Is speculation always wrong?
 

Obviously there is still a lot of emotion on both sides of this issue.

That said, I think both Mink Islander and Jeff K. have been pretty spot on with their input.

But let me bring everyone back to square one.

Yes, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

And yes, the defendant has opened herself to additional scrutiny by willingly accepting the very public role of president of the apparently now defunct NHRBA.

That said to date we know the following:

The State believes that the crash and subsequent death were caused by drugs and or alcohol. They had enough probable cause to convince a judge of the same, hence the warrant and subsequent blood samples. They also convinced a grand jury to offer up a Class A felony indictment based on this.

The defendant's attorneys are uncomfortable with the results of those tests are and excercising all legal ability to have that evidence suppressed.

The State, if unable to prove intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt, then feels that the operation of the boat that night at least rose to the level of negligent homicide. Hence, they convinced a grand jury to issue a dual indictment, with the second being a Class B felony.

To those who think that a conviction and jail time are not possible if the blood tests are excluded, I only need to remind you of the outcome and jail time of convicted felon Dan Littlefield. I understand ITD's point of view, but I will remind him that there are a lot of folks that have been imprisoned for causing death where intoxication has not been able to be established as the primary cause.

Once again, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. And an indictment is not a proof of guilt, as we are constantly reminded by the media.

But given that the defendant comes from a powerful family with extensive political connections, and has exposed herself to scrutiny by voluntarily assuming a high profile lobbying position, it is only human nature that people will take an extra interest in the case.

As others have said, collisions like this should simply not occur. A healthy and respectful discussion of the events surrounding this collision should be encouraged, if it simply prevents such an occurence from happening again, or educates folks by seeing exactly how our legal system operates.

Finally, nowhere in my above opinion do you see the word "accident" appear. I think the use of the word "accident" in tragedies like this is misleading. While I await the decision of a full and fair trial I have long ago established my personal opinion that this collision and subsequent injuries and death were not the result of an accident.

Now, like all of us, I await to see if a jury comes to some of the same conclusions I have come to believe are true.

No need to be sorry MI, that's your opinion and a pretty good argument. Here's one of my problems with this, I haven't been following this too closely but I don't believe any forensics have been published on this accident. We get back to the argument of what high speed is. In the end she was certainly going too fast because someone died in an accident. However I am having a very hard time believing she was going much over 20 or 25 mph. If I am right, the question I have is would a reasonable person think 25 mph is too fast at night. I would have to argue no, a reasonable person would think 25 mph is a safe speed at night, because we now have a law that implies that is so. This was an accident. If she was impaired by alcohol, then she should have to deal with the consequences. If not, then I think this is a case of bad luck that could happen to any of us, even if there is negligence involved. This Sokolove mentality that any one who is negligent needs to pay is BS. Everyone is negligent at one point or another in there lives, some are lucky and no one is hurt, others are not so lucky. If the families involved bring civil action, that's another matter.

Reasonable & prudent speed....
 

I don't want to get in a back & forth with you ITD, I have much respect for you and your opinion. But I do have to clarify your position on the new law.

The new law mandates that the maximum speed you can travel at night on Winnipesaukee is 25 MPH. You can only operate up to that speed if conditions allow you to do so safely. If the conditions warrant a lower speed, such as fog, rain, crowded conditions or mechanical issues then you can still be guilty of negfligent operation at a speed less than 25. Do not forget the caveat contained within the law.....reasonable and prudent.

Back to the thread at hand. I think that unless a gross mechanical or temporary physical impairment occurred just prior to the collison, a reasonable person is going to conclude that striking an island and causing serious injury and death infers that the craft was not being operated at a reasonable and prudent speed given the conditions present that evening.

Time will tell....

Skip, I'm not clear what issue you have with the word accident. It's a perfectly good word to describe an unintended collision. But I'm not going to beat that dead horse.

My point is that with clear evidence of intoxication this is a slam dunk gulity verdict. Without the booze it get to be more of a challenge to get a jury to find her guilty. Littlefield left the scene, and there was plenty of evidence pointing to his intoxication. This really doesn't sit well with a jury. Sure she was a visible anti-speed limit cursader and that will work against her. I still think it depends on the facts of the case.

The jury will not be boaters. If the evidence comes out that she was traveling 25 mph and the new speed limit is 25 mph that will sway the jury. Sure we all know from driver's ed that you can't do the posted limit in bad weather, but we also all know from our everyday lives that most speed limits are set too low. We also have heard conflicting evidence on how bad the visibilty was. Non-boaters have no idea how dangerous it is to drive a boat fast in those conditions. Now if the speed evidence points to a much faster speeds, then the scale tips the other way.

We will just have to watch and see. I'm not saying that she is innocent, just that a jury may not convict her.

As usual, Skip is the voice of reason.

In the last 30 years I have been unlucky enough to know 3 people killed by operators under the influence in 3 separate incidents (not accidents). Two of them were my employees. I no longer have any compassion, understanding or forgiveness for people that drink and drive.

If reading a thread like this makes just one person think twice, then the thread has value.

I believe there is a boating law that if you are convicted for a violation and the state can prove that any amount of alcohol was involved,( judgment does not need to be impaired or over the limit). You can be in violation of consuming while operating. I recall you can consume alcohol (under the limit)while operating but you cannot be in any boating violation and consuming. What the violation is called I do not remember.

2cents

I would agree that 25 is safe if you have unimpaired visibility and know you are in a safe position to be going at that speed. I have several times at night
found myself uncertain of my position or with reduced visibility and I slowed to minimum speed or stopped. At that point 25 was not a safe speed. There is no absolute safe speed. It depends on the conditions and by descriptions that night it was foggy and visibility was limited. I have to believe she couldn't see the island because if she had she would have turned. A reasonable person would have stopped or slowed once visibility was limited.

I also think we are splitting semantic hairs over whether to call this an accident. One definition of an accident is "an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance". This event seems to qualify. However there are plenty of legal definitions of responsibility for damage or death as a result of such an accident. The law simply assigns a different level of consequence compared to damages or death caused with intent. People are held responsible and punished for accidents all the time and what she is charged with is only one example of such a law.

Here's a less charged example. If you hired a person to clear trees on your property and he dropped one on your house thereby damaging it wouldn't you expect him to pay for fixing the damage. Surely it was an "accident" but you would be legally entitled to compensation.

I had previously given an example of sliding on glare ice. I had such an accident but was fortunate enough not to kill anyone. I did damage someone's property and guess what, I had to pay for it. I was going only about 15 MPH, had snow tires, have anti-lock brakes, and there was absolutely nothing I could do to control the car. I got no ticket but I was still responsible.

Obviously those were civil rather than criminal examples but it establishes the principal of responsibility for accidental damage. For some accidents, such as negligent homicide, a criminal penalty is attached as well.

There is nothing unfair about her prosecution. Any one of us would be and should be subject to the same treatment. She has a chance to defend herself in the court and we'll see what the result is.

BI,

Great post!

The only value that comes out of these incidents is awakening those that think it will only happen to someone else. We all need to be very careful out there, and respect all of the current laws.

R2B

I understood what you meant Dave. I've had a couple of those "experiences" which my mind thought long and hard about later on. It changed my view of things. I'm still Free Spirit, but I'm also regarded as one of the more cautious pilots out on the water. At least I hope I am.

Sometimes it takes a close call, or just a modest shake-up to get people to realize what's going on. I'm certainly not anal about safety and wearing swim caps in the water to fend off boats. But I take my responsibility as skipper very seriously. This year, I'm actually briefing newbies that come aboard.

Deja Vu Jeff. I once found myself heading towards a land mass and questioning myself as to why I didn't think it was the right way. I made a flimsy excuse to my passengers about a bug in my eye, then slowed to a stop.


I go too slow when it's less than perfect out at night, even in the daytime. But sometimes it's inevitable that you make mistakes. Some mistakes hurt worse than others. When others are in my boat, I'm pretty anal about it.

so dave if you are second guessing some of your prior actions you are admitting that you too make mistakes, we all do. Lets let the professionals choose her fate, give it a rest.

C'mon Seadoo
 

You are the the one who could have let this thread fall down on the forum, instead of posting a comment like that.

We have all made mistakes in our life, but few if any of us have driven a boat into an island resulting in a fatality. It is true that her fate will be decided in a court of law and she will be judged by a jury of her peers, however, this is a forum and people are entitled and encouraged to post their thoughts. Our esteemed webmaster is the arbitrar of what can be posted here.

Bear Islander a Dope
 

You're already the prosecutor, jury and judge by posting this DUMB post? Tell me honestly, that YOU or one in your FAMILY has NEVER opperated a motor vehicle (i.e automobile, boat, motorcycle, etc. etc.) under the influence of ANY substance where they MAY HAVE jeopordized others? You are a DOPE!

Are you kidding? The vast, vast, majority of this society have not.

Tank,

Please see post #485 in this thread.

Some people have lost friends and family to people trying to operate while under the influence. Those that have lost loved ones feel the hurt for the rest of their lives.

Others believe that operating under is OK as long as they do not get caught.

Operating under is very wrong. It is also wrong to believe it is OK to do this. This is completely unacceptable in my mind.

Regarding the incident that is the subject of this thread, please let the legal process work. Let the evidence, the judge and the jury do their jobs.

R2B

Resident2B
I'm not condoning driving while under the influence! I too have had friends injured and or killed by OUI operators. BUT, many folks here on this forum have already convicting this young woman before the trial and EVIDENCE has even been presented to convict her? The Blizzard family also ha sto endure this tradegy!!! Yes, I agree let the judge and jury do their jobs! But please don't portray that I condone operating under the influence!

A very long time ago, I tried to make a point about agendas and facts with another poster. He said, and I quote,

2BD
"It was cloudy, but the visibility after midnight was fine for me. It was dark, but like it's always dark after midnight. Laconia Airport had three miles of visibility. The moon was full (Gibbous moon), and was overhead at 2AM. Posters at the BoaterEd.com forum are being very critical of operating this boat in fog. Those who witnessed conditions at the time know better.
"

Those who are seasoned, responsible boaters, will mostly agree that the two safest ways to handle poor visibility due to rain and/or fog are to a) don't go out on the water if possible, and b) slow down and keep a very vigilant lookout.

That was back in the bad old days of the SL debates. Many of us that didn't support the new law were swift to point out the conditions and other possible problems leading up to a horrific tragedy on the water. Many that did support the law did likewise. A small and quite vocal minority that only had a pro SL agenda, saw their agenda becoming meaningless. If pro SL folks were shown to be experienced boaters that cared about safety, and aware and respectful of conditions, and the perils of boating under the influence, they felt their agenda would be diminished.

Regardless of all the BS, we move on. As DaveR stated eloquently, if tragedies like this stick in our minds, and make us even more diligent in our own experiences, the discussions were all worth it. I know I think about things like this whenever I'm out on the water, and I know I'm not immune from either conditions or just flat out mistakes. There's been some great wisdom shared on these boards, and I think I'm not alone in thanking Don for handling it all in a respectful and mature manner.

And with that, I wish everyone out there a happy and safe boating season.

Attempts to suppress key evidence continue
 

Channel 9 (WMUR-TV) is reporting this morning that Blizzard's defense team continue to argue to have the results of the blood sampling suppressed. The State is arguing that these tests, when revealed, will show the defendant was impaired at the time of the collision.

Most likely there will be some type of on-line report to be referenced later this morning.

Court Date
 

Does anyone know the specific court date & location? Will the public be able to view the proceedings?

Yes, I can tell you honestly that neither I nor any member of my family has ever operated a vehicle under the influence of any substance. In our family it simply is not done. PERIOD!

I guess, from you comment, operating under the influence is not uncommon with you. That makes you the dope. Or on dope!

Skip-

If the defense were to prevail, could it be construed that this statement would taint the jury pool? Are we looking at a change of venue next?

Tainted jury pool
 

No...this is standard legal wrangling.

While we readers and posters here are keenly aware of the situation, there are plently of folks within the jurisdiction of the Belknap Superior Court that have not followed nor shown any interest in this case.

However, the defendant's high profile coupled with the family's financial resources will most likely prolong this trial, as most defendants do not have the same type of legal resources as this one does.


Unfortunate as it is, in too many cases there truly are two types of justice. Justice for those with financial resources, and streamlined justice for those without. That is truly not the case in many instances, but begs that we all keep a close eye on this particular trial as it winds it way through the Halls of Justice.

As for another question posed, unless a negotiated plea is reached the trial will be posted and open to the public. I do not believe an actual trail date has been set yet, but I may have missed it. Either way I am sure the details of any upcoming trial will be in the media and posted here well before it takes place.

Absolute statements are always risky for a human being to declare.

Never a cup o’ joe for the ride? An over the counter cold tablet? Too much sun on a hot summer day? An unfinished agrument, say on speed limits? Aren’t we are always under the influence of something, substance, or emotion. Those influences are what cause accidents and why there are civil consequences, the question is, for courts of law, is it criminal in each specific instance.

If you can accurately speak with such certainty, you are a far better human being than I. Or maybe just years and years younger!!:laugh:

sentence
 

Skip, say someone were facing a 7-15 year sentence if found guilty and they were to plead quilty before trail, what (in your opinion) would the sentence be? I know all cases are different but just an educated guess.

Too many variables to speculate
 

Fair question but it would have to be on a case-by-case basis to even begin to speculate on an issue such as that.

As for the case before us, jury selection re: State v. Erica Blizzard is scheduled to begin in the Belknap Superior Court on May 26.

I would also think that a guilty plea might have some unwanted consequences regarding the almost inevitable civil suits which will follow the criminal trial.

I understand,the reason I asked was a similar case I'm watching on a vehicle (little off topic) but thank you both

LACONIA, N.H. -- Jury selection for a Gilford, N.H., woman charged in the Lake Winnipesaukee boating death of her friend has been scheduled for May 26.

Erica Blizzard, 35, of Laconia, has been charged with negligent homicide and aggravated driving while intoxicated. Stephanie Beaudoin, 34, of Meredith, N.H., was killed in the crash last Father's Day. Blizzard and passenger Nicole Shinopolous, of Burlington, Mass., were injured.

The Citizen reported that Blizzard's lawyer is arguing that the results of his client's blood test should be thrown out. James Moir said a Marine Patrol affidavit failed to show probable cause that the test results from the blood samples would prove intoxication.

Moir said the affidavit fails to state how much the women drank and when, where some beer cans were found or how they relate to the crash or the driver.
http://www.wmur.com/news/19239882/detail.html

I would hope that the State has a much better argument than that the evidence shows impairment. For this consideration it doesn't matter what the evidence SHOWS, it matters that it was obtained legally. Only if was obtained legally does it matter what the evidence is. Since the State didn't address the LEGALITY of obtaining the blood I would speculate they are in trouble on this issue.

I would also note the specific word used by the State, "impaired". This is a BAC of around .05 - .07 which most women hit after one or two drinks. Since the State didn't use the term intoxicated (or similar) I would speculate that the BAC was under .08 (legal intoxication). If this is the case I would think the more serious charge of negligence while being intoxicated will be very difficult to get a conviction on. This is all based on the State using precise language, which I would expect that they would.

I visited a website that stated that "impairment begins with the first drink" and this is obviously true. However, it is not a practical judgment to say that someone who has had one drink is under the influence. Possibly not even two drinks over a period of a couple of hours. With respect to BI and others I don't know many people who go out to dinner and don't have at least one drink, possibly two and I am NOT a party person nor are most people I know.

If the BAC gets thrown out completely it's going to weaken that aspect of the second negligence charge as well. As I have said before I think it almost impossible to evade a general conviction on boating negligence of some type but I am getting the feel that alcohol will not be a major legal factor in that negligence.

"The Citizen reported that Blizzard's lawyer is arguing that the results of his client's blood test should be thrown out. James Moir said a Marine Patrol affidavit failed to show probable cause that the test results from the blood samples would prove intoxication."

Doesn't running straight into an island at high rate of speed provide enough probable cause to conduct a blood test to check for intoxication and allow the evidence to be entered into the case?

The problem is in who collects the blood and for what purpose.

If an officer at the scene or at the hospital ordered the blood be drawn no warrant would have been needed because a vehicle accident happened and someone was killed. I believe the law actually says blood for BAC should be collected from all people involved in the accident. This seems NOT to have happened.

Later, after enough time had passed that it would have been pointless to draw a BAC, the police went to the hospital to compel that blood drawn there (for medical purposes) be used to obtain a BAC. This DOES require a warrant and for the warrant to be granted probable cause needed to be shown that intoxication was likely. It seems that the warrant conveniently left out part of the passenger's testimony that they had not drank very much and that Erica did NOT seem impaired. Providing only damning testimony and leaving off exonerating testimony is not a good thing to do and jeopardizes the validity of the warrant and that is why it is being challenged.

I had written about this on this thread before about the differences between blood being drawn under the orders of an officer vs. blood drawn by a hospital and then compelled as evidence. The first is a much stronger, cleaner evidence and here we see example of this.

Of course it's up to the court to decide if the warrant was defective. My gut says it was. We'll see.

Boat Accident
 

Thanks for the clarity.... Good information to think about!

I'll second the thanks for the clarification.

And that, folks, is why you get the best lawyer money can buy.

At this point if I were the defendant
 

I would plead guity. As A forum member and reading everything and being unbiased,if I were the defendant at this point I would save myself and my family the cost of a lawyer. I,in my heart of hearts, believe she was drinking and/or impaired. Probably the girls with her were having a good time and never thought anything would happen to them. As God would have it, it didn't turn out that way. I do believe the driver of the boat, Erica Blizzard, is responbible for the the death of her friend. IMO

Blood tests admissable.....
 

A Superior Court judge has found that the NHMP did indeed have probable cause in drawing Blizzard's blood sample and the evidence will be admissable in her trial. A short story can be found HERE with a full story to follow in the Citizen later in the day.

This just in...
 

Fifty years ago, guilty pleas were not unusual. Today, the system will take all your money first and drag the case through the courts until the jury is left with little to base their decision upon.

Picking a jury is scheduled for later this month. In most jurisdictions, such dates for picking a jury are "throw-away dates".

The "cost of a lawyer" could be a year or two longer in the slammer. (Or acquittal altogether on a technicality).

'Looks like the judge saw it your way and cited "exigencies":

ETA:
To save some time, ALL subsequent April links are to the same article as the above.

More from the above account:

More important details...
 

According to this FULL STORY now appearing on the Citizen, that is the exact same conclusion the Judge came to in determining probable cause existed to obtain the blood.

Also, in new details emerging, the blood seized late the next day was not the only sample obtained. At least six samples were seized including one just two hours after the collision while Blizzard was still at LRGH. Now, by having a string of samples taken at varying times after the accident the State can clearly use the sampling data to establish an extremely accurate BAC at the time of the collsion.

As this story reveals more and more of the night in question it appears to me that the State is building an extremely strong case.

Trial pre-hearings are scheduled to begin next Wednesday.

This is why, despite all the speculation we do here, you need to wait for the trial for ALL the information to be brought forward.

Don't know about the position of the controls being an indication of anything. She was said to be slumped over the controls when found, and after that impact, they might possibly have been moved in erratic directions. The passenger that survived stated a speed of 25 to 30.

News stories like these have been making the rounds all over the nation. Let's hope they can prevent similar incidents.