8 Die in Crash on Taconic State Parkway #2

[Nova]

: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

I ignored nothing. If Dan is indeed "blaming everyone and everything except the person responsible", then we should pity him. And if he's pitiful, then it's silly for anyone to find him insulting.

All the victims are suing one another. Dan isn't special in that regard; as you point out, he wasn't even first.

This thread has only convinced me that many posters, and probably some of the other victims, are blaming Dan for the actions of his wife. Yes, they invent other excuses to castigate Dan, but that's the bottom line: Diane isn't here to stand trial, so Dan must be punished instead.

 

[deelytful1]

Off Topic: But it IS a discussion and colorful use of similes, metaphors and analogies allows a person to get their point across visually and emotionally. Taking it so literally would be like writing a college thesis and not a forum for honest debate and "opinions". It wouldn't be at all entertaining either.
Words are a wonderful thing but even the strength of a "literal" word or sentence will have different weight depending on the person, their knowledge, exposure to the word, etc. IMO

On topic: I think the constant arrogance of Dan Schuler and his lack of remorse (seemingly) DOES victimize the families of the deceased. IMO
I'm sure all they've wanted from the beginning is his sincere condolences...

 

[Nova]

Off Topic: But it IS a discussion and colorful use of similes, metaphors and analogies allows a person to get their point across visually and emotionally. Taking it so literally would be like writing a college thesis and not a forum for honest debate and "opinions". It wouldn't be at all entertaining either.
Words are a wonderful thing but even the strength of a "literal" word or sentence will have different weight depending on the person, their knowledge, exposure to the word, etc. IMO

On topic: I think the constant arrogance of Dan Schuler and his lack of remorse (seemingly) DOES victimize the families of the deceased. IMO
I'm sure all they've wanted from the beginning is his sincere condolences...

BBM: I understand what you (and even more so, the victims) would like to see, but I think you're asking Dan Schuler to be someone other than who he is and he's not that good an actor. Throughout the documentary he shows very little affect; he simply doesn't seem to be demonstrative. It might be nice if he were otherwise, but I don't think he has those skills. That doesn't make him arrogant or the villain here.

 

[rpd113]

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?

Perhaps I'm being unfair to Danny/Jay, but I see that as two different things.

Danny and Jay are searching for "the truth" about what happened. They don't believe Diane knowingly got drunk and high and are hell bent on finding another explanation.

The Bastardis, on the other hand, are clear on what happened -- Diane knowingly got drunk and high, for whatever reason. They want that accepted as fact and to do so are searching for "the truth" about why she did what she did.

If Danny had just accepted the toxicology report, I still think the Bastardis would have -- and should have -- sued, but there would have been no need to go public with their search for "the truth."

 

[rpd113]

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.

Perhaps. But if she was driving erratically on the Taconic with traffic, and then turned around and drove "pin straight" against traffic, that strikes me as conscious behavior that's inconsistent with the stroke or blackout theories.

 

[nosysw]

Not trying to be Freudian here but I think the whole issue goes to ego...Daniel needs to prove that the accident was not Diane's fault because otherwise it may indicate many negative things about him. Is he responsible? Probably not...but...there are a lot of what ifs...Maybe Dan drank a lot more than Diane so, to him, she is not a drinker, he is. So, maybe they both were drinking and smoking but him being the bigger drinker, he really doesn't see anything out of the ordinary with the amount she consumes (which he probably would have no idea of anyway)...maybe he drove home half bagged and really would have no idea of how she "seemed"...but isn't it so that you can be held legally responsible for someone leaving your home* intoxicated and then getting into an accident? I believe it is...so maybe in retrospect he is not so sure how she seemed and worries that he could somehow be held accountable.
Also, he doesn't want to seem to be what he seems to be...a husband who maybe really didn't know much about what was going on in his wife's life. Who didn't really know the pressure she was under and his part it in...Again, is he responsible, probably not, but could he have prevented it, not necessarily but possibly through different choices that day, but in the years, months, weeks, days, leading up to it. And then, there's that Thursday night thing...if they are fighting about whatever this was I bet it's not the first time. So, who knows how she's reacted before? (Daniel)...Maybe she's not an everyday drinker but at some points in time goes on a binge in reaction to something. He would know that and maybe now question why he didn't think out the morning and travel arrangements more carefully...Guilt is a huge piece in the puzzle of denial...Is Daniel responsible? Maybe not legally but ethically quite possibly...I was married to an alcoholic who also like to smoke pot...I would not let him drive my child anywhere after imbibing in either of those substances. So, maybe he feels he should have known better. As another poster said, maybe they were up all night and she was still under the influence...maybe he was, too.

I feel his defense of her is not really about her. He is defending his own ego...

ETA: I know they weren't home, but the legal implication could be similar...

 

[Nova]

Not trying to be Freudian here but I think the whole issue goes to ego...

I don't think you are over-analyzing this. We all tend to define ourselves at least in part based on our closest associates. From Scott Peterson's parents to women who marry serial killers, people often have trouble accepting that their loved ones have done something monstrous.

But this is why Dan Schuler is "more to be pitied than censured", as the phrase once went.

Furthermore, it wouldn't surprise me if Dan has been strongly cautioned against saying things that might seem to admit liability (including, perhaps, the sorts of admissions the other victims would like to hear). This is an unfortunate byproduct of the litigation process and not unique to Dan Schuler.

 

[nosysw]

I am completely ready for the bullets to start flying...but I feel sorrier for Diane than Dan...I know, I know, she was an adult who did something completely unforgivable which impacted countless lives...but I find her whole story to be pitiful... and I think, somehow, everything came to a head and she just had a break (be it alcoholic, drug induced, whatever) and did this terrible thing. She may have been consumed by rage (and I think she was) but something fueled that rage to the point that she could not deny the compulsion to do something completely drastic...I don't know if she envisioned the consequences but I do feel she had an irresistable compulsion to do it.

Unfortunately, probably from issues in my own life, I have little patience for narcissists...and for me it boils down to this. Daniel's whining (and I will give a little leeway due to editing and agree with what you say about what Daniel may have been advised not to say) just comes down to the typical narcissistic "Poor me...How rough I've had it. I didn't ask for kids, I didn't ask for any of this, I just wanted someone to take care of everything for me. Poor me." Harsh? Maybe, but that's just the vibe I got.

 

[Nova]

I am completely ready for the bullets to start flying...but I feel sorrier for Diane than Dan...I know, I know, she was an adult who did something completely unforgivable which impacted countless lives...but I find her whole story to be pitiful... and I think, somehow, everything came to a head and she just had a break (be it alcoholic, drug induced, whatever) and did this terrible thing. She may have been consumed by rage (and I think she was) but something fueled that rage to the point that she could not deny the compulsion to do something completely drastic...I don't know if she envisioned the consequences but I do feel she had an irresistable compulsion to do it.

Unfortunately, probably from issues in my own life, I have little patience for narcissists...and for me it boils down to this. Daniel's whining (and I will give a little leeway due to editing and agree with what you say about what Daniel may have been advised not to say) just comes down to the typical narcissistic "Poor me...How rough I've had it. I didn't ask for kids, I didn't ask for any of this, I just wanted someone to take care of everything for me. Poor me." Harsh? Maybe, but that's just the vibe I got.

I agree that we can have compassion for Diane Schuler because she was apparently a deeply unhappy woman in many ways, and at the same time soundly condemn her for drinking and driving.

As for Dan, throwing yourself an extended pity party isn't necessarily the same as narcissism, but I see your point.

Nonetheless, I think we should recognize the possibility that Dan too feels trapped by his inability to get what he believes to be full information. Maybe Dan feels as the Bastardis do, that closure is denied him because he can't get the answers he thinks he needs. He may well be totally delusional, but I still say we should pity him for that rather than condemn him.

 

[twinkiesmom]

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.

No one said they were equal....you're putting your own spin on my words. That's pretty careless use of language.

 

[nosysw]

I agree that we can have compassion for Diane Schuler because she was apparently a deeply unhappy woman in many ways, and at the same time soundly condemn her for drinking and driving.

As for Dan, throwing yourself an extended pity party isn't necessarily the same as narcissism, but I see your point.
Nonetheless, I think we should recognize the possibility that Dan too feels trapped by his inability to get what he believes to be full information. Maybe Dan feels as the Bastardis do, that closure is denied him because he can't get the answers he thinks he needs. He may well be totally delusional, but I still say we should pity him for that rather than condemn him.

Above BBM:

Agreed, but allowing your wife to be the major breadwinner while she also takes care of the kids, the house, and just about everything else is, IMO...But, I will say this, Nova...I completely appreciate and even applaud your ability to be compassionate toward him. Maybe, having been the "responsible one" with an alcoholic, irresponsible spouse for 10 years has gotten in the way of being able to do this for me. But I believe God is the one who is the final judge so I continue to strive to get to the level where I can feel compassion for all parties involved...not there yet!

 

[Nova]

No one said they were equal....you're putting your own spin on my words. That's pretty careless use of language.

Fair enough. But when you type a phrase such as "Dan and Diane are both to blame", you come very close to equating their actions, like it or not.

Given that Diane killed 8 people, including 4 children, I don't think there's any appropriate use of the phrase "Dan and Diane both...".

 

[Nova]

Above BBM:

Agreed, but allowing your wife to be the major breadwinner while she also takes care of the kids, the house, and just about everything else is, IMO...But, I will say this, Nova...I completely appreciate and even applaud your ability to be compassionate toward him. Maybe, having been the "responsible one" with an alcoholic, irresponsible spouse for 10 years has gotten in the way of being able to do this for me. But I believe God is the one who is the final judge so I continue to strive to get to the level where I can feel compassion for all parties involved...not there yet!

I'm sure Dan wasn't perfect, but he is the husband Diane chose. From what little we know of their past, it doesn't sound like Dan suddenly morphed into a different guy after the wedding vows. Surely Diane knew what she was getting.

 

[deelytful1]

Not trying to be Freudian here but I think the whole issue goes to ego...Daniel needs to prove that the accident was not Diane's fault because otherwise it may indicate many negative things about him. Is he responsible? Probably not...but...there are a lot of what ifs...Maybe Dan drank a lot more than Diane so, to him, she is not a drinker, he is. So, maybe they both were drinking and smoking but him being the bigger drinker, he really doesn't see anything out of the ordinary with the amount she consumes (which he probably would have no idea of anyway)...maybe he drove home half bagged and really would have no idea of how she "seemed"...but isn't it so that you can be held legally responsible for someone leaving your home* intoxicated and then getting into an accident? I believe it is...so maybe in retrospect he is not so sure how she seemed and worries that he could somehow be held accountable.
Also, he doesn't want to seem to be what he seems to be...a husband who maybe really didn't know much about what was going on in his wife's life. Who didn't really know the pressure she was under and his part it in...Again, is he responsible, probably not, but could he have prevented it, not necessarily but possibly through different choices that day, but in the years, months, weeks, days, leading up to it. And then, there's that Thursday night thing...if they are fighting about whatever this was I bet it's not the first time. So, who knows how she's reacted before? (Daniel)...Maybe she's not an everyday drinker but at some points in time goes on a binge in reaction to something. He would know that and maybe now question why he didn't think out the morning and travel arrangements more carefully...Guilt is a huge piece in the puzzle of denial...Is Daniel responsible? Maybe not legally but ethically quite possibly...I was married to an alcoholic who also like to smoke pot...I would not let him drive my child anywhere after imbibing in either of those substances. So, maybe he feels he should have known better. As another poster said, maybe they were up all night and she was still under the influence...maybe he was, too.

I feel his defense of her is not really about her. He is defending his own ego...

ETA: I know they weren't home, but the legal implication could be similar...

:clap: my sentiments exactly!

 

[deelytful1]

I'm sure Dan wasn't perfect, but he is the husband Diane chose. From what little we know of their past, it doesn't sound like Dan suddenly morphed into a different guy after the wedding vows. Surely Diane knew what she was getting.

I agree with u on this one! According to the documentary, she never had a (serious) boyfriend before Dan. Plus, she was used to taking care of her entire family and probably thought having to support her family... financially, mentally and physically was the norm.

 

[twinkiesmom]

Fair enough. But when you type a phrase such as "Dan and Diane are both to blame", you come very close to equating their actions, like it or not.

Given that Diane killed 8 people, including 4 children, I don't think there's any appropriate use of the phrase "Dan and Diane both...".

I didn't say they were both to blame for the accident or that they were collectively to blame. You're again putting words in my mouth. What I believe is that the families were first victimized by Diane and then further victimized by Dan. I didn't equate the level of victimization...Words do hurt but not as much as several thousand pounds of car.

 

[Saffron]

I'm sure Dan wasn't perfect, but he is the husband Diane chose. From what little we know of their past, it doesn't sound like Dan suddenly morphed into a different guy after the wedding vows. Surely Diane knew what she was getting.

(I was writing basically the same thing, but when I tried to post it, I was suddenly logged out and lost my post. I'm going to try to remember what I wrote.)

Some posts seem to be implying that Diane was a victim of Daniel in their marriage. Diane and Daniel were together for 13 years and married for 7, so they knew each other for 6 years before getting married, and were together for 8 years before having their first child. It seems that Daniel was the man Diane loved and wanted to share her life with. (And, regarding Jay saying that Daniel hadn't wanted children, it's not that unusual for someone to not want children, have them anyway [perhaps he did it for Diane], and then love the children very much. And, as I said before, he may have told that to Jay in a moment of weakness and self-pity when trying to deal with his grief and drifting in and out of "what if" type thinking as the reality of losing his wife and daughter horribly set in with each new day.)

Diane's autopsy showed no signs of alcohol abuse. Initially, police said the accident was not alcohol related and, for some reason, they were shocked when the toxicology reports came back. Daniel said that he had never seen his wife drunk. I understand why he was unable to process what the toxicology reports said in contrast to what (he thought) he knew about his wife. He couldn't comprehend that she was drinking and driving, and that she was responsible for the horror of that day. He defends Diane because he loved her, and he didn't stop loving and believing in her after the accident. I believe he was truly convinced there must have been some freak medical emergency that would explain her behavior during that drive home. (Not that I, a stranger, necessarily think that's what happened, but I can certainly understand him believing it.)

He lost his wife and baby daughter, suddenly and forever. And his three nieces. And three others lost their lives that day. I see Daniel as a victim of this horrible tragedy.

 

[Fairy1]

(I was writing basically the same thing, but when I tried to post it, I was suddenly logged out and lost my post. I'm going to try to remember what I wrote.)

Some posts seem to be implying that Diane was a victim of Daniel in their marriage. Diane and Daniel were together for 13 years and married for 7, so they knew each other for 6 years before getting married, and were together for 8 years before having their first child. It seems that Daniel was the man Diane loved and wanted to share her life with. (And, regarding Jay saying that Daniel hadn't wanted children, it's not that unusual for someone to not want children, get talked into it, and then love the children very much. And, as I said before, he may have told that to Jay in a moment of weakness and self-pity when trying to deal with his grief and drifting in and out of "what if" type thinking as the reality of losing his wife and daughter horribly set in with each new day.)

Diane's autopsy showed no signs of alcohol abuse. Initially, police said the accident was not alcohol related and, for some reason, they were shocked when the toxicology reports came back. Daniel said that he had never seen his wife drunk. I understand why he was unable to process what the toxicology reports said in contrast to what (he thought) he knew about his wife. He couldn't comprehend that she was drinking and driving, and that she was responsible for the horror of that day. He defends Diane because he loved her, and he didn't stop loving and believing in her after the accident. I believe he was truly convinced there must have been some freak medical emergency that would explain her behavior during that drive home. (Not that I, as stranger, necessarily think that's what happened, but I can certainly understand him thinking it.)

He lost his wife and baby daughter, suddenly and forever. And his three nieces. And three others lost their lives that day. I see Daniel as a victim of this horrible tragedy.

Me too, Saffron. And I don't believe Diane was a "victim" in her marriage, except for the fact that it would seem ALL the weight was on her shoulders. Maybe it just was too much.

 

[nosysw]

I'm sure Dan wasn't perfect, but he is the husband Diane chose. From what little we know of their past, it doesn't sound like Dan suddenly morphed into a different guy after the wedding vows. Surely Diane knew what she was getting.

I agree with u on this one! According to the documentary, she never had a (serious) boyfriend before Dan. Plus, she was used to taking care of her entire family and probably thought having to support her family... financially, mentally and physically was the norm.

Me too, Saffron. And I don't believe Diane was a "victim" in her marriage, except for the fact that it would seem ALL the weight was on her shoulders. Maybe it just was too much.

I think we are often predisposed to who we "choose"...I'm going to get psychoanalytic again and say it is usually one of two guys...Our father, or our father's exact opposite (IMO)...She probably did think that was the norm, and therefore it may have been comfortable for a long time...But sometimes people evolve, and (perhaps subconciously) realize that they have their own needs which aren't being met, and then it can become "too much" as Saffron said.

And if our role is the perfectionist it can be very difficult to admit (even to oneself) how unhappy one is and can lead to self-medication, secret addictions, etc...because when using those things one can "feel good" and delude themselves for a bit of time that things are "okay"...until one becomes overwhelmed again and the cycle begins again. Especially if there is a catalyst...If she binge drank on occasions when things were "too much" it wouldn't necessarily show up in an autopsy as alcohol abuse...

 

[Fairy1]

I didn't say they were both to blame for the accident or that they were collectively to blame. You're again putting words in my mouth. What I believe is that the families were first victimized by Diane and then further victimized by Dan. I didn't equate the level of victimization...Words do hurt but not as much as several thousand pounds of car.

But why? Dan hasn't killed anyone and whatever may or may not have transpired between him and Diane prior to the accident is pure speculation.

All of the survivors have pending lawsuits; for whatever reason. And all of them lost loved ones that day. Couldn't it be argued that they are all perpetuating one another's pain?

Truly, I don't understand.