8 Die in Crash on Taconic State Parkway #2 - Page 55

twinkiesmom · #**1351** 09-26-2011, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nova

Tm, you have no factual basis for accusing the filmmakers of any bias beyond that which attends to every human endeavor.

Did we watch the same film? When I say unethical...I'm talking about journalistic ethics...I don't see anything on the film that I don't see commonly on reality tv....The manufacturing of drama...the manipulations of personalities...the creation of storylines cobbled together by creative editing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nova

"They could have showed the Schulers opening an envelope (any envelope)...." In fact, THAT would have been unethical (though not necessarily uncommon).

So you're claiming nothing in the film was staged for the purposes of filming it, not the phone calls, not the trip to the cemetary, not the trip to see Dr. Spitz? What about the distortions? Did you see how slowly Diane's car drove out of the Sunoco video compared with that same video elsewhere on the web?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nova

I never thought Jay looked foolish in any way. I find her entirely sympathetic.

Didn't you hear her say how confused she was and how her family had her stay home from the meeting with Ruskin? She was grabbing her head she was so confused. They totally manipulated and exploited her...It makes me furious. She is a kind hearted and dear lady who deserves better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nova

But you have now woven an entire conspiracy theory around a fairly simple documentary, just because it dares to show a little compassion to a husband/father you condemn.

I don't condemn him...I think he is a simple man who was misled by an unethical (and now apparently disbarred) ambulance chaser...But in terms of compassion, it's all reserved for Aunt Jay (who is doing ALL the heavy lifting).

Nova · #**1352** 09-26-2011, 07:04 PM

Well, we certainly agree in our compassion and admiration for Aunt Jay.

However, there is nothing unethical about editing a film to tell the story of what happened. Documentary filmmakers do it all the time.

There is nothing unethical about saying, "If you're going to call Rushkin again, we'd like to be there to film the call."

That isn't the same thing as handing a subject an envelope and saying, "Here, open this and pretend you are reading the coroner's report for the first time."

twinkiesmom · #**1353** 09-26-2011, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nova

There is nothing unethical about saying, "If you're going to call Rushkin again, we'd like to be there to film the call."

You don't know that conversation ever took place.

rpd113 · #**1354** 09-27-2011, 09:13 AM

Well, it appears the filmmakers knew Ruskin followed through on the re-testing before (or very soon after) they began editing the film. So, I understand the criticisms that they shouldn't have made it seem for the first hour of the film that Ruskin was the villain. They even let Barbara disparage him toward the end, "my only regret in this case," which was misleading and completely unnecessary.

That said, I think the viewer ends the film with the realization that Barbara and Danny misled Jay, and that Ruskin actually did follow through. The filmmakers also didn't do the Schulers any favors with those photos of Diane -- and the choice for the final shot of Bryan either not wanting to or not being comfortable taking Danny's hand.

Fairy1 · #**1355** 09-27-2011, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by twinkiesmom

You don't know that conversation ever took place.

But you don't know that it didn't, correct? In fact, we really don't know, for certain, whether or not any conversations took place between anyone unless it is [accurately] reported and substantiated by those involved. Same goes for people's states of mind.

I'm comfortable with speculation on any case. But assumptions are another thing, altogether.

IMOHO, this case is disturbing enough based on the facts and circumstances of the accident. I personally don't believe the film-makers needed to sensationalized or embellish the story and having watched the documentary, I don't believe they did.

Just my opinion.

twinkiesmom · #**1356** 09-28-2011, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fairy1

IMOHO, this case is disturbing enough based on the facts and circumstances of the accident. I personally don't believe the film-makers needed to sensationalized or embellish the story and having watched the documentary, I don't believe they did.

Just my opinion.

I'm not saying they sensationalized or embellished. My opinion is there was some manipulation and distortion.

I think there was clear evidence of manipulation of Aunt Jay...could have been the family or Barbara that did that...but the filmmakers had to have known about it because Ruskin went public at the time the contract was signed. Turning Ruskin into the villain of a large part of the film was a manipulation. They could have used media reports to present him honestly as an adversary who believed Diane was drunk while the Schulers held on to their denial....They could have not shown him at all.

The Sunoco video was distorted in its presentation. The exit from the station was the first evidence of reckless behavior as she did not have time to look left and look right before peeling out in a left turn. The filmmakers slowed down the video and made her look like a careful unintoxicated driver.

What we have learned of Diane's normal driving is she drove slowly (per Dan: 40 miles per hour) but aggressively (heavy use of horn). Everyone who knew her denied she drove recklessly (Hances: the most responsible person I know). My opinion is she was either getting intoxicated or agitated due to alcohol withdrawal at the time the Sunoco video was shot. She could have had a headache or a toothache, but she did not safely exit the station.

rpd113 · #**1357** 09-28-2011, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by twinkiesmom

My opinion is she was either getting intoxicated or agitated due to alcohol withdrawal at the time the Sunoco video was shot. She could have had a headache or a toothache, but she did not safely exit the station.

I agree that wasn't handled well in the film. They focused almost exclusively on whether she was drunk at that point, which to me is irrelevant. She had plenty of time thereafter to get drunk.

She did look agitated in the store, like she was in an absent-minded hurry, especially if you watch it in real time. And that's even more the case in the footage of her exiting the station.

I think they were playing up the "pain reliever" angle, which I found really flimsy (as discussed a few pages back).

travel888 · #**1358** 09-28-2011, 09:39 PM

Food for thought;
Aunt Jay initially told investigators Diane was regular pot smoker, then denied it publicly, never tried to change statement for police.
Dentist did not appear, or make statement; only released old records Everyone that appeared in doc was paid! To date; no confirmation the $100,000. was life insurance, no record of fund for child. If it was life insurance, they always had the money to do what they claim they want. I think the louis viton bag Jay sports at the end of the doc sums up her role. Cost more than all the re-tests!

twinkiesmom · #**1359** 09-29-2011, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travel888

Food for thought;
Aunt Jay initially told investigators Diane was regular pot smoker, then denied it publicly, never tried to change statement for police.
Dentist did not appear, or make statement; only released old records Everyone that appeared in doc was paid! To date; no confirmation the $100,000. was life insurance, no record of fund for child. If it was life insurance, they always had the money to do what they claim they want. I think the louis viton bag Jay sports at the end of the doc sums up her role. Cost more than all the re-tests!

I think we were initially confused because there was a "Joan Schuler" quoted as saying she was a regular pot smoker and a heavy drinker. We've had no confirmation that Joan was Jay, but I've always suspected it.

One could easily make an argument that even if he had $100K in life insurance, he doesn't have Diane's income anymore, and his $43K salary probably won't keep them in their house much less educate Bryan.

Regarding the LV bag, couldn't it be a knock-off?

travel888 · #**1360** 09-29-2011, 04:28 PM

If the goal was actually to "clear his wife" as opposed to himself, he had the money if it is life insurance. It wouldn't keep the house anyway. Handing over that much money to a defense attorney, without being charged with a crime is ridiculous. Of course , it might be money from HBO. Time will tell.
HBO zoomed in on the bag more than once, I know she was paid for the HBO show, The pictures the family allowed at the end sums up for me what their intentions were and I don't believe Diane's best interest was ever the issue.
Just saying...

twinkiesmom · #**1361** 09-30-2011, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travel888

If the goal was actually to "clear his wife" as opposed to himself, he had the money if it is life insurance. It wouldn't keep the house anyway. Handing over that much money to a defense attorney, without being charged with a crime is ridiculous. Of course , it might be money from HBO. Time will tell.
HBO zoomed in on the bag more than once, I know she was paid for the HBO show, The pictures the family allowed at the end sums up for me what their intentions were and I don't believe Diane's best interest was ever the issue.
Just saying...

I agree with you re: Diane. I saw the film for what it was, but I think it backfired badly.

Re: the bag...If it's real, so what? I know lots of women who have a designer bag but the rest of their wardrobe is from TJ Maxx. Just saying. If she is a hairdresser (as I seem to recall?), a nice bag would be the norm for that profession.

rpd113 · #**1362** 09-30-2011, 09:25 AM

Loathe as I am to defend Danny, I'm skeptical that he "allowed" those photos to be shown. The only way he would have had final say over them being shown is if shot them himself.

travel888 · #**1363** 10-01-2011, 06:58 PM

Zoomed in on bag more than once, because it appears only at end, cries about money and has a $5,000. + bag?
They had to sign rights to those pictures, that is why no other ones were shown.
Sometimes things are just what they appear

OrdinaryLife · #**1364** 10-01-2011, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travel888

Zoomed in on bag more than once, because it appears only at end, cries about money and has a $5,000. + bag?
They had to sign rights to those pictures, that is why no other ones were shown.
Sometimes things are just what they appear

It's one thing to discuss a case, but this is getting just petty. Who cares about the bag the woman has. It could have been a gift, a sale item (yeah, it happens), or she bought for herself at some point. Who cares???

Geez.... imvho

sharkeyes · #**1365** 10-02-2011, 12:10 AM

I sincerely hope you are well. I LIKE your bag, authentic LV or not - cuz I know how easy it is to get a great deal on a knock off in the city.

To my fellow posters on this thread - you guys rock!

Thoroughly enjoy reading the posts...not to mention the great discussions they prompted in my psych class!

Pandora · #**1366** 10-02-2011, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travel888

If the goal was actually to "clear his wife" as opposed to himself, he had the money if it is life insurance. It wouldn't keep the house anyway. Handing over that much money to a defense attorney, without being charged with a crime is ridiculous. Of course , it might be money from HBO. Time will tell.
HBO zoomed in on the bag more than once, I know she was paid for the HBO show, The pictures the family allowed at the end sums up for me what their intentions were and I don't believe Diane's best interest was ever the issue.
Just saying...

I've been criticized recently for carrying a very expensive designer bag as a teacher--um, I bought it new at a yardsale for $5. It was a gift to someone there selling and she thought it was hideous. $5 = AMAZING deal in my book.

rpd113 · #**1367** 10-02-2011, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travel888

They had to sign rights to those pictures, that is why no other ones were shown.

Are you sure about that? I've never heard of families signing off on crime scene photos. There's no way the families of the West Memphis Three victims, for example, would have.

As for why no one else was shown, it would have been in incredibly poor taste. They were blameless, and Diane wasn't.

OrdinaryLife · #**1368** 10-02-2011, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rpd113

Are you sure about that? I've never heard of families signing off on crime scene photos. There's no way the families of the West Memphis Three victims, for example, would have.

As for why no one else was shown, it would have been in incredibly poor taste. They were blameless, and Diane wasn't.

Families do not own crime photos. LE does. How many times have we read families going to court trying to stop publication of crime photos? Sometimes I can't help but, wonder where some of these "made money" accusations are coming from. Reads "agenda" to me....

imvho

Isabelle · #**1369** 10-02-2011, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travel888

Food for thought;
Aunt Jay initially told investigators Diane was regular pot smoker, then denied it publicly, never tried to change statement for police.
Dentist did not appear, or make statement; only released old records Everyone that appeared in doc was paid! To date; no confirmation the $100,000. was life insurance, no record of fund for child. If it was life insurance, they always had the money to do what they claim they want. I think the louis viton bag Jay sports at the end of the doc sums up her role. Cost more than all the re-tests!

Anyone can get at "LV" bag on the streets for little money. Doesn't prove it's real.

Isabelle · #**1370** 10-02-2011, 11:30 AM

I still think Diane drank a Four Loko that she purchased somewhere along the way and that 's what killed her and everyone else.

nosysw · #**1371** 10-02-2011, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pandora

I've been criticized recently for carrying a very expensive designer bag as a teacher--um, I bought it new at a yardsale for $5. It was a gift to someone there selling and she thought it was hideous. $5 = AMAZING deal in my book.

I'm a school social worker and I own two Coach Bags, one Nine West, one Dooney & Bourke (which I had never heard of) and a couple other designer bags...

Personally, I probably wouldn't pay $40 for a bag but my sister works for rich lawyers who have no idea of what to buy her...So, I benefit! (And my sister rocks!)...

Please, let's not judge people by what they own/wear. One never knows...Most of the students I work for have much better phones than me and these kids (in the inner city) have better clothes and games than mine. Many of their parents drive better cars than I do (I drive a 7 year old Kia which is falling apart). Who cares? Everyone has their priorities...material goods are not mine but if you wanna give me an expensive purse, I'll take it!