Target," to set an "example." I personaly (and I Stress Personaly) think she has paid a high enough price for a life altering accident. Her best friend was killed, her other best friend injured, and she, herself, severely injured and disfigured, FOR LIFE! She is going to see the cause and effects of her misjudgemet, and the effects of a storm at night, every day, for the rest of her life. She doesn't need (and shouldn't) to go to jail, to be reminded of it. If everyone of us who have ever been involved in an accident (of any type) were put on public trial, and sent to jail, we'd most likely, all have some kind of criminal record. It's time to call it, what it was, a tragic and horrible accident. Nothing more, nothing less! ... "The Eagle"

She WAS legally drunk. Her blood alcohol levels show she was. The other evidence backs it up. The jury probably didn't want to dump the harsher penalties on her, feeling sorry for her as you are but it isn't right. She should have been convicted on that charge as well if the jury was impartial.

She is a little old to be considered a "kid" and be excused for childish behavior. I don't care what her intentions were around the prank she planned, that is irrelevant.

NO, it wouldn't have happened to me because I wouldn't have been drinking and if I couldn't see where I was going I would have been operating at headway speed and I wouldn't have been out at night without a GPS unit. Her DECISIONS put her in the position she is in. I would not make those decisions. Maybe it is possible I could have run into an island given terrible visibility but I would have done it at 5 MPH with far less devastating results.

Storms can pop up suddenly and we are expected to make prudent reactions to them. Her actions were NOT prudent and THAT is why she was found guilty. Bad weather is NOT an excuse.

There is no targeting of her in any special way. She was in an accident that killed one person and severely injured two others. She was tried for her responsibility for that accident just like any other person would be. A fatality in a motor vehicle accident makes it a serious legal issue and it was rightfully treated that way.

Yes, she has and is suffering for her actions. The judge can take some of that into account when sentencing her to allow for justice. I recognize that a lot of people make bad decisions and push the limits and luckily get away with it all the time. But we have laws in place that specify responsibility when our luck fails us. When any one of us ends up in the same position as her the law says we should all be treated equally. That seems in this case to require some jail time no matter how sympathetic we feel toward her.

It is unclear to me why her facial reconstruction is an issue. She could be directed to a prison where it would be unlikely to get into any altercations. And if she can whiz down the highway at 84 MPH it seems like she isn't too worried about her fragility.

As to her running the business, that is irrelevant. Based on that thinking no businessman should be set to jail because it would be disruptive to the business. With all the responsibilities she had maybe she should have been more careful to begin with.

trfour · 04-17-2010, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merrymeeting

While I agree with many of the points stated about taxes, please don't let this become a political discussion! We can do that elsewhere!

Don's job is hard enough as it is...

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=9483

I agree, and how this thread ever got started in the general discussion forum, is way beyond a total disregard for this website!!!!
The very DEAD HORSE that has been beaten way beyond death, needs to be put in the BOATING FORUM, so it can go the way and be locked in it's proper place. After all,
People can speculate All They Want, Put Yourself in the drivers seat and you will find that the Courts and Judges and jury will decide where you're butt ends, and the rest of you lands! Innocent or guilty! With no rocket science!

Terry
__________________________

The Eagle · 04-17-2010, 06:02 AM

Come on Guys and Gals, I only expressed an opinion on "an Accident!" I agree 100% that "if you do the crime you do the time." That is NOT what I was saying. Do you hang a person who steals a loaf of bread to feed a faimly?" (only an expression!) I only wanted you to think about "what punishment fits the crime!" Was the "crime" intentional? Was it premeditated? Was there intent to do harm? Did she plan to smash into the island? Did she intend to kill her friend? No! None of the above. It's not like she was "Sharon Tate," or "Lizzy Borden." She was just (irregardless of her social statue, and financial situtation) a gal out with friends, to pull a simple harmless prank on her Dad, that took a Tragic turn in a split second. It could happen to any one of us..just think about that, for one minute. Now ask yourself, "What good is it going to do, to put her in jail?" Even the family of the poor gal killed, think she should not be sent to jail. IF she intentionally caused and planned to cause that accident, then yes, send her to jail. But it would do ALL of us better justice, if she spent time, speaking to the youth of the Lakes Region about the irreversible loss (the death of her friend and the disfigurement of herself) that misjudgemnet and yes, drinking causes, it may make them possibly "Think" before they make the same mistakes. That was all I was trying to say!
As far as her "wealth and the cost of an attorney," give me a break! Lawyers are traditionally crooks! Here's a fact for you. I have been involved in a dispute with my home town, over a neighbor who built a home 12 feet off my lot line with a 20 side line requirement, using six forged and altered "certified Plot plans," added three additions without any building permits or plans, was allowed to do it by the town's building inspector (who has been "terminated," last year for other misdoings). The Town refused to even look at the forged documents and allowed him to do it. Now that the fraud has been "brought to light," by my suit, I have been fighting over 11 years to get it before a judge, ( because the town keeps appealing decisions) and has cost me well over $20,000 thus far, for something that never should have happened. All I do is shell out money to an attorney. ANY court issue that involves a lawyer will cost you a fortune, let alone a criminal case. Answer this question, "How much money are YOU willing to spend to defend YOURSELF!"
As far as was I being "smart," when I stated it was never mentioned, NO I wasn't trying to be smart. I just had not been very active on the forum (due to health reasons the past couple years) and missed all the "gossip," about the trial. I am not the type of person who would make any "smart," or sarcastic comments about our beloved forum. I apologize if I offended anyone for stating my personal opinion. Next time I'll know better than to open my mouth.
"The Eagle"

Just Sold · 04-17-2010, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunbeam lodge

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...863/-1/CITIZEN
New article on boat accident. Anyone want to guess the outcome based on what has happened so far?

Give me a break - I have been quiet about this but I finally have to make my comments.

I attended the boat show in Milford on 4/10 and had a chance encounter with Erica Blizzard. Oh Boy!

BTW the show was good

So now we have Erica Blizzard the 2nd person (family member) associated with a marina on Winnipesaukee convicted of negligent homicide in a boating accident on the lake in recent time. As I said above Erica was at the Great Northeast Boat show on the 10th. She even said hi as she passed me. (honestly a good business practice) Never met her before or know her. Her lawyer wants her to not serve any prison time because of her injuries and that it might kill her if she were in prison and had another facial injury plus the business may suffer if she is in prison. People could even loose their jobs. WHAT????

Erica sure had plenty of energy as she was walking across the floor into Lakeport Landings display area. No impediment, breathing or other issues did I notice. Even with her facial injuries, which are severe, it appears that she can function just fine. So I see no reason for her not to serve her time like anyone else would – of course I wait to see exactly what the judge hands down for her sentence. And on top of that I so far have seen no real remorse from her and I wait to see what she does at her sentencing. Erica does have money unlike some people who have little or none and go to prison. She can afford to pay for her own continuing medical care if she does go to prison. We the citizens of NH did not cause her injuries and should not pay for them if she goes to prison.

On the business side which the lawyer brought up: The stigma associated with a senior management and/or family member still working at a company after being convicted of a crime such as this can destroy a business. People will say we support you but in reality people back away from the convicted people and their business. And yes, I have seen this done another time involving another family and the boating death of a child on a lake not far from Winni in the 90’s. The convicted operator of that boat was removed from his family business because they could not chance even the perception that their working at the company would keep the tragedy and conviction in the customer’s eyes and thus keep people away from the business. In this case it caused a rift in the family too. Littlefield is no longer associated with Shep Brown’s but was before his conviction. He now lives outside of New England after serving his sentence.

BTW I do believe in giving a person a 2nd chance at being a productive member of society after being convicted and sentenced of a crime. Erica does deserve that but only after she has served whatever sentence is handed down by the court. I do believe Erica deserves to serve jail time for the negligent homicide. The other 2 convicted boat operators I mentioned here served their prison and parole time so why not her. Sorry if a prison sentence destroys her business but that is a result of her actions and no one else’s and she should have thought of that before the 1st drink, starting the boat or going out on the lake that night. As a business owner you are always in the public’s eye and judgment both pro and con and must be cognizant of that at all times

So that is how I see it. JMHO.

NonVoting Taxpayer · 04-17-2010, 07:02 AM

Eagle
Keep on posting, you obviously hit a nerve with some people. Some could be close to the families involved and rightfully so their opinions matter. I wonder if their postings would be different if she had not been drinking and this whole tragedy was nothing but a so called accident? Is it the alcohol which makes some feel jail time is warranted? We all know how after a while we feel like we know our parts of the lake like the back of our hands. With a GPS it makes one feel even more secure and that may account for the (estimated) 28 miles per hour. How many times had she made this trip back from Wolfboro?
I was not at the trial and don't profess to be any kind of expert but I often wonder if there are other ways to make good of a bad situation without jail time for someone who obviously did not go out that night with the intent of the outcome. I guess that is why we have the judicial system we do. Let it run it's course.

john60ri · 04-17-2010, 08:05 AM

Excellent posts by "jeffk" and "Just Sold". "TheEagle" appears to live in a fantasy world.

sa meredith · 04-17-2010, 08:48 AM

Wanted to point out, in case, like me, you did not realize there are two "Eagles" posting in this thread. "Eagle" and "The Eagle".
Anyway...
While I agree this is a dead horse being beaten well past it's time, I want to post my final thought on the matter.
Since the trial ended, although I have been outspoken about the OUI aspect of the case, it is not what bothers me the most about he events of that evening.
What bothers me...and to aswer your questions "The Eagle"... is the 28 MPH is zero visibility. The Eagle asks, "Was there intent to do harm?" "Was the crime intentional?"
I say yes to both questions.
Assume for a minute she is indeed stone cold sober. Hasn't had a drink in 5 years.
She is the captain of that boat, and her passengers have every right to expect the captain will make correct and accurate decisions. They have the right to expect she will keep them out of harms way. When she put her hand on that throttle, and decided the proper speed, in zero visibility, AT NIGHT, was 28 MPH, she was "intentionally" putting them in harms way. It would be the same thing as leading two people into a burning building. Are you going to get out OK? Maybe...but why in Christ's name would go into the building in the first place?
Her being sober makes the decision even worse. If she was drunk, well then, that would explain everything else. But she wants us to believe she was sober, and decided 28 MPH was the proper speed?
If the weather was fine, and it was bright and sunny in the middle of the afternoon...yes, I could say this was just an accident. She must have somehow become distracted, and maybe veered off course very quickly, with no chance to recover. I could buy that.
But, even if you have never been on a boat in your life, wouldn't you assume that if you can't see, you'd go as slow as possible?
Just not good...

jrc · 04-17-2010, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Eagle

....Was the "crime" intentional? Was it premeditated? Was there intent to do harm? Did she plan to smash into the island? Did she intend to kill her friend? No! None of the above..."The Eagle"

With respect because you are "The Eagle" and obviously a serious person:

Using "intentional" and premeditated" as requirements means that no drunk driver could ever be jailed no matter how many people they killed.

Many people are jailed for crimes they did not intend to commit. We all have a duty to society, not to endanger innocent people by our reckless actions.

ApS · 04-17-2010, 10:29 AM

I passed a road sign yesterday that said:

Quote:

DUI: Decide before you drive.

jeffk · 04-17-2010, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Eagle

... Now ask yourself, "What good is it going to do, to put her in jail?" ...

I hope you don't think I am out to hang you or Erica. You took some time to state your opinion and I took some time to respectfully express mine. We are both entitled to do so and not required to agree. I am not asking for harsh treatment of Erica, simply what the law requires. That is enforcing responsibility for her actions. That is not hanging, that is justice.

What good it will do is that people will know that the law is enforced fairly and equally. She was found guilty of negligent homicide. The name of the charge, "negligent", implies it was without intent or "accidental". Despite that, the law advocates imprisonment as an appropriate punishment. If she had intended to kill someone she would have been convicted on murder charges. The negligent homicide statute is designed to address fatalities without intent.

Also, maybe a few people will remember Dan Littlefield and Erica Blizzzard and have a few less drinks and slow down under poor conditions so we will have less of these accidents. They will realize the consequences can include jail time and disruption of your business and your life and maybe they will make better choices for themselves and others who they might harm.

MAXUM · 04-17-2010, 09:55 PM

This is amazing.

Let's just for a minute subtract the entire case here for a minute and think about this in a more technical manner versus an emotional one. The very foundation of this country was that we as people can and should be free to do as we wish. In order to maintain a civilized society it's also necessary to put reasonable barriers or laws in place for the overall good of the citizens. These laws exist to protect our way of life and maintain a safe and orderly society. In order for things to function correctly these laws must be followed and if broken then with due process those violators will either be punished or exonerated. Now what good is it to have these laws if they are either not enforced or selectively enforced? What does that set as an example for everyone else as observers? What some are allowed to break the law and get away with no punishment but others may not? Sorry that's neither fair nor a precedent that should be set, or followed for that matter. As sad as this story may be, the facts of the case stand on themselves and there is just cause for punishment, and whatever personal suffering that may also be caused does not count in my opinion. Although there was no intention to cause harm, that doesn't mean a get out of jail free card. The fact there was alcohol involved lessens my sympathy. Either way harm was done, although not pre-meditated, it comes with consequences. As this circles back to where I started, we are given the right to choose what we do with our freedoms, but must also take responsibility for those choices. Anything less is a slap in the face to all of us law abiding citizens.

lawn psycho · 04-17-2010, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAXUM

This is amazing.

Let's just for a minute subtract the entire case here for a minute and think about this in a more technical manner versus an emotional one. The very foundation of this country was that we as people can and should be free to do as we wish. In order to maintain a civilized society it's also necessary to put reasonable barriers or laws in place for the overall good of the citizens. These laws exist to protect our way of life and maintain a safe and orderly society. In order for things to function correctly these laws must be followed and if broken then with due process those violators will either be punished or exonerated. Now what good is it to have these laws if they are either not enforced or selectively enforced? What does that set as an example for everyone else as observers? What some are allowed to break the law and get away with no punishment but others may not? Sorry that's neither fair nor a precedent that should be set, or followed for that matter. As sad as this story may be, the facts of the case stand on themselves and there is just cause for punishment, and whatever personal suffering that may also be caused does not count in my opinion. Although there was no intention to cause harm, that doesn't mean a get out of jail free card. The fact there was alcohol involved lessens my sympathy. Either way harm was done, although not pre-meditated, it comes with consequences. As this circles back to where I started, we are given the right to choose what we do with our freedoms, but must also take responsibility for those choices. Anything less is a slap in the face to all of us law abiding citizens.

Have you ever gone through a stop sign or a red light and only realized after it was too late that you needed to stop? What if your actions resulted in an accident that killed someone because you were negligent? So should you lose your freedom because you committed a negligent act and enforcing the laws on the books is important?

What I can't stand through all of this had been the stance of some people who act as if they have never made a single bad decision or action in their life. I'll even wager that some on this board have driven while over the limit and may simply have never been caught.

The problem with her going to jail and anyone who may drive drunk is the punishment is reactionary. A mandatory jail sentence for first-time OUI would be more appropriate to be a deterrent BEFORE an accident happens.

Also, it appears that during the trial nobody on our expert law forum brought up the x-factor that if her face was maimed that it would lead to sympathetic jurors.

In the end, this will be about money. I suspect that Blizzard will or already has been sued in civil court.

The Eagle · 04-18-2010, 06:09 AM

I rememeber when you could post your opinion, and not get slammed by everyone. Boy has this forum changed while I was recovering. There is a condition called "Reasonable Doubt," that I used in some of my thinking. First the OUI, had doubt. Fact: Extreme blood loss, will greatly effect readings. Test yourself. How much can you drink without getting "Impared"? Now before you drink, go donate a pint of blood, then go home and take a drink or two, and see how fast it affects you. Her OUI charge came after the blood test at the hospital after loosing an extreme amount of blood. Does it prove or dis prove her ability before the accident? NO! That's called "Reasonable Doubt!" One expert claims she was going over 28 miles an hour, and another expert confirmed she was going only 18 MPH, as she claims. What does that prove? "Reasonable Doubt!" So a jury of her "peers," found her guilty for the death, by Negligence. I really wonder how much of the decision was based on bias, because of the "public Opinion"? It seems a lot of forum members convicted her, before the trial even began. One member said they hoped I'd be on the jury if they were on trial. If I were, I would not pre-convict them, and listen to all the "experts," and make a decision based on evidence and not on "who you are." Remember, if there is "reasonable Doubt," then you must find them not-guilty. That's the way the system is supposed to work. Does it always work in favor of the innicent? NO, But it's supposed to. Am I now saying she was not guilty, NO, I wasn't on the Jury. I only stated MY opinion, baised by what I read about the Expert Witnesses. (even the other victim stated they were not drunk..what if the other gal was driving?) MY OPINION was that the generall public would be better served by her letting others SEE what happens when you use poor judgement. Let them see first hand the damage caused by not using common sense. When I was in High School, I "heard" a lot about a place called Vietnam. I never had any idea of what it was UNTIL I served two tours. See what I'm trying to say? Lock her up, and they hear something about it, let them SEE it and it makes them think!
After all this I now have a good idea of how the Salem Witch Trials were run. HANG Em UP! I hope and pray none, of you ever get in a situtation where you need someone to use common sense, when it comes to making a decision that will give or not give you a second chance to make ammends. This is my last post on this issue.
"The Eagle" (Not to be confused with Eagle)

jrc · 04-18-2010, 07:55 AM

Punishment is important as a deterent.

There too many people on this lake that think that the heavy drinking is a key component to the boating lifestyle. I've personally seen boats leave our marina with a case of beer per person plus various mixed drinks, go to a sandbar, and come back a few hours later with all empties.

I talk to the boat drivers and they say that they keep their own consumption within reason. They still drink, but the only thing slowing them down is fear of arrest. Not one of them believes they need to be sober to drive a boat.

Most of them have more money then common sense. If you told them, the worst they would get was a fine and community service, they would have no deterent. The lake would be a very dangerous place.

ApS · 04-18-2010, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAXUM

"...we are given the right to choose what we do with our freedoms, but must also take responsibility for those choices. Anything less is a slap in the face to all of us law abiding citizens..."

1) She has surgeries ahead to remind her of her bad decisions, and must live forevermore with having killed a friend.

2) I'd favor "community service" for Erica, following a permanent revocation of her boating certificate from any state and in any state.

(And probation).

BTW: Littlefield was banned from Lake Winnipesaukee for the long period preceding his trial.

Yankee · 04-18-2010, 10:05 AM

The Eagle,

With all due respect, there is no reasonable doubt that her decision to operate her vessel above a safe and prudent speed for the visibility conditions that night led to the death of another human being. That fact alone is all any jury would need to convict her.

john60ri · 04-18-2010, 11:08 AM

To THE EAGLE: Thankfully, the jury saw past the "reasonable doubt" that the defense attorney tried to create, and went with the solid evidence of her guilt. She's lucky the jury went easy on her.

NoBozo · 04-18-2010, 06:52 PM

The dialog on this thread.. and the other one, is Not About Justice. It's about GET THIS RICH.............Person of Privilege.

Try this scenario: A poor Section 8 Black Women in a John Boat with two friends...fishing for food for their family. The boat capsizes in rough water in broad daylight...the water is cold... One of the friends drowns. The poor Black Women operating the tiller on the outboard motor is the "Captain" ....NO..?? She IS responsible for the death of her friend.......NO..?

She (The Captain) made a wrong decision to go out this day. The boat sank. She didn't read the weather right. Should she go to Prison for this offence...? Other than sincere sympathy for ALL the women on the boat....we wouldn't be talking about this incident...would we..???

NB

Island Girl · 04-18-2010, 07:06 PM

If one witness says 18 mph and another says 28 mph, that is not reasonable doubt, it is some doubt. The reasonable comes into play when the jurors have to decide which witness is more credible. They do not have to be completely certain and can have some doubt.

If two witnesses say the opposite thing and that is called reasonable doubt, then no one would ever be convicted. Juries have to decide which witnesses' testimony is beyond mere doubt, but to a higher level of certainty but not absolute certainty.

I was on a drunk driving trial a few years ago and after much deliberation one woman still would not convict because she misunderstood the directions. She thought the defendent had to be drop dead drunk to be convicted. When the judge explained .... enough to drink to be impaired, she immediately voted to convict as she felt that one drink was enough to be impaired.

Erica said she had 3 drinks over a period of a few hours. In order to have a BAC of a .15% a 140lb female has had 4 drinks in an hour.

I agree with jeffk, she was legally drunk, nearly twice the legal limit. If you are interested read on about the effects of alcohol at various BAC levels. Erica's level is in red.

I don't know why juries feel sorry for drunk drivers and have trouble convicting.

Otherwise... lets do the no rain dance!!

BAL .02 %-.03 %: You feel mildly relaxed and maybe a little lightheaded. Your inhibitions are slightly loosened, and whatever mood you were in before you started drinking may be mildly intensified.

BAL .05 %-.06 %: You feel warm and relaxed. If you're the shy type when you're sober, you lose your feelings of shyness. Your behavior may become exaggerated, making you talk louder or faster or act bolder than usual. Emotions are intensified, so your good moods are better and your bad moods are worse. You may also feel a mild sense of euphoria.

BAL .08 %-.09 %: You believe you're functioning better than you actually are. At this level, you may start to slur your speech. Your sense of balance is probably off, and your motor skills are starting to become impaired. Your ability to see and hear clearly is diminished. Your judgment is being affected, so it's difficult for you to decide whether or not to continue drinking. Your ability to evaluate sexual situations is impaired. Students may jokingly refer to this state of mind as beer goggles, but this BAL can have serious repercussions.

BAL .10 %-.12 %: At this level, you feel euphoric, but you lack coordination and balance. Your motor skills are markedly impaired, as are your judgment and memory. You probably don't remember how many drinks you've had. Your emotions are exaggerated, and some people become loud, aggressive, or belligerent. If you're a guy, you may have trouble getting an erection when your BAL is this high.

BAL .14 %-.17 %: Your euphoric feelings may give way to unpleasant feelings. You have difficulty talking, walking, or even standing. Your judgment and perception are severely impaired. You may become more aggressive, and there is an increased risk of accidentally injuring yourself or others. This is the point when you may experience a blackout.

BAL .20 %: You feel confused, dazed, or otherwise disoriented. You need help to stand up or walk. If you hurt yourself at this point, you probably won't realize it because you won't feel pain. If you are aware You've injured yourself, chances are you won't do anything about it. At this point you may experience nausea and/or start vomiting (keep in mind that for some people, a lower blood alcohol level than .20 % may cause vomiting). Your gag reflex is impaired, so you could choke if you do throw up. Since blackouts are likely at this level, you may not remember any of this.
...there is more, but you get the picture.

Eagle · 04-18-2010, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoBozo

The dialog on this thread.. and the other one, is Not About Justice. It's about GET THIS RICH.............Person of Privilege.

Try this scenario: A poor Section 8 Black Women in a John Boat with two friends...fishing for food for their family. The boat capsizes in rough water in broad daylight...the water is cold... One of the friends drowns. The poor Black Women operating the tiller on the outboard motor is the "Captain" ....NO..?? She IS responsible for the death of her friend.......NO..?

She (The Captain) made a wrong decision to go out this day. The boat sank. She didn't read the weather right. Should she go to Prison for this offence...? Other than sincere sympathy for ALL the women on the boat....we wouldn't be talking about this incident...would we..???

NB

You didn't mention: "Was she drunk? Was she speeding?".

Heaven · 04-18-2010, 08:13 PM

This statement is confusing me Island Girl. By her testimony and others, she had maybe three drinks over a period of a few hours, not 4 drinks in an hour. Your chart makes me think that the blood loss/alcohol level argument is correct, and that she wasn't .15 when the accident happened. In fact I'd wager a guess that if she were exhibiting the characteristics that are listed below for .15, they would not have been in the boat going anywhere.

"Erica said she had 3 drinks over a period of a few hours. In order to have a BAC of a .15% a 140lb female has had 4 drinks in an hour.

I agree with jeffk, she was legally drunk, nearly twice the legal limit. If you are interested read on about the effects of alcohol at various BAC levels. Erica's level is in red."

Island Girl · 04-18-2010, 08:41 PM

If she drank what she said she drank, her BAC would be 0 by the time her blood was taken. Very simply, she was not telling the truth about her alcohol consumption. The blood loss thing is crap in my opinion. Even if it were correct and her BAC were below the legal limit as her witness proposed that is still above 0. IMHO.

IG

Steveo · 04-19-2010, 07:59 AM

I don't remember anyone on this forum that had a problem with Littlefield's conviction and sentence when it came down. He was negligent when he hit another boat and killed someone he didn't know and he went to jail for it. Maybe that is the difference here. Erica hit an island and killed her best friend. If instead of an island she hit another boat that night and killed some one on it what would you think. Was she negligent? If convicted should she serve jail time. I think we are getting too wrapped up into the emotions and the unusual situation. Because it was an island, it is too weird and unfortunate to be anything but an accident. Because it was her best friend - she could never be negligent when it came to her best friend. And of course Erica's personal suffering is much greater because she killed her best friend than if it was a stranger, she shouldn't have to suffer more by going to jail.

Bottom line: given all the conditions of that night if Erica hit another boat and killed a stranger on that boat this discussion would have been over long ago and Erica would have a couple of years jail time to think about what she had done.

Ryan · 04-19-2010, 10:18 AM

Still my favorite line from this discussion!!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Eagle

I have wondered why no one mentioned the trial all through the trial. It stayed pretty much "out of the public," here on the forum, but I too, wonder what forum members think.

Mee-n-Mac · 04-19-2010, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Island Girl

If she drank what she said she drank, her BAC would be 0 by the time her blood was taken. Very simply, she was not telling the truth about her alcohol consumption. The blood loss thing is crap in my opinion. Even if it were correct and her BAC were below the legal limit as her witness proposed that is still above 0. IMHO.

IG

I'm not sure what the defense proposed regrarding blood loss, I wish I had heard the exact words. I agree that what's been reported about how much drink she had that night is not the whole story. In order for her to have a BAC of 0.15 and not been drunk at the time of the collision, she must have sucking down quite a bit in the few minutes prior to the collision, then wrecked and having lost some blood, the concentration of alcohol would be higher than normal. I tend to think that this wasn't the case. There's no way that the alcohol consumed in the restaurant would not have been into her bloodstream by the time of the collision and subsequently metabolized. But lets say that she and her friends, having completed the prank, left the dock and sucked down the vodka. Who would be drinking that much facing a completely dark night, low hanging clouds and fog, threat of immediate rain and no GPS ? If she wasn't a "true" 0.15 at the time of the collision, was she still > 0.08 ? Was there enough alcohol in her to affect her decision to pop it back onto plane in near zero visibility ? We can debate the juries decision wrt the BUI charge but IMO there's no doubt about the negligent operation.

Mink Islander · 04-19-2010, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steveo

I don't remember anyone on this forum that had a problem with Littlefield's conviction and sentence when it came down. He was negligent when he hit another boat and killed someone he didn't know and he went to jail for it. Maybe that is the difference here. Erica hit an island and killed her best friend. If instead of an island she hit another boat that night and killed some one on it what would you think. Was she negligent? If convicted should she serve jail time. I think we are getting too wrapped up into the emotions and the unusual situation. Because it was an island, it is too weird and unfortunate to be anything but an accident. Because it was her best friend - she could never be negligent when it came to her best friend. And of course Erica's personal suffering is much greater because she killed her best friend than if it was a stranger, she shouldn't have to suffer more by going to jail.

Bottom line: given all the conditions of that night if Erica hit another boat and killed a stranger on that boat this discussion would have been over long ago and Erica would have a couple of years jail time to think about what she had done.

If this were the story of some wreckless driver in bad weather driving too fast, hydro-planing and consequently losing control of her SUV, striking another vehicle and killing the occupant (a total stranger) would we all agree the driver was negligent and should be punished or was it a "could happen to anyone" boo boo that should be quickly forgiven and forgotten? If instead, you had the same fact set but it's a single vehicle accident where the passenger (a close friend) is killed should we think about the punishment differently and more sympathically towards the driver? Suffered enough and all that? Who was killed shouldn't matter is my point. Anytime an innocent person is killed through the negligence of others, families and friends suffer. Knowing the victim of your crime shouldn't lower your punishment. The punshment should be the same as if she'd killed a total stranger. And this was an "accident" in the sense that she didn't intend to kill her friend, but it was completely preventable had any semblance of common sense been employed. The very idea that someone with her "boating experience" would conclude that getting on plane when she couldn't see beyond the bow of the boat was a reasonable and safe decision is truly frightening -- almost more frightening if alcohol wasn't really a contributing factor.

Airwaves · 04-19-2010, 11:56 AM

It's interesting reading some of these posts and I expect it will get even more interesting after the sentencing.

I didn't realize that so many of you were on the jury and heard ALL of the testimony and saw ALL of the evidence.

So let's see who knows what they are talking about and who is engaged in speculation through limited media coverage or hearsay.

Everyone who was on the Blizzard jury please post "I was a juror". If you were not please post "I was not there".

That way we can give more weight to what those of you that sat on the jury have to say considering you were there every day and heard everything.

Eagle · 04-19-2010, 01:15 PM

I WAS NOT THERE. And you can totally disregard everything I posted.

MAXUM · 04-19-2010, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Have you ever gone through a stop sign or a red light and only realized after it was too late that you needed to stop? What if your actions resulted in an accident that killed someone because you were negligent? So should you lose your freedom because you committed a negligent act and enforcing the laws on the books is important?

What I can't stand through all of this had been the stance of some people who act as if they have never made a single bad decision or action in their life. I'll even wager that some on this board have driven while over the limit and may simply have never been caught.

The problem with her going to jail and anyone who may drive drunk is the punishment is reactionary. A mandatory jail sentence for first-time OUI would be more appropriate to be a deterrent BEFORE an accident happens.

Also, it appears that during the trial nobody on our expert law forum brought up the x-factor that if her face was maimed that it would lead to sympathetic jurors.

In the end, this will be about money. I suspect that Blizzard will or already has been sued in civil court.

Why is it that under certain circumstances it's somehow OK to break the law? If that's the case why bother having them? If you blow through a stop sign, whether it be on purpose or for the most innocent of reasons you've still failed to stop and as a result yes you should get a ticket. Using this as an example if that law is never enforced then what's to prevent anyone from blowing through stop signs? Nothing cause there is no penalty for doing so. To expand on your example, now an accident is caused and somebody dies as a result. Yes absolutely you should face the consequences of those actions even if it were an honest mistake. Intent in this case is what makes a difference and the reason why in a case of a true accident with a death involved you'd be likely charged with something like manslaughter versus first degree murder which carries a much stiffer sentence.

I won't even begin to suggest that I've never ever broken the law especially in my younger days. Yes I did get caught some times other times not. When I did get caught there was no excuse and I had to face the music. I made my mistakes and paid for them, just like anyone else should. I lost my driver's license when I was 18 years old because I was stupid and I deserved it. At the time I thought it was unfair, looking back I can only say I was an arrogant little punk and a few days in the slammer probably would have done me some good. As it turns out the military did that for me, thankfully I might add.

Now I'm no lawyer and would never claim to be an expert on our legal system, but I do know that if anyone who gets charged with a crime has their day in court to explain themselves and it's up to a jury to decide what the appropriate punishment should be. Mandatory sentences aren't always the answer, but I would agree with you that anytime alcohol is involved yes there should be as anyone who operates a vehicle under the influence has made a conscience decision to do so and in doing so puts society as a whole in danger and that is simply unacceptable. I don't think that mandatory sentences in these cases would be a deterrent though, drunk drivers tend to be repeat offenders.

Finally while some may have sympathy for personal losses the perpetrator may have suffered, that should not in any way sway the jury into a lighter sentence - at least it wouldn't if I were there in the jury pool.

Yankee · 04-19-2010, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoBozo

The dialog on this thread.. and the other one, is Not About Justice. It's about GET THIS RICH.............Person of Privilege.

Try this scenario: A poor Section 8 Black Women in a John Boat with two friends...fishing for food for their family. The boat capsizes in rough water in broad daylight...the water is cold... One of the friends drowns. The poor Black Women operating the tiller on the outboard motor is the "Captain" ....NO..?? She IS responsible for the death of her friend.......NO..?

She (The Captain) made a wrong decision to go out this day. The boat sank. She didn't read the weather right. Should she go to Prison for this offence...? Other than sincere sympathy for ALL the women on the boat....we wouldn't be talking about this incident...would we..???

NB

I'll do you one better, based upon my own experience:

In 1998, I kept my boat in Roberts Cove as I had for many years. I took 1/2 day off and went to the marina. I believe that it was a Thursday. When I got there, I encountered the harbor master, George who was with this young guy who was just getting off of a sailboat that had just dropped him off. He was hysterical about the boat that he and his family were in that had sunk on the way to their camp on Moose Island. For those of you who know the basin-and remember George, I ran around to the other side, jumped in my boat and was literally up on plane before I went past the gas dock to render assistance. George was yelling "Yah boy!, you go boy!, you find 'em!" in that accent he had with his arm outstretched pointing out of the cove as I went by. I'll never forget it. But I digress.

It can get very rough on that part of the lake where that boat went down--some of the roughest water on the lake is in that area. The search by myself, other boaters, and the Marine Patrol never found the one family member missing and that young man was never found. It to came to light that the boat had way too many people on board and way too much cargo in it for it's hull rating. As the boat went down, the few who had the opportunity to grab a a life jacket or cushion (there weren't enough on board) immediately discarded them as they were old and began to sink. There was even some discussion a few days later that the person who drowned was not a good swimmer and that the life jacket he had managed to put on pulled him under...

IMO, the Captain of that boat made not one but two cardinal mistakes: He overloaded his craft and didn't carrying adequate flotation devices for each of his passengers. As far as I know, the Captain of that boat was never charged or even accused of negligence. With all the hysteria over this case, it begs the question of what is the statue of limitations for negligent homicide?

The bigger question that comes to mind in the Diamond Island accident is would there have been legal charges brought forth if alcohol wasn't involved?

john60ri · 04-19-2010, 06:44 PM

Are you kidding? What nonsense! If you can't comment unless you have personal knowledge of a particular event or subject, then you better close down most of this forum. I wasn't in Dallas on November 22, 1963, but I certainly have made an informed judgement about what happened that day, based on my reading and the evidence. Same thing applies to the Blizzard trial. There has been enough evidence made public to make a rational judgement about her guilt or innocence.

Airwaves · 04-19-2010, 07:47 PM

I didn't say you couldn't comment. It just puts those comments into perspective.

ApS · 04-20-2010, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"Everyone who was on the Blizzard jury please post "I was a juror". If you were not please post "I was not there"..."

I was not there, but I followed it while awake.

Especially during technical testimony, one or more jurors will fall asleep. Therefore, you can state, "I was a juror", but still be a juror who "was not there".

Excerpts from a site on juries:

Quote:

"...the main thing that's newsworthy is that these sleeping jurors made the paper while other jurors slept in trials all over America.

"If you're a trial lawyer, you've seen jurors sleeping.

"People are tired. Really, really tired...On top of our other worries, nowadays we're losing sleep over the economy.

"Fatigue not only impairs memory and learning generally...but a a 2007 study suggests it specifically impairs moral judgment.

"You can often spot fatigue in voir dire if you remember to look. Tired jurors often look tired, will say they're tired, and will make you tired when they describe what they have to do in a typical day.

"If a juror who keeps falling asleep isn't dismissed, it's usually because a lawyer forgot to ask, unless the trial has gone on so long and the panel is so small that the dismissal would mean (or threaten) a mistrial.

"As we've noted, people are tired, so if a juror falls asleep while you're talking, it's usually not entirely your fault. But think about whether it partly is. The juror was awake earlier, right? And if one juror slept through your expert's testimony, how many others daydreamed?"...you need to figure out how to make it interesting -- preferably before anybody falls asleep..."

http://jurylaw.typepad.com/deliberat...or_misconduct/

Heck, Judges fall asleep! (Most notably on the Supreme Court of the United States).

If there's an appeal (and I'd expect one) we'll have transcripts of exactly what went on—eventually.

sa meredith · 04-20-2010, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

I didn't say you couldn't comment. It just puts those comments into perspective.

Airwaves...if I may...let me point out a flaw in your thinking. I assume, first of all, that your point is that only the jurors would have all the evidence.
However, one must also remember that the jurors are also subjected to the defense attorney's "spin" on that evidence. And, such spin doctoring, can indeed lead to a jury being convinced to ignore common sense.
Although it may be a bit of a stretch, I'm sure you recall the OJ trial. The defense lawyers came thru with flying colors in spining and dismissing evidence.
It is indeed quite possible, given the many undisputed facts in this case (Erica's case) , that jurors put common sense aside, and became convinced of the "reasonable doubt" that the defense fabricated. A non-juror was not subjected to such nonsense.

Woodsy · 04-20-2010, 11:16 AM

WOW!!! Its a mighty slippery slope there SA (and others).... Welcome to the Brave New World!

Your willing to second guess the JURY and convict someone just from the information YOU gleaned from various media outlets? Because the media outlets dont put thier bias into any articles? They only report facts, all the facts? There is no way you could be that naive! Minds are like parachutes, they only work when they are open!

The only people who heard ALL of the unfiltered evidence was the Judge and Jury and whatever people attended the trial every day. In this case the jury convicted her of 1 charge and deadlocked on the alcohol related charges. When the jury was polled after trial, the jury was split 60/40 in her favor for aquittal on the alcohol charges. Apperently more jurors believed the defense than the state in regards to this evidence! There was an article in the Citizen with this info....

Perhaps you folks might want to reread the Constitution? Presumed Innocent until PROVEN beyond REASONABLE DOUBT of GUILT! The tone of your post suggests that facts presented by the prosecution (any prosecution) are irrefutable! Thats a load of crap! Defense attorney spin? What about prosecutorial spin? We all know that NEVER happens! (That was sarcasm for those who dont quite get it).

The purpose of a JURY trial is that no one person decides another persons fate. The guys that wrote the CONSTITUTION (you know our forefathers) were painfully aware how flawed that type of legal system is. The state puts thier spin on the evidence and the events in question, the defense trys to find the mistakes and the holes in the prosecutions version of events. Its called checks and balances (another BIG part of the American legal system)! There is no automatic presumption of guilt in the american legal system... the state has to PROVE its case!

I know we are discussing the Blizzard case, but my post applies to all cases. I am not going to second guess the folks that served on this jury or any jury. I thank them for doing a thankless job.

Woodsy

sa meredith · 04-20-2010, 01:44 PM

Woodsy...you have many good points in your post. But I would ask...
You believe all defense attorneys are of equal talent?
It does not matter which one you hire?
Some are not better than others at spin doctoring?
It is not possible for a jury to be mislead?
Just questions...things to think about.
I mean there are indeed lawyers who advertise that they are DWI specialist...but if the jury get's it right every time, why would you need one? Answer...Because a DWI specialist know how to create the doubt. That's my only point.
Here, we have a case, where a boat crashed into an island, and a woman was killed. There were empty beer cans and an open vodka bottle on the boat. The women admit to drinking in a bar for several hours. The captain made some decisions about the way she operated the boat that would have you question her state of mind.
And before the trial, which was delayed several times, the defense attorney filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the blood test, which showed .15??!!
I'm sure he had a decent "legal" arguement to file such a motion. He was doing his job. Trying to keep the facts that hurt his case, from a courtroom. He was playing the game. And only those with legit $$$ can play.

NoBozo · 04-20-2010, 02:07 PM

Does anyone know if the Waitperson who served the food and drink at The Wolfetrap Restaurant Testified at the trial...and if they did, was it for the prosecution or the defence..?

NB

Woodsy · 04-20-2010, 03:31 PM

SA....

Of course I do not believe all attorneys are of equal talent. There are a few brilliant attorneys who get paid the big bucks and a few attorneys that are not qualified to argue a parking ticket.... and there are lots that fall inbetween. This is not an argument of the rich vs. poor and who can afford a better defense.

The prosecution wants a conviction, the defense an aquittal! The prosecution is going to try to lead a jury down one path, while the defense is trying to lead them down another... both the prosecution and defense put thier "spin" on the evidence and events in question to get the best possible outcome. If the prosecution brings in an expert from the state evidence lab to spin it thier way, the defense has a RIGHT to bring in thier own expert to discredit that evidence. If Erica had a court appointed attorney, the state would have paid for her "defense expert" as well as the rest of cost of trying her!

Somewhere in the middle usually lies the truth.... and that is for the JURY to decide. The jury unamimously found her guilty of negligent homicide by failure to keep a proper lookout. Yet those same jurors found reasonable doubt on the alcohol counts after hearing all of that damning evidence (as portrayed in the media)!

My point is perhaps there was some reason (known only to the jury) that they deadlocked in her favor. I dont know because I wasnt a juror and didnt hear all of the evidence and testimony or the discussion in the jury room! My issue is with how some people take for granted the BS the media or the government shovels up to them as irrefuteable fact and formulate absolute opinions and convictions without any other research.

I dont always believe what I am told especially by the media and the government.... I question everything!

Woodsy

Pineedles · 04-20-2010, 07:10 PM

I don't want to advocate ending this thread, but I have nothing more to say.

RI Swamp Yankee · 04-20-2010, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsy

.... The only people who heard ALL of the unfiltered evidence was the Judge and Jury and whatever people attended the trial every day. ...

Having served on a jury many times over the years I can say with confidence that the jury did NOT hear unfiltered evidence, they never do. The jury hears what the judge allows after the numerous bench conferences and chamber conferences where both sides argue over what should be admitted. Granted, the jury may have heard more that what was reported by the press but they also heard LESS than what was reported by the press.

john60ri · 04-20-2010, 08:43 PM

My apologies to "Airwaves". My comments yesterday were a bit harsh. Let's see how the sentencing goes. The judge usually has a clearer understanding of the facts and the law than the jury does.

Airwaves · 04-20-2010, 10:09 PM

john60ri No harm, no foul.

I think Woodsy has very eliquently pointed out my position on what is being said regarding the issue and why I am taking the stand I am taking. I wasn't there and I have to rely on media coverage of the trial. There is no way in those few column inches that we got a true sense of the hours and days of testimony and evidence presented in the week long trail.

As I posted in the other thread on this topic, it was interesting to read the 4 different newspaper's coverage of the trial and see what they each reported, and did not report, in the same day's coverage.

Keep in mind that the prosecution has the option of re-trying her on the charges in which the jury could not reach a verdict. I predict that if the sentence is stiff there will be no retrial, but if the prosecutor is not satisfied with the sentence there will be a retrial.

APS wrote

Quote:

If there's an appeal (and I'd expect one) we'll have transcripts of exactly what went on—eventually.

I could be wrong but I'd be willing to bet that the transcript is available right now. Unless things in the NH court system are very different from elsewhere, those transcripts are the property of the court reporter (stenographer). He or she makes them available to anyone, for a price. So you can have them now if you want them.

RI Swamp Yankee wrote:

Quote:

Having served on a jury many times over the years I can say with confidence that the jury did NOT hear unfiltered evidence, they never do. The jury hears what the judge allows after the numerous bench conferences and chamber conferences where both sides argue over what should be admitted. Granted, the jury may have heard more that what was reported by the press but they also heard LESS than what was reported by the press.

Having served on a jury myself, they take the duty very seriously including the fact that the state must prove its case, the defense does not have to prove anything. The jury hears what is allowed by law for them to hear while those of us that are not sitting on the jury have the luxury of listening and reading all kinds of speculative theorys.

ApS · 04-21-2010, 05:01 AM

It's a fact that a jury is massively kept from details in criminal cases.

One example:

If Erica's traffic stop had occurred while the jury had their day off, the judge would have been compelled to order a new trial. (Even after ordering that the jury not view any Media).

In the new trial, that traffic stop—and any and every previous offense—would have never been heard by a jury.

As to transcripts:

Reams upon reams of paper are produced in a single criminal case with the contents double-spaced—with 2" footers and 2" headers— and printed only on one side.

At a charge of a dollar a page, most of us aren't going to read of extensive voir dires without falling asleep. (Although a judge's voir dires can tell a juror what verdict to arrive at!)

As to the Constitution:
There is no explicit "presumption of innocence" in the U. S. Constitution.

Quoting Amendments 5, 6, and 14, Roman law—and Medieval Law—an implicit case was made in Coffin vs. US.

As to 'Prosecutorial misconduct':

Quote:

"...allegations of 'prosecutorial misconduct' too often surface as defense trial tactics that are superficially aired in the popular media. In truth, allegations of 'prosecutorial misconduct' are rarely substantiated and are confused with occasional 'prosecutorial error' which does not involve professional misconduct..."

http://projects.publicintegrity.org/...debarsb&aid=34

As to 'Defense misconduct':

Quote:

"... If a defense attorney errs, the court simply refers to it as ineffective assistance of counsel, ['Rule-3'], or some other less damaging word.

"If the court errs, the judge is not designated as having committed 'misconduct..."

http://projects.publicintegrity.org/...debarsb&aid=34

We'll never hear of the suborning of witness Erica, which can be done carefully through leading questions. "Suborning of a witness" is simply "private coaching".

A "blanket-denial" is a typical defense tactic, whose fingerprints can be seen in defense-witness testimony throughout this trial. (And by the attorney himself—on the very first day he was hired).

"Suborning of a witness" is an illegal act for any attorney, which typically would not be recorded or appear in transcripts. "Suborning of a witness" was one charge of many in a recent impeachment trial.

NoRegrets · 04-21-2010, 05:46 AM

Accidents will always happen. The notion that we have all slipped at one time or another is accurate. Those that claim this has never happened to them either live in a bubble or are oblivious to their surroundings.
Momentary lapses in focused operation lead to a death. The series of events in this accident should give us all the chance to reflect on ourselves. Many like to judge the actions of this case. I prefer to feel bad for all involved and would look to improve my own awareness as I control machinery and equipment around others. How do you keep alert and lasor forcussed 100% of the time? How easy is it to take things for granted that we have done hundreds of times and got "over confident"? We can all be judged after an event but what can we do to keep hightened awareness?

These are the questions and challenge I am placing on my own activities based on this case and much of the testomony from all of you.

secondcurve · 04-21-2010, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoRegrets

Accidents will always happen. The notion that we have all slipped at one time or another is accurate. Those that claim this has never happened to them either live in a bubble or are oblivious to their surroundings.
Momentary lapses in focused operation lead to a death. The series of events in this accident should give us all the chance to reflect on ourselves. Many like to judge the actions of this case. I prefer to feel bad for all involved and would look to improve my own awareness as I control machinery and equipment around others. How do you keep alert and lasor forcussed 100% of the time? How easy is it to take things for granted that we have done hundreds of times and got "over confident"? We can all be judged after an event but what can we do to keep hightened awareness?

These are the questions and challenge I am placing on my own activities based on this case and much of the testomony from all of you.

No Regrets:

News Flash: If one doesn't drink and speed in total darkness in the middle of the night his/her chance of having a "momentary lapse" on the lake are greatly reduced.

This trial is all about money. More specifically, it is about Erica trying to avoid a large judgement in Civil Court for causing the death of Stephanie B. Unfortunately, she was found guilty of negligence by a jury of her peers and she now will face the consequences which will likely include both jail time and a subsequent monetary judgement.

NoRegrets · 04-21-2010, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by secondcurve

No Regrets:

News Flash: If one doesn't drink and speed in total darkness in the middle of the night his/her chance of having a "momentary lapse" on the lake are greatly reduced.

That is a no-duh Darwin statement. I do not think anyone will ever be so simple or stupid to argue that bonehead fact. I give more credit to the posters than that. Many choose to point and blame everyone else and some have decided to be introspective.

chipj29 · 04-21-2010, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

It's a fact that a jury is massively kept from details in criminal cases.

One example:

If Erica's traffic stop had occurred while the jury had their day off, the judge would have been compelled to order a new trial. (Even after ordering that the jury not view any Media).

In the new trial, that traffic stop—and any and every previous offense—would have never been heard by a jury.

Right, because the traffic stop has absolutely NOTHING to do with the boating accident. While parts of the story regarding the traffic stop may speak to her character, the 2 events are completely unrelated.

LDR4 · 04-21-2010, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by secondcurve

No Regrets:

News Flash: If one doesn't drink and speed in total darkness in the middle of the night his/her chance of having a "momentary lapse" on the lake are greatly reduced.

This trial is all about money. More specifically, it is about Erica trying to avoid a large judgment in Civil Court for causing the death of Stephanie B. Unfortunately, she was found guilty of negligence by a jury of her peers and she now will face the consequences which will likely include both jail time and a subsequent monetary judgment.

This trial was not about money, it was about a jury of her peers hearing evidence provided by the State of NH. Is money involved?? Yes it is. The prosecutor is getting paid by the state to do his job and the defense attorney is getting paid by the defendant to do his job.
I am sick of hearing about "the best defense money could buy" and how Erica and her family have "money" and that is why she is not going to do any jail time. Well you know what...any one of us if put in the same situation would hire the best defense attorney we could afford. That is what she did.
Her attorney did what he was supposed to do. He defended her within the parameters of the law. He showed reasonable doubt.

If all of you out there crying for blood in this case want to play the "best that money can buy" card, maybe you should look at the prosecutor and ask yourself if he did the best job he could for the State.

I am not a friend of Erica's. I hardly know who she is (other than seeing her at the gas pumps a few times over the years) but IMO she and her family worked for what they have, they were not handed the money, they did not win the lottery, so if they choose to use their money to defend Erica, so what?? Anyone complaining about her being a "rich girl" is (IMO) reeking of jealousy.
In about 30 minutes, she will be sentenced and then you can all rejoice (if she gets jail time) or continue to complain (if she does not) but I say...let it go. Get a life. Three families’ lives have been affected forever, we have all had our chance to vent, and I don't think that you need to keep this story alive anymore.
Personally I will remember what happened that night every time I get behind the wheel of my boat (or car for that matter) but that has nothing to do with the postings on this forum, but rather the event itself.
This is a boating forum, the season is here, let's talk boating

Mr. V · 04-21-2010, 09:15 AM

Quote:

This trial is all about money. More specifically, it is about Erica trying to avoid a large judgement in Civil Court for causing the death of Stephanie B. Unfortunately, she was found guilty of negligence by a jury of her peers and she now will face the consequences which will likely include both jail time and a subsequent monetary judgement.

Whether a large civil judgment is rendered is essentially independent of the outcome of the criminal trial.

True, a guilty verdict would make a civil judgment easier to prove, but were Erica to have been adjudged Not Guilty of the crime, she'd still face the prospect of a civil judgment in a different action, i.e. in a lawsuit.

A criminal case and a civil lawsuit are two different things.

jack1706 · 04-21-2010, 09:50 AM

Well, it's in : Erica gets 6 months in jail and 6 months home confinement.
I hope it is over ...

Let's all hope no more accidents at lake Winni !

Boat Safely All..............

NoBozo · 04-21-2010, 09:53 AM

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...04-21-10-47-32

Happy Gourmand · 04-21-2010, 09:57 AM

6 months in jail....6 months home confinement

Mink Islander · 04-21-2010, 10:29 AM

And 200 hours of community service. A reasonable and balanced sentence all things considered. Did she lose her boating license at all?

NoBozo · 04-21-2010, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mink Islander

And 200 hours of community service. A reasonable and balanced sentence all things considered. Did she lose her boating license at all?

There is no such thing as a "Boating License". The So Called Boating License is a Certificate of Completion of a Safe Boating Course..not a License, and as such cannot be revoked any more than your High School Diploma can be Revoked.

NB

Wolfeboro_Baja · 04-21-2010, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mink Islander

Did she lose her boating license at all?

According to the linked article posted by NoBozo (from the Associated Press);

Quote:

She could have received up to seven years in prison. County Attorney James Carroll had recommended that she serve one to three years. He also asked that Blizzard's licenses to operate a boat and car be removed for three years; Judge Kathleen McGuire did not address the request.

NoBozo · 04-21-2010, 10:44 AM

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...100429999/1030

Wolfeboro_Baja · 04-21-2010, 10:57 AM

http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?...3-6b3fed1a3cc0

LIforrelaxin · 04-21-2010, 11:10 AM

Although I don't believe I totally agree with the sentence. I am glad to see that this is now over. Hopefully there isn't a lengthy appeal process and the Blizzard family realizes that really from a legal stand point Erica is getting of fairly light. Not that I would want to spend 6 months in jail. But if they are will to do work release she really will not have it too bad.

The work release and home incarceration are where I have a problem with this sentence. I believe she should have gotten a year in Jail period, over with done. No work release, no community service, and no ankle bracelet. But the Judges word is final as they say.

Lucky1 · 04-21-2010, 11:22 AM

Let's all pay our respects by not drinking and driving boats or cars or motorcycles and not speeding either. It could be a tribute to the deceased woman. Let's all hope that the terrible accidents on the roads around the lake, or in the lake itself, will decrease as a result of all of us being outspoken against drinking and driving whenever we see the need.
There were just recently two terrible accidents on Lake area roads. Because the people died, no one went to trial. More people died than in this one accident though.

RI Swamp Yankee · 04-21-2010, 11:33 AM

IMHO - Erica got offf easy on this one and no driving or boating restrictions even though she has demonstrated that she is irresponsible at both.

Airwaves · 04-21-2010, 12:10 PM

Secoindcurve wrote:

Quote:

News Flash: If one doesn't drink and speed in total darkness in the middle of the night his/her chance of having a "momentary lapse" on the lake are greatly reduced.

News Flash II: The state was not able to prove she was drunk to the satisfaction of the jury, and 18 miles an hour is not speeding. It may be excessive for the conditions, but certainly not speeding especially when no SL existed!
Nice spin attempt.

It remains to be seen what happens next. I doubt that the Blizzard family will appeal since it appears to be a pretty fair sentence.

So the 800lb gorilla in the room is, will the prosecutor be happy with the sentence and let it ride, or will he seek a retial the remaining charges?

VtSteve · 04-21-2010, 12:51 PM

It's over. EOM

OCDACTIVE · 04-21-2010, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VtSteve

It's over. EOM

FINALLY!!!! Lets all learn from this and practice safe boating. Enjoy this season and stay vigilant on the water.

Have a great and safe season! Lets all pray for good weather!

ApS · 04-21-2010, 03:01 PM

Quote:

It aint over 'til it's over.

They have 30 days to appeal—and even then...it still ain't over!

Wolfeboro_Baja · 04-21-2010, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

Have a great and safe season! Lets all pray for good weather!

And tolerable gas prices! I've given up on reasonable.

topwater · 04-21-2010, 10:12 PM

Airwaves says, in a very eliquent way " It remains to be seen what happens next. I doubt that the Blizzard family will appeal since it appears to be a pretty fair sentence. "

Fair? Fair? Did you say FAIR? KILLING someone and only getting 6 months at the BELKNAP COUNTY JAIL. Thats not fair,thats absolutely incredible for her, Sure the hell is not FAIR in my books, and alot of others as well. And yes it did come down to MONEY, the best attorney MONEY could buy.. If we all at that much money, the jails would all be empty. As far a them appealing the decision, she'll be raking leaves and listening to her ipod in the sunshine. Why the hell would they appeal anything? Erica will be missing a whole year of boating, WOW, Can you imagne the withdrawals she will be having.
Its over, nothing else can be done, Must be nice to get away with taking of a human life. I hope she gets along nicely with Big Bertha for the next few months.

Airwaves · 04-21-2010, 10:53 PM

This was not a case of murder. It was an accident, plain and simple. The state prosecuted her for her actions and a jury found her guilty on one of several charges. The other charges are still hanging over her head.

Fair, yes fair. Her friend is dead because of her mistake. She has been left disfigured. Those are lifetime sentences.

The burden of proof is on the state, not on the defense. That is something that it appears some have forgotten or are ignoring.

Would you have defense attorneys paid with taxpayer dollars? That way no one would have the "advantage" of a high priced lawyer! Or here's a thought, let's do away with a defense altogether! Think of the speedy trial process then!!!

topwater · 04-21-2010, 11:00 PM

WOW, sounds like someone got up on the wrong side of the SL !

sunset on the dock · 04-22-2010, 04:53 AM

One of today's many articles on the sentencing mentions a previous shoplifting conviction against Erica. Oh brother...what a piece of work. It's always all about Erica.

tony1122 · 04-22-2010, 06:02 AM

If her best friend kill her,i bet she would do more than 6 months,an get a dwi

VtSteve · 04-22-2010, 06:07 AM

There really are plenty of positive things that people can do. One of them is to stop dwelling on personal attacks of the defendant, and instead, think about how things like this happen. Since this accident occurred, some took sides depending on the political ramifications of the overall event. Not very helpful IMO.

But let's look at the record. Since the beginning, many of us (without personal vendettas), pointed out the obvious nature of this accident. The jury didn't fully buy into two reasons, but did another. I really don't care what the personal lifestyle or beliefs a defendant has, I try to concentrate on the issue at hand. I see you're not buying onto that direction Sunset.

Buying into ideologies and agendas rarely renders a positive outcome. People could learn from cases like this, and be made aware that some of their decisions can be fatal, and life-changing events. Many people do not believe that, and the point must be driven home.

Some of us have made a conscious effort to make boating safer for all. Some prefer to dwell on the past, when the only positive outcomes lie in the future. Be part of the solution, not part of the bottleneck.

Eagle · 04-22-2010, 06:32 AM

Isn't it amazing what money can buy in New Hampshire?

Water Camper · 04-22-2010, 07:34 AM

IMO The many hateful posts here are almost as heart wrenching as the terrible accident.

Sue

Mink Islander · 04-22-2010, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

This was not a case of murder. It was an accident, plain and simple.

Actually, it was a Class B Felony -- a crime. That's the fundamental point.

Look, I think she got off light when the jury deadlocked on the BWI charges. If convicted on those charges, then she'd be in the klink for a lot more time. But she wasn't. And as we all learned from the OJ trial, our justice system isn't perfect -- but it's the best around. Do I wish she had a stiffer sentence? I don't know. I guess I have to have some trust that the judge (who sees a lot of cases) meted out punishment in a consistent way to how other first time offenders would have been treated given a similar fact set.

Steveo · 04-22-2010, 11:13 AM

She might have wished she got what the prosecutor had asked for - one year. With this lighter sentence I wonder if that might influence the prosecutor to retry the hung case

gtagrip · 04-22-2010, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eagle

Isn't it amazing what money can buy in New Hampshire?

Geez, some people really need to get over the money thing. If you have it, you can buy the best lawyer available. What's wrong with that?
I'm sure you would do the same.

Or tell me you wouldn't , then I got a bridge to sell you too. Or, you are so perfect, that you would never be caught in any type of accidental situation. Flame me now for saying accident, but that's what it was.

SAMIAM · 04-22-2010, 11:29 AM

Pretty strong stuff from Topwater.........uses a lot of caps because he (or she) must think we're not smart enough to get the point without them.

jrc · 04-22-2010, 11:52 AM

After getting over the intial gut feeling.

I think she got a "within reason" punishment for what she was convicted of.

A first offense, not convicted of alcohol, nothing crazy reckless or fast (18-33 MPH doesn't sound fast to a non-boater. We all drive are cars at night in bad weather much faster than that).

IMHO Now her lawyer should be making the big deal. They won't appeal, if the state doesn't re-try on the alcohol charges. One summer in jail and it's over.

jrc · 04-22-2010, 12:08 PM

BTW the judge did not address her right to drive a car or a boat, but the MP and DMV still can.

The MP has the ability under RSA 270- D:13

" II. Once issued, the certificate of safe boater education shall be valid for the lifetime of the person and may not be revoked by the department of safety or a court without cause and a hearing in accordance with RSA 541-A."

And of course the DMV has wide discretion to revoke and suspend motor vehicle licenses related to her recent driving infraction.

Eagle · 04-22-2010, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtagrip

Geez, some people really need to get over the money thing. If you have it, you can buy the best lawyer available. What's wrong with that?
I'm sure you would do the same.

Or tell me you wouldn't , then I got a bridge to sell you too. Or, you are so perfect, that you would never be caught in any type of accidental situation. Flame me now for saying accident, but that's what it was.

I wouldn't dream of flaming you for expressing your opinion, that is your right.

But let me also tell you that I have never seen the inside of a jail or prison.

gtagrip · 04-22-2010, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eagle

I wouldn't dream of flaming you for expressing your opinion, that is your right.

But let me also tell you that I have never seen the inside of a jail or prison.

Eagle,
Fair enough. I have never seen the inside of a jail or prison either. I guess what I was trying to say earlier, is, unless one lives in a plastic bubble and never ventures outdoors you are safe to a degree. However, if you want to live life, accidents can happen to anyone at anytime and you may not even see it coming.

BroadHopper · 04-22-2010, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtagrip

Geez, some people really need to get over the money thing. If you have it, you can buy the best lawyer available. What's wrong with that?
I'm sure you would do the same.

And special interest groups with money can change/influence laws to their benefits, not the general public.

gtagrip · 04-23-2010, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

And special interest groups with money can change/influence laws to their benefits, not the general public.

Again, some people do not want to answer the question, if you had the money, would you not hire the best lawyer you could to keep your a$$ out of jail if by chance you needed it. Or, would you rather go with the public defender and take your chances?

I for one at this time with the way the economy has been, could not hire a high priced lawyer to defend me if something were to happen. But, I am not jealous of somebody with the means can.

As far as special interests go, I think in this discussion, it is apples and oranges.

Pine Island Guy · 04-23-2010, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtagrip

Again, some people do not want to answer the question, if you had the money, would you not hire the best lawyer you could to keep your a$$ out of jail if by chance you needed it. Or, would you rather go with the public defender and take your chances?

Actually, with all the facts that have been brought to light in this 'accident', I prefer to think that I would have enough moral fiber to stand before the judge, say that I had made idiotic choices that resulted in a tragedy, plead guilty, and spend a significant amount of my energy in my remaining years performing some sort of public service and speaking about the enherent dangers of making bad decisions while captaining a boat...

I hope to never be in that position, but I like to think that is what I would do!

There is a lot of gnashing of teeth and crying about "becoming a nanny state"... maybe if people took responsiblity for their actions... we wouldn't have to have so many nanny laws...

Just me, thinking out loud... now let's hope for a beautiful and safe summer on the lake -PIG

04-16-2010, 06:26 AM	#1
Sunbeam lodge Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Meredith/Naples Florida Posts: 365 Thanks: 135 Thanked 49 Times in 25 Posts	Boating Accident http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...863/-1/CITIZEN New article on boat accident. Anyone want to guess the outcome based on what has happened so far?

04-16-2010, 07:09 AM	#2
The Eagle Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Burlington MA & Moultonboro NH Posts: 218 Thanks: 17 Thanked 141 Times in 33 Posts	Good "Topic" for discussion! Hi SunBeam, I have wondered why no one mentioned the trial all through the trial. It stayed pretty much "out of the public," here on the forum, but I too, wonder what forum members think. I will give my "thoughts," and I hope I don't get beat to death for them, but they are only MY thoughts. First, I have to think (regardless of the drinking, because it was never proven she was legally drunk), it was most likely just an accident. We all know how fast, and sudden, lake conditions change. We see storms come so quickly during the day, I can only imagine a storm sneaking in at night. Sure they were "fooling around," going to pull a prank on her Dad..so what! That's what kids do, and it's all in fun. They were all good friends, and meant no harm to anyone, or anything. So, it was just an accident, that could have happened to you, or me, or anyone else. The fact that she was a "high Profile person," in the Lakes Region, in effect, makes her a "Prime Target," to set an "example." I personaly (and I Stress Personaly) think she has paid a high enough price for a life altering accident. Her best friend was killed, her other best friend injured, and she, herself, severely injured and disfigured, FOR LIFE! She is going to see the cause and effects of her misjudgemet, and the effects of a storm at night, every day, for the rest of her life. She doesn't need (and shouldn't) to go to jail, to be reminded of it. If everyone of us who have ever been involved in an accident (of any type) were put on public trial, and sent to jail, we'd most likely, all have some kind of criminal record. It's time to call it, what it was, a tragic and horrible accident. Nothing more, nothing less! I have never met this poor woman, and I feel for her and her friends. I followed the trial, and know all the details, so I feel I am not speaking out of turn. We all need to accept the fact, that in our lives, accidents DO happen, and this was one of them! And I think we have ALL learned something from her accident! There, I've said my two cents worth. "The Eagle"

04-16-2010, 08:01 AM	#4
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,525 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 295 Thanked 957 Times in 698 Posts	For the record, the Union Leader email posts in today's paper on this subject from F L Less are not from me. Someone with bad faith and bad intention is writing them to deceive........and it's NOT me! .. __________________ ... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!

04-16-2010, 08:03 AM	#5
LIforrelaxin Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee Posts: 2,821 Thanks: 1,014 Thanked 880 Times in 514 Posts	At this point I have no guess on the out come. But that Lawyer makes my stomach turn. What a scum bucket tactic to try and keep his client out of jail. I have a very heartless and unsympathetic mind when it comes to crime and punishment. You do the crime you pay the time. She was convicted by a panel of her peers the law has a minimum and maximum penalty. Which involves Jail time... Therefore she goes to jail period end of story... for how long that is the judges decision, even if it is a week with probation after words a week in a cell is a long time to rethink what you have done. Although I feel for everyone involved in this tragedy I see this latest move as one to circumvent the laws of the land because "she is special". That argument is old tired and I am sorry it time to start punishing people they way they need to be punished. Harshly and swiftly. I am sorry her face is all screwed up but that doesn't excuse her from jail, no way no how. The problem in this country is we moved away from public punishment. Hang murders on the gallows was to much ( and I will agree with that one), chain gangs where cruel and unusual punishment. But you know what when hard time was hard time, the crime rates where lower....the percentage of the population in jail was less....being in screwing up in life and being convicted of a major crime means punishment, and that what needs to happen here... not a get out of jail card ..... __________________ Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....

04-16-2010, 10:53 AM	#9
NHBoat70 Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Laconia Posts: 69 Thanks: 4 Thanked 17 Times in 7 Posts	Problem solved Why doesn't someone just give her a helmet or face mask, possibly similar to the one like Hannibal Lecter, when she goes to prison. That could possibly a solution...she deserves jail time for her irresponsible actions.

04-16-2010, 07:52 AM	#3
Eagle Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Tuftonboro Posts: 48 Thanks: 24 Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts	For someone 'extremely fragile', she sure didn't have a problem speeding and texting while driving, or cracking a big smile when they were removing her handcuffs. That lawyer ought to be tarred and feathered.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Eagle For This Useful Post:
ApS (04-20-2010), Winni P (04-16-2010)

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to LIforrelaxin For This Useful Post:
ApS (04-20-2010), Eagle (04-16-2010)

The Following User Says Thank You to Sunbeam lodge For This Useful Post:
Eagle (04-16-2010)

04-16-2010, 09:45 AM	#7
SAMIAM Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Moultonborough Posts: 2,836 Thanks: 326 Thanked 1,626 Times in 562 Posts	Tell that to Dan Littlefield...........that theory didn't work out too wll for him.

The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to sa meredith For This Useful Post:
ApS (04-20-2010), Audiofn (05-29-2010), Bear Island South (04-16-2010), Ryan (04-18-2010), topwater (04-16-2010), VtSteve (04-16-2010)

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Heaven For This Useful Post:
jeffatsquam (04-17-2010), OCDACTIVE (04-17-2010), Resident 2B (04-17-2010), Wolfeboro_Baja (04-16-2010)

The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to Little Bear For This Useful Post:
Audiofn (05-29-2010), brk-lnt (04-16-2010), chipj29 (04-19-2010), colt17 (04-20-2010), Lakepilot (04-16-2010), LDR4 (04-18-2010), Meredith lady (06-12-2010), NoBozo (04-16-2010), Rattlesnake Gal (04-20-2010), Rattlesnake Guy (04-16-2010), robmac (04-17-2010), Ryan (04-19-2010), SAMIAM (04-17-2010), Winnipesaukee (06-15-2010), winnitru (04-24-2010)

04-16-2010, 03:59 PM	#14
topwater Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 302 Thanks: 85 Thanked 116 Times in 48 Posts	Thank you sa meridith !!! I could not believe anyone else didn't say that any sooner. COMMON SENSE, when did it get thrown out the window? Not guilty, cmon !!! If, I mean when she does get jail time, maybe she can get BUBBAETTE to protect her while she is in there?

04-16-2010, 04:38 PM	#15
4 for Boating Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 210 Thanks: 1 Thanked 37 Times in 25 Posts	One the accident: The whole thing just makes you think about how your life can change in the blink of an eye. Driver of the boat, one of the passengers, a family member or relative of anyone involved, makes me feel fortunate with my life. Having said that and on the Tax Topic: We are middle class hard working and getting the stuffing punched out of us with taxes. Without some extensions to the current Bush guidelines in place, we could go as high as 39% next year not counting any health care add on fee! .39 out of every $1.00 with some 48% of the country not paying any federal income tax?????

04-16-2010, 04:47 PM	#16
Merrymeeting Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Merrymeeting Lake, New Durham Posts: 2,217 Thanks: 299 Thanked 795 Times in 365 Posts	While I agree with many of the points stated about taxes, please don't let this become a political discussion! We can do that elsewhere! Don's job is hard enough as it is... http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=9483

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Merrymeeting For This Useful Post:
Eagle (04-16-2010), Jonas Pilot (04-16-2010), Ropetow (04-16-2010), trfour (04-16-2010), Waterbaby (04-21-2010)

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jeffk For This Useful Post:
Eagle (04-17-2010), secondcurve (04-17-2010)

04-17-2010, 06:02 AM	#19
The Eagle Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Burlington MA & Moultonboro NH Posts: 218 Thanks: 17 Thanked 141 Times in 33 Posts	I didn't expect to get hung! Come on Guys and Gals, I only expressed an opinion on "an Accident!" I agree 100% that "if you do the crime you do the time." That is NOT what I was saying. Do you hang a person who steals a loaf of bread to feed a faimly?" (only an expression!) I only wanted you to think about "what punishment fits the crime!" Was the "crime" intentional? Was it premeditated? Was there intent to do harm? Did she plan to smash into the island? Did she intend to kill her friend? No! None of the above. It's not like she was "Sharon Tate," or "Lizzy Borden." She was just (irregardless of her social statue, and financial situtation) a gal out with friends, to pull a simple harmless prank on her Dad, that took a Tragic turn in a split second. It could happen to any one of us..just think about that, for one minute. Now ask yourself, "What good is it going to do, to put her in jail?" Even the family of the poor gal killed, think she should not be sent to jail. IF she intentionally caused and planned to cause that accident, then yes, send her to jail. But it would do ALL of us better justice, if she spent time, speaking to the youth of the Lakes Region about the irreversible loss (the death of her friend and the disfigurement of herself) that misjudgemnet and yes, drinking causes, it may make them possibly "Think" before they make the same mistakes. That was all I was trying to say! As far as her "wealth and the cost of an attorney," give me a break! Lawyers are traditionally crooks! Here's a fact for you. I have been involved in a dispute with my home town, over a neighbor who built a home 12 feet off my lot line with a 20 side line requirement, using six forged and altered "certified Plot plans," added three additions without any building permits or plans, was allowed to do it by the town's building inspector (who has been "terminated," last year for other misdoings). The Town refused to even look at the forged documents and allowed him to do it. Now that the fraud has been "brought to light," by my suit, I have been fighting over 11 years to get it before a judge, ( because the town keeps appealing decisions) and has cost me well over $20,000 thus far, for something that never should have happened. All I do is shell out money to an attorney. ANY court issue that involves a lawyer will cost you a fortune, let alone a criminal case. Answer this question, "How much money are YOU willing to spend to defend YOURSELF!" As far as was I being "smart," when I stated it was never mentioned, NO I wasn't trying to be smart. I just had not been very active on the forum (due to health reasons the past couple years) and missed all the "gossip," about the trial. I am not the type of person who would make any "smart," or sarcastic comments about our beloved forum. I apologize if I offended anyone for stating my personal opinion. Next time I'll know better than to open my mouth. "The Eagle"

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Just Sold For This Useful Post:
AB_Monterey (04-17-2010), Eagle (04-17-2010)

04-17-2010, 07:02 AM	#21
NonVoting Taxpayer Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 98 Thanks: 3 Thanked 24 Times in 10 Posts	Eagle keep Posting Eagle Keep on posting, you obviously hit a nerve with some people. Some could be close to the families involved and rightfully so their opinions matter. I wonder if their postings would be different if she had not been drinking and this whole tragedy was nothing but a so called accident? Is it the alcohol which makes some feel jail time is warranted? We all know how after a while we feel like we know our parts of the lake like the back of our hands. With a GPS it makes one feel even more secure and that may account for the (estimated) 28 miles per hour. How many times had she made this trip back from Wolfboro? I was not at the trial and don't profess to be any kind of expert but I often wonder if there are other ways to make good of a bad situation without jail time for someone who obviously did not go out that night with the intent of the outcome. I guess that is why we have the judicial system we do. Let it run it's course.

04-17-2010, 08:05 AM	#22
john60ri Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Pawtucket RI Posts: 146 Thanks: 1 Thanked 22 Times in 16 Posts	Excellent posts by "jeffk" and "Just Sold". "TheEagle" appears to live in a fantasy world.

04-17-2010, 08:48 AM	#23
sa meredith Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 986 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 32 Thanked 352 Times in 137 Posts	Two Eagles Wanted to point out, in case, like me, you did not realize there are two "Eagles" posting in this thread. "Eagle" and "The Eagle". Anyway... While I agree this is a dead horse being beaten well past it's time, I want to post my final thought on the matter. Since the trial ended, although I have been outspoken about the OUI aspect of the case, it is not what bothers me the most about he events of that evening. What bothers me...and to aswer your questions "The Eagle"... is the 28 MPH is zero visibility. The Eagle asks, "Was there intent to do harm?" "Was the crime intentional?" I say yes to both questions. Assume for a minute she is indeed stone cold sober. Hasn't had a drink in 5 years. She is the captain of that boat, and her passengers have every right to expect the captain will make correct and accurate decisions. They have the right to expect she will keep them out of harms way. When she put her hand on that throttle, and decided the proper speed, in zero visibility, AT NIGHT, was 28 MPH, she was "intentionally" putting them in harms way. It would be the same thing as leading two people into a burning building. Are you going to get out OK? Maybe...but why in Christ's name would go into the building in the first place? Her being sober makes the decision even worse. If she was drunk, well then, that would explain everything else. But she wants us to believe she was sober, and decided 28 MPH was the proper speed? If the weather was fine, and it was bright and sunny in the middle of the afternoon...yes, I could say this was just an accident. She must have somehow become distracted, and maybe veered off course very quickly, with no chance to recover. I could buy that. But, even if you have never been on a boat in your life, wouldn't you assume that if you can't see, you'd go as slow as possible? Just not good...

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sa meredith For This Useful Post:
jeffk (04-17-2010), Smitty1 (04-18-2010)

The Following User Says Thank You to jrc For This Useful Post:
jeffk (04-17-2010)

04-17-2010, 09:55 PM	#27
MAXUM Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Kuna ID Posts: 2,755 Thanks: 246 Thanked 1,942 Times in 802 Posts	This is amazing. Let's just for a minute subtract the entire case here for a minute and think about this in a more technical manner versus an emotional one. The very foundation of this country was that we as people can and should be free to do as we wish. In order to maintain a civilized society it's also necessary to put reasonable barriers or laws in place for the overall good of the citizens. These laws exist to protect our way of life and maintain a safe and orderly society. In order for things to function correctly these laws must be followed and if broken then with due process those violators will either be punished or exonerated. Now what good is it to have these laws if they are either not enforced or selectively enforced? What does that set as an example for everyone else as observers? What some are allowed to break the law and get away with no punishment but others may not? Sorry that's neither fair nor a precedent that should be set, or followed for that matter. As sad as this story may be, the facts of the case stand on themselves and there is just cause for punishment, and whatever personal suffering that may also be caused does not count in my opinion. Although there was no intention to cause harm, that doesn't mean a get out of jail free card. The fact there was alcohol involved lessens my sympathy. Either way harm was done, although not pre-meditated, it comes with consequences. As this circles back to where I started, we are given the right to choose what we do with our freedoms, but must also take responsibility for those choices. Anything less is a slap in the face to all of us law abiding citizens.

The Following User Says Thank You to MAXUM For This Useful Post:
Dave R (04-18-2010)

04-18-2010, 06:09 AM	#29
The Eagle Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Burlington MA & Moultonboro NH Posts: 218 Thanks: 17 Thanked 141 Times in 33 Posts	Boy Have things changed here! I rememeber when you could post your opinion, and not get slammed by everyone. Boy has this forum changed while I was recovering. There is a condition called "Reasonable Doubt," that I used in some of my thinking. First the OUI, had doubt. Fact: Extreme blood loss, will greatly effect readings. Test yourself. How much can you drink without getting "Impared"? Now before you drink, go donate a pint of blood, then go home and take a drink or two, and see how fast it affects you. Her OUI charge came after the blood test at the hospital after loosing an extreme amount of blood. Does it prove or dis prove her ability before the accident? NO! That's called "Reasonable Doubt!" One expert claims she was going over 28 miles an hour, and another expert confirmed she was going only 18 MPH, as she claims. What does that prove? "Reasonable Doubt!" So a jury of her "peers," found her guilty for the death, by Negligence. I really wonder how much of the decision was based on bias, because of the "public Opinion"? It seems a lot of forum members convicted her, before the trial even began. One member said they hoped I'd be on the jury if they were on trial. If I were, I would not pre-convict them, and listen to all the "experts," and make a decision based on evidence and not on "who you are." Remember, if there is "reasonable Doubt," then you must find them not-guilty. That's the way the system is supposed to work. Does it always work in favor of the innicent? NO, But it's supposed to. Am I now saying she was not guilty, NO, I wasn't on the Jury. I only stated MY opinion, baised by what I read about the Expert Witnesses. (even the other victim stated they were not drunk..what if the other gal was driving?) MY OPINION was that the generall public would be better served by her letting others SEE what happens when you use poor judgement. Let them see first hand the damage caused by not using common sense. When I was in High School, I "heard" a lot about a place called Vietnam. I never had any idea of what it was UNTIL I served two tours. See what I'm trying to say? Lock her up, and they hear something about it, let them SEE it and it makes them think! After all this I now have a good idea of how the Salem Witch Trials were run. HANG Em UP! I hope and pray none, of you ever get in a situtation where you need someone to use common sense, when it comes to making a decision that will give or not give you a second chance to make ammends. This is my last post on this issue. "The Eagle" (Not to be confused with Eagle)

04-18-2010, 07:55 AM	#30
jrc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NH Posts: 2,689 Thanks: 33 Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts	Punishment is important as a deterent. There too many people on this lake that think that the heavy drinking is a key component to the boating lifestyle. I've personally seen boats leave our marina with a case of beer per person plus various mixed drinks, go to a sandbar, and come back a few hours later with all empties. I talk to the boat drivers and they say that they keep their own consumption within reason. They still drink, but the only thing slowing them down is fear of arrest. Not one of them believes they need to be sober to drive a boat. Most of them have more money then common sense. If you told them, the worst they would get was a fine and community service, they would have no deterent. The lake would be a very dangerous place.

04-18-2010, 10:05 AM	#32
Yankee Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 150 Thanks: 19 Thanked 38 Times in 23 Posts	Reasonable Doubt?? The Eagle, With all due respect, there is no reasonable doubt that her decision to operate her vessel above a safe and prudent speed for the visibility conditions that night led to the death of another human being. That fact alone is all any jury would need to convict her.

04-18-2010, 11:08 AM	#33
john60ri Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Pawtucket RI Posts: 146 Thanks: 1 Thanked 22 Times in 16 Posts	To THE EAGLE: Thankfully, the jury saw past the "reasonable doubt" that the defense attorney tried to create, and went with the solid evidence of her guilt. She's lucky the jury went easy on her.

04-18-2010, 06:52 PM	#34
NoBozo Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Portsmouth. RI Posts: 2,231 Thanks: 400 Thanked 460 Times in 308 Posts	Another Take The dialog on this thread.. and the other one, is Not About Justice. It's about GET THIS RICH.............Person of Privilege. Try this scenario: A poor Section 8 Black Women in a John Boat with two friends...fishing for food for their family. The boat capsizes in rough water in broad daylight...the water is cold... One of the friends drowns. The poor Black Women operating the tiller on the outboard motor is the "Captain" ....NO..?? She IS responsible for the death of her friend.......NO..? She (The Captain) made a wrong decision to go out this day. The boat sank. She didn't read the weather right. Should she go to Prison for this offence...? Other than sincere sympathy for ALL the women on the boat....we wouldn't be talking about this incident...would we..??? NB

04-18-2010, 07:06 PM	#35
Island Girl Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Central MA Posts: 2,352 Thanks: 18 Thanked 535 Times in 179 Posts	Reasonable Doubt does not equal absolute certainty If one witness says 18 mph and another says 28 mph, that is not reasonable doubt, it is some doubt. The reasonable comes into play when the jurors have to decide which witness is more credible. They do not have to be completely certain and can have some doubt. If two witnesses say the opposite thing and that is called reasonable doubt, then no one would ever be convicted. Juries have to decide which witnesses' testimony is beyond mere doubt, but to a higher level of certainty but not absolute certainty. I was on a drunk driving trial a few years ago and after much deliberation one woman still would not convict because she misunderstood the directions. She thought the defendent had to be drop dead drunk to be convicted. When the judge explained .... enough to drink to be impaired, she immediately voted to convict as she felt that one drink was enough to be impaired. Erica said she had 3 drinks over a period of a few hours. In order to have a BAC of a .15% a 140lb female has had 4 drinks in an hour. I agree with jeffk, she was legally drunk, nearly twice the legal limit. If you are interested read on about the effects of alcohol at various BAC levels. Erica's level is in red. I don't know why juries feel sorry for drunk drivers and have trouble convicting. Otherwise... lets do the no rain dance!! BAL .02 %-.03 %: You feel mildly relaxed and maybe a little lightheaded. Your inhibitions are slightly loosened, and whatever mood you were in before you started drinking may be mildly intensified. BAL .05 %-.06 %: You feel warm and relaxed. If you're the shy type when you're sober, you lose your feelings of shyness. Your behavior may become exaggerated, making you talk louder or faster or act bolder than usual. Emotions are intensified, so your good moods are better and your bad moods are worse. You may also feel a mild sense of euphoria. BAL .08 %-.09 %: You believe you're functioning better than you actually are. At this level, you may start to slur your speech. Your sense of balance is probably off, and your motor skills are starting to become impaired. Your ability to see and hear clearly is diminished. Your judgment is being affected, so it's difficult for you to decide whether or not to continue drinking. Your ability to evaluate sexual situations is impaired. Students may jokingly refer to this state of mind as beer goggles, but this BAL can have serious repercussions. BAL .10 %-.12 %: At this level, you feel euphoric, but you lack coordination and balance. Your motor skills are markedly impaired, as are your judgment and memory. You probably don't remember how many drinks you've had. Your emotions are exaggerated, and some people become loud, aggressive, or belligerent. If you're a guy, you may have trouble getting an erection when your BAL is this high. BAL .14 %-.17 %: Your euphoric feelings may give way to unpleasant feelings. You have difficulty talking, walking, or even standing. Your judgment and perception are severely impaired. You may become more aggressive, and there is an increased risk of accidentally injuring yourself or others. This is the point when you may experience a blackout. BAL .20 %: You feel confused, dazed, or otherwise disoriented. You need help to stand up or walk. If you hurt yourself at this point, you probably won't realize it because you won't feel pain. If you are aware You've injured yourself, chances are you won't do anything about it. At this point you may experience nausea and/or start vomiting (keep in mind that for some people, a lower blood alcohol level than .20 % may cause vomiting). Your gag reflex is impaired, so you could choke if you do throw up. Since blackouts are likely at this level, you may not remember any of this. ...there is more, but you get the picture. __________________ Island Girl ....... Make Lemonade

The Following User Says Thank You to Island Girl For This Useful Post:
secondcurve (04-18-2010)

04-18-2010, 08:13 PM	#37
Heaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 516 Thanks: 126 Thanked 94 Times in 66 Posts	This statement is confusing me Island Girl. By her testimony and others, she had maybe three drinks over a period of a few hours, not 4 drinks in an hour. Your chart makes me think that the blood loss/alcohol level argument is correct, and that she wasn't .15 when the accident happened. In fact I'd wager a guess that if she were exhibiting the characteristics that are listed below for .15, they would not have been in the boat going anywhere. "Erica said she had 3 drinks over a period of a few hours. In order to have a BAC of a .15% a 140lb female has had 4 drinks in an hour. I agree with jeffk, she was legally drunk, nearly twice the legal limit. If you are interested read on about the effects of alcohol at various BAC levels. Erica's level is in red."