8 Die in Crash on Taconic State Parkway #2

[Fairy1]

That's not true.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,538485,00.html

An obviously biased report by Fox "news" that says it MAY have been a bottle they took back and forth does not seal the deal for me. Even so, if Daniel did pack it, he couldn't have known Diane would be guzzling it on the way home while driving a van-load of babies.

We are never going to see eye-to-eye on this TM. No matter what has happened since the accident or what is to come, I don't believe any of the survivors are responsible for what happened that day. IMO, the one person responsible for this heartbreaking tragedy is gone from this world. Perhaps that is why we are all so frustrated......because no one will ever truly have the answers.

:truce:

 

[pip]

This story is so sad. I think some of the survivors are struggling with grief and moving into the anger and bargaining stage of grieving. They are grappling for alternate answers because the truth is quite unbearable. The Bastardi's are suffering loss as well and are angry, they seek closure in the form of justice and settlement. Can't blame them.
The only way I can decipher the evidence is that she was drunk and stoned and she likely was dealing with some serious emotional and alcohol/drug issues that are not being acknowledged. Something may have occurred that day that acutely pushed her over the edge. To what extent her husband was aware of them, it's hard to say. She may have been a closet abuser. She may have been a binge drinker, which many people don't associate with alcoholism. They can go for stretches without ETOH and have periodic big time binges. And people say...but she rarely drank. People also will say..POT didn't cause this..that's ridiculous.. but pot in combination with a lot of ETOH would only make it worse. Sad.

 

[BuzzieCat]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/nyregion/08crash.html

"The husband of the intoxicated woman who killed herself and seven others after driving the wrong way on the Taconic State Parkway said Friday that they carried the same bottle of vodka every weekend between their home and a campground during the summer."

But then he claims that he didn't see the bottle that day and didn't know for sure whether or not his wife had taken it back out of the camper and packed it in the car for the trip back home. IMO if it was their habit to bring a bottle back and forth when camping, he probably had reason to believe she had it in the car, but surely he would have said something if he thought she was going to drink it on the road. I hope.

I just don't see how someone who "hardly ever drank" could knock back that much alcohol and still be capable of standing upright. I also don't think that someone who doesn't drink much would have the reaction, from either physical or psychic pain, to suddenly imbibe such large quantities of alcohol all in one day all of a sudden.

 

[Fairy1]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/nyregion/08crash.html

"The husband of the intoxicated woman who killed herself and seven others after driving the wrong way on the Taconic State Parkway said Friday that they carried the same bottle of vodka every weekend between their home and a campground during the summer."

But then he claims that he didn't see the bottle that day and didn't know for sure whether or not his wife had taken it back out of the camper and packed it in the car for the trip back home.

And.....? What difference does it make, really? Daniel didn't drink the alcohol and kill seven people that day.

I fail to see how this can be construed as "lying" when it was such a seemingly mundane action. Why would he make note of it? Why would he have paid any attention at all?

And not for nothing, but if Diane really was an alcoholic, there most likely would not have been any back and forth with the vodka. She probably would have downed it all at the campsite - or at home, depending.

 

[BuzzieCat]

And.....?

I was trying to summarize the article without copying all of it. It does seem to show that it was their habit to bring a big bottle of vodka back and forth when camping. IMO he probably knew she had it, but I don't think he imagined she would drink it on the way home. IMO Diane had a very serious problem and he didn't look very hard, but I don't have any links for that, just suspicions because he doesn't seem like a very mature person. JMO. I'm not blaming him for what Diane did, but I don't get the feeling I'd like him very much, either.

 

[rpd113]

It does seem to show that it was their habit to bring a big bottle of vodka back and forth when camping.

A family with a camper there that they regularly visit on weekends transported a $12-25 bottle of vodka back and forth?

Let's not forget he also went from saying "she didn't drink" to "we were drinking that Friday, but not that Saturday."

And didn't Danny or Jay or Barbara at first theorize that the bottle just happened to be at the site of the crash and didn't belong to the Schulers?

Maybe Barbara or Ruskin told Danny to say this stuff, but either way it's pretty clearly B.S.

 

[BuzzieCat]

I fail to see how this can be construed as "lying" when it was such a seemingly mundane action. Why would he make note of it? Why would he have paid any attention at all?

And not for nothing, but if Diane really was an alcoholic, there most likely would not have been any back and forth with the vodka. She probably would have downed it all at the campsite - or at home, depending.

Simply pointing out that it was apparently their habit to drag a big bottle of vodka back and forth (or possibly it was a new bottle each time, who knows) and that Daniel did generally know about the bottle. I'm not saying that means he's responsible, I'm just saying that he can't say Diane practically never drank and then admit that they did have a jumbo bottle of vodka at the campsite. He's trying to make her look better when he might as well just not say anything because it's apparent she had twice the legal level of alcohol in her blood and more alcohol undigested in her stomach and did have the vodka with her.

I'm not a drinker at all myself, but is it common for people to bring vodka with them on camping trips, especially camping trips that include kids? I would have thought beer would be more common. Vodka seems so "hard core" for a camping trip, to me.

 

[nosysw]

Wouldn't you like to see the receipt for that bottle? I don't know...sometimes when my husband and I go away we will bring a bottle or two of liquor...having a cocktail at restaurants these days can cost you upwards of $8 which makes us a little crazy...Sometimes, we don't even touch the bottles, other times we do. I think if I had a camper I would just keep a bottle in there and throw it out when I was done. I don't think they were hurting enough for money that they couldn't afford a bottle at home. The bringing it back and forth just doesn't sound right, to me, IMO...more trouble than it was worth. Even if he had said they bought it there and then didn't drink much, and weren't big drinkers so they were bringing it home, it would have sounded more truthful...I don't know. I guess we read so much into each statement. But, you're right. IME, people who drink rarely don't buy the big bottle...

 

[RSorensen]

The bringing it back and forth just doesn't sound right, to me, IMO...more trouble than it was worth. Even if he had said they bought it there and then didn't drink much, and weren't big drinkers so they were bringing it home, it would have sounded more truthful...I don't know. I guess we read so much into each statement. But, you're right. IME, people who drink rarely don't buy the big bottle...

I think you are right to read something into each statement, especially in a case like this where many things are such mysteries. I do think that Daniel and his attorneys were reluctant to admit the bottle belonged to the Schulers because most states have "open bottle" laws (although I'm not sure about NY) and if the Schuler car was like many such vehicles there probably wasn't a trunk in which to stash an open bottle. Daniel was probably scared out of his wits at the beginning and was saying anything to try to reflect criticism. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that you might have a few legal problems at that point.

I also agree that the argument that the bottle was dragged back and forth is bogus. Diane made a six figure salary and no matter how tight things might have been, if you can afford to go camping on weekends, and keep a camper at a site away from home, you probably could spring for a separate bottle of vodka to keep at home. I also have been struck by the fact that the alcohol was vodka. I'm not much of a drinker, but isn't vodka pretty much an odorless, colorless alcohol that can be added to just about anything without it being noticed? I have had a tendency to think that, if Diane was a regular drinker at all, she was a closet drinker and wouldn't vodka have helped her to keep her secret? I keep picturing the tape from McDonald's and Diane walking away from the counter with two huge containers of liquid...soda, orange juice, whatever... The fact that she had these huge containers could be significant. As an artist I am aware that people can be fooled by perspective and I wonder if she poured vodka into one of those large containers and had no real sense of how much she had added. Once you start drinking liquid from a container of that size, you might lose perspective, especially if the liquid you are drinking is a colorless, odorless alcohol. Although she should not have been drinking to begin with, she actually might not have realized how much she was consuming.

The pot on top of all the alcohol I cannot explain. I just know that I, like most people my age, "experienced the 60s" and I vividly remember that it is a substance that can ease pain quite quickly. If she was feeling pain, either mental or physical, she might have started out taking a few sips, then a few more, then a few gulps and then stopped for a puff or two because the alcohol wasn't blocking out what she wanted to block out. I'm not arguing that this was at all justified, but it might help to explain what started Diane on the downward spiral.

 

[twinkiesmom]

I also agree that the argument that the bottle was dragged back and forth is bogus. Diane made a six figure salary and no matter how tight things might have been, if you can afford to go camping on weekends, and keep a camper at a site away from home, you probably could spring for a separate bottle of vodka to keep at home.

Her 100,000 and change salary made them middle class, not upper class, considering the East Coast cost of living. The camper parked at the campground is a middle class vacation home.

Even a wealthy couple (which the Schulers were not) can be frugal. My relatives sneaked multiple bottles from the duty-free shop into their luxury cabin on the QE2. Yes, they could have well afforded cocktails at the bar but chose to mix their own in the room.

The carrying of the large bottle back and forth would have enabled refilling of the bottle at home if someone was hiding their intake. The campground may not have had a liquor store nearby.

Why would Tom Ruskin lie to the NY Times about the source of the vodka bottle when he worked on the Schuler side of this case?
<<Tom Ruskin, an investigator who is working for the husband, Daniel Schuler, said that Mr. Schuler occasionally drank vodka and that his wife, Diane, was so frugal that she packed the same bottle of Absolut in a bag meant for trips between the family&#8217;s home in Suffolk County, on Long Island, and the camper in the Sullivan County campground they had frequented for the past three years. >>

 

[nomoresorrow]

Originally posted by RSorensen
I keep picturing the tape from McDonald's and Diane walking away from the counter with two huge containers of liquid...soda, orange juice, whatever...

Same here and it honestly haunts me. Clearly these two large beverages were for herself (Diane), if not wouldn't she have purchased smaller sized individual drinks for the kids? I can't help but wonder if Diane was on a mission to get totally wasted that day and what led up to it? She was an intelligent woman and had to know that drinking vodka + whatever out a large container with a straw would significantly impair her. IMO, she didn't care - why? Regardless of why, I still believe that Diane, and Diane alone, is solely responsible for the choice she made that fateful day to get behind the wheel and drive but I'd sure like to know the rest of the story... JMO

 

[nomoresorrow]

I wanted to add, regarding my post ^ that if (IF) evidence came to light that Daniel Schuler had knowledge that Diane, on (any) past occasion(s), had children (their own and/or anyone elses) in a vehicle whereby she was driving under the influence (whether under the influence of drugs or alcohol), IMO, he would then bare some responsibility. I guess it all comes down to Daniel's prior knowledge. I've heard that Diane liked to stop for drinks on the way home from work. Who picked the children up from daycare/babysitter's? Did Diane after tossing back a couple cocktails? It will be interesting to see what information comes out...
JMO

 

[RSorensen]

Her 100,000 and change salary made them middle class, not upper class, considering the East Coast cost of living. The camper parked at the campground is a middle class vacation home.

The quote above does not address the substance of my post. If you re-read it, I wasn't claiming the Schulers were Upper Class, Middle Class, Lower Class, or Royalty. I lived right near the crash site and made comparable money and my last vacation was in Italy - the year before England. I guess I could have rented a camper to be more appropriate for my station in life, but, to each his own. The Schulers had two incomes, hers (more than $100K) and his. Even if he made half of what she made, they were doing just fine, even for NY. Again, however, this has nothing to do with the issue I was raising which is that it is difficult to believe the "we hauled one bottle back and forth" argument. Personally I don't believe it; you are welcome to take another position.

You also asked why the Schuler investigator would lie to the NY Times. You were kidding, right?

 

[twinkiesmom]

Her 100,000 and change salary made them middle class, not upper class, considering the East Coast cost of living. The camper parked at the campground is a middle class vacation home.

The quote above does not address the substance of my post. If you re-read it, I wasn't claiming the Schulers were Upper Class, Middle Class, Lower Class, or Royalty. I lived right near the crash site and made comparable money and my last vacation was in Italy - the year before England. I guess I could have rented a camper to be more appropriate for my station in life, but, to each his own. The Schulers had two incomes, hers (more than $100K) and his. Even if he made half of what she made, they were doing just fine, even for NY. Again, however, this has nothing to do with the issue I was raising which is that it is difficult to believe the "we hauled one bottle back and forth" argument. Personally I don't believe it; you are welcome to take another position.

You also asked why the Schuler investigator would lie to the NY Times. You were kidding, right?

I wasn't implying poverty or hillbillyhood here. They would have had a sizable mortgage and car payments and taxes and childcare expenses. Yes, they could have afforded a European vacation but would likely have to economize on something else.

I can't see a reason why Danny's surrogate would claim the vodka bottle as one the Schulers carried in an open car...not when there will be countersuits against Diane's estate and Danny has a stake in the outcome of the lawsuits. It would be much easier at this point to say he had never seen it (as he did at one point). If Ruskin was lying, Danny'd be suing him and the New York Times by now.

Frugal people do all sorts of crazy things to save money, and carrying a vodka bottle to a campsite doesn't sound that out there to me.

 

[Nova]

I wasn't implying poverty or hillbillyhood here. They would have had a sizable mortgage and car payments and taxes and childcare expenses. Yes, they could have afforded a European vacation but would likely have to economize on something else.

I can't see a reason why Danny's surrogate would claim the vodka bottle as one the Schulers carried in an open car...not when there will be countersuits against Diane's estate and Danny has a stake in the outcome of the lawsuits. It would be much easier at this point to say he had never seen it (as he did at one point). If Ruskin was lying, Danny'd be suing him and the New York Times by now.

Frugal people do all sorts of crazy things to save money, and carrying a vodka bottle to a campsite doesn't sound that out there to me.

I wish I understood the point of this argument.

 

[RSorensen]

I can't see a reason why Danny's surrogate would claim the vodka bottle as one the Schulers carried in an open car...not when there will be countersuits against Diane's estate and Danny has a stake in the outcome of the lawsuits. It would be much easier at this point to say he had never seen it (as he did at one point). If Ruskin was lying, Danny'd be suing him and the New York Times by now.

The bottle was in the car and Daniel loaded the car so they needed a "plausable" explanation. I don't think they wanted to say it was there because Diane liked to have a few sips while driving home, do you? Despite it being an open bottle in a moving vehicle, saying that it was something the Schulars dragged back and forth (despite it being a nutty explanation and an afterthought) would at least explain its presence and be a more acceptable reason to authorities. So, there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why the investigator would lie and there would be no reason for Daniel to sue the investigator because they probably settled on this "reason" after trying out a couple other less plausible excuses. Also, you don't sue a Newspaper for quoting someone else. You can do it, but you would be wasting your money.

But, I agree with NOVA: there is little point to belaboring this issue.

 

[twinkiesmom]

The bottle was in the car and Daniel loaded the car so they needed a "plausable" explanation. I don't think they wanted to say it was there because Diane liked to have a few sips while driving home, do you? Despite it being an open bottle in a moving vehicle, saying that it was something the Schulars dragged back and forth (despite it being a nutty explanation and an afterthought) would at least explain its presence and be a more acceptable reason to authorities. So, there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why the investigator would lie and there would be no reason for Daniel to sue the investigator because they probably settled on this "reason" after trying out a couple other less plausible excuses. Also, you don't sue a Newspaper for quoting someone else. You can do it, but you would be wasting your money.

But, I agree with NOVA: there is little point to belaboring this issue.

You don't need false excuses if you're telling the truth. If he had no knowledge of the vodka bottle, it would have simply been more logical to say I didn't load it into the car and I've never seen it before. He's tying himself to potential liability by admitting loading the bottle (not saying he knew she would drink from it).

I think they had to say that about the bottle because someone likely to be supoenaed knew about the campsite bottle (e.g., Aunt Jay).

 

[RSorensen]

You don't need false excuses if you're telling the truth. If he had no knowledge of the vodka bottle, it would have simply been more logical to say I didn't load it into the car and I've never seen it before. He's tying himself to potential liability by admitting loading the bottle (not saying he knew she would drink from it).

I think they had to say that about the bottle because someone likely to be supoenaed knew about the campsite bottle (e.g., Aunt Jay).

Ok. I'll give this one more try. First, Daniel, his investigator and his attorney did first say that Daniel knew nothing about the bottle, and then changed their story. Maybe dragging one bottle back and forth was the truth. So what? That is not the issue I was addressing. I was addressing your statement that the investigator had no reason to lie and therefore dragging the bottle back and forth had to be the truth. I am saying that the investigator and Daniel did have reasons to lie. For instance, if dragging the bottle back and forth was not the case, they would need to come up with a logical explanation for the bottle being in the car - something that sounds more logical than some of the other alternatives, all of which paint a negative picture of Diane. Remember, Daniel's argument is that his wife didn't drink much and that she wasn't drunk. By the time the investigator said this, it had become pretty obvious that the bottle was not just sitting by the side of the Taconic Parkway and bounced into the car during the crash. So, in summary, whether they lied or didn't lie (and I'm not making a judgment either way), they had reason to lie. And if they had reason to lie, then we can't really assume that dragging the same bottle back and forth is the truth. That is all I am saying. :banghead:

 

[twinkiesmom]

Ok. I'll give this one more try. First, Daniel, his investigator and his attorney did first say that Daniel knew nothing about the bottle, and then changed their story. Maybe dragging one bottle back and forth was the truth. So what? That is not the issue I was addressing. I was addressing your statement that the investigator had no reason to lie and therefore dragging the bottle back and forth had to be the truth. I am saying that the investigator and Daniel did have reasons to lie. For instance, if dragging the bottle back and forth was not the case, they would need to come up with a logical explanation for the bottle being in the car - something that sounds more logical than some of the other alternatives, all of which paint a negative picture of Diane. Remember, Daniel's argument is that his wife didn't drink much and that she wasn't drunk. By the time the investigator said this, it had become pretty obvious that the bottle was not just sitting by the side of the Taconic Parkway and bounced into the car during the crash. So, in summary, whether they lied or didn't lie (and I'm not making a judgment either way), they had reason to lie. And if they had reason to lie, then we can't really assume that dragging the same bottle back and forth is the truth. That is all I am saying. :banghead:

I believe it was pretty clear from the context of my post that i did not believe they would lie against their own interests. Yes, there are plenty of OTHER motivations to lie, but not against interest.:banghead:

 

[OrdinaryLife]

For the sake of discussion, perhaps there was no intentional lie, but perhaps not aware that the bottle was packed until found at scene. I think way too much is being made out of who lied or did not lie. It was packed and in the car. That's the bottom line.

This is not the crux of the issue, but more about did Diane have a drinking problem. Everything, so far, is nothing more than speculation. I get the autopsy results, but it does not prove the woman had a drinking issue (as a whole), but did have toxicology result for that morning.

Frankly, packing liquor to travel back and forth to a camp and home is no big deal. I use to do it (still do after visiting), as many others do, all the time. I also had my children in the car. It is not unusual as some may think. Weak arguement as far as I'm concerned. If I was on a jury, I'd need more than this that I've read.

imvho