Jury finds Yates not guilty in drownings

Buckeyefan 1

Buckeyefan 1

Audioholic Ninja
You'd have to be insane to do what she did. It's beyond me how her husband was still with her up until last year, or how she hasn't commited suicide. To reiterate, "Yates drowned 6-month-old Mary, 2-year-old Luke, 3-year-old Paul, 5-year-old John and 7-year-old Noah in their Houston-area home in June 2001."

By ANGELA K. BROWN, Associated Press Writer

HOUSTON - In a dramatic turnaround from her first murder trial, Andrea Yates was found not guilty by reason of insanity Wednesday in the drowning of her children in the bathtub.

The 42-year-old woman will be committed to a state mental hospital and held until she is no longer deemed a threat. If she had been convicted of murder, she would have been sentenced to life in prison.

Yates stared wide-eyed as the verdict was read. She then bowed her head and wept quietly. Her relatives also shed tears, and the children's father, Rusty Yates, muttered, "Wow!" as he, too, cried.

Four years ago, another jury convicted Yates of murder, rejecting claims that she was so psychotic she thought she was saving her children's souls by killing them. An appeals court overturned the convictions because of erroneous testimony from a prosecution witness.

Yates' chief attorney, George Parnham, called the verdict this time a "watershed event in the treatment of mental illness."

Yates' 2002 conviction triggered debate over whether Texas' legal standard for mental illness was too rigid, whether the courts treated postpartum depression seriously enough, and whether a mother who kills could ever find sympathy and understanding in a tough-on-crime state like Texas.

Yates drowned 6-month-old Mary, 2-year-old Luke, 3-year-old Paul, 5-year-old John and 7-year-old Noah in their Houston-area home in June 2001. Her attorneys said she suffered from severe postpartum psychosis and, in a delusional state, believed that Satan was inside her and that killing the youngsters would save them from hell.

"The jury looked past what happened and looked at why it happened," Rusty Yates, who divorced his wife last year, said outside the courthouse. "Yes, she was psychotic. That's the whole truth."

Prosecutors had maintained that Yates failed to meet the state's definition of insanity: that she was so severely mentally ill that she did not know her actions were wrong.

"I'm very disappointed," prosecutor Kaylynn Williford said. "For five years, we've tried to seek justice for these children."

The jury, split evenly between men and women, deliberated for about 13 hours over three days. The jurors had not been told that Yates would be committed to a mental institution if found not guilty.

Yates did not testify. Her lawyers presented much of the same evidence as in the first trial, including half a dozen psychiatrists who testified that Yates was insane.

During a videotaped 2001 jail interview, Yates told a psychiatrist that her children had not been progressing normally because she was a bad mother, and that she killed them because "in their innocence, they would go to heaven."

The jury was told about Yates' two hospitalizations after two suicide attempts in 1999, and about her stays in a mental hospital a few months before the drownings.

But prosecution witness Dr. Michael Welner, a forensic psychiatrist, testified that Yates killed the youngsters because she felt overwhelmed and inadequate as a mother, not to save their souls. He said that it was not until a day after the killings that she talked about Satan and saving her children from hell.

Welner also said Yates showed that she knew her actions were wrong by waiting until her husband left for work to kill them, covering the bodies with a sheet and calling 911 soon after the crime.

Yates' 2002 conviction was overturned after Dr. Park Dietz, a forensic psychiatrist, told the jury that before the drownings, NBC ran a "Law & Order" episode about a woman who was acquitted by reason of insanity after drowning her children. It was later learned that no such episode existed.
 
Last edited:
billy p

billy p

Audioholic Ninja
All I am going to say, is that the wife and me did not agree on what the sentance should be.That was when it frist happened, 5yrs ago.:mad:
 
Last edited:
j_garcia

j_garcia

Audioholic Jedi
Well, maybe she'll get cancer like Ramsey. Payback is a biatch.
 
gmichael

gmichael

Audioholic Spartan
Grrr.... I don't think I can post anything I have to say on this without getting banned.:mad:
 
hemiram

hemiram

Full Audioholic
I never understand why they put these obviously insane people on trial and in prison in the first place. They are sick, and in the past, they got put into the hospital, where they belonged. But the morons we have running the government decided to "save money", and the "dignity" of most of the patients, by closing most of the hospitals in the late 70's, creating an instant huge population of "homeless people". I dealt with them on a daily basis for years, and nearly all the homeless people were ex mental patients.

So they keep put putting these people in jail, where they get abused on top of being in jail, the last place they should be.
 
Sheep

Sheep

Audioholic Warlord
Have you guys seen the South Park episode that goes along with this?

Hilarious.

SheepStar
 
Kai

Kai

Full Audioholic
Well I do believe she is delusional/insane to have done such a deed thinking it was the right thing to do. However she should have been found guilty of killing these children because she did kill them. Her punishment should have been prison not a hospital where she will most likely spend the rest of her life in relative comfort compared to a prison setting.

While not an expert I do not think Postpartum Depression is a lifelong illness as many mental illnesses unfortunately are.

Perhaps at some point she will truly realize what she has done and take her own life rather than living with the overwhelming guilt.
 
STRONGBADF1

STRONGBADF1

Audioholic Spartan
***WARNING***READ AT RISK OF PROFOUND SADDNESS! really.

All I know is that I didn't need to see on Good Morning America this morning a tape of her being interveiwed by a doctor (I belive) and her discribing how the one childs head came up out of the water and said "mommy" and then she pushed it back under.

I have been sad all day over that. Didn't need that at all.

My five year old son will be spoiled for quite awhile.


Just needed to say something, thanks,
Doug
 
Last edited:
billy p

billy p

Audioholic Ninja
STRONGBADF1 said:
All I know is that I didn't need to see on Good Morning America this morning a tape of her being interveiwed by a doctor (I belive) and her discribing how the one childs head came up out of the water and said "mommy" and then she pushed it back under.

I have been sad all day over that. Didn't need that at all.

My five year old son will be spoiled for quite awhile.


Just needed to say something, thanks,
Doug
My heart just sank, I wish I didn't read your post.:(
? Why the hell would they air that!!
 
gmichael

gmichael

Audioholic Spartan
No sane person could do such a thing. Does that mean that she's safe to be around? Well, she's out of children right? No problem now. She can move next door to me.
How can they let someone like this off? Are they crazy? Should we not worry about terrorists either? After all, they must be crazy too. How else could they do the things that they do? No problem. They can move to the other side of my home. No worries, right?
 
racquetman

racquetman

Audioholic Chief
In case there are any mentally ill people reading this thread, do us a favor and please kill yourself if you think you are possessed by the devil or whatever the hell your problem is. I promise that whatever is wrong with you will not be passed along to your kids when you are dead.

This has been a public service announcement. Thank you.
 
STRONGBADF1

STRONGBADF1

Audioholic Spartan
billy p said:
My heart just sank, I wish I didn't read your post.:(
? Why the hell would they air that!!
Sorry about that.:eek: Should have put a warning on that one.
 
hemiram

hemiram

Full Audioholic
gmichael said:
No sane person could do such a thing. Does that mean that she's safe to be around? Well, she's out of children right? No problem now. She can move next door to me.
How can they let someone like this off? Are they crazy? Should we not worry about terrorists either? After all, they must be crazy too. How else could they do the things that they do? No problem. They can move to the other side of my home. No worries, right?
You really need to get a grip.

You do know she's not getting out? She's going to a mental hospital, where she will probably stay for several years at least, if not forever, and the place she should have been since day one. Annually, they will report on her status and decide what to do with her. Odds are, she will always be in some sort of hospital or group home.

I've known several women with MILD post partum depression, and I can't imagine being able to live with someone who had a severe case of it.
 
billy p

billy p

Audioholic Ninja
Lets get one thing clear,

this person suffered from post partum" PSYCHOSIS",not depression. Still in my opinion that should not excuse her form this heinous act:mad:
 
P

pbarach1

Audioholic
what does "sane" mean?

gmichael said:
No sane person could do such a thing. Does that mean that she's safe to be around? Well, she's out of children right? No problem now. She can move next door to me. How can they let someone like this off? Are they crazy? Should we not worry about terrorists either? After all, they must be crazy too.
Everyone involved in the case agreed that Yates was seriously mentally ill when she killed her children. But that is not the same thing as being "insane." Most mentally ill people are not dangerous. And let's leave the term "crazy" out of the discussion, since it's not clear whether it's being used to mean "mentally ill," "legally insane," or "bizarre and outrageous."

"Insanity" is a legal term, with a definition that varies from state to state. The definition in Texas is that insanity = being so severely mentally ill that you don't know that the actions are wrong, which is not an easy legal standard to meet. In this case, the evidence was clear enough that the jury was persuaded that she did not know at the time she killed the children that her actions were wrong. She believed that killing them was necessary to save their souls from Satan.

The analogy with terrorists is a false one. Terrorists engage in criminal behavior, but are not necessarily mentally ill. That is, they don't hallucinate, and they don't have delusional thinking even though their beliefs may be extreme. These people are dangerous, and they are criminal, but they are not necessarily mentally ill in spite of their bizarre actions.

The idea that Yates somehow "got off" is also not correct. She isn't going to take a pill and walk out of jail tomorrow. She will be confined to a locked ward in a mental hospital, and will be required to take medication and participate in whatever treatment her doctors recommend. Essentially she will have no civil rights. It will be up to the judge who tried her case to decide when she may be released. This may not happen for years, and it may not happen at all. If anyone thinks that the "treatment" available to the criminal mentally ill is some kind of picnic, read Pete Earley's recent book "Crazy," in which he describes his journey through the forensic mental health system in Florida as a result of his son's mental illness.
 
billy p

billy p

Audioholic Ninja
pbarach1 said:
Everyone involved in the case agreed that Yates was seriously mentally ill when she killed her children. But that is not the same thing as being "insane." Most mentally ill people are not dangerous. And let's leave the term "crazy" out of the discussion, since it's not clear whether it's being used to mean "mentally ill," "legally insane," or "bizarre and outrageous."

"Insanity" is a legal term, with a definition that varies from state to state. The definition in Texas is that insanity = being so severely mentally ill that you don't know that the actions are wrong, which is not an easy legal standard to meet. In this case, the evidence was clear enough that the jury was persuaded that she did not know at the time she killed the children that her actions were wrong. She believed that killing them was necessary to save their souls from Satan.

The analogy with terrorists is a false one. Terrorists engage in criminal behavior, but are not necessarily mentally ill. That is, they don't hallucinate, and they don't have delusional thinking even though their beliefs may be extreme. These people are dangerous, and they are criminal, but they are not necessarily mentally ill in spite of their bizarre actions.

The idea that Yates somehow "got off" is also not correct. She isn't going to take a pill and walk out of jail tomorrow. She will be confined to a locked ward in a mental hospital, and will be required to take medication and participate in whatever treatment her doctors recommend. Essentially she will have no civil rights. It will be up to the judge who tried her case to decide when she may be released. This may not happen for years, and it may not happen at all. If anyone thinks that the "treatment" available to the criminal mentally ill is some kind of picnic, read Pete Earley's recent book "Crazy," in which he describes his journey through the forensic mental health system in Florida as a result of his son's mental illness.

Some of us may see your point. In her case for "THAT" crime, prison would of been nice!:)
I almost forgot about this case," damn the news" my heart is aching again:(
 
P

pbarach1

Audioholic
prison for the insane?

billy p said:
Some of us may see your point. In her case for "THAT" crime, prison would of been nice!:) (
Insanity, though defined in various ways, has been recognized as a valid defense in English-speaking countries since the 1840's. By taking this plea, the defendant is admitting to the crime, but is claiming that it was mental illness that caused the criminal act, rather than an intent to do something that the person knew was wrong. By taking this plea, the burden of proof shifts from the State to the defendant, bypassing the most basic principle in our legal system: The presumption of innocence.
 
C

conseit68

Enthusiast
this is a prime reason that i belive in the "eye for an eye". the justice system can be rigged like any other gov. system and the honest ones have to pay for it...
 
P

pbarach1

Audioholic
rigged how??

conseit68 said:
this is a prime reason that i belive in the "eye for an eye". the justice system can be rigged like any other gov. system and the honest ones have to pay for it...
Can you clarify your point? Who rigged what? The insanity defense is a hard standard to meet, especially as it's written in TX. Over 90% of the time, juries don't buy an insanity defense. Are you suggesting someone paid somebody off?

The jury made their decision based on the evidence presented to them, in accordance with the laws of Texas. If there was "rigging," what was it and who paid for it?
 
C

conseit68

Enthusiast
i don't have details in that case. i live near the nations capital ie the most croupt place on earth and im just saying in general if you have enough money for the top lawyers or the lawyer will get hugh publicity for the case you have a better chance of saving yourself no-matter what crime you commit. there are always "friends" that can get the jury members leaning one way or another and jury selection can be rigged from jump street if you have the right resources. simply put is that i feel in my opinion that she should have gotten a death penilty of drowning.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top