8 Die in Crash on Taconic State Parkway #2

Status
Not open for further replies.
[Tiredblondy]The above sounds like a black out to me...[/quote]


[Twinkiesmom] quote [I agree.

Blackouts represent episodes of amnesia, during which subjects are capable of participating even in salient, emotionally charged events—as well as more mundane events—that they later cannot remember (Goodwin 1995). Like milder alcohol–induced memory impairments, these periods of amnesia are primarily “anterograde,” meaning that alcohol impairs the ability to form new memories while the person is intoxicated, but does not typically erase memories formed before intoxication. Formal research into the nature of alcohol–induced blackouts began in the 1940s with the work of E.M. Jellinek (1946). Jellinek’s initial characterization of blackouts was based on data collected from a survey of Alcoholics Anonymous members. Noting that recovering alcoholics frequently reported having experienced alcohol–induced amnesia while they were drinking, Jellinek concluded that the occurrence of blackouts is a powerful indicator of alcoholism.

In 1969, Goodwin and colleagues published two of the most influential studies in the literature on blackouts (Goodwin et al. 1969a,b). Based on interviews with 100 hospitalized alcoholics, 64 of whom had a history of blackouts, the authors posited the existence of two qualitatively different types of blackouts: en bloc and fragmentary blackouts. People experiencing en bloc blackouts are unable to recall any details whatsoever from events that occurred while they were intoxicated, despite all efforts by the drinkers or others to cue recall. Referring back to our general model of memory formation, it is as if the process of transferring information from short–term to long–term storage has been completely blocked. En bloc memory impairments tend to have a distinct onset. It is usually less clear when these blackouts end because people typically fall asleep before they are over. Interestingly, people appear able to keep information active in short–term memory for at least a few seconds. As a result, they can often carry on conversations, drive automobiles, and engage in other complicated behaviors. Information pertaining to these events is simply not transferred into long–term storage. Ryback (1970) wrote that intoxicated subjects in one of his studies “could carry on conversations during the amnesic state, but could not remember what they said or did 5 minutes earlier. Their immediate and remote memory were intact” (p. 1003). Similarly, in their study of memory impairments in intoxicated alcoholics, Goodwin and colleagues (1970) reported that subjects who experienced blackouts for testing sessions showed intact memory for up to 2 minutes while the sessions were taking place.]


http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-2/186-196.htm[/quote]

Thank you so much Twinkiesmom. I knew someone in college who had blackouts due to drinking. They could function regarding some things but not remember anything they did. If I had not observed this I wouldn't believe it.

What is so amazing is that when she was in a blackout those of us who knew her could only tell by asking her what she'd done shortly before. She had no idea she'd had 20 drinks and thought it was her 4th or 5th. She walked and talked fine.

Another thing she did in these states is she'd steal things from us and we'd find them in her room the next day and she had no idea how they got there! (Needless to say we stopped going in stores when she was drinking.) She was a wonderful person but when drinking she did not know what had gone on 10 minutes before. She would ask what and how did she get where we where. It was a learning experience for all of us. I've often wondered what happened to her.

The reason I thought that it was blackout behavior is there was no reaction to the other cars trying to get her attention or that she was going the wrong way. She was driving apparently staying in her lane focused ahead without seeing or reacting to what was happening around her!
 
Finally finished watching the doc. Oh my. I'm curious as to why the producers chose to show Diane's dead body. Maybe to reiterate the fact that the person responsible is gone forever? IDK. It was a bit shocking, even though I knew it was coming.

After watching the doc, I am not only so very sorry for the families who lost loved ones that day, but also for the witnesses first on the scene, who will never be able to forget what they saw. My heart goes out to them, truly.

I have never understood the need for some to vilify Daniel. I do understand the need for the survivors to blame someone for this horrific tragedy. But it shouldn't be him, IMHO. He is not, necessarily, someone who garners sympathy, but no matter how it's spun, he simply is not to blame. I believe he needs therapy. He seems to have a great deal of anger and has clearly not come to terms with any of what occurred. If he has held his position out of love and reverence for Diane, I can understand that. If he is attempting to perpetuate the "perfect" picture of her to avoid monetary liability, I do have a problem with that.

It's just a horrible tragedy all around. No matter who was responsible or why it happened. My heart goes out to everyone affected. And may all of those who lost their lives that day rest in peace.
 
I have never understood the need for some to vilify Daniel. .

I'll explain it to you.

He has no shame for his wife's actions.
He has no self-awareness of the pain he is bringing to others in his public statements.
He appears to have little regard for others' losses.
He complains of the burden of having to raise the only survivor of the accident rather than acting like he hit the lottery for his son to have lived.

We will have to agree to disagree on there being one acceptable stream of thought regarding Daniel.
 
I'll explain it to you.

He has no shame for his wife's actions.
He has no self-awareness of the pain he is bringing to others in his public statements.
He appears to have little regard for others' losses.
He complains of the burden of having to raise the only survivor of the accident rather than acting like he hit the lottery for his son to have lived.

We will have to agree to disagree on there being one acceptable stream of thought regarding Daniel.

I'll explain it to you:

How do you know he has no shame for Diane's actions?

Is he not allowed to grieve in his own way?

How do you know how he feels with regard to other's losses?

We all know Diane was the spouse in charge. IMO, Daniel had no idea how to deal with life before Diane was gone. Why would anyone expect something different from him now?

Acceptable stream of thought? I would love to know who is the one that determines what is considered an "acceptable stream of thought" in the face of such a crushing tragedy.

Daniel may be a huge loser and dumba$$, but who are any of us to judge his grieving process or how he has chosen to move on? Has anything like this ever happened to us? Not me. Knock on wood....

Whatever Daniel's faults, he was not in the vehicle that day and he, obviously, had NO control over his wife. I suggest we lay the blame where it is warranted.
 
I suggest we stay tolerant of each other's opinions. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and we can all agree to disagree.
 
I'll explain it to you:

How do you know he has no shame for Diane's actions?

Is he not allowed to grieve in his own way?

How do you know how he feels with regard to other's losses?

We all know Diane was the spouse in charge. IMO, Daniel had no idea how to deal with life before Diane was gone. Why would anyone expect something different from him now?

Acceptable stream of thought? I would love to know who is the one that determines what is considered an "acceptable stream of thought" in the face of such a crushing tragedy.

Daniel may be a huge loser and dumba$$, but who are any of us to judge his grieving process or how he has chosen to move on? Has anything like this ever happened to us? Not me. Knock on wood....

Whatever Daniel's faults, he was not in the vehicle that day and he, obviously, had NO control over his wife. I suggest we lay the blame where it is warranted.

I took the "acceptable stream of thought" in post #687 to mean "we all cannot agree so what may be acceptable to one would not be acceptable to another".
 
I want to add to Fairy1's thoughts on Daniel that he has a right to his own coping mechanisms, even if one of them is denial. This business that he is somehow devastating the other survivors all over again by not accepting the coroner's report is a crock.

In the first place, the Hances are responsible for their own feelings, just as Daniel is. In the second, why would Daniel agreeing with them make them feel any better? In the third, if they are so sure the coroner was correct, why do they even care what Daniel thinks?

Let's assume the worst and say for argument's sake that Daniel is totally in denial in refusing to accept the coroner's verdict. Then he is a very troubled man and very deserving of our pity, not our condemnation.

The Hances are no less in denial than Daniel Schuler. He's blaming the coroner for not finding something medical that will lessen Diane's share of the blame. They're blaming Daniel and his opinions for their pain.

And, yes, the Hances are also deserving of our sympathy. But that doesn't mean we should accept their flights of grief-induced fancy as real.
 
A special thanks to tiredblondy and twinkiesmom for the info on blackouts. I was thinking "passed out" and couldn't figure how it would apply to Diane. But the loss of short-term memory you describe may very well have been a factor, particularly if it caused Diane to forget how much she had had to drink.
 
Hi everyone -
I haven't participated in this discussion before, so please forgive me for just jumping in. I have many friends that live in both LI and Orange Co NY, so it was sort of a local thing to me, and I have read everything that I can about it, including this forum. I am still as dumbfounded as I was the first time I heard about it.

But there is one thought that I have had for the past month that might be of some use here. It's regarding the lawsuits. About a month or 2 ago I heard a news story about a little girl suing her father. She was injured in a car accident in which she was a passenger and her father was driving 2 years prior in which he was not at fault. The lawsuit idea sounded very strange... (hence the story on the news). But it really just boiled down to the fact that in order to get certain medical coverage paid etc, the person who held the insurance policy on the car and who was driving it needed to be sued - and that the last possible time to do that was coming up in that case. So I am wondering if that is more or less going on here in this case as well. Considering we must have several insurance policies in play - the car owner's, the driver's, the children's medical insurer, and on and on. So this may be just legal jockeying to get the most money out of those insurers rather than personal beliefs about who was responsible/liable.
Anyhow, that's it... just wanted to bring this up as I hadn't seen it discussed before. Oh and in the case of the girl suing her Dad, she won, and his insurance company is now paying out to cover some ongoing medical costs incurred from the accident.
 
If you are talking about the girl who suing her father who was shot in the head while driving, I can not find any information at all about her winning the case. In fact the articles I've read said the case won't even go to trial for a year.
 
If you are talking about the girl who suing her father who was shot in the head while driving, I can not find any information at all about her winning the case.

lol no I wasn't - I may not remember all the details but I do know I would remember that she was shot. This girl was not injured that seriously, which was another reason the suit was odd. I do think I remember hearing about that shooting one as well.. what state is in?
 
lol no I wasn't - I may not remember all the details but I do know I would remember that she was shot. This girl was not injured that seriously, which was another reason the suit was odd. I do think I remember hearing about that shooting one as well.. what state is in?

She wasn't shot, her father was. It has to be the same case because that's the one on the news. She is suing her father because she can not sue the shooter-his insurance company won't cover the costs because it's an intentional act on the shooter's part.
 
She wasn't shot, her father was. It has to be the same case because that's the one on the news. She is suing her father because she can not sue the shooter-his insurance company won't cover the costs because it's an intentional act on the shooter's part.

No it is not. I looked up your case, and I do know it, since it was local to me (more or less, my local TV is out of Philly). The case I heard about was either in CT or Westchester NY. It was being reported on a news/commentary story about legal maneuvering. It's possible that it was being mentioned because of this shooting case, which sounds much less routine - and the decision on the road rage case will be very interesting to see play out. Can't say that I think it has merit, but I'm not a lawyer. I just feel that Dad had no legal responsibility for being shot. No matter how he was driving.

Anyhow this is way off topic for the Taconic accident.
 
Just a suggestion; visit www.taconictragedy.com

You may want to read the book The Taconic Tragedy, there is quite a bit of information that was not released or (realized) to the public.
Interesting!
 
I want to add to Fairy1's thoughts on Daniel that he has a right to his own coping mechanisms, even if one of them is denial. This business that he is somehow devastating the other survivors all over again by not accepting the coroner's report is a crock..

Crock? Oh ok, so his wife's victims should just be quiet, and let Daniel continue to lie about his wife to serve his own agenda.

Diane is dead. She is the one who murdered their loved ones by driving the van drunk and stoned. But, is it so hard to imagine that Daniel adds insult to their pain everytime they hear his lies about what Diane did?

I give Daniel this, he has a right to his own coping mechanisms, and express his feelings in press interviews, cable documentaries and lawsuits. His wife's victims and the public have a right to not like what he says or accept it, and take the nessessary steps to correct his lies and show them for what they are.

Let's assume the worst and say for argument's sake that Daniel is totally in denial in refusing to accept the coroner's verdict. Then he is a very troubled man and very deserving of our pity, not our condemnation...

I don't recall Daniel asking for anyone's pity. But, it does seem to me, through his various lawsuits, that he appears to comforting himself by seeking financial compensation from his murdering wife's victims.

The Hances are no less in denial than Daniel Schuler. He's blaming the coroner for not finding something medical that will lessen Diane's share of the blame. They're blaming Daniel and his opinions for their pain....

I think the source of their pain is specifically related to the murderous acts of Diane Shuler. Daniel continues to compound their pain by lying about Diane's actions that day.

And, yes, the Hances are also deserving of our sympathy. But that doesn't mean we should accept their flights of grief-induced fancy as real.

Fancy, I can't follow the use of that word, can you explain what exactly what their fancy is?

I do know that they had to bury their babies, all three daughters, because their fathers's sister was a drunk driver who murdered them.
 
...Daniel adds insult to their pain....

That was what I said was a crock. It's a phrase we throw around, but what does it really mean? The Hances lost three daughters; I don't for a moment pretend I can understand their pain or how they managed to go on day after day. (Nor am I blaming them for finding a way to do so. And I wish them nothing but joy with their new child, while realizing that the new baby can't magically erase the grief they still feel.)

But do you really believe that in the midst of such grief, Daniel's efforts to exonerate the wife he loved can make things worse? I don't. I think the Hances are displacing their anger onto Daniel because (a) he isn't their brother, and (b) he's still around to be a target for their anger.

And that displacement was the "flight of fancy" to which I referred. Daniel is not "insulting" the Hances by defending his own wife.

Maybe the Hances think Schuler's efforts to get to what he can accept as the truth simply bring more painful publicity to the case. Tough. Their sister killed 8 people, including 4 children and herself. Such things tend to make the news.

There's plenty of denial, displacement and projection to go around in this case.

But to the extent that the Hances disagree with Daniel, yes, I agree they have every right to speak up and say so. I never meant to imply otherwise.

***

As for the various lawsuits, I don't think we have all the info on those. I've pointed out some ways in which they may be legal maneuvering; elmomom has pointed out others.

Or maybe Schuler and the Hances are acting out their displaced anger in the courtroom. At this point, we just don't know.
 
That was what I said was a crock.

You're wrong. Daniel is causing the victims further pain...The son of one of the adult victims refers to it as the "never ending agony caused by one fabricated story after another."

Daniel can say whatever he wants...I hope the Bastardi family cleans up in punitive damages when this case goes to trial.
 
You're wrong. Daniel is causing the victims further pain...The son of one of the adult victims refers to it as the "never ending agony caused by one fabricated story after another."

Daniel can say whatever he wants...I hope the Bastardi family cleans up in punitive damages when this case goes to trial.

That he says it doesn't make it true. If the stories are mere fabrications, why do they cause him pain? Why not ignore them and go on with the process of healing?

More importantly, painful or not, doesn't Daniel have an obligation to pursue what he believes to be the facts. Don't we usually applaud a search for the truth?
 
I finally read the police report. Now, I'm convinced this was a drunk driving accident, plain and simple.

I was leaning toward possible suicide after reading some ideas about that, but, to me, there's too much that goes against that idea. What instantly changed my mind was when I read that all five children were wearing seat belts. That takes away the "taking the kids with her" scenario. It would be interesting to know if she was wearing one. Secondly, when I saw the video of Diane at the gas station and the way she pulled out of the wrong driveway lane and floored it to make the left turn showed me she is a very aggressive driver. Which explains her aggressive driving that day. I think most drunk people behave in exaggerated versions of themselves. Thirdly, I don't think a conscientious person would assume they'd actually die in a deliberate car accident. Lastly, nothing about that day, or weekend, makes me think she had suicide on her mind. Picking up three more children on a Friday afternoon and meeting her husband for a fun-filled camping trip hardly shows the despondency of a suicidally depressed person.

As many earlier posts here described, some people are able to be heavy drinkers without others knowing about it. Because I couldn't imagine that, as I've only seen the type of drinkers that are obviously drunk when they're drunk, I really didn't consider this as a possibility. But, now I do believe it's possible because I think Daniel is telling the truth about what he thought his wife's drinking habits were. Based on the toxicology reports which were re-examined and confirmed, I don't think she was trying to medicate a bad tooth or that any other medical problem occurred.

The only mystery left for me is how Diane thought she'd get by with being intoxicated when dropping off her nieces. But, putting that aside, it does appear that she chose to get drunk while driving home, and horrible tragedy resulted. Simple as that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
103
Guests online
2,133
Total visitors
2,236

Forum statistics

Threads
594,859
Messages
18,013,952
Members
229,532
Latest member
Sarti
Back
Top