case goes to the Jury tomorrow
 

Well hopefully very soon we will be able to put this issue to bed with "official results" of the trial. Not that I don't believe given the out come everyone will have some opinions.... But hopefully by the end of tomorrow if not then Wednesday we will have some word. If the jury takes longer then that then, I will start getting very suspicious of having a hung jury for some reason or another....

"Horrible Accident or Drunken Crash"
 

(Headline by The Citizen).

1) Check page 2 of this thread for dozens of wrong speculations. :rolleye1:

2) I'd previously guessed about 20-MPH+, but even without the hands-on testing that I'd suggested, I'm now agreeing with Lt. Dunleavey. (Certainly more than "the-expert-with-the-briefcase-from-out-of-town"). :rolleye2:

3) In fair weather, Diamond Island is a near-daily destination of mine—and you can't miss the crash site. :( Seen within a week of the crash, the outcropping is closer to 3-feet tall. The scale I'd included appears as the 2nd "attachment" below. The three black bands are placed one foot apart.

You can take a piece of paper and mark the three-foot spacing on it. Place the scale upright against the screen and you can see that it's less than three feet above the waterline shortly after the crash.

The subject boat would still have additional depth below the waterline, as there was a faint scrape on a somewhat-submerged rock.

4) It's true that striking the island 40-feet either way would have spared the boat—and maybe those aboard—but a neighboring cabin can be seen in the background. (This other cabin's roof can be seen at the first "attachment" at the very bottom of this post).

In this next photo, note the clear "ramp" of yard leading directly to it. :eek:

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...1&d=1256113577

5) A too-short anchor line was given as the reason for not waiting-out the weather, but any other anchored boat near Diamond Island's Broads location would have been in peril that night. :(



6) Although too-late a warning for the defendant—one week after the crash, a Jet-Ski was put out at a mooring nearby.

I think you're onto something...;)

Note the "concentric rings" previously mentioned in testimony.

At that time, the lowest ring was just two inches below the surface and would correspond to the deepest crack in the bow. I'm not conversant with the "bow-high attitude" of 37' speedboats, but a photo taken from the side of the same model boat—in both "plow" and high-speed modes—would demonstrate a range of speeds that would have made those marks on the granite outcropping.

(For a comparison, see the photo of the cracks in the bow earlier on this page).

BTW: Sgt. David Ouelette (a chatty NHMP officer whom I've had the privilege of meeting) has testified to the alcohol found on board: it includes two bottles of vodka, one of which is a ½-gallon size! :eek2:

(I've never seen such a big bottle of alcohol !)

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcsi.dl...ef=AR&MaxW=250
(Photo from The Citizen).

Testimony included alcohol detected on the Captain's breath. How much "normally-odorless" vodka would it take to be "detectable"? :confused:

The photo VtSteve referred to: (The defendant leaving the courthouse—after the jury found her Guilty). :rolleye1: :mad:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...H=400&MaxW=336
(Photo from The Concord Monitor).

The windows are not in the same plane as the struck boulder; however, the added "lighthouse" is—almost. (Making it a very tall "lighthouse" !)

This photo included the "lighthouse"—an anonymous and tasteless addition—added in 2009. Even a year later, the embedded shreds of fiberglass still remain in the boulder.

At the bottom of this post shows the neighboring cabin behind the cottage, which has no protective granite along their shoreline.

I was told by the cottage owner that glass was found behind the cottage. :eek: I'm not buying the Defense's "slingshot-physics", and Lt. Dunleavey shouldn't have, either. :rolleye1: IMHO.

The last photo shows the relative distances between the cottages that were also in peril that night.

(In order from left to right: Dr. Rock's cottage, Cabin with "ramp", Crash-Scene with barge).

APS, as I have stated in this thread twice now, the finding of alcohol on the boat, while it may create suspicions, does not PROVE anything. No less than 2 different people have testified under oath as to the amount of alcohol consumed that night. As far as I am aware, neither testimony included anything about drinking on the boat.

For what its worth,I also saw the site within a week and the outcropping as you call it it closer to 5 feet.The photo you posted gives you the scale you seek.The windows would be about 3 feet high based on a 7 foot wall that they are in.From my observation the highest point is at least 50% taller than the windows.

A Terrible Tragedy
 

Apparently the jury remains out... according to this article, they will not be in session tomorrow, the jury will reconvene on Thurs. The Article also details that the jury is having trouble with only of of the Articles before them.... Interesting......

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...d-31d31531478f

Now knowing many of you are reading this, and some may have been on juries or know people that have.... is it "normal" that they would stop deliberations for a day... I know the article says someone has a commitment, and I am not trying to deny that it may be important... I am more curious as to how often something like this happens.

Boil it down
 

No visiblity, can't see anything past the bow, don't slow down, hit a big island, alcohol involved, Wolfe Trap serves mixed drinks in PINT size glasses, beer cans in the water, vodka in the cuddy, spotty memory lapses at convienent times that are crucial, 18 miles an hour causes the boat to basically explode....hmm, let me think about this one.

Let me be the first to welcome you to the forum...and let me be the first to ask you to GO AWAY.. NB

I had the pleasure of 3 jurys last summer. If they have to replace one of the jurors while they are in deliberation, they theoretically have to restart the deliberative process from scratch. Taking the day off may be more attractive than starting over or burning up an alternate.

On one of my juror trials we skipped a day because the judge had to be somewhere, but we were told that up front. I'm editing because this was not while we were in deliberation. I would think that would make a difference.

Scupper's comments could be worded more compassionately, but unfortunately those are the facts.

We had a judge absent one of the days of our deliberation. He had another judge stand in while we worked. We actually gave our verdict to the pinch hitting judge.

Scupper,

Everyone should let the jury decide on the facts. This includes this you, a very opinionated, first-time poster.

Freedom of speech is one thing, deciding one's fate without complete knowledge is another. This is America. Let the process work. You are not part of this process, nor am I.

If you do not like this, please quickly go very far away. We are, for the most part, very fair people and we do not need your obviously, swayed opinion. There is too much pain on both sides of this for anyone like you, a first time poster, to comment.

Save your mindless comments for the NH Legislature. They might think you are credible, we surely will not! This is not Manchester, the stomping ground of WinnFabs. We are people that know the lake.

I could care less if you do not like my opinion. It is more important to me to let the process evolve.

R2B

If a juror had a death in the immediate family would they pause a day for that juror?

Wow, why the venom for Scupper? He is not trying to sway the jury, they shouldn't be reading this site.

I read Erica's own account of the night and the collision from the newspaper. It's pretty much says what Scupper said. He just added the pint size glasses, which I have no knowledge of.

Now I may be duped by Scupper, his explode comment regarding the boat, got an instant appluase from guess who, but that could be coincidence.

Always suspicious when a new poster starts out with a highly charged subject. It's hard to take someone serious who hasn't posted enough to have a track record.....for example, a friend or family member of the prosecution could try and sway public opinion by coming on this forum.

ease up buddy
 

so if scupper had 366 posts, maybe it wouldn't be viewed as a bad comment.
to be asked to "GO AWAY" is ridiculous, I 'm sure we could look back on some of your posts and point the finger. Scupper is not the first to form a negative opinion on this thread.
Maybe there should be a warning for new members, your first few hundred posts should have a positive view.

Though if you have something negative to say about winnfabs then negative first posts are not only allowed but encouraged.:laugh:

Scupper
 

Hooray for Scupper! If his facts are accurate, this lady needs to go to jail. Her antics that night were like a drunken, grossly irresponsible teenager. And by the way, except for the Mt. Washington, I have NEVER been on a boat on the Lake.

WOW!!! You have to love the lynch mob mentality! I tried to stay out of it but this is getting a bit out of hand...

The prosecution has presented the worst case possible (for Erica) scenario as to the events that occurred that fateful night.... The defense has presented the best case possible (for Erica).... somewhere in the middle lies the truth!

The wheels of justice are in motion and it’s up to the jury to weigh in ALL of the evidence presented by both sides. We only know whatever the newspapers & television stations have reported.... a small fraction of what the jury heard for evidence. The rest is rumor, conjecture and opinion!

Anyone who formulates their opinion (on any subject) based solely on what has been reported in the news is a boorish unintelligent moron. Minds are like parachutes... they only work when they are open!

The jury will decide Erica's fate... not anyone on this forum. Nobody should take any delight regardless of the outcome of the verdict. Unfortunately there are a few folks here who will... (either side) and that is precisely whats wrong with the lake...


Woodsy

Nobody is trying to interfere with the judicial process; what do you think scupper is trying to do, interject himself in the actual court case?

Get real.

This is a message board on the internet.

In case you haven't noticed, the internet has changed how people comment and interact.

Not so cordial, not so old-school polite, more immediate and visceral.

It's a new world: best keep up or get out of the way.

Bravo scupper, and bravo those who post a differing viewpoint.

Just post, don't lurk.

Of course, our opinions mean nothing and will not have a scintilla of impact on the outcome of the court case.

This is a soapbox, nothing more.

And remember, the evidence the jury hears and sees it NOT what the public hears and sees. It is also a "given" that the news media has not reported ALL of what was said in court and they have not reported all of what was NOT said, or allowed, in court.

That being said, we just have to wait and see but that does not stop us from forming and expressing opinions, as I did way way back in this thread. ;)

No amount of punishment levied upon her by a court of law and a jury of her peers will come close to the suffering she will endure living with the memory of this terrible tragedy.

What you say may well be true(although we do not know this for sure), but it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence in a trial. It may well affect the sentence if she is found guilty

We had that case during the testimony phase. The juror was excused and the first alternate got promoted. It would be up to the judge if they were in the deliberative phase. If they dismiss the juror, they are supposed to start the deliberation over which is near impossible to do.

Clarification
 

Obviously I struck a nerve with you NB. Note the length of my membership on this forum...since 2006. Yes, I have few posts, but I only post on issues that appear to have substance. This is one of them. I could care less about the sunset on a particular night, ice cream at Sibley's, debate over the speed limits, whining about being stopped by M.P., etc...

What I care about is the loss of a life, a passenger that had no say, no control over the operation of the boat, and can't be brought back to life. There seems to be a lynch mob mentality against anyone that doesn't feel sympathy for the operator responsible for this "accident."

NB, I have a daughter. If she was the victim in this case, I would want justice. Sympathy due to the operator's standing in the community, personal relationship, or emotion is misguided. Facts are clarity, emotion and denial are blinding to the facts.

For those of you that stuck up for me thanks! I'll post again in another hmm, four years when substance arises again.

Scupper
 

Wow! Scupper is my new hero! I have a daughter too, and he's right - it's about the facts and it's about justice. Let the wheel of justice turn.

I think lynch mob is a little strong, no one is even debating punishment, just guilty or not guilty.

First the jury must decide, but it is harmless now for us to give our opinions of her guilt or non-guilt. After the verdict, if she is found guilty, a judge will decide her fate. That's when arguements like she suffered enough already should come in.

My opinion is based almost solely on the .15 BAC. This is clearly over the limit. We decided as a society 20-30 years ago that if you drive while drunk and someone gets killed, you go to jail. You don't have to like it, or believe its a good idea, but its law. If you can get off the hook, when double the limit and three people are seriously hurt, one killed, when does the law apply?

If she was sober. Then it's tougher. But in her own words she lost all visibilty and then she sped up! I can't reconcile that action.

SCUPPER: I'll bet you wouldn't expect this response from me. YOUR Response to my post seems Quite Sincere and I respect ..even agree with parts of your stated position above. It is quite possable I mis-interpreted your original post. If I got it wrong....I apologize. NB

No harm, no foul.

I think this case and many similar cases create an interesting question that I am sure the jury and all wrestle with - is an accident an accident or is someone always responsible and punishable for their actions. I truly believe that this was an accident - was it negligent on the defendants part - the jury will decide - but I have no doubt that the defendent did not leave that evening with the thought of wrecking her boat and her friend dying due to that action. Did her actions of the evening contribute to the sad event that occured - the jury will decide - I truly believe that we have to look at everyone involved - if she was OUI - should her friends have gotten on the boat with her? If they had any thoughts that she was unable to navigate the boat - why get on - I'm sure they all had cell phones - I've been with people that I concluded were unfit to drive - I did not get in the car with them. Had I and something terrible happen - didn't I just make a choice to risk my life and isn't that contributory negligence on my part? We seem to be (as a society) developing an attitude that nothing is our fault and someone should be blamed and sued. Whatever happen to taking responsibility for your actions - you screw up - pay the price. No jury verdict, sentence will bring the young woman back to her family and friends - that is the saddest thing. Everyone on that boat that evening had a choice - sadly it turned out to be a very bad choice all and a life ending choice for one.

Innocent till Proven Guilty
 

Woodsy well said! :)

In a Nutshell...
 

1) A death in a juror's family would have the judge put an "alternate-juror" in. ("Alternate-jurors" are sitting in or beside the jury box and listening to the same testimony).

2) While "the wheels of justice are in motion", there are court rules that exclude evidence that could be prejudicial to the defendant. It is only upon hearing a verdict—and entering the penalty phase—that such evidence can be divulged. (Such as previous drunken convictions, such as here).

3) The first many minutes of a jury's deliberations are taken up by procedural matters assigned by the judge.

4) The Defense has presented the best case possible for Erica.

Seldom does the defense put their client in the witness chair, but the defense did just that!—as suggested here earlier. :cool:

Comment—with Smilies suppressed.

1) Even the presence of the same brand of empty beer cans is "circumstantial evidence".

The defense maintained they were previously rounded-up by a neatnik-neighbor, and stored in her boat. That same boat was commandeered by the hero-rescuer-neighbor, Dr. Rock.

(The rescuer's boat belongs to neatnik-neighbor Ms. Stone).

2) Visibility is an unknown. Visibility isn't likely to be a factor at night, as visibility varies in the known conditions of fog and drizzle. (The "big waves" cited by the defendant shouldn't have been alluded to—IMHO).

3) The island isn't lighted.

4) One of the vodka bottles wasn't opened.

5) At night, you usually can't see much beyond the bow.

6) Memory "lapses" happen.

7) We don't know if she slowed down.

8) Diamond Island is 34 acres—not so "big".

9) Pint-sized glasses don't mean too much: we don't know if all the drinks were fully consumed. Remember, too, that the State of New Hampshire sells vodka, so it must be OK to have a bottle or two aboard.

10) The boat didn't "explode": it's mostly the fracturing of the manufacturer's low-end "shoe-box" construction that makes it look worse than it is.

The defense made much of the fact that the broken glass evidence can roll—or be "sling-shot"—far beyond the crash site and should be dismissed as real evidence of velocity.

11) Finally: Her lawyer says she wasn't intoxicated.

What's a jury to do? :confused:

I am just curious, not passing judgement.

Do you think that the passenger who accompanies the driver for the evening and observes all of the alcohol the she drank (whatever the volume) bears any responsibility for her own demise?

If the jury decides that the alcohol was the determining factor in the accident would you think that the passenger should have refused to ride in the boat?

I'm not expressing an opinion, just asking a question.

In Maritime Matters...
 

It is the Captain who is burdened with the judgment of safe passage—and who bears full responsibility regardless of the condition of the passengers. (Drunk, unruly, sick, injured—even unconscious).

In my opinion, the passenegers actions have no bearing on the criminal aspect of the incident. The actions could come into play in a civil trial.

In determining guilt, I don't think a defendent can say "I'm not guilty because my friends should have stopped me".

But in a civil trial the passenger or their family is suing for damages. The driver's lawyer could say the passenger should have known better, given the circumstances.

This is pure conjecture based on your question.

boating accident
 

One thing for sure Is no matter the outcome of this trial, EVERYBODY loses

:(

I think that is the most factual statement in this thread.

Appling "guilt" in today's world.

A little over 30 years ago my brother took the family car out for the evening. There was an ice storm and he lost control and slid into the guardrails. No one was hurt but the sheet metal on the car was damaged. When he told my dad about the accident my dad said he would work out a way for my brother to pay for the repairs. My brother’s comment was that it wasn't his fault because of the conditions of the road. My father firmly replied that he made the choice to put the key in the ignition and move the vehicle. End of the discussion and my brother had to pay the cost to repair. I knew at that point the meaning of responsibility.

Somehow our society has evolved away for the intent of the law and favors the technicality of the law. Too often we see how money, power, or relationships win favors or pardons. Casual observance of these cases often can lead to cynicism over the process.

Drunk, not drunk, rating the visibility, mental conditions, or any other factors in the case may be used to set the severity of the punishment but I believe Erica "put the key in the ignition" and is responsible for the accident.

I have seen some very thoughtful posts and am thankful for the interchange between Scupper and NoBozo.

Sympathy and prayers to all who suffer loss through tragedies and let us all benefit from this incident by being reminded of the consequences that can happen if you are not careful.

...defining negligence in NH?
 

And, on the other hand, if you cross the center line while totally sober and kill three and injure a fourth, a 25-year old Thornton male first sentenced to 12 years in NH prison recently had his case successfully appealed in NH Supreme Court by Atty James Moir. In June 2009, the NH Supreme Court voted 3-1 to over rule the conviction of a 25 year old male from Thornton who struck two Harley Davidsons head-on, in June 2006. By drifting across the center line of Route 49 in Thornton at the s-curve, he killed three and injured a fourth person, who were two married couples ages 53-54, all employed at an Indiana GM car dealer, who were in NH for motorcycle week. First, sentenced to 12 years in state prison, his convicton was over turned after serving about 2 1/2 years, when the NH Supreme Court decided that what he did did not constitute negligence.

He had a blood alcohol level of zero at the time. He did have a number of prior driving violations including moving violations, however that information was not allowed to be admitted during the trial.

Justice Linda Dalianis, speaking for the majority, said something like; " ...he crossed the center line for some unknown reason and that does not equal negligence."

In my personal opinion when it comes to determining negligence, it probably does not matter if you are legally drunk or just day-dreaming when you cross the center line, especially when the victim is a member of your family.