I agree about the controls and the steering angle. They could have been anywhere before impact. I don't see how it would be relevant anyway. There is no doubt she hit this Island and there is no doubt she was't aiming for it on purpose.

The outdrives hitting on the bottom could alter the angle of steering and I doubt she would put one engine in reverse on purpose...

Throttle and other miniscule details....
 

Every detail of the vessel, including full inspection (with photographs) of every conceivable mechanical part appear to have been meticulously documented by the investigators. This is standard in a criminal investigation. If anything were omitted then the defense would try to raise some suspicion that the State may have been hiding some intricate piece of evidence that would exonerate their client.

The original position of the controls discovered at the scene of the crime are important details as to their operational capability as determined later during further forensic analysis. Remember, to assign maximum culpability to Blizzard the State will need to show there was no mechanical issues that contributed to this deadly collision.

As this case unfolds over the next several weeks it appears that the State, in my opinion, has learned some valuable lessons from the Littlefield crime and done an excellent job in gathering the pertinent evidence necessary to pursue their criminal charges against Blizzard. The admission of the blood evidence, especially since we now know it was obtained in a very timely manner, is a tremendous victory for the prosecution.

It will be very interesting watching the legal wrangling that will ensue the next several months, as this will be a closely watched and highly publicized trial.

The outdrives hitting on the bottom could alter the angle of steering and I doubt she would put one engine in reverse on purpose...

Isn't it possible that she saw the island at the last second and tried to put it
full throttle in reverse but was able to grab one of them or felt the prop hit
bottom and tried to do the same thing.

Speculation of course. In any case it shouldn't have happened.

Dave M

And the rest of the story
 

And here's a link to the aforementioned full story.

Seems Like a Pretty Good Job
 

Just from reading the stories, and of course, Skip's great interpretation, I'd have to say from my perspective it looks like the MP and other authorities did a pretty good job. For a case of this kind, and the issues and the people involved, it looks like they covered their bases carefully.

Of course there will be more details to come out this year. But looking back since it happened, I think many here were pretty much on target with the general nature of the discussion. More importantly, many of us were on target with what is required for safety in boating.

On Target
 

For more than a decade, scientists have already known about the toll alcohol takes on boaters. :cool:

Questions:
Weren't each of the three aboard this boat 34 years of age? :eek:

Does Common Sense take a break between the ages of 25 and 34? :confused:

Do other Winnipesaukee-users in this age group ignore their automobile seatbelt usage also? :rolleye2:

Common sense isn't all that common when viewing the big picture. Those of us that think we have common sense, pretty much knew what the causes of this tragedy were. Not that many choices really. It's a little late in these threads to bring it all back. Just reading the Conclusions part of the study you posted should be enough to get you back on track.

After the accident we were told to keep quiet and not speculate because it was all too new. And I agreed.

Now it is to LATE to talk about it?




It will never be to LATE to learn from a tragedy like this.

I fully agree BI. I didn't mean it that way at all, (decided not even to mention what I meant. Don's a gracious host. Many know what I meant). It's always important to discuss what can happen in the real world, regardless of circumstances. All we can do as boaters is be cautious, and try to learn from mistakes like these.

Accidents can and do happen, even when people are trying to be cautious. I'm sure everyone has an occasional lapse or two, and we all have to remain as diligent as possible.

In that spirit, I'd recommend the following. How about a safe boating thread? It could contain a helpful series of navigation posts, broken out however it evolves. Perhaps a more static discussion of rules and regs, dos and don'ts.

Some that is pretty fluent and experienced at chart/GPS integration could benefit newbies as well as old timers.

I just thought that a constructive section could be erected.

she is toast and should serve time for being wasted and taking the life of another.... Lots of time!! The fact that she lawyer ed up and tried to block key evidence is a sign of guilt. Its pathetic really..

Blizzard gets trial delayed for five months
 

After a pre-trial hearing yesterday, Blizzard has been succesful in obtaining a five month delay for the start of the trial, moving it from May until at least October. She is also having her attorney file a number of motions to once again throw out the blood tests which would, as the State has claimed, show she was impaired at the time when she struck the island.

The full story can be read HERE in this morning's Citizen.

I think they will eventually get her
 

But she has the best defense that money can buy..... at what cost to the taxpayers???

That is an excellent point, all of this is costing the tax payers a fortune.

We have the best legal system in the world, but obviously this case shows some of its imperfections. Blizzard drove her boat into an island at a high rate of speed and killed someone. If that isn't reason enough for law enforcement to get blood samples without a warrant I'm not sure what is.

Money talks (or in this case delays)....
 

Excellent point.

And yes, while we do have the best system in the world, sadly there are two tiers of justice in this country. One for those with money, and another for those without.

The delays, constant frivolous motions coupled with attempts to garner pity for the defendant are all made possible by the amount of money you have to attempt to delay or de-rail the inevitable.

To me it is also great testament to the true character of the defendant.

And that's my editorializing for the day.....;)

Pathetic? Who's being pathetic here?
 

Pathetic is people who that have made judgements without knowing facts. She was wasted? The one person that would know better than any of you was on the boat and said she only had a few and in her opinion Erica was not impaired at all.

The same onboard witness said they were traveling at appr. 25 mph. This is a high rate of speed?

Stephanie was a friend of mine so I feel the pain of losing her but some of you posting here are way out of line.

I have no idea what the reality of the situation was on that fateful morning, and hope never to be in the same position myself. I think it's just wisdom on the part of the lawyers to get the trial postponed until after summer. They probably feared a circus of publicity, with the new law and the beginning of summer happening at the same time. BUT, I note in the article that she is scheduled to have more surgery in early July. So I'll leave that up to the judge's discretion that the continuance made sense.

Without knowing the facts, I'd just have to rely on my gut feelings as to the continued attempts to get the results ruled inadmissible. Too many factors involved. If the results were a .01 it would be a negative, obviously a zero would be ideal. Given their attempts, it's obviously not a zero. A big negative regardless of the actual level.

Sure, it would be nice for all involved in the case to sit down and hear the truth. The consequences can be scary, and with enough resources, sometimes there are none. I don't know any of the people involved, nor their character or personal behaviors. I'd like to think that if such a thing happened while I was skipper, I'd man up and just tell the story. Especially so given the relationships of those involved. I hope I never will know what I'd do, and hope nobody else does either.

But the circumstance surrounding an accident in bad weather which involves driving onto an island demands answers. The best case scenario is that someone screwed up, went off course and juts plain blew it. There are a lot of different scenarios between that and what anyone would consider the worst case for the skipper. Only those on board really know what went down.

I'm not a legal mind by any means. But my personal judgment on the warrant and the samples is this. I believe the Judge did good by pointing out that the circumstances gave probable cause to obtain them. In addition, I cannot fathom a legal system working the way her lawyer stated it does. That meaning, a Judge would presumably not authorize a warrant to obtain the samples if her best friend states she did not "appear" under the influence, and just took her statements at face value. If the system worked that way, cases would never be prosecuted.

What, best system in the world?
 

I am a former veteran and I love my country to death, but I wouldn't be so quick to label our legal system as the best in the world. I'll refrain from giving any examples as I don't want to go off subject (and open up a can of worms), but I'm sure everyone can think of 50 bad examples.

Anyway, my condolences to all those impacted by this tragedy.

I have no personal connection to any of the parties involved, but I can't help from being upset at the seemingly "blood thirsty" feelings on behalf of some. What personal gain does anyone get from the defendant's conviction or for that matter the penalty that may be imposed. There has been suffering going on and whatever the potential penalty received is, no matter how severe, it will pale in comparison to the pain of knowing that you have caused the death of a friend.

I second that Pineedles. I have been following this thread since the beginning. Never really had much to say or add. But I agree wholeheartedly. Most are not "blood thirsty," but few are. The people involved in this TRADGEDY are tormented enough. I was taught not to "spit up in the air." Have some class.

maybe yes, maybe no
 

Well guys, I'm not sure where to fall on this one. While I am not "blood thirsty", I do find some things troublesome.
First of all, I just don't think, at this point, it is speculation to say her actions caused the death of another person. This seems obvious.
Secondly, she was most likely under the influence during these actions. This seems clear because of the motions to suppress the blood sample evidence. (I don't think you would try to suppress evidence that worked in your favor)

We are now a year after the fact (or very close anyway) and now learn her attorney has made a successful attempt to push the trial back another 6 months. Only her $$$$ (or family's $$$) and sharp attorneys are delaying justice. Would the same be true if blue collar "work a day" Joe, who could not pay for a good defense, crashed his boat and killed a fishing buddy??? I say no, no, a thousand times no.
I'm sorry, but I find her attempt to suppress the blood sample evidence, based on the fact that MP did not have probable cause, absolutely shameful. She drove a speed boat into an island. Enough said. Probable cause??? Damn right!
I honestly feel bad for all involved. Really. The girls and their families. And yes, Erica, I'm sure, is already paying the penalty and finding it difficult to live everyday life.
But I've read enough about delays and suppressing legit evidence. I say, it is time to face the music.
Just my thoughts....

what if
 

What if for some legal reason they toss out the blood test and/or she was not drunk, is she still facing jail time for a different charge?

I understand alchohol makes any punishment far more extensive, but is it the differnce between prison time and no prison time?

Maybe it's right?
 

Nobody seems to care about the Why in the delay. The article clearly states that she is due for another surgery in early July. It would only make sense to delay a trial that may very well last through and past that time period.

Not my opinion, just the whole point for the delay.

And just to complete the thought
 

Let me play contrarian. What if the BAC evidence says she was at 0.025. While not meeting the legal definition for being "intoxicated" the prosecutor might argue that she was impaired (which is the term bandied about in the story). The defense now has to defuse a hot button issue and I suspect any jury is predisposed to be more negative when alcohol is involved. So the, well a, question becomes how impaired was she and then did this impairment even factor into the incident. I know people who get stupid after a couple of drinks and others who aren't overly affected. Imagine a case where you have 2 beers with lunch and then as you leave the parking lot you are hit by another car. The state decides to prosecute you for driving impaired (in addition to whatever else happens to the other guy). You claim it was only 2 beers ! The state claims that you might have avoided the other car except for the alcohol and besides you were still "impaired". What would you want your attorney to do ?

As for hitting the island I wonder when does it become a crime and when is it an accident ? Some years ago an ederly man hit Rattlesnake I (very low speed) and broke some bones IIRC. Pretend it had been a broken neck and not his. I think the stated cause was that a neighbor had turned on some lights which the boater had confused for his own and thus he came into the wrong part of the island. So was this an accident or was his speed excessive for the situation, resulting in hitting the island with (in our newly revised scenario) severe injuries (or a death is you care to equalize the 2 situations) ? No matter what the skipper screwed up and is culpable but is he/she guilty of a crime ?

In this case I just don't know enough to make an informed judgement. If the rain and/or fog had knocked visibilty down enough then she shouldn't have been on plane. I lean in that direction. But I don't know what the conditions were there and then. I know that 3 hours earlier the cloud cover was hovering over the lake making it dark but there wasn't a problem seeing, at lake level, up Alton Bay.

If I've understood her course that night (and I'm not sure I do, I think she was running the slot between Diamond and Rattlesnake coming from Wolfeboro) then I find it hard to understand how she misjudged her position relative to the NW end of Rattlesnake so much as to hit Diamond I. FL 25 is there to help. Did she not see it ? If so why not ? Did she just misjudge the turn needed to clear Diamond or did she see some lights on shore and mistakenly think she was in the clear when she wasn't. Was she paying attention at the helm or gabbing it up with her friends ? Did any alcohol in her affect any of her abilities or would the same thing have happened if she hadn't touched a drop ?

I just don't know enough to make a call.

25MPH is a High rate of speed in many circumstances. I think the facts speak for themselves.

Just an FYI:

That was not her course. She was coming from the Weirs area (Penelton Beach) heading SE. She was trying to go between Diamond and the mainland (nears Ames Farm) and was heading to her camp on Sleeper Island. She hit the very southwestern tip of Diamond.

Mee-n-Mac -- As I understand it her course was NOT what you describe.

My understanding: Erica left Wolfboro and boated to her father's house to play a Fathers Day prank with pictures on his front lawn at Pendleton Shores. From there she left and headed to to friends house (where I believe she was staying) on (or near) Sleeper Island. Thus if you mentally follow her course that would take her from her fathers house -- for sake of argument call it the Govenors Isl Bridge -- eithor North or South of the Witches (it doesn't matter), North of Locke Island and then almost a straight line (keeping Diamond & Rattlesnake to the North) to Sleeper. She obviously did not have her bearings (or conditions pervailed) where she was too far "left" of course.

Other than clearing THAT up, I have no intent of being sucked into this thread.

If Erica's pain and suffering is enough to elude legal ramifications, then she should save her parents, the parents of the deceased and the state the time and money that would be involved.

While she killed someone, her quality of life has changed forever from what I have read. Could she be better off under house arrest for a period of time, be made to teach boater safety courses with an emphasis on the affects of alcohol and perform community service? The community service could encompass her talking with students at local schools and such about her decisions and the impact they had.

Just some thoughts to what I believe is going to be a long drawn out trial with a lot of $$$ spent that could be put to better use!

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty people. We still don't know the whole story and I still have a problem with the state's definition of impaired. The speculation and down right lynch mob mentality of some on this list make me wonder if this lady will ever get a fair trial......

Lets cut through the fog here! The state is charging her with alternate counts of negligent homicide; that she was either under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the crash or that she failed to keep a proper lookout. She is also charged with one count of aggravated driving while intoxicated. The fact that she is pushing back and trying to kick out the evidence is speaking volumes, that is what I am reading from all of this. Remember just my opinion......Prosecution, has witness and blood evidence that seems to prove their case I will assume.

If she was not impaired, and not drinking or drunk, I would assume that she would not have a problem with presenting the results. Lets hope that judgment is fair and balanced. If the evidence that is about to be presented shows no impairment, then I stand correct and will own it. However, if shows negligence I think the maximum sentence should be warranted. I lost a brother to a drunk driver, so pathetic as my comments my seem to you, I have little tolerance for such actions!

Thanks
 

Thanks for the correction ! That makes more sense now and paints a somewhat different picture.

Any way you slice this accident, it's a huge tragedy for a whole bunch of people....for everyone except the defense attorney.....and even he probably regrets it even as he keeps track of his billable hours.

As you may or may not know, there was a skilled medical surgeon at the smashed up Formula boat, attending to the victims, at 2am, out by Diamond Island, on that rainy & stormy night, almost immediately after it occurred. Now, that's a very fortunate occurance, all things considered.

Having him there was definately a piece of good luck. Got to wonder if his actions made the difference between one dead or possibly two dead? If he were not there at the scene, considering the severity of her injury, what would be different today?

Judge and Jury
 

Another Judge and Jury heard from? Why don't you wait for the facts Judge Judy!!!

too long
 

While I think his/her post was a bit harsh... "...lots of time" etc.,
I think it completely reasonable for people to be losing patience waiting for this situation to draw to a close. Close to a year now (which indeed seems about right) but now another 5 months. Ok, yeah, another surgery...fine.
And then what about in 5 months...what then?
What bothers me more than anything, really, is this: The defense taking a postion that the MP did not have probable cause to collect a blood sample. Just baffling...she hit an island, in the middle of the night, at 20/25 MPH, and there were beer cans found on the scene....if this in not probable cause, I'd like someone (maybe Skip) to explain what is.

They have to do something to bide the time, and earn a bit more. Defense attorneys often have a huge job to do in the wake of a mountain of evidence. I would think they'd start with the laws governing the gathering and acceptability of evidence, and they apparently have. It's a nasty case all around, and I doubt she'll come out smelling like a rose regardless of the outcome.

My own personal opinion is simply based on what everyone outside the case knows. Given that, I'd say they not only had probably cause to gather the samples, but would have been negligent had they not done so. It is sad to see some cases where insurmountable evidence is thrown out due to improper procedures being used. I'm not the Judge, and I certainly don't have the information they do.

It's a sad case all around for everyone, and I'd be happy I'd be delighted to never read about another on remotely similar to it. But sadly, every year there are several like it. While the percentage of boating accidents and/or fatalities is very, very low given the number of boats in the country, incidents like this really hurt the most. She has a family and friends, and it was Father's Day weekend, that's what I remember the most.

Negligent homicide is a class B felony and the penalty could be up to 7 years in prison. Negligent homicide that occurs while operating a vehicle or boat while under the influence of alcohol or drugs is a class A felony and the penalty could be up to 15 years in prison

Luck...?
 

This site noted that the doctor received a merit citation for his "above the call of duty" actions that early morning.

Actually, "good luck" would extend to the lake's level in June: Another foot lower, and any surviving boaters would have been much worse off, even though they were in a 9-ton boat.

Another foot higher (or had a dock been there) would have resulted in a wooden lakefront cottage becoming part of the crash scene. :(

Edited to add:

Those wondering about the amount of night vision needed for this time of the year, may want to look outside now that nearly a year has passed. For no reason at all, I woke up at 2:32AM and glanced outside (in this third day—and night—of this drizzly rain spell we're having). I had no difficulty seeing branches silhouetted against a dim cloudy sky.

From now on, there will be an increasing amount of light until mid-June.

The good doctor sure went out of his way on that awful night, and he most likely did save someone from further injuries, possibly death.

Imagine the seriousness of the accident if the boat had been a small bowrider at cruising speed. Not much left of it I suspect.

She has a wright to put up a strong defense. Don't be mad that she is doing so. Know that if she is found guilty that the evidece must have been strong and that the jury got it correct. Contraty to what another poster earlier said I do beleive that this is the best system that is out there. I certainly have not seen better. Not perfect and can be frustrating but it is about as good as it gets.

taking responsibility...
 

Several years ago when my kids were getting their drivers licenses we had a long talk about responsibility… I made it very clear to them that if they did something stupid behind the wheel that resulted in an accident or arrest (including drinking, speeding, texting, etc), they would have to take responsibility for their own actions and I would not hire a high priced attorney, make excuses for them, etc. I suggested that if anything like that ever happened, they should stand before the judge, explain what happened, plead guilty, accept the punishment, and most importantly learn from their mistake. There were plenty of news articles I could show them about drinking and driving with deadly consequences, only to be followed by articles where the defendant “hired the best lawyer money could buy”, and were able to have key evidence tossed out and the defendant walked. I assured them that the only lawyer they would have would be what they could afford on their own earnings or a public defender.

So of course it did happen, luckily with no injuries or lasting damage… and my son represented himself in court, pled guilty, performed his community service, and biked to work for 30 days. I’m sure he was thinking he had the worst parents in the world, parents of his friends made calls and got their kids off scot-free… However I’m still proud of the way he handled it and believe that it had a positive affect on him in the long run.

There is a lot of discussion on this forum about laws enacted in NH and the fact it is becoming a “nanny state” and that people need to take responsibility for their own actions. It seems like most laws are not written for the masses, but for the few exceptions. Most people exercise good judgment, are cognizant of their affect on their fellow humans, and generally behave in what is expected in a civilized society.

Here is a perfect example of someone that is hiding behind their lawyer, trying every tactic in the book for dismissal or delay, and not coming forward and taking responsibility for their own actions. This case will be undoubtedly be used for reasoning why more laws needed to be enacted – the same way the Littlefield one was… it is unfortunate for everyone…

Just my thoughts… PIG

That was a great post.

I might add that in Littlefield, many others were party to the crime by letting him leave the dock. He apparently just hid until later in that case? But I'm not sure what laws would have to be added or changed to help out. He came up from behind another boat and essentially ran over them. He wasn't going some crazy speed, he was impaired.

The second case involves some people out on a very foggy/rainy whatever night, early in the wee hours. They hit a wall in front of an island.

I agree with you on the first case. For the second case that happened last summer, not enough information to go on yet. We pretty much know, but trying to be somewhat fair.