Boating Accident/Death off Diamond Island

[EllyPoinster]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...94/1298/UPDATE

FLL, this one's for you.

Hogwash, but good for questions in the jury's mind.

The Union Leader has a similar story

Looks like we have a battle of the toxicologists and reasonable doubt.

[Mr. V]

The argument of the defense would be laughable, were the matters at hand not so serious.

Now, I know that juries are not supposed to read newspaper articles or talk to people about issues presented at the trial; in theory, it prevents them from considering anything other than what they hear in the courtroom.

But if one of them were to stray from this admonition and spend twenty seconds doing a google search, do you know what they'd find"

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_b...lcohol_content

Bam!

[Newbiesaukee]

I also tried to investigate this on the internet. The Wiki answer is simplistic and assumes that there is a fixed and unchanged BAC. If this were true, then losing blood would NOT affect BAC. But this is not the real world situation. There are legitimate questions regarding how blood loss and shock could affect BAC. BAC is obviously related to the speed with which alcohol is absorbed into the blood (where it is measured) from the stomach/GI tract. If, for example, a person ingests alcohol and then almost immediately gets into an accident resulting in cardiovascular shock, then the alcohol absorption would be delayed. A blood sample taken very soon after an accident might have a low BAC because the alcohol has not yet been absorbed into the blood and cannot be measured.. As the person recovers, the alcohol is later absorbed so that 3 hours later the BAC is actually HIGHER than at the time of the accident. This kind of argument and data are on the internet. The argument that the defense has used in some of these DUI cases is that even though the later BAC is high, at the time of the accident, the alcohol has not yet entered the bloodstream. Therefore, it had not reached the brain and there was no impairment at the time of the accident even though the BAC well after the accident might be high.

I am not an attorney, I have no personal interest in this case and I agree that we should wait for all the information to be presented and wait for the jury make its statement. The circumstances in the case may well be different.

Even though the defense toxicologist may be a hired gun, a few minutes on the internet can determine she does have real credentials. Whether what she says is true in this particular case is certainly arguable and the prosecution must argue it.

My whole point is that things which seem simple and obvious are not always so. And Wikipedia does have its limitations.

[Mr. V]

Originally Posted by Newbiesaukee

My whole point is that things which seem simple and obvious are not always so. And Wikipedia does have its limitations.

Agreed, wiki is far from authoritative.

I have to wonder about the empty beer cans found floating at the death scene, as will the jury.

Even if it can somehow be shown they were there from before, the jury will have to wonder what kind of person in this day and age is stupid enough to drink in a boat?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Mr. V

Agreed, wiki is far from authoritative.

I have to wonder about the empty beer cans found floating at the death scene, as will the jury.

Even if it can somehow be shown they were there from before, the jury will have to wonder what kind of person in this day and age is stupid enough to drink in a boat?

Lt. Dunleavey once said (as a less-PC Sergeant) that 80% of Winnipesaukee boaters have alcohol on board. (Not me, though, I'm still trying to remember if full beer cans will float).

I think the flaw in Newbiesaukee's findings is that alcohol is absorbed very quickly in the stomach and all the mucous membranes that alcohol passes by. If Newbiesaukee is correct, (as in the defense's putative "blood-loss" theory), the empty beer cans would support a higher BAC when the BAC is taken later.

And speaking of the bow, The Concord Monitor is showing a photo of the heretofore missing bow section. It shows the "shoebox" manner of Formula fiberglass manufacturing prowess.

Seen along the dark blue parts of the bow are the series of about five fractures that correspond with the concentric rows of fiberglass hull fragments embedded in that granite ledge. (Rows of fragments that can even be seen today).



It's just as well this boat isn't made in aluminum or steel—casualties would have been even worse, and a trial made unnecessary.

Plus, it wouldn't have been just the anchor that struck the cottage that morning, but the whole boat!

[EllyPoinster]

Originally Posted by Mr. V

I have to wonder about the empty beer cans found floating at the death scene, as will the jury.

Even if it can somehow be shown they were there from before, the jury will have to wonder what kind of person in this day and age is stupid enough to drink in a boat?

It's perfectly legal to drink in a boat - even if you are driving it. You just can't be legally drunk. But, if I was on the jury, I would seriously doubt that anyone was drinking on a dark, rainy, foggy night.

[Newbiesaukee]

One could imagine it might even be negligent to do so on such a night. Is that not part of what this trial is about?

[VtSteve]

I missed this one, which perhaps, is the definitive story of this trial, arguments aside.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...NTPAGE/3100348

It confirms several things, even conservatively. The only thing left for the jury is the BUI question. Which is, as many said last year, why their is more than one count charged.

Fact is, there are many existing laws that are very useful in a case like this, and they are using the laws in place at that time to do their duty.

[ApS]

Subtitled: "Letting a few FACTS get in the way".

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...The only thing left for the jury is the BUI question...Fact is, there are many existing laws that are very useful in a case like this, and they are using the laws in place at that time to do their duty..."

1) Meaning, the law that was to have been amended to consider The Broads (where this crash took place) as a...um...an unlimited "free-zone"?

2) We haven't heard from the Defense's boat-crash reconstructionist.

In the Legal-Defense industry, lawyers will refer to him as a "hired gun" (And that's the polite term—which doesn't include the words "paid" and "liar". )

3) As to the BUI question, Erica's passenger didn't help out any on the Defense theory of an artificially-elevated BAC:

"...As long as I've known her I've never seen her drink a beer," Shinopulos testified..."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

4) As to the "errant" beer cans—could it get any worse than this?

"...And Moir said he has a witness who believes the empty beer cans floating near Blizzard’s crashed boat may not have been Blizzard’s, but rather trash from another boat. However, a state witness said yesterday afternoon, investigators found cans of the same kind of beer in the boat’s cabin...In addition, Marine Patrol officers found Bud Light cans, as well as two bottles of vodka, one unopened, in the cabin of the boat..."

http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Subtitled: "Letting a few FACTS get in the way".


1) Meaning, the law that was to have been amended to consider The Broads (where this crash took place) as a...um...an unlimited "free-zone"?

2) We haven't heard from the Defense's boat-crash reconstructionist.

I guess we have now. Personally, neither of these so-called accident recontructionists sound very believable. I'm not sure why you continue to do these selective, and extremely partial quotes APS. I haven't let any facts slip in this case that I know of, I've even read all of the innuendo and injected statements of agenda, from you. Roll your eyes all you want skippy, but the state has made their charges based on the laws in force at that time, and they are still very pertinent today. I'm quite sure you know that.

But just to make double sure, we can both examine and compare our own personal positions on this matter. I don't care if the boat was going 18 mph or 25 mph or 33 mph. If it was in that range, it was too fast. If the skipper was impaired, a double whammy should be levied. That's my position, and it's been a consistent one. I gave up hope that you'd ever grow up, but try to be at least a little less disingenuous.

Sorry in advance Don for the tone.

Time to wait out the outcome of this trial.

[hazelnut]

This is pretty good journalism huh? What kind of boat and where?

"Closing arguments have wrapped up in the trial of a New Hampshire woman charged with drunkenly piloting her speedboat into a ledge in Lake Winnepesaukee - killing her friend and injuring herself and a passenger."

Love the spelling of Lake Winnipesaukee by the way. Credible journalism at its best.

[NoBozo]

I have a deep V boat and there is a speed "Threshhold" if you will. UNTIL the boat reaches a Comfortable speed..just "over the top" on plane..22-23 mph in my case...you are just plowing water. If I feel my speed is excessive ....at that point.. On Top..for whatever reason.. I SLOW down considerably to OFF Plane to maybe 7 mph. There is NO In-Between for an experienced skipper. PLOWING for me is NOT an option. I'm either ON Plane or I'm going 7mph or less.

SO: If she was Plowing..the BOW would be elevated and have struck higher than the top of the granite slab....so the upper part of the bow would have remained Intact and passed over the top of the slab.

My rememberance of the granite slab (Impact point) is a perfectly verticle rectangular slab..now I'm guessing...maybe 15-20 feet across and maybe 5 feet off the water at the top....which was horizontal. It almost seemed to me............it had been placed there by Man....But of course it was not...and she hit it at 90 degrees.

If she had been a few feet either side of that SLAB..she would have ended up ON the island and probably in one piece with only bruises and the boat bottom severely scraped and gouged.

Just my observation. NB

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Mr. V

Agreed, wiki is far from authoritative.

I have to wonder about the empty beer cans found floating at the death scene, as will the jury.

Even if it can somehow be shown they were there from before, the jury will have to wonder what kind of person in this day and age is stupid enough to drink in a boat?

Either Dr. Rock or his wife told the investigators at some point after the accident that it was common to find trash on the shore of their island property. Take that for what it is worth, but that could place doubt in the minds of the jurors.

Lots of people drink on boats in this day and age. It is perfectly legal. Your passengers can drink all they want, but the operator of the boat has to be sober. Empty (or full) beer cans on a boat (or in the water near the crash site) means nothing. How long were they in the boat? Were they from the day of the accident?

[CGI3]

How come they didn't subpoena the guest check from the restaurant they dined at? Seems like a no brainer to me. From my understanding restaurants have to keep all records for 3 years? Samiam, true?

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by CGI3

How come they didn't subpoena the guest check from the restaurant they dined at? Seems like a no brainer to me. From my understanding restaurants have to keep all records for 3 years? Samiam, true?

Do you think the guest check will tell how much Vodka was poured into each drink? I am pretty sure it varies from bartender to bartender and bar to bar, etc.

[partsman]

It is possible that the beer cans were in a trash receptacle inside the cabin, (for who knows how long). Judging by the looks of the bow, whatever was in that cabin certainly spilled its contents.

[wifi]

Originally Posted by partsman

It is possible that the beer cans were in a trash receptacle inside the cabin, (for who knows how long). Judging by the looks of the bow, whatever was in that cabin certainly spilled its contents.

How many times do you see a beer can floating by or cans tossed at the side of the road, then done your civic duty and picked them up. I know I do, several times per year. Hardly conclusive of anything other than the cans are there.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by partsman

It is possible that the beer cans were in a trash receptacle inside the cabin, (for who knows how long). Judging by the looks of the bow, whatever was in that cabin certainly spilled its contents.

This is why the beer cans are really inconclusive evidence. They where added to the testimony try and sway the jury to a side, but ultimately they are really no proof of anything, unless they can be shown to have been unopened, or partially consumed. Unfortunately I have not heard an argument either way..All I have heard is that they where present. Hence this was useless information, as I have found most of the testimony in this trial.

In the end if I was on the jury I would be basing my decision based on what I could provide evidence off...

The question for me as to Ms. Blizzards guilt or innocent, has never been based on alcohol, but rather on the conditions of the night, what I would consider safe and prudent operation of the vessel that night, and weather or not I feel the she as the operator was really keeping a dutiful look out or more interested in being with her friends.

As far as punishment in this case, I think the worst punishment may have already been handed out, the question is will any further punishment really accomplish anything..... or is it only being sought for agenda reasoning.

[Mink Islander]

I have to admit, I have one here: Drunks driving boats too fast in bad conditions resulting in death and serious injury should be punished. That's why we have laws about both drinking and boating and proper operation of a boat. To me it doesn't really matter whether Erica killed her best friend or some total stranger, she and everyone else who boats need to understand there are consequences to exercising extremely bad judgement when operating a boat (or car for that matter) that results in something as extreme as the death of a passenger. It should serve as warning and in theory a deterrent. That's the idea, anyway.

I'd have much more sympathy for her personally if she had pleaded guilty but perhaps the state wouldn't cut her much of a deal given the strength of their case against her so she's just hoping she gets a better outcome through trial. Can't blame her for that. It is how our system is intended to work.

We should probably know the jury's conclusions this week. I'm not expecting any "OJ Surprise" here.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Mink Islander

I have to admit, I have one here: Drunks driving boats too fast in bad conditions resulting in death and serious injury should be punished. That's why we have laws about both drinking and boating and proper operation of a boat. To me it doesn't really matter whether Erica killed her best friend or some total stranger, she and everyone else who boats need to understand there are consequences to exercising extremely bad judgement when operating a boat (or car for that matter) that results in something as extreme as the death of a passenger. It should serve as warning and in theory a deterrent. That's the idea, anyway.

I'd have much more sympathy for her personally if she had pleaded guilty but perhaps the state wouldn't cut her much of a deal given the strength of their case against her so she's just hoping she gets a better outcome through trial. Can't blame her for that. It is how our system is intended to work.

We should probably know the jury's conclusions this week. I'm not expecting any "OJ Surprise" here.

Agenda's are behind everything MI... Hell even I have an agenda here, with what I am saying and doing... and your right alcohol on a boat needs to be dealt with severly just like it does in a car.

As for sympathy for Ms. Blizzard, well yes more sympathy in my mind as she just accepted guilt. Which of course would have also been accompanied I feel by pleading to a lesser charge and she probably wouldn't be faced with jail time the way she is now. But that was here decision. And she will have to face the consequences... The worst of course I don't think is jail time, should she be found guilty... I believe the far worse punishment for someone like her, is that this trial has taken place in the media. I have relatives and friends from all over New England, and the country asking me about it. I believe that this will negatively effect her family, and their business. How bad is anyone's guess....

If there is an OJ surprise here, I will most likely have lost all faith in the legal system in this country.

As far as the trial is concerned I hope it is handed to the jury the front part of the week, and we do indeed have something before the week is out.

The Winnipsaukee lake community has been haunted by this and a few other horrible issues. Which have had far reaching effects, it is time get by these legal cases which have gained so much attention, out of the way so that the lake can be a place of peacefulness, and relaxation, with out attention to over shadowing events.