Emotion over facts? You don't say???? :rolleye2:

This is an example of the attitude here that has me puzzled. I just cannot imagine having any sympathy for someone who is fairly convicted of negligent homicide, especially when she pled "not guilty" and clearly was quite guilty. I would have been much more sympathetic if she had pled guilty, expressed regret, and taken her punishment knowing it was well-deserved.

The alleged speeding violation is a non-issue for me, I'm not a big fan of speed limits and really appreciate it when other people do me the favor of keeping LEOs busy. A speed trap is one of life's little pleasures for me, once I see one, odds are good there won't be another for a long ways.

The alleged distracted driver charges bother me a little more, but it's certainly quite prevalent on the roads these days and being a hard core motorcyclist, I've grown pretty used to stupid car drivers.

I cannot imagine being stupid enough to walk in front of 80+ MPH traffic on 93 knowing how prevalent distracted driving is. That's just suicidal.

My $.02.
 

I have stayed out of this fracas until now because I have not had anything to say that had not already been said. I would like to throw out a couple of thoughts now...

First a horrible, horrible tragedy happened on the Lake. We can't make it go away. But what I can't understand is why this is BIG news? Yea, it's a big deal for us folks on the Lake and for the unfortunate people involved but why is it front page news for days and days in the papers and WMUR and big media? If the same event happened in a car on I-93 or on a snowmobile on a trail, same facts just different circumstances, same judgement that the press and the public would forget about it in short time.

Next, the cop.

I have been pulled over by the NHSP three times in the last 10 years. Twice for lights out and once for speeding in that stupid 35 MPH zone where 104 and I 93 meet. In every case the officers were courtious and very professional. No complaints.

I wasn't there and I don't trust what I read in the papers but I have to give the Trooper the bennifit of the doubt. The guy is a professional and I don't think that he has a wish. There is no way that he knew who was driving the speeding car prior to the stop. And by the way I don't care what the car was or what it's license plate says. After the pull over I expect that his onboard computer gave him a flag that the owner was recently convicted of a crime. If I were the cop this would set off alarm bells and I would take a hard look at this one.

Let's put this whole mess behind us.

Misty Blue.

Misty Blue
Actually it wasn't.

It was covered locally every day by the two Laconia papers, the Concord Monitor and the Union Leader. Channel 9 is the only TV newscast in NH so they would certainly cover the story. I did not watch every night so I don't know how much they gave it but I doubt it was excessive.

The "big" media mentioned it via the AP at the beginning and end of the trial but many of the them did not run the story at all. The only other mention in the "big" media was when AP reported Erica had been stopped for speeding and again not all of them carried that story.

So while it seemed to be a huge deal all over the place it wasn't.

I have to agree, he would have had to have KNOWN she was coming in order to get out in the road and try to initiate a stop. At 84 MPH, by the time he could read her plate (assuming he had a vendetta and was actively watching for the "XTREME" plate at all times), she would be long gone before he had time to react and note her actions.

This story doesn't seem like there was any malice involved on the officers part, I just think Erica had a bit of bad luck (to put it mildly).

This was a lightning rod issue because of her highly visible political position as the head of an organization which presented itself as an advocate for safe boating. She considered herself qualified and entitled to opine on proper,appropriate, and safe boating and hence qualified to influence legislation in this regard. The accident, when it happened, quickly went national because of the inherent irony involved and was the subject on several sites of a great deal of joking, sad as it was for all involved. The accident has subsequently influenced the way Concord views the lake and will undoubtedly continue to do so for some time. We also know that many of our legislators in Concord view this site and/or recreate on Winnipesaukee. In any case, we see this kind of intense media coverage when other public figures are caught in an action which compromises their professed philosophies. The matter stayed in the public eye after the verdict because of the similarly ironic aftermath the next day. Fortunately no one was injured on Rt. 93 and the injuries on Diamond Is.could have been even more significant if they been traveling at 25 -30 MPH instead of the 18 MPH put forth by the defense.
Unfortunately this matter will be in the public eye for some time to come with upcoming sentencing, possible retrial, and potential civil litigation. We can only hope that all the attention to this affair has increased public awareness of some of the safety issues on the lake and therefore positively influence boating safety.

More significant than what? Somebody died????

She was found guilty of negligent homicide for failure to keep a proper lookout. If I follow your agenda correctly, I'm not sure what other safety issue will come to light here that is not already mandated by law in NH?

Please enlighten us.

Let's put this whole mess behind us.
Misty Blue.

That is the smartest thing I have read on this forum relative to this matter.

Don't you all think that this subject has been beat to death for long enough?

It was a terrible tragedy. A person lost their life and the lives of two other women have been changed forever. There but for the grace of God, it could have been anyone of us or someone close to us.

Whether a person is rich, or poor, everyone deserves (and gets) their day in court. She did, and whether you agree or disagree with the outcome, the legal system has spoken and nothing anyone says on this forum is going to change anything that has or will occur with regard to this tragedy.

Spring is here, the lake is open, and we all got out of bed this morning to face a new day. Let's just enjoy the time we are here and focus on ourselves and our families and not critiquing something that we had (or have) no control over.

Personally I think it is time for Don to close this thread and have us all move on.

I could not agree more.

Maybe we should have a poll? Here is the situation, It is late at night on a weekend and the weather has degraded. You are responsible for the vessel and passengers. Do you:

a) Get up go to get home as quickly as possible?
b) Think about this incident and be very very cautious?

I think this thread has been valuable inspite of the jabs and soft insults . We will never be able to count the number of times it may have prevented a terrible accident.

curious
 

Just curious...if you don't care for this thread, why do you click into it? Whether it is closed or not...if you have had your fill, look elswhere. Problem solved...

Just curious...if you don't care for this thread, why do you click into it? Whether it is closed or not...if you have had your fill, look elswhere. Problem solved...

I did not state that I "did not care for the Thread" I simply stated my Opinion that it is (in MY Opinion) not serving any useful purpose any longer.

You can only beat a dead horse for so long.....

Problem Not Solved
 

Mayby its time for those circled around the horse with clubs in thier hands to take a moment to step back and think about how this discussion reflects on the fun/family oriented forum this is supposed to be.

not dead
 

I for one don't think it is a dead/closed issue. I believe the state is going to retry her on the OUI charge.

I agree the state will retry on the deadlocked issues.

If she gets jail time, the state will not retry.

I agree. My feeling is that the judge will look harshly upon the negligence charge since Ms. Blizzard didn't step-up and admit her guilt regarding the BUI charge. If my hunch is correct, Blizzard will get a stiff sentence and the state won't feel obligated to retry her on the BUI charge. The only problem with this outcome is that no real good comes from it. Had Blizzard owned up to her mistake, she could have become an advocate against BUI in the schools and communities surrounding Lake Winnipesaukee and probably avoided jail time. Now she likely will spend a number of years in the penal system costing the taxpayers big bucks with no positive coming from her recklessness.

Remember, when sentencing on the negligence charge the judge will likely have her own opinion on Blizzard's quilt regarding the BUI charge. She heard the same evidence during the trial and she will not dismiss the .15 BAC evidence as readily as the some members of the jury. She also will take into account Blizzard's reckless driving. I think she will get 5-years.

My Take
 

One thing you can say about this thread..forgetting the Topic for a moment.. you Learn WHO the other posters are. There IS a Divide. Some things are maybe best Left Alone when friends sit around and discuss things over a beer.

I've found over the years..with friends..you test the water and see if there is general agreement on some topic and if there is Not....just don't discus that topic again. Doesn't always work but you give it a shot. :look: NB

Final Thought: I guess I've been pretty non-commital in my posts so far. Now I'll step up to the plate. Ericka stepped in some Poop... but I am Rooting For Her. NB

nice
 

Stephanie Beaudoin's family will be so very pleased to know this....

Final Thought: I guess I've been pretty non-commital in my posts so far. Now I'll step up to the plate. Ericka stepped in some Poop... but I am Rooting For Her. NB[/QUOTE]

That is an sad way to describe someone's unnecessary death. Stepping in some poop? You can root for Erica. I'm rooting for the deceased.

NB - There is a touch of class in your post as well as many other posts in this particularly hard thread. There are many that "shoot from the hip" that can be construed as rude and crude. I have to agree with you and wish all the families including the Blizzards peace as this case progresses.

Thanks for the sanity and wisdom!

Xtreme
 

On 4/8/10 at about 5 p.m. I was driving north from Manchester on Rt. 93 on cruise control at 68 mph. I saw an SUV coming in the passing lane going much faster than I was driving. As it passed me and I estimated to my passenger that it was going at least 80 mph I glanced at the number plate - you guessed it Xtreme, black SUV. Of course Ms Blizzard wasn't driving it as she has been told by the Court not to drive - but apparently whoever was driving has the same driving habits - can't say if they were on the cell phone however.

OK, my 0.05 worth
 

On the note above ...

1) Someone asked if it was "normal" to increase speed to reduce the rocking of the boat under the conditions that night. The answer is no. Obviously you shouldn't be going any faster than your ability to reasonably avoid a collision. I find it hard to believe that a 37' cruiser would be rocking that much but assuming that's true, the proper action might have been to change course so as to take what must have been a beam sea on the quarter instead. Alas this action would have been difficult due to point #2. Speeding back up to solve that problem after acknowledging that it was too foggy/rainy to see properly is negligent operation IMO.

2) Some have said she shouldn't have left the dock. I tend to agree given the situation. We were sitting on our dock until 11:30 pm that night. It wasn't raining then and visibility over the water was unimpeded but the clouds and fog were low in the sky and any moonlight, skyglow and city light pollution was unavailable. There was no way to see the outlines of the hills against the sky. Given the unpredicable nature of Winni weather, leaving the dock w/o the proper navigational equipment is also negligent operation IMO. When the weather closed in what I heard was "I used my depth finder". I didn't hear "I relied on my GPS (there was none) or Loran or charted a course and used the compass". Checking your depth would be marginally OK but you'd have to be going NWS to be effective, especially in that part of the lake. Alternately she could have returned to the last port or just drifted about, it was a cruiser after all. Getthereitis is a prime cause in a lot of "accidents". Ask any airline pilot.

3) BUI is obviously stupid but I'm conflicted about what I've read. It doesn't make sense to me. Alcohol goes into your bloodstream fairly quickly and comes out fairly slowly. Even if the 3 drinks were doubles, in the 3 hours they were consumed over I'd expect most the alcohol to be in the bloodstream and a lot of it removed. There had to be more drinks involved to get to the measured level. In any case I suspect most people could operate their boat w/o much trouble even if not stone cold sober ... during the day. At night it's a whole nuther story.

So what to do ? I recall the police dept (can't remember where and whether it was local or state) actually sponsoring some "drunk tests". This was done with autos and people were given a little track to navigate sober and then after some drinks. The tests were publicized for all to know. I think it was an instructive exercise and don't see why similar "tests" couldn't be done for the boating world. I'm sure there would be no shortage of volunteers to get drunk on the state's dime.

People need to know their, and their boats, limitations. It's hard to teach people these as those who'd care to learn probably do so on their own and those who don't would need a team of oxen to drag them to the truth. In the past I and Lakegeezer (?) have suggested some form of "simulation training". While not the real thing, I have to wonder what people might learn by accident if they were playing the Lake Winni First Person Boater game ... say, while waiting for iceout. It's an easy way to expose people to dangerous (looking) scenarios w/o there being any real danger.

Not a bad idea. One of my proposals for a first boat registration was this. For a one-time fee paid directly to the MP, you have to set up an appointment. This one-hour tour with the LEO on your boat would be instructive, on-water learning for navigation, safety, rules, what to look for, etc..

It could be constructed a number of ways to work, obviously some marinas do this already, many do not. Specifics could be easily hammered out so as to allow for manpower, buyer's/MP schedules and all of that.

I'd have to think that having the MP in your boat, coming out of the Weir's channel on a Saturday afternoon would provide some real insight :rolleye2:


There are many, many different ways to learn boating, safety rules and laws in different states. Most are very painless, and any cost involved would be pretty minimal. The fee could easily be included as part of every boat purchase or rental fee. Yes, many climb the wall regarding any additional tax or fee imposed. So sorry, but real solutions involve getting your hands dirty once in awhile. In this day and age of legislation up the ying yang, special interests and the like, there has to be some common ground agreement on a common sense solution.