How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
News
At the request of Treasurer Lockyer, Congressman Thompson introduced H.R. 3525, the “Private Activity Bonds for Clean Energy Projects” bill, which would add additional categories of tax-exempt private activity bonds to spur investment in clean energy technologies.
“We need to act quickly to change our methods of energy consumption,” said Congressman Thompson. “Failing to act now will cost us trillions of dollars, both in spending on foreign oil, and on combating the effects of climate change. By making it easier for local governments and private entities to finance alternative energy projects, we can help move our economy towards a greener future.”
Tax-exempt bond financing is a low-cost method of financing a project or manufacturing facility, with interest costs that are lower than commercial loans.
By granting private entities access to this low-cost financing, the bill will help stimulate investment in clean energy projects such as solar installations, creating new green jobs and rebuilding our economy.
“Expanding the benefits of tax-exempt bond financing to privately-developed renewable technologies is a win-win for California’s environment and economy,” said Lockyer. “We’ll spur green projects that produce alternative energy sources and stimulate the economy by creating green-collar jobs.”
Thompson’s bill would amend the IRS code to add additional categories of tax-exempt private activity bonds for renewable energy, energy efficiency, demand side management, energy storage, electric transmission, smart grid, water conservation, zero-emission vehicle projects and manufacturing facilities.
Additionally, the legislation would allow private companies to utilize both tax exempt bonds and federal tax credits for these projects.
The discussion was held at Project Open Hand, a charity serving meals to those in need.
Project Open Hand has dedicated themselves to carrying out their mission in a sustainable fashion, and has installed solar panels on their roof to power their facilities, saving over $12,000 per year.
The California Highway Patrol reported that Amy Duschka, 21, was injured in the crash, which occurred just after 5 p.m. Wednesday.
CHP Officer Steve Tanguay said Duschka was driving her 2004 Kia Rio southbound on State Route 53, south of State Route 20, at an unknown speed.
Tanguay said Duschka made an unsafe turning movement and lost control of her vehicle. The Kia went off of the roadway, hit an embankment, and overturned.
As a result of the collision, Duschka's left arm was severely injured, Tanguay said. Duschka was transported by REACH to Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital.
Tanguay said the collision is still under investigation by Officer Rob Hearn.
Drugs and alcohol are not considered to be factors in this collision, Tanguay said.
View Konocti Bay and Dinius crash in a larger mapView Larger Map
THIS STORY HAS BEEN UPDATED.
LAKEPORT – Less than an hour after testimony in a fatal sailboat crash began on Thursday morning, the prosecution rested its case without calling the driver of a powerboat involved in the collision three years ago.
Shortly before 10 a.m., District Attorney Jon Hopkins announced to the court, “The people rest,” in the case against 41-year-old Carmichael resident Bismarck Dinius, on trial for felony boating under the influence causing great bodily injury.
Hopkins had just finished entering evidence and questioning one of his investigators, Craig Woodworth, about tests on the electrical lighting of the Beats Workin' II, the sailboat hit from behind by a powerboat driven by Russell Perdock, an off-duty chief deputy with the Lake County Sheriff's Office, just after 9 p.m. April 29, 2006.
Dinius was at the tiller of the Beats Workin' II, owned by Mark Weber of Willows, which Hopkins alleges was under way without running lights. The prosecution also alleges Dinius had a blood alcohol level of 0.12 at the time of the crash.
Weber's girlfriend, 51-year-old Lynn Thornton, sustained injuries in the crash that took her life on May 2, 2006.
Perdock was scheduled to come to the stand on Thursday as a prosecution witness, according to statements Hopkins made at the end of court on Wednesday.
Defense attorney Victor Haltom has argued Perdock, not Dinius, was responsible for the crash.
Haltom alleges Perdock was driving too fast on a very dark night – witnesses have estimated Perdock was driving anywhere between 35 and 50 miles per hour – and therefore violated safe boating rules by driving faster than was safe for conditions.
But Hopkins surprised the court by resting and not calling Perdock.
He offered no reason in court for the decision, and declined to explain the decision later out of court.
“It's not something I would want to comment on,” Hopkins said in a brief interview with Lake County News on Thursday afternoon.
The decision not to call Perdock caught Haltom unprepared. Haltom said he had expected Perdock to be on the stand for much of Thursday before Haltom would begin calling his own witnesses, who were told to be ready for testimony on Friday.
After court, both Dinius and Haltom said they were caught off guard by the turn of events.
“I was stunned. Everyone in that courtroom was stunned” – with the exception of Hopkins, Haltom said.
Haltom said he plans to call Perdock to the stand.
Despite the change in plans, Dinius was feeling optimistic at the end of the prosecution's case.
“I'm feeling good,” he said. “I'm feeling very confident.”
District attorney investigator describes testing lighting
Hopkins had started the day by calling Woodworth, a former police officer and certified mechanic who is now an investigator with the District Attorney's Office.
He recalled that other investigators had handled the crash case initially. In April of 2008 he was brought back from a computer crimes task force to fill in as acting chief investigator while another investigator was on medical leave.
Woodworth assigned Investigator John Flynn to assist the deputy district attorney who was prosecuting the case. Around the end of May or the first of June of this year, Woodworth became involved in the investigation.
On the stand Woodworth explained that he had experience investigating traffic collisions as a police officer, although he hadn't previously done a boat crash. He also was a mechanic for several years before getting into law enforcement, and as a hobby builds drag race engines.
He inspected the boats this summer, researched the powerboat's motor and got in touch with Richard Snyder, an engineer who retired from Mercury Marine and who testified in the trial on Tuesday.
Woodworth also examined a GPS device that had been on the sailboat.
“How did you discover there was a GPS?” Hopkins asked.
“You told me,” replied Woodworth.
Haltom moved to strike the comment as hearsay but Byrne allowed it to stand.
Woodworth said he contacted Det. Jerry Pfann of the Lake County Sheriff's Office to see if there was a GPS unit, then he went online to download an owner's manual and discovered the device had a feature that would track movements.
The next step was getting a search warrant to collect the data. The GPS in question was an older unit which has been discontinued, and Woodworth said he couldn't do a “data dump” but had to turn it on and photograph its readings.
Before he could get the device operating, he had to remove its dead, corroded batteries, clean it up and put in new batteries. He was able to get GPS coordinates, which he plotted on a map to show a route the boat had followed.
However, the device's dating function wasn't accurate, he said. The last point it logged a location at was Richmond Park Bar & Grill. Testimony has been provided during the trial that the Beats Workin' II left from the restaurant to take its nighttime cruise across Konocti Bay, where the crash occurred.
On June 8 Woodworth went to view the sailboat and powerboat, taking photos of them and looking at the sailboat's cabin lights to determine if they were operational.
Haltom asked to question Woodworth's qualifications. Woodworth explained his various licenses and automotive repair courses. Then Haltom asked if he knows the difference between direct current and alternating current. Woodworth said he had training in direct current but none in alternating current.
Based on those responses, Haltom objected to Woodworth's testimony, saying the difference between the two currents is “a fairly fundamental basic electrical principal.”
“Actually, it's not,” said Hopkins.
Byrne allowed the questioning but said he would sustain the objection if it became more in-depth.
When Hopkins resumed his direct questioning, he asked Woodworth about testing the various lights to see if power was going to them. One of the lights in a bow storage area of the cabin had a “sticky switch,” which Woodworth said isn't uncommon. He said he believed it was on although the switch didn't appear to be working properly.
During a brief cross-examination, Haltom asked Woodworth if he was friends with Perdock. He said no. What was Flynn's relationship with Perdock? Haltom asked. Woodworth said they were both members of the Masonic Lodge in Clearlake.
Haltom showed Woodworth a picture of the Masonic Lodge's members. Woodworth said he had never seen the picture before, but he recognized Flynn in it.
Regarding the GPS readings, Woodworth stated in court that he got the readings off the device on July 8.
“Had anybody in this case attempted to get those GPS coordinates, say, back in the summer of 2006, would they have been able to get accurate information out of the GPS device?” Haltom asked.
“It's possible,” said Woodworth.
Did no one at the District Attorney's Office or the Lake County Sheriff's Office attempt to get the information? Haltom asked. Woodworth said he was not aware of such attempts by either agency.
Woodworth sat in with Flynn on an interview with Perdock held this past April 27 at the District Attorney's Office. When Haltom asked if it was in June that the District Attorney's Office first endeavored to look at the cabin lights, Woodworth said yes.
On redirect, Hopkins asked if the cabin lights appeared to be in the same condition as they would when the sailboat was first stored. Haltom objected on the basis of lack of foundation, and Byrne sustained.
Were any of the lights taken apart? Hopkins asked. No, Woodworth said, getting another objection from Haltom, which Byrne also sustained.
Did the lights appear to be in a whole state? Hopkins asked. Woodworth said all of them did except for one he had found on the floor, where it appeared to have been knocked down by the collision.
If the GPS was turned on, it wouldn't record? Hopkins asked. No, said Woodworth.
Evidence, stipulation and a surprise
After Woodworth left the stand shortly before 10 a.m., Byrne suggested that it might be time to take a break before the next witness took the stand, because the witness was going to take a long time, he said, referring to Perdock.
Hopkins said first he wanted to introduce evidence, which both he and Haltom did.
Hopkins then entered a final exhibit, people's 80, that included Thornton's six-page autopsy report accompanied by a stipulation he and Haltom agreed on, that stated that Thornton was driven by Kelseyville Fire ambulance to Sutter Lakeside Hospital on the night of April 29, 2006.
“The parties stipulate that Lynn Thornton died as a result of injuries she suffered in the boating accident in this case, which occurred shortly after 9 p.m. April 29, 2006,” Hopkins said, reading from the document.
Thornton suffered head and neck injuries in the crash that were the cause of her death, which occurred on May 2, 2006, the stipulation stated.
The judge told the jury that, although he often reminds them that what the attorneys say isn't necessarily fact, “This is the one exception where both sides have agreed to a fact.”
After that, Hopkins stated, “The people rest.”
He then said, “It would probably be a good time to take a recess.”
After Byrne let the jury go for a break, Haltom said he had anticipated Perdock being on the stand all day, and he wasn't prepared to call any of his other witnesses.
“I could call Perdock,” he said.
Hopkins said that the trial is still on a good schedule even if they lost the afternoon.
Haltom asked if Perdock was available Thursday. Hopkins said he didn't know.
The prosecution and defense had an agreement to notice law enforcement and make them available to testify, said Haltom.
Byrne said that everyone had expected Perdock to be called, and he suggested that Hopkins find a way to make him available.
Defense moves for acquittal
The court took a morning recess, after which Judge J. Michael Byrne heard Haltom's motion for acquittal on the felony boating under the influence count.
Haltom argued that the court had failed to offer any evidence that Dinius was the person responsible for turning on the boat's lights.
“If he had no duty to turn on those lights there can be no proximate cause due to some failure to turn on the lights,” said Haltom. “That's No. 1.”
No. 2, said Haltom, was that eyewitnesses – including prosecution witnesses – have stated the lights were on.
Hopkins had presented witnesses who stated that they didn't see what Perdock's boat hit until after he hit it. But Haltom presented information about a 1902 ruling involving an 1899 collision in Chesapeake Bay, Virginia, between the steamship Richmond and the three-masted schooner, the George Clark.
The steamer was charged with failing to keep out of the schooner's way, “slacken her speed, stop or reverse, or to take any other precautions necessary and prescribed to avoid a collision, and that the collision was caused entirely and exclusively by the fault and negligence of the steamer's navigators,” according to the original opinion.
At the same time, the schooner was charged with having unskilled navigators and the failure “to have and maintain lawful lights, properly set and burning,” as well as proceeding at too rapid a speed and improperly changing her course.
Of four steamship officers interviewed in that case, only two testified to not seeing the light.
In that case the justices ruled, “The failure to observe a light cannot be said to disprove its existence.”
He also quoted another case, Clary Towing co. v. Port Arthur, which had witnesses testifying to seeing the lights burning on a boat when it left the dock shortly before a collision. The presumption in that case was that the lights continued burning until the collision.
“That presumption applies in this case,” said Haltom.
Hopkins argued that Dinius was under the influence and was the boat's operator, and that his failure to have the boat's light's on was the proximate cause of Thornton's injury.
The defense said the lights were seen on at dusk, but by the time of the crash it was pitch black, said Hopkins.
He said it's not like the “old time cases” Haltom quoted. In those situations, “It comes down to a matter of credibility on whether the lights were on or off on the boat and that's one of the factors that they were taking into consideration.”
While Hopkins hadn't read those cases, he said he'd be willing to bet there was more going on than the court simply concluding that the lights were on before the crash.
“The test here is whether we failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction on appeal,” Hopkins said.
He said he's presented six witnesses so far that saw the motorboat's lights clearly but didn't see what it hit. The fact that people saw lights on the sailboat 40 minutes earlier doesn't mean the lights were still on at the time of the collision.
He said the light panel is right there to see, “and those switches are off.”
“The matter has to be resolved,” said Byrne, and he believed that, ultimately, the case was for the jury to decide.
Byrne said he was concerned about the duty of turning on the lights. On Wednesday, Lt. Charles Slabaugh of the Sacramento County Sheriff's Office, who conducted the crash investigation and teaches classes on inland navigation rules, said turning on the lights was a responsibility shared by those on the vessel.
“There is evidence that Mr. Dinius was at the tiller by his own statements,” said Byrne.
Byrne ended by denying Haltom's motion.
Defense wants to call Perdock
Haltom indicated that he wants Perdock brought to court. “I'd like to take him as a hostile witness.”
Hopkins replied, “I don't think he's available today.”
Haltom said he wanted the jury told that they were expecting Perdock. Byrne said he wouldn't blame the district attorney before the jury, and in dismissing the jury told them simply there had been scheduling issues.
The judge asked if Perdock could be made available to testify on Tuesday. “I'll have to check,” said Hopkins. Byrne said he should be there.
Then, at Hopkins' request, Byrne, Haltom and Hopkins went into chambers for an on-record but confidential discussion on a case issue. Dinius himself remained in the courtroom, excluded at the judge's order.
When the attorneys emerged just over a half-hour later they offered no information on what has taken place behind closed doors. Court adjourned for the day just after 11:15 a.m.
Testimony is expected to resume at 9 a.m. Friday, when the defense begins to present its case.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
View Konocti Bay and Dinius crash in a larger mapView Larger Map
LAKEPORT – On Wednesday a criminalist told the jury in a fatal sailboat crash case that he believed the sailboat's stern light wasn't on when it was hit by a powerboat in April of 2006.
Criminalist Toby Baxter, a crash investigator, along with friends of the people involved in the April 29, 2006, crash made their way to the witness stand on day six of 41-year-old Bismarck Dinius' trial.
The Carmichael man is being tried for felony boating under the influence causing great bodily injury in connection with the crash. He was at the tiller of a sailboat owned by Willows resident Mark Weber when it was hit at night by a powerboat driven by an off-duty sheriff's deputy, Russell Perdock, who was not charged.
Weber's girlfriend, Lynn Thornton, sustained injures that she died from three days after the crash. The lights on the sailboat allegedly were not on when the crash occurred.
The day started with Lt. Charles Slabaugh of the Sacramento County Sheriff's Office back on the stand under cross-examination by defense attorney Victor Haltom.
Slabaugh, who was asked to come in to lead the crash investigation, has so far spent nearly half a day on the stand in the trial, which was in its sixth day on Wednesday.
Under Haltom's questioning, Slabaugh said the crash involving Dinius and Perdock was the sixth he had investigated.
Slabaugh made findings, but the entirety of his report hasn't been revealed in the trial so far.
“Did you make a decision not to share with the jury your findings in this case?” Haltom asked. Slabaugh said no.
During direct questioning by District Attorney Jon Hopkins, Slabaugh was asked if he agreed with conclusions offered by Richard Snyder, a retired engineer who had testified about the crash and the powerboat on Tuesday. Haltom objected and Judge J. Michael Byrne sustained it. When Hopkins attempted to ask the question another way, Haltom lodged another successful objection by challenging the question's relevance.
Both Hopkins and Haltom closely questioned Slabaugh about inland waterway rules. Slabaugh teaches classes on the rules, and also holds a Coast Guard captain's license.
Hopkins asked Slabaugh if he had made a conclusion about the collision's dynamics. Slabaugh said he concluded that the Baja powerboat struck the sailboat's right stern quarter and continued over it.
Would the powerboat's operator have been able to see the sailboat's stern light if it were on? Hopkins asked. Slabaugh said he believed so.
Haltom asked if Slabaugh knew how far cabin light illumination would be visible. Slabaugh said he didn't.
The defense attorney then began questioning Slabaugh about his report's conclusions. Hopkins objected, but Byrne said, “We have to know where they hit.”
Haltom said Slabaugh didn't write in his report that this was a rear-end accident. “You allocated responsibility amongst the people involved in the accident, correct?” he asked.
Slabaugh said yes. Had he told the jury about that allocation? No, said Slabaugh.
The cabin lights, in Slabaugh's opinion, were on, based on eyewitness statements and the position of a switch on the lighting panel. Slabaugh had previously testified that the panel's toggles noted the running lights were off.
“Have you seen high velocity impacts that caused toggle switches to change position?” Haltom asked. Slabaugh said he hadn't.
Slabaugh recounted that Perdock told him he didn't seen any lights on the water that night. Perdock also reported that the crash occurred about a minute after he came around Fraser Point – the northernmost point that denotes the boundary of Konocti Bay – heading south toward Richmond Park Bar & Grill.
Haltom asked if Slabaugh agreed with the assessment Snyder gave on the stand Tuesday that Perdock was traveling between 40 and 50 miles per hour a the time of the collision with the sailboat. Slabaugh said yes.
Slabaugh said he used Perdock's speed and the amount of time he was under way to try to determine the crash location. On May 2, 2006, he and Boat Patrol Supervisor Sgt. Dennis Ostini went out on the lake during daylight hours to try to come to a conclusion about where the crash took place. When Haltom asked the location of where he believed the crash occurred, Hopkins objected, saying it was irrelevant, and Byrne sustained.
Under the rules of navigation, whose responsibility is it to turn on the stern light? Haltom asked. Slabaugh said it can be one of several people – the person operating the boat, crew members, the master or others on board.
Hopkins asked Slabaugh if there were rules in which a sailing vessel needed to stay out of the way of other vessels. Slabaugh said yes. Do cabin lights satisfy a sailing vessel's legal lighting requirements? No, Slabaugh said.
During his investigation, Slabaugh found wires leading from the running light switch which were frayed after having been pulled out of a clip holding them in place. Haltom asked if that was a result of the crash, and Slabaugh said yes.
Haltom asked Slabaugh about rule 19 of the inland navigation rules, which addresses conduct of vessels in restricted visibility. Part of the rule Haltom quoted states, “A power driven vessel shall have her engines ready for immediate maneuver.”
Hopkins asked Slabaugh about example of restricted visibility. Slabaugh said fog, mist, rain and sand storms are examples. Haltom asked if night was a restricted visibility situation. Slabaugh said not in his opinion.
Criminalist details findings about light bulbs
Most of the day's testimony came from California Department of Justice criminalist Toby Baxter, who spent close to three and a half hours detailing his conclusion that the sailboat's stern light was off at the time of the collision, based on a forensic examination of the light bulbs and filaments.
Baxter, with the DOJ since 1985, is stationed in the Eureka office. Head lamp analysis has been one of his work areas since 1999.
This was the first case he's investigated which involved a boat light, but Baxter said boats use lights that are similar to those in automobiles.
Before Hopkins' questioning of Baxter got very far, Haltom received Byrne's permission to question Baxter's qualifications. Baxter had one formal three-day DOJ course on headlight analysis in 1999, has done his own research and read literature in the field. Haltom objected to his qualifications but Byrne overruled, saying there was reason to admit his testimony.
Baxter explained how incandescent light bulbs work. They're outfitted with tungsten filaments that can withstand the extremely high temperatures – between 2,200 and 2,500 degrees centigrade (or about 4,000 to 4,500 degrees Fahrenheit)– used to light the bulbs. Tungsten has high tensile strength and is able to maintain its shape for a considerable amount of time compared to other metals.
Baxter received three lights – the sailboat's mast, stern and bow lights. The stern and bow lights were the focus of his testing, which included looking at the broken filaments in the stern light.
Hopkins asked what can happen if a tungsten filament is subjected to a sharp impact. Baxter explained that tungsten is not prone to break as much as it it to stretch and deform. When it cools it can become more brittle and can break, but that “cold break” looks different than it would when the filament is hot when the breakage occurs.
There are ways to determine if the filament was on when it broke, said Baxter. That includes finding tungsten oxide, a white or yellow powder that forms as a reaction when oxygen hits the tungsten.
If deformation and alignment of the coil structure inside the bulb resulted from whipping of the support posts, Baxter said the filament would likely remain shiny but would look distorted or, as Hopkins suggested, like a stretched Slinky.
A collision could cause a hot or cold break, said Baxter. He noted that a filament wouldn't break as easily when it's warmer and ductile.
The light bulbs Baxter evaluated in this case were cylindrical festoon bulbs, which he said are frequently used for auto dome lights.
Baxter examined the stern light bulb's filament to determine what kind of breakage occurred. He said the broken areas were angular and grainy in appearance, “which is consistent with a cold break.”
In a cold break, the filament will resemble the uneven edges of a green stick when it's broken, said Baxter.
He used stereo and comparison microscopes to look closely at the filament, and concluded the stern light wasn't on when it was broken.
Hopkins asked if a a cold break could look like a hot break if the posts inside the bulb whip and break the filament. Yes, said Baxter, but he said the filament in that case would be more likely to break than to stretch when it's cold and brittle.
Reviewing a series of pictures of the lights, Baxter noted that the stern light, the cover of which was missing with pieces broken out and a whole light bulb with a broken filament, “did receive some fair amount of damage.”
Some of the pictures, which Hopkins showed to the court on a projector, were taken by Baxter on a comparison microscope, and showed the twisted and broken stern light filament and the unbroken bow light filament side by side. He also compared the bulbs with brand new bulbs.
Several of the photos also showed filaments of bulbs used in an experiment that Baxter conducted to see what would happen if power to the lights was cut a second or a second and a half before an impact. The bulbs were affixed to a lamp structure in a two by four board that Baxter than slammed on the floor.
One of the photos of a filament that had the power cut a second and a half before impact had some stretching but could be a “close call” because it had attributes of both a hot and cold break, said Baxter.
A filament with the power cut a second before an impact had a bowed coil “more consistent with hot shock,” he said, with the filaments not completely cooled.
Filaments of the size used in these bulbs can take from two to four seconds to cool down before passing the transition phase and becoming brittle, said Baxter.
“My conclusion is there is no evidence of hot shock or warm shock that I could observe,” said Baxter, adding that he he wouldn't have an opinion about when the filament break occurred.
Haltom asked if Baxter had reached a conclusion about whether the unbroken bow light had been on or off at the time of impact. Baxter said he hadn't.
Pointing to a picture of the broken stern light filament, which had a wave shape, Haltom asked if that could be indicative of hot shock. Baxter said it could be but other factors would have to be considered.
Baxter, who began working on the lights in April of 2007, couldn't answer questions about direct current and alternating current as it would have pertained to the bulb's operation. He said that, based on his reading of the investigative literature, it's never been an issue.
Haltom presented Baxter with a copy of a report he wrote this past April. The report listed a victim and a suspect. When Haltom questioned him on who those subjects were, Hopkins objected, saying it was irrelevant.
The report, the second Baxter had prepared, was in reaction to documents from a defense experted that needed to be addressed.
Baxter said he received the transcript of the preliminary hearing testimony of Dr. William Chilcott. After seeing that report Baxter conducted the experiments.
Haltom wanted to know if it would be possible to have an event where there is one crash with multiple impacts, with the stern light suffering different shocks. Baxter said he's not an expert on boat accident reconstruction and couldn't offer an informed opinion.
After the jury was allowed to leave for lunch, Haltom asked Byrne to let him question Baxter about the “victim” and “suspect” notations on his report.
He said the report listed Dinius as the suspect and Perdock as the victim. “That's clearly relevant to a central theme of this case, that this is a slanted investigation designed to deflect blame away from Russell Perdock,” Haltom said, adding that it's absurd to list Perdock as the victim when it's Thornton who died.
Hopkins said in other places of the report a victim and suspect aren't listed. He argued that the issue wasn't relevant. Byrne said he would allow Haltom to ask the question but it needed the relevant foundation.
Experiment had variables that are hard to duplicate
After court reconvened following lunch, Haltom questioned Baxter closely on whether or not his experiments could be exactly replicated. Baxter said there were several variables that couldn't be duplicated in another set of tests, such as the amount of force he used to slam the two by four.
Haltom then returned to the issue of the victim and suspect notations. Baxter said he wasn't sure why it was listed the way it was. “I'd have to say that was a typo on my part.”
Hopkins objected to the questioning, but Byrne overruled him, and allowed the jury to hear that Perdock had been listed as the victim and Dinius the suspect.
When Haltom asked if the wave shape in the broken filament could have resulted from one impact, with a second impact breaking it, Baxter said he saw no evidence to support that hypothesis. In that case there would still be evidence of a hot break, which Baxter said isn't in evidence.
Haltom raised statements Baxter had made during a previous deposition, in which he had stated that he couldn't rule out the possibility that the stern light was on when the crash occurred. Baxter didn't recall making that statement, and after reading over the transcript called the document confusing.
Based on his examination of the broken ends of the stern light bulb's filament, Baxter believed the light wasn't on. “I don't believe I offered a conclusion as to when that filament was actually broken and I don't believe I can.”
He added, “The only thing I'm willing to say with any real conviction here is the lamp was not on when it broke.”
The wave shape of the broken light could be a result of the manufacturing process, but Baxter said he didn't contact any bulb manufacturers. He doubted they would discuss their manufacturing processes based on the desire to protect proprietary information.
Afternoon witnesses fill in variety of details
A group of witnesses followed Baxter to the stand Wednesday afternoon, some of them testifying for only a matter of minutes.
Wes Frey, a retired deputy sheriff currently working as a part-time sheriff's welfare fraud investigator, said in April 2006 he was working on detective sergeant overseeing the sheriff's welfare unit.
He said he had heard about the crash and opened up a supplemental report filed on the incident by then-Sgt. James Beland. Last week, Beland testified that his reports on the crash had been changed, but when questioned by Hopkins Beland said he had been directed to make some of the changes by a superior officer.
The RIMS software the sheriff's office uses shows an audit trail, and Frey's name appeared on the audit report, however, he said he didn't change anything.
Jeff Holdener, who owns property on the lakeshore on Soda Bay Road, followed Frey to the stand.
Two young women who testified in the trial last week, Jennifer Patterson and Gina Seago, were visiting with Holdener's family on April 29, 2006, when they witnessed the crash and came running in to tell Holdener, who was playing cards with family.
Holdener, his brother-in-law and nephew got in Holdener's wakeboard board with a light bar and went out to offer help at the crash scene, being careful for fear people were in the water.
“The first thing we saw was the sailboat,” he said, noting the smell of fiberglass in the air.
Another boat towed the sailboat to Boren Bega, which Holdener said was on a straight course from the crash scene.
“The sailboat was just chaos,” he said. “There was a lot of people hurt. There was a lot of people bleeding.”
Men from the nearby Young Scandinavians Club had come out to help as well, with two of them doing cardiopulmonary resuscitation on Thornton, Holdener said.
Stephanie Green, a friend of both Weber and Thornton's, recalled meeting them for dinner at Richmond Park Bar and Grill at around 4 p.m. or 5 p.m., several hours before the crash.
Weber had competed in the Konocti Cup earlier that day and had won, and she recalled Weber and Thornton as being very excited.
Green said she and her husband, Rob, were with Weber and Thornton, and they were drinking beer and wine with dinner. A large group was at the restaurant, where there was barbecuing and karaoke.
That night she met Dinius for the first time, recalling he was “having fun like everyone else.”
Weber and Thornton invited the Greens to joint them for the cruise. “My husband talked me out of going,” Stephanie Green said, acknowledging that she can't swim.
She said she was probably upset with her husband, but agreed not to go.
Green recalled saying goodbye to Thornton, who she said she adored. Waving goodbye as the sailboat pulled out using its motor, Green recalled seeing its lights on.
Hopkins asked her if she had a chance to see Weber's state of intoxication. Green, who was a police officer for 15 years, said he was “highly intoxicated.” She said she had told Haltom's investigator that Weber was, to use the more colorful term, “s***-faced.”
Green said she couldn't assess Dinius' condition. “We were all drinking.”
Last on the stand Wednesday was Craig Scovel, a friend of Perdock's since high school, who responded to the crash scene that night and towed Perdock's damaged powerboat back to the sheriff's boat barn.
On the evening of the crash, Scovel took his own powerboat over to Konocti Harbor for a beer and a hamburger, and testified there were few people at the resort that night. He didn't see Perdock; if he had, Scovel said he would have talked to him.
Later, as he was heading home after dark, Scovel said he heard a helicopter. When he was almost home he got a call from Perdock's mother who said Perdock had been in a crash.
Scovel and two friends went back across to Bayshore Resort where they found Perdock on shore. Perdock asked Scovel to go back to Lily Cove and get his pickup and boat trailer, which Scovel did. He found the truck and trailer parked near the dock of the homeowners association where Perdock lives. Scovel said he hadn't seen the truck and trailer there when he left on his trip to Konocti at around 7 p.m.
Scovel's testimony provided some confusion, as he repeatedly said he believed it was a Friday night when he went to the resort. However, Haltom pointed out during his cross-examination that April 29, 2006, was a Saturday. Scovel said he couldn't remember for sure if it was a Friday, but he knew it was the same night as the crash.
Haltom said the whole point of the testimony that it was a Friday was to establish that not many people were there that night. Hopkins objected and Byrne sustained. “I think we probably figured it out,” said Byrne.
Would there have been more people at the resort on a Saturday than a Friday? Haltom asked. “Not necessarily,” said Scovel, pointing out it was April at the time, not the busier summer season.
Haltom asked if Scovel had made different statements previously.
He then asked Scovel if his goal on the stand is to give “Mr. Hopkins what he wants” through the testimony. “I'm not sure what he wants,” said Scovel.
Perdock himself is expected to come to the stand Thursday, when testimony resumes.
Witnesses so far, in order
Day one (following opening statements): James Ziebell, sailor, helped skipper Beats Workin' II in Konocti Cup; Doug Jones, past commodore of local sailing club; Anthony Esposti*, fisherman; Colin Johnson*, fisherman.
Day two: Lake County Sheriff's Det. Jerry Pfann; Andrea Estep*, phlebotomist, St. Helena Hospital-Clearlake (formerly Redbud Community Hospital); former sheriff's Sgt. James Beland; LaDonna Hartman, phlebotomist, Sutter Lakeside Hospital; retired sheriff's Sgt. Mark Hoffman; California Department of Justice criminalist Gregory Priebe, Santa Rosa lab; California Department of Justice criminalist Gary Davis, Sacramento toxicology lab.
Day three: Jennifer Patterson, witnessed crash from Holdener property on lakeshore; Gina Seago, witnessed crash from Holdener property on lakeshore; Jordin Walker, passenger on Russell Perdock's powerboat; James Walker*, high school friend of Perdock's and passenger on his powerboat; sheriff's Deputy Mike Morshed*; sheriff's communications operator Kimberly Erickson; sheriff's Boat Patrol Deputy Lloyd Wells*.
Day four: Craig Woodworth, the District Attorney's Office's acting chief investigator; John Yount, criminalist with the California Department of Justice's Santa Rosa lab; sheriff's Det. Jerry Pfann; Boat Patrol Supervisor Sgt. Dennis Ostini; Lt. Charles Slabaugh of the Sacramento County Sheriff's Office.
Day five: Richard Snyder, retired Mercury Marine engineer; Lt. Charles Slabaugh of the Sacramento County Sheriff's Office.
Day six: Lt. Charles Slabaugh of the Sacramento County Sheriff's Office; California Department of Justice criminalist Toby Baxter; retired Sgt. Wes Frey, Lake County Sheriff's Office; Jeff Holdener, who responded to the crash scene via boat; Stephanie Green, friend of Weber and Thornton, who saw them leave in the sailboat a few hours before the crash; Craig Scovel, friend of Perdock's who assisted in taking his boat and trailer to the sheriff's Boat Patrol building.*
* = Indicates a witness subject to recall at the request of the defense.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
That's the word from local officials who are continuing to respond to concerns about the algae plaguing the lake this summer.
Huge mats of the blue-green algae lyngbya have been causing headaches for resort owners and residents over the last few months.
Reasons for the algae's appearance this year have been attributed to a variety of factors, including Clear Lake being at one of the lowest levels in a few decades, allowing sunlight to get through and support algae growth.
Some spots appear to be clearing, such as one area along the lakeshore in north Lakeport where residents previously reported thick mats.
Another town hall to discuss the local response to the problem is planned for 6 p.m. Thursday at Clearlake City Hall, 14050 Olympic Drive.
Lake County News has continued receiving reports from concerned residents and visitors who, in some areas around the lake, insist that they're seeing sewage, not algae.
A few such reports came in earlier this week in the Clearlake Keys.
However, Darin McCosker, general manager of the Clearlake Oaks County Water District, said they've continued responding to such reports but haven't found any sewage.
“We've been chasing down reports and Environmental Health has been chasing down reports,” he said.
McCosker said his staff also has been yelled at by angry individuals insisting that the district is allowing sewage to go out into the lake.
“We've gone out of our way to investigate everything,” McCosker said. “Every time something is alleged we go out and check manholes.”
He said repeated tests have shown that the problem isn't fecal matter, but algae.
Ray Ruminski, director of the county's Environmental Health agency, said they've done repeated tests around the lake for bacteria, finding that bacteria levels are higher in algae but don't rise to the level that would be present in a sewage spill.
There's been so much testing, Ruminski added, “We kinda busted our budget for lab samples already.”
His staff hasn't done specific testing in the Clearlake Keys areas in a few weeks, but they did respond to a complaint there on July 31.
Environmental Health staff encountered no human sewage but found “a big scummy algae mass,” Ruminski said.
There is a possibility, said Ruminski, that leach fields of properties around the lake are feeding nutrients into the lake that is encouraging algae growth. But he said local officials are convinced there isn't a sewage spill floating around the lake.
However, he added, “It smells like sewage. There's a very real connection in peoples' minds.”
He said the last time the algae was this bad was around 1991.
Most of the complaints were coming from the Clearlake Highlands area in June and early July, said Ruminski.
During the last week of July, the most complaints were coming from Clearlake Oaks, he said.
Ruminski suggested wind patterns are responsible for moving the algae mats around, but that the winds aren't strong enough to break up the mats.
Some residents are offering their own fixes.
Anthony Sperling, who live near Baylis Point, said he saw a huge mat – which he estimated to be 300 feet by 50 feet – coming toward his property on Tuesday evening.
He said if that mat had settled on the shoreline the stench and the algae itself would have pretty much put a halt to his family's enjoyment of their property and the lake for the rest of the summer.
So Sperling tried a low-tech solution – he drove his pontoon boat through it repeatedly. After about 50 to 60 passes through it, the mat was pretty well dispersed.
A similar solution was suggested at a previous algae town hall meeting held last month in Clearlake.
Sperling said it's not a “silver bullet” solution, but he said it's one way to chip away at the problem.
In the mean time, Ruminski said a health advisory about the algae issued June 12 is still in effect.
“Caution is advised but not panic, and that's different,” Ruminski said.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
The agency reported that a red flag warning will be in effect from 1 a.m. to 9 p.m. Thursday.
In Lake County, the warning specifically relates to elevations from 1,000 to 3,000 feet.
Within a few hours of the warning, about three lightning strikes were reported in the county between 6 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. Wednesday.
The concerns arise from an unseasonably strong low pressure system off the coast that are expected to move through Northern California on Thursday, the National Weather Service reported. The threat of thunderstorms is expected to increase as a result.
With the potential for rain comes concerns about lightning strikes, combined with dry fuels and gusty winds, the agency reported.
The National Weather Service reported that thunderstorms and gusty wind will diminish Thursday evening as the low pressure system moves east of the area.
