Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why was Jay told to stay home?
She wasn't there to get the results; therefore, she was able to appear on camera claiming Ruskin was holding out on them and seem completely truthful.
Well, it wasn't truthful if she was told to stay home while she knew Dan was going to get the results. She would know that the results had been given to Dan and therefore could not truthfully say that Ruskin was keeping them in the dark.
The reautopsy was part of Ruskin's investigation, and he claims they didn't have the money to go through with it. Aunt Jay says they couldn't afford to pay the 10,000 and then 30,000 bills associated with the investigation. Ruskin says specifically in the article that they couldn't pay for the reautopsy.
Danny, Barbera, and the filmmakers were in collusion to make Ruskin look bad claiming that he never shared the results with Barbera or the Schuler family when in fact he met with everyone but Aunt Jay (who was told to stay home!) and went to the papers. The fact that the reanalysis matched the original results was publicly reported in the news a year ago.
The filmmakers text-over that Danny was collecting permissions isn't credible as to the real reason why the reautopsy wasn't done (unless if it means collecting the permission of a licensed coroner who is waiting for a signed sealed contract and $$).
I believe the talk of reautopsy is just noise at this point because Danny doesn't want to accept the BAC results and can't squeeze the money out of the Schuler family (who doesn't have it per Aunt Jay), and the filmmakers are out of there.
IMHO, Ruskin is the only one telling the truth at this point except for Aunt Jay, who was deliberately kept in the dark.
If your theory was correct, it would have appeared in the documentary or Danny would have been screaming to the papers (e.g., the Hance family preventing the exhumation).
Believe what you want, but I'm not buying it. We will have to agree to disagree.
We can agree to disagree, but we can't agree to just make up stuff.
I'm sure you're right that at some point, money was an issue in re the exhumation.
Nonetheless, during the first part of the documentary, there is clearly an expectation that the exhumation will take place (Ruskin or no). Since there is no suggestion that Dan or Jackie have won the lottery, I think it's reasonable to assume they are expecting the filmmakers to pay for the exhumation. That is also what countless internet sources reported in 2010. (For some reason, you think it is very important to deny this; I have no idea why. You don't offer a reasonable alternative that conforms to the timeline of events.)
Near the end of the doc, we are told that Dan wasn't able to obtain the "necessary permissions" for the exhumation. (This is according to not just my memory, but that of several other posters here.) "Necessary permissions" does not mean "needed cash" in any version of English with which I am familiar.
There was some legal reason why Dan could not have his wife exhumed. To date, neither of us has found an explanation for this.
There were reports that the life insurance money went through Dominic Barbara, who was slow to transfer it to Danny and/or kept too much.
I'm not making up stuff. I provided a news article as my source. The news article claims that the purpose of the documentary to film the exhumation. The filmmakers are quoted denying any connection to an exhumation. In denying that connection, they are not promising we will see it in their film.
The film itself is something of a mockumentary, considering all the drama over the paid for but unshared results. Because they're not married to the truth, IMHO, any text about "permissions" is suspect.
If there are any permissions missing, I suspect it is the signature of the licensed medical examiner hired to do the reautopsy.
I think you're making it up by assuming its a legal reason. It could be any type of permission or no permission at all.
***
Here's a nice quote from the article that YOU cite:
"The New York Post reported that the movie deal would net Schuler $100,000 that he would use to support his 6-year-old son, the sole survivor of the crash."
"Net" implies that the $100,000 was not the GROSS money to be received by Schuler; the total amount was something higher and may have included the cost of the exhumation. May. This statement doesn't prove my position, but it does cast doubt on yours.
SouthCityMom said:I also, if I were a betting woman, think Barbara has told the family to NOT have another autopsy done. I can't see an attorney wanting that in this case unless he KNEW the results would be different from the results obtained by police professionals in a state of the art lab. When their private test came back as "LOADED," that couldn't be kept a secret. Again, it's better to plant the idea in the public's mind that the test might be faulty - and let that idea simmer and stew - than to actually have the darned thing done again and reinforce the first result.
I love you both Glad to see tolerance for difference of position on this case.
I've followed this case closely, see, I am an alcoholic. Although, I can't see myself doing what Diane did. My honest opinion, is that she was a drinker, just hid it real good. I'm positive her family knew something wasn't right with her, because you can only hide it so long. That's why Warren freaked out and told her to stay put. As an aside, I feel so much anguish for Warren and Jackie, losing all their children.
She went too far that day. That's all there is to it. We can look for answers all day long, but reasoning left her mind that day, and before she knew it she was loaded and the horrific accident happened.
All IMO. :sick:
I love you both Glad to see tolerance for difference of position on this case.
I've followed this case closely, see, I am an alcoholic. Although, I can't see myself doing what Diane did. My honest opinion, is that she was a drinker, just hid it real good. I'm positive her family knew something wasn't right with her, because you can only hide it so long. That's why Warren freaked out and told her to stay put. As an aside, I feel so much anguish for Warren and Jackie, losing all their children.
She went too far that day. That's all there is to it. We can look for answers all day long, but reasoning left her mind that day, and before she knew it she was loaded and the horrific accident happened.
All IMO. :sick:
I've wondered this, too. Assuming it wasn't on purpose, what the heck made her drink with the kids in the car? Maybe her drinking was escalating. Maybe she'd had more than usual during the camping trip and it was giving her more of a headache/hangover than usual. Maybe she was afraid someone would get on her case about her drinking if she said her head hurt too much to drive the kids home? Then she decided to start drinking some more to try to help the pain? I don't know. I just can't imagine how she could think she could drink (and smoke pot) to that extent and be able to hide it and get the kids home intact.I was trying to think through how this would have happened if she was an alcoholic (e.g., seriously addicted, not suicidal). Starting from the assumption that she didn't start out intending for this to happen, I wonder if the coffee was supposed to be to drink in the car and the loaded OJ was intended to be consumed later after the girls were dropped off at home?..
Could this have happened this way?
Certainly. And I'd add into that scenario the strong possibility of being embarrassed or angry about Warren coming to get her (ie, her failing at something and ceding control) and being determined to finish the drive.
But the sheer volume of alcohol -- on top of marijuana -- is troubling. That's really getting "carried away."
That's what I find ironic/dumb about the Dominic Barbara PR blitz. If she was not a drinker, not an alcoholic, how in the world did she ingest that much? And please don't insult my intelligence further with the diabetes or stroke nonsense. If she wasn't a drinker, there had to be a huge trigger that day/weekend.
I still lean slightly toward the theory of her going into a rage and choosing to get wasted and, as hard as it is to wrap your mind around, deliberately crashing. It's the theory with the fewest holes, imo.
I can't really disagree with you...It's much easier to make a care for intentional and/or rage-induced suicide. It would have to be a really anomalous situation for her to have set out with the best intentions to get those kids home safely and ended up this intoxicated and out of control.
It just still doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It just doesn't make sense, even if she had the worst toothache or headache ever, that she would automatically think to use vodka and marijuana, which she just happened to have in the car with her, even though Dan says she almost never used either one. If the pain was so bad that she couldn't function and was considering using mind-altering substances while driving, she should have pulled over and called 911 before even thinking about taking the first drop and proceeding to get so intoxicated that she couldn't see.
I don't know the route, but I have read comments on other sites that there are grocery stores and other spots along it where she should have been able to get an OTC painkiller and places where she and the kids would have been safe while they waited for someone to come get them. ???
Another weird thing is that she didn't appear intoxicated OR in terrible pain in the video at McDonald's or the gas station. So weird. If she was having a stroke as Dan claims, she didn't seem to have any neuro symptoms at that point.