Boating Accident/Death off Diamond Island

[Tank151]

Originally Posted by pats fan

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...WS02/709126805


Skip,
See paragraph 3 of the above Citizen article. I don't disagree with your comments above about Mr. Littlefield, but it certainly does seem to me that he was aquitted of being drunk. Do I think he probably was? Sure. But I think he was not found guilty of that charge.

Drunk conviction or NOT, Mr. Littlefield admittingly was drinking which was verified by receipt information at the Dockside Restaurant and by accounts of witnesses who observed him impaired!

His accident killed an person as well as put himself, his wife and children and friends lives in jeopardy. Let's not forget, he cowardly left the scene of the accident, leaving the injured and could have assited them with Medical assistance.

We don't have the FACTS on the Diamond Island accident, so these two incidents can't be compared!

[SIKSUKR]

I had a look at the crash site on Saturday.I stayed a good 500-700 ft away as not to bother the homeowner,although I did not see any indication of anyone there.It seems little doubt in my mind Erica was headed for Sleepers Island and crashed into Diamond.Obviously she did not see this very unlit island.It appears the the boat hit a 5-6 ft shear wall of granite that would be in the direct path to Diamond.Looking at that wall and also the damage to the boat,it would appear to me it would not take very much speed to result in the damage seen on her boat.The boat had to come to an immediate stop.This is ONLY my uneducated perception of what I've seen.Take it for what it is but I'll be very surprized that when the investigation is complete and if there is a speed determination that it will be more than 20-30 mph.Let me say again that this is just a pure guess on my part but I would think weather will turn out to be the main factor in the crash.

[NHDOLFAN]

I am very curious as to why Marine Patrol has taken this amount of time to make a statement. If the driver was impaired in anyway shape or form, I would think Marine Patrol would make a statement about the incident. If you think about crashes that take place and kill or seriously hurt someone, the police always make some statement about whether alcohol or drugs were a factor. This incident has been hush hush, which I don't understand.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by NHDOLFAN

I am very curious as to why Marine Patrol has taken this amount of time to make a statement. If the driver was impaired in anyway shape or form, I would think Marine Patrol would make a statement about the incident. If you think about crashes that take place and kill or seriously hurt someone, the police always make some statement about whether alcohol or drugs were a factor. This incident has been hush hush, which I don't understand.

The boats driver was in critical condition, I believe in an induced coma. They would most likely need to interview all parties involved before they can make a statement of any kind.

[NHDOLFAN]

I understand that the driver was seriously hurt. However, that would not prohibit Marine Patrol from taking blood samples. I would assume that Marine Patrol could do a lot for speculation, one way or the other.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by NHDOLFAN

I am very curious as to why Marine Patrol has taken this amount of time to make a statement. If the driver was impaired in anyway shape or form, I would think Marine Patrol would make a statement about the incident. If you think about crashes that take place and kill or seriously hurt someone, the police always make some statement about whether alcohol or drugs were a factor. This incident has been hush hush, which I don't understand.

This is an extremely serious & sensitive incident. And unlike motor vehicle fatalities, which hapen at an all too often pace even here in New Hampshire, boating fatalities remain a rare event.

The New Hampshire Marine Patrol has perhaps its best and most seasoned investigator at the helm of this investigation, Lt. Tim Dunleavy. I am confident that Dunleavy will conduct an accurate and thorough investigation, and the results of his labor will become fully public at the appropriate juncture.

I would rather the authorities involved, which are obviously the NHMP and most likely a review being conducted by the Belknap County Attorney's Office, take all the time possible to examine all the evidence before coming to any conclusion. Premature speculation on behalf of the investigating authorities could have extremely damaging effects on the victims.

Each case is diufferent. For example, a few weeks ago a woman was killed just over the border in Berwick, Maine in a hit & run accident. The authorities quickly identified the driver but have continued to investigate with no arrest imminent, even though the driver has been identified. Initially the family was upset and went to the media. But after a meeting between the family and the investigators the family is now satisfied with the case and willing to be patient.

There is a lesson to be learned here.

As long as the families directly involved are satisfied with the pace and scope of the investigation, maybe we, as curious spectators, should be respectful and patient as well.

[NHDOLFAN]

I comprehend your point and confident that Lt. Dunleavy will do the best job he can. While there are far less boating fatalities, nonetheless, this is not the 1st one. Do you think Marine Patrol has given info to the families involved? Of course not! They have given them bits and pieces but not the whole piece. I'm sure, at some point soon, one of the papers will file papers for the Right to know. If that happens, then they will have to make a statement vs. being proactive.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by NHDOLFAN

I comprehend your point and confident that Lt. Dunleavy will do the best job he can. While there are far less boating fatalities, nonetheless, this is not the 1st one. Do you think Marine Patrol has given info to the families involved? Of course not! They have given them bits and pieces but not the whole piece. I'm sure, at some point soon, one of the papers will file papers for the Right to know. If that happens, then they will have to make a statement vs. being proactive.

Just a few final comments.

This is an active law enforcement investigation. As long as the investigation is ongoing the agencies investigating are not subject to disclosure under 91-A (Right to know law).

In many motor vehicle cases where preliminary results are released almost immediately it is because the individual charged was able to give a concious donation of blood, breath or urine and the resulted in immediate arrest. In cases where samples are taken for analysis relative to someone unable to give consent there usually is a much longer process involved. In very serious cases a subsequent charge, if the evidence so dictates, may not occur until an indictment is handed down by a grand jury. Let me add that in this particular case there has been no evidence yet released to indicate that any laws were violated.

Finally, I have no idea and no desire to speculate on what communications may have occured between the families and the investigating authorities. I only gave an example of a nearby case where weeks have passed and no arrest has yet been made, to show that the one week that has occured since this incident is neither unusual nor precedent setting.

The only thing I do know, and will repeat for the last time, is that I have full confidence that the assigned investigators will conduct a proper investigation and release all necessary information to the public in a timely, legal and fair fashion.

[EricP]

Meanwhile, outside of this forum, the rumor mill is in full gear. I am not going to repeat what I have heard as it's all ridiculous and in some cases disrespectful. My point is look what happened when Moses went up the mountain. People don't change! I for one will wait for official communications.

Thank you Skip for your perspective, I couldn't agree more.

[chipj29]

I would think that the person would have to be able to give permission to have blood taken and tested. In absense of that, I would think the police would have to obtain a warrant, and I am sure there would be some sort of court decision. Put it this way, if she were my daughter, I would not want someone taking her blood for anything other than a medical reason. I would fight that as hard as I could. Prove that she acted criminally, then we will talk. Innocent until proven guilty.

That's my opinion, whatever that may be worth.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by chipj29

I would think that the person would have to be able to give permission to have blood taken and tested. In absense of that, I would think the police would have to obtain a warrant, and I am sure there would be some sort of court decision. Put it this way, if she were my daughter, I would not want someone taking her blood for anything other than a medical reason. I would fight that as hard as I could. Prove that she acted criminally, then we will talk. Innocent until proven guilty.

That's my opinion, whatever that may be worth.

From a medical standpoint, the hospital would already know at this point however with the medical privacy laws it would take a court order for the investigators to access them. Coming from somewhat of a medical background I can say that they would definitely have to do a full blood screening during the initial triage and for the ongoing treatment process. If there was alcohol, illegal drugs or prescription meds in her system they would have to know immediately as it could have serious effects with other meds used during treatment,

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by codeman671

From a medical standpoint, the hospital would already know at this point however with the medical privacy laws it would take a court order for the investigators to access them. Coming from somewhat of a medical background I can say that they would definitely have to do a full blood screening during the initial triage and for the ongoing treatment process. If there was alcohol, illegal drugs or prescription meds in her system they would have to know immediately as it could have serious effects with other meds used during treatment,

The test results used for medical purposes are not used by law enforcement. They require their own separate samples and process it in their own lab. My guess is that this preserves the chain of evidencebecause only law enforcement approved people access the samples and removes any legal wrangling as to whether the hospital should have shared personal medical information with law enforcement. It also removes ethical problems for doctors who are supposed to treat patients vs. aiding in their prosecution.

I agree with Skip, let's agree that this is a tragedy and wait for the professionals to evaluate what happened.

My prayers for all involved and their families.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by jeffk

The test results used for medical purposes are not used by law enforcement. They require their own separate samples and process it in their own lab. My guess is that this preserves the chain of evidencebecause only law enforcement approved people access the samples and removes any legal wrangling as to whether the hospital should have shared personal medical information with law enforcement. It also removes ethical problems for doctors who are supposed to treat patients vs. aiding in their prosecution.

I agree with Skip, let's agree that this is a tragedy and wait for the professionals to evaluate what happened.

My prayers for all involved and their families.

Somewhat true, but in the case of alcohol where the BAC drops steadily when not being "supplemented" a sample taken later is useless (thus Littlefield's flight). Try waking a judge at 3am on a Sunday morning to get authorization to get a sample. In this case it would have to come from tests done at the hospital.

My post in no may is insinuating any thoughts or speculation of alcohol being related.

[Skip]

Substantial information surrounding the crash is now being investigated, including the possibility that alcohol was involved.

Latest developments in this morning's CITIZEN.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Skip

Substantial information surrounding the crash is now being investigated, including the possibility that alcohol was involved.

Latest developments in this morning's CITIZEN.

I hope this wasn't the case, but just an unfortunate accident.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Skip

Substantial information surrounding the crash is now being investigated, including the possibility that alcohol was involved.

Latest developments in this morning's CITIZEN.

From my standpoint,Dunleavy is doing the right thing here.All of these items and circumstances must be investigated.It does not infere these occupants were inpaired but it does need to be confimed or not.As hard for me as it is to see implications of DWI,I believe it has to be looked at.

[NHDOLFAN]

Wow. This article shows that someone was drinking. Now, whether the person(s) were impaired is a different story. At what speed would a boat need to be traveling to be on plane? I'm sure that Formula could answer this question. Only time will tell but it does not look good.

[EricP]

Those several empty beer cans could have already been in the boat or from earlier in the day/evening.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by chipj29

...I would think that the person would have to be able to give permission to have blood taken and tested. In absense of that, I would think the police would have to obtain a warrant, and I am sure there would be some sort of court decision. Put it this way, if she were my daughter, I would not want someone taking her blood for anything other than a medical reason. I would fight that as hard as I could. Prove that she acted criminally, then we will talk. Innocent until proven guilty...

First, let me reiterate that no evidence has been provided to the public indicating that any crime has taken place in reference to the discussed incident.

That said, I provide the following RSA to show that in the case we are discussing, mandatory blood testing must occur as required by State law. Consent is not optional.



265-A:16 Blood Testing of Certain Motor Vehicle Fatalities. – When a collision, boating accident, or OHRV accident results in death or serious bodily injury to any person, all drivers or operators involved, whether living or deceased, and all deceased vehicle, boat, or OHRV occupants and pedestrians involved shall be tested for evidence of alcohol or controlled drugs. A law enforcement officer, authorized agent, or peace officer shall request a licensed physician, registered nurse, certified physician's assistant, or qualified medical technician or medical technologist to withdraw blood from each driver or operator involved if living and from the body of each deceased driver or operator, deceased occupant, or deceased pedestrian, in accordance with RSA 611-B:14, II, for the purpose of testing for evidence of alcohol content or controlled drugs; provided that in the case of a living driver or operator the officer has probable cause to believe that the driver or operator caused the collision or accident. All tests made under this section shall be conducted by the forensic science laboratory established in RSA 106-B:2-a or in any other laboratory capable of conducting such tests which is licensed under the laws of this or any other state and which has also been licensed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act of 1988, as amended. A copy of the report of any such test shall be kept on file by the medical examiner. The filed report is not a public record under RSA 91-A. However, the report shall be made available to the following:
I. Any highway safety agency for use in compiling statistics to evaluate the effectiveness of its program; and
II. Any person, including his or her legal representative, who is or may be involved in a civil, criminal, or administrative action or proceeding arising out of an accident in connection with which the test was performed.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Skip

First, let me reiterate that no evidence has been provided to the public indicating that any crime has taken place in reference to the discussed incident.

That said, I provide the following RSA to show that in the case we are discussing, mandatory blood testing must occur as required by State law. Consent is not optional.

Thanks for clearing that up for me Skip...guess my logic is a bit off.

But please don't think I was insinuating a criminal act occurred in this instance. That was not my intent.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by chipj29

Thanks for clearing that up for me Skip...guess my logic is a bit off.

But please don't think I was insinuating a criminal act occurred in this instance. That was not my intent.

Nope Chip, didn't think you were insinuating anything, and you raised a very good point....a belief that many folks share.

While most of us agree that rampant speculation and gossip can be harmful in a situation like this, an intelligent discussion of different points like you and others have raised provide an opportunity for each of us to educate ourselves on the issues pertinent to the incident.