Trial Started for Boat Crash of 2008
#172
Well....as was already mentioned, while AD's actions in some respects were very questionable, the circumstances never really supported the charges as they were brought.
Was he guilty of SOMETHING, arguably yes, but the events leading to the accident may have been not much more than EXTREMELY bad judgement by both parties?
Was he guilty of SOMETHING, arguably yes, but the events leading to the accident may have been not much more than EXTREMELY bad judgement by both parties?
#174
Registered

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,922
Likes: 393
From: Indianapolis, Lake Cumberland
By MaryAnn Spoto/Star Ledger
"The jury of 10 men and four women will have to decide whether DiGilio’s bow light was on. Witnesses for the prosecution testified it wasn’t. Witnesses for the defense said it was.
Tacopina accused prosecutors of ignoring video surveillance that shows a boat with the Imperial’s profile and with its bow light illuminated in the area of the Wharfside restaurant at the same time DiGilio was leaving the eatery.
"Four weeks of trial. Somebody should have watched the video … before we put him on trial for homicide," Tacopina said.
See the video for yourself.
http://www.nj.com/ocean/index.ssf/20..._accident.html
A video plus a witness that reported the very next day the details of the 3 boats in the area that night...
Sadly to find out that the Prosecution had this video for the last 5 years but the Defense was only able to obtain it during the trial.
"The jury of 10 men and four women will have to decide whether DiGilio’s bow light was on. Witnesses for the prosecution testified it wasn’t. Witnesses for the defense said it was.
Tacopina accused prosecutors of ignoring video surveillance that shows a boat with the Imperial’s profile and with its bow light illuminated in the area of the Wharfside restaurant at the same time DiGilio was leaving the eatery.
"Four weeks of trial. Somebody should have watched the video … before we put him on trial for homicide," Tacopina said.
See the video for yourself.
http://www.nj.com/ocean/index.ssf/20..._accident.html
A video plus a witness that reported the very next day the details of the 3 boats in the area that night...
Sadly to find out that the Prosecution had this video for the last 5 years but the Defense was only able to obtain it during the trial.
Michael Kennedy, a boat accident investigator called by prosecutors, told jurors the bulb of the Imperial’s bow light showed signs it had burned out some time before the collision. An expert for the defense said the bulb was working and illuminated at the time of the crash.
So the prosecution has evidence that clearly shows the bulb was working the night of the accident and they supress it for 5 years, they then hire an expert witness to testify that in his opinion the bulb was not only off at the time of the accident, but not even in working condition - when they have a tape that clearly shows that it was? Then the prosecution goes for murder instead of manslaughter (as the charge clearly should have been). Just sickening and very disturbing behavior on the part of the prosecution IMO.
I have no idea what really happened the night of the accident but what happened afterwards makes me want to puke.
#176
So the prosecution has evidence that clearly shows the bulb was working the night of the accident and they supress it for 5 years, they then hire an expert witness to testify that in his opinion the bulb was not only off at the time of the accident, but not even in working condition - when they have a tape that clearly shows that it was? Then the prosecution goes for murder instead of manslaughter (as the charge clearly should have been). Just sickening and very disturbing behavior on the part of the prosecution IMO.
#177
Well....as was already mentioned, while AD's actions in some respects were very questionable, the circumstances never really supported the charges as they were brought.
Was he guilty of SOMETHING, arguably yes, but the events leading to the accident may have been not much more than EXTREMELY bad judgement by both parties?
Was he guilty of SOMETHING, arguably yes, but the events leading to the accident may have been not much more than EXTREMELY bad judgement by both parties?
__________________
Throttles- Cleveland Construction 377 Talon
08 OPA Class 1 National Champion
08 Class 1 Geico Triple Crown Champion
08 OPA High Points Champion
10 OPA Class 1 National Champion ( happy now Ed! )
Throttles- Cleveland Construction 377 Talon
08 OPA Class 1 National Champion
08 Class 1 Geico Triple Crown Champion
08 OPA High Points Champion
10 OPA Class 1 National Champion ( happy now Ed! )
#178
Thoughts for the Post family. It sounds like it was a horrible "accident" caused by a set of unchangeable decisions and circumstances.
Hopefully DiGilio is able to pick up the pieces and lead a normal life.
More importantly, the last couple years of rumors and accusations posted in this forum and other outlets as to what may have, could have or should have happened is equally disappointing.
Glad it's over for all parties. Time to go boating!
Hopefully DiGilio is able to pick up the pieces and lead a normal life.
More importantly, the last couple years of rumors and accusations posted in this forum and other outlets as to what may have, could have or should have happened is equally disappointing.
Glad it's over for all parties. Time to go boating!
#179
Thread Starter
OSO Content Provider

Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 19,757
Likes: 112
From: Sharkey-Images.com
Michael Kennedy, a boat accident investigator called by prosecutors, told jurors the bulb of the Imperial’s bow light showed signs it had burned out some time before the collision. An expert for the defense said the bulb was working and illuminated at the time of the crash.
So the prosecution has evidence that clearly shows the bulb was working the night of the accident and they supress it for 5 years, they then hire an expert witness to testify that in his opinion the bulb was not only off at the time of the accident, but not even in working condition - when they have a tape that clearly shows that it was? Then the prosecution goes for murder instead of manslaughter (as the charge clearly should have been). Just sickening and very disturbing behavior on the part of the prosecution IMO.
I have no idea what really happened the night of the accident but what happened afterwards makes me want to puke.
So the prosecution has evidence that clearly shows the bulb was working the night of the accident and they supress it for 5 years, they then hire an expert witness to testify that in his opinion the bulb was not only off at the time of the accident, but not even in working condition - when they have a tape that clearly shows that it was? Then the prosecution goes for murder instead of manslaughter (as the charge clearly should have been). Just sickening and very disturbing behavior on the part of the prosecution IMO.
I have no idea what really happened the night of the accident but what happened afterwards makes me want to puke.
No one seem to account for the 1 hour and 45 minutes prior to the accident of what the people in the Whaler were doing. They left at 11:30PM to take their guests home which was in the next town over in Bay Head. At 30 mph plus they were traveling it would have been a very short trip.
In closing comments the Prosecutor notes they had a Search/Spot Light onboard and was plugged into the cigarette lighter and was being held by the passenger to the transom of the boat. If that light was lit behind the console it would reflect back on the console and blind Mr Post at the helm. But we are to understand there were 5 alert individuals, one holding a search light and not one saw or heard anything prior to the impact ? Obviously the open exhaust was loud enough to be heard over the tiny microphone on a cell phone which also proved that the IMPERIAL did stop after the impact.
Lights on or off ?
The IMPERIAL passed at least 7 locations with cameras that night and 6 out of the 7 were government owned. It took the private business' security camera to prove the lights worked on the IMPERIAL. This video was not made available to the Defense until after the trial started.
If this wasn't also covered, the State's witness, a security guard for the Wharfside at the time , was in the police academy and the assistant prosecutor was his instructor. This witness did not come forward with information for 4 years. Not until 7 months ago he came forward. This is the same person that testified he was 100% sure the helm on the IMPERIAL he saw that night was on the starboard side. (The helm is actually on the port side)
As I understand it, the 2nd witness, the fisherman on the canal stated the IMPERIAL had no running lights on but in the same testimony states he saw this white light bobbing down the canal "As the boat approached, Neary saw that it didn't have on any running lights.
'You are supposed to see green and red on the front. And there was nothing there. Just the white light.' and the glowing orange from the gauge lights on the dash which were wired to come on only when the running lights were turned on.
Another witness discussed the bilge pump. Well that witness only looked at the rear bilge pump in the engine compartment and wasn't aware of the midship bilge pump under the back seat which is the one set to auto and the light came on after impact.
Was the defense able to investigate and try to recreate the accident with the IMPERIAL ? Apparently not.
The State's expert took the boat out to perform planing tests. Anyone wonder why the boat needed to be brought up to full throttle to find it's planing speed ?

"Bryce talking about the expert who did a speed test on the imperial. Got the boat going 90 mph on the water. 'That boat can move. That boat can get going."
Perhaps the defense couldn't test the boat due to a blown drive during the State's test ? A source said the boat needed to be towed in from that test ride.
There were 2 plea bargains offered and rejected from what I heard. The pleas were for very little jail time compared to what he could have received. I think that just reassured the defense that the State knew they didn't have a good enough case to prove in court.
With today's verdict, they were right.
This was an unfortunate accident.
Alcohol was not a factor per authorities even though the people admitted to be drinking at dinner, a cooler was found with beverages on the whaler and a receipt had shown Digilio had ordered 2 drinks on a CC that night. Toxicology test was not done on the driver of the Whaler until 2 days later. No test was done on Digilio.
The Imperial was on a boat lift until the next morning. At 9-9:30AM it was brought to the Baywood Marina to be put on a trailer. (There were witnesses to this but didn't want to get involved.) Authorities had been contacted to come get the boat.
all within 10 to 12 hours from the time of the accident. It was only on the trailer for approximately 1 to 2 hours before the authorities picked it up. So with that little timeline, I don't see where people should be accusing him of "hiding" the boat .
As i have stated many times, no one should be judged until all of the facts are in and the only ones judging should be the JURY.
Prayers to both families and all others involved.
#180
Registered

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,635
Likes: 13
From: Toms River NJ
Even though the Imperial had the right of way, leaving the scene of the accident, with people seriously and fatally injured, is what most people find unconscionable. This was the ultimate in cowardly acts.
One day he will be judged, and not by man.
One day he will be judged, and not by man.



