<p>He should use what he needs for the autopsy and give the rest to charity or to the victims. I know I’m in the minority, but if he really and truly believes she was not impaired, he should do everything he can to prove that. Even if it’s only a half a percent chance, I can understand why he’d need to do it or why he needs to know for absolute certain, since he himself also lost a child.</p>
<p>I don’t have a problem with the exhumation; he is her next of kin, and he’s entitled to whatever answers he can find. But surely he should resist turning a profit from the enterprise; putting it in trust for his motherless child is one more way he could avoid doing so.</p>
<p>“The husband is going to have the wife exhumed for a private autopsy, paid for by a film company. What a classy guy.”</p>
<p>I imagine that’s how he can afford the autopsy. I also imagine that he needs money. He lost his wife, car, child, etc. He may be having to pay for therapy for himself and his surviving child. I don’t think he’s making money off the tragedy.</p>
<p>His wife was the major breadwinner in the family, and he is having trouble making ends meet. I heard today that the claim he was being paid $100K was wildly exaggerated. If he’s using the $ to take care of his son who the sole survivor of the crash and surely was traumatized by what happened, I think that’s OK.</p>
<p>In my mind, getting paid for the filming of an HBO special under these circumstances is not OK.</p>
<p>
The feelings of the other victims matter. I find this utterly grotesque.</p>
<p>If this is truly a proposed documentary and not a theatrical film [either way, film companies tend not to offer a lot of money to the original subjects of the projects because a lot of the information is in the public domain], why treat the surviving husband with such venom?</p>
<p>As was said, his family, i.e. the son whom survived the crash, has great emotional need at this time and probably for years to come.</p>
<p>I read that Rory Kennedy’s company is making the film for HBO. I have seen several HBO documentaries and each one of them has been very compelling. I have no idea what the angle is here and it may not be exclusively about this case.</p>
<p>What happened was so horrorific that I cannot be envious of any windfall any of the survivors may get from something like a film. I don’t know if I would even be able to go back to work, deal with life, help the remaining child in that situation. $100K is not going to go that far in the NYC area either.</p>
<p>How about the others? The brother’s family who lost all three girls? Or the family of the SUV? Is filming going to help them heal? It should be decided on that imo. If they decide it should help them heal, sure. If it pains them even more, it should be stopped. They can’t take any more hurt.</p>
<p>“why treat the surviving husband with such venom?”</p>
<p>The reason for the venom is that many people believe he must have known about his wife’s drinking problem and still left his children and nieces in her care. No one’s first experimentation with getting blind drunk involves chugging from a bottle of vodka with five kids in the car.</p>
<p>Whether people are right or wrong to believe that, it explains the venom.</p>
<p>My own suspicion is that she was an alcoholic, but was in a period of apparent sobriety, and no one was aware that she relapsed. She may even have relapsed that day.</p>
<p>What Hanna said. I don’t believe the husband didn’t know that she had substance abuse issues. Who was she smoking weed with? Maybe she was boozing by herself, but if he didn’t know she was drinking that day, he had to know that what her history was and shut his mouth. I think this is another example of the same guy being a self-absorbed monster. Like his wife.</p>
<p>I somehow doubt seeing his mother’s remains spread out and dissected on national television is going to help this man’s son, to speak nothing of the other victims. Parenting FAIL.</p>
<p>"
The reason for the venom is that many people believe he must have known about his wife’s drinking problem and still left his children and nieces in her care. No one’s first experimentation with getting blind drunk involves chugging from a bottle of vodka with five kids in the car."</p>
<p>When I worked in the substance abuse field, we treated a woman who was probably in her 50s who had been an alcoholic for decades, but had been able to successfully hide it from her husband even though one of her kids, a toddler, had died (wandered away and was killed in an accident) while the mom was passed out.</p>
<p>It was even hard for some of the recovering alcoholic counselors to imagine how the woman had successfully hidden her alcoholism for so many years. The woman said that she had always made sure that her children looked good – dressed them in white because it was easy to bleach the stains out. Her husband worked long hours and also had a job involving travel, so she was alone with the kids most of the time.</p>
<p>She didn’t drink in front of the kids. She also was able to drink a great deal without looking impaired (this, BTW, is a sign of alcoholism), so other adults who encountered her after she’d been drinking didn’t realize she was drunk. She was an educated, well spoken, charming woman.</p>
<p>In terms of the accident that killed her child, people thought the child wandered away while she was napping. The mom was very distraught about the death, and was known as a good mom. She was the only person who realized how irresponsible she had been.</p>
<p>Anyway, I can believe that it was possible in for her husband whom we’re discussing not to have known about his wife’s alcoholism even if it had gone on for a long time.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Anyway, I can believe that it was possible in for her husband whom we’re discussing not to have known about his wife’s alcoholism even if it had gone on for a long time.
[quote]
He definitely knew she smoked pot because he smoked with her.</p>
<p>I’m not blaming him for the accident. I’m blaming him for how he’s conducted himself since. There are other victims.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I also agree it is completely possible and does happen. I also believe that there is a chance she was not drunk or that there were other factors. Someone mentioned her remains being spread on national television. Was it stated the actual autopsy would be on the documentary? I was under the impression from other posts that they are paying for the autopsy and so forth so he will participate in the documentary. It’s hard to believe they will show her body on national TV. It is easy to believe they will reference the autopsy results.</p>
<p>" I’m blaming him for how he’s conducted himself since. There are other victims."</p>
<p>I can not judge the husband, who is coping with grief similar to that of the other survivors, is having to raise a surviving child as a single parent, and also is having to cope with survivor’s guilt and the blame many are casting upon him.</p>
<p>This story haunts me and I do wonder how the Hance parents, who lost their three delightful little girls, can get through each day. </p>
<p>It is so admirable that they have started a foundation in the memory of the girls. They are apparently quite active with that and it is probably the very best therapy. </p>
<p>But I can only imagine how hard it is for them when they are alone at home. Does one in any way blame the other for however it was decided to allow the sister/sister-in-law to take all three girls for the weekend?</p>
<p>I know that we hear that divorce is common in families that have lost a child and I hope this couple does not have that additional pain. I hope they can have peace and some amount of joy in the future although it is very hard for me to imagine. Again, seeing the good accomplishments of the foundation and working with a supportive group on its goals is probably the very best thing they can do. But still, I ache for them.</p>
<p>
I can. Seeing the Berardi’s pain is quite enough reason. They matter, too.</p>
<p>“an alcoholic for decades, but had been able to successfully hide it from her husband even though one of her kids, a toddler, had died (wandered away and was killed in an accident) while the mom was passed out.”</p>
<p>I don’t doubt your experience, but it is impossible to know what role the husband’s denial might have played in his ignorance of the drinking. Also, it’s clear that whatever happened to the driver that day, she was behaving very differently from usual in the eyes of those who knew her well (the niece’s panicky cell phone call about her aunt acting funny). It wasn’t a case where she was drunk all the time and acted normal, and it only revealed itself when she was driving.</p>