8 Die in Crash on Taconic State Parkway #2

[twinkiesmom]

When I say intentional, I mean I think she made a conscious decision after 1:15pm. I just can't get past the facts of her apparently doing a u-turn back onto the Taconic (the wrong way) and going from driving recklessly to driving precisely in that last 15-20 minutes. And as much as the abandoned cell phone could have been a careless mistake, it also fits my theory.

I do not necessarily think she left the campground with that intention, but that she was 1) angry about something and got carried away with her drinking or 2) did this kind of thing more often than people think and finally paid the price or 3) some combination therein and it happened to be the day when she hit her breaking point or snapped or 4) something disturbing was said to her in those Hance calls and she make a conscious decision to end it all.

From what I've read about addictive and suicidal behaviors, it could have been more a split-second choice than we might assume -- especially for someone so tightly wound who consumed that volume of drink and drugs.

The one possibility I haven't seen bandied about is that Diane got a bad batch of weed and was hallucinating. The weed was smoked or otherwise consumed within an hour of her death.

 

[rpd113]

The one possibility I haven't seen bandied about is that Diane got a bad batch of weed and was hallucinating. The weed was smoked or otherwise consumed within an hour of her death.

That could possibly explain the seemingly abrupt change in behavior and driving style.

But we already know she was acting recklessly independent of the weed (erratic driving, extreme drinking).

And I would have to assume she got her weed regularly from the same person if she smoked it almost daily.

 

[southcitymom]

The one possibility I haven't seen bandied about is that Diane got a bad batch of weed and was hallucinating. The weed was smoked or otherwise consumed within an hour of her death.

For me, a bad batch of weed doesn't pass the test because I am sure she smoked from that same batch that weekend. She would have known prior to a trip home with 5 children that it was laced. Also, she was a regular smoker - so I'll bet her supply was clean...trusted....she wasn't some school kid going to score in unfamiliar places from unfamiliar people - MOO>

She smoked because she felt nauseated - either from partying the night before, drinking the morning of or both.

 

[Nova]

I don't understand why you are still questioning their motives. They want the truth even though it will cost them more pain going through these suits. They want to know why even if it is a long shot getting answers. Whatever money they get is not going to provide comfort.

If they had not sued first, they would still be defending against Danny's suits. It's a moot point. Danny's going to try to make everyone else pay rather than Diane.

I agree with Mama-cita that Daniel will not be able to hold up on cross.

As far as I'm concerned, he fired the first shot by hiring Barbera and holding the press conferences and going on Larry King and making the doco. Everything that follows now is pure karma. He's already starting to reap the whirlwind with Barbera (allegedly) taking the life insurance proceeds.

I'm not accusing the Bastardis or anyone else of having nefarious motives or behaving inappropriately. In fact, through most of this thread, I have defended all of the survivors (including Dan).

But my memory of the doc is that some of the Bastardi survivors complained rather bitterly that Dan's "search for the truth" offended them and prevented them from obtaining closure. (Feel free to tell me if my memory is incorrect, but I can't be remembering the Hances: they didn't appear in the doc.)

There is quite a contradiction in complaining about Dan's "search for the truth" while filing a lawsuit to further your own "search for the truth." So I think it's entirely fair to wonder whether they have other motives. Having other motives doesn't necessarily mean those motives are wrong.

Dan Schuler has been charged with no crime; he hasn't even been named a suspect. Yet we have page after page of posts questioning his behavior, his motives and apparent contradictions in his statements. Why do different rules apply to the other survivors? All I'm saying is that there seems to be a contradiction between the words and actions of the Bastardis.

 

[Nova]

When I say intentional, I mean I think she made a conscious decision after 1:15pm. I just can't get past the facts of her apparently doing a u-turn back onto the Taconic (the wrong way) and going from driving recklessly to driving precisely in that last 15-20 minutes. And as much as the abandoned cell phone could have been a careless mistake, it also fits my theory.

I do not necessarily think she left the campground with that intention, but that she was 1) angry about something and got carried away with her drinking or 2) did this kind of thing more often than people think and finally paid the price or 3) some combination therein and it happened to be the day when she hit her breaking point or snapped or 4) something disturbing was said to her in those Hance calls and she made a conscious decision to end it all.

From what I've read about addictive and suicidal behaviors, it could have been more a split-second choice than we might assume -- especially for someone so tightly wound who consumed that volume of drink and drugs.

You may well be right. I know that all too many parents take their children with them when they commit suicide, but I think making a conscious decision to kill your three nieces is something quite different. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, I just don't see any indication that Diane would have made such a decision.

(Of course, that isn't to defend decisions we know she did make, such as to drive while drinking.)

The change in reported driving patterns may stem from the difference between being stuck behind slower traffic (and expressing her frustration) and heading toward oncoming traffic, where drivers were quicker to get out of her way.

 

[Nova]

We don't know whether they would have sued if Danny had just accepted the toxicology reports. They seem to be saying they would not have, though it's hard for me to believe they wouldn't have made a (rightful) claim on Diane's estate.

But now that Danny made his publicity blitz, the genie isn't going back in the bottle. May as well pull the scabs all the way off and "discover the truth" if at all possible.

Quite possible. Personally I thought the "Dan is preventing our closure" remark was bull. They may have believed it when they said it, but it was no less a crock. They were deeply hurt and looking for a focus for their very understandable hurt and anger.

I think all the "search for the truth" claims are similarly bogus. What people (Dan and Jay or the Bastardis) really want is something other than the current story. Dan and Jay want to find something that mitigates Diane's negligence; the Bastardis want to insure that their grievance isn't somehow minimized by claims that Diane couldn't help herself.

Both are perfectly understandable aims, in my view, but nobody is spending time and money in search of some sort of abstract ideal of "truth".

 

[southcitymom]

Nova, I love that when I miss you, I can just come to this thread and find you!

 

[deelytful1]

Michael Bastardi Jr., who lost his father and brother in the crash, said Tuesday that Daniel Schuler is blaming "everything and everyone except his wife."

"He's just avoiding the true reasons on why this all happened," the younger Bastardi said. "It's pathetic and it's an insult to all of us."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation...htm?AID=4992781&PID=4169795&SID=1x9ztmukxryha

BBM

.... AND that's THE BOTTOM LINE!

 

[twinkiesmom]

Quite possible. Personally I thought the "Dan is preventing our closure" remark was bull. They may have believed it when they said it, but it was no less a crock. They were deeply hurt and looking for a focus for their very understandable hurt and anger.

I think all the "search for the truth" claims are similarly bogus. What people (Dan and Jay or the Bastardis) really want is something other than the current story. Dan and Jay want to find something that mitigates Diane's negligence; the Bastardis want to insure that their grievance isn't somehow minimized by claims that Diane couldn't help herself.

Both are perfectly understandable aims, in my view, but nobody is spending time and money in search of some sort of abstract ideal of "truth".

Maybe you don't place a high value on absolute truth, but I do, and I suspect the Bastardis do as well.

 

[Nova]

Nova, I love that when I miss you, I can just come to this thread and find you!

Oops! Perhaps I've overshared on this topic. :blushing:

 

[Nova]

Michael Bastardi Jr., who lost his father and brother in the crash, said Tuesday that Daniel Schuler is blaming "everything and everyone except his wife."

"He's just avoiding the true reasons on why this all happened," the younger Bastardi said. "It's pathetic and it's an insult to all of us."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation...htm?AID=4992781&PID=4169795&SID=1x9ztmukxryha

BBM

.... AND that's THE BOTTOM LINE!

Which is it? Pathetic or an insult? If someone is to be pitied, then why would I find them insulting?

In the very understandable pain following such a terrible crash, the survivors are using language very carelessly. I'm not blaming them for it, but I think we should be slow to take every remark literally.

 

[Nova]

Maybe you don't place a high value on absolute truth, but I do, and I suspect the Bastardis do as well.

I take your word for your motivation, but if the Bastardis really cared about truth, they wouldn't be complaining that Dan wants additional investigation.

 

[twinkiesmom]

Which is it? Pathetic or an insult? If someone is to be pitied, then why would I find them insulting?

In the very understandable pain following such a terrible crash, the survivors are using language very carelessly. I'm not blaming them for it, but I think we should be slow to take every remark literally.

It sounds to me like you are the one parsing their statements unnecessarily when they are meant to be taken at face value.

It makes perfect sense to me why they would find his remarks both pathetic AND insulting.

 

[twinkiesmom]

I take your word for your motivation, but if the Bastardis really cared about truth, they wouldn't be complaining that Dan wants additional investigation.

Hiring a lawyer like Barbera does not bode well for the truth for being found....They are not afraid of additional investigation but rather obfuscation.

 

[Nova]

Hiring a lawyer like Barbera does not bode well for the truth for being found....They are not afraid of additional investigation but rather obfuscation.

And a second autopsy would obfuscate how?

I'm not going to defend Barbera (particularly not with what we know now). But I don't know what choices of representation Dan Schuler had after the crash. Maybe Barbera seemed best able to handle the flood of media interest because he had dealt with high-profile cases before.

At the end of the day, Dan Schuler is also a victim here. He lost his wife and his daughter, and his son was badly injured. But there's a suggestion in many posts and in the public statements of the Bastardis that Dan is somehow also the perpetrator. And that is wrong.

 

[twinkiesmom]

And a second autopsy would obfuscate how?

I can imagine a scenario in which a shady freelance coroner finds an ingrown toenail responsible for the excruciating pain that could only be numbed by 10 shots of vodka.

I'm not going to defend Barbera (particularly not with what we know now). But I don't know what choices of representation Dan Schuler had after the crash. Maybe Barbera seemed best able to handle the flood of media interest because he had dealt with high-profile cases before.

Are you saying they couldn't find an honorable attorney in the NY metro area?

At the end of the day, Dan Schuler is also a victim here. He lost his wife and his daughter, and his son was badly injured. But there's a suggestion in many posts and in the public statements of the Bastardis that Dan is somehow also the perpetrator. And that is wrong.

No one has accused Dan of perpetrating this crime...but some in this case have been victimized by both Diane and Dan Schuler, one with actions and one with words.

 

[Mama-cita]

I can imagine a scenario in which a shady freelance coroner finds an ingrown toenail responsible for the excruciating pain that could only be numbed by 10 shots of vodka.

Are you saying they couldn't find an honorable attorney in the NY metro area?

No one has accused Dan of perpetrating this crime...but some in this case have been victimized by both Diane and Dan Schuler, one with actions and one with words.

Wow TM, the bolded part is just spot on, IMO. I agree about a shady coroner looking to get into the spotlight, willing to say anything if the price is right. Maybe she was getting her period? And it was Premenstrual Psychosis? Who knows what people will say. I think the fact that Daniel makes her out to be PERFECT is both pathetic AND insulting. One of the definitions of pathetic is "miserably or contemptibly inadequate" and I think that is what Mike Jr. was intimating when he said Danny's actions and words were BOTH pathetic and insulting. Pathetic doesn't always mean evoking pity. I think it depends on the context. IMO, MOO, and all that jazz...

 

[Fairy1]

I'm not accusing the Bastardis or anyone else of having nefarious motives or behaving inappropriately. In fact, through most of this thread, I have defended all of the survivors (including Dan).

But my memory of the doc is that some of the Bastardi survivors complained rather bitterly that Dan's "search for the truth" offended them and prevented them from obtaining closure. (Feel free to tell me if my memory is incorrect, but I can't be remembering the Hances: they didn't appear in the doc.)

There is quite a contradiction in complaining about Dan's "search for the truth" while filing a lawsuit to further your own "search for the truth." So I think it's entirely fair to wonder whether they have other motives. Having other motives doesn't necessarily mean those motives are wrong.

Dan Schuler has been charged with no crime; he hasn't even been named a suspect. Yet we have page after page of posts questioning his behavior, his motives and apparent contradictions in his statements. Why do different rules apply to the other survivors? All I'm saying is that there seems to be a contradiction between the words and actions of the Bastardis.

Indeed. And thank you, Nova.

I have no desire to question the motives of ANY of the survivors. Yet I do wish all of their hearts would be more open to their shared grief rather than how they can benefit financially.

 

[deelytful1]

Which is it? Pathetic or an insult? If someone is to be pitied, then why would I find them insulting?

In the very understandable pain following such a terrible crash, the survivors are using language very carelessly. I'm not blaming them for it, but I think we should be slow to take every remark literally.

:lol: semantics Nova.
The premise of the statement and reason for posting was that Dan is blaming everyone and everything except the person responsible for the tragedy. How convenient you chose to ignore that part.
Also, I choose to take their remark literally. DS is a pathetic man and its an insult to the victims that he is not accepting his wife was solely responsible. Further insult that he is now suing the victims as well as the State of NY... No matter WHO sued first. IMO

 

[Nova]

I can imagine a scenario in which a shady freelance coroner finds an ingrown toenail responsible for the excruciating pain that could only be numbed by 10 shots of vodka.

So just because you can imagine info being misused, Dan isn't allowed to ask for additional info? But meanwhile, the Bastardis are to be praised for their search for additional truth?

This is at best a double standard and at worst makes no sense at all.

Are you saying they couldn't find an honorable attorney in the NY metro area?

I'm saying I wasn't there, but Barbera has experience that may have seemed important to Dan when he chose his first attorney after the crash. Whether Barbera is honorable or not is a value judgment you are making, but which may have not been obvious to Dan at the time.

No one has accused Dan of perpetrating this crime...but some in this case have been victimized by both Diane and Dan Schuler, one with actions and one with words.

BBM: That's not just careless use of language; the gross unfairness of equating Dan's and Diane's conduct is everything that is wrong with this discussion.