8 Die in Crash on Taconic State Parkway

[SleuthyMama]

Who has the right to "not disclose"? They're not charging Schuler with anything, so either the phone call was irrelevant, or . . . or what? I need some law info here on why one thing is disclosed and not another.

I cannot speak to the law re what is disclosed vs what is not. All I can do is rely on what I have seen in many other cases. Most times the identity of the caller and the nature of the phone call are not released because they are pertinent to the investigation in some manner. If it was completely irrelevant, why not disclose who it was and what was said? It's what they are not telling us that is nagging at me.

 

[angelmom]

At the risk of seriously pissing off many posters, trying to blame a living person for this tragedy because the dead person can no longer be held accountable is simply wrong.

The Bastardi family wants a pound of flesh from Diane Shuler but they are not able to get because she's dead. So they direct their understandable grief and rage at her closest living relative.

They, along with many people not affected by the tragedy, but nonetheless angry and bewildered, want to insist that he HAD to know about her drinking. It's very possible he didn't.

It's a pretty simple dynamic: she was a hidden addict, she used excessively on this occasion, she lost control and she shattered countless lives. INCLUDING those of her own children.

Does anyone honestly believe that this woman was willing to consciously risk the lives of the children she brought into the world? If anyone can say yes, then he needs to explain how she could be that unfeeling.

Ban me, boo me, put me on ignore. You want to find a deeping meaning in this case because the plain, ugly truth that she was an addict who went overboard and created untold sorrow is simply too much to absorb.

I don't see what the Bastardi family is doing that is so wrong. Who wouldn't want answers? Who wouldn't want regret and remorse from the family of the person who mindlessly, needlessly killed their loved ones? That doesn't necessarily imply fault, but a simple "I'm so sorry" can do wonders.

I've tried to teach my children this lesson a hundred times. If they step on someone's foot by accident or bump into someone, the correct response is "excuse me" or "I'm sorry" NOT "I didn't mean it!" or "It's not my fault! She was standing too close to me!"

The same goes here. If the Schulers had just been appropriately stunned and sorrowful and SORRY for what Dianne did, then I think it would have gone a long way towards being victims together. But instead, Daniel and his Ringling Brothers lawyer keep parading out all of these excuses and "not my fault"s and they sound like my kids bickering. It's insulting and insensitive and incredibly selfish.

Research has shown that hospitals could reduce the number of lawsuits if the doctors would just say they are sorry when something goes wrong, but most hospitals don't allow that since it is seen as an admission of guilt. I think it's the same in this case. I'm not saying that the Bastardi/Longo families wouldn't sue - they have every right to - but they might not be so blindingly furious if they weren't being treated like fools. And I think a lot of the general public feels the same way.

 

[miimaa]

Did the people she was with earlier say what they were doing?? Exactly what were they eating and drinking? I ask this because I have seen someone that does not drink gulp down jello shots at a party not knowing they contain vodka. We all knew because we'd had them at many parties and we assumed she was aware of what a jello shot was. We didn't even know she was a non-drinker until she started acting drunk... then someone told her she'd had about 10 jello shots so what did she expect. She was okay after food and lots of water, but I wonder where Diane consumed the vodka. Can the autopsy tell how long the vodka had been in her stomach?

 

[SleuthyMama]

I don't see what the Bastardi family is doing that is so wrong. Who wouldn't want answers? Who wouldn't want regret and remorse from the family of the person who mindlessly, needlessly killed their loved ones? That doesn't necessarily imply fault, but a simple "I'm so sorry" can do wonders.

I've tried to teach my children this lesson a hundred times. If they step on someone's foot by accident or bump into someone, the correct response is "excuse me" or "I'm sorry" NOT "I didn't mean it!" or "It's not my fault! She was standing too close to me!"

The same goes here. If the Schulers had just been appropriately stunned and sorrowful and SORRY for what Dianne did, then I think it would have gone a long way towards being victims together. But instead, Daniel and his Ringling Brothers lawyer keep parading out all of these excuses and "not my fault"s and they sound like my kids bickering. It's insulting and insensitive and incredibly selfish.

Research has shown that hospitals could reduce the number of lawsuits if the doctors would just say they are sorry when something goes wrong, but most hospitals don't allow that since it is seen as an admission of guilt. I think it's the same in this case. I'm not saying that the Bastardi/Longo families wouldn't sue - they have every right to - but they might not be so blindingly furious if they weren't being treated like fools. And I think a lot of the general public feels the same way.

:blowkiss: Thank you, angelmom. This is a fantastic post. I couldn't agree with you more.

 

[capoly]

With all due respect capoly, I believe this is a different phone call they are talking about. Or they have since changed their tune on who this phone call was from.

Several articles mentioned in incoming phone call around the 12 PM timeframe (12:08 if I am remembering correctly) and originally did not/would not indicate the identity of the caller or what the conversation was about. In subsequent stories I did finally see it was mentioned the caller was a member of the Schuler family (Warren is a Hance family member, not a Schuler) and it was NOT her husband. So they are still not completely identifying the caller and most definitely not disclosing the nature of the phone call.

http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009908080343

The Schuler family investigator, Tom Ruskin, is the person that mentions the phone calls. His first mention is in the article you link to above:

Aug, 8 "Ruskin won't discuss details of an incoming call that Diane Schuler received at 12:08 p.m. and lasted for two minutes, nor would he identify who the caller was."

In the Aug 18 article Ruskin supplies this information: "At 12:08 p.m. the Hances called back and had what has been described as a "normal" conversation with Schuler."
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=8350259

Seems he is referring to the same phone call in both articles. As for his saying "a member of the Schuler family" imo it's not uncommon for family members to be referred to as part of a particular family.

 

[SleuthyMama]

Thanks capoly. I know I must sound like a dog with a bone but I still feel like something is off kilter.

On August 8th they knew the identity of the caller if it was in fact Warren Hance. Why hide it at that point when they'd already mentioned in other parts of the article that Diane had spoken with him? What would be the difference between that call and the other calls between them? And why in one paragraph call him Warren Hance and then in another paragraph call him a Schuler family member?

Seems like it would create more confusion than anything else.

 

[tapu]

I would bet any amount of money that Diane Schuler knowingly and intentionally drank vodka, rather than having accidentally ingested it in jello shots or any other disguise or medium.

 

[capoly]

Thanks capoly. I know I must sound like a dog with a bone but I still feel like something is off kilter.

On August 8th they knew the identity of the caller if it was in fact Warren Hance. Why hide it at that point when they'd already mentioned in other parts of the article that Diane had spoken with him? What would be the difference between that call and the other calls between them? And why in one paragraph call him Warren Hance and then in another paragraph call him a Schuler family member?

Seems like it would create more confusion than anything else.

Am not sure when the PI was called into the case. If it was shortly after the news broke re alcohol/drug use then it's likely he did not know which Hance (brother or wife) spoke to Diane. It likely wasn't the right time to ask either. It sounds to me like he learned that they both spoke to Diane.

 

[Salem]

I'm gonna start a new thread! This one is way tooooooooooo long. Hang on for a minute here

Salem

 

[Salem]

PLEASE CONTINUE HERE: 8 Die in Crash on Taconic State Parkway #2 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Salem