Scott Schoeneweis Tragedy Deepens

by Rev Halofan on Dec 1, 2009 12:28 PM PST in News Comment 28 comments

The shocking death of Gabriele Shoeneweis, the wife of former Angels pitcher Scott Schoeneweis, has been revealed to be from an overdose of Cocaine and Lidocaine.

Our SBN partner Yahoo Sports has a FULL REPORT on a judicial panel ruling that the cause of death was so central to the passing of Mrs. Schoeneweis that the public interest in knowing the cause of death outweighed any privacy concerns of the bereaved.

Central to the ruling was this mysterious inclusion of the presence of another person involved in the activities that led to the passing:

The ruling also said an investigation revealed evidence that Gabrielle Schoeneweis’ cocaine use "may have caused harm to another person." That person was not identified.

Gabrielle Schoeneweis was found dead on May 20 in the master bedroom of the couple’s home in Fountain Hills, a Phoenix suburb.

0 recs | Comment 28 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Something I didn't know about lidocain, thanks to wikipedia

Lidocaine is often added to cocaine as a diluent. Cocaine numbs the gums when applied, and since lidocaine causes stronger numbness, users get the impression of high-quality cocaine when in actuality, the user is receiving a diluted product.

What do you need a fancy suit for, Charlie, you ain't got no job to wear it to.

by clover_black on Dec 1, 2009 12:41 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Lidocaine

and a whole lot of other stuff – caffeine, sugars, whatever else the dealer can get their hands on that can give a simliar effect but is cheaper than the coke

by Matt UK on Dec 1, 2009 1:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

and money starts rollin' in

R.I.P.N.A.

by TheAngelsAngels on Dec 1, 2009 2:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

This news must make Scott's grief and guilt that much worse.

The black hole of drug addiction strikes again.

His wife had 4 children, 3 with Scott and one from a previous relationship. I hope his family finds the inner peace to cope with this news revelation. Too damn sad.

by sothball on Dec 1, 2009 1:13 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I hate that crap.

Why are my interests, as the public, better served by telling me that Scott’s wife suffered from a fatal addiction? It’s not like addiction is news. It’s not like cocaine addiction is news. It’s not like overdosing from cocaine addiction is news. What part of us getting yet a little more of that already common information was worth stripping the dignity off Scott, his children, and Gabriele’s larger family?

Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.

by Stirrups on Dec 1, 2009 1:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

That's one way of looking at it I guess..

another way of looking at it is she died of an illness just like cancer….

It’s not like we didn’t suspect drugs anyway. If someone in their 30’s just drops dead and a judicial panel is involved drug and/or alchohol abuse are likely involved in the equation.

by Nashdiesel on Dec 1, 2009 2:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm sure people who have had cancer would disagree with your statement

We are the Los Angeles Angels of the late 2000s

by Higz on Dec 1, 2009 2:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

So, if a person succumbs to cancer and the family wishes to keep the cause of death a private, internal, matter...

you are suggesting that a panel of judges can be set up, think about it a while, and come to the conclusion that the needs and concerns of Stirrups and Nashdeisel to know everything are more important than the wishes of the surviving family members? Really?

Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.

by Stirrups on Dec 1, 2009 3:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The truth will set you free

Cause of death is a matter of public record. For a reason.

No witty sig here.

by SonomaCoHalofan on Dec 2, 2009 2:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Cause of death as listed on any document, and truth, are not necessarily the same thing.

Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.

by Stirrups on Dec 2, 2009 8:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think because of its criminal nature, it is deemed a public interest.

The media then makes it news.

This probably can serve some people who interacted with her on a more personal level yet were kept in the dark onwhy she died… pure hypothetical, but say, gabrielle babysat for a neighbor, and now that son/daughter is listening to eric clapton and has 1 very long fingernail… mystery solved?

What do you need a fancy suit for, Charlie, you ain't got no job to wear it to.

by clover_black on Dec 1, 2009 2:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The same judicial system has a convenient way of shutting out the media

when they decide that it is inconvenient for them to allow information to be made available to the public. We hear it all the time: “We do not want to jeopardize an ongoing investigation.” Well, if this is a case of making the job easier for the investigators to collect collateral information, the investigators can go simply next door for themselves, hear Clapton coming off the iPod, and ask to check the kid’s nails.

Although, personally, I fail to see the link betwen Clapton and Lidocaine! : P

Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.

by Stirrups on Dec 1, 2009 3:46 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

B-side clapton track...

… not nearly as catchy.

What do you need a fancy suit for, Charlie, you ain't got no job to wear it to.

by clover_black on Dec 1, 2009 3:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

So that's why that guy I tutored in piano at college who had one really long fingernail

blanched when I told him he had to cut it.

THIS… IS… ANAHEIM!!

by opiejeanne on Dec 2, 2009 11:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The slippery slope of "privacy"

The information about the lives of public figures remains open to protect them from others profiteering on misleading speculation. They may not want the information revealed now but if someone reports in a year that it was a suicide because she hated her husband he may have wished the report had been made public wayback when.

by Rev Halofan on Dec 1, 2009 2:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

So that line of reasoning implies that the judicial panel figured it was doing Scott a favor by getting the facts out now.

Scott, himself, may lose some level of privacy by the nature of pursuing a career that is funded based on public adoration. And maybe you can make the case that Gabrielle chose to become the wife of a public figure and, therefore, shed some of her rights to privacy. But none of those claims can be made for the rights of the children or Gabrielle’s parents or Gabrielle’s siblings.

But, back to your theorizing, nothing prevents the TMZ’s of the world from making obnoxious claims even with this revelation. They could just as easily write that Scott was the one who turned her into an addict and, essentially killed her. Scott’s future risks to his public persona, for him personally, have not changed one iota.

Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.

by Stirrups on Dec 1, 2009 3:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

first, i dont see any indication that she was injecting it...

second the “may have caused harm to another person”, would that be pertaining to her 14-year old daughter that she seemingly endangered? was there anyone else even in the room? im only going off this article, but i dont see any sense in your speculation at all. why even attempt at it?

anyway, i blame cocaine for only lasting 30 minutes.

R.I.P.N.A.

by TheAngelsAngels on Dec 1, 2009 2:53 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

good point

i removed that paragraph.

by Rev Halofan on Dec 1, 2009 4:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

legal issues

I know nothing about Arizona law, nor have I read the judicial decision. However, I suspect that Az. law isn’t that different than Ca. law on a matter like this, and so I offer the following thoughts.

As I understand it, autopsy reports are public records, by definition. The public has a 1st amendment rights to public records. That right is presumed to be more important than personal preferences. In order to overcome the public nature, you need to show some sort of compelling reason why the public cannot have its records. “Because I want to keep it a secret” is not a compelling reason; otherwise, it would entirely swallow up the public’s rights. You need a compelling reason – something that’s more important than the 1st amendment.

In California, a compelling interest is usually something along the lines of: protection of minor victims of sex crimes from further trauma and embarrassment; privacy interests of a prospective juror during individual voir dire; protection of witnesses from embarrassment or intimidation so extreme that it would traumatize them or render them unable to testify; of trade secrets, protection of information within the attorney-client privilege, and enforcement of binding contractual obligations not to disclose; safeguarding national security, ensuring the anonymity of juvenile offenders in juvenile court; and ensuring the fair administration of justice, and preservation of confidential investigative information.

The Schoenweis family suffering and embarrassment isn’t any different than that any other family would suffer under similar circumstances.

by jjackflash on Dec 1, 2009 5:12 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

are you gonna bill SBN for that?

by Rev Halofan on Dec 1, 2009 5:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That is, indeed, the precise legal background at play.

here

Doesn’t mean I gotta like it.

Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.

by Stirrups on Dec 1, 2009 7:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Fair Enough

I just think it’s important to understand the larger context – the concept of a government operating in the open, responsible to the people. It’s a value tossed aside all too casually and all too frequently, so to me, it’s important to maintain it whenever possible. Like other concepts, it’s open to debate.

by jjackflash on Dec 1, 2009 11:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Oddly, I suppose, I do not find this to be that simple.

I see this particular case as the government requiring that it be informed of the matters concerning a private citizen and that, in turn, allows the public at large to trump the implied right to individual privacy.

Sure, there are important reasons to follow and track causes of death, in pursuit of malice or to protect public health. And, sure, those are both excellent reasons for government.

It just seems to me that the balance should slew more in favor of the individual, rather than the public at large. The government is merely caught between the two. So if the individual wishes to assert privacy, and the government can find no compelling reason to expose the facts in support of a search for malice or public health, the government should default to individual rights and not be the proxy for the mob.

Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.

by Stirrups on Dec 2, 2009 2:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

"privacy"

by allowing a default privacy exemption option … well i could see your good intentions there turning into an abuse of authority pretty quick.

The common good is more often helped when there is no latitude for government to cover up even if it is not pleasant in individual circumstances.

In other words, no…I do not trust that fat bitch at the DMV.

by Rev Halofan on Dec 2, 2009 3:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

How is that any different than the existing opportunity

for government to release confidential and/or privileged information?

Had I owned the Pittsburgh Pirates, I could have saved America.

by Stirrups on Dec 2, 2009 8:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Cocaine and Lidocaine together will short-circuit the heart rhythm...

An exceptionally dangerous combination of drugs. My condolences to the Schoenweis family, especially to the kids who now have no mom.
Public Service Announcement: Never take cocaine and then go in a few days later to have a filling done at your dental office. Cocaine stays in the system for days and will mix with the local anesthetic your dentist gives you. It produces a quick trip to the morgue. This nearly happened at a dental office I know of.

by hbhalofan on Dec 1, 2009 7:07 PM PST reply actions 0 recs