And tolerable gas prices! I've given up on reasonable. :(

Airwaves says, in a very eliquent way " It remains to be seen what happens next. I doubt that the Blizzard family will appeal since it appears to be a pretty fair sentence. "

Fair? Fair? Did you say FAIR? KILLING someone and only getting 6 months at the BELKNAP COUNTY JAIL. Thats not fair,thats absolutely incredible for her, Sure the hell is not FAIR in my books, and alot of others as well. And yes it did come down to MONEY, the best attorney MONEY could buy.. If we all at that much money, the jails would all be empty. As far a them appealing the decision, she'll be raking leaves and listening to her ipod in the sunshine. Why the hell would they appeal anything? Erica will be missing a whole year of boating, WOW, Can you imagne the withdrawals she will be having.
Its over, nothing else can be done, Must be nice to get away with taking of a human life. I hope she gets along nicely with Big Bertha for the next few months.

This was not a case of murder. It was an accident, plain and simple. The state prosecuted her for her actions and a jury found her guilty on one of several charges. The other charges are still hanging over her head.

Fair, yes fair. Her friend is dead because of her mistake. She has been left disfigured. Those are lifetime sentences.

The burden of proof is on the state, not on the defense. That is something that it appears some have forgotten or are ignoring.

Would you have defense attorneys paid with taxpayer dollars? That way no one would have the "advantage" of a high priced lawyer! Or here's a thought, let's do away with a defense altogether! Think of the speedy trial process then!!!

WOW, sounds like someone got up on the wrong side of the SL !:D

One of today's many articles on the sentencing mentions a previous shoplifting conviction against Erica. Oh brother...what a piece of work. It's always all about Erica.

If her best friend kill her,i bet she would do more than 6 months,an get a dwi

There really are plenty of positive things that people can do. One of them is to stop dwelling on personal attacks of the defendant, and instead, think about how things like this happen. Since this accident occurred, some took sides depending on the political ramifications of the overall event. Not very helpful IMO.

But let's look at the record. Since the beginning, many of us (without personal vendettas), pointed out the obvious nature of this accident. The jury didn't fully buy into two reasons, but did another. I really don't care what the personal lifestyle or beliefs a defendant has, I try to concentrate on the issue at hand. I see you're not buying onto that direction Sunset.

Buying into ideologies and agendas rarely renders a positive outcome. People could learn from cases like this, and be made aware that some of their decisions can be fatal, and life-changing events. Many people do not believe that, and the point must be driven home.

Some of us have made a conscious effort to make boating safer for all. Some prefer to dwell on the past, when the only positive outcomes lie in the future. Be part of the solution, not part of the bottleneck.

Isn't it amazing what money can buy in New Hampshire?:eek:

IMO The many hateful posts here are almost as heart wrenching as the terrible accident.

Sue

Class B Felony
 

Actually, it was a Class B Felony -- a crime. That's the fundamental point.

Look, I think she got off light when the jury deadlocked on the BWI charges. If convicted on those charges, then she'd be in the klink for a lot more time. But she wasn't. And as we all learned from the OJ trial, our justice system isn't perfect -- but it's the best around. Do I wish she had a stiffer sentence? I don't know. I guess I have to have some trust that the judge (who sees a lot of cases) meted out punishment in a consistent way to how other first time offenders would have been treated given a similar fact set.

She might have wished she got what the prosecutor had asked for - one year. With this lighter sentence I wonder if that might influence the prosecutor to retry the hung case

Geez, some people really need to get over the money thing. If you have it, you can buy the best lawyer available. What's wrong with that?
I'm sure you would do the same.:rolleye2:

Or tell me you wouldn't , then I got a bridge to sell you too. Or, you are so perfect, that you would never be caught in any type of accidental situation. Flame me now for saying accident, but that's what it was.

Pretty strong stuff from Topwater.........uses a lot of caps because he (or she) must think we're not smart enough to get the point without them.

After getting over the intial gut feeling.

I think she got a "within reason" punishment for what she was convicted of.

A first offense, not convicted of alcohol, nothing crazy reckless or fast (18-33 MPH doesn't sound fast to a non-boater. We all drive are cars at night in bad weather much faster than that).

IMHO Now her lawyer should be making the big deal. They won't appeal, if the state doesn't re-try on the alcohol charges. One summer in jail and it's over.

BTW the judge did not address her right to drive a car or a boat, but the MP and DMV still can.

The MP has the ability under RSA 270- D:13

" II. Once issued, the certificate of safe boater education shall be valid for the lifetime of the person and may not be revoked by the department of safety or a court without cause and a hearing in accordance with RSA 541-A."

And of course the DMV has wide discretion to revoke and suspend motor vehicle licenses related to her recent driving infraction.

I wouldn't dream of flaming you for expressing your opinion, that is your right.

But let me also tell you that I have never seen the inside of a jail or prison.

Eagle,
Fair enough. I have never seen the inside of a jail or prison either. I guess what I was trying to say earlier, is, unless one lives in a plastic bubble and never ventures outdoors you are safe to a degree. However, if you want to live life, accidents can happen to anyone at anytime and you may not even see it coming.

And special interest groups with money can change/influence laws to their benefits, not the general public. :(

Again, some people do not want to answer the question, if you had the money, would you not hire the best lawyer you could to keep your a$$ out of jail if by chance you needed it. Or, would you rather go with the public defender and take your chances?

I for one at this time with the way the economy has been, could not hire a high priced lawyer to defend me if something were to happen. But, I am not jealous of somebody with the means can.

As far as special interests go, I think in this discussion, it is apples and oranges.

since you asked...
 

Actually, with all the facts that have been brought to light in this 'accident', I prefer to think that I would have enough moral fiber to stand before the judge, say that I had made idiotic choices that resulted in a tragedy, plead guilty, and spend a significant amount of my energy in my remaining years performing some sort of public service and speaking about the enherent dangers of making bad decisions while captaining a boat...

I hope to never be in that position, but I like to think that is what I would do!

There is a lot of gnashing of teeth and crying about "becoming a nanny state"... maybe if people took responsiblity for their actions... we wouldn't have to have so many nanny laws...

Just me, thinking out loud... now let's hope for a beautiful and safe summer on the lake -PIG

Now I've heard it all.

Be honest, your in Erica's shoes, you hire an attorney and he talks to the prosecutor and the judge about your "mercy of the court" plan. They come back with 3 years in jail (about half the max) plus all the community service baloney. Plus your insurance company says that they won't pay if you're guilty (see Littlefield) so you personally will be on the hook for a multimillion dollar wrongful death suit.

Then your lawyer says for $50k to $100K, he can get expert witnesses and you have a better than 50/50 chance of walking away with a not guilty verdict. Say you have or can get the money.

Now be honest, you would do that to your family?

jrc, couldn't have said it better myself.

With all due respect PIG, your morality sounds good in a hypothetical situation. But I think if it came down to it, the money would be flowing. :D

just another perspective...
 

Hey, I said I was thinking out loud... who knows what any of us would really do in that situation...

but I will say that everyone does not react the same as you would (or think you would)... "guilt" can manifest itself many ways in people... look at people that are so overcome with guilt that they commit suicide after committing a crime... others write a book about how clever they were in both committing the crime and getting away with it (OJ anyone?)... some people are lucky and can stay 'above' the law for a long time, others, not so much...

Again, my main point of the story is that if people didn't try to weasel out of taking responsibility when they do get caught... we'd be in a better place...

just my opinion, go ahead and crucify me -PIG

p.s. It all depends, could I live with myself in the future? Look at outpouring of vitriol towards Erica since she took that stance with her lawyer... would I want to be that person and incur the hate of 90% of the people that have heard about this case? I think not...

Not going to crucify you at all. And you're right, guilt can manifest itself in many ways. My point was and is, one hires the best defense one can with what is available to them. With that said, what if one is actually innocent and falsly accused of a crime. In CT. a few weeks ago, two men were released from prison after being falsly identified of committing murder. The person who identified these two men recanted her story after I think 27 years.

Now, if these two men had the means to hire the best lawyer money could buy at the time, it's possible they would not of had to spend 27 years in prison for a crime they did not committ.

mixing apples and kiwis
 

If I was falsely accused of a crime, I would absolutely pull out all the stops and do what ever necessary to get myself aquitted...

Sorry reading my post it does come off a little strong, not meant to crucify.

In a case like this, an unintended collision and death, I'm sure she feels falsely accused. She feels like she was sober enough and she feels she did her best to navigate safely. So living with the guilt might not really apply. Plus i'm sure here friends and family are not among the 90%.

Fair enough
 

Well, the legal system has completed the criminal trial process. I think it would have been a travesty to have killed someone with significant responsibility for that death and received no jail time. I think she is fortunate and got off lightly, and yes, that probably had something to do with her being in the family she is in and their money. She got a strong defense and that's the way the system works. It's a waste of energy to moan about it. I, personally, would have been a bit harsher but probably not too much more. She probably got less time than Littlefield because it was her friend that she
killed, that she was injured so badly herself, and she didn't flee the scene. There already was punishment from the circumstances as others have pointed out. That's how justice is supposed to work. The trial decides guilt based on facts (hopefully), the sentencing can take into account the complete circumstances.

Correct me if I'm wrong but if she qualifies for electronic monitoring she could still go to work, correct? They just have to set the terms of the monitoring to be at home or at work and allow for travel between the two places?

Boy, I hope she learned more than you seem to imply
 

I don't think she was sober enough and certainly think she made very poor judgments about navigation considering the conditions. I fully accept that from a legal standpoint she has to maintain a strong posture of innocence.. That's understandable and a civil trial might still happen so she needs to be very careful about what she says publicly.

But from a personal standpoint if I was involved in an accident where my friend was killed and myself and another friend was severely injured I would be privately VERY aware of my responsibilities in the outcome. We will never know her inner thoughts but if she is thinking she was sober enough and didn't make any operating errors she is a very deluded woman and likely to repeat her mistakes. She screwed up badly. We all make mistakes but hopefully we recognize our responsibilities in the messes we make and make changes in our life to not allow a repeat of the problems we caused.

Civil Suit
 

More than a few times I've heard mention of a (possible) civil suit. I may have detected some salivation as well. I ask, who is going to file such a suit ? Last I heard Ms Beaudoin's parents were opposed to jail time for Ms Blizzard. I find it hard to imagine they'll sue. I'm not 100% sure but I believe Ms Beaudoin wasn't married (hence she has been referred to as Ms Beaudoin) so I don't see a husband suing. She didn't have children so that's not a possibility either. I don't think the the staute applies to siblings so her brother and sisters can't sue. So I don't see a lawsuit forthcoming.

http://www.currentobituary.com/Memor..._ObitdID=51057

My experience in the juror
 

I can tell you that from personal experience sitting on juries that many jurors don't trust the obvious high priced and outstanding attorneys. I am not convinced that hiring the best is all good and can be very off putting to some of us. I was impressed with the skill and enjoyed the manipulation attempts. Jury's are a cross section of folks who are not always easily manipulated one way or the other. A high priced attorney may reduce the risk of incompetence and lack of effort but it does not buy the jury by any means. Remember the jury is made up of passionate people like you find on this forum. They don't agree either.

.08 is the DUI threshold...
 

There is a huge difference.

The State had just one expert witness on the boating crash: Lt. Dunleavey.

A high-priced defense attorney can bring in a dozen boat expert witnesses—then select the one who can present the best crash "story".

The defense can also "purchase" the silence of any other boat experts. (Keeping them "on retainer", and never calling them at all for any reason).

The jury and the media will never hear—or learn of—any of those "missing" expert witnesses.

Impassionate people should recall that among the three parties to this crash, the average BAC was .13 . With shoreline or another boater, this was a fatality waiting for impact. :(

Passionate people will call this "an accident". :rolleye1:

Let this rest
 

People,

We need to let this rest. There was a time and place to banter about these arguments. The trial has come and gone. A verdict has been passed down and so has a sentence. The original facts have been place before we have debated them. There is no sense in re-debating them.

If there is an appeal, I will debate with anyone the grounds of the appeal, but for goodness sake lets let the original stuff go. It is over. decision final. We have a verdict. Buy a Jury, it can not be over turned, with out an appeal with legal standing. This is the American Legal system showing us how it works. And it is working.

The families and loved one deserve a break. Some of whom are members of this forum, and have spoken up form time to time. Some of you may not realize who I am refering to but I do.

Let this issue rest.

"Seeds" of a Civil Suit Begin to Appear...
 

The June issue of Soundings magazine has a sidebar on boating safety that relates to "good seamanship skills"—that stretches across three pages—and quotes this Diamond Island crash case.

(Crash Highlights Perils of Night Boating
—Soundings).

Of all the accounts we've seen in the local press, none contains all that appears in this two-page article in Soundings.

These quotes (which appear critical to a civil suit, IMO) are accredited to Edgar Beaudoin:

and...

and...

Including never-before-seen quotes by NHMP's Lt. Dunleavey, this comprehensive article hasn't appeared on the Internet (as yet—or if ever), but Soundings' June issue would be available "at better newstands".

(Black's newstand, in Wolfeboro, comes to mind).

....come on somebody here...I don't want to buy the whole magazine...I just want to read the one article.....could someone do me a favor and scan the article and post it here....thanks in advance...otherwise I'll have to wait for it to show up at the Water St 2nd-hand store, magazine rack for 10-cents...

...say, ...... Heath's over in Centre Harbor might carry Soundings in their magazine rack and one could read the entire article while sipping a freebie cup of Vermont coffee...is Heath's a great super market or is Heath's a great super market!

...understand the Rt 93 negligent driving charge while texting has been pleaded 'not guilty, your Honor" and will be going to a trial.....wonder if that will be a jury of six, twelve, or just one judge or magistrate? (today's Laconia Daily Sun)

Its finally over for good.. Report on WMUR that the state will not re-try the case.

I for one am very relieved that it is over and this tragedy can be put behind us and the families are able to go on without the media interferring with their lives.

Does this also mean that she isn't appealing her conviction on the lesser charges? Is she serving her time now?

That was the agreement, no appeal, no retrial.

According to the press reports after her sentencing, she was supposed to begin serving her time on June 1 but I read in one of the newspaper articles regarding the decision not to retry that they might be asking for a delay for her to begin because of the possibility of more surgery.

Blizzard behind bars, minus her luggage.
 

Her Attorney did indeed ask for another delay, but it was opposed by the prosecutor and denied by the Judge.

Blizzard entered jail today.

Full story can be read at the Union Leader HERE.

Citizen story with further detail
 

Additional story with more details can be read on-line HERE at the Citizen site.