Boating Accident/Death off Diamond Island

[Mr. V]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

This one was more descriptive

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/nat...osition=recent

"Belknap County Attorney James Carroll tells jurors that Erica Blizzard had a blood-alcohol count one and a half times the legal limit for driving when the boat she was piloting struck a ledge on Lake Winnepesaukee.
"

That would make the level around a .12.

I recall getting clients off on their DWI charges when their BA was .14 and sometimes .15.

The legal limit out here used to be .15.

The client would usually get pulled over for swerving or driving poorly, but then after the arrest, if they blew below the .15 requirement they would beat it, being legally deemed not intoxicated.

So how fair is it to lower it (to .08 out here) and convict today for what was not a crime yesterday?

.12 really will not lead to significant impairment, in the real world, at least for a seasoned drinker, which I suspect she is.

She could beat this rap ...

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Mr. V

I recall getting clients off on their DWI charges when their BA was .14 and sometimes .15.

The legal limit out here used to be .15.

The client would usually get pulled over for swerving or driving poorly, but then after the arrest, if they blew below the .15 requirement they would beat it, being legally deemed not intoxicated.

So how fair is it to lower it (to .08 out here) and convict today for what was not a crime yesterday?

.12 really will not lead to significant impairment, in the real world, at least for a seasoned drinker, which I suspect she is.

She could beat this rap ...

The legal limits were changed to .08 at the bequest (lobbying), of the insurance industry, for apparently obvious reasons. The Feds gave the limit teeth by withholding highway funds, and effective way to get their way. There are far too many subjective, and technical data used in whether a person is impaired or not to get into that lengthy discussion. Three beers on an empty stomach can cause more impairment than several drinks over a few hours with food. Everyone is different, and so are the circumstances.

Since the BAL is one of two primary accusations for the State, the other being too fast for conditions/improper lookout, it will weigh heavily in this case. There was another case that would have delivered a far more serious penalty, if the perp had stayed around long enough to be tested shortly thereafter.

I hope for all families concerned this trial really is over this week, so they can go on with their shaken lives. I hope the reports on this forum will be contained to instruction and reflective, and be devoid of personal statements or agendas. Everyone needs to know what happened, and realize that you really cannot let your guard down. One slip up, and a tragedy can happen to anyone, anytime. The consequences to people and their families and friends are horrific, so I try to post as if this tragedy impacted me personally, and respect all those that might be reading.

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by Mr. V

I recall getting clients off on their DWI charges when their BA was .14 and sometimes .15.

The legal limit out here used to be .15.

The client would usually get pulled over for swerving or driving poorly, but then after the arrest, if they blew below the .15 requirement they would beat it, being legally deemed not intoxicated.

So how fair is it to lower it (to .08 out here) and convict today for what was not a crime yesterday?

.12 really will not lead to significant impairment, in the real world, at least for a seasoned drinker, which I suspect she is.

She could beat this rap ...

"How Fair"? I think very fair. Don't forget she crashed her boat into an island and killed someone.

[Mr. V]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

"How Fair"? I think very fair. Don't forget she crashed her boat into an island and killed someone.

Point taken.

BUT, why proscribe conduct today which was perfectly acceptable yesterday?

That doesn't seem fair.

Whether she was drunk or not, Blizzard should be sued, and sued hard, for her negligence.

Maybe hard enough to collect all the available insurance, then start cleaning her out of her personal / family assets.

Reduce her from "rich girl" to "poor girl."

Just sic some sharp lawyers on her.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by Mr. V

Point taken.

BUT, why proscribe conduct today which was perfectly acceptable yesterday?

That doesn't seem fair.

Whether she was drunk or not, Blizzard should be sued, and sued hard, for her negligence.

Maybe hard enough to collect all the available insurance, then start cleaning her out of her personal / family assets.

Reduce her from "rich girl" to "poor girl."

Just sic some sharp lawyers on her.

What if she's innocent...

[Mr. V]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

What if she's innocent...

Hello, OJ.

My point is that a person could be adjudged NOT GUILTY of a crime, yet still be found substantially liable in tort.

Nothing hurts the rich like taking away their money: the best punishment.

Don't just settle for the insurance money: that is painless.

Sieze their assets, go for the jugular.

Let's just hope the claimants don't blow the statute of limitations.

No, I'm not angling for the job: I'm a divorce lawyer (although in my field have an affinity for the jugular).

[ishoot308]

Hello Mr Sokolove;

Originally Posted by Mr. V

I'm a divorce lawyer (although in my field have an affinity for the jugular).

That pretty much answers my question.

Thanks!

Dan

[NoBozo]

Lets explore...and define this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident

The Alternative is Deliberate. MY guess is the former. NB

[Mr. V]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

Hello Mr Sokolove;



That pretty much answers my question.

Thanks!

Dan

What question?

"What if she's innocent?"

Nobody is "innocent," baby.

Nobody.

[Tired of Waiting]

Originally Posted by Mr. V

What question?

"What if she's innocent?"

Nobody is "innocent," baby.

Nobody.

And you practice law?

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

ToW

[Mr. V]

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

It's a matter of semantics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sunbeam lodge]

Originally Posted by Mr. V

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

It's a matter of semantics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Sunbeam lodge

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

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

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by codeman671

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

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

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

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by chipj29

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

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

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

[fatlazyless]

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

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


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

[robmac]

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

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

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

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


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

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

[ApS]

(Headline by The Citizen).

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

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

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

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

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

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").

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.



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.

(Message: When you're not aware of the weather and caught "out", tie up to a private dock).

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

Originally Posted by robmac

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

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!

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


(Photo from The Citizen).

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

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


(Photo from The Concord Monitor).

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

]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.

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. I'm not buying the Defense's "slingshot-physics", and Lt. Dunleavey shouldn't have, either. 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).

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

(Headline by The Citizen).

BTW: NHMP Sgt. David Ouelette (a chatty 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!

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

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.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

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 2½-feet tall. Somewhere in my old computer there's a photo that shows the rock with a scale—in feet—I included with the marks of the crash. (Which I now need to dig out).

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.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

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.

The paddle is marked with four black bands, for a scale of three feet—total.

ETA:
After subtracting two inches for late-season change in water depth, compare the largest marking on the granite to the deepest damage on the boat.

On the boat, measure up three feet from the keel. This boat was going much faster than it should have been.

[Tired of Waiting]

Originally Posted by Mr. V

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

It's a matter of semantics.

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

ToW

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Mr. V

Point taken.

BUT, why proscribe conduct today which was perfectly acceptable yesterday?

That doesn't seem fair.

Whether she was drunk or not, Blizzard should be sued, and sued hard, for her negligence.

Maybe hard enough to collect all the available insurance, then start cleaning her out of her personal / family assets.

Reduce her from "rich girl" to "poor girl."

Just sic some sharp lawyers on her.

I sense some of the same ambulance chasing tendencies reappearing that you have been accused of in the past. Are you putting in your resume for the job?

[fatlazyless]

Sorry to disappoint you Ryan, but the U.L. post from F L Less was not from me. Could be it's the same person with the same disingenuous modus operandi as from June, 2008, shortly after the night of the Diamond Island incident/accident.

[NoBozo]

Is anyone Local ...sitting in on the trial..? NB

[Pineedles]

This trial will take its own course. BWI levels now or old DWI percentages, reasonable or unreasonable speed, who was the Cappy or not, may or may not be brought before the jury.

As an example for all to see, it will be an eye opener hopefully!

Slowly but surely we are being shown that one's own behavior must be accounted for. The age of "It's not my fault" will hopefully be shown to be an unacceptable reason for unacceptable behavior. I am not convicting anyone with this statement, only saying that there was fault in this incident, and someone needs to take the responsibilty. Who do you think is responsible?

[PennyPenny]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

Is anyone Local ...sitting in on the trial..? NB

I would think that a Belknap County jury are made up of locals. I would also hope that they are not reading this forum and forming a verdict based on it.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by PennyPenny

I would think that a Belknap County jury are made up of locals. I would also hope that they are not reading this forum and forming a verdict based on it.

I am sure that the jury has been given instructions not to talk about the case with anyone, in addition to that they are also told to stay away from all media of any type that could influence their opinion on the trial. That would include this forum.....

[tis]

And I am sure that those on the jury don't even know about this forum. If they knew anything about the case, they wouldn't be picked and if they read this forum, they couldn't miss reading SOMETHING about it.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by tis

And I am sure that those on the jury don't even know about this forum. If they knew anything about the case, they wouldn't be picked and if they read this forum, they couldn't miss reading SOMETHING about it.

Do ya think.?? NB

[Pineedles]

I am sure that the judge's charge to the jury was clear.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by PennyPenny

I would think that a Belknap County jury are made up of locals. I would also hope that they are not reading this forum and forming a verdict based on it.

My question was weather anyone....ie a Citizen, was sitting in the courtroom as an Observer NOT as a Juror. NB

[PennyPenny]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

My question was weather anyone....ie a Citizen, was sitting in the courtroom as an Observer NOT as a Juror. NB

I think it would be very interesting to be an observer. Didn't mean to offend you. Either way it is still a sad ending.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by PennyPenny

I think it would be very interesting to be an observer. Didn't mean to offend you. Either way it is still a sad ending.

No offence taken Penny. NB

[PennyPenny]

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

[VtSteve]

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

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

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

[LIforrelaxin]

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....

[lulu59]

• 2 hours.No verdict.The longer it goes the better it is for the defense.
• Attorney James Moir hit it out of the park yesterday in his closing.Erica Blizzard was very composed,poised,remorseful and articulate.
• A tragedy in every sense of the word.The nuances in this case are endless.
• Hopefully justice shall prevail.

[LIforrelaxin]

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.

[Scupper]

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.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by Scupper

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

[Bear Island South]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

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

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.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Bear Island South

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.

[john60ri]

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.

[Woodsy]

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

[RI Swamp Yankee]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

... it’s up to the jury to weigh in ALL of the evidence presented by both sides. ...

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.

[Lakewinn1]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

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

Woodsy well said!

[nellies]

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.

[Seadoo]

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!!

[Airwaves]

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?

[bigpatsfan]

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.

[Lucky1]

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.

[NoRegrets]

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.

[OCDACTIVE]

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.

[Scupper]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

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

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.

[john60ri]

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.

[jrc]

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.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by Scupper

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: 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

[Scupper]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

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.

[SumoDog]

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.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by Scupper

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.

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.

[ApS]

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).

[jrc]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

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 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.

[fpartri497]

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

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by fpartri497

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.

[NoRegrets]

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.

[fatlazyless]

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.

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by Scupper

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.

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

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Scupper

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.

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

[Heaven]

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

[jrc]

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.

[SAMIAM]

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.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by Heaven

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

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.

[Mr. V]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

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

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.

[fatlazyless]

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

[mcdude]

Here's the link to the SPECIFIC ARTICLE

11:53 a.m. 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.

Blizzard faces 3 1/2 years in state prison on her one conviction. Prosecutors can retry her on the other two charges but did not say immediately whether they will. She will be sentenced on April 21.

[Steveo]

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.

[SIKSUKR]

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

[Airwaves]

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.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

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?

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.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Dave R

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.

[ApS]

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.

Originally Posted by Scupper

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.

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?

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

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.

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.

[Seeker]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

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.

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.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by Seeker

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.

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.

[chillininnh]

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.

[Newbiesaukee]

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

[fatlazyless]

For driving a boat, it should be about a .18, since you gonna get seasick any way so what's the difference. Plus, all boaters like to drink. Boating and drinking just naturally go together....everyone knows that?

For cdl truck drivers, it 0.02, federal law enforced in all 50 states, and it stays on your driving record for something like 15 years.

So, here's the deal..... let it be .02 for truckers..... and .18 for boaters....add the two together....what's do you gut...you gutta .20 ... a nice round number .20....and everybody is happy....all is groovy!

[hancoveguy]

Actually... The legal limit established by the Federal Motor Carrier Association for CDL truck drivers in all 50 states is .04 BAC. As a former professional tractor trailer driver, a current law enforcement officer and a current boat owner and enthusiast, the legal limit for boating should also be .04. The reasoning behind this is that, speaking from experience, a boat is every bit as technically difficult to operate as a tractor trailer is but in different ways and therefore requires the same elevated level of care.

Just my .02 cents (pun intended)...

[fatlazyless]

Found this post over in the Union Leader's email opinions....sounds like it could be a better plan of legal advice.....how's it sound to you?

"So it appears her defense will be: 'I may have been legally drunk but I was not impaired and it was just a tragic coincidence that I ran into an island at high speed in the dead of night in the rain and my friend was killed.' Wouldn't it be refreshing if for once a defendant admitted the truth and asked for mercy from the court instead of trying to wiggle out of her responsibility? Her attorney's attempt to defend the indefensible in the trial will likely do more damage to her reputation than the accident and publicity have already done. It didn't have to be this way."

Skip M., Ossipee

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Found this post over in the Union Leader's email opinions....sounds like it could be a better plan of legal advice.....how's it sound to you?

"So it appears her defense will be: 'I may have been legally drunk but I was not impaired /TRIM/

I also found this post....

45 during the day and 25 at night are fast speeds and fast enough. If those speed limits had been in effect that night then perhaps the defendant would have taken her boat with twin 425 horsepower motors to the ocean instead of the lake. In the ocean it would have been much harder to run into an island. So I say make the speed limits permanent and it will not only slo people down but maybe save a life or two!
- F. L. Less, Meredith, NH

[alsadad]

Originally Posted by Mr. V

So how fair is it to lower it (to .08 out here) and convict today for what was not a crime yesterday?

.12 really will not lead to significant impairment, in the real world, at least for a seasoned drinker, which I suspect she is.

She could beat this rap ...

Of course, we could go back to the day before yesterday, when it wasn’t unheard of for a drunk driver to face reduced criminal charges, or no charges at all, in the death or injury of another person, precisely because he was drunk. But I certainly don’t want to go back to that.

And as for a .12 BAC, if I’m driving on Moultonborough Neck Road, or some similar two-lane, twisting, turning road, late at night and I spy the headlights of another vehicle driving toward me, I know that I’d prefer that person was sober, regardless of whether he thinks that .12 will not lead to significant impairment. The same goes for waterways.

[LIforrelaxin]

Folks, everyone is throwing out conjectures and statements here. What we all have to understand and realize is that everything is based on circumstances and the facts behind them. If Ms. Blizzard is convicted then the facts behind the circumstances that lead to the accident that night will show, she was negligent. Is she is not guilty then the facts behind the circumstances that lead to the accident that night will show that she was not negligent. Either way what we really need to do right now is wait and see what all the facts are. Through following the case in the media we should be able to do that. But lets not argue over weather someone is drunk or impaired at BAC .12 or not... The fact is that is where her BAC was and the law says she was drunk. End of that story. Now listen to the rest of the facts in the case.

People need to remember we can all talk and bicker about this case and in the end it really doesn't matter to us. However there is a family who has lost a daughter, one that had a daughter injured, and one that could loose a daughter to jail.....report and talk about facts please not conjecture.

[Mink Islander]

getting people talking about what happened here is a really good thing, I think. Yeah, there's speculation. But if we are talking about such an important topic as boating at night and boating and drinking, then we're we raising awareness.

As an aside, this past Sunday night two recent graduates of Norwell High school, home for spring break, (both 18) were travelling down a road very near my house. Both were drunk. The driver lost control on a curve where the speed limit is 25 and hit a tree -- killing the passenger -- his best friend -- while he walked away with only scratches. In jail and charged with drunk driving and involuntary manslaughter. Chillingly familiar tale in only a slightly different context. Two lives ruined. Two families grieving.

There are lessons for life in this trial. Well worth talking about.

[LIforrelaxin]

So here are some Articles after googling "Erica Blizzard Trial"

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...95/1298/UPDATE

What I found most interesting in this article, is that Ms. Shinopolus, was also legally drunk but yet testified that she only had a beer and two mixed drinks over 4 hours leading up to the crash. Of course she also according to this article states that she remembers nothing of the crash.

Here are some other well written articles:

http://wbztv.com/wireapnewsma/Surviv...2.1553781.html

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...template=page2

Take the time to read what is out there from a simple google search... it is all interesting to digest. But the other thing I have noted about all this information is you definitely need to digest it. And understand what is involved here. I wish I could have take the time to go to this trial, to hear all the testimony but I am making do with what I can get from the media. And so far I have convinced my self of several things based on the facts... Not on conjecture or speculation.... The facts are there, in between the line of BS the reporters fill the page with you just have to look....

But as I said in an early post I am not going to put anything out there until this is all over and I have digested as much as I can.

The only thing I will say at this moment is I am disappointed with the judge. It appears that while everyone else involved in the trial went and viewed the wreckage Ms. Blizzard was allowed to stay behind. I believe that the jury needed to see Ms. Blizzards reactions to the wreckage, which she apparently has never had to face.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Mink Islander

getting people talking about what happened here is a really good thing, I think. Yeah, there's speculation. But if we are talking about such an important topic as boating at night and boating and drinking, then we're we raising awareness.


There are lessons for life in this trial. Well worth talking about.

MI,

I don't disagree with you. Talking about this information is good. However people are passing judgment before having all the facts before them. If there is only things I have realized about forums it is that they tend to become heated debates sometime based upon feelings. Instead of solid debates based on facts. When you are dealing with things involving the deceased and someones future you must make sure that you deal with facts. Because those people have family and friends, some of whom have already spoken up here. We need to respect them and the fact that they may see these posts.

May main point still is, don't put comments out there just to put comments out there. Back your statements by facts, make sure your not speculating because of something you have heard through the grape vine.

Ok I seriously need to get off my soap box!!!!!!!

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

MI,

I don't disagree with you. Talking about this information is good. However people are passing judgment before having all the facts before them. If there is only things I have realized about forums it is that they tend to become heated debates sometime based upon feelings. Instead of solid debates based on facts. When you are dealing with things involving the deceased and someones future you must make sure that you deal with facts. Because those people have family and friends, some of whom have already spoken up here. We need to respect them and the fact that they may see these posts.

May main point still is, don't put comments out there just to put comments out there. Back your statements by facts, make sure your not speculating because of something you have heard through the grape vine.

Ok I seriously need to get off my soap box!!!!!!!

The facts are simple:

1)EB's friend boarded the boat and she is now dead;

2)EB was legally drunk when the accident occurred;

3)The boat EB was piloting was traveling too fast for the conditions/her ability to control the craft;

It is a sad situation and I don't think that a jail sentence is the answer. However, I am offended that she has pleaded innocent. I think a better alternative would have been to admit quilt and ask for forgiveness from the court/families involved and I think that forgiveness would have been granted. Instead we are wasting tax payer funds on this trial. EB could have taken the high road and become a crusader in the schools and boater safety courses to try and educate people about the perils of drinking and operating a boat. Instead, she has hired a slick attorney who is attempting to free her on a technicality.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

It is a sad situation and I don't think that a jail sentence is the answer. However, I am offended that she has pleaded innocent. I think a better alternative would have been to admit quilt and ask for forgiveness from the court/families involved and I think that forgiveness would have been granted. Instead we are wasting tax payer funds on this trial. EB could have taken the high road and become a crusader in the schools and boater safety courses to try and educate people about the perils of drinking and operating a boat. Instead, she has hired a slick attorney who is attempting to free her on a technicality.

SC,

This is indeed the biggest thing I think people are missing here, and that is a fight for presumed innocence. Which is really what this trial is all about. It is only do to family financial resources that this trial came about. If this had been any regular Joe, I indeed believe the outcome would have been a guilty plead, with some minimal restitution.

However the facts are having their day in the court, and the story is getting told, I only hope people pay attention to the facts and take the time to digest the story and get the entire picture. The entire picture is understanding the circumstances of what happened and how it happened. Within this understanding is also the truth about what really brought this tragedy to about.

This incident can be used promote all kinds of things depending on how you depict the situation. But the truth is that the facts will show the situation for what it is, and what it is and isn't related too......

[SteveA]

I wonder if this will turn out to be a basis for an appeal from either side.

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...892/-1/CITNEWS

Looks like the paper messed up.