Ok, I'll say it!!! WHAT A PIECE OF WORK SHE IS !! she deserves everything she is going to get, which I hope includes the kitchen table thrown at her. I said it before and I will say it again, She was quilty then, and she is quilty now.
Ocdactive, I agree with you about this thread, IMHO she is not worth wasting any more of my time on. That is my last ( Perry Mason Moment )!:rolleye1:

FLL, I know what the law is regarding OPEN containers. However that is not what APS and I were discussing. Nevermind the fact that there is NO law pertaining to open containers on boats.
I have made my point perfectly clear that the presence of alcohol means only that there was alcohol on the boat. That fact alone may of course raise suspicion that she was drinking, but it proves nothing.

I don't disagree with you at all. My point goes back to before the trial ended, where we were discussing the fact that there was alcohol on the boat. See above.

I am not condoning her actions in anyway. I am only stating that there is nothing wrong with alcohol (open or unopen container) being present on a boat. Period.

this is not new information concerning the tragic loss of life from a boating accident.

wow!
 

Although I have been very critical of Erica's decision making in the past week or so, part of me felt sympathy for her...as we all (or at least me) have made poor choices in our lives from time to time.
To be very honest, many years back, I thought nothing of mixing alcohol with operating a boat/ automobile...although on the boat, was always very careful to limit drinking to one or two per 4 hours. In the car, well, not so much...
Anyway...to me, two things in the past week speak very loudly to her character.
1. Allowing herself to be seen with a huge smile on her face following the verdict. I'm quite sure her victim and the vicitim's family can no longer smile. Save the celebration for private quarters.
2. This latest story of speeding/ changing lanes with no signal/ using a cell phone/ generally not paying attention while driving in the third lane.
Was there an open beer in the center console??!!
What a blatant show of disrespect for a person who just caught, what I believe, to be a nice break. No OUI conviction, after testing at .15, and admitting drinking.
Go easy for a while, Erica. 65 MPH, limit going out in public, etc etc...
I love the comment about..."...gee, I haven't been stopped in a really long time." Really?! Anything else you'd care to disclose?

Wow!
 

Since the saga continues, one final comment: When a defense attorney has to represent a client who is guilty as sin, what he and the client have to do is make up a "story" which will hopefully paint the client in a more favorable light. I did not buy the part of the story about her speeding up because her passengers were feeling sick. Did not sound credible to me, but maybe that's the best they could come up with. Whatever story they presented to the jury, it worked pretty well, since she was convicted only of negligence, not drunkenness or recklessness. It's all speculation, of course, and as I said, I am not a boater. I would love to read the transcript of the trial. As to the speeding incident, makes me think we're dealing with a real narcissistic personality here.

But let's give credit where credit is due...at least there was no report of any handgun in the car.

Has the prosecuting attorney given any indication as to whether he will retry her on the two hung jury counts?

It ain't over til it's over.

It has been said here many times that we should "go easy" in our comments in deference to the family of the victim. Now we find out that in the almost two years since the accident, Erica has been driving around with "XTREME" on her license plate. It seems to me that is more of a slap in the face than anything that has been said here.

It shows a serious lapse in judgment and sensibility. Changing to a generic plate after the accident would have been prudent.

The biggest lapse in judgement IMO are recent comments and remarks made here in this thread.

Erica Blizzard
 

In trouble with the law again. I just heard on the radio that she was stopped last week , I think it said in Hampton on Rt 95, clocked at 85 mph. Good thing she wasn't driving a boat....then she's really be in trouble

Wow!
 

Tried to make me go to rehab, I said no, no, no.

Originally posted by BI
Criticize her for running into an island, criticize her for her lack of judgement, criticize her for speeding on 93 and talking on a cellphone...but to criticize her for her license plate? That's over the top even for you!

Nice piece on Channel 5 the other night.

I can't believe the things you people have been saying on here. Have some respect. This could have happened to any one of us or one of our family members. One wrong decision could change everything. The best part about it is Erica is still a better boater than 90% of the people on here.... Its time to find something else to take up your day on this site.
Lets start a thread on how people should take a boating test on the water with there boat before they get there license. That would make this lake a bit safer don't you think.....

Zero tolerance for OUI/BUI
 

Well, maybe she can give us, the great unwashed, some boating lessons as a condition of her post-sentence probation...I for one would love to learn from her. I think O.J is giving cutlery lessons... Anyone interested?

Get real! A .15 is a .15 is a .15... Couldn't have happened to me. But lets see, it could have and did happen to all the people I arrested for OUI last year.

I have followed this thread off and on since it started and have refrained from posting any comments due to the many unknowns, etc. This morning, however, when I read the account in the Citizen I could no longer stay silent.

This woman has got to represent the absolute worst of the me-first, I'm above the law, laws don't apply to me, I won't get caught (or if I do I'll get a high priced attorney and get off), not my problem, take no responsibility generation. She obviously made no attempt to learn from her little "boating mishap" knowing she could go on waving her middle finger at the world.

Her legal team has probably already determined that the trooper's radar gun was defective and that she really didn't change lanes without signalling because the trooper was looking the wrong way. Certainly there is nothing wrong with running over the trooper because because she was too busy entering numbers on her cell phone. This sounds like nothing more than a case of failure to keep a proper look out. If all you folks who believed her BS story during her recent trial still believe her, I've got several bridges to sell you.

Sorry, I don't buy that. I think most boaters on this forum know enough to slow down when they can't see where they are going. And I'll bet that almost all of them have never been convicted of committing a homicide with their boat. That makes them "better boaters" than Erica.

Vetting: Formal and Thorough Examination
 

First, the court has the witness sworn—or, today, "affirmed"—to:
That said, Perjury is probably the least-enforced law on the books. :(

Second: That would be illegal for a lawyer. It is called "suborning of witnesses", and resulted in the recent impeachment of a President. (No conviction resulted).

IMO, in today's P-C world, the "vetting" of ALL Presidents has gone AWOL.

:(

The link is now broken, but FLL did, indeed, read of the "hiding a beer can" wrapper here:

http://i.s.shopwiki.com/i/data/__Can...ODgzNDEw==.jpg

Sold for the "discreet" boater. :rolleye1:

It appeared about when Lake Norman, previously cited, departed from its "dry" county status. (Shortly after becoming a "wet" county, an airborne boat departed the lake, hit a guard rail, was hit by a car, spun, and flipped over onto its passengers (!) on Interstate 77.

Serious injuries resulted and beer cans were strewn in the median.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...=263602_263622

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...=263602_263622

Today, for partying on a boat, you can also buy a "bong cover"! :eek:

With legal open containers on a boat, a legal firearm on a boat, with possibly stoned and legally-drunken passengers on a boat, may I be excused if I "wave-off" any future rescues? :eek2:

Like others, I've followed this thread with passing interest, often amazed at the extreme views and comments on both sides.

Upon hearing stories of other troubles that friends children were in, mother always commented, "Be careful, you never know when you might be in their shoes."

As the father of children now in their late teens and early twenties, I had some sympathy for her situation and felt she had paid a horrible price, in many ways, for a stupid mistake that could have happened to many.

But this latest news changes things substantially for me. She's a menace and should recieve strong punishment for her actions. Imagine the outrage if she had hit or killed someone else during this latest fiasco, and she doesn't seem to be fazed at all.

This young lady is self destructing. We do not need to "gang pile" when she is down. I do not see any purpose or value in attacking her personally, or each statement in the forum, or postureing for superior postion on this issue over other posters.

The Citizen article paints enough of a picture of the auto incident to give clues to her personal charactorists. We should trust the police quotes in the article. WMUR also did an article with no details except the speed stop.
The court system found her guilty....we will wait to see the penality placed on the crime.

Soemone has already stated the this event and subsequent story may become the topic of a book or movie. Let's sit back and see.

In a way, I agree with you BI. Although it shouldn't have any bearing on the case(s) at hand, it just might.

With that said, in the time after the accident, I think she had bigger and better things to worry about than changing her license plate. Does the article mention who the owner of the vehicle is?

No this couldn't happen to any of us. That viewpoint on dangerous behavior is part of the problem on the lake and highways. We cannot tolerate this behavior if we want the lake/roads to be a safe place for all of us. It's our collective lives that these people put at risk. And highly publicized events like this are important reminders that each of us can be part of the problem through our own behavior. If you think this could happen to anyone, you're saying you could see YOURSELF doing the same thing that Ms. Xtreme has done. I don't buy that argument at all. Some of us know how to boat at night in poor weather. Some of us know how dangerous using cell phones and driving are and don't do it. Some of us don't drink and drive.

Thank goodness she didn't hit the statie.

Driving boats and cars is a priviledge, not a right -- I think she should lose both for a very very very long time.

Could have happened to anyone? I think not.

Can't keep my mouth shut
 

OK, I have to open my mouth based on some of the comments. As someone who used to be a long distance commuter on both I-93, 101, I-95, I-89, there is no question she is not some aberration of what's on the road.

First, if I was out on bail you can bet I would be walking a straight line.

However in NH, you have to be doing over 30 MPH for the speed to be more than a simple speeding fine without some truly agregious action. I don't know what the speed limit is where she was stopped.

If a cop is on the side of I-93 waving his arms and then gets miffed at someone speeding by I have to call him an idiot. And you will find that 99.9%of the time I will support the police on their duties. Cars are whizzing by. If someone needs to be stopped, use the car that taxpayers provide you with blue lights on top to pull them over and issue the ticket. Playing frogger on I-93 is his stupidity.

Negligent driving? And how many tickets are written everyday for 80-84 MPH where the driver pulls away with a nice fine to go to the State coffers? Failure to use a signal? Seriously? You have got to be kidding me. I'll bet that officer doesn't use his own signal dozens of time per day.

I say he wanted to be a headline. This smells of overzealous IMO.

Put the plate over the jail cell

Reality
 

First of all, Stationary radar assignment is the safest and preferred method of speed/traffic enforcement. When you "use the car taxpayers provide you" you then have TWO people speeding and driving like idiots. How fast do you think a trooper needs to drive to catch up to a vehicle traveling 84 mph from a standing start? Easily around 100 mph, yeah thats way smarter than standing in the breakdown lane with a Neon green traffic vest that says "State Police" which, mind you, most drivers that are paying attention will easily see and slow down for. This is evidenced by the fact that, as we all know, there is a mini traffic jam every time rubberneckers see blue lights.

Second, there is a big push nation wide and certaininly state wide (with the new driving and texting law) to enforce distracted driving. The unsafe lane change needed to be noted and cited to prove the texting was a distraction.

Third, when a police officer has an interaction with someone that is either on probation or parole red flags pop up in the computer and very often dictate special considerations ie, calling of a probation officer, checking on pre and post trial release conditions, bail conditions etc...

Respectfully,
HCG

Let's cut to the chase. Speeding violations are revenue enhancement.

Cops run 100MPH everyday to catch speeders every day. If traffic is heavy, the brake lights and slinky effect from the police car in the median or side of the road is actually as much of a hazard as the speeding, etc. There's a reason civil engineers design lanes to keep traffic moving.

I'm not debating that texting is unsafe. But, how many times are cops on their phone or radio while on patrol where technology exists to prevent it? Just playing devils advocate. I also think she was an idiot for breaking even a jaywalking law for someone in her circumstance. Negligent driving sounds like a stretch to me and if she did not have a hit, would have driven away with a speeding fine. Give her the big fat ticket for speeding and move on.

There are much better techniques to catch speeders than standing anywhere on I-93. State Police vest is highly visible? What about to the person riding next to SUVs or tractor trailers and the drivers view of anyone on the side of the road is blocked? May be safer on slower streets but on the highway, absolutely not.

A day after the conviction, Blizzard was stopped by a state trooper on I-93 who said she was traveling 84 mph in a 65 mph zone. Prosecutors said the citation could be a factor in her sentencing.

State police said Blizzard was fumbling with her cell phone when she was seen speeding in a black SUV. The trooper said Blizzard was tailgating the car in front of her while she held a phone.

In his report, the trooper wrote that he "observed her quickly hold the phone out, look at it and then put it back to her ear."

The trooper said he realized she wasn't paying attention, and he had to steer "back into the high-speed lane to prevent being struck by her."

The trooper said he yelled at her to pull over while waving his arms. He said Blizzard "moved her phone away from her ear as she drove past" and then "stopped the vehicle rapidly, pulling into the breakdown lane."



This sounds so fabricated hahah... just a cop trying to get into the news...
How can the guy say she was tailgating then say she almost hit him when there was a car right in front of her. sounds like he was driving not sitting on the side of the road....
you realize 75% of the people on 93 are doing 75-80 MPH whats 4 more MPH

Cops run 100 MPH everyday to stop speeders... Yup, should it be kept to a minimum, absolutely and this was an instance that an experienced, trained trooper deemed appropriate. I'll go with his jdgement, thanks. As far as other circumstances ie, SUV's, tractor trailers etc. Law enforcement deals with these situations appropriately, in other words, when they can not REASONABLY be seen or expect to be seen the practice shouldn't be undertaken and the trooper will typically back off the road to a safe distance until the situation to continue presents itself. If anyone has ever been passed, at highway speeds, within a few feet of any vehicle, much less a tractor trailer, they would know that the suction alone will pull you off your feet and into traffic if you are not paying attention.

HCG

anyway
 

Actaully, the end of your post makes a bit of sense. People needing to take a water test in there(sic) boat to get there(sic) license is not a bad idea. Think you meant "their", but who am I to say?

But, as for the rest of the post...I certainly agree one wrong decision can put a person's whole life into a tailspin. There is no question about that. However, I for one, think she made several bad decisions in a very brief period of time.
Let's assume for a moment that she is a more skilled/experienced boater than 90% of the poeple who read this forum ( I actaully stated something very similar to that a day or so ago) . Doesn't that make this whole thing worse?! If she is such a fantastic boater, what prompted her to decide 18 MPH IN ZERO VISIBITLY was a solid choice? My best guess is, she was not thinking clearly...add that to the .15, add that to 5 hours in bar, add that to the empties found on board, add that to the vodka bottle that they admitted to using to make a drink for the ride, and finally, add that to a sleek, smooth talking attorney, and the survey says?????????????
No OUI...thanks for playing!

You know those bright green-yellow fluorescent 'state police' hi-visibility vests make it pretty obvious it's law enforcement up ahead there, as you cruise those Route 93 curvy hills.

If you are familiar with Route 93 northbound in New Hampton, close to Exit 23, then you know it's a two lane, 65-mph speed limit, interstate highway that runs along a rolling, hilly and forested landscape. The road was repaved smooth as can be, just last fall, by a federal stimilus funding grant with those big orange signs. It's a very attractive and picturesque highway, and would be a great location for a Hollywood movie to stage an 'xtreme' replay.

Lights....action....cameras....let's roll' em......:cool::D


Maybe, Randy Quad to be the officer with Julia Roberts to be Erica?

... and you can be the Judge and Jury.:rolleye2:

We hear only what we want to!
 

Seems we hear what we want and somtimes it is not always correct and some here have indicated the officer was on the side of the road. From WMUR - it does not sound as if the officer was standing in the road on 93 or on the side in any way. Operative word "steer" Note that the high speed and breakdown lanes are referenced in the quoted report below so I doubt an officer ran across the highway. BTW State Police Cruisers have loud speaker systems and they can talk or yell at people using them.

"State police said Blizzard was fumbling with her cell phone when she was seen speeding in a black SUV. The trooper said Blizzard was tailgating the car in front of her while she held a phone.

In his report, the trooper wrote that he "observed her quickly hold the phone out, look at it and then put it back to her ear."

The trooper said he realized she wasn't paying attention, and he had to steer "back into the high-speed lane to prevent being struck by her."

The trooper said he yelled at her to pull over while waving his arms. He said Blizzard "moved her phone away from her ear as she drove past" and then "stopped the vehicle rapidly, pulling into the breakdown lane."

Blizzard allegedly apologized to the officer and said she was having trouble entering numbers into her phone. The trooper said that when he told her that she almost hit him, "she didn't appear affected."

... and sometimes WMUR gets their story mixed up!
 

For the record, the report provided on WMUR is not correct. Sadly, they often get their stories mixed up, as they did in this instance. Trooper Taylor was, in fact, on the side of the road, and was observing the vehicle from a position outside his cruiser. It is for this reason that he was able to so carefully observe. It is also the reason he yelled for her to pull over - instead of using lights or siren. The facts are much more clearly spelled out in the articles published in both The Citizen, and The Laconia Daily Sun. ;)

Regarding the above portion, I completely agree. I watched a trooper come literally within inches of his life when he walked from the breakdown lane into the right travel lane of I-93 to yell and point at a speeding vehicle in the left lane. There were 2 cars bearing down on him in the right lane, me (towing a trailer) and the car in front of me. The car in front of me was able to stop with inches to spare, and I came damn close to rear-ending the car. That in itself would have caused the car to hit the trooper. Just plain stupid on the troopers part.

That is not how I interpret the Citizen's report:

Taylor's report states he was parked in a crossover on Interstate 93 conducting speed enforcement when he saw Blizzard's black 2007 GMC Yukon with the vanity plate "XTREME" in the passing lane, traveling at a high rate of speed, passing cars that were in the travel lane. He said he clocked the vehicle traveling at 84 mph. As he continued to watch the vehicle, Taylor observed it move to the travel lane without signaling. He said he stepped into the high-speed lane and waved his arms to slow traffic and when Blizzard's vehicle passed he observed the driver was holding a cell phone in her right hand and holding it up to her ear.

"I observed her quickly hold the phone out, look at it and then put it back to her ear," Taylor wrote in his report that was filled with Carroll's motion.

"Realizing the operator was not paying attention, I jumped back so as not to be struck by her vehicle and yelled at the top of my voice to 'Pull Over,' while motioning with my arms for her to do so," Taylor wrote.


1. He was parked in a "crossover" which is in the median so that authorized vehicles can get to other north or southbound lanes.

2. When Taylor first saw her she was in high speed lane

3. She then moved to the travel lane without signaling

4. Taylor then walked onto the high speed lane to signal Erica

5. He observed her with her cell phone and that she was not paying attention.

6. He jumped back on to the median when she went by. I have to assume she was still in the travel lane but Taylor was still worried she might drift into his lane due to lack of attentiveness.

7. He yelled and she stopped

8. I have to assume he got in his cruiser and drove to where Erica stopped.

Wow, I was surprised how quiet this forum was after the trial. People seemed a little afraid to talk about it. It's hard when you know some people on the forum must know the defendent and maybe the victim. Now I surprised how this latest news is being discussed.

This is really bad news for the defendent. The judge can use this latest event as information on sentencing. The procecutor will weigh this in his re-trial decision. Any re-trial runs the risk of this information coming in.

I still feel there should be a re-trial on the alcohol related charges. I really don't want to see two fatal collisions, obviously related to alcohol, where the driver is unpunished for the the alcohol. It really shakes my belief in the ability of the state to put teeth in alcohol enforcement.

I strongly believe that this is the most life threatening problem facing the lake. Sure 150' rule violations and wake damage have weight, but this is life or death stuff. Comment regarding licenses plates and guns on board seem out of place to me.

Negligent homicide....
 

.......negligent driving.... is it just me or is there a pattern here? And I have to wonder how many times she did it without being detected. Seems like her judgement is deficient. I'm thinking she will be having some time to contemplate her actions...and, hopefully, during that time, we won't have to worry about encountering her either on the water or on the road. My feelings of empathy towards her are much diminished since this second offense of negligence.

Well I was trying to stay away from this topic but sense the latest events I find myself once again not being able to keep my mouth shut.......

Lets start here with a on the water boat test --- Erica had been boating all her life, owning a 450K$ boat, I would say her driving a navigational skills where not in question.... that argument has no business in this thread. Weather that would make the lake safer or not is any ones question... On the road driving tests do such a wonderful job of keeping the roads safe.....

Now on to "this could happen to any of us" --- what exactly are you referring too.... The boat accident? The trial? The smooth move in the car? While accidents happen and yes they can happen to any off us, the smooth move Ms Blizzard pulled in her SUV, was plain stupidity... If she was smart, she would be staying at home, going to work and keeping a very low profile... apparently she is not... If I had just been convicted of negligence I wouldn't be driving up the road at 85 with my cell phone on being negligent even again.

Up until this I have felt as though there should be some leniency for Ms. Blizzard for her actions. As I felt up until now that living with what she had done to her friends should have had a life altering effect. However My opinion on that is changing. If she hasn't learned from her mistake then she indeed needs to be taught a harsh lesson....

Very well said and impossible to dispute.

Steveo - you made my point much more clearly than I did! :blush:

I was disputing the report on WMUR, which suggested that the trooper was inside his car the entire time. Your breakdown of the Citizen article makes the point much easier to see.

Thanks!

I have to question if the trooper wrote the ticket for negligent driving *AFTER" having contacted any other official. Her attorney could subpeona the radio transmissions. They can also get his record of citations for speeding at 80-85 MPH and show how many were written as negligent driving. If someone other than the officer had a hand in what she was charged with, I think it may actually *HELP* her legal defense at sentencing.

Also, the statement about appearing to not be bothered or whatever she said is based on his personality and his perception of facial expressions. When you get into personal intrepretation like that in a report, I'm sorry but this trooper sounds like a real piece of work. Stick to the facts and don't try and spice up the report. The account said she did apologize.

I seriously question the officers details of the events. Go stand on an overpass on a major highway and watch cars go by. See just how much time you have to "observe". Hint: Don't blink ;)

You can say I'm crazy but I have driven 80k/year at times in my life and could give a list a mile long of stupid moves I've seen the police do that put the public and themselves at risk on the road. I remember one time in MASS when I stopped at a contstruction zone during a major back-up and knocked on a troopers window to ask for directions. He jumped when he woke up;) No wonder the police fight so hard to keep those construction detail jobs under their control:laugh:

I'm not cop bashing but I seriously think this trooper is trying to maxmize his opportunity. Don't misinterpret what I'm saying. Being on bail and at risk of going to big house she was an idiot for doing anything outside the law.

However, her actions on the highway occurs every hour/minute of the day. If you don't agree, you don't drive on the same roads I do. We need a different thread to discuss how to change the behavior.