BREAKING NEWS: Andrea Yates Not Guilty in Retrial

[Stratosphere747]

Good grief....

I hate the decision, but you have proved through out this discussion how little you know about the case...

Quit basing you facts or views on the nightly talk shows...

*edited*

Responding to the person known as rainstorm.....

[Audrey2Katrina]

And remember, she was convicted the first time, but because a prosecution witness lied on the stand, stating that she got the idea from a TV show episode (which did not exist), that conviction was overturned. That only served to make the prosecution weak -- they couldn't convict her on the facts.

The same circuit court that found that Dr. Deitz (sp?) had provided false evidence, also found that his statement was NOT intentional, and that the prosecution made no open attempt to mislead the jury--ergo no "lie" was advanced (all semantics about what constitutes a lie aside--it is a term that can carry misleading connotations). The conclusion that they couldn't convict her on "facts" assumes that it was solely the argument of "Law and Order" that completely decided the previous jury's decision... at best this is speculation in the extreme. It simply opened a window for a different 12 individuals to pass "their" opinion of the evidence--obviously different; but that still doesn't make them right, any more than it proves the first decision wrong, or, for that matter, my opposition to their conclusion makes me right. We disagree--also in the extreme.

The "mental heart attack" was specious, although you're probably right as it was masterfully played for what I consider a gullible audience. Those killed by the guy driving a car were killed consequent to an accident that followed the causal incident; those killed by the "mental" heart attack were literally hunted down. It may make a nice analogy; but it's logic is faulty at best, and certainly not proven as the "mental heart attack" is a claim that no pathology can prove--or, admittedly, disprove.

say what you want about our judicial system, but it was the JURY of twelve people like you and I who found her NGRI.

Beyond dispute. Just as a jury of twelve people like you and I who found O.J. Simpson NG of a double-homicide that I feel almost every person alive, if made to take a lie-detector test, would have to concede that in their heart-of-hearts, they truly consider the man was patently guilty of. A jury decision, while legally binding; is hardly beyond reproach.

It's clear some of you have never worked with or dealt with patients, friends, or family members with mental illnesses.

Actually, I have... several in fact... a couple successful at suicide, others only of the attempt. Disagreeing with this decision is not tantamount to ignorance of mental illness.

I respect our system, and abide fully by its laws, and what they bind--I also respect the opinions of others such as yours expressed herein; however, I am equally convinced that this was only another case....where they blew it!...bigtime!

A2K

[GalvestonDuck]

For the record, once she's in the hospital, I'm outta this discussion (depending upon where she is institutionalized). But the news reported that she was just visited by her ex-husband and mother in her jail cell just hours after the verdict was read.

[rainstorm]

Ugh, I have a headache now after reading all of this.

It's clear some of you have never worked with or dealt with patients, friends, or family members with mental illnesses.

First of all, remember -- she wasn't found INNOCENT of the charges. She was found not guilty BY REASON OF INSANITY. Big difference.

I have to admit, the defense did a good job with the argument about a person having a heart attack and then having a wreck that kills someone else. Is he guilty of murder because he killed someone? No, because he could not have prevented the heart attack from impairing his ability to drive. He then said that Yates "had a heart attack of the mind." Her mental illness impaired her ability to fully understand and control her actions in a rational way.

Second, say what you want about our judicial system, but it was the JURY of twelve people like you and I who found her NGRI. The lawyers, the judge, the bailiff -- none of them were there when the verdict was reached. It was up to those twelve citizens of Harris County.

And remember, she was convicted the first time, but because a prosecution witness lied on the stand, stating that she got the idea from a TV show episode (which did not exist), that conviction was overturned. That only served to make the prosecution weak -- they couldn't convict her on the facts.

And you know what's really weird -- in the "supposed" Law & Order episode, the prosecution psychiatrist said that the women in the show was found NGRI for drowning her kids. Because of his lie, that outcome actually came true (in real life, not the show obviously).

here is a question i have. did killing her kids cure her of her depression? i ask because im not aware of any further suicide attempts. perhaps her kids made her depressed. it could be that post partum syndrome is alot like sudden infant death syndrome. i was watching on tv that many so-called infant death syndrome deaths are turning out to be murders.
im not saying that no one legitimately suffers from these syndromes, but they may be used as excuses in many cases to cover up crimes

Here's a question: How much have you read about the case?

quite a bit. i think its a legitimate question to ask in all the time since she killed her kids that she apparently is much less depressed and has ended her suicide attempts. did post partum depress her or did having her kids depress her? you should read up on sudden infant death syndrome. it was all the rage a few years ago, and now more and more peole are coming to think many of these deaths were likely murders. . i think post partum depression, while no doubt real, gets blamed for more than it deserves.

[GalvestonDuck]

Ugh, I have a headache now after reading all of this.

It's clear some of you have never worked with or dealt with patients, friends, or family members with mental illnesses.

First of all, remember -- she wasn't found INNOCENT of the charges. She was found not guilty BY REASON OF INSANITY. Big difference.

I have to admit, the defense did a good job with the argument about a person having a heart attack and then having a wreck that kills someone else. Is he guilty of murder because he killed someone? No, because he could not have prevented the heart attack from impairing his ability to drive. He then said that Yates "had a heart attack of the mind." Her mental illness impaired her ability to fully understand and control her actions in a rational way.

Second, say what you want about our judicial system, but it was the JURY of twelve people like you and I who found her NGRI. The lawyers, the judge, the bailiff -- none of them were there when the verdict was reached. It was up to those twelve citizens of Harris County.

And remember, she was convicted the first time, but because a prosecution witness lied on the stand, stating that she got the idea from a TV show episode (which did not exist), that conviction was overturned. That only served to make the prosecution weak -- they couldn't convict her on the facts.

And you know what's really weird -- in the "supposed" Law & Order episode, the prosecution psychiatrist said that the women in the show was found NGRI for drowning her kids. Because of his lie, that outcome actually came true (in real life, not the show obviously).

here is a question i have. did killing her kids cure her of her depression? i ask because im not aware of any further suicide attempts. perhaps her kids made her depressed. it could be that post partum syndrome is alot like sudden infant death syndrome. i was watching on tv that many so-called infant death syndrome deaths are turning out to be murders.
im not saying that no one legitimately suffers from these syndromes, but they may be used as excuses in many cases to cover up crimes

Here's a question: How much have you read about the case?

quite a bit. i think its a legitimate question to ask in all the time since she killed her kids that she apparently is much less depressed and has ended her suicide attempts. did post partum depress her or did having her kids depress her? you should read up on sudden infant death syndrome. it was all the rage a few years ago, and now more and more peole are coming to think many of these deaths were likely murders. . i think post partum depression, while no doubt real, gets blamed for more than it deserves.

Helen, I'll never get why someone can ask you a question and you don't answer it. "Quite a bit."

Nope, go deeper than the PPD. Read more. Read about the psychosis, her thoughts about her children being "doomed to perish in the fires of hell," and about the preacher Michael Peter Woroniecki, who insisted she and Rusty have more children even after a physician advised them not to because of her previous bouts of post-partum psychosis (not just depression).

And remember again (A2K, you failed to address this) -- she's not INNOCENT. We know, she knows, everyone knows...she did it. She's not going free.

[rainstorm]

this is my final thought on the subject. i think she had 5 kids and a jerk husband. she had 5 kids ranging from 6 mos to 7 years old that she killed. thats a handful to deal with 5 kids all at the same time at those ages. i think that did make her extremely depressed. i think she snapped and killed them. its not hard for me to imagine shrinks diagnosing her depression as post partum, when it may have been depression over being run ragged by such young kids. whatever, its over and she will be free soon enough. her kids however will remain dead. lets say a prayer for all concerned, especially the children who deserved better

[george_r_1961]

Ugh, I have a headache now after reading all of this.

It's clear some of you have never worked with or dealt with patients, friends, or family members with mental illnesses.

First of all, remember -- she wasn't found INNOCENT of the charges. She was found not guilty BY REASON OF INSANITY. Big difference.

I have to admit, the defense did a good job with the argument about a person having a heart attack and then having a wreck that kills someone else. Is he guilty of murder because he killed someone? No, because he could not have prevented the heart attack from impairing his ability to drive. He then said that Yates "had a heart attack of the mind." Her mental illness impaired her ability to fully understand and control her actions in a rational way.

Second, say what you want about our judicial system, but it was the JURY of twelve people like you and I who found her NGRI. The lawyers, the judge, the bailiff -- none of them were there when the verdict was reached. It was up to those twelve citizens of Harris County.

And remember, she was convicted the first time, but because a prosecution witness lied on the stand, stating that she got the idea from a TV show episode (which did not exist), that conviction was overturned. That only served to make the prosecution weak -- they couldn't convict her on the facts.

And you know what's really weird -- in the "supposed" Law & Order episode, the prosecution psychiatrist said that the women in the show was found NGRI for drowning her kids. Because of his lie, that outcome actually came true (in real life, not the show obviously).

here is a question i have. did killing her kids cure her of her depression? i ask because im not aware of any further suicide attempts. perhaps her kids made her depressed. it could be that post partum syndrome is alot like sudden infant death syndrome. i was watching on tv that many so-called infant death syndrome deaths are turning out to be murders.
im not saying that no one legitimately suffers from these syndromes, but they may be used as excuses in many cases to cover up crimes

Here's a question: How much have you read about the case?

quite a bit. i think its a legitimate question to ask in all the time since she killed her kids that she apparently is much less depressed and has ended her suicide attempts. did post partum depress her or did having her kids depress her? you should read up on sudden infant death syndrome. it was all the rage a few years ago, and now more and more peole are coming to think many of these deaths were likely murders. . i think post partum depression, while no doubt real, gets blamed for more than it deserves.

Helen, I'll never get why someone can ask you a question and you don't answer it. "Quite a bit."

Nope, go deeper than the PPD. Read more. Read about the psychosis, her thoughts about her children being "doomed to perish in the fires of hell," and about the preacher Michael Peter Woroniecki, who insisted she and Rusty have more children even after a physician advised them not to because of her previous bouts of post-partum psychosis (not just depression).

And remember again (A2K, you failed to address this) -- she's not INNOCENT. We know, she knows, everyone knows...she did it. She's not going free.

Shes not going free till the docs decide shes "cured" and no longer a danger to society. Shes being civilly committed for an indefinite period of time. She could be released in a year, or she may never be released. She probably eventually will go free though. If im correct the courts have the final say in that matter.

[HurricaneBill]

this is my final thought on the subject.

Thank goodness.

[Regit]

Ugh, I have a headache now after reading all of this.

It's clear some of you have never worked with or dealt with patients, friends, or family members with mental illnesses.

First of all, remember -- she wasn't found INNOCENT of the charges. She was found not guilty BY REASON OF INSANITY. Big difference.

I have to admit, the defense did a good job with the argument about a person having a heart attack and then having a wreck that kills someone else. Is he guilty of murder because he killed someone? No, because he could not have prevented the heart attack from impairing his ability to drive. He then said that Yates "had a heart attack of the mind." Her mental illness impaired her ability to fully understand and control her actions in a rational way.

Second, say what you want about our judicial system, but it was the JURY of twelve people like you and I who found her NGRI. The lawyers, the judge, the bailiff -- none of them were there when the verdict was reached. It was up to those twelve citizens of Harris County.

And remember, she was convicted the first time, but because a prosecution witness lied on the stand, stating that she got the idea from a TV show episode (which did not exist), that conviction was overturned. That only served to make the prosecution weak -- they couldn't convict her on the facts.

And you know what's really weird -- in the "supposed" Law & Order episode, the prosecution psychiatrist said that the women in the show was found NGRI for drowning her kids. Because of his lie, that outcome actually came true (in real life, not the show obviously).

here is a question i have. did killing her kids cure her of her depression? i ask because im not aware of any further suicide attempts. perhaps her kids made her depressed. it could be that post partum syndrome is alot like sudden infant death syndrome. i was watching on tv that many so-called infant death syndrome deaths are turning out to be murders.
im not saying that no one legitimately suffers from these syndromes, but they may be used as excuses in many cases to cover up crimes

Here's a question: How much have you read about the case?

quite a bit. i think its a legitimate question to ask in all the time since she killed her kids that she apparently is much less depressed and has ended her suicide attempts. did post partum depress her or did having her kids depress her? you should read up on sudden infant death syndrome. it was all the rage a few years ago, and now more and more peole are coming to think many of these deaths were likely murders. . i think post partum depression, while no doubt real, gets blamed for more than it deserves.

Helen, I'll never get why someone can ask you a question and you don't answer it. "Quite a bit."

Nope, go deeper than the PPD. Read more. Read about the psychosis, her thoughts about her children being "doomed to perish in the fires of hell," and about the preacher Michael Peter Woroniecki, who insisted she and Rusty have more children even after a physician advised them not to because of her previous bouts of post-partum psychosis (not just depression).

And remember again (A2K, you failed to address this) -- she's not INNOCENT. We know, she knows, everyone knows...she did it. She's not going free.

Shes not going free till the docs decide shes "cured" and no longer a danger to society. Shes being civilly committed for an indefinite period of time. She could be released in a year, or she may never be released. She probably eventually will go free though. If im correct the courts have the final say in that matter.

I've heard three experts (two lawyers practicing in Texas and one law professor from a Texas university), as well as several other people, state that judging by past insanity decisions in Texas, it is highly unlikely that she'll ever be released. They stated that once found not guilty by reason of insanity in a Texas murder case, it's almost impossible to be released.

[Audrey2Katrina]

And remember again (A2K, you failed to address this) -- she's not INNOCENT. We know, she knows, everyone knows...she did it. She's not going free.

Well I'm glad you reiterated it, anyway, GD, because it is important. I didn't address the "not innocent" issue simply because it had already been brought forward by a few posts and didn't see its relevance in my particular post. Yes, I think we all know she's not "innocent"... it's just that unless there were a way to guarantee that a multiple murderer (especially in such a heinous crime as this) is "put away" for the rest of their UN-natural life... it is a concern to me that the "insanity" claim is going to be used more and more by people--and yes I'm well aware that it is "rarely" used today, and even more rarely successful--I did follow this one closely, and just happen to think that as was the case with the OJ jury-- we got a clunker-- I feel she was guilty as sin, and deserved a guaranteed room and board for so long as she drew breath. JMHO

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

she will be free soon

I doubt it will be soon... and dearly hope it never happens. May her poor children rest in peace!

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

state that judging by past insanity decisions in Texas, it is highly unlikely that she'll ever be released. They stated that once found not guilty by reason of insanity in a Texas murder case, it's almost impossible to be released.

Every cloud has its silver lining-- I do hope this this person/these people are right. Truly I hope she never walks the free earth again in this lifetime.

A2K

[rainstorm]

she will be free soon

I doubt it will be soon... and dearly hope it never happens. May her poor children rest in peace!

A2K

ok, 1 final word. i think you will find she will have an amazing turnaround in her "condition" now that she has gotten the verdict she wanted.

[Janice]

Well, I am sure the doctors in her new facility are professional enough to catch on with any quick recovery she may make. They are dealing with insanity cases all the time and can distinguish between the people who are really mentally ill and those who pled to stay out of prison. They will know a lot more about her condition than we do. We have not seen her or had private conversations with her. We do not know how deep her sickness is. So, I doubt she will be making any quick recoveries.

[sunny]

I completely agree A2K... I've stayed out of this thread all day too.

It's a shame. We can have a good discussion going, and then people come in with so much anger and venom that it makes it impossible to continue.

[george_r_1961]

I completely agree A2K... I've stayed out of this thread all day too.

It's a shame. We can have a good discussion going, and then people come in with so much anger and venom that it makes it impossible to continue.

Well I thought my posts above would calm ppl down a little..guess I was wrong.

[sunny]

I completely agree A2K... I've stayed out of this thread all day too.

It's a shame. We can have a good discussion going, and then people come in with so much anger and venom that it makes it impossible to continue.

Well I thought my posts above would calm ppl down a little..guess I was wrong.

It's not just this thread George. This thread is just one example.

[Janice]

Yes, I agree. She was granted a new verdict. Even though we don't agree, lets accept it. This verdict was through our court system and they did their best to decide. I am sure it was hard for them, but they saw things in the courtroom that we did not see. She is in a good place now. She will get the treatment she needs.

[gtalum]

...they saw things in the courtroom that we did not see.

This is important to remember. It's easy to second guess the jury from the soundbites we see in the news. However, they have been watching evidence for a long time, and know far more about the case than any of us do.

[rainstorm]

Well, I am sure the doctors in her new facility are professional enough to catch on with any quick recovery she may make. They are dealing with insanity cases all the time and can distinguish between the people who are really mentally ill and those who pled to stay out of prison. They will know a lot more about her condition than we do. We have not seen her or had private conversations with her. We do not know how deep her sickness is. So, I doubt she will be making any quick recoveries.

actually, these porfessionals are fooled all the time. psychiatry is not a science