[Airwaves]

In order for me to get a balanced overview of what was happening at the trial I had to read four individual newspaper's coverage of the trial.

It was interesting to see what each chose to report and leave out of their coverage, but by reading all four I got a pretty good idea of what was happening although certainly not as complete as if I had been there.

First it was apparent from the start that the defense was shooting to plant reasonable doubt into the minds of the jury, and they did a good job at that.

Alcohol consumption. The questions raised by the defense experts, along with testimoney from the waitress and I seem to recall a detail cop being questioned by police and saying the three did not appear drunk, went a long way toward planting the seeds of doubt as to the BAC along with the medical testimony regarding when the body stops processing food and alcohol.

The private accident reconstruction expert that was identified by some of the papers as a Deputy Sheriff for Middlesex County of MA also raised doubts as to the MPs reconstruction of the accident regarding speed. The private experts questioned the glass fragments found on the roof of the cottage that the MP said showed the speed at impact to be 31 to 33mph. It was a rainy windy night and there is no way of knowing if the glass fragments landed there or were blown there.

Erica's own testimony that she came down off plane when the visibility went to zero but went back on plane because the rocking of the boat was making them all sick also points to her caution and since I have read that her boat would plane at somewhere between 18 and 20 mph that coincides with the defense expert's thinking.

It was not surprising that they found her guilty of not keeping a proper lookout because short of saying it was just an accident and no one's fault they had to do something. I would think an argument could be made that she did keep a proper lookout. Based on her testimony the lookout (her) failed to see anything...so is that not keeping a proper lookout?

Remember, it is the burden of the state to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that what they claim happen actually did. Obviously in the minds of some of the jurors the state failed to meet that threashold.

Those are my thoughts based on reading the coverage of the trial from the 4 newspapers, I don't know any of the players involved either personally or professionally, these are just my observations.