Boating Accident/Death off Diamond Island

Dave R · 03-18-2010, 02:39 PM

Quote:

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 · 03-18-2010, 03:44 PM

Quote:

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.

seanmcd · 03-18-2010, 05:45 PM

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

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

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

RIP to Beaudoin.

Airwaves · 03-18-2010, 05:49 PM

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

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

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

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

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

LIforrelaxin · 03-18-2010, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

john60ri · 03-18-2010, 06:29 PM

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

Airwaves · 03-18-2010, 07:44 PM

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

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

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

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

Slickcraft · 03-18-2010, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john60ri

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

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

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

secondcurve · 03-18-2010, 09:50 PM

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

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

ApS · 03-19-2010, 06:59 AM

NR: Nicely said.

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by fpartri497

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

But not to the same degree as one did.

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by secondcurve

"...3 1/2 years probably is a reasonable punishment. Hopefully, she gets it all and the state chooses not to retry her (and waste money) on the two charges that the jury was deadlocked on..."

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

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

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

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

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

Nellies—First...Welcome to the forum.

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

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

2) If you've been following the newspapers' "comments"...well...

enough said on that!

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

Quote:

RULE 6
Safe Speed
"Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions."

_____________________

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

seanmcd · 03-18-2010, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VtSteve

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.

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

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

Mr. V · 03-18-2010, 05:58 PM

The prosecutor should retry her on the hung jury counts.

To do otherwise is a denial of justice.

topwater · 03-18-2010, 06:09 PM

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

of ice out since 1888.

03-18-2010, 06:29 PM	#6
john60ri Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Pawtucket RI Posts: 146 Thanks: 1 Thanked 22 Times in 16 Posts	Verdict I just have one question about Airwaves' summary of the trial. She said "she came down off plane when the visibility went to zero, but went back on plane because the rocking of the boat was making them all sick". I ask you boaters out there: Is this testimony credible under the circumstances of the crash? It doesn't sound right to me, but I am not a boater. Can anyone explain this?

The Following User Says Thank You to VtSteve For This Useful Post:
LIforrelaxin (03-18-2010)

03-18-2010, 05:45 PM	#3
seanmcd Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 2 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	It seems like a just verdict based on the facts as I understand them. Now what will be more interesting is what the results of the PSI (Pre Sentencing Investigation) are, and what punishment Blizzard receives. I think the judge will give substantial weight to the wishes of the victims family. That they were best friends out doing the same thing together, I suspect that she may never spend a day in prison. Likely she will get a suspended sentence with fines and some sort of community service requirement. The State seems to have done a good job on the case. RIP to Beaudoin.

03-18-2010, 05:49 PM	#4
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	I am just raising the question of what is a "proper" lookout. It seemed to me in reading the coverage that she was doing everything she could in attempting to locate navigational aides she relied on, to me that would constitute a "proper" lookout. The fact that she still hit the island says that she should have stopped or slowed the boat to headway speed when visibility went to zero but that was not what the jury found her guilty of. So the question is the definition of "proper" lookout. Focusing ahead of the boat into the night would be considered proper, until you hit something? Then it is not proper even though conditions were such that the lookout could not see the object? I'm just pointing out that an argument could me made.

The Following User Says Thank You to LIforrelaxin For This Useful Post:
VtSteve (03-20-2010)

03-18-2010, 07:44 PM	#7
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	LIforrelaxin, actually the charge I would have brought is negligent operation of a boat as you suggest. However that is not what was presented to the jury. They found her guilty of failure to keep a proper lookout and that is fine, as I stated I am only basing my observation on what I read in the newspapers, I wasn't in the courtroom. However it seems to me that AN ARGUMENT could be made regarding the word PROPER. Based on what I read she did maintain a proper lookout. What she failed to do was to maintain headway speed...so the charge was probably inappropriate. john60ri...a boat underway at speed in weather is a much more stable vessel than one not underway or at headway speed in the same weather. So according to her testimony she came down off plane but because of the condition of the waves on the lake, and the rocking the pitching of the boat, it was making everyone sick, so she went back up on plane to avoid the rocking that was producing motion sickness. Just so everyone is clear. I am not defending Blizzard or the jury or criticizing the prosecution. I am pointing out that based on what I read in the newspapers she was facing the wrong charge in once case and will in all likelihood face a retrial for the charges in the hung jury based on the sentence. But I find the definition of "proper" something that should be looked at.

03-18-2010, 09:50 PM	#9
secondcurve Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,119 Thanks: 1,332 Thanked 559 Times in 288 Posts	3 1/2 years probably is a reasonable punishment. Hopefully, she gets it all and the state chooses not to retry her (and waste money) on the two charges that the jury was deadlocked on. I would have preferred a guilty plea and her request for leniency. I think in that circumstance leniency would have been granted in combination with a heavy community service requirement and some good would have come from this tragedy. Anytime someone climbs into a boat like that after 3 1/2 drinks (her version) in the dead of the night in dicey weather you are guilty of negligence in my opinion. The BAC evidence backs this position up, but she had a good attorney and he was able to convince one or two jurors that there was a reasonable doubt.

03-18-2010, 05:58 PM	#12
Mr. V Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: the left coast (Portland)and West Alton Posts: 1,416 Thanks: 65 Thanked 260 Times in 178 Posts	The prosecutor should retry her on the hung jury counts. To do otherwise is a denial of justice.

03-18-2010, 06:09 PM	#13
topwater Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 302 Thanks: 85 Thanked 116 Times in 48 Posts	Thank God COMMON SENSE prevailed. We all knew she was guilty, now the whole world knows she is ! She probably will appeal, just so she can have alittle more FREE time. Don (webmaster), can we now lock this up like you did the speed limit thread? Lets move on to spring thaw and possible record ice out. By the way, I noticed in the Weirs Times this week, on the same page as the map of Winnie, there is a nice list of YEARS/DATES of ice out since 1888.