Amen
 

I have stayed out of this rather distasteful discussion until now. However, this post is cogent in the regard of this matter. As a customer of Lakeport Marina, I feel terrible for Ms. Blizzard, and the consequencesa that she faces. Please let the legal process come to it's conclusion b4 commenting.

It's about missing (or hitting) the island by a couple of degrees on a compass course from the starting point. What amazes me is all the Experts here... who have Never navigated a boat under those conditions...yet they are Armchair Experts. :look: Yea Yea..get me now. :) NB

People are human
 

I know many people aren't seasoned night boaters, some are, most aren't. I was in a situation last year when just before heading home, a fairly dense fog descended over the lake. Not rainy or cold, just very dense fog. My GPS was not getting a proper signal, which is another story for another time :(

Anyway. There is a large reef about a mile out that ultra safe boaters (me) always go wide around and not cut inside to shore. I've traveled it quite frequently, but when I could see the lighted buoy. I could make out one faint light, but not the other. I slowed to headway speed and fixed on the light I could see. The GPS came back on finally, so I could see my tracks. Good thing. I was only about 100 yards from the Inside of the buoy I was to be Outside of :eek: I putted around to it, and the next outside marker and headed around the proper wide route.

If I had been on plane using my instincts, I'd probably have ground on the reef. My mind told me I did not know where I was exactly at that point, so I slowed to a crawl. Sometimes, it doesn't take drinking to cloud judgment (I had not and was not drinking). Sometimes all it takes is a carefree attitude and over confidence. Perhaps distractions of others. It happens. I'm pretty anal about how I boat, I always have a lookout, and Never assume I know exactly where I am. I look for landmarks, lights, points of reference. It's scary in the fog, and nobody should be out bounding about on the water in it.

Let's leave the legislative crap to those that have nothing else better to do than make silly arguments. This is boating 101 we're witnessing here, unfortunately, in a courtroom setting. It's also so sad for the parties involved. People not involved should take heed and learn from this, not throw grenades and kick in the darkness.

I'm not taking sides, nor am I picking on you, Codeman. However, this is very similar to the Toyota issues we're seeing all over the news now. Why did that guy in San Diego call 911 this week when his car was traveling 90+mph and he claimed could not stop it? First thing I thought of was why he didn't put it in neutral or shut it off? Bleep happens and everyone reacts differently under crisis circumstances.

I don't know anyone involved personally, but I see a lynch-mob attitude forming already. If she's found not guilty by a jury of her peers, the consensus will be that she bought her verdict, regardless of the facts in the case. If she's found guilty, then there will be some serious gloating by a certain lobbying group and their ilk. It's a bad situation, regardless of the outcome.

The Toyota problem is a widespread epidemic due to poorly manufactured products or inferior components. This is ONE case. Has anyone heard of other Formula's running out of control frequently??? If someone can't figure out how to stop their car in an emergency they need to go back to driving school. Neutral, a key switch, or slam it into reverse. People do react differently under extreme situations, I agree. Heading straight into an island, not even at an angle, tells a different story. IMO a story of failure to pay attention, failure to maintain a proper lookout. We are not talking about a few degrees on a compass, a few degree difference to avoid would have started a change of course way before the island.

NB, I have operated under severe weather conditions. I was on the lake that night, coming back from Wolfeboro coincidently but not at 2am. It was a nasty night. Were you? Have you?

I am not part of a lynch mob, I have no beef in this. I did not know any of them and I do not have any contempt towards anyone involved. I am against the SL as well and this clearly does not help our case. I am irritated though by some of the lame, irrational excuses people are making about this. The facts seem quite clear for those that wish to open their eyes and ears. BAC was proven, heading/direction of travel was clear based on where the boat was positioned, speed is estimated within a range that makes sense for the damage (and not excessive for night driving although probably too much based on visibility), and the outcome was tragic. Someone was driving the boat, they failed to avoid hitting an innanimate object (in this case an island) and someone died. This person died because of the actions of another. That is negligence.

I agree with innocent until proven guilty, but the base facts of it all are so clear that the driver was clearly guilty to some extent beyond any reasonable doubt. Whether or not she is found guilty of any/all charges as they sit is not my decision, but the outcome was caused by the driver. She is and will pay the price emotionally for the rest of her life. It does not help matters for the family that lost one of their own, and I applaud them for not wanting Erica to go to jail. I feel bad for all involved, no matter what side they are on.

Hi Codeman. I was not out on the lake on the night in question. I think your post was mostly well intentioned.

In my case perhaps some of my background would clarify my position. I have sailed offshore and inshore for over 40 years. I have made two passages to Bermuda and return from Newport Rhode island in a 27 foot boat and then a 32 foot boat SOLO in both directions back in 1979 and 1981...Loran was in it's infantsy and GPS was unheard of. I used Celestial Navigation...Sextant and Tables, Dead Reconning, and Loran when it worked..... 24/7. In the larger boat it took 5 days..25 minutes on the outbound.

On the return trip in 1981 I ran in to a storm which lasted about 14 hours....almost all at night while the boat was doing over 7 knots in high seas, rain and spray under heavily reefed sails. The anemometer rarely went below 45 knots for over 5 hours. In the meantime there were boats from the Marion-Bermuda race heading OUTbound toward Bermuda within miles of my northward track. The distance between Newport and Bermuda is 635 miles.

The boat had a wind driven self steering gear. I was sitting at the Nav Station down below broadcasting "Securite..Securite" every few minutes on CH 16 VHF all night to alert other boats of my position. Every few minutes I would leave the cabin and go out on deck to have a look around for boats (and Cruise Ships) running lights.

All turned out well without incident. I didn't have any islands to miss.

So I guess what I'm saying is..I have some experience which allows me to opine on "bad weather navigation". No offence intended here....just my own experience.

Getting by Diamond Island in bad weather is like treading a needle. NB

This is what the bucks are for
 

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...94/1298/UPDATE

FLL, this one's for you.

Hogwash, but good for questions in the jury's mind.

The old "blood loss" argument.

Cute.

We'll see if the jury buys it.

Bet they don't ...

The Union Leader has a similar story

Looks like we have a battle of the toxicologists and reasonable doubt.

The argument of the defense would be laughable, were the matters at hand not so serious.

Now, I know that juries are not supposed to read newspaper articles or talk to people about issues presented at the trial; in theory, it prevents them from considering anything other than what they hear in the courtroom.

But if one of them were to stray from this admonition and spend twenty seconds doing a google search, do you know what they'd find"

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_b...lcohol_content

Bam!

The answer is not so simple....
 

I also tried to investigate this on the internet. The Wiki answer is simplistic and assumes that there is a fixed and unchanged BAC. If this were true, then losing blood would NOT affect BAC. But this is not the real world situation. There are legitimate questions regarding how blood loss and shock could affect BAC. BAC is obviously related to the speed with which alcohol is absorbed into the blood (where it is measured) from the stomach/GI tract. If, for example, a person ingests alcohol and then almost immediately gets into an accident resulting in cardiovascular shock, then the alcohol absorption would be delayed. A blood sample taken very soon after an accident might have a low BAC because the alcohol has not yet been absorbed into the blood and cannot be measured.. As the person recovers, the alcohol is later absorbed so that 3 hours later the BAC is actually HIGHER than at the time of the accident. This kind of argument and data are on the internet. The argument that the defense has used in some of these DUI cases is that even though the later BAC is high, at the time of the accident, the alcohol has not yet entered the bloodstream. Therefore, it had not reached the brain and there was no impairment at the time of the accident even though the BAC well after the accident might be high.

I am not an attorney, I have no personal interest in this case and I agree that we should wait for all the information to be presented and wait for the jury make its statement. The circumstances in the case may well be different.

Even though the defense toxicologist may be a hired gun, a few minutes on the internet can determine she does have real credentials. Whether what she says is true in this particular case is certainly arguable and the prosecution must argue it.

My whole point is that things which seem simple and obvious are not always so. And Wikipedia does have its limitations.

Agreed, wiki is far from authoritative.

I have to wonder about the empty beer cans found floating at the death scene, as will the jury.

Even if it can somehow be shown they were there from before, the jury will have to wonder what kind of person in this day and age is stupid enough to drink in a boat?

How come they didn't subpoena the guest check from the restaurant they dined at? Seems like a no brainer to me. From my understanding restaurants have to keep all records for 3 years? Samiam, true?

Do you think the guest check will tell how much Vodka was poured into each drink? I am pretty sure it varies from bartender to bartender and bar to bar, etc.

beer cans
 

It is possible that the beer cans were in a trash receptacle inside the cabin, (for who knows how long). Judging by the looks of the bow, whatever was in that cabin certainly spilled its contents.

Lt. Dunleavey once said (as a less-PC Sergeant) that 80% of Winnipesaukee boaters have alcohol on board. (Not me, though, I'm still trying to remember if full beer cans will float). :emb:

I think the flaw in Newbiesaukee's findings is that alcohol is absorbed very quickly in the stomach and all the mucous membranes that alcohol passes by. If Newbiesaukee is correct, (as in the defense's putative "blood-loss" theory), the empty beer cans would support a higher BAC when the BAC is taken later.

And speaking of the bow, The Concord Monitor is showing a photo of the heretofore missing bow section. It shows the "shoebox" manner of Formula fiberglass manufacturing prowess. :rolleye2:

Seen along the dark blue parts of the bow are the series of about five fractures that correspond with the concentric rows of fiberglass hull fragments embedded in that granite ledge. (Rows of fragments that can even be seen today).

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...H=400&MaxW=336

It's just as well this boat isn't made in aluminum or steel—casualties would have been even worse, and a trial made unnecessary. :(

Plus, it wouldn't have been just the anchor that struck the cottage that morning, but the whole boat! :eek:

You practice law?
 

And you practice law?

You must be right. I just re-read the U. S. Constitution and supporting documents. They do say " presumption of guilty!!!" How did I miss that before?

ToW

Black and white and gray all over
 

How many times do you see a beer can floating by or cans tossed at the side of the road, then done your civic duty and picked them up. I know I do, several times per year. Hardly conclusive of anything other than the cans are there.

My point: nobody is innocent, but not all are guilty.

It's a matter of semantics.

As for the floating beer cans not being conclusive proof: they don't have to be.

She can be convicted on nothing but circumstantial evidence: it happens all the time.

A jury out here just sentenced a guy to death based solely on circumstantial evidence: no DNA, no hair and fiber, no witnesses, no murder weapon: no direct evidence whatsoever.

Doesn't matter: not needed: he had a strong motive (jealousy and revenge) and his cell phone records placed him near the murder scene at the time: that is circumstantial evidence, and it convicted him.

So yeah, the floating beer cans are admissible as circumstantial evidence; it is up to the jury to determine what weight to give them.

FWIW, I think the testimony of the doctor who arrived immediately at the scene and found her slumped over the wheel (coupled to the facts that it is her boat, and her friend claims she wasn't too drunk to operate it) shows she was the driver, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Unless the jury goes OJ, I foresee the gray bar hotel in her immediate future.

It's perfectly legal to drink in a boat - even if you are driving it. You just can't be legally drunk. But, if I was on the jury, I would seriously doubt that anyone was drinking on a dark, rainy, foggy night.

One could imagine it might even be negligent to do so on such a night. Is that not part of what this trial is about?

I missed this one, which perhaps, is the definitive story of this trial, arguments aside.

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

It confirms several things, even conservatively. The only thing left for the jury is the BUI question. Which is, as many said last year, why their is more than one count charged.

Fact is, there are many existing laws that are very useful in a case like this, and they are using the laws in place at that time to do their duty.

Either Dr. Rock or his wife told the investigators at some point after the accident that it was common to find trash on the shore of their island property. Take that for what it is worth, but that could place doubt in the minds of the jurors.

Lots of people drink on boats in this day and age. It is perfectly legal. Your passengers can drink all they want, but the operator of the boat has to be sober. Empty (or full) beer cans on a boat (or in the water near the crash site) means nothing. How long were they in the boat? Were they from the day of the accident?

This is why the beer cans are really inconclusive evidence. They where added to the testimony try and sway the jury to a side, but ultimately they are really no proof of anything, unless they can be shown to have been unopened, or partially consumed. Unfortunately I have not heard an argument either way..All I have heard is that they where present. Hence this was useless information, as I have found most of the testimony in this trial.

In the end if I was on the jury I would be basing my decision based on what I could provide evidence off...

The question for me as to Ms. Blizzards guilt or innocent, has never been based on alcohol, but rather on the conditions of the night, what I would consider safe and prudent operation of the vessel that night, and weather or not I feel the she as the operator was really keeping a dutiful look out or more interested in being with her friends.

As far as punishment in this case, I think the worst punishment may have already been handed out, the question is will any further punishment really accomplish anything..... or is it only being sought for agenda reasoning.

Agendas
 

I have to admit, I have one here: Drunks driving boats too fast in bad conditions resulting in death and serious injury should be punished. That's why we have laws about both drinking and boating and proper operation of a boat. To me it doesn't really matter whether Erica killed her best friend or some total stranger, she and everyone else who boats need to understand there are consequences to exercising extremely bad judgement when operating a boat (or car for that matter) that results in something as extreme as the death of a passenger. It should serve as warning and in theory a deterrent. That's the idea, anyway.

I'd have much more sympathy for her personally if she had pleaded guilty but perhaps the state wouldn't cut her much of a deal given the strength of their case against her so she's just hoping she gets a better outcome through trial. Can't blame her for that. It is how our system is intended to work.

We should probably know the jury's conclusions this week. I'm not expecting any "OJ Surprise" here.

Do Like they do in CSI, get fingerprints off the can, if someones future depends on it.

Agenda's are behind everything MI... Hell even I have an agenda here, with what I am saying and doing... and your right alcohol on a boat needs to be dealt with severly just like it does in a car.

As for sympathy for Ms. Blizzard, well yes more sympathy in my mind as she just accepted guilt. Which of course would have also been accompanied I feel by pleading to a lesser charge and she probably wouldn't be faced with jail time the way she is now. But that was here decision. And she will have to face the consequences... The worst of course I don't think is jail time, should she be found guilty... I believe the far worse punishment for someone like her, is that this trial has taken place in the media. I have relatives and friends from all over New England, and the country asking me about it. I believe that this will negatively effect her family, and their business. How bad is anyone's guess....

If there is an OJ surprise here, I will most likely have lost all faith in the legal system in this country.

As far as the trial is concerned I hope it is handed to the jury the front part of the week, and we do indeed have something before the week is out.

The Winnipsaukee lake community has been haunted by this and a few other horrible issues. Which have had far reaching effects, it is time get by these legal cases which have gained so much attention, out of the way so that the lake can be a place of peacefulness, and relaxation, with out attention to over shadowing events.

"I Don't Think So, Tim..."
 

Subtitled: "Letting a few FACTS get in the way". :rolleye2:

1) Meaning, the law that was to have been amended to consider The Broads (where this crash took place) as a...um...an unlimited "free-zone"?

2) We haven't heard from the Defense's boat-crash reconstructionist.

In the Legal-Defense industry, lawyers will refer to him as a "hired gun" (And that's the polite term—which doesn't include the words "paid" and "liar". :rolleye1: )

3) As to the BUI question, Erica's passenger didn't help out any on the Defense theory of an artificially-elevated BAC:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

4) As to the "errant" beer cans—could it get any worse than this?

http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a

The State Crime Lab is extremely backed up on fingerprinting, although enough time has lapsed between the incident and now that it could have been done. Honestly it may have been done in the background and never brought forth if the evidence was inconclusive. Beer cans sitting in water would not be the best base to fingerprint from.

Even if they could pull a fingerprint from a beer can, what would that prove? Did she touch the can when it was bought (however long ago that may have been)? Did she touch the can when it was put on the boat (However long ago that may have been)? Were there fingerprints on an empty beer can-if so, when was it consumed? Last night, last week, last month?
In other words, presence of a beer can means absolutely nothing to this case. Presence of fingerprints on a beer can means nothing to this case.

Too many questions around beer cans, and I would suspect that if brought up, there is insufficient evidence to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

OK but still strange???
 

OK, I guess I'll have to accept your strange explanation. You law guys/gals must live in a weird world to have it both ways.:rolleye1:

ToW

Definitely agreed. Proving the BAC one way or the other is the important thing, unless they could snag her in a lie. Say a store receipt showing the purchase that day and empties found on site after testifying that no beer was consumed. It is all in how the jury perceives it. With a jury trial the facts dont always have to be there to sway a decision. It is the jurors individual perceptions.

...speed....18-20....or....30-32....?
 

Today's March 15 www.cmonitor.com has a brief mid-day report and the defense put a boat accident reconstruction expert witness on the stand this morning, from Newburyport Mass, who testified that the evidence suggests the boat was going 18-20, and not the 30-32 as the Marine Patrol lieutenant testified.

For a 17000-lb, 37 foot boat, powered by twin 425-hp MerCruiser inboard-outboards, going 18-20 most likely would have the boat plowing through the water, as opposed to being up on plane at 30-32, and that would seem to be highly relevant to what happens running into a six foot high, solid granite outcropping. Speed would make a difference, dontcha you thinka?


...any expert incite from the peanut gallery on board here?

IMHO,you would think angle and impact height on the bow and the granite ledge would help determine speed relevent to the vessal on plane and or plowing. Now I am no expert but doesn't common sense come into play?

Boattest.com has it getting on plane around 15 MPH and weighing 14,400 lbs. I would also say that the death and injuries, combined with a smashed-up boat are a pretty good indication that the speed was too high for the conditions; and that the prosecution should just point that out....

I guess we have now. Personally, neither of these so-called accident recontructionists sound very believable. I'm not sure why you continue to do these selective, and extremely partial quotes APS. I haven't let any facts slip in this case that I know of, I've even read all of the innuendo and injected statements of agenda, from you. Roll your eyes all you want skippy, but the state has made their charges based on the laws in force at that time, and they are still very pertinent today. I'm quite sure you know that.

But just to make double sure, we can both examine and compare our own personal positions on this matter. I don't care if the boat was going 18 mph or 25 mph or 33 mph. If it was in that range, it was too fast. If the skipper was impaired, a double whammy should be levied. That's my position, and it's been a consistent one. I gave up hope that you'd ever grow up, but try to be at least a little less disingenuous.

Sorry in advance Don for the tone.

Time to wait out the outcome of this trial.

This is pretty good journalism huh? What kind of boat and where? :laugh:

"Closing arguments have wrapped up in the trial of a New Hampshire woman charged with drunkenly piloting her speedboat into a ledge in Lake Winnepesaukee - killing her friend and injuring herself and a passenger."

Love the spelling of Lake Winnipesaukee by the way. Credible journalism at its best.

:rolleye1:

I have a deep V boat and there is a speed "Threshhold" if you will. UNTIL the boat reaches a Comfortable speed..just "over the top" on plane..22-23 mph in my case...you are just plowing water. If I feel my speed is excessive ....at that point.. On Top..for whatever reason.. I SLOW down considerably to OFF Plane to maybe 7 mph. There is NO In-Between for an experienced skipper. PLOWING for me is NOT an option. I'm either ON Plane or I'm going 7mph or less.

SO: If she was Plowing..the BOW would be elevated and have struck higher than the top of the granite slab....so the upper part of the bow would have remained Intact and passed over the top of the slab.

My rememberance of the granite slab (Impact point) is a perfectly verticle rectangular slab..now I'm guessing...maybe 15-20 feet across and maybe 5 feet off the water at the top....which was horizontal. It almost seemed to me............it had been placed there by Man....But of course it was not...and she hit it at 90 degrees.

If she had been a few feet either side of that SLAB..she would have ended up ON the island and probably in one piece with only bruises and the boat bottom severely scraped and gouged.

Just my observation. NB

Ms. Beaudoins' mother is very nice and gracious
 

I actually met her for the first time at a baby shower on Sunday. She never let out a word or a tear regarding her daughter, Stephanie. She was just happy to be a guest at the baby shower of her great grandson to be. We should all be so humble.

There's a lot of us parents out here Penny, that feel for them deeply. Hopefully none of us ever experience the loss, but we "know" it would be consuming. It may seem sometimes that the discussion gets too random, too removed from real life. That's not true at all for the most part. I think most of us care, and care quite a bit about loss of life and shattered dreams. Perhaps we care so much is sounds a bit callous, devoid of feeling.

In actuality, we all care about what happens out there, and feel deeply for the loss of life, and the deep grief of parents that will never be able to fill that hole in their hearts. Trust me on this, most of us know this could happen to any of us, our loved ones, our children, ourselves. In a moment's notice life can change. To respect the water is to fear it.

Stephanie's mom must be a very strong woman. I hope I never have to walk in her shoes, none of us does.