It is up to a jury now
- Thread starter paulj
- Start date
- Status
Thanks
Thanks. Paul, for keeping us up-to-date on the Bismarck Dinius story. I hope everybody puts this storyout far and wide, including the fact that state attorney general Gerry Brown has refused to intervene, and now he is running for governor.
BoatUS via "Seaworthy e-magazine" has asked for boaters to contribute to Dinius 'defense fund'. This case will inevitably create a very bad precedent if Dinius is convicted. Please contribute if you can, a few $$ contribution can make quite a difference.
From Boat/US "Seaworthy" e-Mag.: You can assist his legal defense by sending a check made out to Bismark Dinius, writing "Bismark Dinius Defense Fund" in the memo section, and mailing it to Sierra Central Credit Union, Attn: Brian Foxworthy, Branch Manager, 306 N. Sunrise Ave., Roseville, CA 95661.
From Boat/US "Seaworthy" e-Mag.: You can assist his legal defense by sending a check made out to Bismark Dinius, writing "Bismark Dinius Defense Fund" in the memo section, and mailing it to Sierra Central Credit Union, Attn: Brian Foxworthy, Branch Manager, 306 N. Sunrise Ave., Roseville, CA 95661.
Do I read this story right that Dinius was just a casual guest who happened to be steering? That would go against all nautical tradition, precedent, and law I ever heard of. Same in aviation, the pilot flying may not be the Pilot-in-Command. Everywhere except on the road, there is someone with the responsibility for the craft and the actions of crew, even if they are guests.
This clearly is a prosecution tailored to appeal to a jury. No jury is going to convict a guy who lost his fiancee so they had to go after the one with the wheel in his hand. They are also relying on a jury seeing this in automotive terms. I can't see how this is going to stand although it is Texas.
This clearly is a prosecution tailored to appeal to a jury. No jury is going to convict a guy who lost his fiancee so they had to go after the one with the wheel in his hand. They are also relying on a jury seeing this in automotive terms. I can't see how this is going to stand although it is Texas.
As often as not, there is more to the story than a 5 minute film clip or some news story. Why people are so eager to rush to judgment ( regarding who is responsible) is unfortunate. It's not as simple as who is in control of the sailboat or whether energized running lights trumps power boat speed.
Those of us here should be smart enough to have an open mind and know we are in no position to determine guilt or not and question why we should contribute money to someone who MAY be responsible.
Those of us here should be smart enough to have an open mind and know we are in no position to determine guilt or not and question why we should contribute money to someone who MAY be responsible.
Tell us Don
There has been a lot more info on this case than the 5 minute clip. I suspect that you also have heard quite a bit so I won't rehash all the details for you here.
Please do give us your perspective about how it could be the fault of anyone on the becalmed sailboat and not the fault of the boat driver travelling at a very high rate of speed after dark that hit them.
Notice that the rookie cop that was ordered not to administer a breathalyzer test to the motorboat driver (cop) has admitted as much to the press.
There has been a lot more info on this case than the 5 minute clip. I suspect that you also have heard quite a bit so I won't rehash all the details for you here.
Please do give us your perspective about how it could be the fault of anyone on the becalmed sailboat and not the fault of the boat driver travelling at a very high rate of speed after dark that hit them.
Notice that the rookie cop that was ordered not to administer a breathalyzer test to the motorboat driver (cop) has admitted as much to the press.
understandable, but
1)There is conflicting testimony on whether the sailboat had its running lights on. The disinterested parties said "yes", Deputy Perdock said "no". However, almost all available evidence is that given the background shore lights, it would have been difficult if not impossible to differentiate a boat's lights from shore lights anyway. This leads to:
2)The rate of speed - 40-50 mph. that Perdock was travelling at. According to all regulations, this was an unsafe rate of speed given the conditions of the time. This speed is not contested, as Perdock himself admitted to going 40 mph. There cannot be any doubt that this was an unsafe speed given conditions at that time (night time).
3)Several disinterested witnesses testified that they saw Perdock with a drink in his hands shortly before leaving in his boat, yet the investigatin officer was ordered not to test Purdock at the time of the accident; he was only tested many hours later (I believe some 12 or more hours).
4)The officer who was ordered not to test Perdock for alcohol was later disciplined as a result of his having made that admission.
5)Perdock's own insurance company assigned him some 80% of the blame.
I understand the reluctance to "rush to judgement." All too often, people in this country tend to assume that if somebody is charged with a crime, then they must be guilty. (In this case, of course, it's the reverse problem.) However, I think that this time the facts are so clear, and the motive for the miscarriage of justice (protection of one of their own) is so obvious, that the defendant deserves some support. After all, it's very possible that without financial help he'd never be able to mount a defense and bring out the facts. In our court system, if you aren't wealthy you are at a severe disadvantage.
Sometimes, a case is so blatant that it's impossible not to form some conclusions. I believe this is one of them. Look at a few facts:
1)There is conflicting testimony on whether the sailboat had its running lights on. The disinterested parties said "yes", Deputy Perdock said "no". However, almost all available evidence is that given the background shore lights, it would have been difficult if not impossible to differentiate a boat's lights from shore lights anyway. This leads to:
2)The rate of speed - 40-50 mph. that Perdock was travelling at. According to all regulations, this was an unsafe rate of speed given the conditions of the time. This speed is not contested, as Perdock himself admitted to going 40 mph. There cannot be any doubt that this was an unsafe speed given conditions at that time (night time).
3)Several disinterested witnesses testified that they saw Perdock with a drink in his hands shortly before leaving in his boat, yet the investigatin officer was ordered not to test Purdock at the time of the accident; he was only tested many hours later (I believe some 12 or more hours).
4)The officer who was ordered not to test Perdock for alcohol was later disciplined as a result of his having made that admission.
5)Perdock's own insurance company assigned him some 80% of the blame.
I understand the reluctance to "rush to judgement." All too often, people in this country tend to assume that if somebody is charged with a crime, then they must be guilty. (In this case, of course, it's the reverse problem.) However, I think that this time the facts are so clear, and the motive for the miscarriage of justice (protection of one of their own) is so obvious, that the defendant deserves some support. After all, it's very possible that without financial help he'd never be able to mount a defense and bring out the facts. In our court system, if you aren't wealthy you are at a severe disadvantage.
Fishy from the Get-Go
The basic facts of this case are known. Our casual conversation about it is in no way a "rush to judgment."
Sure, a jury will decide, but in the mean time, we do know:
1. It was a dark night
2. There was little wind.
3. A local marina owner says he saw the sailboat's running lights come on. He describes the white stern light shining brightly.
4. "Several other witnesses", including one we hear in a phone interview, report the sailboat's running lights on.
5. The panel of the wrecked O'Day shows the running light switch in the "On" position (see 4:30 mark on video).
4. No one reports the sailboat making any strange or sudden maneuvers.
5. The speedboat was the overtaking vessel.
6. The operator of the speedboat admits to traveling some 40–45 MPH. Another reitred law enforcement officer (an independent witness) estimates the speed @ 50 MPH.
7. The speedboat nailed the sailboat from almost directly behind, with enough force to smash the transom and cabin, carry him completely over the sailboat, shearing off her mast along the way and somehow damaging the prow as well.
Those are just the plain facts. Additional knowledge in this case includes:
1. The speedboat operator was a local law enforcement officer, who knows better than anyone about the dangers of excessive speed.
2. As far as we know, the DA's whole case hangs on the charge that the sailboat was not displaying nav. lights. He denies that there is any disagreement on this point, despite multiple eye-witness accounts to the contrary. As a matter of fact, he won't even listen to the question.
3. The same DA didn't charge the officer with anything, despite his recklessly excessive speed (the concept which he waffles on in this video) and presumptive failure to maintain a lookout. Ironically, it was Dinius whom the Sacramento Sheriff's Department accused of not maintaining a lookout behind him.
4. There are questions about the officer's BAC (blood alcohol content) test.
5. An investigator for the Sheriff's Dept. on the video indicates that, on a moonless night, the speed that would allow a boat operator to come to a stop within half the distance he could see would be a very slow speed indeed. He would need to be virtually "idling along."
Sure, we don't know everything, but who here can read down that list of what we do know and not think that, going into the trial, it's the cop's actions that appear to be absolutely reckless and were the direct cause of the woman's death?
Even if you want to ascribe some fault to Dinius because he failed his BAC test, what would a sober operator have been able to do, ghosting along with a speedboat barreling down on him? I think that difference is insignificant. Give him a pro formafine for that, but I don't see that as a contributing factor in the woman's death, the cop's actions overwhelm it so.
Rush to judgment? No. Persuaded by the initial evidence? Definitely.
Now, as the first poster indicated, it's up to a jury.
The basic facts of this case are known. Our casual conversation about it is in no way a "rush to judgment."
Sure, a jury will decide, but in the mean time, we do know:
1. It was a dark night
2. There was little wind.
3. A local marina owner says he saw the sailboat's running lights come on. He describes the white stern light shining brightly.
4. "Several other witnesses", including one we hear in a phone interview, report the sailboat's running lights on.
5. The panel of the wrecked O'Day shows the running light switch in the "On" position (see 4:30 mark on video).
4. No one reports the sailboat making any strange or sudden maneuvers.
5. The speedboat was the overtaking vessel.
6. The operator of the speedboat admits to traveling some 40–45 MPH. Another reitred law enforcement officer (an independent witness) estimates the speed @ 50 MPH.
7. The speedboat nailed the sailboat from almost directly behind, with enough force to smash the transom and cabin, carry him completely over the sailboat, shearing off her mast along the way and somehow damaging the prow as well.
Those are just the plain facts. Additional knowledge in this case includes:
1. The speedboat operator was a local law enforcement officer, who knows better than anyone about the dangers of excessive speed.
2. As far as we know, the DA's whole case hangs on the charge that the sailboat was not displaying nav. lights. He denies that there is any disagreement on this point, despite multiple eye-witness accounts to the contrary. As a matter of fact, he won't even listen to the question.
3. The same DA didn't charge the officer with anything, despite his recklessly excessive speed (the concept which he waffles on in this video) and presumptive failure to maintain a lookout. Ironically, it was Dinius whom the Sacramento Sheriff's Department accused of not maintaining a lookout behind him.
4. There are questions about the officer's BAC (blood alcohol content) test.
5. An investigator for the Sheriff's Dept. on the video indicates that, on a moonless night, the speed that would allow a boat operator to come to a stop within half the distance he could see would be a very slow speed indeed. He would need to be virtually "idling along."
Sure, we don't know everything, but who here can read down that list of what we do know and not think that, going into the trial, it's the cop's actions that appear to be absolutely reckless and were the direct cause of the woman's death?
Even if you want to ascribe some fault to Dinius because he failed his BAC test, what would a sober operator have been able to do, ghosting along with a speedboat barreling down on him? I think that difference is insignificant. Give him a pro formafine for that, but I don't see that as a contributing factor in the woman's death, the cop's actions overwhelm it so.
Rush to judgment? No. Persuaded by the initial evidence? Definitely.
Now, as the first poster indicated, it's up to a jury.
John, check out the video again, at the 4:30 mark I mention above. That's the panel of the smashed sailboat, not a "sistership" pic. The camera focuses on the Nav. light label, then pans left to show the switch in the On position.
Were the sailboat's nav. lights on, or off?
Were the sailboat's nav. lights on, or off?
I have no idea (who is at fault or how fault can be ascribed); that's the whole point. I take it you sent your contribution?
Don, is it the contribution angle that chafes you?
Aside from the evidence, isn't is okay for this guy to have a vigorous defense? This is a very serious charge.
Aside from the evidence, isn't is okay for this guy to have a vigorous defense? This is a very serious charge.
That's the whole point
Yes, that's the whole point - let a jury decide, provided that they can get an unbiased view. But that's impossible unless Dinius has adequate funds to defend himself. (Although I must say, in this instance it never should have even gotten to a jury.) As far as myself, personally, I made a contribution and also came up with the idea and helped put on my yacht club's fundraiser for him.
Re: That's the whole point
If the defendant is found not guilty. You can be sure that some serious law suits will follow for damages and wrongful death. I am sure that the defence legal team already has an eye on this. Give the lawyers their due, they can smell a slam dunk case when they are anywhere close.
If the defendant is found not guilty. You can be sure that some serious law suits will follow for damages and wrongful death. I am sure that the defence legal team already has an eye on this. Give the lawyers their due, they can smell a slam dunk case when they are anywhere close.
It's NOT in Texas, it's California.
The deputy should be keelhauled. Now.
And then drop the charges against Dinius. Now.
How this can happen in this country si beyond me.
The deputy should be keelhauled. Now.
And then drop the charges against Dinius. Now.
How this can happen in this country si beyond me.
District Attorney an accessory to the crime???
This is the newspaper article I really like, someone's view that the prosecuting attorney should be tried as an accessory to the crime!
How's that for a switcharoo?
http://www.record-bee.com/ci_12943985 (really, really good!)
In fact, I'd go a step further and say that all those involved in "the cover-up" should be tried for what ever one could try them for, and that includes whomever gave the order to not do a breathalizer test on the Sheriff.
By the way, it came out that the police departments breathalizers had not be calibrated "in some time" (California has a budget crisis and this is probably affecting other political entities as well) so the results would most likely not be admissible anyway. This action is effectively a cover-up and the guilty should be punished.
The argument that the sailboat didn't have it's running lights on is almost non-existent. There is apparently only one witness who said that and in cross examination he said he couldn't see anyone on board, couldn't see if there were any sails up, and couldn't see if there was a mast. And he is the one and only witness saying there were no lights. Everybody else has said there were lights, including the sheriffs ex (I think she was an ex) on shore!
So, after three years and change, the jury should find the sailboat operator innocent and then pursue charges, instead, against the DA. Hopefully the statute of limitations in this case have not run out by then.
This is the newspaper article I really like, someone's view that the prosecuting attorney should be tried as an accessory to the crime!
How's that for a switcharoo?
http://www.record-bee.com/ci_12943985 (really, really good!)
In fact, I'd go a step further and say that all those involved in "the cover-up" should be tried for what ever one could try them for, and that includes whomever gave the order to not do a breathalizer test on the Sheriff.
By the way, it came out that the police departments breathalizers had not be calibrated "in some time" (California has a budget crisis and this is probably affecting other political entities as well) so the results would most likely not be admissible anyway. This action is effectively a cover-up and the guilty should be punished.
The argument that the sailboat didn't have it's running lights on is almost non-existent. There is apparently only one witness who said that and in cross examination he said he couldn't see anyone on board, couldn't see if there were any sails up, and couldn't see if there was a mast. And he is the one and only witness saying there were no lights. Everybody else has said there were lights, including the sheriffs ex (I think she was an ex) on shore!
So, after three years and change, the jury should find the sailboat operator innocent and then pursue charges, instead, against the DA. Hopefully the statute of limitations in this case have not run out by then.
- Status