8 Die in Crash on Taconic State Parkway #2

[Nova]

...To the poster that insinuated the family should be healing no matter what Daniel does...
Picture a big scab on your knee... it's painful, SO painful and then gratefully it begins to start to heal over, gradually. Then someone begins to pick at it over and over. The pain starts all over again and the HEALING has to start all over again! Emotions are similar. You can't heal unless you are given time to heal without the wound being opened again and again. IMHO.

Your analogy is beautifully written, but that doesn't make it a valid comparison.

How is a feeling "similar" to a physical wound? How does Daniel seeking the truth about his wife re-inflict an emotional hurt? (I doubt one ever gets over the absence of three beautiful children anyway.)

Yes, we use the language of physical injury to describe feelings, but that's a metaphorical use of words, not literal.

What's more, I think we are very inconsistent on the subject of grieving. We tell rape and assault victims that to heal they need to face their feelings and demand their day in court. In a way, Daniel is doing just that, while the other survivors want to stifle the public discussion, as if the discussion is what hurts them, not the deaths themselves. Why is Daniel in the wrong here?

 

[Nova]

Well that's true... he was speeding. I'm having a huge issue with most of that paragraph, especially... "operated each said vehicle while in an inappropriate physical condition and state of mind" I'm sure at that point in time Guy's state of mind was sheer panic & terror! I've been hit head on one time at a pretty slow rate of speed thank goodness, and I was scared out of my mind watching that car come at me with nowhere else to go but straight into it's path.

Anyone see this article? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-tian-dayton/dianne-schuler-when-denia_b_351295.html

"A New York Times article today reported that Dianne Schuler's sister in law, Joan Schuler, told investigators that Dianne was, in fact, a very heavy user of both alcohol and marijuana. The truth that Daniel Schuler, Dianne's husband, has tried so hard to hide from the world and probably from himself is coming out."

Who is Joan? Jay was in the docu. I know they comped to the pot usage, well Jay has... but this is the first thing I've read from someone within the family acknowledging Diane was a heavy alcohol user. If a SIL knew it, who else did?

When I discovered my sister using Vodka to deal with her life (single mom, 4 kids, ex paying no support) I told EVERYONE in our immediate family so we could help her. I would think if one person knew it, they all did... or most of them. At least on the Schuler side. How often was she with her own brothers? I find it odd that not one of them has spoken up about this tragedy or Diane. There is 3 or 4 brothers and I just find it odd.

I think Joan and Jay are the same person, but don't bet any money on my say-so.

 

[NebraskaGirl]

I'm not at all sure this has anything to do with vengeance against the Hances or Bastardis.

I haven't worked at a New York law firm for 20 years, but I think the way it still works is that a judge or jury assigns a percentage of responsibility to each party. So they might decide that Diane was 80% responsible for driving drunk and Mr. Bastardi was 10% responsible (for speeding) and Hance was 10% responsible for loaning the van to his sister. (I'm totally making up numbers here as an example. Please don't rely on them.)

The judge or jury would also assess total amount of damages. Then each party's insurance company would pay its percentage.

There may also be caps to the amount of coverage each party has, so a good lawyer sues them all, then works to see what he can get from each for his client.

You are exactly right. I would guess the attorney sued everyone because 1) they haven't been able to settle it and the statute of limitations is close to running (in fact, I just did a quick google search and found a NY law firm's website that states the statute for a death from an MVA is 2 years) and/or 2) they are hoping to push the insurance companies into settling by filing.

It's possible they could be in disagreement about how to split the insurance proceeds. I don't know what the law is as far as auto insurance coverage in New York, but let's say the Schuler's had a 100/300 policy - that would mean a limit of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per incident. Therefore, the $300,000 would have to be split between all victims (including the son that lived and the 2 in the third car that lived). The lawyers for all the victims would have to figure out how to split that between them all (at least that's how it works here from my experience).

Because of the loss of life, I would guess the underinsured motorist coverage would come into play. Actually, the whole thing is kind of confusing. For example, for DS's daughter, he would be able to make a claim against his wife (because she was driving and was at fault), his BIL (because he owned the van) and possbily against the deceased driver of the other car (because he was speeding). Mr. Longo's Estate/family would probably have the best claim, as they could go after Mrs. DS, the Hance's (for owning the car), GB (the car he was riding in) and if they got policy limits for all those, possibly even after his own underinsured motorist coverage. (Bear in mind, I'm not an attorney - this is all just my understanding of how it works in my state.)

Also, something to note, while DS will more than likely get some kind of settlement for his daughter's death, the money his son gets will probably be put in a restricted account or structured settlement until he reaches the age of majority (at least that's what the law requires here for settlements over a certain amount). My point is that DS will more than likely not be able to touch his son's money.

Hopefully all this makes sense...it's late and I'm tired!

Thanks for all the welcomes

Nebraska Girl

 

[Nova]

Well that's true... he was speeding. I'm having a huge issue with most of that paragraph, especially... "operated each said vehicle while in an inappropriate physical condition and state of mind" I'm sure at that point in time Guy's state of mind was sheer panic & terror! I've been hit head on one time at a pretty slow rate of speed thank goodness, and I was scared out of my mind watching that car come at me with nowhere else to go but straight into it's path....

That language confused me, too, but I decided (note: I'm not a lawyer) that it was worded so that each claim that could apply to either driver was applied to both.

What if during depositions, it turned out that Mr. Bastardi had also been drinking? (THIS IS ONLY AN EXAMPLE AND AS FAR AS I KNOW UNTRUE.)

That might change the plaintiff's theories on responsibility, but if it weren't discovered before a certain date, it might not be possible to add it to the complaint.

So a careful lawyer throws in everything. I know, it's confusing and frustrating. (Believe me, I REALLY know because for over 20 years I made my living typing those documents!)

 

[OneLostGrl]

I'm a newbie here and have not posted before. After seeing the HBO documentary, I read every single one of the posts on this case. I was able to find the lawsuit that DS filed. I hope I'm not breaking any rules by posting this. If I am, please let me know.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/29/WrongWay.pdf

After all the reading I've done, I'm still not any closer to coming up with a theory of what happened. I definitely don't agree the murder/suicide theory. After that, I'm just now sure.

I do look at DS as more of a victim than anything else. I'm sure he has been less-than-honest about things, but part of me doesn't fault him for that, as he was probably fearful of losing everything he had, including his son. I also don't fault him for filing his lawsuit, although it does leave a bad taste in my mouth that he named one of the victims and his brother-in-law (who had already lost enough). However, being in that field of law (I'm NOT an attorney!), I understand it had to be done. He deserves an equal part of the insurance settlement, just as the other victims' families do.

NebraskaGirl

:Welcome1:

 

[Nova]

You convinced me. I was thinking I'd watch the doc again anyway. I'll look for that reference and see if I can transcribe it exactly.

Okay, I rewatched the doc and here are some thoughts based on conversations we've been having here:

1. In the doc, the “35 minute” figure comes from Dominic Barbera, Schuler’s attorney at a press conference held to respond to the toxicology report. Barbera says, “She got into the van with the children and what should have taken a 35 minute drive took almost 4 hours.”

Based on Stella's figures above, I don't see what "35 minute drive" Barbera could mean. Stella did, however, show the following time estimate:

Hunters Lake Campground to Tappan Zee Bridge - 95.2 miles, 1 hour 44 minutes

Diane called her brother from the Tappan Zee Bridge and wasn't too far beyond it when she made the wrong turn and crashed. I wonder if Barbera meant to say "an hour and 35 minutes" (which is close to the 1 hour 44 minute figure) and simply misspoke.

2. In one of the 911 tapes at the beginning, a caller from the Sleepy Hollow police station says “The father and the brother are here at the station.” There’s also a call from another family friend to the state police. Whatever he was doing, Mr. Hance wasn’t playing cowboy. He was doing everything he could to get help from anybody, LE or friend.

3. Yes, the teen with Jay is identified as Evan, her son.

4. The comment by Dan that he “never wanted to have kids” was made privately to Jay during a conversation in which she was pressing him to admit his anger at Diane. Jay told the cameras about the remark. She probably shouldn't have (just so that Bryan won't hear it one day), but she isn't the first person who got comfortable with documentary cameras around and said too much.

Overall, I was again struck with sadness for all concerned. It isn't just Daniel who can't believe Diane was an alcoholic. His brother's sister, Jay, is just as adamant. So is Diane's best friend. Maybe they are all wrong, but perhaps we ought to cut Dan some slack since other people close to Diane hold the same opinion.

Even the Hance's have not, to my knowledge, ever publicly said they knew anything about Diane's drinking. In the doc, Jay says she doesn't think they believe the coroner's report either, but they have chosen not to discuss the case in public.

There are, however, reports from several people that Diane kept rubbing her jaw that weekend. Maybe she really did have an abscessed tooth, self-medicated for it (which was wrong of her; I'm not excusing her) and lost track of how much she had to drink.

***

One other thing I haven't seen mentioned here is that I've been told that the sugar in fruit juice makes alcohol take affect more quickly. We have all speculated that she used the McD's o.j. as a mixer.

In the doc, a doctor says alcohol can multiply and quicken the effect of marijuana.

If Diane was indeed in extreme pain that morning and began to self-medicate, the substances she consumed may have combined to render her suddenly very, very drunk.

 

[twinkiesmom]

Look at your own post. You make a clear distinction between Daniel and "the victims." Your prerogative, of course, but I don't understand it and I have to think that distinction influences your view of Daniel's actions.

Since I see Daniel as one of "the victims," I think he not only deserves my pity, but has a right to respond in his own way.

Clearly, I believe Daniel has some moral responsibility here to take the high ground (or at least show some modicum of respect) because of his intimate relationship with the perpetrator.

You have gone after the Hances in some of your posts (which enrages me). They had the good sense to keep quiet as well as support the Bastardis in their grief. They even turned over money from their girls' memorial fund to the Bastardis. They are just going public with their feelings now...and even though they're not denying the cause of the crash, they haven't bashed the Diane that they knew. The fact that they are countersuing doesn't mitigate their class. They're protecting their unborn child's future in defending the suit.

i actually have tremendous compassion for Diane...She had a terrible life and now has a destroyed legacy. The good that she did in her life will be tainted by this last act. It appears that at every major fork in her life, she had a choice between a hard route that left her burdened and an easy one, and she always took the hard way. She helped raise her siblings. She picked a spouse who her own mother-in-law said was her oldest child. She picked a nightmare job with a huge emotional burden. She raised her kids without much help. She drove the 5 kids while Daniel took the dog. At the very end, she had the ability to tell her brother-in-law "I'm in pain, I can't see, come get us" but chose to drive blind and impaired instead to do it herself. It's a Greek tragedy.

I actually use this case as a personal wake-up call when I see my spouse at the end of his rope.

 

[twinkiesmom]

Why is Daniel in the wrong here?

We wink at drunk driving in this country. We call it an accident when it is not. It is a crime. That minivan was a loaded weapon.

Putting myself in the Bastardi's position, their father/brother were crime victims, and Daniel and his mouthpieces are trying to say they were not. You don't like metaphors, but the picking at a wound one is apt in this case. Salt in a wound and gasoline on a fire also apply.

Telling the Bastardis that this was an accident and not a DUI/vehicular homicide is like telling a rape victim she brought it on herself. If it wasn't a crime, they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[travel888]

The Sunoco attendent refused to speak to the police, video was obtained by Thomas Ruskin. Claims book based largely on police notes and private investigators. Worth the read, when you see the information in dated order, it's amazing!

 

[Saffron]

Twinkiesmom, I respect your thoughts on this, and I’m not trying to be argumentive, but I see your points very differently and I’ll explain why.

i actually have tremendous compassion for Diane... She had a terrible life and now has a destroyed legacy. The good that she did in her life will be tainted by this last act.

While it is terrible that Diane's mother ran off with a neighbor when Diane was nine, and emotional pain resulted, I don't think the rest of her life sounds terrible. She had a husband she loved and who loved her, two healthy children, lots of family and friends, and a well-paying job that she seemed to like.

It appears that at every major fork in her life, she had a choice between a hard route that left her burdened and an easy one, and she always took the hard way. She helped raise her siblings.

I don't think she chose to help raise her siblings, she was actually put in that position. And I have sympathy for her as a child. But, to me, the other choices you mention weren't necessarily the more difficult path for her, e.g.,:

She picked a spouse who her own mother-in-law said was her oldest child.

Diane probably liked being the one in control of the marriage; she was more comfortable in that role, it seemed, and it probably helped her feel secure.

She picked a nightmare job with a huge emotional burden.

I read that she liked her job and had tried hard to get promoted to her current position.

She drove the 5 kids while Daniel took the dog.

She drove the five kids because Daniel went to the campground earlier in a pick-up truck. I read that he drove back with the dog and the luggage, so maybe he also hauled the luggage on the way there. (My guess is that he had his fishing rods and equipment in the truck also.) Diane probably wanted to drive separately so that she could bring their nieces.

At the very end, she had the ability to tell her brother-in-law "I'm in pain, I can't see, come get us" but chose to drive blind and impaired instead to do it herself.

I'm not sure if you mean by "had the ability" that she did tell her brother she was in pain and needed help. Her niece had called when Diane was impaired and described Diane's condition, but I don't remember reading that Diane called and asked for help. In fact, she left her cellphone behind and kept moving when the brother asked her to stay there so that he could come to help.

I find it difficult to sympathize too much with Diane, although I'm sure she wouldn't have wanted things to end up as they did. She had friends and family to turn to if she needed help, and there's professional help out there if she wanted to go deeper and change and/or figure things out. It looks as though she chose instead, at least on that fateful day, to get intoxicated to block things out. And, in my opinion, that's actually the easier choice.

 

[twinkiesmom]

Twinkiesmom, I respect your thoughts on this, and I’m not trying to be argumentive, but I see your points very differently and I’ll explain why.

I'm not defending her choice to drink that day or any other day of her life.

And when I said "ability" to choose, that was a poor choice of words...She had the option of pulling the car over as her brother asked. Instead she chose to keep driving.

I have an impression of Diane based on what I've read. I believe her mom leaving was the defining moment of her life. I think it was at that point that she became the "responsible, take-charge" one. A person with a different personality might have lapsed into depression or helplessness. She may not have chosen to be saddled with caring for her siblings, but from what I read, she rose to that challenge. That would have been the choice in my reasoning.

I see her as a person who didn't know her own limits and took on additional stress rather than making things easier on herself. Her job and family life were more stressful than they could have been. She probably started as a social drinker/pot smoker who was trying to relax.

I have a relative very much Diane...She punishes herself by taking on too much responsibility...Why does she take on leading the third Girl Scout troop when she doesn't get 5 hours of sleep.

I see her drinking as a way of coping with the stress of her life. I see it as a full-on addiction rather than "taking the easy way out." I do understand why you would see it that way and believe you have a valid alternative opinion. I've gone full spectrum on my feelings about her actions.

The Sunoco video is interesting...To the Schulers, it appears she was sober...To me it looks like she had built up quite a tolerance.

 

[Saffron]

Very clear and interesting explanation on your thoughts about Diane, twinkiesmom. I understand your point of view.

I forgot to add this in my earlier post regarding:

The good that she did in her life will be tainted by this last act.

I think that this is what is motivating Daniel more than anything else.

 

[zippitydoda]

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?

At the very least, Daniel lied about three major facts in this case, Diane's drinking, her use of drugs and where the bottle of vodka came from.

If Daniel is in a quest for the truth, I suggest he look to himself first. He knows the truth, but chooses to lie.

 

[Fairy1]

I would just like to point out that the results of the toxicology tests that were conducted at autopsy have absolutely no bearing on Diane's drinking habits prior to her death. The fact that she was drinking while driving with five children in the vehicle that day makes it easy, from outside her circle, to assume she was an alcoholic. However, it really is nothing more than an assumption.

Of course, that does nothing to change the outcome of this horrific tragedy. But I can understand Daniel's desire to defend Diane's character if people continue paint her as a horrible person who habitually made poor decisions. And even if it was true, he very well may not have known. Working opposite shifts gave her a lot of freedom to drink secretly.

Point is, I don't believe Daniel has intentionally lied about Diane's drinking. I don't think anyone, regardless of how they feel about Daniel, believes he forcibly poured the vodka down her throat at the campsite then loaded her and the babies up in the van and sent them on their way. Though the level of hatred some seem to have for the man makes it seem that way sometimes. IMHO.

 

[Saffron]

I would just like to point out that the results of the toxicology tests that were conducted at autopsy have absolutely no bearing on Diane's drinking habits prior to her death. The fact that she was drinking while driving with five children in the vehicle that day makes it easy, from outside her circle, to assume she was an alcoholic. However, it really is nothing more than an assumption.

Of course, that does nothing to change the outcome of this horrific tragedy. But I can understand Daniel's desire to defend Diane's character if people continue paint her as a horrible person who habitually made poor decisions. And even if it was true, he very well may not have known. Working opposite shifts gave her a lot of freedom to drink secretly.

Point is, I don't believe Daniel has intentionally lied about Diane's drinking. I don't think anyone, regardless of how they feel about Daniel, believes he forcibly poured the vodka down her throat at the campsite then loaded her and the babies up in the van and sent them on their way. Though the level of hatred some seem to have for the man makes it seem that way sometimes. IMHO.

I agree with everything you said.

I cannot imagine what it was like for Daniel to suddenly find out that he had just lost his wife and baby daughter... forever.

 

[Nova]

Clearly, I believe Daniel has some moral responsibility here to take the high ground (or at least show some modicum of respect) because of his intimate relationship with the perpetrator.

You have gone after the Hances in some of your posts (which enrages me). They had the good sense to keep quiet as well as support the Bastardis in their grief. They even turned over money from their girls' memorial fund to the Bastardis. They are just going public with their feelings now...and even though they're not denying the cause of the crash, they haven't bashed the Diane that they knew. The fact that they are countersuing doesn't mitigate their class. They're protecting their unborn child's future in defending the suit.

i actually have tremendous compassion for Diane...She had a terrible life and now has a destroyed legacy. The good that she did in her life will be tainted by this last act. It appears that at every major fork in her life, she had a choice between a hard route that left her burdened and an easy one, and she always took the hard way. She helped raise her siblings. She picked a spouse who her own mother-in-law said was her oldest child. She picked a nightmare job with a huge emotional burden. She raised her kids without much help. She drove the 5 kids while Daniel took the dog. At the very end, she had the ability to tell her brother-in-law "I'm in pain, I can't see, come get us" but chose to drive blind and impaired instead to do it herself. It's a Greek tragedy.

I actually use this case as a personal wake-up call when I see my spouse at the end of his rope.

I have never "gone after" the Hances. I have pointed out the different standard applied to them and to Dan Schuler. A double standard which continues in your post, where the Hances sue to protect their child and Dan, apparently, files suit for other, selfish reasons. At every step of the way, the Hances and Bastardis are given passes and Dan is held somehow mysteriously accountable. Even in your account of Diane's life that leads up to the crash (I've tried to avoid the word "accident") Dan is a major villain.

I have never "gone after" the Hances. What I've said is let's stop "going after" Dan Schuler.

 

[Soulmagent]

I would just like to point out that the results of the toxicology tests that were conducted at autopsy have absolutely no bearing on Diane's drinking habits prior to her death. The fact that she was drinking while driving with five children in the vehicle that day makes it easy, from outside her circle, to assume she was an alcoholic. However, it really is nothing more than an assumption.

Of course, that does nothing to change the outcome of this horrific tragedy. But I can understand Daniel's desire to defend Diane's character if people continue paint her as a horrible person who habitually made poor decisions. And even if it was true, he very well may not have known. Working opposite shifts gave her a lot of freedom to drink secretly.

Point is, I don't believe Daniel has intentionally lied about Diane's drinking. I don't think anyone, regardless of how they feel about Daniel, believes he forcibly poured the vodka down her throat at the campsite then loaded her and the babies up in the van and sent them on their way. Though the level of hatred some seem to have for the man makes it seem that way sometimes. IMHO.

I agree.
I feel as bad for him as I do all the victims. His loss is no less than theirs.

 

[Nova]

We wink at drunk driving in this country. We call it an accident when it is not. It is a crime. That minivan was a loaded weapon.

Putting myself in the Bastardi's position, their father/brother were crime victims, and Daniel and his mouthpieces are trying to say they were not. You don't like metaphors, but the picking at a wound one is apt in this case. Salt in a wound and gasoline on a fire also apply.

Telling the Bastardis that this was an accident and not a DUI/vehicular homicide is like telling a rape victim she brought it on herself. If it wasn't a crime, they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I love metaphors. I'm a playwright by vocation. But I don't think we should confuse them with literal fact.

Questioning the cause of the accident is NOT like telling a rape victim she brought it on herself. That's another wildly constructed metaphor that quite understandably enflames emotions, but has little basis in fact.

 

[Nova]

The Sunoco attendent refused to speak to the police, video was obtained by Thomas Ruskin. Claims book based largely on police notes and private investigators. Worth the read, when you see the information in dated order, it's amazing!

Do you or the book draw any conclusion from the attendant's refusal to talk?

Is that attendant different from the store clerk? How did they get the info that Diane asked for painkillers?

(My guess would be that the attendant's lawyer advised him he might be sued if he said anything that suggested he should have known Diane was drunk and stopped her. But how strange that such a casual witness should be afraid to talk to LE!)

 

[Nova]

I would just like to point out that the results of the toxicology tests that were conducted at autopsy have absolutely no bearing on Diane's drinking habits prior to her death. The fact that she was drinking while driving with five children in the vehicle that day makes it easy, from outside her circle, to assume she was an alcoholic. However, it really is nothing more than an assumption.

Of course, that does nothing to change the outcome of this horrific tragedy. But I can understand Daniel's desire to defend Diane's character if people continue paint her as a horrible person who habitually made poor decisions. And even if it was true, he very well may not have known. Working opposite shifts gave her a lot of freedom to drink secretly.

Point is, I don't believe Daniel has intentionally lied about Diane's drinking. I don't think anyone, regardless of how they feel about Daniel, believes he forcibly poured the vodka down her throat at the campsite then loaded her and the babies up in the van and sent them on their way. Though the level of hatred some seem to have for the man makes it seem that way sometimes. IMHO.

Ain't it the truth!