Boating Accident/Death off Diamond Island

[LIforrelaxin]

Apparently the jury remains out... according to this article, they will not be in session tomorrow, the jury will reconvene on Thurs. The Article also details that the jury is having trouble with only of of the Articles before them.... Interesting......

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...d-31d31531478f

Now knowing many of you are reading this, and some may have been on juries or know people that have.... is it "normal" that they would stop deliberations for a day... I know the article says someone has a commitment, and I am not trying to deny that it may be important... I am more curious as to how often something like this happens.

[Scupper]

No visiblity, can't see anything past the bow, don't slow down, hit a big island, alcohol involved, Wolfe Trap serves mixed drinks in PINT size glasses, beer cans in the water, vodka in the cuddy, spotty memory lapses at convienent times that are crucial, 18 miles an hour causes the boat to basically explode....hmm, let me think about this one.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by Scupper

No visiblity, can't see anything past the bow, don't slow down, hit a big island, alcohol involved, Wolfe Trap serves mixed drinks in PINT size glasses, beer cans in the water, vodka in the cuddy, spotty memory lapses at convienent times that are crucial, 18 miles an hour causes the boat to basically explode....hmm, let me think about this one.

Let me be the first to welcome you to the forum...and let me be the first to ask you to GO AWAY.. NB

[Bear Island South]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

Let me be the first to welcome you to the forum...and let me be the first to ask you to GO AWAY.. NB

so if scupper had 366 posts, maybe it wouldn't be viewed as a bad comment.
to be asked to "GO AWAY" is ridiculous, I 'm sure we could look back on some of your posts and point the finger. Scupper is not the first to form a negative opinion on this thread.
Maybe there should be a warning for new members, your first few hundred posts should have a positive view.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Bear Island South

so if scupper had 366 posts, maybe it wouldn't be viewed as a bad comment.
to be asked to "GO AWAY" is ridiculous, I 'm sure we could look back on some of your posts and point the finger. Scupper is not the first to form a negative opinion on this thread.
Maybe there should be a warning for new members, your first few hundred posts should have a positive view.

Though if you have something negative to say about winnfabs then negative first posts are not only allowed but encouraged.

[john60ri]

Hooray for Scupper! If his facts are accurate, this lady needs to go to jail. Her antics that night were like a drunken, grossly irresponsible teenager. And by the way, except for the Mt. Washington, I have NEVER been on a boat on the Lake.

[Woodsy]

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

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

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

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

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


Woodsy

[RI Swamp Yankee]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

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

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

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

[Lakewinn1]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

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

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

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

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

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


Woodsy

Woodsy well said!

[nellies]

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

[Seadoo]

nellies,

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

THANKS!!

[Airwaves]

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

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

[bigpatsfan]

I also agree with Nellies post.

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

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

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

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

[Lucky1]

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

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

[NoRegrets]

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

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

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

[OCDACTIVE]

Great post Noregrets.

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

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

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

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

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

[NoBozo]

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

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

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

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

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

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

[chipj29]

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

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Dave R

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feel free to let me know of your thoughts.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

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

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

[jrc]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

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

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

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

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

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

Feel free to let me know of your thoughts.

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

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

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by jrc

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

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

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

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

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

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

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

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

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

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

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

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

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

[Scupper]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

Let me be the first to welcome you to the forum...and let me be the first to ask you to GO AWAY.. NB

Obviously I struck a nerve with you NB. Note the length of my membership on this forum...since 2006. Yes, I have few posts, but I only post on issues that appear to have substance. This is one of them. I could care less about the sunset on a particular night, ice cream at Sibley's, debate over the speed limits, whining about being stopped by M.P., etc...

What I care about is the loss of a life, a passenger that had no say, no control over the operation of the boat, and can't be brought back to life. There seems to be a lynch mob mentality against anyone that doesn't feel sympathy for the operator responsible for this "accident."

NB, I have a daughter. If she was the victim in this case, I would want justice. Sympathy due to the operator's standing in the community, personal relationship, or emotion is misguided. Facts are clarity, emotion and denial are blinding to the facts.

For those of you that stuck up for me thanks! I'll post again in another hmm, four years when substance arises again.

[john60ri]

Wow! Scupper is my new hero! I have a daughter too, and he's right - it's about the facts and it's about justice. Let the wheel of justice turn.

[jrc]

I think lynch mob is a little strong, no one is even debating punishment, just guilty or not guilty.

First the jury must decide, but it is harmless now for us to give our opinions of her guilt or non-guilt. After the verdict, if she is found guilty, a judge will decide her fate. That's when arguements like she suffered enough already should come in.

My opinion is based almost solely on the .15 BAC. This is clearly over the limit. We decided as a society 20-30 years ago that if you drive while drunk and someone gets killed, you go to jail. You don't have to like it, or believe its a good idea, but its law. If you can get off the hook, when double the limit and three people are seriously hurt, one killed, when does the law apply?

If she was sober. Then it's tougher. But in her own words she lost all visibilty and then she sped up! I can't reconcile that action.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by Scupper

Obviously I struck a nerve with you NB. Note the length of my membership on this forum...since 2006. Yes, I have few posts, but I only post on issues that appear to have substance. This is one of them. I could care less about the sunset on a particular night, ice cream at Sibley's, debate over the speed limits, whining about being stopped by M.P., etc...

What I care about is the loss of a life, a passenger that had no say, no control over the operation of the boat, and can't be brought back to life. There seems to be a lynch mob mentality against anyone that doesn't feel sympathy for the operator responsible for this "accident."

NB, I have a daughter. If she was the victim in this case, I would want justice. Sympathy due to the operator's standing in the community, personal relationship, or emotion is misguided. Facts are clarity, emotion and denial are blinding to the facts.

For those of you that stuck up for me thanks! I'll post again in another hmm, four years when substance arises again.

SCUPPER: I'll bet you wouldn't expect this response from me. YOUR Response to my post seems Quite Sincere and I respect ..even agree with parts of your stated position above. It is quite possable I mis-interpreted your original post. If I got it wrong....I apologize. NB

[Scupper]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

SCUPPER: I'll bet you wouldn't expect this response from me. YOUR Response to my post seems Quite Sincere and I respect ..even agree with parts of your stated position above. It is quite possable I mis-interpreted your original post. If I got it wrong....I apologize. NB

No harm, no foul.

[SumoDog]

I think this case and many similar cases create an interesting question that I am sure the jury and all wrestle with - is an accident an accident or is someone always responsible and punishable for their actions. I truly believe that this was an accident - was it negligent on the defendants part - the jury will decide - but I have no doubt that the defendent did not leave that evening with the thought of wrecking her boat and her friend dying due to that action. Did her actions of the evening contribute to the sad event that occured - the jury will decide - I truly believe that we have to look at everyone involved - if she was OUI - should her friends have gotten on the boat with her? If they had any thoughts that she was unable to navigate the boat - why get on - I'm sure they all had cell phones - I've been with people that I concluded were unfit to drive - I did not get in the car with them. Had I and something terrible happen - didn't I just make a choice to risk my life and isn't that contributory negligence on my part? We seem to be (as a society) developing an attitude that nothing is our fault and someone should be blamed and sued. Whatever happen to taking responsibility for your actions - you screw up - pay the price. No jury verdict, sentence will bring the young woman back to her family and friends - that is the saddest thing. Everyone on that boat that evening had a choice - sadly it turned out to be a very bad choice all and a life ending choice for one.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by Scupper

Obviously I struck a nerve with you NB. Note the length of my membership on this forum...since 2006. Yes, I have few posts, but I only post on issues that appear to have substance. This is one of them. I could care less about the sunset on a particular night, ice cream at Sibley's, debate over the speed limits, whining about being stopped by M.P., etc...

What I care about is the loss of a life, a passenger that had no say, no control over the operation of the boat, and can't be brought back to life. There seems to be a lynch mob mentality against anyone that doesn't feel sympathy for the operator responsible for this "accident."

NB, I have a daughter. If she was the victim in this case, I would want justice. Sympathy due to the operator's standing in the community, personal relationship, or emotion is misguided. Facts are clarity, emotion and denial are blinding to the facts.

For those of you that stuck up for me thanks! I'll post again in another hmm, four years when substance arises again.

I am just curious, not passing judgement.

Do you think that the passenger who accompanies the driver for the evening and observes all of the alcohol the she drank (whatever the volume) bears any responsibility for her own demise?

If the jury decides that the alcohol was the determining factor in the accident would you think that the passenger should have refused to ride in the boat?

I'm not expressing an opinion, just asking a question.

[ApS]

It is the Captain who is burdened with the judgment of safe passage—and who bears full responsibility regardless of the condition of the passengers. (Drunk, unruly, sick, injured—even unconscious).

[jrc]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

I am just curious, not passing judgement.

Do you think that the passenger who accompanies the driver for the evening and observes all of the alcohol the she drank (whatever the volume) bears any responsibility for her own demise?

If the jury decides that the alcohol was the determining factor in the accident would you think that the passenger should have refused to ride in the boat?

I'm not expressing an opinion, just asking a question.

In my opinion, the passenegers actions have no bearing on the criminal aspect of the incident. The actions could come into play in a civil trial.

In determining guilt, I don't think a defendent can say "I'm not guilty because my friends should have stopped me".

But in a civil trial the passenger or their family is suing for damages. The driver's lawyer could say the passenger should have known better, given the circumstances.

This is pure conjecture based on your question.

[fpartri497]

One thing for sure Is no matter the outcome of this trial, EVERYBODY loses

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by fpartri497

One thing for sure Is no matter the outcome of this trial, EVERYBODY loses

I think that is the most factual statement in this thread.

[NoRegrets]

Appling "guilt" in today's world.

A little over 30 years ago my brother took the family car out for the evening. There was an ice storm and he lost control and slid into the guardrails. No one was hurt but the sheet metal on the car was damaged. When he told my dad about the accident my dad said he would work out a way for my brother to pay for the repairs. My brother’s comment was that it wasn't his fault because of the conditions of the road. My father firmly replied that he made the choice to put the key in the ignition and move the vehicle. End of the discussion and my brother had to pay the cost to repair. I knew at that point the meaning of responsibility.

Somehow our society has evolved away for the intent of the law and favors the technicality of the law. Too often we see how money, power, or relationships win favors or pardons. Casual observance of these cases often can lead to cynicism over the process.

Drunk, not drunk, rating the visibility, mental conditions, or any other factors in the case may be used to set the severity of the punishment but I believe Erica "put the key in the ignition" and is responsible for the accident.

I have seen some very thoughtful posts and am thankful for the interchange between Scupper and NoBozo.

Sympathy and prayers to all who suffer loss through tragedies and let us all benefit from this incident by being reminded of the consequences that can happen if you are not careful.

[fatlazyless]

And, on the other hand, if you cross the center line while totally sober and kill three and injure a fourth, a 25-year old Thornton male first sentenced to 12 years in NH prison recently had his case successfully appealed in NH Supreme Court by Atty James Moir. In June 2009, the NH Supreme Court voted 3-1 to over rule the conviction of a 25 year old male from Thornton who struck two Harley Davidsons head-on, in June 2006. By drifting across the center line of Route 49 in Thornton at the s-curve, he killed three and injured a fourth person, who were two married couples ages 53-54, all employed at an Indiana GM car dealer, who were in NH for motorcycle week. First, sentenced to 12 years in state prison, his convicton was over turned after serving about 2 1/2 years, when the NH Supreme Court decided that what he did did not constitute negligence.

He had a blood alcohol level of zero at the time. He did have a number of prior driving violations including moving violations, however that information was not allowed to be admitted during the trial.

Justice Linda Dalianis, speaking for the majority, said something like; " ...he crossed the center line for some unknown reason and that does not equal negligence."

In my personal opinion when it comes to determining negligence, it probably does not matter if you are legally drunk or just day-dreaming when you cross the center line, especially when the victim is a member of your family.

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by Scupper

No visiblity, can't see anything past the bow, don't slow down, hit a big island, alcohol involved, Wolfe Trap serves mixed drinks in PINT size glasses, beer cans in the water, vodka in the cuddy, spotty memory lapses at convienent times that are crucial, 18 miles an hour causes the boat to basically explode....hmm, let me think about this one.

Scupper's comments could be worded more compassionately, but unfortunately those are the facts.

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Scupper

No visiblity, can't see anything past the bow, don't slow down, hit a big island, alcohol involved, Wolfe Trap serves mixed drinks in PINT size glasses, beer cans in the water, vodka in the cuddy, spotty memory lapses at convienent times that are crucial, 18 miles an hour causes the boat to basically explode....hmm, let me think about this one.

Scupper,

Everyone should let the jury decide on the facts. This includes this you, a very opinionated, first-time poster.

Freedom of speech is one thing, deciding one's fate without complete knowledge is another. This is America. Let the process work. You are not part of this process, nor am I.

If you do not like this, please quickly go very far away. We are, for the most part, very fair people and we do not need your obviously, swayed opinion. There is too much pain on both sides of this for anyone like you, a first time poster, to comment.

Save your mindless comments for the NH Legislature. They might think you are credible, we surely will not! This is not Manchester, the stomping ground of WinnFabs. We are people that know the lake.

I could care less if you do not like my opinion. It is more important to me to let the process evolve.

R2B

[Heaven]

If a juror had a death in the immediate family would they pause a day for that juror?

[jrc]

Wow, why the venom for Scupper? He is not trying to sway the jury, they shouldn't be reading this site.

I read Erica's own account of the night and the collision from the newspaper. It's pretty much says what Scupper said. He just added the pint size glasses, which I have no knowledge of.

Now I may be duped by Scupper, his explode comment regarding the boat, got an instant appluase from guess who, but that could be coincidence.

[SAMIAM]

Always suspicious when a new poster starts out with a highly charged subject. It's hard to take someone serious who hasn't posted enough to have a track record.....for example, a friend or family member of the prosecution could try and sway public opinion by coming on this forum.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by Heaven

If a juror had a death in the immediate family would they pause a day for that juror?

We had that case during the testimony phase. The juror was excused and the first alternate got promoted. It would be up to the judge if they were in the deliberative phase. If they dismiss the juror, they are supposed to start the deliberation over which is near impossible to do.

[Mr. V]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

Scupper,

Everyone should let the jury decide on the facts. This includes this you, a very opinionated, first-time poster.

Freedom of speech is one thing, deciding one's fate without complete knowledge is another. This is America. Let the process work. You are not part of this process, nor am I.

If you do not like this, please quickly go very far away. We are, for the most part, very fair people and we do not need your obviously, swayed opinion. There is too much pain on both sides of this for anyone like you, a first time poster, to comment.

Save your mindless comments for the NH Legislature. They might think you are credible, we surely will not! This is not Manchester, the stomping ground of WinnFabs. We are people that know the lake.

I could care less if you do not like my opinion. It is more important to me to let the process evolve.

R2B

Nobody is trying to interfere with the judicial process; what do you think scupper is trying to do, interject himself in the actual court case?

Get real.

This is a message board on the internet.

In case you haven't noticed, the internet has changed how people comment and interact.

Not so cordial, not so old-school polite, more immediate and visceral.

It's a new world: best keep up or get out of the way.

Bravo scupper, and bravo those who post a differing viewpoint.

Just post, don't lurk.

Of course, our opinions mean nothing and will not have a scintilla of impact on the outcome of the court case.

This is a soapbox, nothing more.

[fatlazyless]

...www.cmonitor.com reports jury has made a decision and reached a verdict...

[mcdude]

Here's the link to the SPECIFIC ARTICLE

11:53 a.m. Jurors convicted Erica Blizzard of negligent homicide for failing to keep a proper lookout but were unable to reach verdicts on the more serious charge of negligent homicide by intoxication for the fatal boat crash she had in 2008 .

The jury was also unable to reach a verdict on the third charge, aggravated driving while intoxicated.

Blizzard faces 3 1/2 years in state prison on her one conviction. Prosecutors can retry her on the other two charges but did not say immediately whether they will. She will be sentenced on April 21.

[Steveo]

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...100319983/1030

Jurors convicted Erica Blizzard of negligent homicide for failing to keep a proper lookout but were unable to reach verdicts on the more serious charge of negligent homicide by intoxication for the fatal boat crash she had in 2008 .

The jury was also unable to reach a verdict on the third charge, aggravated driving while intoxicated.

[SIKSUKR]

Here's WMUR's link to the guilty verdict.http://www.wmur.com/news/22876656/detail.html

[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.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

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?

The act of hitting the island made it impossible to convince me (and the jury, apparently) that she kept a proper lookout. The whole point of keeping a proper lookout is not to make sure the stuff you hit is truly hard to see, but to avoid hitting stuff and slow to a safe speed if visibility requires it.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Dave R

The act of hitting the island made it impossible to convince me (and the jury, apparently) that she kept a proper lookout. The whole point of keeping a proper lookout is not to make sure the stuff you hit is truly hard to see, but to avoid hitting stuff and slow to a safe speed if visibility requires it.

Absolutely Dave. No way am I going past trolling speed on a night like that. Her own testimony made me shake my head a couple of times, but that's what happens in trials.

I'm surprised that the estimated time spent on the trial was about right, I thought there would be more. I'm sorry to say this, but given the time elapsed since this accident, I was underwhelmed at both of the accident reconstruction "experts". The jury seemed pretty easily persuaded to doubt the State's case on BUI as well, which I believe is more the State's fault than the jury's, but just a guess.

There's never a good ending to any of these stories, and I certainly wish nobody any malice. Possibly the memory of this accident can prevent another (it's already made me think of my anchor line).

My condolences to everyone involved personally with this tragedy, and hopefully, your lives can return to some semblance of normality.

[seanmcd]

It seems like a just verdict based on the facts as I understand them. Now what will be more interesting is what the results of the PSI (Pre Sentencing Investigation) are, and what punishment Blizzard receives.

I think the judge will give substantial weight to the wishes of the victims family. That they were best friends out doing the same thing together, I suspect that she may never spend a day in prison. Likely she will get a suspended sentence with fines and some sort of community service
requirement.

The State seems to have done a good job on the case.

RIP to Beaudoin.

[Airwaves]

I am just raising the question of what is a "proper" lookout.

It seemed to me in reading the coverage that she was doing everything she could in attempting to locate navigational aides she relied on, to me that would constitute a "proper" lookout.

The fact that she still hit the island says that she should have stopped or slowed the boat to headway speed when visibility went to zero but that was not what the jury found her guilty of.

So the question is the definition of "proper" lookout. Focusing ahead of the boat into the night would be considered proper, until you hit something? Then it is not proper even though conditions were such that the lookout could not see the object?

I'm just pointing out that an argument could me made.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

I am just raising the question of what is a "proper" lookout.

It seemed to me in reading the coverage that she was doing everything she could in attempting to locate navigational aides she relied on, to me that would constitute a "proper" lookout.

The fact that she still hit the island says that she should have stopped or slowed the boat to headway speed when visibility went to zero but that was not what the jury found her guilty of.

So the question is the definition of "proper" lookout. Focusing ahead of the boat into the night would be considered proper, until you hit something? Then it is not proper even though conditions were such that the lookout could not see the object?

I'm just pointing out that an argument could me made.

Proper lookout is definitely not something that is going to get defined the same way by every person. And I really don't believe was the proper way to define the charge that she was ultimately convicted of. However that may be the only way the could charge her, with what was definable by law.

Proper lookout really just refers to the visual aspects of make sure you are aware of your surroundings, and proximity to things.

Truly in this case the better why to define what Ms. Blizzard is guilty of is negligent operation. This would there for include not keep a proper lookout, as well as operation of her vessel in a safe and prudent manor. Visually she didn't keep a good lookout, which was in part hampered by operating her boat at a speed prudent for the situation. If you can't see past the bow of the boat, you shouldn't be moving at more then headway speed.

I had long been thinking of a fitting closing point to make in this thread... summing up my feelings of how this accident as well as others have been use to falsely create fear where there shouldn't be any. But I have decided not to.

This was a sad sad situation. How much of a roll alcohol played here I have no idea, and from reading what I have read, have been left with many questions to ponder. Which will hopefully drive me to do some research and understand things better.

Do I believe the state should hand down the harshest punishment possible. Yes, not because I believe Ms. Blizzard is a horrible, unremorseful person, but because I have and always will believe in punishing people to the fullest extent of the law. In actuality I don't believe any punishment the state can levy can be as bad as the quilt she lives with every day knowing what happened the dark night.

The only thing I walk away from all this the slightest bit disappointed in, is that I got the feeling that the state didn't assemble the case that they should have. Maybe I am wrong, but maybe I am not. I do believe the state case could have been stronger then it was.

To all the families and people involved, I hope that this trial puts this issue to rest. Now is the time that we all need to let this issue go, and let the wounds heal. Certainly we have all gained a new perspective from watching this, and could discuss things for along time. But we need to respect that it is over and allow, the community and the lake itself to move on.

[john60ri]

I just have one question about Airwaves' summary of the trial. She said "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". I ask you boaters out there: Is this testimony credible under the circumstances of the crash? It doesn't sound right to me, but I am not a boater. Can anyone explain this?

[Airwaves]

LIforrelaxin, actually the charge I would have brought is negligent operation of a boat as you suggest. However that is not what was presented to the jury. They found her guilty of failure to keep a proper lookout and that is fine, as I stated I am only basing my observation on what I read in the newspapers, I wasn't in the courtroom. However it seems to me that AN ARGUMENT could be made regarding the word PROPER. Based on what I read she did maintain a proper lookout. What she failed to do was to maintain headway speed...so the charge was probably inappropriate.

john60ri...a boat underway at speed in weather is a much more stable vessel than one not underway or at headway speed in the same weather. So according to her testimony she came down off plane but because of the condition of the waves on the lake, and the rocking the pitching of the boat, it was making everyone sick, so she went back up on plane to avoid the rocking that was producing motion sickness.

Just so everyone is clear. I am not defending Blizzard or the jury or criticizing the prosecution. I am pointing out that based on what I read in the newspapers she was facing the wrong charge in once case and will in all likelihood face a retrial for the charges in the hung jury based on the sentence.

But I find the definition of "proper" something that should be looked at.

[Slickcraft]

Originally Posted by john60ri

I just have one question about Airwaves' summary of the trial. She said "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". I ask you boaters out there: Is this testimony credible under the circumstances of the crash? It doesn't sound right to me, but I am not a boater. Can anyone explain this?

If I was plowing along at say 15mph and the visibility went to zero I would drop down to headway speed and ask any on board to help keep watch. I have been there having to transport a grandchild to the ER from Welch at night in the fog. I really wanted to be going a lot faster but suppressed the urge.

A boat is more stable on plane than plowing along but if you can't see past the bow you are driving blind.

[secondcurve]

3 1/2 years probably is a reasonable punishment. Hopefully, she gets it all and the state chooses not to retry her (and waste money) on the two charges that the jury was deadlocked on. I would have preferred a guilty plea and her request for leniency. I think in that circumstance leniency would have been granted in combination with a heavy community service requirement and some good would have come from this tragedy.

Anytime someone climbs into a boat like that after 3 1/2 drinks (her version) in the dead of the night in dicey weather you are guilty of negligence in my opinion. The BAC evidence backs this position up, but she had a good attorney and he was able to convince one or two jurors that there was a reasonable doubt.

[ApS]

NR: Nicely said.

Question: For those who attended, was this a trial by six jurors or twelve?

Juries of twelve are common in Capital-Murder cases—not this kind. (Juries of six are said to be more easily hamstrung in decision-making).

Originally Posted by fpartri497

One thing for sure Is no matter the outcome of this trial, EVERYBODY loses

But not to the same degree as one did.

If a civil trial against this defendant follows—as in OJ Simpson's case—everyone paying a boating-insurance premium definitely loses.

That said, NH law makes an exception for an insurance payout when the insured is found to be a felon. (I don't know what happens when a jury finding is later reversed).

Originally Posted by secondcurve

"...3 1/2 years probably is a reasonable punishment. Hopefully, she gets it all and the state chooses not to retry her (and waste money) on the two charges that the jury was deadlocked on..."

1) The defendant was found "Guilty" on the least of the charges.

(In our court system, there is no finding of "Innocent"—and a 3½-year confinement isn't going to happen).

2) The Court and State witnesses are paid regardless of their activity: As FLL points out, an appeal could find the penalty overturned by the NH Supreme Court.

3) IMHO, if there was ever a case for revocation of a boater certification—this is it.

(The remaining "25-horsepower option" can be especially instructive in boat handling safety).



Nellies—First...Welcome to the forum.

1) "Empathy" in this case is a two-edged sword.

As the near-daily operator of boats less than 22-feet long, I'm not wishing to share any part of this lake with this particular felon. Like the Littlefield case, "big" boating—after sunset—has become a "stern taskmaster"

2) If you've been following the newspapers' "comments"...well... enough said on that!


"Threading the needle" meant passage between two shorelines 2000-feet apart! Her purported use of a fathometer is better than nothing, and would have allowed a few hundred yards of warning...BUT...to quote Airwaves' fav-or-ite rule:

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

_____________________

"The sea is a stern mistress...She demands from her sons both vigilance and skill in her service, and for the man who fails her the penalty is death...".
—Ajax

[seanmcd]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

The jury seemed pretty easily persuaded to doubt the State's case on BUI as well, which I believe is more the State's fault than the jury's, but just a guess.

I tend to think it may have been more a matter of the jury doing what they usually do, grab onto the charge that is easiest to understand. There is always some 'negotiation' in the jury room, and absent 12 people who completely agree on every charge, they often go with the easiest to prove charge. In this case that was obviously the Neg Homicide 'failure to keep proper lookout.'


**I should add that as I recall, the Neg Homicide with the BUI is an A Felony, while the charge the jury went with is a B Felony. It is a substantial difference in sentence.

[Mr. V]

The prosecutor should retry her on the hung jury counts.

To do otherwise is a denial of justice.

[topwater]

Thank God COMMON SENSE prevailed. We all knew she was guilty, now the whole world knows she is ! She probably will appeal, just so she can have alittle more FREE time. Don (webmaster), can we now lock this up like you did the speed limit thread? Lets move on to spring thaw and possible record ice out.
By the way, I noticed in the Weirs Times this week, on the same page as the map of Winnie, there is a nice list of YEARS/DATES of ice out since 1888.

[ApS]

1) A death in a juror's family would have the judge put an "alternate-juror" in. ("Alternate-jurors" are sitting in or beside the jury box and listening to the same testimony).

2) While "the wheels of justice are in motion", there are court rules that exclude evidence that could be prejudicial to the defendant. It is only upon hearing a verdict—and entering the penalty phase—that such evidence can be divulged. (Such as previous drunken convictions, such as here).

3) The first many minutes of a jury's deliberations are taken up by procedural matters assigned by the judge.

4) The Defense has presented the best case possible for Erica.

Seldom does the defense put their client in the witness chair, but the defense did just that!—as suggested here earlier.

Originally Posted by Scupper

No visiblity, can't see anything past the bow, don't slow down, hit a big island, alcohol involved, Wolfe Trap serves mixed drinks in PINT size glasses, beer cans in the water, vodka in the cuddy, spotty memory lapses at convienent times that are crucial, 18 miles an hour causes the boat to basically explode....hmm, let me think about this one.

Comment—with Smilies suppressed.

1) Even the presence of the same brand of empty beer cans is "circumstantial evidence".

The defense maintained they were previously rounded-up by a neatnik-neighbor, and stored in her boat. That same boat was commandeered by the hero-rescuer-neighbor, Dr. Rock.

(The rescuer's boat belongs to neatnik-neighbor Ms. Stone).

2) Visibility is an unknown. Visibility isn't likely to be a factor at night, as visibility varies in the known conditions of fog and drizzle. (The "big waves" cited by the defendant shouldn't have been alluded to—IMHO).

3) The island isn't lighted.

4) One of the vodka bottles wasn't opened.

5) At night, you usually can't see much beyond the bow.

6) Memory "lapses" happen.

7) We don't know if she slowed down.

8) Diamond Island is 34 acres—not so "big".

9) Pint-sized glasses don't mean too much: we don't know if all the drinks were fully consumed. Remember, too, that the State of New Hampshire sells vodka, so it must be OK to have a bottle or two aboard.

10) The boat didn't "explode": it's mostly the fracturing of the manufacturer's low-end "shoe-box" construction that makes it look worse than it is.

The defense made much of the fact that the broken glass evidence can roll—or be "sling-shot"—far beyond the crash site and should be dismissed as real evidence of velocity.

11) Finally: Her lawyer says she wasn't intoxicated.

What's a jury to do?

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

Apparently the jury remains out... according to this article, they will not be in session tomorrow, the jury will reconvene on Thurs. The Article also details that the jury is having trouble with only of of the Articles before them.... Interesting......

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...d-31d31531478f

Now knowing many of you are reading this, and some may have been on juries or know people that have.... is it "normal" that they would stop deliberations for a day... I know the article says someone has a commitment, and I am not trying to deny that it may be important... I am more curious as to how often something like this happens.

I had the pleasure of 3 jurys last summer. If they have to replace one of the jurors while they are in deliberation, they theoretically have to restart the deliberative process from scratch. Taking the day off may be more attractive than starting over or burning up an alternate.

[Seeker]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

Apparently the jury remains out... according to this article, they will not be in session tomorrow, the jury will reconvene on Thurs. The Article also details that the jury is having trouble with only of of the Articles before them.... Interesting......

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...d-31d31531478f

Now knowing many of you are reading this, and some may have been on juries or know people that have.... is it "normal" that they would stop deliberations for a day... I know the article says someone has a commitment, and I am not trying to deny that it may be important... I am more curious as to how often something like this happens.

On one of my juror trials we skipped a day because the judge had to be somewhere, but we were told that up front. I'm editing because this was not while we were in deliberation. I would think that would make a difference.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by Seeker

On one of my juror trials we skipped a day because the judge had to be somewhere, but we were told that up front. I'm editing because this was not while we were in deliberation. I would think that would make a difference.

We had a judge absent one of the days of our deliberation. He had another judge stand in while we worked. We actually gave our verdict to the pinch hitting judge.