Boating Accident

[VtSteve]

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

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

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

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

[Eagle]

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

[Water Camper]

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

Sue

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by Eagle

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

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

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

[Eagle]

Originally Posted by gtagrip

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

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

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

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

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by Eagle

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

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

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

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by gtagrip

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

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

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

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

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

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

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

[Pine Island Guy]

Originally Posted by gtagrip

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

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

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

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

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

[jrc]

Now I've heard it all.

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

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

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

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by jrc

Now I've heard it all.

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

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

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

jrc, couldn't have said it better myself.

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

[Pine Island Guy]

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

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

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

just my opinion, go ahead and crucify me -PIG

p.s.

Originally Posted by jrc

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

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

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by Pine Island Guy

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

but I will say that everyone does not react the same as you would (or think you would)... "guilt" can manifest itself many ways in people... look at people that commit suicide after committing a crime... others write a book about how clever they were in both committing the crime and getting away with it (OJ anyone?)...

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

just my opinion, go ahead and crucify me -PIG

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

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

[Pine Island Guy]

Originally Posted by gtagrip

With that said, what if one is actually innocent and falsly accused of a crime.

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

[jrc]

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

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

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by jrc

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

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

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

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

[Mee-n-Mac]

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

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

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

"...More than a few times I've heard mention of a (possible) civil suit...I find it hard to imagine they'll sue..."

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

(Crash Highlights Perils of Night Boating
—Soundings).

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

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

"...'It was total negligence all the way', says Beaudoin..."

and...

"...'total negligence and a poor choice of judgement'..."

and...

"...'Find out how many feet of water [the boat] was in, drop the anchor, and ride it out till (sic) morning. It was 2-3 o'clock in the morning. There was a place for people to sleep'..."

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

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

[fatlazyless]

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

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

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

[OCDACTIVE]

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

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

[secondcurve]

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

[ApS]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

"...It's finally over for good..."

The previous headlines can't be so easily dismissed...and we can't know what the future holds.

But as this case fades from the headlines, I recently stumbled upon a prophetic post from this forum.

Just three months after "Ice-Out, 2008", a problem boater brought this quote to reality:

"...Or one can captain one's boat in a sane manner, and pray that problem boaters with problem boats don't take that first drink of alcoholic beverage for the next two seasons..."

Edited to Add:

Newbies to this case can read about it here:
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=6190

[ApS]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

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

A few details are incorrect, but a long summary of "the incident" can be read here:

http://www.soundingsonline.com/featu...-night-boating

[VtSteve]

That sure was worth waiting for Kidding, a nice wrap up, except Moir's statement about coming off plane, which if not completed, directly contradict testimony by his client.

Nothing earth-shattering or new, but a good summary. They even have the lake's fatalities correct.

[jeffk]

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

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

[Rattlesnake Guy]

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

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

"...I can tell you that from personal experience sitting on juries that many jurors don't trust the obvious high priced and outstanding attorneys...A high priced attorney may reduce the risk of incompetence and lack of effort but it does not buy the jury by any means..."

There is a huge difference.

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

"...Remember the jury is made up of passionate people like you find on this forum. They don't agree either..."

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

Passionate people will call this "an accident".

[LIforrelaxin]

People,

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

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

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

Let this issue rest.