Mobo rams yacht in USA?

[Seagreen]

There was a case about a year ago, I think, where a mobo driven by the local Police Chief rammed a yacht at high speed in the dark, and they arrested the bloke on the helm of the yacht for Drunken sailing, despite the fact the yacht had lights and was only doing 2 knots.
Was this on a lake in California?

Does anyone remember the report and does anyone have any follow-up to this?

 

[PerformanceSailor]

Victory, but at a terrible price $$

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/iteam&id=6974814

For more of the story, Google on his name, Bismark Dinius.
He won and should have, but is broke and accepting donations from sailors all over the world.

 

[FullCircle]

Wow, I've read the whole transcripts of the trial.
The Police should be locked up for a long time. Corrupt ****.

 

[TQA]

Something similar coming out of San Diego. A Coast Guard vessel ran over a 25 foot mobo at a Christmas parade.

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/dec/22/coast-guard-boat-going-too-fast-witnesses-say/

 

[Major Catastrophe]

Tragic that the boy died.

I have checked SeaRay's website and the spec sheet for the Sea
Ray 240 doesn't mention how many people it is designed to carry, but the news report states: "“We’ve got so many friends and family that were injured,” said Anthony’s father, Alan DeWeese, whose was piloting the boat with 13 people aboard."

I assume that fact he was carrying 13 people on a 24 foot boat will figure in the subsequent enquiry. That doesn't absolve the responsibility of the coast guard, but increases the chances of a bad outcome of any accident.

 

[Seagreen]

Glad he got off. Now when I've got Xmas over with I'll read the transcrript. Don't want to get that angry over the "festive period".

 

[gardenshed]

go onto Sailing Anarchy (http://www.sailinganarchy.com/index_page1.php), register on their forum and look at the posts related to this issue. It won't fill you with festive cheer, but it will reinforce the fact that no one from the sailboat should have been in court defending themselves or their actions, they should have been there as witnesses for the prosecution of Russell Perdock, the mobo driver:

starter for ten, a statement from Perdock's wife:
Donna Perdock makes one other interesting point. She says Russell Perdock uses eye glasses to drive at night or when his eyes are tired. Perdock has testified he was not wearing glasses at the time of the crash. Donna Perdock says Russell Perdock's night vision is so bad that she had to direct him around buoys at night, even though he was familiar with their location. She says, "Driving on a moonless night in the dark? That was my first inclination of the reason why he didn't see the sailboat."

some pre trial and trial details:

· Conflict of Interest - The Sheriff's office investigated this entire incident. Despite the fact that one of their most senior members was involved in the accident, they never took any steps to eliminate the conflict of interest inherent in them investigating one of their own.

· Compromised "Independent" Investigators - early in the investigation, Sheriff Mitchell brought in Lt Charles Slabaugh from Sacremento County to "supervise" the invistigation. However, as Slabaugh later testified in open court, he was directed by the Lake County Sheriff's office to not conduct any interviews, other than Russell Perdock. In effect, the "independent" investigator was not independent at all, and based his conclusions primarily on Perdock's story. 

"Slabaugh stated that the conclusions made in his reports to the District Attorney's Office and in earlier testimony were based on an interview with Russ Perdock. His conclusions didn't take into account any direct information from anyone on shore or in boats in the near vicinity of the collision, nor those aboard the sailboat. Slabbaugh also indicated that he made no effort to interview several of these potential witnesses." (Lake County News ).

· Conflict of Interest - James Beland of the Sheriff's office testified that the evening of the accident, he drove around with Perdock for more than an hour before taking him home. Beland couldn't remember what they talked about, but he was fairly certain they didn't talk about the accident. Why was Perdock not interviewed immediately following the accident?

· Conflict of Interest - Judge Robert Crone (now retired), sat on the bench when Dinius' attorney made a motion to have the Lake County DA's office removed from prosecuting the case. Judge Crone had a personal connection to this case and the involved parties, having overseen Perdock's wedding to his wife some 15 to 18 years earlier. This represents a clear conflict of interest that Judge Crone recognized when he recused himself from presiding during Perdock's divorce. Despite this existing conflict of interest, Judge Crone did not recuse himself from ruling on the motion in Dinius' case, and in fact ruled against Dinius.

· Contradictory Testimony - A significant claim in the DA's case is that the sail boat was not displaying required navigation lights, a claim that is supported by the California Department of Justice. The defense has produced an expert witness that contradicts the DA’s claim. Dan Noyes, a television reporter who investigated the story for ABC news in San Francisco, identified nine people on the sailboat or on shore who said they had seen the sailboat's running lights, cabin lights, or both shortly before the collision. But when he told the Lake County District Attorney there were witnesses who had seen the lights on, Noyes was told, "No, they were not." One of the potential witnesses, Doug Jones, told Noyes that when he tried to tell a deputy sheriff that he'd seen the sailboat's lights on, he was told they had already proven there were no lights on. This was at 8:00 a.m. on the morning after the accident. He told Noyes that the deputy refused to take his statement.

· Contradictory Testimony - One of the cornerstones of Perdock's testimony is that he had no more than a half of a Coors Light the afternoon of the accident, and that he had been at home that evening prior to taking his boat out. However, 5 witnesses have come forward to offer testimony that Russell Perdock was at Konocti Harbor between 6:00 pm and 9:00 pm the night of the accident. Some of those witnesses will testify that they saw Perdock drinking at both of the two bars at the resort. These witnesses directly contradict Perdock's assertion that he was at home prior to going out on his boat, and that he had not been drinking.

· Contradictory Testimony - Likewise, Perdock's own wife, whom he is now divorced from, has offered testimony that Perdock left the house around 6:00 pm the night of the accident. Again, in direct contradiction to Perdock's own sworn statements.

· Conflict of Interest - The District Attorney's office is now conducting additional investigation on the matters of Perdock's alleged drinking at Konocti Harbor, the inconsistencies between Perdock's testimony about the time line versus the witness accounts that contradict his version of the events, as well as other matters. However, the investigator for the DA is John Flynn, who shares a membership in the Lake County Masonic Temple with Russell Perdock. Despite this clear conflict of interest, the D.A. denies any potential impropriety with Flynn's role in the investigation.

· Compromised Evidence - The sail boat, a critical piece of evidence in this case, was left unsecured. While the Sheriff's office claims that switches in the boat for the navigation lights were in the off position when investigated the next day, there is a clear issue with the chain of evidence and the protection of that evidence from potential tampering.

· Compromised Evidence & Conflict of Interest - Perdock was not Breathalyzed at the accident scene. Specifically, James Beland of the sheriff's office was told by Sgt. Dennis Ostini that he should not Breathalyze Perdock. In another inconsistency, Mike Morshed of the Sheriff's office has now testified that it was he who told Beland to not Breathalyze Perdock claiming that their equipment had not been calibrated in a year. Strangely enough, this issue did not seem to prevent the Sheriff's office from Breathalyzing Dinus at the scene. This means that the only evidence as to Perdock's level of intoxication at the time of the incident is the blood test that was administered. Apparently this blood was drawn in one location, and then transported in another location by Beland. However, Beland can not testify to the location and manner of transportation, indicating that the chain of custody was broken. Furthermore, Beland was transporting Perdock at the same time he was transporting the blood, putting Perdock in immediate proximity with his own blood sample. Finally, labeling by the hospital indicates that the sample was not taken until 24 hours after the actual event. While both Beland and Perdock both state that the labeling of the sample is wrong, it is further evidence of poor investigative work in this case, if not actual impropriety by the Sheriff's office.

· Contradictory Testimony - Perdock first claimed he remembered the speedometer on his boat being straight up, which would have put his speed at 55 to 60. He later changed that to a statement that he was going 40 to 45. He later changed that statement to say he was going 30 to 35. He later recanted that testimony when shown pictures that showed the speedometer pointing straight up.

· Damning Testimony - Sgt. Dennis Ostini of the Sheriff's office has made a statement that he himself, when traveling by boat to the accident scene, did not feel comfortable exceeding 10 miles per hour because of the lack of visibility on that dark night. What does it say about Perdock's potentially compromised judgment that he felt that he could travel at 55 miles per hour?

· Conflict of Interest - The only person in the Sheriff's office that has offered testimony that directly contradicts Perdock's version of the events is James Beland. An outside observer has no choice but to be suspicious of that Sheriff's office when one finds out that Beland was terminated by the Sheriff's office after offering that testimony.

· Discovery Problems - on the day that the trial was supposed to begin, the Prosecution provided the defense with 110 pages of evidence from a Private Investigator hired by Perdock, some of which is exculpatory to Dinius. Normally this would be provided to the defense much earlier, and certainly not as late as the morning of the trial. The prosecutor, John Langan, had no explanation as to why this evidence was not provided earlier.

· Missing Evidence - the 911 tapes from the night of the accident are now missing. Apparently, they were turned over to the DAs office which "lost" them without ever making them available to the defense.