It is up to a jury now

[Tim R.]

Tim R, they were out for 30 minutes so unless the boat sailed off the dock the engine was warm and would not needed glow plugs and the pictures I saw were of an outboard engine hanging off the stern of the boat in question. So tell me how the glow plugs would prevent you from blowing your horn or doing something else ??

You asked what I could do so I told you and yes, I often sail off my mooring as it is better to not run the engine for those short periods. You are correct I could sound a horn or shine a light which I always keep in the cockpit when sailing at night. Dinius is guilty of being intoxicated and nothing else. As has been discussed this will be the crutch for Purdock to not be liable for his mistake.

 

[zeehag]

http://www.lakeconews.com/

 

[Monty VM]

1 beer in one hour DOES NOT equal .08 for anyone. a small child, maybe. beer must be metablised into and out of the blood stream. for an adult, who is not drinking his or her first beer, 4 beers in an hour, assuming 12 oz. and not malt liquor will generally cause you to reach .08. there are many many factors, including how much and when you last ate, when and how long you last slept and percentage of body fat and metabilic rate that can all have an effect.

 

[John Nantz]

Sheriff Russell Purdock - speedboat driver

While waiting for the jury's verdict I decided to do a little checking to see what else is out there.

Came across this Facebook web site dedicated to exposing sheriff russell purdock (lower case on purpose for this little guy), second in command at the clear lake county sheriff's office (ditto), which provides some new public opinions on this macho speedboat driver propelling his 24-ft "Baja Outlaw" speedboat around the lake on a dark night, only to kill someone innocent and get off scott free. Justice served NOT!

So as not to provide a link, do a google search using " russell purdock sheriff " and the facebook page should be at, or near, the top of the list. If you get it there should be a picture of the sailboat in the upper left corner. If not, then add "expose" in front of "russell" and hopefully that should do it.

What was interesting on this page was a picture of the bow of the Baha Outlaw after the crash. It resembles a "Jaws" shark!

The shark that killed Ms Lynn Thornton driven by that puke purdock and protected by that little squirt district attorney hopkins. Show me where the justice is hopkins!

 

[John]

The Bitter Truth

John , I tend to agree with your claim of a cover up but of a much more limited nature than you suggest. I think that the judge is satying neutral as he should. Sustaining objections until he can be shown the relevance. The defence prepared a brief to this end concerning the navigational runs for inland waters.
The chain of State's Attornys above the local level probably have enough to do without involving themselves at this level at this time. They will wait to see how this plays out before getting involved.

Ross, I appreciate your sentiments, but I think we have to consider the facts. Clearly, the highest offices in both the sheriff's department and the Lake County DA's office have organized this cover-up. As for the judge - the great majority of judges come from prosecutor's offices. These judges in general are political animals, with ambitions just like anybody else. In today's political climate, where support from "law enforcement" is so important for political promotion, where do you think the judge is leaning?

As for his ruling - how can he possibly say that the facts of navigational law are not relevant? If somebody is tail-ended in a car, are traffic laws irrelevant? I think that many people think that just because they wear black robes, the judges are somehow above normal human ambitions.

Also bear in mind that the state AG, Jerry Brown, is running for governor and he badly wants the support of police organizations. Don't you think this comes into play?

 

[petersea]

Sailingdog,
I read your post with interest but I got to tell you I find fault in you quoting Purdock's testimony as apparently credible evidence that it is was barely visible that night. A little to self serving for the operator of the boat that killed the woman. Additionally others who witnessed the accident from shore saw both boats and lights from 300 to 500 yards away. Given Purdock's self interest and his outstanding charter that he has shown so far I don't believe him ! ! !

 

[petersea]

Peter, in some circumstances a father who shoots and kills a pedophile that has molested his child will be found not guilty by a jury in-spite of a dozen witnesses and a confession. The jury has the right to decide if it was a crime. They could decide that there is on crime involved in killing a varmit. An attorny friend of mine says it is not what is written in the law, it is what the jury says is the law.

Ross,
I think you are wrong the jury does not have the right to decide if a crime was committed. The jury simply decides if the person accused is guilty or not as charged. The district attorney and a grand jury decide if a crime has been committed and if there is evidence enough to charge a particular individual.
In your scenario about a pedophile the jury either convicts or does not. Other thing are considered and in your example "extenuating circumstance" may have cause the jury not to convict the person of that particular crime. The jury could have felt the individual was not guilty of that particular crime possibly by temporary insanity caused by the situation, but the jury does not have a right to reduce the charge or to increase the severity of a charge based on what they think. The have to decide if the person accused is guilty as charged.
That said a BUI is a little less complicated as either the blood alcohol was or was not over the legal limit and the process of the arrest and blood sample were either legal or not.
Allowing the jury to consider what ramifications the conviction may or may not have on another person or another case ( and as of right now there is no other case against Purdock ) would be against the instructions of the judge as well as cause for a jury's verdict to be possible overturned .

 

[RAD]

Here's some stuff about Purdock being investigated, hmm..........911 tapes missing,blood samples mis marked,was not at the resort bar,etc................and now didn't take the stand
They say the truth will sat you free but this might not be the case for Russel Purdock

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/iteam&id=6954610

 

[Ross]

Ross,
I think you are wrong the jury does not have the right to decide if a crime was committed. The jury simply decides if the person accused is guilty or not as charged. The district attorney and a grand jury decide if a crime has been committed and if there is evidence enough to charge a particular individual.
In your scenario about a pedophile the jury either convicts or does not. Other thing are considered and in your example "extenuating circumstance" may have cause the jury not to convict the person of that particular crime. The jury could have felt the individual was not guilty of that particular crime possibly by temporary insanity caused by the situation, but the jury does not have a right to reduce the charge or to increase the severity of a charge based on what they think. The have to decide if the person accused is guilty as charged.
That said a BUI is a little less complicated as either the blood alcohol was or was not over the legal limit and the process of the arrest and blood sample were either legal or not.
Allowing the jury to consider what ramifications the conviction may or may not have on another person or another case ( and as of right now there is no other case against Purdock ) would be against the instructions of the judge as well as cause for a jury's verdict to be possible overturned .

Petersea,The DA and prosecutor charge a defendant with a particular class of crime. The jury determines if the defendants actions rose to the level of that class of crime. It could be argued that in this case the defendant was not culpable because he was returning control of the boat to the owner who was climbing the companion steps. Therefore he didn't meet the criteria of operating a boat while under the influence.
If your wife asks you to hold the mixer while it is running in a cake batter while she gets the vanilla, are you making a cake?

 

[John Nantz]

The stench in Clear Lake County is growing

The latest news is that Clear Lake County Sheriff Rod Mitchell has hired a replacement for his #2 man, that is, replacing little Sheriff "puke" perdock. I find this interesting. Maybe the stench that something is rotten in Clear Lake County is getting around. After all, many of these top positions (Sheriff, Judge, DA, etc.) tend to be elected offices. I don't know this for a fact in California but they are in Washington (big Washington, not "little washington").

Could it be that the County Sheriff (the top dog) might, just might, be thinking ahead to his re-election? Standing up for your #2 guy just goes so far, eh? What do you think?

Sheriff "the puke" perdock has asked for, and received, 45 days of sick leave. Hmmmm. Oh, and hired an attorney from San Mateo. Isn't that quite far from Clear Lake County?

Victor Haltrom, Atty for the defense, wants to put Sheriff "the puke" perdock on the stand. He just asked for records that are "germaine to issues concerning alleged dishonesty, moral turpitude, falsification of testimony, fabrication of evidence, making material misstatements, incompetence, aggressive behavior, racial or gender bias, actual or attempted violence, excessive force, and/or the filing of false reports."

Hopefully he asked for this information in the courtroom in front of the jury. One can only imagine what the jury must be thinking with this (dirty) laundry list of items.

Even the victims of the deceased are saying the DA is trying the wrong man!

This trial is getting really interesting, really fast.

Edited comment: Just found out that Haltrom's request for additional information was in the Judge's chambers and not in front of the jury. This request for information about a police officer is called a "Pitchess motion".

 

[Monty VM]

jury

While a charge is brought by the state and the jury does determine if the conduct that they find occured rises to the level of culpability to break the law there are also circumstances where a jury can decide the law. It is called jury nullification. Some states have banned the argument, such as Oregon, where defense counsel argues that even if the jury finds the conduct breaches a statute they can still acquit if they find the law as written or as applied in this case to be unjust.

In addition for DUII purposes it takes very little to be "operating a motor vehicle". i have seen cases where a passenger reaches over and grabs the steering wheel while the car is in motion for a second and is considered to be operating the vehicle. Likewise, simply backing a car up a few feet or even inches in a parking lot is enough to be charged with operation of a motor vehicle.

Perhaps the defense will call the officer to testify. if he has obtained counsel he may will attempt to take the 5th rather than answer questions but even that would speak volumes to a jury.

 

[BobW]

I was stunned to find out they put Weber or Dinius on trial...

I remember reading about the incident a year or two ago, and never expected anything like this to come from it.

Reading about the testimony, it sure looks like a clear case of malicious prosecution.

And unfortunately, Dinius's fate may hinge on the jury understanding the difference between a light bulb that had DC running through it vs. AC.

One can only hope the judge is bending over backwards to favor the prosecution, so that when the verdict is not guilty, the prosecutor won't be able to complain.

It scares me to realize that this could happen to me - or you - if you innocently get caught up in an incident with a cop or other powerful person.

Cheers,

Bob
s/v X SAIL R 8

 

[Ross]

Re: I was stunned to find out they put Weber or Dinius on trial...

My biggest fear in life is being charged with a crime that I must defend against. Guilty or inocent I would be impoverished and there is no recourse to make me whole. Therefore I am probably as straight an arrow as you can find.

 

[petersea]

"If your wife asks you to hold the mixer while it is running in a cake batter while she gets the vanilla, are you making a cake?"

Ross, No I would not be making the cake but I would be operating he mixer and had I had an over the limit blood level I would be operating the mixer while intoxicated. I still contend that Dinuus and Webber had no right to leave the dock while they were both over the limit and that operating the boat in that diminished capacity that put part of the responsibility on them. I won't argue anymore that it may or may not have had a different outcome had they both been sober but i still contend they need to take responsibility for their actions. BUI is against the law ! ! !

 

[Bubb2]

I agree

"If your wife asks you to hold the mixer while it is running in a cake batter while she gets the vanilla, are you making a cake?"

Ross, No I would not be making the cake but I would be operating he mixer and had I had an over the limit blood level I would be operating the mixer while intoxicated. I still contend that Dinuus and Webber had no right to leave the dock while they were both over the limit and that operating the boat in that diminished capacity that put part of the responsibility on them. I won't argue anymore that it may or may not have had a different outcome had they both been sober but i still contend they need to take responsibility for their actions. BUI is against the law ! ! !

I agree with you, however only 1 party was charaged, That is a crime in it's self.

 

[Joe T.]

Story seems like a stage to hand the public with a little communist flair or premeditated murder of the woman by Diniius and Perdock from the emotional looks of both sides. Maybe someone should look into what she knew.

No one speeds at night in a powerboat unless BWI. Too many telephone poles in the water.

One incident in my locale happened involving a BWI. a powerboat hit a jettee at night doing excessive speed. a woman drown when she dove under the capsize boat to retrieve life vests. The pilot was McCarthy. What does that tell you.

Bismark?? Geee whiz! Technicalities? What are all the other inhabitants of earth doing?

 

[kenn]

I still contend that Dinius and Webber had no right to leave the dock while they were both over the limit and that operating the boat in that diminished capacity that put part of the responsibility on them.

Because BWI and DWI are so often factors in incidents, we as a society have chosen to penalize them on their own, in an effort to force people to better regulate their behaviour. An arbitrary blood-alcohol level has been set, over which one is deemed "impaired". So far so good.

But it doesn't necessarily follow that if the operator of the sailboat was technically BWI they actually contributed to causing the accident. A big sailboat in light wind can only move and manoevre so fast. A dead-sober Olympic helmsman couldn't make the boat turn any faster than physics and the wind permit, when a speeding powerboat is bearing down on it. From behind. In violation of two cardinal marine regulations ("colregs"): appropriate speed for conditions, and overtaking boat must keep clear.

The same logic applies to whether the nav lights were on or not. From behind, the legally required nav light is just a single white light at the stern. To suggest that this single white light would have been sufficiently visible when the cabin light spilling out of an open companionway was not sufficient, is ludicrous. The foregoing also assumes that the nav lights were actually off; some witnesses say they were on.

Too-fast powerboat hit sailboat from behind. That's what happened; the BWI and nav-light issue are quibbles, attempts to shift blame.

 

[petersea]

Kenn, this was never a conversation about blame. It was a response to the poll last week about who was responsible with the overwhelming 93 % putting all the responsibility on the powerboat. I was and still am of the opinion that both parties share responsibility due to the sailboat was being operated by two people who with diminished capacities who should have never left the dock. I don't contest that the accident may have been the same had they both been sober (can anyone be 100% sure ?) but that does not remove the partial responsibility from the crew of the sailboat to have never been out there in that condition. Courts and insurance companies have long established that there is percentage of responsibility that gets contributed to each party and in all but a very few accidents both parties share some percentage. It is long over due that people who operate a boat or car understand that they have a legal and moral responsibility to do so safely and with a illegal blood alcohol level there is no way that it can be considered safe. While you might call the BUI a "quibble" I call it a contributing factor and I believe so will the courts. I just don't get why so many people are willing to give the sailboat operator a "get out of jail free" card.

 

[John]

Because...

...While you might call the BUI a "quibble" I call it a contributing factor and I believe so will the courts. I just don't get why so many people are willing to give the sailboat operator a "get out of jail free" card.

Because, Petersea, you continue to focus on this one issue, and this alone, ignoring the fact that the individual who had the overwhelming majority of the responsibility for the accident and the death is the one who's in fact getting the "get out of jail free" card.

 

[petersea]

Re: Because...

Wrong John I have said all along the purdock has the overwelming responsabilty for the accident and agree he should have be charged with manslaughter please re read my post you will see I have said that multiple times.