8 Die in Crash on Taconic State Parkway

[Noway]

State police said investigators didn't know of the drug or alcohol use at first, until they found pieces of a 1.75-liter bottle of vodka underneath debris from the burned-up vehicle days later.

http://news.aol.com/article/wrong-way-crash-driver-diane-schuler-was/588828

I guess the vodka in her stomach may have been what made them determine the bottle was hers.


A broken vodka bottle was found in the car. The level of THC in her system indicates she smoked pot within an hour of the crash.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local..._disbelief_of_drug_find_vics_families_se.html

I guess it is one of the details that some reporters print one way, and other reporters print another?

 

[redheadedgal]

Wow chicagofa, is that in print yet? Good grief, that really doesn't sound good does it?

A 1.75-liter bottle of vodka was found at the crash site, police said.

On the "Today Show" Friday, an investigator hired by the Schuler family said it had not been proven that the bottle had been in the Ford Windstar minivan being driven by Diane when she caused the crash.

The investigator, Thomas Ruskin, told host Meredith Vieira that the family was "known to carry the same bottle of vodka for the entire season" of camping.

Ruskin said it was possible Daniel Schuler, who liked to have an occasional drink of vodka, placed the bottle into the minivan when he packed it with camping equipment the morning of the fatal crash.


http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/diane-schuler-defended-on-today-show-1.1354626



didn't he just contradict himself? "it had not been proven that the bottle had been in the ... minivan" vs " the family was known to carry the same bottle of vodka for the entire season" ???


and, who'd really be able to verify it was the same bottle all season? oh and - upstanding people do not travel repeatedly with open bottles of alcohol in their vehicle, do they?

 

[Noway]

I think it's written funny.

It's not been proven that the broken bottle was theirs, but they did carry a bottle of vodka (maybe not THAT bottle).

It's possible that Daniel placed it in the minivan when he packed it up. You'd think since he was the one who might want a drink, he'd have kept it in his vehicle.

Regardless, her BAC was what it was and her stomach contents were what they were. Whether the vodka came from the broken bottle they found or one that was thrown clear from the wreckage, I think they need to admit she had vodka in her system.

 

[southcitymom]

Being discussed on HLN today. Sorry, I will have to side with people "at other sites". This whole family is infuriating. I wonder if we would have the same whiny excuses if she got drunk/high and fired a gun at these 7 people? Would it be murder then? Or would we dismiss it since the poor thing was drunk?

There's a real push in some states to charge DWI people who cause accidents that kill others with murder instead of manslaughter. I'm not a fan of that and hope it doesn't catch on, but 60 Minutes did an interesting article on that last Sunday.

For me, the difference between firing a gun at 7 people and causing an auto accident that kills 7 people is real and important.

 

[southcitymom]

Sorry, I wasn't referring to you! :blowkiss:

I mean all the excuses the atty and the husband are coming up with. New one, a "bump" on her leg that might have been traveling to her heart? You gotta be joking. It is unreal. The husband should be giving his sympathies to the true victims, IMO, the other families. I am going to have to put a blackout on this story or lose my mind!

I've known a few alcoholics, and I realize they can be very, very sneaky. However, I don't care if it is a disease or not, if we allow this "disease" to be an excuse to commit crimes, we are headed down the wrong road.

Maybe it is time to get tough on known alcoholics. No car, no keys, no DL, no nothing. I mean if you have the "disease" you have to treat it!

I don't think anyone on any side of the issue suggests alcoholism is an excuse to commit a crime - at least I haven't heard that put forward on this thread.

Of course, it's not just "known alcoholics" (I'm not sure what that means from your point of view) who drink too much and drive vehicles and cause wrecks that kill people. As I mentioned earlier, many many people have driven after consuming too much of a mind-altering substance - at least once. It only take one instance of doing that to kill a bunch of people and you don't even have to be an alcoholic.

I have heard that in some European countries, there's a one time caught driving inebriated/lose license forever rule. I don't think that's a bad ideal to move towards. Of course, it wouldn't have saved anyone in this case.

 

[southcitymom]

Sole survivor of taconic Parkway accident is concious and healing

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/08/07/2009-08-07_sole_survivor_conscious_and_healing.html

IDK if this has already been posted.

My prayers for this little guy. I will be surprised if he remembers a thing after a collision like this.

 

[southcitymom]

I'm speaking of anyone (not on WS necessarily) who would use alcoholism as an excuse for a crime. To me a loaded weapon is a loaded weapon, no matter if it is a car or a gun. If she had shot a place up it would be a "mass murder", but somehow this is an "accident".

Off topic but related, I hope some of you got a chance to see "60 Minutes" last Sunday night on CBS. They had a piece about about the wrong-way drunk who killed little a little girl and her family's limo driver after a wedding (also in NY, made huge headlines as the little girl was decapitated). The mother discussed how she only had her daughter's head to hold on to after the accident, since that is all she could find. The discussion revolved around treating this as murder, rather than negligent homicide. It was a must see discussion IMO.

I posted about that 60 Minutes before I had gotten to our post. It was a great article. I highly disagree with the New York DA's position!

 

[chicagofa13]

I posted about that 60 Minutes before I had gotten to our post. It was a great article. I highly disagree with the New York DA's position!

I respect your opinion and we can agree to disagree.

I think if the punishment for a DUI that causes a death was higher people might think more seriously about what they do. 15 years minimum sounds good to start. As it is the punishment is probation to a very light sentence, people aren't deterred; apparently they feel it won't happen to them or if it does they can do the time if there is any?

 

[Native New Yorker]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/nyregion/08bigcity.html?ref=nyregion


"Which is the hardest version of events to accept?


That Diane Schuler, described by her husband as a perfect mother and reliable person, was the victim of a fluke circumstance — some sort of sudden-onset psychosis or stroke — that caused the deaths of eight people on the Taconic State Parkway?
That Diane Schuler, who had a vodka bottle in her minivan, along with five children that desperate morning, was a raging alcoholic and her husband didn’t know?
That Diane Schuler, a mother of two and a Cablevision executive, was a raging alcoholic and people knew, but didn’t intervene?"

 

[redheadedgal]

I don't know where I heard/read it, but I thought the bottle was found in the passenger seat area????

fwiw, this article states it was found "underneath her minivan seat"...


http://www.wpix.com/news/local/wpix-toxicology-report-in-taconic-crash-released,0,2911625.story

 

[redheadedgal]

"Which is the hardest version of events to accept?"



here is a similar opinion:


Who to believe in Diane Schuler Taconic tragedy? by Juli Charkes (07/08/09)


Who should we believe?

On the one hand we have a distraught husband who now says his wife did not drink and a lawyer known for antics both inside and outside the courtroom who would have us believe that Diane Schuler killed herself and seven others when she drove in the wrong direction on the Taconic State Parkway because she was a) possibly diabetic; b) suffering from a tooth abcess; c) had a lump on her leg that may have been traveling to her brain.

On the other hand we have autopsy and toxicology reports from a state-of-the art crime lab that not only ruled out the possibility that Diane Schuler suffered from a stroke, heart attack or diabetic episode, but found she was both drunk (to the point of being twice the legal limit) and high on marijuana.

When asked to account for those toxicology reports, Dominic A. Barbara, the lawyer now representing Diane Schuler's husband Daniel, said the Long Island mother might have been slugging down alcohol in a misguided attempt to increase her blood sugar level.

"You might want to self-medicate with something to bring the level up," he said at a news conference held yesterday on Long Island.

We'll have to wait and see if the American Diabetes Association recognizes Mr. Barbara's unique take on diabetic behavior as one they have seen amongst the 23 million adults and children in this country who actually have a formal diagnosis of the disease.


(more at link incl. how families of alcoholics deny deny deny... )

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/juli-charkes/who-to-believe-in-diane-s_b_253854.html

 

[tapu]

Of course, it's not just "known alcoholics" (I'm not sure what that means from your point of view) who drink too much and drive vehicles and cause wrecks that kill people. As I mentioned earlier, many many people have driven after consuming too much of a mind-altering substance - at least once. It only take one instance of doing that to kill a bunch of people and you don't even have to be an alcoholic.

(bbm)


This is what I've been thinking about with respect to the ethical question of whether someone drunk who didn't wreck and kill people is equally guilty, morally, of the transgression Diane Schuler made.

This story is really affecting me--and I mean beyond the shared reaction to the terrible tragedy that ensued. I mean that it's really making me think about my own behavior, past and present, drinking or sober.

Speeding, angry driving, cell use, eating while driving, driving on too little sleep.... It may be a bit of a stretch to think of some of these as being "morally wrong," but how about "practically"?

I'm driving just a little differently these past few days....

 

[Mellen]

I'm speaking of anyone (not on WS necessarily) who would use alcoholism as an excuse for a crime. To me a loaded weapon is a loaded weapon, no matter if it is a car or a gun. If she had shot a place up it would be a "mass murder", but somehow this is an "accident".

The distinction between murder and manslaughter is all about intent.

Would you say that a person that caused a deadly car accident while talking on a cell phone or texting on a cell phone should also be charged with murder rather than manslaughter? I have read many articles stating that talking on the phone in the car distracts the brain to a degree that it is the equivalent of drinking and driving (probably buzzed driving rather than bombed I would think though). Texting is *far* worse and probably is the equivalent of an extremely drunk driver. Someone choosing to talk on the phone or text while driving is basically making the same kind of risky choice as someone who chooses to drink and then get in a car, but I'm somehow doubting that anyone would push for a murder charge against a cell phone user.

Not that I support drinking and driving, but I do think there is a difference between making an extremely risky and bad choice that leads to an accident and picking up a gun and blowing people away. The drunk or texting driver is not planning to kill someone (manslaughter). A person that shoots a gun at someone intends to kill them (murder).

 

[songline]

Instead of calling press conferences and appearing on national TV, why not schedule a second private autopsy? It hasn't been done, and I'm sure it will never be done, because the results would be the same and Barbara and the Schulers who are supporting his ridiculous theories know it. A traveling lump on the leg, an abcessed tooth, gestational diabetes in a woman who is not pregnant - how stupid is this. If this were not such a tragic, horrible event, we would be laughing at Barbara's explanations. What a jerk.

If the tests put her at .19% alcohol level WAY ABOVE the limit.
How can he keep insisting that she never drank Either the tests are all wrong...
Or he is in deep denial.
Her little nice had called someone from the car and said "there is something wrong with Aunt Dianne" minutes before the crash. I did read that too. Cant recall when.
Seems even a little child picked up on something being wrong.

I have not posted on this thread but It is in the front page every day so I have been reading it.
Sounds like another autopsy would be a great idea.

I hope the young boy will get some therapy to heal emotionally. It seems he is doing OK physically
Thank God!

 

[southcitymom]

Why is that?

Hey adnoid,

I feel like it dilutes what our society considers to be murder in an unacceptable way. I don't mind if it's considered, based on the circumstances, but I think it's ridiculous to make it the go-to charge. I think, for the most part, someone driving impaired does so for one of two reasons - (a) they think they are fine to drive or (b) they are in a blackout and have no conscious understanding of the choice they are making.

Now, there are, of course, incidents where - (c) they are suicidal and don't care if they take someone out as long as they take themselves out, in which case, a murder charge on the dead person doesn't matter in the criminal sense or (d) they are sociopathic and don't care who they put in danger - I don't mind if (d) cases are considered for murder charges, I just think they are the exception rather than the rule.

Certainly, in that 60 Minutes article, the young man charged with Murder didn't seem (based on what the article put forth) to fall into the (c) or (d) category.

I think someone driving drunk when they think they are okay is very different than someone planning and carrying out a plan to take someone's life. That's why we have a legal category of manslaughter.

I am also bothered by how widely different the sentences people pull for DWI causing death are. 3 years for someone in this state.....18 years for someone in this state.....probation for some. I would like to see us move to something more uniform.

I have had people close to me in all positions (driving impaired and harming someone, driving impaired and causing harm to someone, driving impaired and causing harm to themselves....and also, driving impaired and making it home just fine) and I think it's a terrible scourge and I don't mind tough sentences being applied. However, I'll never consider it murder. MOO, of course - others obviously do.

 

[southcitymom]

(bbm)


This is what I've been thinking about with respect to the ethical question of whether someone drunk who didn't wreck and kill people is equally guilty, morally, of the transgression Diane Schuler made.

This story is really affecting me--and I mean beyond the shared reaction to the terrible tragedy that ensued. I mean that it's really making me think about my own behavior, past and present, drinking or sober.

Speeding, angry driving, cell use, eating while driving, driving on too little sleep.... It may be a bit of a stretch to think of some of these as being "morally wrong," but how about "practically"?

I'm driving just a little differently these past few days....

Your points are excellent ones and this is what I believe:

If we drink/use and drive or have ever done so, we stand in the same moral territory as she does. If Ms. Schuler committed murder (I do not believe she did) then everyone of us who have driven impaired are murderers....just not very good ones....perhaps just lucky......we've actually committed "attempted murder" and should all be charged with that and go through the legal system to receive our punishment. This would get alot of us who drink and drive off the streets, but I suspect the Courts couldn't handle us all.

Anyone who calls her a murderer but has ever driven impaired and not then turned themselves in for "attempted murder" is morally hypocritcal, IMHO.

ETA - also, as you point out, there are other times when we have been attempting murder while driving - texting, tired, angry......NPR in fact recently did a little article that said, statistically, more accidents occur when people are texting and driving than when they are DUI driving - AND accidents occur equally with DUI driving and talking on the phone while driving. I think statistics are fairly worthless as a rule, but it did make me think.

 

[Mellen]

I am very unhappy to see the husband now claiming his wife almost never drank, especially after his first statement was that she drank socially. This is most definitely a lie, and I think it is coming on his lawyer's advice. On the other hand, it's already been shown in this forum that public opinion seemingly would fall on the side of him being liable just because he had seen her drink on other occasions where she did not drive. I think Diane was sober when she left her husband, and I don't think he had a clue that she would start drinking after she left. There is a huge difference between drinking while on the camping trip and not driving and leaving the campsite sober and drinking in the car on the way home. Just because he knew she would do one of these things does not in any way imply that he would know she would do the other! They worked different schedules, and I really don't think that he had a clue that her social drinking had escalated to a point where she had become dependent on alcohol to get through the day and would do something like drink while driving with a car full of kids. Nor do I think anyone else in her family had a clue either.

As an example of hiding addiction, Jamie Lee Curtis has opened up about her addiction in recent years, and she says no one knew what was going on with her, even her husband. I know I read a much better and more detailed article about her story a while back, but here's a link to one where she states this: "No one knew," Curtis said of hiding her dependency from her family, including husband Christopher Guest. The actress abused drugs to get high and to combat "loneliness," she says, and drank heavily at times for years.

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2..._opens_up_about_past_pai-2.html#ixzz0NbUm5fRN
​

This is an incredibly sad story, and I feel awful for all of the innocent victims; however, the person responsible for this crime died at the scene. I don't think the family should be liable. I would expect the police to investigate to see if the husband knew, but I really do not think he did.

​

 

[zippitydoda]

On the other hand, it's already been shown in this forum that public opinion seemingly would fall on the side of him being liable just because he had seen her drink on other occasions where she did not drive.
This is an incredibly sad story, and I feel awful for all of the innocent victims; however, the person responsible for this crime died at the scene. I don't think the family should be liable. I would expect the police to investigate to see if the husband knew, but I really do not think he did.

Snipped by me. I think most people, especially the family of the 3 men also killed, need answers. I don't believe that the point of seeking these answers is soley to establish his liablity. He is in a terrible place right now. But, because he and his family were with his wife just prior to her getting into the car, and given the magnitude of the accident, I think its normal that people challenge him on exactly what happened that day, and provide information on her history with alcohol. Perhaps it is true, and he did not have any indication that she would do this, but perhaps its not. He has been evasive on one matter that he does not want to talk about. i.e. the pot.

I think they made a big mistake giving press events. They should have quietly made a statement, and then closed their doors, blinds and shut off the phone for a time. When your wife kills 7 innocent people, and it is later reported that high levels of alcohol and pot were involved, one should expect a public outcry for justice. I dont think his going on the defensive has been very well received. Do you think that if he and his family had remained quiet, that the news would contiune to carry this story in the manner that they are? In the NY area, its been on the news every day, and now the husband and his attorney congering up various explainations on why this could have happened.

I'll admit that I can be very judgemental of people in criminal situations, and may mistakenly judge someone based upon how they present themselves in a difficult time. Perhaps I expect people to act one way, and when they don't, I question their motives. An old proverb states; In difficult times, its best to remain silent.

 

[PrayersForMaura]

Maybe ... maybe ... maybe there was no place nearby where they could buy vodka?

I'm not much of a drinker and find it hard to wrap my head around needing to have vodka on my camping trips.

My fiance and I are social drinkers and have vodka in our car most of the time.
He drinks vodka red bulls, I drink vodka tonics. It's not really unusual.
It's not like we are sneaking swigs out of it on our way to work.

 

[PrayersForMaura]

and, who'd really be able to verify it was the same bottle all season? oh and - upstanding people do not travel repeatedly with open bottles of alcohol in their vehicle, do they?

I guess I, too am not an "upstanding" citizen.

good grief, all the people with glass houses here are blinding me.