8 Die in Crash on Taconic State Parkway #2

[Nova]

If a judge turned them down, we would have had Dan screaming to the media how unfair it was...It's just more plausible this was a resource issue rather than a true permission issue.

The filmmakers themselves say they didn't have $30,000 to pay Ruskin's appearance fee. If they didn't have it for Ruskin, why would they have had it for Spitz? They clearly only booked a day or less of Spitz's time....They went the economy route.

The desire to exhume/reautopsy was Dan's way of keeping Diane alive and guarding her memory....Barbara played into that to gain Dan's confidence, but come on, no one other than Dan and Jay believed the BAC was a lie.

But, again, then why not say so in the film?

Lacking $30K in the budget for Ruskin doesn't mean they hadn't budgeted the same amount (or even more) for the exhumation and had it waiting in the bank. (As always, we are at a disadvantage because we don't know when conversations were filmed.)

An ethical doc filmmaker would not confuse "couldn't get the necessary permissions" with "couldn't get the necessary funds together", and certainly wouldn't report the wrong cause.

However, it is possible we are both right in a way: (a) a judge denied Dan permission to exhume, but (b) Dan was secretly relieved. Lacking "permission," he can continue to claim whatever he wants without a second autopsy contradicting him.

It's also possible that if a judge denied Dan permission, Dan lacked the funds to right the ruling (particularly since Barbera had misappropriated most of Diane's insurance).

I do believe that someday one of us will stumble on the answer--without relying on the NY Post!

 

[twinkiesmom]

But, again, then why not say so in the film?

The filmmakers's neutrality really isn't neutral. This is the Schuler story, not the crash story or the Bastardi's story.

An ethical doc filmmaker would not confuse "couldn't get the necessary permissions" with "couldn't get the necessary funds together", and certainly wouldn't report the wrong cause.

If they were truly ethical, they wouldn't have allowed Ruskin to be publicly disparaged for holding back investigative work product. Instead, since he didn't agree to participate in the doco, they filmed his phone calls and accusations against him not being ethical.

They so-called ethical filmmakers cobbled together a Ruskin vs. Schuler controversy for dramatic effect.

Ruskin did not hold back his results...He went to the papers with them. He split with Schuler/Barbera a year ago when he confirmed the BAC results were correct and matched Diane's DNA. When he split with the filmmakers, he became the scapegoat for the film.

I had to watch the doco twice to catch that bit about Jay being invited but told to stay home. It was really subtle, and other people missed it altogether.

Jay was told to stay home so they had dramatic footage of her confronting Ruskin. If an exhumation was truly planned and the filmmakers were ethical, they wouldn't have had to manufacture drama. We would have had dramatic footage of the casket and the earthmoving equipment...Jay kvetching about the condition of Diane's remains...Dan pounding his fists about finding that abscess-stroke.

However, it is possible we are both right in a way: (a) a judge denied Dan permission to exhume, but (b) Dan was secretly relieved. Lacking "permission," he can continue to claim whatever he wants without a second autopsy contradicting him.

It's also possible that if a judge denied Dan permission, Dan lacked the funds to right the ruling (particularly since Barbera had misappropriated most of Diane's insurance).

I do believe that someday one of us will stumble on the answer--without relying on the NY Post!

There is no evidence whatsoever that a judge has been contacted about exhumation. If the filmmakers were paying for and planned to include the reautopsy and the exhumation was denied, why wouldn't they simply have shown the Schulers getting the letter and their disappointment or shown them standing outside the courthouse being angry/sad? Why wouldn't they have named the judge or named the court that denied it? Instead we did see both the filmmakers and Jay complaining about a lack of funds. Lack of money was a recurring theme throughout the film.

Given a filmmaker's ability to take dramatic license, it's possible that Dan has yet to get the necessary permissions because he hasn't asked.

It's also possible that the missing permission is from their own defense attorney. The Schulers may have been advised to keep Diane in the ground to prevent a Bastardi reautopsy that would document chronic alcohol usage. The liver findings are equivocal, but I've read that a hair test would be definitive.

 

[Nova]

The filmmakers's neutrality really isn't neutral. This is the Schuler story, not the crash story or the Bastardi's story.

I don't agree and I don't know why you say that. Yes, the film is more focussed on Dan and Jay and the attempts to exonerate Diane, but that's all the more reason to assume the filmmakers thought they would get to film an exhumation and second autopsy.

If they were truly ethical, they wouldn't have allowed Ruskin to be publicly disparaged for holding back investigative work product. Instead, since he didn't agree to participate in the doco, they filmed his phone calls and accusations against him not being ethical.

I don't know where you went to film school, but there's nothing unethical there as long as they gave Ruskin a chance to tell his side of the story. Per the doc, Ruskin declined to do so without additional payment.

They so-called ethical filmmakers cobbled together a Ruskin vs. Schuler controversy for dramatic effect.

How is that the invention of the filmmakers? Jay herself tells us they have had problems getting reports from Ruskin. (It may have been Barbera's fault, but that doesn't mean the film invented the conflict.)

Ruskin did not hold back his results...He went to the papers with them. He split with Schuler/Barbera a year ago when he confirmed the BAC results were correct and matched Diane's DNA. When he split with the filmmakers, he became the scapegoat for the film.

Ruskin was portrayed as something of an *advertiser censored* for refusing to return phone calls, but I think it's a considerable exaggeration to call him the "scapegoat" of the entire film.

I had to watch the doco twice to catch that bit about Jay being invited but told to stay home. It was really subtle, and other people missed it altogether.

Jay was told to stay home so they had dramatic footage of her confronting Ruskin. If an exhumation was truly planned and the filmmakers were ethical, they wouldn't have had to manufacture drama. We would have had dramatic footage of the casket and the earthmoving equipment...Jay kvetching about the condition of Diane's remains...Dan pounding his fists about finding that abscess-stroke.

What ARE you talking about? Without the "necessary permissions", no earthmover would have been driven to the cemetary.

There is no evidence whatsoever that a judge has been contacted about exhumation. If the filmmakers were paying for and planned to include the reautopsy and the exhumation was denied, why wouldn't they simply have shown the Schulers getting the letter and their disappointment or shown them standing outside the courthouse being angry/sad? Why wouldn't they have named the judge or named the court that denied it? Instead we did see both the filmmakers and Jay complaining about a lack of funds. Lack of money was a recurring theme throughout the film.

Maybe because they weren't there when Dan got the notification? I don't know exactly why each shot was chosen or discarded, but you are speculating that the filmmakers would have wanted and could have gotten these moments on camera. We don't know that.

Given a filmmaker's ability to take dramatic license, it's possible that Dan has yet to get the necessary permissions because he hasn't asked.

I suppose that's true. IIRC, the language in the film was "Dan wasn't able to get the necessary permissions," but it's true that might mean only that he missed a filing deadline and wasn't able to get the necessary permissions before the film was completed. (Though somehow, I think they would have waited for an exhumation.)

It's also possible that the missing permission is from their own defense attorney. The Schulers may have been advised to keep Diane in the ground to prevent a Bastardi reautopsy that would document chronic alcohol usage. The liver findings are equivocal, but I've read that a hair test would be definitive.

The Bastardis are on record as wanting a second autopsy on Diane so that such a hair test can be done. That is linked somewhere above.

Dan's attorney's permission would not be required. I suppose "prevented" might mean "was advised against it by his own attorney", but usually the latter is said when it is meant.

 

[twinkiesmom]

The minute or two of Bastardi family footage does not make this a neutral or balanced film...no way.

Nova, You choose to believe the filmmakers. I think Ruskin has more credibility at this point.

I think it's terrible that the team of them (filmmakers + Barbara + Schuler) made Ruskin out to be someone who takes the money and runs with it...That's just not right when the truth was he went to the family and to the media with the information and the team kept poor Aunt Jay in the dark and made her look foolish in the film.

In my mind, Dan was "unable to secure the permission" because he didn't have the money. Show me the proof that it was anything else.

If anyone had stood in their way of the exhumation, the filmmakers could have run text while showing the public building where that person worked. They could have showed the Schulers opening an envelope (any envelope) and voicing or texting over it. Or they could have run the text while filming the grave itself.

The idea that the filmmakers went ahead and made this film the whole time not knowing whether they were going to show an autopsy or not strains credibility.

 

[twinkiesmom]

You have to take into account the timing of the documentary...They signed the agreements to do it about a year ago....at the same time, Ruskin split with the team, did not agree to do the documentary, and went to the media that the BAC values were correct.

He became a sideshow in that documentary after he had gone public with his beliefs.

I also believe Jay didn't know and was a convenient patsy for the film because she works 14 hour days and takes care of Bryan when she's not working.

This all smells to me. IMHO.

 

[Nova]

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

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

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

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.

 

[twinkiesmom]

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.

"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?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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