8 Die in Crash on Taconic State Parkway #2

[arielilane]

Families fight over planned HBO film of Taconic death driver Diane Schuler on anniversary of tragedy

News that Schuler's family was offered $100,000 by a movie company left the kin of Michael Bastardi, 81, Guy Bastardi, 49 and Daniel Longo, 74, disgusted on the first anniversary of the disaster.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/201...y-exhumed-diane-schuler-taconic-state-parkway



The families of Guy and Michael Bastardi and Daniel Longo erected a memorial.

 

[Fairy1]

There are, and never will be, any winners in this case. Daniel is, and probably always has been, a loser. I sincerely hope he will not make his surviving son more of a victim than he already is.

IMO, all of the survivors, somehow, need to find a way to move on. NONE of them were there nor were they responsible for what happened. Diane, solely, was responsible and she is dead. She is DEAD. What more could anyone ask of a killer?

 

[arielilane]

I do not wish for her dead. I wished she had received help.

 

[Fairy1]

I do not wish for her dead. I wished she had received help.

Me too. But that's not what happened and there is no taking back what did happen. Diane IS dead.

I just don't understand the need some people have to make Daniel pay for Diane's fatal mistake. I understand the need to make someone pay. But she did pay the ultimate price for HER OWN decisions that day.

Daniel should really just shut up and get on with his life. Nothing will bring back those killed that day and the ONE person responsible for this tragedy is already gone.

I just don't understand the desire to make anyone else pay for the decisions made by another. The blame has been, rightfully, assigned to the person responsible for the tragedy that occurred that day. What more is there? What does Daniel possibly stand to gain from suing anyone in his obviously feeble attempt to clear Diane's name? Nothing.

What a tragic shame - all around. I honestly cannot imagine one family having to deal with so much pain. But, again, nothing will ever change it and it will never really be okay for any of those left behind.

IMO, everyone who suffered losses that day need to find a way to move on - without pointing fingers or filing lawsuits. NOTHING any of them do will bring back their loved ones.

 

[deelytful1]

See, this is what i don't understand...
HOW would her husband EVER be legally liable unless he was pouring her drinks and put her behind the wheel?
That being said, WHAT good did it do him to so emphatically protect her, then and now?
I read the previous posts but it is so elusive .. I'm so confused.
Our society is getting out of control with people constantly feeling the need to negate any kind of guilt and not accept any kind of blame / BUT we are also becoming a society where everyone feels the need to place blame on someone so we always have the need to negate blame and to cover our a$$e$
Make sense??? Who wins?? THE LAWYERS WHO GET 33% of everything!!

 

[tiredblondy]

Daniel Longo in a family picture.

The casket of Daniel Longo being borne into church. (Seth Harrison/The Journal News)

Three sisters Emma, Kate, and Alyson were killed by a drunk driver…their aunt. Also, killed (not pictured) was the drunk driver’s daughter and the drunk driver’s son was critically injured.


Guy Bastardi



Michael Bastardi

Drunk and stoned driver’s daughter killed in crash

Remembering the lives that were lost.

I thought this might be a good time to bump this up.

 

[Marie]

I get what you mean about Daniel not being the monster who killed all those people. He certainly isn't at all guilty of that. When one thinks logically about the situation, as you've outlined so well, it makes sense to not blame him.

My own gut tells me that he is a spineless wimp whose outrageous denials and appalling actions are torturing the family and friends of those people his wife killed. I can't muster up much sympathy for him and I find the very idea of him suing Diane's brother to be evil.

Fyi, for everyone - The documentary makes it clear that Daniel isn't the main caregiver to his son - it's his sister Jay. It was stated that the boy stays with Jay 3 to 4 days during the week and also on the weekends - this is explained as being because Daniel works a night shift, the boy attends school and therapies and, it's assumed, Daniel must also sleep. Jay also strongly suggested that Daniel is verbally abusive and impatient with his son.

It's difficult to adequately express Daniel's odd demenor on the documentary. His eyes and expression appear disengaged, his face is jaw-clenched angry and tight-lipped defensive, and his vocals sound both childish and dull-witted. Jay was his mouth-piece in the film. His personality (as portrayed in the film imho) is extremely off-putting and so are the personality traits attributed towards Diane.

Right. And if Daniel had dumped his surviving kid on his grieving sister and her husband (ETA I should have said brother-in-law; Mr. Hance was Diane's brother, right?), we'd all be applauding his selflessness! I think not.

I understand that Daniel Schuler was immature and less than a perfect husband, but he's the man Diane chose to marry and have children with. He has lost his wife and daughter and has been treated as if HE were a mass murderer by the Hances and, if this thread is any indication, the general public.

The guy may be in denial and he may be lousy at expressing his feelings or encouraging his son to be more open, but I fail to understand the depth of the anger against him. Even if he contributed to Diane's problems, he had no way of predicting the outcome.

Bottom line: he hasn't abandoned his kid and he hasn't trashed his dead wife.

***

Re posters finding it odd that Mr. Hance jumped into his car rather than calling 911: it was tragically foolish but I don't find it hard to understand as a "guy thing." Like refusing to ask directions, many men's first instinct is to "take care of the problem" themselves. (ETA asking for help is a sign of weakness to some.)

***

ETA the lawsuits. Schuler has spent tens of thousands of dollars trying to exonerate his dead wife. The latest lawsuits may be a new attempt to pay for that effort. Which may make him Don Quixote tilting at windmills, I realize; but it doesn't make him Satan.

 

[Marie]

The lawsuit is claiming that the van wasn't working properly - which means that the auto insurance or auto manufacturer might end up having to or choosing to fork over some $$ to Daniel. Many times insurance companies will settle rather that continue to fight because it's more cost effective. Same thing for his claim that the road signs weren't right - he's hoping that the city insurance will pay up.

Imho, if Diane is innocent (her reputation protected by Daniel) then Daniel gets money and he needs money to support the lifestyle he had while Diane was alive and the main breadwinner for the family and also for the therapies his son now needs. I also believe that his sister Jay honestly finds it *very* hard to believe that the Diane she knew murdered all those people by choosing to get drunk and high while driving and she is also very loyal to her brother, she wants to make it better for him.

See, this is what i don't understand...
HOW would her husband EVER be legally liable unless he was pouring her drinks and put her behind the wheel?
That being said, WHAT good did it do him to so emphatically protect her, then and now?
I read the previous posts but it is so elusive .. I'm so confused.
Our society is getting out of control with people constantly feeling the need to negate any kind of guilt and not accept any kind of blame / BUT we are also becoming a society where everyone feels the need to place blame on someone so we always have the need to negate blame and to cover our a$$e$
Make sense??? Who wins?? THE LAWYERS WHO GET 33% of everything!!

 

[Marie]

http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/re...es-theres-something-wrong-with-aunt-diane.php

This film review web site gives "There's Something Wrong With Aunt Diane" a D+. A couple of telling quotes from the review include:

***"It’s a manufactured mystery"

I really liked the docu. Imo it wasn't at all trying to portray itself as a mystery, simply a telling of a story.

"it ultimately tells the story of people who are unable to cope with the mistakes of someone they love."

Yes, this is true.

"a muddled retelling of an already-complex story that never finds its center, spends too much time trying to prove that its central figure really was a good person (although it gets respect for interviewing the family of two of the men who were killed in the crash), and filling the rest with contextless shots of the locations and talking heads who have absolutely nothing to do with the event."

I don't think it was muddled, in fact I thought it a was straight forward, step by step story of what happened and of what the people involved (& willing or able to appear in the film) were thinking. 3/4 through was tiring to me because it was physically and mentally frustrating that Daniel and Jay DID NOT GET IT! (that's what I felt like screaming at them, lol).

I think someone said the show had graphic pix of a deceased Diane? She just looked dead to me; there wasn't any blood or gaping wounds, just a slack- faced dead person sprawled on the ground. I did notice a few burn marks or scrapes on her arm and it was shocking how there was no warning of what I'd see - it was very matter of fact.

 

[Hopeful One]

I haven't read all of the most recent posts but I finally watched the documentary last night and those last images are highly disturbing, even for me and I've seen a lot of death photos. I can't get them out of my mind.

I'm pretty much of the belief too that Diane was secretely drinking and smoking just to get through her days. Why she decided to do it this day though is what has me shaking my head. I just don't understand why she chose to put her kids and her nieces in danger like that.

For Daniel to say that she's angry at Diane for leaving him a single parent and that SHE was the one who wanted kids, not him, really pisses me off. Doesn't he realize that Bryan will grow up and probably watch this documentary one day?? How will he feel when he knows that the man who raised him never wanted him???

 

[BOZGAL]

DS was intoxicated from alcohol and pot.
PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

Dysfunction junction does not enter into this tragedy for me because she made the decision to drive intoxicated.

jmho

 

[robinparten]

I am curious as to why we have never gotten more information on that long phone call. Who was it and what was discussed so long? Why hasn't that made it to the public?

 

[Nova]

Sorry Nova, I have yet to conquer the quote feature...

Thank you for your response. To break up a quote as you did, just do the following:

(quote)text(/quote)

But substitute brackets for parentheses.

Right. And if Daniel had dumped his surviving kid on his grieving sister and her husband (ETA I should have said brother-in-law; Mr. Hance was Diane's brother, right?), we'd all be applauding his selflessness! I think not.

I would not fault him if he was man enough to say he was incapable of taking care of his child and asked for help.

When you watch this film, you'll see it’s the SIL, Jay, who appears to be the one who takes care of Bryan mostly, and has gotten Bryan the much needed professional help. Jay does speak ill of Daniel - she mentions his laziness, the lack of caring for this surviving child, and his constant claims of how hard his life is, when she says all he does is drop his child at day care in the morning, sit around all day, and then works in the evening at a less than demanding job. Jay also says that Daniel's family has had it up to here (insert hand going up to top of head) with him, and she's the only one left to help him, and she's growing weary of it.

I believe you that you wouldn't criticize him, but most people would. This board would be full of outraged posts lambasting him for neglecting his kid. (Just as it is now.)

I did see the film and then came here and read the New York magazine article. That is my knowledge of the case. I'm sure caring for Bryan every night while Daniel works has worn on Jay and I don't blame her for feeling that Daniel should get a job which overlaps with Bryan's daycare so that father and son can spend evenings together. (To be fair to her, this isn't exactly what she said. I'm not faulting her; she obviously loves the boy, but he isn't her son.)

I understand that Daniel Schuler was immature and less than a perfect husband, but he's the man Diane chose to marry and have children with. He has lost his wife and daughter and has been treated as if HE were a mass murderer by the Hances and, if this thread is any indication, the general public.

I don't recall anything that noted the Hance's treated him like a mass murder - can you let me know where you found this? Me, I don't think he's a mass murder, just a lying jerk.

I was referring to the posts on this thread. A reader might think Daniel Shuler was Casey Anthony or something.

The guy may be in denial and he may be lousy at expressing his feelings or encouraging his son to be more open, but I fail to understand the depth of the anger against him. Even if he contributed to Diane's problems, he had no way of predicting the outcome.

My "anger" directed at Daniel is because he has lied about facts in this case. Blatent lies that support his interests alone. When your wife kills seven innocent people, in a horric drunk driving and pot related accident, call me crazy but LE, the victim's families, and the general public deserve the truth.

I don't know what lies you are referring to. He may well be deep in denial, but no "blatant lies" were itemized by either source I read or saw. If he were such a liar, I don't know why he would continue to spend money he can't afford to exonerate his wife.

Bottom line: he hasn't abandoned his kid and he hasn't trashed his dead wife.

There is nothing wrong with loving your wife, regardless of what she has done. But recreating her, as someone who did nothing wrong, in the face of such tragedy, is not admirable to me at all.

Maybe not admirable, but understandable and worthy of our sympathy.

Why is it so hard to believe that Daniel Schuler knew nothing of his wife's drinking. Vodka is famously the choice of those who want to conceal the smell of alcohol. The Schulers worked opposite schedules and basically just spent weekends together. And, by all accounts, Daniel wasn't the most aware of husbands.

I should have written "Bottom line: Daniel wasn't driving the car."

 

[Nova]

http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/re...es-theres-something-wrong-with-aunt-diane.php

This film review web site gives "There's Something Wrong With Aunt Diane" a D+. A couple of telling quotes from the review include:

***"It’s a manufactured mystery"

"it ultimately tells the story of people who are unable to cope with the mistakes of someone they love."

"a muddled retelling of an already-complex story that never finds its center, spends too much time trying to prove that its central figure really was a good person (although it gets respect for interviewing the family of two of the men who were killed in the crash), and filling the rest with contextless shots of the locations and talking heads who have absolutely nothing to do with the event."

The reviewer never explains how one goes about probing the psyche of Diane Schuler WITHOUT using forensic psychologists, since Ms. Schuler never talked to anyone about her problems.

I think D+ is too harsh. The film attempts to show how a woman who seemed totally in control to her closest loved ones could turn out to be so totally out of control.

The Hances, as was their right, refused to speak with the filmmakers. But that left the director with Daniel and Jay, Diane's co-workers, all of whom said they had never (or rarely) seen Diane drink. So the director went back to Diane's childhood friends for testimony about the departure of her mother and Diane's inability to cope with surprise and mess. (It is the friends who tell the camera that the mother ran off with a neighbor. Nobody in Diane's family seems willing to say.)

So I'm sorry the reviewer didn't like the subjects who speak on camera, but what substitutes did the director have?

 

[Nova]

Families fight over planned HBO film of Taconic death driver Diane Schuler on anniversary of tragedy

News that Schuler's family was offered $100,000 by a movie company left the kin of Michael Bastardi, 81, Guy Bastardi, 49 and Daniel Longo, 74, disgusted on the first anniversary of the disaster.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/201...y-exhumed-diane-schuler-taconic-state-parkway



The families of Guy and Michael Bastardi and Daniel Longo erected a memorial.

I think it's important to note that per Schuler's lawyer, any proceeds received from the film will go into trust for the Schulers' surviving son.

 

[Nova]

The lawsuit is claiming that the van wasn't working properly - which means that the auto insurance or auto manufacturer might end up having to or choosing to fork over some $$ to Daniel. Many times insurance companies will settle rather that continue to fight because it's more cost effective. Same thing for his claim that the road signs weren't right - he's hoping that the city insurance will pay up.

Imho, if Diane is innocent (her reputation protected by Daniel) then Daniel gets money and he needs money to support the lifestyle he had while Diane was alive and the main breadwinner for the family and also for the therapies his son now needs. I also believe that his sister Jay honestly finds it *very* hard to believe that the Diane she knew murdered all those people by choosing to get drunk and high while driving and she is also very loyal to her brother, she wants to make it better for him.

I am not a lawyer, so this is total speculation: I wonder if those lawsuits are part of Daniel's attempts to get Diane's body exhumed and re-autopsied.

According to news links, the filmmakers planned to pay for the exhumation, but in the movie, it is said that Schuler ran into legal difficulties and the body was never exhumed.

A trial court might be able to order a second autopsy.

 

[Hopeful One]

Re: Daniel truly not knowing of Diane's drinking - I think that is entirely possible. It truly CAN be hidden. Especially if they had different work schedules and whatnot. I know of people, even on this board, who were able to keep an addiction from a spouse. It's not a far-fetched notion at all. In fact, I would gander to say (I can't believe I just typed the word 'gander'!!!) it happens quite often.

 

[Melanie]

See, this is what i don't understand...
HOW would her husband EVER be legally liable unless he was pouring her drinks and put her behind the wheel?
That being said, WHAT good did it do him to so emphatically protect her, then and now?
I read the previous posts but it is so elusive .. I'm so confused.
Our society is getting out of control with people constantly feeling the need to negate any kind of guilt and not accept any kind of blame / BUT we are also becoming a society where everyone feels the need to place blame on someone so we always have the need to negate blame and to cover our a$$e$
Make sense??? Who wins?? THE LAWYERS WHO GET 33% of everything!!

I don't get it either. When the lawsuit was announced on tv, I just sat there shaking my head. I'm still waiting to hear the WHY? Why is he suing anybody. Why can't he accept that his wife got sloshed and killed all those people.

Why can't anyone take accountablility for this horrific accident and place the blame where it should be - on the driver. Not the roads, or whatever Gawd Knows What.

Heaven forbid anyone is held responsible for their actions. I was miffed to read this on TMZ today:

Jalen Rose's lawyer is LASHING OUT at the Michigan judge who just sentenced the former NBA star to serve 20 days in jail for his March DUI ... claiming the sentence is an "abuse of discretion."

Wah? Huh? 20 days!! My gosh, you would have thought his world just ended.

WTH is wrong with this world!!!

MOO

Mel

 

[Nova]

Aren't you comparing apples and oranges, Mel? The perpetrator in the Taconic crash is dead; she can't do anything more to "take responsibility."

As for her husband, many may think he needs to wake up and accept who his wife really was, but I've seen no evidence that he was responsible for the crash.

 

[zippitydoda]

I think it's important to note that per Schuler's lawyer, any proceeds received from the film will go into trust for the Schulers' surviving son.

Hi Nova! I swear I'm not nit picking...

This quote is a year old, and Mr. Shuler's former attorney, Dominic Barbara, who made this statement, was suspended from practicing law in February 2011, for 18 months after the appellate court found him guilty of professional misconduct (not related to this case).

http://www.longislandpress.com/2011/02/11/noted-attorney-dominic-barbara-suspended/