Boating Accident/Death off Diamond Island

[Skip]

Channel 9 (WMUR-TV) is reporting this morning that Blizzard's defense team continue to argue to have the results of the blood sampling suppressed. The State is arguing that these tests, when revealed, will show the defendant was impaired at the time of the collision.

Most likely there will be some type of on-line report to be referenced later this morning.

[Lakewinn1]

Does anyone know the specific court date & location? Will the public be able to view the proceedings?

[rrr]

Originally Posted by Skip

The State is arguing that these tests, when revealed, will show the defendant was impaired at the time of the collision.

Skip-

If the defense were to prevail, could it be construed that this statement would taint the jury pool? Are we looking at a change of venue next?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by rrr

Skip-

If the defense were to prevail, could it be construed that this statement would taint the jury pool? Are we looking at a change of venue next?

No...this is standard legal wrangling.

While we readers and posters here are keenly aware of the situation, there are plently of folks within the jurisdiction of the Belknap Superior Court that have not followed nor shown any interest in this case.

However, the defendant's high profile coupled with the family's financial resources will most likely prolong this trial, as most defendants do not have the same type of legal resources as this one does.


Unfortunate as it is, in too many cases there truly are two types of justice. Justice for those with financial resources, and streamlined justice for those without. That is truly not the case in many instances, but begs that we all keep a close eye on this particular trial as it winds it way through the Halls of Justice.

As for another question posed, unless a negotiated plea is reached the trial will be posted and open to the public. I do not believe an actual trail date has been set yet, but I may have missed it. Either way I am sure the details of any upcoming trial will be in the media and posted here well before it takes place.

[pats fan]

Wow and Hole Cow, Nadia! I think on this one I have to agree with Tilton BB. When I first read your initial post I thought the same thing as BB. I thought it was certainly giving those people who do not know Erica some ammunition to say, "Well, there you go. Another barfly kills someone after a drunken night." I do not know if Erica has a tendency to drink too much but after reading your post I have to admit I immediately started thinking she must be a pretty big drinker. Most people do not spend 2 or 3 nights a week for hours at a time in a bar NOT drinking. I don't think he/she was trying to attack you. I think he/she was trying to point out to you that you were not helping Erica's reputation by your comments. As for working on making your posts not quite so long...good luck with that!

[Nadia]

I stated they frequented the lounge. Not the bar, or cocktail lounge. Nor did I say they drank any alcoholic drinks. Here are the definitions for you to see:

From www.thefreedictionary.com, the definition of lounge as opposed to the definition of bar.

lounge (lounj)
v. lounged, loung·ing, loung·es
v.intr.
1. To move or act in a lazy, relaxed way; loll: lounging on the sofa; lounged around in pajamas.
2. To pass time idly: lounged in Venice till June.
v.tr.
To pass (time) in a lazy, relaxed, or idle way: lounged the day away.
n.
1. A public waiting room, as in a hotel or an air terminal, often having smoking or lavatory facilities.
2. A cocktail lounge.
3.
a. A living room.
b. A lobby.
4. A long couch, especially one having no back and a headrest at one end.

bar 1 (bär)
n.
1. A relatively long, straight, rigid piece of solid material used as a fastener, support, barrier, or structural or mechanical member.
2.
a. A solid oblong block of a substance, such as soap or candy.
b. A rectangular block of a precious metal.
3. Sports
a. A horizontal bar
b. A horizontal rod that marks the height to be cleared in high jumping or pole vaulting.
4. A standard, expectation, or degree of requirement: a leader whose example set a high bar for others.
5. Something that impedes or prevents action or progress. See Synonyms at obstacle.
6. A ridge, as of sand or gravel, on a shore or streambed, that is formed by the action of tides or currents.
7. A narrow marking, as a stripe or band.
8.
a. A narrow metal or embroidered strip worn on a military uniform indicating rank or service.
b. Chiefly British A small insignia worn on a military decoration indicating that it has been awarded an additional time.
9. Heraldry A pair of horizontal parallel lines drawn across a shield.
10. Law
a. The nullification, defeat, or prevention of a claim or action.
b. The process by which nullification, defeat, or prevention is achieved.
11. The railing in a courtroom enclosing the part of the room where the judges and lawyers sit, witnesses are heard, and prisoners are tried.
12. A place of judgment; a tribunal.
13. Law
a. Attorneys considered as a group.
b. The profession of law.
14. Music
a. A vertical line drawn through a staff to mark off a measure.
b. A measure.
15. Variant of barre.
16.
a. A counter at which drinks, especially alcoholic drinks, and sometimes food, are served.
b. An establishment or room having such a counter.

However; since it seems to be a common misunderstanding so far, and to avoid further controversy I will be glad to edit my post so no one thinks I am implying they were doing things they were not. The Lobster Pound issue is old, boring and non-related. Much to your dismay I am no longer affiliated with the Weirs Beach Lobster Pound. I voluntarily left on May 15, 2009. My severance had nothing to do with this forum or any of it's contents or member comments. Stop whining, trolling, cross threading, beating dead horses, speculating and breathing while your at it. You are pushing your personal agenda because your mad at remarks made to you by several people in another thread, including myself. Now your running into your own neighbors on here who are deducting from the credibility of your posts and painting a true picture of your miserable, negative character off the forum. I have zero respect for anyone who condones and threatens cruelty and violence towards animals. Your own neighbors have verified you are an inconsiderate jerk. Get off my case, your not getting the rise out of me your looking for. In fact your going on ignore. There are medications and people who are qualified to help people as angry and hateful as you are.

My now "defunct" restaurant actually was leased to TD Bank North after nearly 13 years of success for no other reason then they made me an offer I could not refuse. Now I see what your true issue with me is...
But I still think you should consider a highly qualified shrink...

My apologies for my response to TiltonBB's high-jack. It has no place here.

PatsFan, just because you summized something similar does not make what he said to me okay.

[pats fan]

Nadia,
My response and the response by TiltonBB were totally appropriate in accordance with your long rant and previous post. You have gone back and deleated your approx 100 line rant to TiltonBB and made changes to your post that I responded to. If you want to have an adult exchange keep things as they are originally posted, don't go back and make changes so future posts by others look incorrect. I told you that saying "Erica and Stephanie used to frequent your lounge 2-3 times per week for hours at a time" was not in Erica's best interst. You have now changed it to say in your restaurant. That is fine, as it may help her reputation, but it certainly makes others, such as me, look like I posted something incorrectly. I do not know if Erica drinks too much or even at all, I do not personally know her. I just felt bad for her because your original post made her sound like a barfly. Clearly you felt foolish about your 100 line babbling to BB, therefore removed it. That is good, since most of it made little to no sense, but be fair to other posters and keep things original so our responses are fitting.

Thank you for the definitions of lounge Vs. bar. I stand corrected. It was my error to think the young ladies were spending hours at a time, 2-3 nights per week having adult beverages in your lounge. Based on your definitions I now understand that they were simply relaxing on couches in their jammies in your waiting area. My mistake. Again, I feel terrible about Erica's and Stephanie's situation and am NOT saying anything bad about Erica. I was trying to help her by nicely telling you that you were not helping her image to say what you Originally said.

[Pine Island Guy]

i was just having some friendly banter with my neighbor JRC, and holy smoke, what popped out of the woodwork, this sure is fun

free entertainment!

hoping for a sunny funny weekend -PIG

[Nadia]

Originally Posted by pats fan

Nadia,
My response and the response by TiltonBB were totally appropriate in accordance with your long rant and previous post. You have gone back and deleated your approx 100 line rant to TiltonBB and made changes to your post that I responded to. If you want to have an adult exchange keep things as they are originally posted, don't go back and make changes so future posts by others look incorrect. I told you that saying "Erica and Stephanie used to frequent your lounge 2-3 times per week for hours at a time" was not in Erica's best interst. You have now changed it to say in your restaurant. That is fine, as it may help her reputation, but it certainly makes others, such as me, look like I posted something incorrectly. I do not know if Erica drinks too much or even at all, I do not personally know her. I just felt bad for her because your original post made her sound like a barfly. Clearly you felt foolish about your 100 line babbling to BB, therefore removed it. That is good, since most of it made little to no sense, but be fair to other posters and keep things original so our responses are fitting.

Thank you for the definitions of lounge Vs. bar. I stand corrected. It was my error to think the young ladies were spending hours at a time, 2-3 nights per week having adult beverages in your lounge. Based on your definitions I now understand that they were simply relaxing on couches in their jammies in your waiting area. My mistake. Again, I feel terrible about Erica's and Stephanie's situation and am NOT saying anything bad about Erica. I was trying to help her by nicely telling you that you were not helping her image to say what you Originally said.

I made changes to my post so you and TiltonBB would stop whining Now what is your agenda pats fan? You've followed me into two threads where TiltonBB and I are not seeing eye to eye and are attempting to help him "save face". I admit I could have chosen better wording BUT I will not admit that I was trying to imply Erica or Stephanie drank frequently, because that was not my intention. If TiltonBB had said it a little nicer, he may have gotten a different response, however he insisted upon trying to humiliate and annoy me AGAIN, and throwing Lobster Pound BS in my face. It's over. Move on, and grow up. And now, he has made a complete spectacle of himself and is trying to get out of the spot light, and now you are following him around trying to stick up for him. Pathetic. It's fair for him (and you) to say that my wording sounded odd, wrong, stupid, whatever...but the rest of it was uncalled for. I am not embarrassed about anything I say--that's why I reveal my true identity. As far as my definitions, you not only stand corrected once, but twice. "Hole Cow" is typically spelled "Holy Cow".

[sa meredith]

Nadia.....doesn't it ever get old?

[Nadia]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

Nadia.....doesn't it ever get old?

More then you could ever imagine. I really wish people would just let by gones be by gones. But with the reference to my "defunct" restaurant (which is verbatim what another member said to me not long ago) I now truly know what the problem is. More so, it's shameful to be bringing this nonsense into a thread of this nature. I'm very sad about this accident, as are other people....so if my wording initially stated otherwise I assure you it was an overlook. My bad. That's why I fixed it.

Back on topic, I have two questions: Is the charge negligent homicide? I've got a good question for Skip if that is the charge...I need to pick your brain!

Did they base that charge on any specific findings? Like her BAC for instance, if there was one? I know the answers are in this thread somewhere but their kind of difficult to find with so many other things to sort through.

[Breakwater]

Erica is charged with;

- negligently causing the death of another while operating under the influence
-negligently causing the death of another by failing to keep a proper look out and striking an island which resulted in death
-Operated a boat under the influence and causing a crash that resulted in serious injuries.

[Nadia]

Originally Posted by Breakwater

Erica is charged with;

- negligently causing the death of another while operating under the influence
-negligently causing the death of another by failing to keep a proper look out and striking an island which resulted in death
-Operated a boat under the influence and causing a crash that resulted in serious injuries.

Thank you for that information. Skip, like I said I want to pick your brain, but your all welcome and free to answer.

Erica is charged with negligence because her behavior/s resulted in Stephanie's death & the injury of another. The Court will refer to the four elements of negligence when making it's decision. One element is that if it were not for Erica's negligent behavior (being under the influence/not keeping proper look-out), Stephanie would not have lost her life, and Nicole would not be injured. Is it fair to say, in Erica's defense, if the weather conditions were indeed: foggy, misty, unusually dark and proven extremely difficult to navigate in even for an even more experienced captain, this accident would have taken place anyway? If I were her Attorney and I said, demonstrated, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this accident took place solely because of the weather, how do you think Prosecution would counter? I wonder if this is an avenue her Attorney will explore, and how he/she would prove abnormally foul weather was to blame? That the accident would have taken place even if she did keep proper look-out and was not under the influence of alcohol? Is it possible one could make this mistake and it truly was just an accident?

[NoBozo]

Here's the problem I have in this case....and any case where someone is navigating the lake at night. Ericas boat was not a "Cheapy". Any boat like that would have a "Moving Map GPS". I have a 20' runabout..and I have a Moving Map GPS. Pretty bullit proof...it glows in the dark. At night I pay attention to the GPS.

[Seadoo]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

Here's the problem I have in this case....and any case where someone is navigating the lake at night. Ericas boat was not a "Cheapy". Any boat like that would have a "Moving Map GPS". I have a 20' runabout..and I have a Moving Map GPS. Pretty bullit proof...it glows in the dark. At night I pay attention to the GPS.

hmm interesting it is ALMOST as if you THINK you know what you are talking about. Im going to take a wild guess and say that your 20 foot runabout gps system was installed after so. Ever taken a look at the prices on the GPS systems that come with formula boats?? (they are cheap and not worth the money) In most cases it is more "bang for your buck" to get one after market.

[VtSteve]

why SKIP is now a new member named Breakwater?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

why SKIP is now a new member named Breakwater?

Nope Steve, you didn't miss anything.

I have no idea who breakwater is....but I can assure you that I do not have a duplicate account here.

Skip

[VtSteve]

I must have been temporarily dazed by the good weather we had here this weekend. I wasn't even in a lounge or anything

[Audiofn]

Originally Posted by Seadoo

hmm interesting it is ALMOST as if you THINK you know what you are talking about. Im going to take a wild guess and say that your 20 foot runabout gps system was installed after so. Ever taken a look at the prices on the GPS systems that come with formula boats?? (they are cheap and not worth the money) In most cases it is more "bang for your buck" to get one after market.

Not quite sure what you are talking about the Formula GPS's not being good. The GPS in the boat being driven should have looked something like this.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by Seadoo

hmm interesting it is ALMOST as if you THINK you know what you are talking about. Im going to take a wild guess and say that your 20 foot runabout gps system was installed after so. Ever taken a look at the prices on the GPS systems that come with formula boats?? (they are cheap and not worth the money) In most cases it is more "bang for your buck" to get one after market.

You are Funny Seadoo. I presume by your screen name that your mode of nautical transportation is a Seadoo...or shall we say JetSki. No problem there. To each his own.

My own background is as follows..In Brief: I sailed my own boat to Bermuda and back..Singlehanded, in 1979, and did it again in 1981. I used Celestial Navigation. There was no GPS then and LORAN "C" was only coming on line in it's infantsy. I have followed modern navigation developments since then and GPS WORKS. It doesn't matter how much you pay for GPS...the only thing different is "Features". The accuracy is pretty much the same.

SO: YES: I think I know what I'm talking about.

[Seadoo]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

You are Funny Seadoo. I presume by your screen name that your mode of nautical transportation is a Seadoo...or shall we say JetSki. No problem there. To each his own.

My own background is as follows..In Brief: I sailed my own boat to Bermuda and back..Singlehanded, in 1979, and did it again in 1981. I used Celestial Navigation. There was no GPS then and LORAN "C" was only coming on line in it's infantsy. I have followed modern navigation developments since then and GPS WORKS. It doesn't matter how much you pay for GPS...the only thing different is "Features". The accuracy is pretty much the same.

SO: YES: I think I know what I'm talking about.

wow congrats you know a SEA DOO is a jet ski, nothing gets by anyone on this forum.

also congrats on sailing you own boat to bermuda and back, and singledhanded wow you must feel great!

The funny thing about all the computers that run our lives is that they misread data and sometimes are worse then boating the "old" way, using land points around the water ways to help one get from point A to point B. Regaurdless on what GPS system one is using they still do fail more so in the rain and stormy weather, as it was that night.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Seadoo

Regaurdless on what GPS system one is using they still do fail more so in the rain and stormy weather, as it was that night.

???? WHAT ???? You make this comment based on what evidence?

Can anyone back up this statement. Does GPS fail in the rain?

[TomC]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

???? WHAT ???? You make this comment based on what evidence?

Can anyone back up this statement. Does GPS fail in the rain?

rain, moisture, fog, heavy cloud cover (any atmospheric condition that is "conductive") can attenuate RF. So it isn't necessarily a matter of "failing", but a degradation that may result in less frequent positional updates due to weak(er) signals. In the extreme, yes, loss of signal could occur which would render the device inoperative.

[Pineedles]

I know my Garmin has a hard time "Locating Satellites" when it I turn it on if there are storm clouds and rain; but it eventually comes on-line. It sometimes messages "Waiting for Better Accuracy" if it is really cloudy.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

I know my Garmin has a hard time "Locating Satellites" when it I turn it on if there are storm clouds and rain; but it eventually comes on-line. It sometimes messages "Waiting for Better Accuracy" if it is really cloudy.

The problem I have had with GPS accuracy on the lake is the loss of "WAAS" (Wide Area Augmentation System) which keeps your GPS accurate within 3 meters. For the life of me I can't understand why in such an open area I keep losing the WAAS signal on my GPS, and for some reason it seems worse this year than last. Does anyone else have this problem on the lake???

Without WAAS, accuracy can be as much as 100 meters off and I have personally seen this inaccuracy on my GPS. I have rarely loss total GPS / satellite signal however.

GPS is a another extra wonderful tool to HELP with navigation but should never be relied upon totally. It is NOT fail proof and it is never 100% accurate.

Dan

[VtSteve]

Technically, Jet Ski is the brand name for Kawasaki I believe.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

???? WHAT ???? You make this comment based on what evidence?

Can anyone back up this statement. Does GPS fail in the rain?

His statement doesn't seem that far fetched. GPS systems receive signals from satellites. When there is weather, it stands to reason that the already relatively weak signals could be affected, making it harder for the device to lock on and get an accurate reading.

There are many reasons why things like GPS and LORAN-C should be considered navigational AIDs and not replacements for familiarity with the water you're operating in.

[hazelnut]

OK I guess... I've never had it happen to my Standard Horizon in any cloud cover whatsoever, or rain. I also had a hard time finding evidence of failure of GPS in rain and clouds online. I'll take your word for it that it has happened to you though.

[Lakepilot]

Had an airplane with GPS in it. Have thousands of hours IFR and hundreds flying in the rain and the GPS never failed (due to the rain). We have Direct TV and it has been known to fail during heavy rain and thunderstorms.

[4Fun]

Originally Posted by Lakepilot

Had an airplane with GPS in it. Have thousands of hours IFR and hundreds flying in the rain and the GPS never failed (due to the rain). We have Direct TV and it has been known to fail during heavy rain and thunderstorms.

Different frequencys react differently to weather. My XM radio antenna can have 1' of snow on it and work fine. Direct TV hardly works at all in the snow. I would say GPS is pretty resiliant. Mine works great all the time even in some heavy snow when snowmobiling.

Maybe she was "flying on instruments"....

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Seadoo

wow congrats you know a SEA DOO is a jet ski, nothing gets by anyone on this forum.

also congrats on sailing you own boat to bermuda and back, and singledhanded wow you must feel great!

The funny thing about all the computers that run our lives is that they misread data and sometimes are worse then boating the "old" way, using land points around the water ways to help one get from point A to point B. Regaurdless on what GPS system one is using they still do fail more so in the rain and stormy weather, as it was that night.

Don't forget, Sea Doo also makes and sells boats.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Nadia

Thank you for that information. Skip, like I said I want to pick your brain, but your all welcome and free to answer.

Erica is charged with negligence because her behavior/s resulted in Stephanie's death & the injury of another. The Court will refer to the four elements of negligence when making it's decision. One element is that if it were not for Erica's negligent behavior (being under the influence/not keeping proper look-out), Stephanie would not have lost her life, and Nicole would not be injured. Is it fair to say, in Erica's defense, if the weather conditions were indeed: foggy, misty, unusually dark and proven extremely difficult to navigate in even for an even more experienced captain, this accident would have taken place anyway? If I were her Attorney and I said, demonstrated, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this accident took place solely because of the weather, how do you think Prosecution would counter? I wonder if this is an avenue her Attorney will explore, and how he/she would prove abnormally foul weather was to blame? That the accident would have taken place even if she did keep proper look-out and was not under the influence of alcohol? Is it possible one could make this mistake and it truly was just an accident?

Her attorney better have another argument IMO. Cruising about on plane in rain or fog so thick that she couldn't see and react to the island in her path in time to avoid the collision is negligence. That's speed too fast for the prevailing conditions and something an experienced boater should know. Dr Rock's testimony re: the conditions there at that time will be interesting. If the visibility was unlimited then the argument has to be the island was too dark to be seen and Erica thought she knew where she was but was in error. Without GPS or such and w/o visual cues the prosecutor might well argue that no reasonable person would be so sure and so again it becomes negligent operation. In any case it'll all play out in court and no doubt be reported as was the Littlefield case, so we'll see then.

[Just Sold]

In 2005 an "experienced boater" ran aground on Rattlesnake Is at night while trying to approach an unlighted dock. So it can happen to anyone anytime.
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...sh+Rattlesnake

[VtSteve]

I've had that happen myself, only to find that the spotlights blinded me coming in. Finding your own dock in pitch black darkness can be a challenge. I wish the moon were full all the time, but I imagine that would have other consequences as well

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Just Sold

In 2005 an "experienced boater" ran aground on Rattlesnake Is at night while trying to approach an unlighted dock. So it can happen to anyone anytime.
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...sh+Rattlesnake

I think I mentioned this very accident sometime earlier in the thread. So to put some balance back into the discusssion it might well be argued that visibility was limited (to ground level) but not "zero" that night and Erica seeing the shoreline lights, thought she was the proper distance from shore. I've run the route I now believe she was taking that night countless times and the shoreline isn't dark in that area. Most nights I don't consult the GPS (coming back that route) until after I'm home and find that my deviation from the programmed route is negligible. So could it have been a simple error ... sure. Again the testimony of her friend onboard and Dr Rock as to the conditions that night will narrow a lot of the speculation as to what happened.

[Mink Islander]

Failure to maintain a safe watch and going too fast for the conditions.

If you can't see something bearing dead ahead and consequently hit it with such force that you destroy the boat, kill a passenger and severely injure the two other individuals in the boat (including yourself), it's no simple error. It's reckless behavior by the operator and a clear violation of a number of fundamental boating laws. Seems to me, the only question here is whether she was legally impaired by alcohol and therefore compounded her legal problems that night. The rest appears pretty open and closed.

I think we all feel sympathy for the situation. It's a huge tragedy for all involved. No, she didn't head out that night planning to crash her boat and kill her friend. But she did operate the boat in a manner that was reckless given the conditions and CAUSED an major accident with a fatality as a result. Yes CAUSED it. It was entirely avoidable and she alone owns that. She needs to be held accountable for her actions and boaters need to learn from this so it doesn't happen again.

We can't just excuse this away as some random "could have happened to anyone" situation. If you think this could happen to you, then you should consider the possibility that you are taking extreme and unnecessary risks when you boat at night and are potentially a hazard to yourself and others. We should all believe we're operating in a manner where this type accident COULDN'T happen to us. Because it really shouldn't be possible if you are a competent, cautious and sober captain.

[jrc]

Wow its amazing, why even have a trial, just read a few newpaper articles, write a few forum posts, talk to some friends and then start building the gallows.

[Mink Islander]

Remember this?


I'm not saying that she is innocent, just that without evidence of intoxication, this is far from a slam dunk. My guess is if the BAC evidence is excluded she walks with no jail time. Probably will be a plea bargain.


You wrote it in this thread. I guess it's okay for YOU to have an opinion that she will walk based on your slant on the information, but everybody else is off base if they take an alternate view?

Little hypocritical, don't you think??

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Mink Islander

...

Little hypocritical, don't you think??

Maybe, but I was guessing at an outcome, not declaring her guilty or innocent. Maybe a subtle difference.

I still think she will get off pretty easy, if the booze evidence is surpressed or if she wasn't drunk. I still think she will easily be convicted if she was drunk.

If she was drunk, she is pretty much automatically guilty in my opinion and in practice and in that case I hope she goes to jail.

If she was not drunk, then I would really like to hear all the evidence before I made an decision. It gets into degrees of negligence and visibilty and conditions and a whole bunch of other factors. Accidents do happen, even to competent, cautious and sober captains.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Mink Islander

Failure to maintain a safe watch and going too fast for the conditions.

If you can't see something bearing dead ahead and consequently hit it with such force that you destroy the boat, kill a passenger and severely injure the two other individuals in the boat (including yourself), it's no simple error. It's reckless behavior by the operator and a clear violation of a number of fundamental boating laws. Seems to me, the only question here is whether she was legally impaired by alcohol and therefore compounded her legal problems that night. The rest appears pretty open and closed.

I think we all feel sympathy for the situation. It's a huge tragedy for all involved. No, she didn't head out that night planning to crash her boat and kill her friend. But she did operate the boat in a manner that was reckless given the conditions and CAUSED an major accident with a fatality as a result. Yes CAUSED it. It was entirely avoidable and she alone owns that. She needs to be held accountable for her actions and boaters need to learn from this so it doesn't happen again.

We can't just excuse this away as some random "could have happened to anyone" situation. If you think this could happen to you, then you should consider the possibility that you are taking extreme and unnecessary risks when you boat at night and are potentially a hazard to yourself and others. We should all believe we're operating in a manner where this type accident COULDN'T happen to us. Because it really shouldn't be possible if you are a competent, cautious and sober captain.

Out of curiousity, what charges should have been brought against the person mentioned in JustSold's recent post ? Sure there wasn't a death and I don't believe any alcohol was involved but still he hit Rattlesnake hard enough to break bones (if that matters).

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

I think I mentioned this very accident sometime earlier in the thread. So to put some balance back into the discusssion it might well be argued that visibility was limited (to ground level) but not "zero" that night and Erica seeing the shoreline lights, thought she was the proper distance from shore. I've run the route I now believe she was taking that night countless times and the shoreline isn't dark in that area.

Just curious about your comment of shoreline lights in that area. Diamond Island does not have electricity last time I checked, so unless someone was running a generator or had a crapload of candles going that island would have been pitch black. There is not a lot of houses in that area of the island either. I have been to Dr. Rock's house before. If you are talking about lights on the mainland I can understand however visibility was crap that night and that would be misleading... Just sayin'

[ApS]

Originally Posted by jrc

"...You have to be a fool not to use all the tools you have, none of them are perfect, all of them can give you false data once in awhile, even your own eyes..."

While in Long Island Sound's notorious fog, I've had occasion to stop altogether and use my ears. Though what I heard was actually traffic noise along the shoreline, I thought it was surf along the shoreline. (No matter, my location was then plotted to suit the shoreline).

I've learned to develop and to trust my senses and among all the senses—to trust my eyes the most.

One example of using those senses was just last Tuesday: Totally unexpected, I smelled cigar smoke wafting off a calm, quiet, and empty lake. I turned upwind and there—about ½-mile away—was an oversized cruiser at anchor!

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...It's equally dangerous to either fixate your eyes on a screen while piloting a boat as it is to have your eyes peeled dead ahead, with no regard to the port or starboard viewpoints..."

I'm at a loss to describe any Jet-Skis or bass boats running onto Winnipesaukee shorelines—especially as their number is so large here!

Bass boats in particular run in dim morning fog: Because of the nature of their respective helms, they are focused dead-ahead all the time.

Originally Posted by Mink Islander

"...the only question here is whether she was legally impaired by alcohol..."

In taking that first drop of alcohol, the first casualty will always be Judgment.

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...that island would have been pitch black..."

It's because of that fact that I proposed that docks be fitted with a blue-colored solar light—right here at the forum in 2005.

There was, of course, the usual skepticism:
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...48&postcount=5

I wonder how this skepticism plays out this June?

Point being: Even at the darkest hour—in fog—on a lake—in June—and with the moon in the night sky, the sky overhead will provide a lighter contrast against which to silhouette shorelines.

__________________

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by jrc

I use a similar technique when night boating. You must use all the data you can when boating in limited visibility. That means your eyes, and your GPS or radar (if equipped). I also use my depth finder. If the GPS says it should be 50 feet deep and my depth finder says 20 feet, I slow down figure out what going on. Usually its the depth finder whacking out on something. You have to be a fool not to use all the tools you have, none of them are perfect, all of them can give you false data once in awhile, even your own eyes.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

While in Long Island Sound's notorious fog, I've had occasion to stop altogether and use my ears. Though what I heard was actually traffic noise along the shoreline, I thought it was surf along the shoreline. (No matter, my location was then plotted to suit the shoreline).

I've learned to develop and to trust my senses and among all the senses—to trust my eyes the most.

One example of using those senses was just last Tuesday: Totally unexpected, I smelled cigar smoke wafting off a calm, quiet, and empty lake. I turned upwind and there—about ½-mile away—was an oversized cruiser at anchor!

I hope this wasn't on a clear morning with good visibility Fog is a very real hazard, both on land and at sea.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

I'm at a loss to describe any Jet-Skis or bass boats running onto Winnipesaukee shorelines—especially as their number is so large here!

Bass boats in particular run in dim morning fog: Because of the nature of their respective helms, they are focused dead-ahead all the time.

Two points here. I know personally that bass boats and Jet-Skis typically do not run at lower cruising speeds. So you point out that two classes of craft, both that typically run at faster speeds than most (bass boats typically at Much faster speeds, and you say they are "focused Dead-Ahead all the time". So we have craft going fast that never look to the sides or behind them? I agree that they should concentrate the majority of their attention to what's in front, but boats coming in from the port or starboard side, out of their concentrated field of vision can be hazardous to their health.

I'm amazed that these two craft classes, which you point out are in large numbers, haven't been involved in many accidents. Would this indicate that their speeds aren't a dangerous factor, that maybe something else might be in play as to why other boats that are operating at slower speeds, and are presumably in lesser numbers, have more accidents?


BTW, I think your suggestion for lights on docks is a very good one. Excellent idea.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

Two points here. I know personally that bass boats and Jet-Skis typically do not run at lower cruising speeds. So you point out that two classes of craft, both that typically run at faster speeds than most (bass boats typically at Much faster speeds, and you say they are "focused Dead-Ahead all the time". So we have craft going fast that never look to the sides or behind them? I agree that they should concentrate the majority of their attention to what's in front, but boats coming in from the port or starboard side, out of their concentrated field of vision can be hazardous to their health.

I'm amazed that these two craft classes, which you point out are in large numbers, haven't been involved in many accidents. Would this indicate that their speeds aren't a dangerous factor, that maybe something else might be in play as to why other boats that are operating at slower speeds, and are presumably in lesser numbers, have more accidents?
BTW, I think your suggestion for lights on docks is a very good one. Excellent idea.

I think one of the reasons regarding bass boats and jet skis not being involved in many accidents might be the fact that jet skis are not legal at night, and there typically are not a lot of bass boats on the water at night. They are usually in bed, since they have to get up so early in the AM to do their fishing!

Another reason for jet skis might be the maneuverability of the craft. They can see all around them and avoid potential probs fairly easily-if the operator is looking around and not only straight ahead.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Just curious about your comment of shoreline lights in that area. Diamond Island does not have electricity last time I checked, so unless someone was running a generator or had a crapload of candles going that island would have been pitch black. There is not a lot of houses in that area of the island either. I have been to Dr. Rock's house before. If you are talking about lights on the mainland I can understand however visibility was crap that night and that would be misleading... Just sayin'

I agree that Diamond I is usually very dark, in contrast with Rattlesnake which often has lights, especially that house that has the "runway" lighting. But my reference was to the shoreline lights on the mainland. IIRC there's a mooring feild with a fairly well lit cluster of condos on the shore before you get to Diamond I. Now if visibility was bad enough that these couldn't be seen then you have to wonder about the wisdom of being on plane. If they were seen and she was using them to judge her distance from shore then it becomes a more understandable mistake.

[Tank151]

Originally Posted by Nadia

Thank you for that information. Skip, like I said I want to pick your brain, but your all welcome and free to answer.

Erica is charged with negligence because her behavior/s resulted in Stephanie's death & the injury of another. The Court will refer to the four elements of negligence when making it's decision. One element is that if it were not for Erica's negligent behavior (being under the influence/not keeping proper look-out), Stephanie would not have lost her life, and Nicole would not be injured. Is it fair to say, in Erica's defense, if the weather conditions were indeed: foggy, misty, unusually dark and proven extremely difficult to navigate in even for an even more experienced captain, this accident would have taken place anyway? If I were her Attorney and I said, demonstrated, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this accident took place solely because of the weather, how do you think Prosecution would counter? I wonder if this is an avenue her Attorney will explore, and how he/she would prove abnormally foul weather was to blame? That the accident would have taken place even if she did keep proper look-out and was not under the influence of alcohol? Is it possible one could make this mistake and it truly was just an accident?

Nadia,

Enough already! I hope you're not married? If you are, your husband must be whittled down... poor guy!

[Nadia]

Tank151,
A one minute investigation into your posting history and your user profile, along with your "classy" response to me reveals the following information:

A. You are the text-book definition of an internet troll
B. You have a history of randomly insulting people
C. You flame, use foul language, call family of the deceased "dopes", and encourage operating under the influence in a thread about a tragic boating accident.

How I got lucky enough to be the next person you bark at, I have no idea. Glancing at your behavior in the other thread regarding this topic you have established a regular pattern. When the words get too big for you, and the conversation a little too complex, you start throwing around obscenities and stamping your feet for attention Yes I am married, and no my husband is not whittled. Why do you ask? Is your wife indeed...a Tank? My husband would kick your you know what from one end of the Lakes Region to the other. Here are my suggestions: Go to your Doctor, and become heavily medicated. I think some Paxil may be in order. Crawl back under the rock you came out from and stay there. The world is a scary place for people with your mentality--

[sa meredith]

Originally Posted by Nadia

Tank151,
A one minute investigation into your posting history and your user profile, along with your "classy" response to me reveals the following information:

A. You are the text-book definition of an internet troll
B. You have a history of randomly insulting people
C. You flame, use foul language, call family of the deceased "dopes", and encourage operating under the influence in a thread about a tragic boating accident.

How I got lucky enough to be the next person you bark at, I have no idea. Glancing at your behavior in the other thread regarding this topic you have established a regular pattern. When the words get too big for you, and the conversation a little too complex, you start throwing around obscenities and stamping your feet for attention Yes I am married, and no my husband is not whittled. Why do you ask? Is your wife indeed...a Tank? My husband would kick your you know what from one end of the Lakes Region to the other. Here are my suggestions: Go to your Doctor, and become heavily medicated. I think some Paxil may be in order. Crawl back under the rock you came out from and stay there. The world is a scary place for people with your mentality--

I ask again.....doesn't it get old????!!!!!
Remember, Nadia, one person cannot have an augument, it indeed takes two.
I have engaged in playful banter with many members of this forum, and at times, although it was not my intention, it has turned ugly.
Your banter ALWAYS turns ugly. Why?
And, you are the only poster on this board, I believe, that threatens with physical violence...as you have in this post. I know of another time, which was in a PM to me. I still have it. There is simply no room for that on this forum, and frankly, I'm surprised Don puts up with it.

[Audiofn]

Originally Posted by Nadia

Tank151,
A one minute investigation into your posting history and your user profile, along with your "classy" response to me reveals the following information:

A. You are the text-book definition of an internet troll
B. You have a history of randomly insulting people
C. You flame, use foul language, call family of the deceased "dopes", and encourage operating under the influence in a thread about a tragic boating accident.

How I got lucky enough to be the next person you bark at, I have no idea. Glancing at your behavior in the other thread regarding this topic you have established a regular pattern. When the words get too big for you, and the conversation a little too complex, you start throwing around obscenities and stamping your feet for attention Yes I am married, and no my husband is not whittled. Why do you ask? Is your wife indeed...a Tank? My husband would kick your you know what from one end of the Lakes Region to the other. Here are my suggestions: Go to your Doctor, and become heavily medicated. I think some Paxil may be in order. Crawl back under the rock you came out from and stay there. The world is a scary place for people with your mentality--

One could easily think that this post is talking about you. You have broken about every forum rule with this one post!

[alsadad]

I have followed this thread with increasing incredulity over the last several days. While Nadia is not [U]solely[U] to blame for this, someone who truly cares for her should gently remove the keyboard from her grasp and urge her to take a time-out before it's too late.

[Merrymeeting]

Thanks alsadad. You've diplomatically stated what I and I'm sure others have been thinking for several days too.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Audiofn

One could easily think that this post is talking about you. You have broken about every forum rule with this one post!

I have stayed out of this completely because I am already known for very spirited conversation but all I have to say is:

Audiofin - I applaud you. You hit it right on the head.

I am surprised webmaster hasn't stepped in on this as of yet. Talking about things going down hill quickly.

[pats fan]

Oh, come on Guys, don't encourage Don to put a "bark collar" on her.* This is good entertainment!

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by pats fan

Oh, come on Guys, don't encourage Don to put a "bark collar" on her.* This is good entertainment!

Just be thankful she's not cooking for us. Taste tester anyone? ba da bing, ba da boom.... Ok, I guess I've covered cheap jokes.

Just not the kind of thread one wants to see this type of stuff on. But Nadia's young and just a little bit cocky. I was there once, so why knock others. I'll just give the same advice many gave me, don't burn bridges, keep it tame, learn by reading and listening, not always trying to power through.

[Tank151]

Originally Posted by Nadia

Tank151,
A one minute investigation into your posting history and your user profile, along with your "classy" response to me reveals the following information:

A. You are the text-book definition of an internet troll
B. You have a history of randomly insulting people
C. You flame, use foul language, call family of the deceased "dopes", and encourage operating under the influence in a thread about a tragic boating accident.

How I got lucky enough to be the next person you bark at, I have no idea. Glancing at your behavior in the other thread regarding this topic you have established a regular pattern. When the words get too big for you, and the conversation a little too complex, you start throwing around obscenities and stamping your feet for attention Yes I am married, and no my husband is not whittled. Why do you ask? Is your wife indeed...a Tank? My husband would kick your you know what from one end of the Lakes Region to the other. Here are my suggestions: Go to your Doctor, and become heavily medicated. I think some Paxil may be in order. Crawl back under the rock you came out from and stay there. The world is a scary place for people with your mentality--

Nadia,

Based on your numerous and lengthy threads you have WAY TO MUCH time on your hands! Your one whos knows alot about NOTHING and a little bit about ALOT!

[sa meredith]

Um Tank....don't know if you noticed, but I don't think that's going to be a problem anymore.

[VtSteve]

I'm perfectly OK with calling what happened in this case a CRASH, or a COLLISION, even a SCREW UP.

You insist on trying to fill people's responses in for them, while ignoring their responses. In the Wake Picture "incident", it's pretty clear to everyone that it wasn't the Skipper taking it. If you continue to throw barbs in like this, your credibility will not go any higher. If you can't address the facts, stop making them up.

DOUBLE-THINK comes to mind.

We have a group that actually thinks PLANE (boating reference) is a bad word, a SKEERY word. Boating at night is something akin to jumping off a cliff for some. But the real dangers and the real issues are never addressed. I wonder why this is?

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

If you continue to throw barbs in like this, your credibility will not go any higher. If you can't address the facts, stop making them up.

You are new here aren't you ....

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

You are new here aren't you ....

I was trying to be civil.

[John E]

FWIW we were at Lake Wylie NC a month ago for a Mastercraft reunion.

One of our group was heading home around 10 pm at wake speed because they were unfamiliar with the lake. They were having trouble with their bow light, but the stern was functioning.

They were in a 20' boat and got T boned by a bass boat estimated to be going 45 mph. I can't imagine going that fast without a clear view of what is approaching. Though my friend's bow light was possibly out, they could have just as well been anchoring and have been hit.

Somehow none of the 9 involved were hurt. Just shaken up. And a couple of totaled boats.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by Skip

Channel 9 (WMUR-TV) is reporting this morning that Blizzard's defense team continue to argue to have the results of the blood sampling suppressed. The State is arguing that these tests, when revealed, will show the defendant was impaired at the time of the collision.
...

I would hope that the State has a much better argument than that the evidence shows impairment. For this consideration it doesn't matter what the evidence SHOWS, it matters that it was obtained legally. Only if was obtained legally does it matter what the evidence is. Since the State didn't address the LEGALITY of obtaining the blood I would speculate they are in trouble on this issue.

I would also note the specific word used by the State, "impaired". This is a BAC of around .05 - .07 which most women hit after one or two drinks. Since the State didn't use the term intoxicated (or similar) I would speculate that the BAC was under .08 (legal intoxication). If this is the case I would think the more serious charge of negligence while being intoxicated will be very difficult to get a conviction on. This is all based on the State using precise language, which I would expect that they would.

I visited a website that stated that "impairment begins with the first drink" and this is obviously true. However, it is not a practical judgment to say that someone who has had one drink is under the influence. Possibly not even two drinks over a period of a couple of hours. With respect to BI and others I don't know many people who go out to dinner and don't have at least one drink, possibly two and I am NOT a party person nor are most people I know.

If the BAC gets thrown out completely it's going to weaken that aspect of the second negligence charge as well. As I have said before I think it almost impossible to evade a general conviction on boating negligence of some type but I am getting the feel that alcohol will not be a major legal factor in that negligence.

[secondcurve]

"The Citizen reported that Blizzard's lawyer is arguing that the results of his client's blood test should be thrown out. James Moir said a Marine Patrol affidavit failed to show probable cause that the test results from the blood samples would prove intoxication."

Doesn't running straight into an island at high rate of speed provide enough probable cause to conduct a blood test to check for intoxication and allow the evidence to be entered into the case?

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

"The Citizen reported that Blizzard's lawyer is arguing that the results of his client's blood test should be thrown out. James Moir said a Marine Patrol affidavit failed to show probable cause that the test results from the blood samples would prove intoxication."

Doesn't running straight into an island at high rate of speed provide enough probable cause to conduct a blood test to check for intoxication and allow the evidence to be entered into the case?

The problem is in who collects the blood and for what purpose.

If an officer at the scene or at the hospital ordered the blood be drawn no warrant would have been needed because a vehicle accident happened and someone was killed. I believe the law actually says blood for BAC should be collected from all people involved in the accident. This seems NOT to have happened.

Later, after enough time had passed that it would have been pointless to draw a BAC, the police went to the hospital to compel that blood drawn there (for medical purposes) be used to obtain a BAC. This DOES require a warrant and for the warrant to be granted probable cause needed to be shown that intoxication was likely. It seems that the warrant conveniently left out part of the passenger's testimony that they had not drank very much and that Erica did NOT seem impaired. Providing only damning testimony and leaving off exonerating testimony is not a good thing to do and jeopardizes the validity of the warrant and that is why it is being challenged.

I had written about this on this thread before about the differences between blood being drawn under the orders of an officer vs. blood drawn by a hospital and then compelled as evidence. The first is a much stronger, cleaner evidence and here we see example of this.

Of course it's up to the court to decide if the warrant was defective. My gut says it was. We'll see.

[Lakewinn1]

Originally Posted by jeffk

The problem is in who collects the blood and for what purpose.

If an officer at the scene or at the hospital ordered the blood be drawn no warrant would have been needed because a vehicle accident happened and someone was killed. I believe the law actually says blood for BAC should be collected from all people involved in the accident. This seems NOT to have happened.

Later, after enough time had passed that it would have been pointless to draw a BAC, the police went to the hospital to compel that blood drawn there (for medical purposes) be used to obtain a BAC. This DOES require a warrant and for the warrant to be granted probable cause needed to be shown that intoxication was likely. It seems that the warrant conveniently left out part of the passenger's testimony that they had not drank very much and that Erica did NOT seem impaired. Providing only damning testimony and leaving off exonerating testimony is not a good thing to do and jeopardizes the validity of the warrant and that is why it is being challenged.

I had written about this on this thread before about the differences between blood being drawn under the orders of an officer vs. blood drawn by a hospital and then compelled as evidence. The first is a much stronger, cleaner evidence and here we see example of this.

Of course it's up to the court to decide if the warrant was defective. My gut says it was. We'll see.

Thanks for the clarity.... Good information to think about!

[Lakepilot]

I'll second the thanks for the clarification.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by jeffk

The problem is in who collects the blood and for what purpose.

If an officer at the scene or at the hospital ordered the blood be drawn no warrant would have been needed because a vehicle accident happened and someone was killed. I believe the law actually says blood for BAC should be collected from all people involved in the accident. This seems NOT to have happened.

Later, after enough time had passed that it would have been pointless to draw a BAC, the police went to the hospital to compel that blood drawn there (for medical purposes) be used to obtain a BAC. This DOES require a warrant and for the warrant to be granted probable cause needed to be shown that intoxication was likely. It seems that the warrant conveniently left out part of the passenger's testimony that they had not drank very much and that Erica did NOT seem impaired. Providing only damning testimony and leaving off exonerating testimony is not a good thing to do and jeopardizes the validity of the warrant and that is why it is being challenged.

I had written about this on this thread before about the differences between blood being drawn under the orders of an officer vs. blood drawn by a hospital and then compelled as evidence. The first is a much stronger, cleaner evidence and here we see example of this.

Of course it's up to the court to decide if the warrant was defective. My gut says it was. We'll see.

And that, folks, is why you get the best lawyer money can buy.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

"The Citizen reported that Blizzard's lawyer is arguing that the results of his client's blood test should be thrown out. James Moir said a Marine Patrol affidavit failed to show probable cause that the test results from the blood samples would prove intoxication."

Doesn't running straight into an island at high rate of speed provide enough probable cause to conduct a blood test to check for intoxication and allow the evidence to be entered into the case?

According to this FULL STORY now appearing on the Citizen, that is the exact same conclusion the Judge came to in determining probable cause existed to obtain the blood.

Also, in new details emerging, the blood seized late the next day was not the only sample obtained. At least six samples were seized including one just two hours after the collision while Blizzard was still at LRGH. Now, by having a string of samples taken at varying times after the accident the State can clearly use the sampling data to establish an extremely accurate BAC at the time of the collsion.

As this story reveals more and more of the night in question it appears to me that the State is building an extremely strong case.

Trial pre-hearings are scheduled to begin next Wednesday.

[jeffk]

This is why, despite all the speculation we do here, you need to wait for the trial for ALL the information to be brought forward.

[VtSteve]

Don't know about the position of the controls being an indication of anything. She was said to be slumped over the controls when found, and after that impact, they might possibly have been moved in erratic directions. The passenger that survived stated a speed of 25 to 30.

News stories like these have been making the rounds all over the nation. Let's hope they can prevent similar incidents.

[4Fun]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

Don't know about the position of the controls being an indication of anything. She was said to be slumped over the controls when found, and after that impact, they might possibly have been moved in erratic directions. The passenger that survived stated a speed of 25 to 30.

News stories like these have been making the rounds all over the nation. Let's hope they can prevent similar incidents.

I agree about the controls and the steering angle. They could have been anywhere before impact. I don't see how it would be relevant anyway. There is no doubt she hit this Island and there is no doubt she was't aiming for it on purpose.

The outdrives hitting on the bottom could alter the angle of steering and I doubt she would put one engine in reverse on purpose...

[Skip]

Every detail of the vessel, including full inspection (with photographs) of every conceivable mechanical part appear to have been meticulously documented by the investigators. This is standard in a criminal investigation. If anything were omitted then the defense would try to raise some suspicion that the State may have been hiding some intricate piece of evidence that would exonerate their client.

The original position of the controls discovered at the scene of the crime are important details as to their operational capability as determined later during further forensic analysis. Remember, to assign maximum culpability to Blizzard the State will need to show there was no mechanical issues that contributed to this deadly collision.

As this case unfolds over the next several weeks it appears that the State, in my opinion, has learned some valuable lessons from the Littlefield crime and done an excellent job in gathering the pertinent evidence necessary to pursue their criminal charges against Blizzard. The admission of the blood evidence, especially since we now know it was obtained in a very timely manner, is a tremendous victory for the prosecution.

It will be very interesting watching the legal wrangling that will ensue the next several months, as this will be a closely watched and highly publicized trial.

[Dave M]

The outdrives hitting on the bottom could alter the angle of steering and I doubt she would put one engine in reverse on purpose...

Isn't it possible that she saw the island at the last second and tried to put it
full throttle in reverse but was able to grab one of them or felt the prop hit
bottom and tried to do the same thing.

Speculation of course. In any case it shouldn't have happened.

Dave M