spratnicki
There is no doubt that there was alcohol and THC in Diane's blood stream, that is FACT. I watched the entire family deny the facts for the entire 'documentary'. What this film failed to explain was HOW Diane was that intoxicated. First off, THC is getting a bad rap here. THC is stored in a persons fat cells. It will remain in your system for anywhere between 1 week and a few months depending on that persons body mass, their personal metabolism and their usage of marijuana. It was revealed that Diane did in fact smoke marijuana. According to the family, she and she alone indulged occasionally. The family was coming home from a weekend camping trip. I'm 99% sure that while on this relaxing trip Diane would have consumed marijuana. There is hardly a better place to indulge. Campfire, marshmallows, the great outdoors...it's a great place to smoke some marijuana and enjoy life. It makes sense that the toxicology report came back positive for marijuana. What is total bullshit is the report saying she smoked 'an hour' to 'four hours' (I think that is what was said) before the accident. There is no way to tell when she consumed the THC. Also, from daily personal experience, marijuana does not make you aggressive, it's calming and relaxing. There is no way that THC is responsible for this accident. Now for the alcohol. I've been blind to alcoholism in the past with some very close friends. When people are true alcoholics, they are addicted and need the alcohol to survive. Diane was a professional and successful business woman and mother. Does anyone know anyone who can perform like Diane did while being sloppy drunk? Nope, it's impossible. This is how alcoholics function. They maintain a constant buzz throughout the day. A little bit here, a little bit there, but a little bit all day long will take it's toll. So here are my questions for the family or for Liz Garbus... -The Absolute Bottle that was found in the car. Was it the same bottle that was in the Schuler's camper over the weekend? Was it full? How much was left in the bottle when Diane got in the car on Sunday? Had the Schuler's been enjoying some vodka drinks over the weekend? I don't know because that was never discussed. It seems that if the Schuler's just 'had a bottle in their camper' it was for drinking. There is nothing wrong with drinking when done in moderation. So, did anyone drink that weekend? Kinda a big question that Liz decided to omit in the film. -Same question about the marijuana. Did anyone else indulge over the weekend? More importantly, did Diane's husband witness her indulge? That would clear up a lot in the toxicology report. The film had a comment about marijuana being a hallucinogen...not true. It's possible for a first time/non regular user to experience some hallucinogenic properties but it is rare. Anyone who regularly uses marijuana will not experience any hallucinations. The big questions are... -Did Diane stop anywhere else before getting to the toll booth on the Tappen Zee bridge? I'm sure there are credit card receipts that show purchases at the McDonalds/Gas station...did she stop anywhere else? There is only so much vodka on can fit in a coffee mug or soda cup...she would have been sipping on while driving, not slamming shots. Therefore she would have needed to stop multiple times to refill her beverage. I also don't see this being the case. She was a responsible woman and held down a high position job while maintaining her family. -When and where would she have smoked marijuana? I find it hard enough to find a 'safe' place to indulge while traveling and I'm by myself. Diane had a van load of children. Did she just leave 5 kids a go have a walkabout and smoke a joint somewhere? I don't see how this is possible either. We will never know what happens until the Schuler family stops the denial. What really happened that weekend at Lake Hunter? How did Diane get onto the Taconic and WHY??? She was heading away from her destination. Even in 2009 we had road cameras and tracking capabilities. What was the time frame from the time that they left the toll booth/placed the phone call/left phone on highway to the time of the accident? Did they stop somewhere between the toll booth and the accident? Is there no DOT footage showing Diane's car en route to the Taconic? Is there something else in the toxicology report that has been omitted? Did she perhaps buy some marijuana at the truck stop that was laced with PCP? That would make sense but just not true. There is a big puzzle piece missing from this story and until the Schuler's open up it will never be known. Diane was indeed impaired, but how, that is the main question. For one to become 'blackout' drunk there needs to be some serious alcohol consumption. I just don't see how she could have consumed that much alcohol in the time frame in question as well as with her surroundings and children. Save yourself 3 hours and watch something else. I say 3 hours because I've spent over an hour writing this review.
Moviegoer19
I eagerly watched "Aunt Diane" because the story has troubled and fascinated me since it happened. As a psychotherapist (LCSW) and writer, I am often attracted to psychological events that are in some way out of the ordinary and involve something highly unexpected. In this case, besides the obvious emotional magnets, the hook is the seemingly straight-laced Super Mom who drives like a demon under the influence of not only alcohol, but pot too, and as a result, kills eight people, including herself. Really tragic, and begging for an explanation.Unfortunately, this documentary doesn't provide it, though it does give some good hints and clues. Watching this film confirmed what I have thought all along: the real criminal in this picture is not the female D. Schuler; rather, it's the male: Daniel. My theory prior to watching this was that Diane left the campground that morning angry. Was she consciously angry that Daniel got to drive off alone,(er,with the family dog) while she got to take the five kids for breakfast and then take the three girls home to her brother and sister-in-law's house? Maybe not, but then, as the documentary shines light on, Diane was bursting with a lot of unrealized and unexpressed anger, starting twenty seven years ago when, at the age of nine, her mother took off, leaving Diane (the only girl) in charge of her brothers and father.As Daniel's mother so aptly described, Diane had more of a third child in Daniel than a husband or partner. Perhaps Diane did what many of us unwittingly do so well: she chose a mate who helped to recreate her role in her original family. It's not wildly improbable to assume that beneath the facade of the happy, in-charge, in-control woman was someone who was seething with unexpressed frustration and anger, which in turn made her prone to psychosomatic problems, such as TMJ, which was alluded to (moving her jaw, pain near the ear) in the film, perhaps headaches, and/or other stress-related pains and bothersome conditions.One of these conditions likely caused her to stop and seek pain killers, and then, given their unavailability, had Diane turn to vodka and pot, to soothe both her physical and psychic pain. I highly doubt that Diane used these extensively on a regular basis, for, as her friends and relatives described, she functioned too well. She did, however, like to have them on hand, for emergencies such as how she felt that morning: incapacitated by both headache and rage.Another clue suggested by the film was when Jay Schuler casually mentions that Daniel never wanted kids. This is a big, red flag, suggesting to me that on all these happy, festive family events, not to mention in the family activities of their daily lives, Daniel was an unwilling participant. Yes, he was present and he did the perfunctory actions, but ultimately, in the end, he went off on his own (emotionally if not literally) leaving Diane with most of the work.The other enlightening thing that Jay Schuler said was when, about three quarters of the way through the film, she is seen throwing up her hands and talking about Daniel, saying, basically, what a pain-in-the-butt he could be, how he only went so far in a process and then essentially said he had had enough, and also, about his insensitivity toward both her and Bryan, his son. Out loud, I said, "Yeah, imagine how Diane must have felt." There are other psychological pieces which could be addressed but in another venue. As part of a film review, however, I think it's fair to say that the film contributed information which, for me, solidified the opinion I have had since that day two years ago: if there is a real villain in this story, it is Daniel. He is the passive aggressive, disturbed child-man who is not interested in the truth coming out about what happened because that would indict him. I think this is one of the reasons, at least, that the Hances declined participation in the film. Besides their own emotional reasons why they didn't want to appear in it, they may also not want to publicly state certain things, though given the legal actions that are currently taking place, I suspect the truth will soon be known.
