Page 52 of 77 FirstFirst ... 2424344454647484950515253545556575859606162 ... LastLast
Results 1,276 to 1,300 of 1911

Thread: 8 Die in Crash on Taconic State Parkway #2

  1. #1276
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,666
    Here is the filmmaker's position on the exhumation:
    "An exhumation could only take place if it's ordered by a court, next of kin or a legal representative," she said. "It's not something that the filmmakers would be doing."

    http://www.lohud.com/article/2010072...fe-s-body-film

    Later in the same article:

    But Schuler, a security guard, couldn't afford to exhume the body, said Thomas Ruskin, an investigator for the family.

    "They just didn't have the money at the time," Ruskin said. "Danny's a very modest-living guy. Diane was the source of income threefold over Danny, so upon Diane's death died the major income producer of the family."
    Last edited by twinkiesmom; 09-16-2011 at 09:59 PM.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to twinkiesmom For This Useful Post:


  3. #1277
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    18,518
    Quote Originally Posted by twinkiesmom View Post
    Here is the filmmaker's position on the exhumation:
    "An exhumation could only take place if it's ordered by a court, next of kin or a legal representative," she said. "It's not something that the filmmakers would be doing."
    Well, of course the filmmakers don't have legal standing to order the exhumation. If they did, some director would be digging up Jesse James every week.

    But that doesn't mean they didn't help facilitate Dan's request for an exhumation with either money or legal advice.

    Later in the same article:

    But Schuler, a security guard, couldn't afford to exhume the body, said Thomas Ruskin, an investigator for the family.

    "They just didn't have the money at the time," Ruskin said. "Danny's a very modest-living guy. Diane was the source of income threefold over Danny, so upon Diane's death died the major income producer of the family."
    Ah, yes, but that was said before Dan made a deal with the film company.

    There's clearly an expectation in certain scenes from the doc that the exhumation will be the climax of the film; otherwise, there'd be no need to later mention that Dan was unable to get the necessary permissions. If Danny didn't get the money from somewhere, why would the filmmakers expect an exhumation in the first place?

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Nova For This Useful Post:


  5. #1278
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    12,222
    Re: Money -- wouldn't DS get a large sum of money from Diane's life insurance (which was surely secured via her employer). Add to that the money from the docu-story, he should have the funds. I don't know what he paid to TR, but he'd be <unusual> to throw all his money at that guy.

    MOO

    Mel

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Melanie For This Useful Post:


  7. #1279
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Melanie View Post
    Re: Money -- wouldn't DS get a large sum of money from Diane's life insurance
    There were reports that the life insurance money went through Dominic Barbara, who was slow to transfer it to Danny and/or kept too much.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to rpd113 For This Useful Post:


  9. #1280
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    881
    I don't remember money being mentioned in the documentary as a specific reason that the exhumation didn't go forward. Jay was talking about how much they had paid for the tests that they were getting from Mr. Ruskin and that they didn't have any more money, but I don't specifically remember them saying we can't have the exhumation because there's no money. All it said on the gray screen at the end was "necessary permissions." Whether that was a euphemism for "no money," I don't know. But I don't have the greatest memory the world has ever known, so I could be wrong.
    If there is anything worse than the sandwiches, it is the sausages which sit next to them. Joyless tubes, full of gristle, floating in a sea of something hot and sad, stuck with a plastic pin in the shape of a chef’s hat: A memorial, one feels, for some chef who hated the world, and died, forgotten and alone among his cats on a back stair in Stepney. – Douglas Adams

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BuzzieCat For This Useful Post:


  11. #1281
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,666
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    Well, of course the filmmakers don't have legal standing to order the exhumation. If they did, some director would be digging up Jesse James every week.

    But that doesn't mean they didn't help facilitate Dan's request for an exhumation with either money or legal advice.



    Ah, yes, but that was said before Dan made a deal with the film company.
    This article came out at the same time the deal with the film company was struck....The filmmakers are denying any role in the exhumation other than filming it.

    It's clear as day from the article.

    The documentary was counting on Schuler money to pay for the exumation/reautopsy. Danny was claiming they would exhume since 2009. It's on the Larry King interview.

    The tests actually shown in the documentary were the only ones they could afford.

    You don't fly Dr. Spitz out to New York to examine the existing autopsy on camera if you have a solid plan to show a second autopsy on film. There's no drama in his repeating the results they already know about. He gets 5,000 a day and 400 per hour....It's not believable that they would have him out for that if there were better results forthcoming.

  12. #1282
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    18,518
    Quote Originally Posted by twinkiesmom View Post
    This article came out at the same time the deal with the film company was struck....The filmmakers are denying any role in the exhumation other than filming it.

    It's clear as day from the article.

    The documentary was counting on Schuler money to pay for the exumation/reautopsy. Danny was claiming they would exhume since 2009. It's on the Larry King interview.

    The tests actually shown in the documentary were the only ones they could afford.

    You don't fly Dr. Spitz out to New York to examine the existing autopsy on camera if you have a solid plan to show a second autopsy on film. There's no drama in his repeating the results they already know about. He gets 5,000 a day and 400 per hour....It's not believable that they would have him out for that if there were better results forthcoming.
    It is customary for documentary filmmakers to de-emphasize their influence on real-life events; that doesn't necessarily mean they have no influence. Technically, the filmmakers had no standing to order an exhumation; of course they are going to say Dan Schuler ordered it. For one, he would have to; for another, it plays into the doc's "story" of everyone being mad at Dan because he won't accept the coroner's findings.

    What secret diary of the film shots are you reading? You insist that you know exactly the real life sequence of everything we see in the documentary and I'm wondering how you know that. How do you know when the decision was made to fly Dr. Spitz to New York? How do you know that the original plan wasn't to have him observe the re-autopsy? How do you know that since they already had him under contract, when the re-autopsy was cancelled they didn't simply fly him out and have him review the existing results? (After all, it was the closest they could get to the ending they originally planned.)

    Several posters have now confirmed my memory that the documentary says Dan was unable to get the "necessary permissions" to have the exhumation performed. I've already given you a legal site that lays out what the "necessary permissions" would entail. Nobody (unless you are saying you do) recalls any mention of the exhumation being cancelled for lack of funding.

    So re the sentence BBM: how do you know?

  13. #1283
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,666
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    It is customary for documentary filmmakers to de-emphasize their influence on real-life events; that doesn't necessarily mean they have no influence. Technically, the filmmakers had no standing to order an exhumation; of course they are going to say Dan Schuler ordered it. For one, he would have to; for another, it plays into the doc's "story" of everyone being mad at Dan because he won't accept the coroner's findings.

    What secret diary of the film shots are you reading? You insist that you know exactly the real life sequence of everything we see in the documentary and I'm wondering how you know that. How do you know when the decision was made to fly Dr. Spitz to New York? How do you know that the original plan wasn't to have him observe the re-autopsy? How do you know that since they already had him under contract, when the re-autopsy was cancelled they didn't simply fly him out and have him review the existing results? (After all, it was the closest they could get to the ending they originally planned.)

    Several posters have now confirmed my memory that the documentary says Dan was unable to get the "necessary permissions" to have the exhumation performed. I've already given you a legal site that lays out what the "necessary permissions" would entail. Nobody (unless you are saying you do) recalls any mention of the exhumation being cancelled for lack of funding.

    So re the sentence BBM: how do you know?
    The reautopsy was part of Ruskin's investigation, and he claims they didn't have the money to go through with it. Aunt Jay says they couldn't afford to pay the 10,000 and then 30,000 bills associated with the investigation. Ruskin says specifically in the article that they couldn't pay for the reautopsy.

    Danny, Barbera, and the filmmakers were in collusion to make Ruskin look bad claiming that he never shared the results with Barbera or the Schuler family when in fact he met with everyone but Aunt Jay (who was told to stay home!) and went to the papers. The fact that the reanalysis matched the original results was publicly reported in the news a year ago.

    The filmmakers text-over that Danny was collecting permissions isn't credible as to the real reason why the reautopsy wasn't done (unless if it means collecting the permission of a licensed coroner who is waiting for a signed sealed contract and $$).

    I believe the talk of reautopsy is just noise at this point because Danny doesn't want to accept the BAC results and can't squeeze the money out of the Schuler family (who doesn't have it per Aunt Jay), and the filmmakers are out of there.

    IMHO, Ruskin is the only one telling the truth at this point except for Aunt Jay, who was deliberately kept in the dark.

    If your theory was correct, it would have appeared in the documentary or Danny would have been screaming to the papers (e.g., the Hance family preventing the exhumation).

    Believe what you want, but I'm not buying it. We will have to agree to disagree.

  14. #1284
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    70
    Well in any case, if Danny and/or his lawyer thought filmmakers could greenlight a new autopsy, that was pretty dumb.

  15. #1285
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    881
    Why was Jay told to stay home?
    If there is anything worse than the sandwiches, it is the sausages which sit next to them. Joyless tubes, full of gristle, floating in a sea of something hot and sad, stuck with a plastic pin in the shape of a chef’s hat: A memorial, one feels, for some chef who hated the world, and died, forgotten and alone among his cats on a back stair in Stepney. – Douglas Adams

  16. #1286
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,666
    Quote Originally Posted by BuzzieCat View Post
    Why was Jay told to stay home?
    She wasn't there to get the results; therefore, she was able to appear on camera claiming Ruskin was holding out on them and seem completely truthful.

  17. #1287
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by twinkiesmom View Post
    She wasn't there to get the results; therefore, she was able to appear on camera claiming Ruskin was holding out on them and seem completely truthful.
    Well, it wasn't truthful if she was told to stay home while she knew Dan was going to get the results. She would know that the results had been given to Dan and therefore could not truthfully say that Ruskin was keeping them in the dark.
    If there is anything worse than the sandwiches, it is the sausages which sit next to them. Joyless tubes, full of gristle, floating in a sea of something hot and sad, stuck with a plastic pin in the shape of a chef’s hat: A memorial, one feels, for some chef who hated the world, and died, forgotten and alone among his cats on a back stair in Stepney. – Douglas Adams

  18. #1288
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,666
    Quote Originally Posted by BuzzieCat View Post
    Well, it wasn't truthful if she was told to stay home while she knew Dan was going to get the results. She would know that the results had been given to Dan and therefore could not truthfully say that Ruskin was keeping them in the dark.
    On camera, she said she was confused about it as she knew they met but she (allegedly) wasn't provided with the results. I think she was being truthful when she said she was confused.

  19. #1289
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    18,518
    Quote Originally Posted by twinkiesmom View Post
    The reautopsy was part of Ruskin's investigation, and he claims they didn't have the money to go through with it. Aunt Jay says they couldn't afford to pay the 10,000 and then 30,000 bills associated with the investigation. Ruskin says specifically in the article that they couldn't pay for the reautopsy.

    Danny, Barbera, and the filmmakers were in collusion to make Ruskin look bad claiming that he never shared the results with Barbera or the Schuler family when in fact he met with everyone but Aunt Jay (who was told to stay home!) and went to the papers. The fact that the reanalysis matched the original results was publicly reported in the news a year ago.

    The filmmakers text-over that Danny was collecting permissions isn't credible as to the real reason why the reautopsy wasn't done (unless if it means collecting the permission of a licensed coroner who is waiting for a signed sealed contract and $$).

    I believe the talk of reautopsy is just noise at this point because Danny doesn't want to accept the BAC results and can't squeeze the money out of the Schuler family (who doesn't have it per Aunt Jay), and the filmmakers are out of there.

    IMHO, Ruskin is the only one telling the truth at this point except for Aunt Jay, who was deliberately kept in the dark.

    If your theory was correct, it would have appeared in the documentary or Danny would have been screaming to the papers (e.g., the Hance family preventing the exhumation).

    Believe what you want, but I'm not buying it. We will have to agree to disagree.
    We can agree to disagree, but we can't agree to just make up stuff.

    I'm sure you're right that at some point, money was an issue in re the exhumation.

    Nonetheless, during the first part of the documentary, there is clearly an expectation that the exhumation will take place (Ruskin or no). Since there is no suggestion that Dan or Jackie have won the lottery, I think it's reasonable to assume they are expecting the filmmakers to pay for the exhumation. That is also what countless internet sources reported in 2010. (For some reason, you think it is very important to deny this; I have no idea why. You don't offer a reasonable alternative that conforms to the timeline of events.)

    Near the end of the doc, we are told that Dan wasn't able to obtain the "necessary permissions" for the exhumation. (This is according to not just my memory, but that of several other posters here.) "Necessary permissions" does not mean "needed cash" in any version of English with which I am familiar.

    There was some legal reason why Dan could not have his wife exhumed. To date, neither of us has found an explanation for this.

  20. #1290
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,666
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post
    We can agree to disagree, but we can't agree to just make up stuff.

    I'm sure you're right that at some point, money was an issue in re the exhumation.

    Nonetheless, during the first part of the documentary, there is clearly an expectation that the exhumation will take place (Ruskin or no). Since there is no suggestion that Dan or Jackie have won the lottery, I think it's reasonable to assume they are expecting the filmmakers to pay for the exhumation. That is also what countless internet sources reported in 2010. (For some reason, you think it is very important to deny this; I have no idea why. You don't offer a reasonable alternative that conforms to the timeline of events.)

    Near the end of the doc, we are told that Dan wasn't able to obtain the "necessary permissions" for the exhumation. (This is according to not just my memory, but that of several other posters here.) "Necessary permissions" does not mean "needed cash" in any version of English with which I am familiar.

    There was some legal reason why Dan could not have his wife exhumed. To date, neither of us has found an explanation for this.
    I'm not making up stuff. I provided a news article as my source. The news article claims that the purpose of the documentary to film the exhumation. The filmmakers are quoted denying any connection to an exhumation. In denying that connection, they are not promising we will see it in their film.

    The film itself is something of a mockumentary, considering all the drama over the paid for but unshared results. Because they're not married to the truth, IMHO, any text about "permissions" is suspect.

    If there are any permissions missing, I suspect it is the signature of the licensed medical examiner hired to do the reautopsy.

    I think you're making it up by assuming its a legal reason. It could be any type of permission or no permission at all.

  21. #1291
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    881
    http://nymag.com/news/features/62043/index2.html

    Not sure if this article has been posted before, but I find it interesting.

    "Danny told the police she smoked once in a while, but Jay knew better. She liked pot and smoked it 'on a regular basis,' the police understood from their interviews."

    "Her best friend, Christine, like most of her friends, was surprised to learn about her affection for marijuana; that didn’t fit with the super-responsible Diane they knew."

    "'And Diane liked to honk a horn. “I never beep my horn,” Christine told me, and that would drive Diane nuts. “If we were driving and someone cut me off or was in front of us on a cell phone, she would reach over and honk my horn. She’d say, ‘I bet you didn’t even know that worked.’ ”

    I'm reading the comments section of this article and see a couple of interesting theories there. All just speculation but interesting.
    Last edited by BuzzieCat; 09-18-2011 at 01:22 PM.
    If there is anything worse than the sandwiches, it is the sausages which sit next to them. Joyless tubes, full of gristle, floating in a sea of something hot and sad, stuck with a plastic pin in the shape of a chef’s hat: A memorial, one feels, for some chef who hated the world, and died, forgotten and alone among his cats on a back stair in Stepney. – Douglas Adams

  22. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to BuzzieCat For This Useful Post:


  23. #1292
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,666
    Quote Originally Posted by rpd113 View Post
    There were reports that the life insurance money went through Dominic Barbara, who was slow to transfer it to Danny and/or kept too much.
    Here's the story on the life insurance:
    http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011...-thomas-ruskin

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to twinkiesmom For This Useful Post:


  25. #1293
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    18,518
    Quote Originally Posted by twinkiesmom View Post
    I'm not making up stuff. I provided a news article as my source. The news article claims that the purpose of the documentary to film the exhumation. The filmmakers are quoted denying any connection to an exhumation. In denying that connection, they are not promising we will see it in their film.

    The film itself is something of a mockumentary, considering all the drama over the paid for but unshared results. Because they're not married to the truth, IMHO, any text about "permissions" is suspect.

    If there are any permissions missing, I suspect it is the signature of the licensed medical examiner hired to do the reautopsy.

    I think you're making it up by assuming its a legal reason. It could be any type of permission or no permission at all.
    I said "WE" can't make up stuff. It wasn't a claim that you had done so.

    My point is that you and I find different implications in the same article; those disputed implications are not proof of your scenario or mine.

    The film is not a "mockumentary." That is a gross misuse of the term. The documentary, like all documentaries, is edited to tell a story. It is no more perfectly "objective" than any other documentary, but that doesn't mean it is fiction.

    I repeat: there was no reason to mention the lack of "necessary permissions" if there was no money to exhume and re-autopsy. Dan Schuler does not appear to have had the money, so who did? One entity I know of that might have the money is the company making the film. (Another possibility is the life insurance held by Barbera at the time; we now know those funds were misappropriated, but I don't know that was known at the time of the article.)

    The quote to which you point merely states that the film company didn't order the exhumation. This tells us nothing because legally the company had no standing to do so.

    You extrapolate from that remark that the film company never intended to fund the exhumation, but that is not what is said.

    ***

    Here's a nice quote from the article that YOU cite:

    "The New York Post reported that the movie deal would net Schuler $100,000 that he would use to support his 6-year-old son, the sole survivor of the crash."

    "Net" implies that the $100,000 was not the GROSS money to be received by Schuler; the total amount was something higher and may have included the cost of the exhumation. May. This statement doesn't prove my position, but it does cast doubt on yours.

  26. #1294
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,666
    Quote Originally Posted by Nova View Post

    ***

    Here's a nice quote from the article that YOU cite:

    "The New York Post reported that the movie deal would net Schuler $100,000 that he would use to support his 6-year-old son, the sole survivor of the crash."

    "Net" implies that the $100,000 was not the GROSS money to be received by Schuler; the total amount was something higher and may have included the cost of the exhumation. May. This statement doesn't prove my position, but it does cast doubt on yours.
    I don't agree with your interpretation of the quote above. Here's an alternative dictionary definition for the word net that has nothing to do with the word "gross"

    verb (used with object)
    6.
    to gain or produce as clear profit.

    This is really getting silly. I don't agree with you, so we will have to agree to disagree.

  27. The Following User Says Thank You to twinkiesmom For This Useful Post:


  28. #1295
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthCityMom
    I also, if I were a betting woman, think Barbara has told the family to NOT have another autopsy done. I can't see an attorney wanting that in this case unless he KNEW the results would be different from the results obtained by police professionals in a state of the art lab. When their private test came back as "LOADED," that couldn't be kept a secret. Again, it's better to plant the idea in the public's mind that the test might be faulty - and let that idea simmer and stew - than to actually have the darned thing done again and reinforce the first result.

    From the first thread on this case. I think she makes a good point and that the second autopsy may never have been seriously pursued.

  29. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to rpd113 For This Useful Post:


  30. #1296
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    The Beautiful Great Lakes!!
    Posts
    443

    Twinkies Mom & Nova,

    I love you both Glad to see tolerance for difference of position on this case.

    I've followed this case closely, see, I am an alcoholic. Although, I can't see myself doing what Diane did. My honest opinion, is that she was a drinker, just hid it real good. I'm positive her family knew something wasn't right with her, because you can only hide it so long. That's why Warren freaked out and told her to stay put. As an aside, I feel so much anguish for Warren and Jackie, losing all their children.

    She went too far that day. That's all there is to it. We can look for answers all day long, but reasoning left her mind that day, and before she knew it she was loaded and the horrific accident happened.

    All IMO.

  31. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Only4Justice For This Useful Post:


  32. #1297
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    18,518
    Quote Originally Posted by Only4Justice View Post
    I love you both Glad to see tolerance for difference of position on this case.

    I've followed this case closely, see, I am an alcoholic. Although, I can't see myself doing what Diane did. My honest opinion, is that she was a drinker, just hid it real good. I'm positive her family knew something wasn't right with her, because you can only hide it so long. That's why Warren freaked out and told her to stay put. As an aside, I feel so much anguish for Warren and Jackie, losing all their children.

    She went too far that day. That's all there is to it. We can look for answers all day long, but reasoning left her mind that day, and before she knew it she was loaded and the horrific accident happened.

    All IMO.
    I suspect you may be right. And Dan and his sister-in-law may be in denial precisely BECAUSE they suspected there was a problem and did nothing to stop it. But that makes them no less sympathetic in my eyes. They wouldn't be the first or last human beings to look the other way and hope for the best.

    Thank you for sharing your personal details. I hope you get whatever help you need.

  33. The Following User Says Thank You to Nova For This Useful Post:


  34. #1298
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,666
    Quote Originally Posted by Only4Justice View Post
    I love you both Glad to see tolerance for difference of position on this case.

    I've followed this case closely, see, I am an alcoholic. Although, I can't see myself doing what Diane did. My honest opinion, is that she was a drinker, just hid it real good. I'm positive her family knew something wasn't right with her, because you can only hide it so long. That's why Warren freaked out and told her to stay put. As an aside, I feel so much anguish for Warren and Jackie, losing all their children.

    She went too far that day. That's all there is to it. We can look for answers all day long, but reasoning left her mind that day, and before she knew it she was loaded and the horrific accident happened.

    All IMO.

    I was trying to think through how this would have happened if she was an alcoholic (e.g., seriously addicted, not suicidal). Starting from the assumption that she didn't start out intending for this to happen, I wonder if the coffee was supposed to be to drink in the car and the loaded OJ was intended to be consumed later after the girls were dropped off at home? If she really was secretive about her drinking, she could have hidden it in that OJ cup. If she waited to drink the loaded OJ until she got home, she could have gotten totally wasted and gone to bed saying she had a headache or toothache or whatever excuse would have made Dan none the wiser. I think that car ride would have been terribly loud...not to blame the kids as it's normal and expected..but I have driven my kids and their cousins, and after three kids the noise goes up exponentially with every additional kid. I think she took a sip to take the edge off...and then another and another...and simply lost track of how much she had drunk of a VERY potent cocktail....and then she lost even more inhibition and consumed more and smoked pot as well (maybe at the rest stop)? And then as her BAC climbed higher, she went into a blackout and turned the wrong way onto the expressway for the final couple of miles, hands clenched at 10 and 2, eyes fixed ahead but nobody home upstairs.

    Could this have happened this way?

  35. #1299
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by twinkiesmom View Post
    I was trying to think through how this would have happened if she was an alcoholic (e.g., seriously addicted, not suicidal). Starting from the assumption that she didn't start out intending for this to happen, I wonder if the coffee was supposed to be to drink in the car and the loaded OJ was intended to be consumed later after the girls were dropped off at home?..
    I've wondered this, too. Assuming it wasn't on purpose, what the heck made her drink with the kids in the car? Maybe her drinking was escalating. Maybe she'd had more than usual during the camping trip and it was giving her more of a headache/hangover than usual. Maybe she was afraid someone would get on her case about her drinking if she said her head hurt too much to drive the kids home? Then she decided to start drinking some more to try to help the pain? I don't know. I just can't imagine how she could think she could drink (and smoke pot) to that extent and be able to hide it and get the kids home intact.

    Had she driven all the kids home from camping trips previously? I don't remember this being mentioned.

    I just still can't understand how she could drink that much. Enough to be almost to the point of alcohol poisoning, with more still in her stomach to be digested. That's severe, even assuming she just "lost track." I can't understand it. It's like she was pushing herself to the limit.
    If there is anything worse than the sandwiches, it is the sausages which sit next to them. Joyless tubes, full of gristle, floating in a sea of something hot and sad, stuck with a plastic pin in the shape of a chef’s hat: A memorial, one feels, for some chef who hated the world, and died, forgotten and alone among his cats on a back stair in Stepney. – Douglas Adams

  36. The Following User Says Thank You to BuzzieCat For This Useful Post:


  37. #1300
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by twinkiesmom View Post
    Could this have happened this way?
    Certainly. And I'd add into that scenario the strong possibility of being embarrassed or angry about Warren coming to get her (ie, her failing at something and ceding control) and being determined to finish the drive.

    But the sheer volume of alcohol -- on top of marijuana -- is troubling. That's really getting "carried away."

    That's what I find ironic/dumb about the Dominic Barbara PR blitz. If she was not a drinker, not an alcoholic, how in the world did she ingest that much? And please don't insult my intelligence further with the diabetes or stroke nonsense. If she wasn't a drinker, there had to be a huge trigger that day/weekend.

    I still lean slightly toward the theory of her going into a rage and choosing to get wasted and, as hard as it is to wrap your mind around, deliberately crashing. It's the theory with the fewest holes, imo.
    Last edited by rpd113; 09-20-2011 at 11:27 AM.

  38. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to rpd113 For This Useful Post:


Page 52 of 77 FirstFirst ... 2424344454647484950515253545556575859606162 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 8 Die in Crash on Taconic State Parkway
    By SleuthyMama in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 1153
    Last Post: 08-19-2009, 11:03 AM
  2. Another medical helicopter crash; 4 die
    By ljwf22 in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-19-2008, 03:12 PM
  3. 5 Family Members Die In N.C. Car Crash
    By spclk in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-08-2007, 09:51 PM
  4. Two high schoolers die in AL bus crash
    By ljwf22 in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 11-25-2006, 01:04 AM
  5. brothers die in same type of crash, same location, same date
    By JinxieJada in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 08-08-2006, 03:45 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •