Is anyone Local ...sitting in on the trial..? NB

Tide change?
 

This trial will take its own course. BWI levels now or old DWI percentages, reasonable or unreasonable speed, who was the Cappy or not, may or may not be brought before the jury.

As an example for all to see, it will be an eye opener hopefully!

Slowly but surely we are being shown that one's own behavior must be accounted for. The age of "It's not my fault" will hopefully be shown to be an unacceptable reason for unacceptable behavior. I am not convicting anyone with this statement, only saying that there was fault in this incident, and someone needs to take the responsibilty. Who do you think is responsible?

Hello, OJ.

My point is that a person could be adjudged NOT GUILTY of a crime, yet still be found substantially liable in tort.

Nothing hurts the rich like taking away their money: the best punishment.

Don't just settle for the insurance money: that is painless.

Sieze their assets, go for the jugular.

Let's just hope the claimants don't blow the statute of limitations.

No, I'm not angling for the job: I'm a divorce lawyer (although in my field have an affinity for the jugular).

"Help Is on The Way"...
 

:look: (with apologies to Sen. John Edwards) :o

From the Concord Monitor:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...NTPAGE/3100348

I have seen the crash site and the Verticle Wall the boat hit. If she had been maybe 30 yards more to the right, she would have cruised right by without a scratch in over 30 feet of water.

Anybody here that has Not hit a rock or dinged a prop at one time or another....in broad daylight and stone sober..??? Just wondering.

It's kinda like.."He Who has Not Sinned ......."etc. NB

The defense's expert witness from JurisPro Expert Witness Directory's web site. http://www.jurispro.com/CaptainRobertCronin He is supposed to be testifying today.

Northeast Watercraft Reconstruction Specialists investigates and reconstructs pleasure craft, personal watercraft and near coastal commercial collisions. These are the types of vessels the staff at NeWARS operate and are experts in and around. This allows NeWARS to provide the level of expertise expected in a watercraft reconstruction investigation.
The NeWARS professional's has over thirty-five years of law enforcement experience and equivalent sea time, backed by a skilled technical staff that can investigate, analyze and reconstruct a watercraft collision and present the findings in court.
Founder and lead investigator Robert J. Cronin is a USCG licensed Master with over twent-five years of full time law enforcement experience. Mr. Cronin has investigated over 700 collisions of various types ranging from industrial vehicle fatalities to his specialty of watercraft collision investigaton. Mr. Cronin is also a watercraft accident reconstruction training facilitor and instructor.
NeWARS is a Newburyport MA based company and is available to travel as required.
Come visit us at WWW.newars.com or Email Captain Robert Cronin at specialist@newars.com


Resume: http://www.jurispro.com/files/docume...912-resume.pdf

Oh come on!
 

Comparing what happened here to dinging your prop? Really? So we should think about other drunk drivers the same way? After all, who hasn't had a fender bender when totally sober in broad daylight? So when a drunk mangles their car on a dark rainy night and kills a passenger, in your apologist view, that's no big deal and not a crime? Could happen to any of us so why blame them. Right? I wonder if you'd feel the same way if a drunk killed someone in your family. Just wondering.

This is not at all like "He who has not sinned..". I suspect that the vast majority of fatal accidents could have benefited by someone being 30 yards to the right.

I have dinged quite a few props in 27 years on the lake but they were ALL at headway speed trying to get in or out of shallow water. What we are talking about here is hitting an ISLAND at a pretty good speed. Not clipping a submerged rock. Apples and Oranges.

Certainly I have not always been perfect piloting my boat...but tragic events such as we are discussing do serve to remind us the tremendous responsiblity we assume when we get behind the wheel...boat or car. Terrible things can happen to anybody, all we can do is to mitigate risk. Not drinking and driving, paying attention to weather conditions, etc are ways to minimize the chances that tragic events can occur. Our actions do have consequences.

Fair?
 

Of course, we could go back to the day before yesterday, when it wasn’t unheard of for a drunk driver to face reduced criminal charges, or no charges at all, in the death or injury of another person, precisely because he was drunk. But I certainly don’t want to go back to that.

And as for a .12 BAC, if I’m driving on Moultonborough Neck Road, or some similar two-lane, twisting, turning road, late at night and I spy the headlights of another vehicle driving toward me, I know that I’d prefer that person was sober, regardless of whether he thinks that .12 will not lead to significant impairment. The same goes for waterways.

Let this topic rest until the story is told
 

Folks, everyone is throwing out conjectures and statements here. What we all have to understand and realize is that everything is based on circumstances and the facts behind them. If Ms. Blizzard is convicted then the facts behind the circumstances that lead to the accident that night will show, she was negligent. Is she is not guilty then the facts behind the circumstances that lead to the accident that night will show that she was not negligent. Either way what we really need to do right now is wait and see what all the facts are. Through following the case in the media we should be able to do that. But lets not argue over weather someone is drunk or impaired at BAC .12 or not... The fact is that is where her BAC was and the law says she was drunk. End of that story. Now listen to the rest of the facts in the case.

People need to remember we can all talk and bicker about this case and in the end it really doesn't matter to us. However there is a family who has lost a daughter, one that had a daughter injured, and one that could loose a daughter to jail.....report and talk about facts please not conjecture.

Hello Mr Sokolove;

That pretty much answers my question.

Thanks!

Dan

Accident
 

Lets explore...and define this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident

The Alternative is Deliberate. :look: MY guess is the former. NB

???
 

I would think that a Belknap County jury are made up of locals. I would also hope that they are not reading this forum and forming a verdict based on it.

I am sure that the jury has been given instructions not to talk about the case with anyone, in addition to that they are also told to stay away from all media of any type that could influence their opinion on the trial. That would include this forum.....

I am sure that the judge's charge to the jury was clear.

My question was weather anyone....ie a Citizen, was sitting in the courtroom as an Observer NOT as a Juror. NB

And I am sure that those on the jury don't even know about this forum. If they knew anything about the case, they wouldn't be picked and if they read this forum, they couldn't miss reading SOMETHING about it.

Do ya think.?? :D NB

I think it would be very interesting to be an observer. Didn't mean to offend you. Either way it is still a sad ending.

No offence taken Penny. NB

But it's a forum!
 

getting people talking about what happened here is a really good thing, I think. Yeah, there's speculation. But if we are talking about such an important topic as boating at night and boating and drinking, then we're we raising awareness.

As an aside, this past Sunday night two recent graduates of Norwell High school, home for spring break, (both 18) were travelling down a road very near my house. Both were drunk. The driver lost control on a curve where the speed limit is 25 and hit a tree -- killing the passenger -- his best friend -- while he walked away with only scratches. In jail and charged with drunk driving and involuntary manslaughter. Chillingly familiar tale in only a slightly different context. Two lives ruined. Two families grieving.

There are lessons for life in this trial. Well worth talking about.

One Day Off for a Newburyport, MA, Public Servant...
 

Facts can be sealed from all further inquiry. :confused: Evidence can be excluded for reasons unrelated to fact. :confused: :confused:

In other words, this legal system won't let us know the facts! :fire:

Agreed—she could, indeed.

As an attorney, you know that the defense expert's testimony will be carefully crafted to contradict Lt. Dunleavey's testimony. A defense expert (such as Captain Robert J. Cronin) can charge $10,000 for his useful crafting of words.

(And that's $10,000 per day!) :eek2:

So here are some Articles after googling "Erica Blizzard Trial"

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...95/1298/UPDATE

What I found most interesting in this article, is that Ms. Shinopolus, was also legally drunk but yet testified that she only had a beer and two mixed drinks over 4 hours leading up to the crash. Of course she also according to this article states that she remembers nothing of the crash.

Here are some other well written articles:

http://wbztv.com/wireapnewsma/Surviv...2.1553781.html

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...template=page2

Take the time to read what is out there from a simple google search... it is all interesting to digest. But the other thing I have noted about all this information is you definitely need to digest it. And understand what is involved here. I wish I could have take the time to go to this trial, to hear all the testimony but I am making do with what I can get from the media. And so far I have convinced my self of several things based on the facts... Not on conjecture or speculation.... The facts are there, in between the line of BS the reporters fill the page with you just have to look....

But as I said in an early post I am not going to put anything out there until this is all over and I have digested as much as I can.

The only thing I will say at this moment is I am disappointed with the judge. It appears that while everyone else involved in the trial went and viewed the wreckage Ms. Blizzard was allowed to stay behind. I believe that the jury needed to see Ms. Blizzards reactions to the wreckage, which she apparently has never had to face.

MI,

I don't disagree with you. Talking about this information is good. However people are passing judgment before having all the facts before them. If there is only things I have realized about forums it is that they tend to become heated debates sometime based upon feelings. Instead of solid debates based on facts. When you are dealing with things involving the deceased and someones future you must make sure that you deal with facts. Because those people have family and friends, some of whom have already spoken up here. We need to respect them and the fact that they may see these posts.

May main point still is, don't put comments out there just to put comments out there. Back your statements by facts, make sure your not speculating because of something you have heard through the grape vine.

Ok I seriously need to get off my soap box!!!!!!!

The facts are simple:

1)EB's friend boarded the boat and she is now dead;

2)EB was legally drunk when the accident occurred;

3)The boat EB was piloting was traveling too fast for the conditions/her ability to control the craft;

It is a sad situation and I don't think that a jail sentence is the answer. However, I am offended that she has pleaded innocent. I think a better alternative would have been to admit quilt and ask for forgiveness from the court/families involved and I think that forgiveness would have been granted. Instead we are wasting tax payer funds on this trial. EB could have taken the high road and become a crusader in the schools and boater safety courses to try and educate people about the perils of drinking and operating a boat. Instead, she has hired a slick attorney who is attempting to free her on a technicality.

SC,

This is indeed the biggest thing I think people are missing here, and that is a fight for presumed innocence. Which is really what this trial is all about. It is only do to family financial resources that this trial came about. If this had been any regular Joe, I indeed believe the outcome would have been a guilty plead, with some minimal restitution.

However the facts are having their day in the court, and the story is getting told, I only hope people pay attention to the facts and take the time to digest the story and get the entire picture. The entire picture is understanding the circumstances of what happened and how it happened. Within this understanding is also the truth about what really brought this tragedy to about.

This incident can be used promote all kinds of things depending on how you depict the situation. But the truth is that the facts will show the situation for what it is, and what it is and isn't related too......

What question?

"What if she's innocent?"

Nobody is "innocent," baby.

Nobody.

Citizen used jury photos...
 

I wonder if this will turn out to be a basis for an appeal from either side.

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...892/-1/CITNEWS

Looks like the paper messed up.

I completely disagree with your statement that I bolded above. I don't have the statistics to back up my assertion, but I don't think that it is true that a "regular Joe" would plead guilty just because he was not rich. I can't speak from experience, as I have never been arrested. But if I was arrested for something, and believed that I was innocent (Ms. Blizzard states that she had 3 or 4 drinks in the 4 hours prior to the crash), I would fight it with every ounce of my being. No matter how much $$.

Sad situation no matter the outcome
 

But the fact of the matter is..... the only place the facts are coming out in in the courtroom. I'm old enough and like to think I'm wise enough to take "facts" reported by the media with a grain of salt. Conjecture, speculation and heresay will have no bearing on the outcome of this case. I don't know the facts in this case, and, most likely, neither do most of you. I am confident that justice will be served. Some of us will agree with the outcome, some of us won't.
Either way, my thoughts and prayers are with all of the families affected by this tragic situation. Their lives will never be the same.

Never having really paid attention to cases that end up in appeals I would have no idea.... Although definitely not fair to the jury who deserves the right to not have their photographs published... I can't really see the harm to the out come of the trial. The identity of those on a Jury for a trial become public knowledge in the end as part of the court documents anyways doesn't it?

Although I guess having said that the one thing this could give grounds for is that with the identities know through the photograph, the are more open to encounters outside the court room making jury tampering a bigger concern....

Hummm interesting stuff....

Yes, the trial I sat on as a jurer was based upon an issue in the Laconia area and my name could be found in the article regarding its outcome (I did not give an interview, so I did not understand the reason, but anyway). I do not see an issue or a case of appeal for the jurers faces being published. Now if some intimidation is used because of this (and this would be the only reason that it should not have happened during the trial), than that would be a different story, but I would think that to be very unlikely situation given the parties involved.

...blame it on Bush!
 

Back on June 15, 2008, when this Diamond Island tragedy occurred, there were newspaper reports that the Father's Day prank was all about setting up, in the Governor's Island yard, some life-size, stand-alone, silhouette cardboard photos of President George W Bush with Dad's photo attached over the president's face. It was just a fun type of a family prank.

So, let's blame the whole mess on Bush.....he caused it!:rolleye1:
......

Today's March 12 www.cmonitor.com has a 12:47-pm update on today's Friday trial hearing.

I know enough facts to know that a person died due to the negligence of the person at the helm of that boat on that night. The only fact that has yet to be proven is who was actually at the helm. It does not matter if the person was drunk or sober, or if they were going 10 MPH or 50 MPH, you can't crash a boat into an island at night with enough force to kill someone, and not be criminally negligent.

IMO, all the prosecution needs to prove is who was at the helm. The rest of the unkown (to me) facts are simply supporting evidence that might alter the punishment, assuming the guilty party is not also the victim.

Part of the problem then ..... Cause Dad doesn't live on Govenor's Island
.
.
.

I've been staying quiet here reading these posts because I was an aquaintance of Erica and friend of Steph.
I've always thought your posts were fair and thoughtfull.
But wow Dave you know enough of the facts to state that even if she was sober and going 10 mph that she should be criminally neglegent. I guess so because you said you know enough of the facts already not even sitting on the jury! Sure wouldn't want you on my jury. So you know that there was nothing mechanical wrong with the boat and if there was she should still be criminally neglegent?
So then if your driving down the road with a passenger in the car and something occurs out of your control and you crash and kill your best friend then you should be held criminally neglegent reguardless? I'm not saying that is the case here but the trial is still in session.
I'm not here to stick up for Erica and don't like what I'm hearing from the trial up to now but this kind of "lynch em right now" attitude is downright scary.

SIKSUKR,

I have been waiting for someone to post something like this. Not the part about be friends and / or acquaintances of the people involved. But rather about that fact that how can we pass judgment until the entire story is told.
What if the defense suddenly finds evidence that something mechanical was wrong, what if evidence is produced that Erica was indeed not the driver, what if, what ifs are plentiful. The issue here is that the entire story needs to be told.

There has been published testimony that has made no sense in this case. They tried to use the throttle positioning after the accident as evidence of something....well the picture shows sure enough one drive is in gear forward one drive is in gear reversed.... both throttles full ahead.... This tells me that someone hit the throttles during or after the collision..... because the boat wouldn't have gone nose first into the wall with the throttles like that....

People need to listen to the facts, listen to what their reasonable minds tell them. I think there will be enough information in the end to come to a reasonable conclusion based on facts, and not conjecture, I really do....

I think it certainly would have come out from the two survivors that Erica was not driving the boat if this was the case. Let's face it, if Erica was not driving the boat she would not be the one on trial. If it was Nicole do you think Erica would be covering that up and risking jail time to do so plus huge litigation costs? If it was Stephanie I think it would have come out as well.

Even if there was a mechanical issue, there are enough ways to stop a boat. Throttles, shifters, keys, deadman, etc. Hell, even jump off. Not all of these would be disfunctional at once, if so the boat clearly should not have been on the water and I DOUBT that was the case. It was the captains responsibility to make sure the heading they were traveling was safe and free of obstructions. There were enough electronics, boating experience and knowledge of the lake to avoid the island. Lets face it, even if there was no chip in the chartplotter it still comes down to the pilot, whomever she was.

I feel that Dave was right. An accident happened, someone died, and it was ultimately because of the actions of the driver, alcohol or not. That can be considered negligent homocide, the negligence was hitting an island and killing someone because of the collision. Failure to maintain a proper lookout. I have no opinion on jail time, fines, really don't care as far as that is concerned.

As far as Siksukr, we are not talking about 10mph and sober. It is clear to everyone the boat was going faster than 10. I certainly do not think they were doing 50, the damage does not support it.

If Erica blizzard wasn't driving the boat her attorney wouldn't have tried to throw out the BAC evidence against her. If there was something mechanically wrong with the boat I think a strong argument can be made that her alcohol impairment contributed to her inability to compensate for the boat's mechanical difficultly. However, it is pretty obvious that this isn't about a mechanical problem.