THE MARKER WASN’T LIT? STEPHEN SCHNEIDER’S DEFENSE TARGETS A CRUCIAL DETAIL IN THE BARNEGAT BAY CRASH

A potentially important detail is emerging in the case against Stephen Schneider, the New Jersey grandfather charged after his boat struck a channel marker in Barnegat Bay, sending his two grandchildren into the water.

The defense is now questioning one basic but critical issue:

Could Schneider actually see the marker that night?

WAS THE CHANNEL MARKER PROPERLY ILLUMINATED?

Schneider’s attorney told a judge that investigators are still determining whether the channel marker struck by the boat was lighted or unlighted at the time of the crash.

That detail could become significant because the collision happened at approximately 9 p.m. on July 19, when visibility on the bay was limited by nighttime conditions.

However, there is conflicting information about the marker’s condition.

Shortly after the crash, a Berkeley Township councilman said Marker 39 was fully functioning and its lights were working that night.

That means the defense argument has not been established as fact. Investigators’ technical findings could ultimately determine which account is supported by the evidence.

 THE CRASH KILLED TWO CHILDREN

Schneider was operating a 30-foot Tidewater Custom 280 when the vessel struck the channel marker.

His grandchildren, 9-year-old Mya Golabek and 7-year-old Sigmund “Siggy” Golabek, were thrown from the boat.

Both children were wearing life jackets, according to authorities, but they were later pronounced dead after being pulled from the water.

Their deaths transformed what should have been a family boat ride into a devastating tragedy.

 PROSECUTORS ARE FOCUSING ON THE 0.16 BAC

The defense’s focus on visibility comes as prosecutors emphasize another major piece of evidence.

Authorities say Schneider’s blood alcohol concentration was approximately 0.16% after the crash, twice New Jersey’s legal limit of 0.08%.

Schneider has been charged with two counts of death by vessel, as well as operating a vessel under the influence and reckless operation of a vessel.

He has pleaded his case through the legal process and remains presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

COULD A DARK, UNLIT MARKER CHANGE THE CASE?

That is one of the questions investigators will have to answer.

If technical evidence eventually establishes that the marker’s lighting system was malfunctioning, the defense could argue that visibility played a role in the collision.

But if investigators confirm that the marker was properly illuminated, that argument could become much harder to sustain.

And even if visibility becomes a disputed issue, it would not automatically resolve the separate allegations concerning Schneider’s alleged impairment.

 THE CASE NOW HAS TWO VERY DIFFERENT QUESTIONS

The prosecution is pointing toward alcohol, impairment and the decision to operate the boat.

The defense is drawing attention to visibility, navigation and the condition of the marker.

The court will ultimately have to consider all of the evidence together.

 TWO CHILDREN. ONE NIGHT. ONE CHANNEL MARKER.

Mya was 9.

Siggy was 7.

Their family is now waiting for the legal process to determine exactly what happened during those final moments on Barnegat Bay.

And as the investigation continues, one seemingly simple technical question could become increasingly important:

Was Channel Marker 39 clearly visible that night — or wasn’t it?