This criminal trial is taking place POST the civil suits (which is never the 'normal' order, I don't think), and I would assume in discovery and requests for production there was either a stipulation or a finding that the two boats got together.

I'm sure that both prosecution and defense will have reconstructions, supporting their theories of what happened.

She has opined he was a 'guided missile' (an interestingly counterproductive construct i think, as it re-enforces DeGilio's obligation as privileged vessel to maintain heading and speed.)

He maintains that Post turned into his path.

There also was an apportionment of responsibility, which is where COLREGS and a few centuries of Admiralty law comes in handy.

While I doubt the two civil suits were ever heard, information was collected, plaintiff and defendant sought expert opinions, etc., and recall, Madam Prosecutrix objected to the mere mention of civil suits by Defendant in his opening statement. I would assume that Mrs Post (and three ex-(?) friends) have shared with prosecution all of the discovery from the civil suits.

For the Wife (nee: GF) being mute: smart girl. Her daddy is an ex-(?) State Trouper big wheel, so she had received good parental counsel abt not answering police questions, never.

I saw a statement she made (to whom I have no idea, nor any context) that SHE received a txt from a friend who knew she had been boating last night, telling her of the accident and asking if she was OK. She called her BF (DeGilio) and he called the cops abt his boat and ... the string has unrolled from there.

Bob

Originally Posted by X-Rated30
Assuming the Ahaler was the burdened vessel, how would a burnt out bow light on the Imperial change which boat has the ROW?
That was a q&d summary by a reporter, I think.

The real answer is a lot more nuanced and qualified.

Under COLREGS, there are never absolutes , but by certain actions & inactions (i.e. no lights) the privileged vessel can assume some responsibility where he had none before.

That said, nothing DeGilio did or didn't did, relieved Post of being the burdened vessel.

The expert ST/ex-Coastie answered the questions that were asked, not questions that were not asked, but should have been phrased somewhat differently.

FWIW, worldwide, there are several cases-on-point abt lights/no lights/visibility and collisions. Largely, it is a non-issue.

Bob

What about the colreg rule regarding safe speed for the conditions?

Say the Imperial was really running at 50+. Is that really considered a safe speed in the dark? And how does that relate to the burdened vessel rule?

thought that IMP boat said he ran over a log, now he blames the other boat..........

plus i like you how you consistantly say de-gkiller had the right of way. you really need re-read the coast guard regs. please post where it says that any boat can stay on course and at speed on a collision course.

Dave I think you are either not reading what I have said, or you are reading at an angle.

My issue is Gestapo-ish prosecutorial overreach of making up laws and the sheer waste of bringing a case that under the most optimistic view is HIGHLY legally suspect.

I hope I never boat on the same ocean as DeGilio and in fact, I think he should be flogged with barbed wire, and broken into small bits if he ever gets near a boat again.

None of which has one thing to do with what is/are/was/were Burdened and Privileged vessels.

Some legal things are quite distasteful - which are a modest price to pay for avoiding the kind of piquish and arbitrary persecution in evidence in this instance.

The WHOLE theory of boating is there are some assumed responsibilities, and the Rules of the Road structure those nicely, if not perfectly.

Better?

http://www.app.com/VideoNetwork/2277...-Digilio-Trial
Listening to those people was heart wrenching.

Safe speed is an individual determination, and if something happens, the remedy is - historically - civil.

COLREGS are written very carefully to assume and allow some structure and certainty in an inherently dangerous environment.

In a crossing situation, regardless if position was 'established' or as a result of a turn made (DeGilio's contention), the burdened vessel MUST monoever, and the priviliged vessel MUST maintain heading (pending new bearings, post-manoever by burdened vessel).

The 'kicker' is that there is no absolute right of way, rather that both burdened and privileged vessel are responsible for avoiding collision.

Should DeGilio have seen/known abt Mr Post? yep
Was DeGilio unaware, unsafe, imprudent and irresponsible? absolutely

Neither of which speaks to the baseline issue of 'murder' v. 'suicide,' and esp considered in light of what the NJ Criminal Code said of that instant, as opposed to what the Prosecutors wish it would have said.

are you a politician.... you talk in circles

you just described degilio as a "RECKLESS" boater, unless now you try to argue that the whaler was traveling sideways and ran into the IMP.

its not hard to follow how degilio's "reckless" actions became deliberate by leaving the scene of the accident and hiding evidence.

its a "fact" that both vessel are responsible for avoiding collision and we're not talking about a a small pleasure boat vs a supertanker. so i don't see the arguement that degilio had the right of way. either way he obviuosly hit the whaler, therefore NOT avoiding the collision.

a person was killed and several injuried, law enforcement is doing what its supposed to do, isn't ?

No Dave, Law Enforcement is overreaching, overcharging, making up stuff and trying to enforce laws that don't exist.

Accidents happen, and do not always have a criminal element ... unless/until out-of-control prosecutors decide to hypothesize one out of thin air.

Somehow, I don't think you have ever read The Rules of Road; they pertain to rowboats and supertankers.

That is not an insult, most boaters have never read them, neither.

Here: http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=navRulesContent

quell surprise ... They work.

No, actually I have been very consistent in my statements. The prosecutors are Gestapo, making up sh!t as they go along, trying to criminalise a civil matter, using 'law' which does not exist.

Mr DeGilio is, pretty clearly, a slimeball, which has nothing to do with prosecutors who are arrogantly contemptuous of law, justice, custom, treaties and indeed NJ state law.

I do not credit THEM with one scintilla of good faith.

Better?