...www.cmonitor.com reports jury has made a decision and reached a verdict...

Here's the link to the SPECIFIC ARTICLE

convicted Erica Blizzard of negligent homicide for failing to keep a proper lookout
 

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...100319983/1030

Jurors convicted Erica Blizzard of negligent homicide for failing to keep a proper lookout but were unable to reach verdicts on the more serious charge of negligent homicide by intoxication for the fatal boat crash she had in 2008 .

The jury was also unable to reach a verdict on the third charge, aggravated driving while intoxicated.

The jury has spoken
 

Here's WMUR's link to the guilty verdict.http://www.wmur.com/news/22876656/detail.html

Now that the trial is over...
 

In order for me to get a balanced overview of what was happening at the trial I had to read four individual newspaper's coverage of the trial.

It was interesting to see what each chose to report and leave out of their coverage, but by reading all four I got a pretty good idea of what was happening although certainly not as complete as if I had been there.

First it was apparent from the start that the defense was shooting to plant reasonable doubt into the minds of the jury, and they did a good job at that.

Alcohol consumption. The questions raised by the defense experts, along with testimoney from the waitress and I seem to recall a detail cop being questioned by police and saying the three did not appear drunk, went a long way toward planting the seeds of doubt as to the BAC along with the medical testimony regarding when the body stops processing food and alcohol.

The private accident reconstruction expert that was identified by some of the papers as a Deputy Sheriff for Middlesex County of MA also raised doubts as to the MPs reconstruction of the accident regarding speed. The private experts questioned the glass fragments found on the roof of the cottage that the MP said showed the speed at impact to be 31 to 33mph. It was a rainy windy night and there is no way of knowing if the glass fragments landed there or were blown there.

Erica's own testimony that she came down off plane when the visibility went to zero but went back on plane because the rocking of the boat was making them all sick also points to her caution and since I have read that her boat would plane at somewhere between 18 and 20 mph that coincides with the defense expert's thinking.

It was not surprising that they found her guilty of not keeping a proper lookout because short of saying it was just an accident and no one's fault they had to do something. I would think an argument could be made that she did keep a proper lookout. Based on her testimony the lookout (her) failed to see anything...so is that not keeping a proper lookout?

Remember, it is the burden of the state to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that what they claim happen actually did. Obviously in the minds of some of the jurors the state failed to meet that threashold.

Those are my thoughts based on reading the coverage of the trial from the 4 newspapers, I don't know any of the players involved either personally or professionally, these are just my observations.

The act of hitting the island made it impossible to convince me (and the jury, apparently) that she kept a proper lookout. The whole point of keeping a proper lookout is not to make sure the stuff you hit is truly hard to see, but to avoid hitting stuff and slow to a safe speed if visibility requires it.

Absolutely Dave. No way am I going past trolling speed on a night like that. Her own testimony made me shake my head a couple of times, but that's what happens in trials.

I'm surprised that the estimated time spent on the trial was about right, I thought there would be more. I'm sorry to say this, but given the time elapsed since this accident, I was underwhelmed at both of the accident reconstruction "experts". The jury seemed pretty easily persuaded to doubt the State's case on BUI as well, which I believe is more the State's fault than the jury's, but just a guess.

There's never a good ending to any of these stories, and I certainly wish nobody any malice. Possibly the memory of this accident can prevent another (it's already made me think of my anchor line).

My condolences to everyone involved personally with this tragedy, and hopefully, your lives can return to some semblance of normality.

It seems like a just verdict based on the facts as I understand them. Now what will be more interesting is what the results of the PSI (Pre Sentencing Investigation) are, and what punishment Blizzard receives.

I think the judge will give substantial weight to the wishes of the victims family. That they were best friends out doing the same thing together, I suspect that she may never spend a day in prison. Likely she will get a suspended sentence with fines and some sort of community service
requirement.

The State seems to have done a good job on the case.

RIP to Beaudoin.

I am just raising the question of what is a "proper" lookout.

It seemed to me in reading the coverage that she was doing everything she could in attempting to locate navigational aides she relied on, to me that would constitute a "proper" lookout.

The fact that she still hit the island says that she should have stopped or slowed the boat to headway speed when visibility went to zero but that was not what the jury found her guilty of.

So the question is the definition of "proper" lookout. Focusing ahead of the boat into the night would be considered proper, until you hit something? Then it is not proper even though conditions were such that the lookout could not see the object?

I'm just pointing out that an argument could me made.

I tend to think it may have been more a matter of the jury doing what they usually do, grab onto the charge that is easiest to understand. There is always some 'negotiation' in the jury room, and absent 12 people who completely agree on every charge, they often go with the easiest to prove charge. In this case that was obviously the Neg Homicide 'failure to keep proper lookout.'


**I should add that as I recall, the Neg Homicide with the BUI is an A Felony, while the charge the jury went with is a B Felony. It is a substantial difference in sentence.

The prosecutor should retry her on the hung jury counts.

To do otherwise is a denial of justice.

Thank God COMMON SENSE prevailed. We all knew she was guilty, now the whole world knows she is ! She probably will appeal, just so she can have alittle more FREE time. Don (webmaster), can we now lock this up like you did the speed limit thread? Lets move on to spring thaw and possible record ice out.
By the way, I noticed in the Weirs Times this week, on the same page as the map of Winnie, there is a nice list of YEARS/DATES:) of ice out since 1888.

Proper lookout is definitely not something that is going to get defined the same way by every person. And I really don't believe was the proper way to define the charge that she was ultimately convicted of. However that may be the only way the could charge her, with what was definable by law.

Proper lookout really just refers to the visual aspects of make sure you are aware of your surroundings, and proximity to things.

Truly in this case the better why to define what Ms. Blizzard is guilty of is negligent operation. This would there for include not keep a proper lookout, as well as operation of her vessel in a safe and prudent manor. Visually she didn't keep a good lookout, which was in part hampered by operating her boat at a speed prudent for the situation. If you can't see past the bow of the boat, you shouldn't be moving at more then headway speed.

I had long been thinking of a fitting closing point to make in this thread... summing up my feelings of how this accident as well as others have been use to falsely create fear where there shouldn't be any. But I have decided not to.

This was a sad sad situation. How much of a roll alcohol played here I have no idea, and from reading what I have read, have been left with many questions to ponder. Which will hopefully drive me to do some research and understand things better.

Do I believe the state should hand down the harshest punishment possible. Yes, not because I believe Ms. Blizzard is a horrible, unremorseful person, but because I have and always will believe in punishing people to the fullest extent of the law. In actuality I don't believe any punishment the state can levy can be as bad as the quilt she lives with every day knowing what happened the dark night.

The only thing I walk away from all this the slightest bit disappointed in, is that I got the feeling that the state didn't assemble the case that they should have. Maybe I am wrong, but maybe I am not. I do believe the state case could have been stronger then it was.

To all the families and people involved, I hope that this trial puts this issue to rest. Now is the time that we all need to let this issue go, and let the wounds heal. Certainly we have all gained a new perspective from watching this, and could discuss things for along time. But we need to respect that it is over and allow, the community and the lake itself to move on.

Verdict
 

I just have one question about Airwaves' summary of the trial. She said "she came down off plane when the visibility went to zero, but went back on plane because the rocking of the boat was making them all sick". I ask you boaters out there: Is this testimony credible under the circumstances of the crash? It doesn't sound right to me, but I am not a boater. Can anyone explain this?

LIforrelaxin, actually the charge I would have brought is negligent operation of a boat as you suggest. However that is not what was presented to the jury. They found her guilty of failure to keep a proper lookout and that is fine, as I stated I am only basing my observation on what I read in the newspapers, I wasn't in the courtroom. However it seems to me that AN ARGUMENT could be made regarding the word PROPER. Based on what I read she did maintain a proper lookout. What she failed to do was to maintain headway speed...so the charge was probably inappropriate.

john60ri...a boat underway at speed in weather is a much more stable vessel than one not underway or at headway speed in the same weather. So according to her testimony she came down off plane but because of the condition of the waves on the lake, and the rocking the pitching of the boat, it was making everyone sick, so she went back up on plane to avoid the rocking that was producing motion sickness.

Just so everyone is clear. I am not defending Blizzard or the jury or criticizing the prosecution. I am pointing out that based on what I read in the newspapers she was facing the wrong charge in once case and will in all likelihood face a retrial for the charges in the hung jury based on the sentence.

But I find the definition of "proper" something that should be looked at.

If I was plowing along at say 15mph and the visibility went to zero I would drop down to headway speed and ask any on board to help keep watch. I have been there having to transport a grandchild to the ER from Welch at night in the fog. I really wanted to be going a lot faster but suppressed the urge.

A boat is more stable on plane than plowing along but if you can't see past the bow you are driving blind.

3 1/2 years probably is a reasonable punishment. Hopefully, she gets it all and the state chooses not to retry her (and waste money) on the two charges that the jury was deadlocked on. I would have preferred a guilty plea and her request for leniency. I think in that circumstance leniency would have been granted in combination with a heavy community service requirement and some good would have come from this tragedy.

Anytime someone climbs into a boat like that after 3 1/2 drinks (her version) in the dead of the night in dicey weather you are guilty of negligence in my opinion. The BAC evidence backs this position up, but she had a good attorney and he was able to convince one or two jurors that there was a reasonable doubt.

Boating Accident
 

I'm kind of new to this bizarre forum regarding the boat that hit Diamond Island, etc,etc,, I've taken the time to read back through all the comments written during (almost) the past two years and I really find it quite interesting how many of you are ready to immediately condem and how many of you are ready to condon what happened when in fact not one of you was on the boat that night and really have no idea what happened beside what you read, hear or see in the media. You're all so riteous: if it was your daughter I suppose you want blood, if on the other hand it's you daughter on trail you want acquittal. The last time I checked, in the United States OF America, according to our Constituion you are innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers, afetr hearing the evidence presentesd by the prosecution and the defense. I don't find it amusing that so many of you have such opinion regarding guilt or innocense when you weren't there when it happened. At the end of the day if it was your daughter, on trail, for an accident that occurred taking the life of your daughters best friend and someone whom you considered to be a great friend, as well, how would you react. Empathy, has a simple definition: Walk IN MY Shoes, before passing judgement. I've been on the Lake W for 64 years, I've been a resident since 1982, the Lake can be a nightmare, from time to time, and we all from time to time take liberties with our knowledge and experience with the lake trying to beat Mother Nature. The jury has decide Erika's fate, as it should, based upon the evidence presented. I did attend the trial, one day, so if you didn't don't sit back and second guess what was presented.

nellies,

you hit the nail right on the head. I did too sit in on the trial for not 1 day but 3, and you said everything i would have said.

THANKS!!

With all due respect to nellies and Seadoo
 

I agree that the postings prior and during the trial we probably off the wall. But since the verdict was rendered, and since Nellies and Seadoo say they attended at least portions of the trial, please give us some insight into what happened beyond what was reported in the newspapers since that is our only source of information.

What did they get wrong/right/leave out/embelsih etc that we don't know about?

I also agree with Nellies post.

I wasn’t in the court room and I really do not feel comfortable passing judgment on someone based on reading a 150 word story in the paper.

Both the defense and the prosecution made their case and in the end 12 people made their decision based on the facts presented.

As for the actions of this board, not too long ago, a number of people went crazy hanging out some poor guy who had his boat sink on him. Without any facts other than the fact that a boat sank they went on a rant saying what this person should have done and how much better a boater they were.

Point is there are many people that have a holier than I view.

There was definitely some finding about this case in the news today. I do not know the facts.

I do know that I would not drink and drive and would not get in a car or a boat with someone who would drink and drive either. The whole thing is a tragedy for many it seems. Nothing we enter here can change that. It is just sad and friends did things that they were not supposed to be doing and one died as a result. It has happened before and will happen again. Education and example and talking about how things like this happen if people do not act responsibily might be helpful.

None of these posts can be of personal knowledge and even if there were several survivors that were on the vessel that night I would bet they would have differing accounts of the incident. That is the nature of individual observations based on each persons life-long experiences.

If it is upsetting to read peoples opinions in a semi-public forum you should not do it. You are now judging and condeming everyone on the thread by your standards and opinion and doing the same activity that you are complaning about. There is a benefit to venting and sharing opinions through discussions. The process of composing a post takes an effort that includes writing your thoughts. Some postings are better than others but each one does allow the poster to practice a style of communication that insures we will not forget the horrible event and hopefully prevent future accidents.

To your point - There are some that comdem the people and I do agree that is the courts job but there were many that speculate on the facts and by doing so it forces one to contemplate or reflect what they would do in that situation. There are some posts that many found insulting and boil your blood but try to skip over them or respond if moved to. I personally believe 80% add value and advance the experience of Winnipesaukee. JMHO.

Missing: Vigilance and Skill...
 

NR: Nicely said. :)

Question: For those who attended, was this a trial by six jurors or twelve?

Juries of twelve are common in Capital-Murder cases—not this kind. (Juries of six are said to be more easily hamstrung in decision-making). :rolleye1:

But not to the same degree as one did. :(

If a civil trial against this defendant follows—as in OJ Simpson's case—everyone paying a boating-insurance premium definitely loses.

That said, NH law makes an exception for an insurance payout when the insured is found to be a felon. (I don't know what happens when a jury finding is later reversed).

1) The defendant was found "Guilty" on the least of the charges.

(In our court system, there is no finding of "Innocent"—and a 3½-year confinement isn't going to happen).

2) The Court and State witnesses are paid regardless of their activity: As FLL points out, an appeal could find the penalty overturned by the NH Supreme Court.

3) IMHO, if there was ever a case for revocation of a boater certification—this is it.

(The remaining "25-horsepower option" can be especially instructive in boat handling safety). :cool:



Nellies—First...Welcome to the forum. :)

1) "Empathy" in this case is a two-edged sword.

As the near-daily operator of boats less than 22-feet long, I'm not wishing to share any part of this lake with this particular felon. Like the Littlefield case, "big" boating—after sunset—has become a "stern taskmaster" :(

2) If you've been following the newspapers' "comments"...well...:eek2: enough said on that! :eek:


"Threading the needle" meant passage between two shorelines 2000-feet apart! Her purported use of a fathometer is better than nothing, and would have allowed a few hundred yards of warning...BUT...to quote Airwaves' fav-or-ite rule: :rolleye2:

_____________________

"The sea is a stern mistress...She demands from her sons both vigilance and skill in her service, and for the man who fails her the penalty is death...".
—Ajax

Great post Noregrets.

Frankly, we now have a verdict. The court system has done its job and justice has been determined.

Why do people continue to make posts that are only hurting all those involved.

There is nothing more productive that can come from this thread. The conjecture and speculations have been drawn out to no end and now it is just becoming shameless. Lets have some respect for all those involved and finally put this entire situation behind us and learn from what has happened.

I would think that if other issues have been shut down because there is no more productive comments that can be made then this is another case where the same respect and logic should also be stopped.

I would hope that this thread would be shut down now that it is finally over.

What would it cost to establish a Lighted Mark on the southwest corner of Diamond Island...maybe just like the one on Parker Island.

Whenever I transit from Wolfeboro to Winter Harbor at night I ALWAYS go outside the island ..using that fixed lighted mark, just to be safe, rather than try and find the unlighted marks on the inside channel that I use in daylight. Just wondering. :look: NB

That's an excellent idea. I think that long stretch from the witches to Diamond needs a nav-aid.

UnionLeader.com comments
 

I am absolutely appalled (yet not surprised) at most of the comments that have been posted in the article on unionleader.com regarding the outcome of this trial. Disgusting in every way.

A number of things came up to help make the lake safer. Contact SBONH if you feel that we need a specific law on the books to make the lake safer.

Having a light bouy on The Broads side of Diamond Island is a good one. Even on a good night Diamond can be missed.

One item suggested a couple of years ago and I feel has merits is making Cattle Landing Pass a no wake zone on weekends. This area is very busy and I have seen too many near misses.

Another item is to allow overnight stay in inclement weather at all public docks in NH. Twice I was ask to leave. Both in different towns. One night it was raining so hard, the MP tied up to the dock. And I was TOLD to leave. Another night, the LEO gave me a ticket on the spot. I would rather pay the ticket than try to navigate The Broads in pea soup fog. In the name of safety you should be allowed to stay.

I strongly feel, replacing 'Reasonable and Prudent' with USCG Rule 6. 'Reasonable and Prudent' is a vague statement. Rule 6 will give the MP 'more teeth' when being challenge in the courts.

Feel free to let me know of your thoughts.

There already is one on the Broads side; FL25 off the end of Rattlesnake is a good landmark. I'd like to see one just southwest of the southwest corner of Diamond Island. It would be a perfect place for one as you head from FL71/FL28 at the witches toward Alton Bay. Presently, Diamond Island hides FL24 by Treasure Island, so it's tough to get a visual fix on a good waypoint. With a light where NoBozo suggested, you could easily make your way from one FL to the next, like you can heading up into Center Harbor from the Broads (FL7 to FL83 to FL6 to FL5), or heading into Alton Bay from the Broads (FL22 to FL67 to FL23). I love having the FLs to confirm that I am on the course that my chartplotter says I am.

I agree with all your suggestions. I thinks reasonable and prudent is OK but augmenting with USCG Rule 6 is good as well.

I was reading your dock stories and thinking about the trial. If they found the visibilty too bad and anchored until it improved, they would be breaking the law against anchoring a houseboat at night. Now a ticket for illegal anchoring is worth it to avoid death and injury, but the law should not encourage bad choices.

This is one of the "Unintended Consiquences" that (perhaps) agenda driven enacted laws can cause. I would have just stayed tied up to the town docks at Wolfeboro for the night. No problem. :)

But WAIT: I know this is Against The Law ...and I don't need a hassle from the WPD or the MP tonight. SO: I get underway. After all, I don't have ANY visions of Death and Destruction on my mind. It will probably be an unpleasent trip..but I'm confident I can get to where I'm going.........

Just Too Much Common Sense goin on here. SO: Who WINS..?? :look: NB

She made it to her father's house so she could have tied up there.

YUP: Good point.........How FAR could she have gone....Maybe she could have made it to another Waypoint. MY point was ..If the LAW had allowed..maybe she wouldn't have HAD to get underway and make the next Waypoint.

Not trying to raise a ruckus..just some thought...maybe learn something ...NB

nighttime
 

Just a quick thought/question I have, as this thread seems to be starting to wind down... I have my own opinion on the matter, and without a long detailed post, would simply state that I believe justice is not being served. If her financial situation was different, I believe the outcome would be quite different...but when you can afford the best defense lawyers that money can buy...well you tend to get better results.
Anyway...my question...
I have plenty of boating experience on the lake...encountered my share of tough situations, made mistakes navigating, been caught if terrible weather...normal stuff every boater has experienced.
But all in the day time. I have never boated at night, and would really not know the first thing about it.
There has been much discussion about Erica coming off plane when visibilty went to zero, but because of the boat getting tossed, she decided to throttle back up a bit. So, I ask, when visibility is zero...AT NIGHT, BY THE WAY... when would it ever be a good idea to travel above headway speed?! You can't see...don't know what might be floating in the water ahead of you, but power up because people are not feeling well? "Lean over the side and toss, and while you're there, shout out if you happen to see anything".
Really though...is driving the boat at 18 MPH in zero visibilty an accepted practice? Curious what boaters with more experince than me might think.

As I have stated in post above
 

I would docked or anchor the boat and wait. I have done that a number of times. When I anchor off shore, it does not seem to be a problem. The MP seems to realize the safety issue. It is the town LEOs at public docks that are telling you to move on.

On the other hand, if I had radar, lorance, or GPS, it may have been different. I still need a proper look out.

I know that if I am in my boat and the visibility is zero I would never go above headway speed and I would have my spotlight in use. I have been on the lake over 30 years and know that it is very easy to get disoriented very easily in the fog. Even with gps caution is necessary.

Great segway SAmeredith and maybe this could start a new thread.

GPS places you on the breadcrumbs you left behind and shows the map with your position on it so by itself you can move providing you have visibility so I agree with BCI.

Radar will pick up other movable objects when visibility becomes impared. You must become familiar and practice - practice - and practice with this equipment ao you can adjust for rain, humidity, and waves to maximize your accuracy. When tuned for the condition you can become fairly safe. Most radars can also set alarms if it picks up on an object in a configured zone. I will create 2 zones around 300 feet and 500 feet ahead of me and an audible alarm goes off if a marker, boat, obstruction or anything that reflects the radar comes within the zones as we are under way. On one occasion my alarm triggered and0 it was a flock of ducks. Did I emphasize that PRACTICE is imperative?

It is easy to become disoriented in fog even with the equipment so that is when the compass and chart become important. One time I was sure I was looking in one direction but all my equipment told me otherwise. It was a bad feeling so I shut down competely and verified with all my equipment and I was wrong.

I am sure there are other possibilities and use of teh equipment but I do find it liberating and exhilerating to navigate in all types of conditions. With my current knowledge and experience I would NOT go on plane without radar in limited visibility conditions. This includes bright sunshine.

The poorest condition we encountered was leaving Center Harbor and we could not see the end of the bow. It took us over 2 hours of focused navigation to get to the back side of Governer's Island. We were very confident we were safe and posed no danger to anyone elso. As soon as we got into the broads the fog lifted. Great experience.

Erica's testomy included a statement that the conditions were getting her passengers sick so she decided to pick up the speed (paraphrased by me) was interesting and it is true that headway speed in waves can be awful. I would think a faster "plowing" approach with the bow up would stablize the rocking sensation but if you hit an object at that speed (maybe 8- 12 MPH) the results would be different. Not judging but just pondering. What do you all think.

Thanks for the post SAMeredith.

Ice Out Monday!!!! maybe?

Secondcurve
According to the testimony the weather the visibility turned south AFTER she left her father's house.

Classic example of New England weather. I noticed a lot of small crafts find out the hard way as they try to navigate The Broads. :eek: