Re the horrific, multi-fatality wrong way crash that has been in in the newsin this news video the woman’s family is adamantly insistingshe was not an alcoholic and that it was something “medical”, whereas the physical evidence seems to point to massive alcohol consumption before and just prior to the crash .
I can understand getting pretty toasted at social events, and have over indulged myself on occasion, but on a real world basis is it possible for someone to be going about everyday tasks, and drinking that much alcohol in morning and into the middle of the day, and not be a likely alcoholic?
Are the relatives CYAing against possible lawsuits against her estate? How coud she have had everyone fooled? It’s (IMO) as the son of an alcoholic mother pretty damned obvious when you’ve been drinking and are impaired or drunk. What other possible explanation is there other than that she was a drunk? Timeline
IANAD, so I can’t speak in that capacity to the question in your second paragraph. That said, I was discussing that very question with my best girlfriend last night:
We agreed that even in college, when we could hold liquor like…well, like college students, we doubt either of us could’ve:
(1) drank enough in the first place to remain conscious while having the equivalent of ten shots of pure vodka in our respective systems (I imagine that takes a hell of an alcohol tolerance), or
(2) Performed tasks for any length of time even if we fulfilled the requirements stated in (1).
As to how she could have had everyone fooled (assuming she was, indeed, an alcoholic not in recovery):
Maybe she didn’t have everyone fooled. We’re hearing all of these quotes via the newspaper and television news. I doubt that even if people did suspect something (or even knew something), that they would “speak ill of the dead” - especially because doing so would strongly imply that the dead woman had killed her own child and nieces as well as three strangers.
One could argue she wasn’t an alcoholic, but that doesn’t change the fact that she was legally drunk. Ultimately, the only point of attack is to argue the BAC number was incorrect.
The only other explanation is that the spies thought she was George Kaplan and poured liquor down her throat so she’d appear drunk in a plot to get rid of him.
It is quite possible for a full-blown alcoholic to be eyeball-deep in liquor yet functioning well enough for those around her not to notice, yet to be so absolutely sloshed to get on a highway going the wrong direction. It is also possible for someone to be alcoholic and those around her not know, or to “never see them drunk.” I know a lot of people are arguing all these points, they can’t imagine being drunk that way or being around an alcoholic and not knowing, because neither fits with their personal experience. But, both points are absolutely possible.
There’s a good essay in the NYTimes about this topic that lays out the different arguments and talk about why this story makes everyone edgy – there’s no clear explanation that everyone can buy into and give us a take-away moral to the story.
I forgot to address the possible CYA aspect: Sure, maybe the family is trying to protect the estate by saying that she wasn’t an excessive drinker. I wonder, though, if that would do any good.
That is, if news reports are to be believed, the autopsy showed that her BAC was more than double the legal limit of .08, that she had a high level (more than a “contact high”) of a key component (THC, I assume) of marijuana in her system, and that a vodka bottle was found in her car.
Would that evidence be enough to initiate a civil lawsuit against her estate? Would any number of people saying “But she wasn’t an active alcoholic!”/“I had no idea she was an active alcoholic!” bear any weight?
If you downed a bunch of high strength booze (like vodka) fast, then hit the road, there IS going to be a time delay until your BAC starts ramping up.
I could probably chugg down 6 to 12 oz of vodka and hit the highway and make it a fair distance before I was mentally and physically drunk off my ass.
And someone who ISNT a drinker might not realize how bad the effect or time delay could be.
So, maybe she wasnt a regular alcholic. Just someone ignorant enough to down some high test stuff then shortly thereafter hit the road. You know, like in the movies, where the hero takes a big swig before doing something important or dangerous or unpleasant…
If she was trying to hide drug and alcohol use why call her brother? That she would drive a van full of little kids feeling poorly enough that she’d called someone to say she was unwell is unthinkable to me.
I have no alternate theory of the crime, and I don’t know enough about alcoholism to know if it’s possible she really could have hid it from everyone close to her.
If you were her brother, who I gather is the father of three of her victims, would you do anything to protect her posthumous reputation?
There is an article right now on Yahoo.com, saying the husband will not face any charges related to the crash, and (according to a legal expert quoted in the story) that in denying that he had any awareness of his wife’s booze/drug habit, he is probably trying to blunt the effectiveness of any forthcoming civil lawsuit.
One thing: they can sue the estate and nothing will prevent that, but the family of the other victims are threatening to sue personally any relative (or other person) who might have known that she was driving drunk. So if I knew it, I would have every incentive to deny that. I don’t see how, short of an admission, such a suit could succeed. But then IANAL.
Eh? That’s only about half a litre of vodka, right? (assuming a US shot is 1.5 fl oz, as stated by wikipedia). That’s about a regular night out in the UK. Then again you 'mericans think we’re all alcoholics, so y’know…
/Hijack.
I’d also like to chime in on the ‘why does it make a difference if she was addicted or not’ side. Surely the key element is whether the family knew if she was intoxicated, not if she was addicted.
The author makes it very clear that she was able to hide her excessive drinking very effectively, and that she could be quite drunk without the people around her realizing it.
Curious that the hubby leaves with the dog, and gives her responsibility for five kids under 9 years old on a several hours long road trip. Wouldn’t breaking the kids up so that they’re easier to handle have made more sense? Also: why leave separately and break up the caravan? It’s an awful thought, but does no one want to think about the possibility that she was depressed and kinda sorta wanted this to happen?
He didn’t want to go to McDonalds? Maybe the kids all wanted to ride together or the vehicle the mother was driving had entertainment that his didn’t, like a little TV or DVD player built in that the kiddies didn’t want to be without. Or, maybe he had to be home earlier but the mom and kids wanted a more leisurely, stop-filled ride back?
I’ve fallen off the wagon a couple of times during the last fifteen years but I was a reasonably functional alcoholic and pain pill addict for quite a while. But when I lost it, I lost it in a big way. Even so, alcoholism and/or drug addiction isn’t always apparent.
I think it’s legal CYA with a sprinkling of denial. I sincerely doubt that the husband and brother believed her to be a raging alcoholic, they entrusted her with the safety of their children. That doesn’t mean she wasn’t an alcoholic, or that they shouldn’t have seen the signs.
You also can’t expect someone to stand in front of reporters and admit that his wife was a drunk and he routinely let her drive his kids (and other people’s kids) around without any supervision.
Well, fuck this! Neil Armstrong is responsible for the break-up of my marraige, and he owes me BIG TIME!
Why? Cause I like to listen to Dean Martin records. Loud. And loud music makes me wanna drink, cause that is where music is played loud. In Bars. They serve booze in bars.
Deano sings this one song about when “The Moon Hits Your Eye” or something, then goes on about pizza, I don’t even know. I’m drinking. All I can think about is the moon at this point. And drinking.
And who is it that has actually BEEN TO THE MOON? He left his dirty footprints all over it! That Bastard Neil Armstrong!
So, my wife leave me, taking everything I own and half what I don’t because I drink too much, and who’se fault is it?
Thats right! That Bastard Neil Armstrong! He fucking owes me now!