Fornits
General Interest => Open Free for All => Topic started by: Anonymous on November 12, 2005, 01:35:00 PM
-
Last night I watched:
Andrea Yates: E! True Hollywood Story
I highly recommend it to all.
Next showing tonight, Nov 12 at 7pm
---
http://www.eonline.com/On/Holly/Shows/Yates/ (http://www.eonline.com/On/Holly/Shows/Yates/)
E! reveals the facts of the case of a mom who murdered her kids.
Was it postpartum depression?
Was she influenced by TV?
An Infanticide Trial Grips the Nation and Shakes Up the Texas Law Books
Airs: Nov. 11, 8p; Nov. 12, 7p
Andrea Yates
Things were finally looking up for Rusty and Andrea Yates when they moved out of their cramped, renovated bus into a nice suburban home in Houston. The outlook was even brighter for their five young children. Then things got dark. Very dark.
Andrea Yates: E! True Hollywood Story examines the descent and destruction of a mother whose psychiatric struggles led her to do the unthinkable: drown her four sons and infant daughter. See what motivated a mother to commit such heinous crimes and the strange, meandering murder trial that followed.
What were the warning signs? Was Andrea Yates insane, or was she suffering from an extreme case of postpartum depression? And how did an episode of the legal drama Law & Order overturn her murder conviction?
When Rusty Yates came home from work one day to find his wife shaking involuntarily and chewing on her fingers, he knew she needed help. A brief hospitalization and a strict regimen of medication seemed to put Andrea Yates back on the road to recovery. But it wasn't long before she stopped taking the pills. She became paranoid and told her husband that the characters on TV shows were talking to her and the children.
Andrea's psychiatrist warned them that having another baby might bring on more episodes of psychotic behavior, but the Yates wouldn't listen. Six months after the birth of their first daughter, Andrea drowned her children one by one in the bathtub, saying she wasn't a good mother and needed to be punished.
Prosecutors claimed the gruesome murders Yates committed and her insanity defense were inspired from an episode of Law & Order. A jury found her guilty after three and a half hours of deliberation, but Yates' defense team later discovered that there was no such episode.
An appeals court ruling could lead to a new trial, but what is your verdict on Andrea Yates? Tune in to her True Hollywood Story--and judge for yourself.
-
She knew what she was doing. She chased her oldest through out the house to drown him. Its so sad he watched them die. She should be put to death.She had it all planned. Those poor, poor kids.Any mother that could kill her own child should die the same way they did. I dont have any pitty for her. ::armed:: ::armed:: ::armed:: ::armed:: [ This Message was edited by: screann on 2005-12-13 08:57 ]
-
I think we should put her to death now and then if it turns out to be the wrong decision later we could just plead insanity.
-
On 2005-12-13 08:54:00, screann wrote:
"She knew what she was doing. She chased her oldest through out the house to drown him. Its so sad he watched them die. She should be put to death.She had it all planned. Those poor, poor kids.Any mother that could kill her own child should die the same way they did. I dont have any pitty for her. ::armed:: ::armed:: ::armed:: ::armed:: [ This Message was edited by: screann on 2005-12-13 08:57 ]"
Well then, I guess you do not believe in
mental illness?
I also guess that you think a mentally ill
person cannot think, or act?
Is your impression of a mentally ill person
of catatonia?
Perhaps you could rent, or check out at the
library, some videos on the mentally ill.
You should see them ... walking, talking,
eating, shitting ... the whole gambit!
-
Why not send her a letter and ask her why she did it? I'm sure she has the time to answer. :lol:
-
On 2005-12-13 09:55:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Why not send her a letter and ask her why she did it? I'm sure she has the time to answer. :lol: "
The reasons, or rather, her history of mental illness where all brought out in court.
Her post-partum depression was explained over
and over in the newspapers.
Her story was on the E channel.
It was in People magazine.
I don't think she needs to repeat it in a letter ...
-
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=30#26040 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3515&forum=9&start=30#26040)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... =190#43514 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=4819&forum=9&start=190#43514)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3515&forum=9 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3515&forum=9)
-
On 2005-12-13 19:42:00, Anonymous wrote:
"http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3515&forum=9&start=30#26040
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... =190#43514 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=4819&forum=9&start=190#43514)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3515&forum=9 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3515&forum=9)
"
Does it make you mad that she was non-compliant on her medications and the murders where done when
she was not on meds?
Is that why you posted all that meds cause all evil
links?
-
Not at all dear. There were a few other factors left out.... like her religious brainwashing and the strong possibility of adverse reaction to the drugs and/or changing and/or withdrawing.
No doubt she was a mess. It's damned unfortunate that she didn't have someone living in to monitor and assist with her five children.
Like the family on Nanny911 last night. Six kids, no clue what they were doing, total chaos in the home, dad busy with activities, mom present in body only, but they wanted more kids.
Amazing that the shrinks haven't identified the irrational drive to have a brood of kids as a disorder.
-
I have a lot of compassion for Mrs. Yates. But the climate has changed a lot since her first trial. She may be very wise to pass on a re-trial, and consider herself lucky that she just got a prison term for these murders. Another Texas Jury just might give her the death penalty is she opts for a new trial.
-
Amazing that the shrinks haven't identified the irrational drive to have a brood of kids as a disorder."
I wish they could too, but then all the
psych bashers would bitch that they are
trying to "control", or whatever their
motivation to only criticize.
Thanks for bringing up the religious angle
and her lame ass husband.
Religion, not much that can be done to help
the gullible.
Her husband, after I watched the E story, I
felt he was more guilty than her.
Our justice system is so lame that she got
100% of the blame, and walked free, remarried
and has what, three kids already.
Next up: Andrea Yates, the next wife's murders ...
-
On 2005-12-13 22:18:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I have a lot of compassion for Mrs. Yates. But the climate has changed a lot since her first trial. She may be very wise to pass on a re-trial, and consider herself lucky that she just got a prison term for these murders. Another Texas Jury just might give her the death penalty is she opts for a new trial.
"
Perhaps, I haven't read the reasons why the mistrial, nor the strategy for the new one.
I will keep an eye out and post when something
comes up.
-
The State expert psychiatric witness Dr. Dietz testified that Yates patterned her actions after a LAW & ORDER TV episode that never existed. The trial judge erred in not granting a mistrial once it was learned that Dr. Dietz's testimoney was false.
-
On 2005-12-14 09:28:00, Joyce Harris wrote:
"The State expert psychiatric witness Dr. Dietz testified that Yates patterned her actions after a LAW & ORDER TV episode that never existed. The trial judge erred in not granting a mistrial once it was learned that Dr. Dietz's testimoney was false.
"
Oh, yeah! That is right, thanks!
-
I sent my letter off today. I'll post a reply when I get a response.
-
As a Mom, and as someone who has lived with depression on and off, it is really difficult for me to find sympathy for someone who murdered five small children in gruesome fashion. Yes, her dipshit husband was a nincompoop. Yes, she was obviously not faking insanity... but I think of the children and how they suffered and I just wish she drowned herself instead of them. Just kill her own damn self. Even if she got help or treatment, I don't see how she could possibly live with the knowledge of what she has done. Execution is not the answer, but she certainly should not be free to be out at the mercy of her "inner voices." And I hope her husband feels some degree of culpability although I did read that he was suing the doctors in spite of the fact that he chose to ignore the warnings they had the foresight to give him.
-
On 2005-12-14 19:35:00, Anonymous wrote:
"As a Mom, and as someone who has lived with depression on and off,
As long as you don't destabilize,
then you don't have anything to
worry about.
I haven't heard of too many post-partum
depression murders where the mom's even
thought of doing such a thing.
Either you, and others, believe depression
and/or post-partum depression is real or not.
Actually, it really doesn't matter, because
it is codified and treatable, correct Brook Shields.
Andrea Yates will never walk the streets
again, I belive the choice is prison or
a forensic mental hospital.
-
On 2005-12-14 17:17:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I sent my letter off today. I'll post a reply when I get a response. "
Show us what you wrote ... ?
-
Did her kids have a choice? :flame: I dont think she should. PUT HER TO DEATH!!!!!!!! :skull:
-
On 2005-12-15 08:23:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Did her kids have a choice? :flame: I dont think she should. PUT HER TO DEATH!!!!!!!! :skull: "
If your loved one, or yourself, becomes
mentally ill and commits this type of
crime, don't forget to demand the death
penalty instead of life in a psychiatric
hospital.
-
On 2005-12-15 08:50:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2005-12-15 08:23:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Did her kids have a choice? ::dove::
-
Yates to Leave Prison for Mental Hospital
Andrea Yates, Houston Mother Who Drowned Her Five Children in Bathtub to Move to Mental Hospital
By PAM EASTON Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press
RUSK, Texas Dec 19, 2005 ? Andrea Yates, the Houston mother who drowned her five children in the family's bathtub, will soon move from an East Texas prison to a state mental hospital as she awaits a new capital murder trial.
Yates' two murder convictions were overturned by an appeals court earlier this year because of false expert testimony at her 2002 trial. Yates' case was returned to a Harris County court last week, and a judge Monday set an initial hearing for Jan. 9.
Prosecutor Joe Owmby said Monday that Yates will be moved to the Rusk State Hospital, less than a half-mile away from the Skyview prison, a psychiatric unit where she's been jailed for nearly three years.
The Harris County Sheriff's Department, which is responsible for transporting Yates to the hospital and to future court appearances, is awaiting court documents before transferring Yates, spokesman Lt. John Martin. He said security concerns prohibited him from saying when Yates would be moved.
Yates' attorney, George Parnham, who has worked for months to get Yates into a state mental hospital, said he visited Yates twice last week to help prepare her for the move. While he wouldn't provide details on those discussions, Parnham said Yates is scared about the transition.
"All parties agree that she was and is mentally ill, and she needs the expert assistance," Parnham said.
Owmby said his office didn't contest the plans to move Yates.
"It's not like they are transferring her to some civilian, private care facility," Owmby said. "That is not what is going on. This is a place we send prisoners."
The 275-bed hospital treats adult patients who cannot be released without a psychiatrist's approval, superintendent Ted Debbs said. The hospital currently treats about 10 patients found innocent of crimes due to insanity, he said.
"Even though we are not a prison, we are a locked facility," Debbs said.
Yates' convictions were overturned based on testimony from Park Dietz, a forensic psychiatrist who testified in the high-profile trials of serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer and would-be presidential assassin John Hinckley Jr.
Copyright © 2005 ABC News Internet Ventures
-
Wasn't this the lady who LIED to the entire country about some minority dude doing it?
SHe is not crazy if she is lucid enough to be covering up her tracks. She should spend the rest of her pathetic life locked up far away from any children. She should not be able to benefit from her actions in any way. She is scum.
-
On 2005-12-20 09:45:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Wasn't this the lady who LIED to the entire country about some minority dude doing it?
No. Susan Smith
http://www.commondreams.org/views/091400-101.htm (http://www.commondreams.org/views/091400-101.htm)
-
She should spend the rest of her pathetic life locked up far away from any children. She should not be able to benefit from her actions in any way. She is scum."
What do you think a forensic mental hospital is?
-
Main Entry: 1fo·ren·sic
Pronunciation: f&-'ren(t)-sik, -'ren-zik
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin forensis public, forensic, from forum
1 : belonging to, used in, or suitable to courts of judicature or to public discussion and debate
2 : ARGUMENTATIVE, RHETORICAL
3 : relating to or dealing with the application of scientific knowledge to legal problems
- fo·ren·si·cal·ly /-si-k(&-)lE, -zi-/ adverb
-
WHY THE FUCK did she have 5 children, anyway? People who want to have a gaggle of children should ADOPT. That woman should have had her legs tied shut. Good riddance to all of them.
-
On 2005-12-21 21:18:00, Anonymous wrote:
"WHY THE FUCK did she have 5 children, anyway? People who want to have a gaggle of children should ADOPT. That woman should have had her legs tied shut. Good riddance to all of them."
Good point, I wish her husband was co-convicted!
He was the one that wanted as many children as God would allow.
I have heard, but not confirmed, that he has three kids by his new wife already.
Put him in jail too!
-
Andrea Yates' latest trial scheduled to start Jan. 9
12/22/2005
A new trial has been ordered for Andrea Yates, the Clear Lake mother who drowned her five children in the bathtub at her home on Beachcomber Street.
As her trial takes place, Yates will be held in a state mental hospital instead of the East Texas prison where she is currently an inmate. Her initial hearing will take place on Jan. 9.
Yates' convictions were overturned in January 2003, after a judge determined that testimony from medical expert was false.
Park Dietz, a forensic psychologist, testified that a "Law and Order" episode depicting a woman who drowned her children and was later found innocent by reason of insanity was aired shortly before Yates drowned her own children.
Officials later discovered that such an episode did not exist.
On June 20, 2001, Yates drowned her children one by one, placing their bodies on the bed before calling police.
Upon arrival at the home, a police officer found the bodies of John, 5, Paul, 3, Luke, 2, and their 6-month-old sister, Mary. Another officer found the body of the oldest, 7-year-old Noah, floating in the bathtub.
Yates' husband, Russell Yates, came home from his job at the Johnson Space Center when his wife called, saying that he needed to come home because someone was hurt.
A jury found Yates guilty of capital murder for the deaths of Noah, John and Mary, though many, including her husband, felt she should have been found not guilty by reason of insanity.
Many felt that by calling the Houston police, Yates demonstrated that she knew right from wrong and was not legally insane.
Before the conviction was overturned, Yates was serving a life sentence with no possibility for parole for the next four decades.
©Houston Community Newspapers Online 2005
-
Kill Her!!!!!!! :skull:
-
did she ever explain why the fuck she did it?
/whats with moms killing kids?
-
On 2005-12-24 19:58:00, Anonymous wrote:
"did she ever explain why the fuck she did it?
/whats with moms killing kids?"
Have you ever taken care of 5 kids with
a husband that just wants to have more
babies without helping out?
-
Have you heard of divorce?
-
On 2005-12-24 22:52:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Have you heard of divorce?
"
She is Schizophrenic, it makes things a whole
lot more complicated than walking away ...
-
sounds like you knew her. or at least enjoy making excuses for this murderer
-
On 2005-12-25 07:42:00, Anonymous wrote:
"sounds like you knew her. or at least enjoy making excuses for this murderer"
Do you know what Schizophrenia is?
-
I'm usually one of the people calling for these mothers' heads, but this case actually IS about mental illness. Go read up on her, she really is crazy and her husband pretty much put her there. Selfish asshole, even after Andrea and her therapists told him it would be dangerous for her to continue having children at the rate she was, he pressed her to have more. The other poster is correct in that he provided no help either. This woman has documented episodes of post-partum phsychosis (very different from pp depression). She had been telling her therapists and her husband of visual and auditory hallucinations. The husband put a halt to therapy when he didn't hear what he wanted. This is one of the very few cases that I believe actually DOES deserve review. The woman is and was clearly off her proverbial rocker.
-
Exactly.
When one has a mental illness, the patient,
and loved ones are supposed to learn the
triggers, as well as the therapy, or meds.,
that work the best and have compassion for
the illness and encourage the patient to
continue with their recovery.
In Adrea Yates case the husband, it could
be debated, did a criminal act by defying
common schizophric protocols and doing
the exact opposit. On face value this is
not illega. But, I think it should be
charged with cruel and unusual treatment
of his wife, a form a domestic violence.
His charge should eventually be pleaded out
to at least manslaughter.
---
I know that there are many on this site that
don't believe in mental illness, and think
a vitamin or a cult can cure the illness.
That may be ok for idle banter, but in this
case, get real. She was robbed of a chance
at a normal life by her husband ... who got
off completely.
---
I think that if everyone who contributes to
someone's demise should be heald accountable.
This kind of influence needs to be curtailed.
If culpability was the norm most of the quacks
and ridiculous opinions and desire to steer
people into dubious treatments would stop.
That ... would be a relief!
-
On 2005-12-25 12:15:00, Anonymous wrote:
I know that there are many on this site that
don't believe in mental illness, and think
a vitamin or a cult can cure the illness.
What if there was not a damned thing wrong with the woman except for how the people in her life treated her? (or little girl, who knows how far this goes back? What kind of family/church did she came up in?) Consider the possibility that the underlying issue wasn't a chemical imbalance that caused insanity? Do you believe that all mental illness is biological? Or do you believe, as I do, that people can be driven crazy?
She might have been just born that way, of course. How would anyone ever know? But I think there's ample evidence to support the idea that she was driven out of her mind.
That may be ok for idle banter, but in this
case, get real. She was robbed of a chance
at a normal life by her husband ... who got
off completely.
Yeah, they call that "borderline personality disorder" these days. In days past, we just called people like him "certified assholes".
Should it be illegal? I don't know, it would be extremely difficult to legally define the difference between a rocky spot in a relationship and minfucking abuse.
I had an unrepentant mindfucker of my own. When I finally figured out how that worked, I dumped him. He deserved that. The law forced me to associate with him and to give him access to the daughter he wouldn't or couldn't support. The general master threatened to charge me w/ legal neglect if I didn't, as it was money owed to her that I didn't want. I told my lawyer I just didn't want him to have any sense of entitlement. He just shrugged. So I said ok, then make it $50/month. He talked me up to $200 saying the judge wouldn't sign off on it otherwise.
So the civil courts did their thing and seemed to enjoy great interest and industry at doing it. Didn't make the sob any more responsible or any more interested in the wellbeing of his offspring. That went on till he finally fucked w/ us to the point where the criminal system kicked in.
I think we all would have fared far better without all that 'help' from the public sector, thanks!
I want the Old Deal back, damn it!
Emotions rule the world; Is it any wonder that it's so mucked up?!
Bill Warbis
-
Ginger,
You bring up all good points.
I don't know if an overbearing husband
that fucks one relentlessly then takes
off for work and hanging with the engineers
can cause hallucinations and auditory commands.
The E channel, hmmm. I would have to watch it
again, but I think they presented it like she
had a long standing mental illness. I am sure
it will repeat when the trial starts in two weeks.
The show did point out that when she was medicated
she did well, I believe that implies a biological
disorder, or why then, did meds work.
Her life was controlled by her husband, according
to the show. Bringing her to and from the doctors.
Medication management, and of course demanding that she be a baby mill. BTW - it is not being
pregnant that was the problem. It was five kids
in a tiny trailer, and him banging away at her
saying God says we need to have as many kids
as God will allow us.
I believe after her onset of Schizophrenia to put her into that type of environmnet is like asking,
no forcing, someone with panic attacks to be an air traffic controller. There will be a crash.
It is well known that auditory commands are bad ... So what did he expect, the moron.
Regarding your experience with family court. I am
sad to hear you went through that and I agree with you 100% that the law, or the judges interpretation, is a guarantee for failure when there is a bad, criminal, or insane person involved and they get rights as a normal person would.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates)
Andrea Yates
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Andrea Pia Yates (born July 2, 1964) is a woman from Houston, Texas, USA, who is currently serving a life sentence for methodically drowning her five children (ages six months to seven years) in a bathtub on June 20, 2001. She was suffering from a severe case of postpartum depression, recurring, after having had her last baby. She immediately called 9-1-1 after the murders and was arrested shortly thereafter.
Yates confessed the crime, but her defense used postpartum psychosis as a motion to get her into a psychiatric facility. Although all expert testimony agreed that Yates was clearly psychotic, Texas law requires that in order to successfully assert the insanity defense, the defendant must prove that he or she could not discern right from wrong at the time of the crime. In March 2002, a jury rejected the insanity defense and found Yates guilty but spared her the death penalty. The trial court sentenced Yates to life imprisonment with eligibility for parole in 40 years.
On January 6, 2005, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed the convictions because prosecution witness Dr. Park Dietz, a Califonia psychiatrist, made a mistake in his testimony. Dietz stated that shortly before the killings, an episode of Law & Order had aired featuring a woman who drowned her children being acquitted of murder by reason of insanity. It was later discovered that no such episode existed; the appellate court held that the jury may have been influenced by his false testimony and that thus a new trial would be necessary.
Some believe or believed that her husband, Russell "Rusty" Yates, an employee of the Johnson Space Center, was responsible for creating the conditions that culminated in the tragedy. Andrea's psychiatrist, Dr. Eileen Starbranch, testified that she urged the couple not to get pregnant again to avert certain future psychotic depression, but the procreative plan taught by the Yates' preacher, Michael Peter Woroniecki, a doctrine to which Rusty Yates subscribed, insisted she should continue to have "as many children as nature allows".
Andrea Yates told her jail psychiatrist, "It was the seventh deadly sin. My children weren't righteous. They stumbled because I was evil. The way I was raising them they could never be saved. They were doomed to perish in the fires of hell." [1]
-
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0322-02.htm (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0322-02.htm)
Published on Friday, March 22, 2002 in the Las Vegas Review-Journal
Rusty Yates is Culpable, Too
Father's Bizarre, Domineering Actions Played a Role in Children's Deaths
by Barbara Robinson
Who is responsible for the death of Noah, John, Paul, Luke and Mary Yates? A jury unanimously voted Andrea Pia Kennedy Yates, a registered nurse, guilty of killing her children. Interviewed after the verdict, some of the jury members have said her husband should have been on trial instead of Andrea.
OK, so the demeanor of Russell (Rusty) Yates -- all-American, Eagle Scout -- didn't persuade me. I couldn't understand how a man could repeatedly impregnate a mentally ill wife and force or allow her to home-school their children. Yates exhibited a sense of arrogance as he explained why his children had to be home-schooled: "The social integration that the world claims is so essential is exactly what we need to protect our children from." So the Yates didn't integrate with their neighbors, who didn't agree with Rusty's beliefs.
Rusty Yates claims he and Andrea jointly made decisions -- including Andrea giving birth to all five children without pain control measures; Andrea abandoning her nursing career to become a homemaker; Andrea home-schooling the children; the family moving from their four-bedroom house into a 38-foot trailer and an adjacent 350-square-foot motor home.
On June 26, just six days after the Yates children's deaths, Harris County, Texas, Judge Belinda Hill imposed a gag order prohibiting Rusty and any persons who had given statements to the police and to the district attorney from discussing how Andrea got to this point. This prevented Rusty, his family and Andrea's family from speaking to the press until the trial was over.
Since the day after the trial ended, Rusty and the families have appeared on every major television network to recite their version of what happened. In his need to share the blame for the deaths of his children, Rusty asked why anyone would blame him for Andrea's condition when a doctor trained to deal with mental illness wasn't able to predict her actions.
Rusty has repeatedly shared his disgust with the medical system's handling of Andrea's case. He has asked how she could have been so ill while the medical community failed to diagnose her, treat her and protect the rest of the family from her. He plans to sue Andrea's last psychiatrist, Dr. Mohammad Saeed, who took Andrea off her medication three weeks before she killed her five children.
Andrea's family, the Kennedys, claims Rusty was not attentive enough to Andrea's mental health needs. The Kennedy family has a history of mental illness that affects several members. Time magazine has reported that Andrea's brother and sister both suffer from depression, another brother has bipolar disorder, and the father who died after years of Alzheimer's may have had depression. This family demonstrates the genetic nature of mental illness.
The jury, the prosecution and the defense agree that Andrea is severely mentally ill. Time magazine reported that she envisioned a state-sanctioned exorcism in which George W. Bush, the former governor and now president, would come to save her from the clutches of Satan. While under the influence of psychosis, a person may know right from wrong as concepts, but be utterly incapable of controlling his or her impulses or differentiating reality from delusions so vivid they are impossible to ignore.
By any reasonable standard, that makes her incompetent to stand trial. Texas criminal law on insanity as a defense is illogical and archaic and an embarrassment to a progressive society.
Our country's attitudes toward mental illness lag far behind those of other civilized countries. We execute the mentally ill, we allow mentally ill people to roam our streets without medicine, treatment or shelter. This is inhumane. We stigmatize mental illness, devoting the better part of our resources to treat physical illness and disease.
Years ago, patients joked about the 45-minute hour they spent with their psychiatrist. Today they talk about the 10-minute visit and all the medicines they are prescribed. We have fewer mental health support systems available at a time when our society faces ever greater stresses and vulnerability to mental illness is increasing.
And while Andrea and Rusty Yates have gotten a lot of publicity, remember this: At least once every three days in America, a mother kills one or more of her children.
Barbara Robinson ([email protected]) is a retired attorney living in Las Vegas. Her column appears every other Friday.
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Peter_Woroniecki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Peter_Woroniecki)
-
On 2005-12-25 14:19:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Ginger,
You bring up all good points.
Thanks
I don't know if an overbearing husband
that fucks one relentlessly then takes
off for work and hanging with the engineers
can cause hallucinations and auditory commands.
...
and of course demanding that she be a baby mill. BTW - it is not being
pregnant that was the problem. It was five kids
in a tiny trailer, and him banging away at her
saying God says we need to have as many kids
as God will allow us.
Well, the one thing we do know about all of these national interest stories is that all the information we get has already been politicized for our distraction. I don't know how extreme the situation in that little trailer really was. But yeah, I can easily imagine it being that bad. Take the Program and throw in children and daily rape sessions. For years and years... life sentence. Yeah, I'd say that could do it. But that would be the extreme scenereo that occures to me given the bare framework. Was it that bad? Who will ever know?
The E channel, hmmm.
Yeah, well, E Channel isn't exactly noted for journalistic integrity. It's a celebrity gossip channel. Sick, huh, that this story falls under that category in our society?
The show did point out that when she was medicated
she did well, I believe that implies a biological
disorder, or why then, did meds work.
Her life was controlled by her husband, according
to the show. Bringing her to and from the doctors.
Medication management,
Same reason crack and meth and heroin work so damned well for another class of distressed people. Sure, they'll kill ya, especially if used to excess. But you'll feel finer than the freshest spring day all the way there, so long as your supply isn't interrupted. Actually, except for the religious fundamentalism, Yates fits that profile to a T. If the sob were drunk on Wild Rose instead of God, that would do it.
I believe after her onset of Schizophrenia to put her into that type of environmnet is like asking,
no forcing, someone with panic attacks to be an air traffic controller.
Or before. How was she raised so that she thought she had to take that shit from some asshole? Why did she marry him, of all people?
I think it's a given that the problem started before she hooked up with the guy. But that still doesn't prove chemical deficiency.
Regarding your experience with family court. I am
sad to hear you went through that and I agree with you 100% that the law, or the judges interpretation, is a guarantee for failure when there is a bad, criminal, or insane person involved and they get rights as a normal person would."
Thanks. Well, that's why I think it's a bad idea to try and legislate good relationships. If things go sour, tear the blanket and move on. Best move I ever tried to make. LOL
The government is much more interested in preserving the purity of its ideology than it is in allowing patients to get effective medicine.
-- Ethan B. Russo, neurologist at Western Montana Clinic
-
On 2005-12-25 17:27:00, Anonymous wrote:
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Peter_Woroniecki"
Ok, then! So maybe delusional, megalomaniac insanity is transmittalbe. Either that or they're drawn to each other. Doesn't sound like this lady had enough autonomy to choose a guru, though. Back to the SOB.
Here's a theory. The Yates case is, of course, extremely extreme. But doesn't the Mormon faith tend to be rather fundamentalist and radical? And do you think the excessive use of SSRIs in Utah might be more than coincidence?
No really, do you think so? If not, why not? Know of any more compelling explanation? Anybody?As men's prayers are a disease of the will, so are their creeds a disease of the intellect.
--Ralph Waldo Emerson, American essayist, poet, philosopher
-
If she had psychosis then I doubt they
gave her an SSRI, anti-depressant.
-
http://marriage.about.com/od/infamous/p/andreayates.htm (http://marriage.about.com/od/infamous/p/andreayates.htm)
-
Sick, sick, sick! Celebrity marriages? WTF?! Ol, OJ was celebrity gossip. But this? WTF!!!!!
-
But this? WTF!!!!!
It is called information ...
-
Jan. 6, 2006, 11:10AM
Andrea Yates headed to Houston for hearing
By PAM EASTON
Associated Press
Andrea Yates was released today from the East Texas prison where she's been jailed since 2002 for drowning her children and was headed to Houston for her first court hearing since her capital murder convictions were overturned last year.
Yates, 41, will remain in the custody of the Harris County Sheriff's Department until she is retried in the deaths of three of her five children. A trial date has not yet been set, but her pretrial hearing is scheduled for Monday.
Her attorney, George Parnham, has asked that Yates be sent to Rusk State Hospital until the trial, but no decision has been made.
Parnham and prosecutor Joe Owmby could not immediately be reached for comment Friday.
During her time at Skyview Prison Unit, Yates worked in a therapeutic garden and in the commissary.
"She was in good spirits and she thanked me for the treatment she received at Skyview," Warden Todd Foxworth told The Associated Press, describing her behavior there as "excellent."
Yates wore a blue-and-white striped shirt and walked with her head down as she got into a Harris County Sheriff's Department van.
Foxworth said Yates has "some anxieties" about her new surroundings and having to form new relationships.
"She is ready to continue that and do what she can to try and become a productive person," Foxworth said.
Jurors rejected Yates' insanity defense, finding her guilty for the 2001 deaths of three of the children drowned in the family bathtub: 7-year-old Noah, 5-year-old John and the youngest, 6-month-old Mary. Evidence was presented about the drowning of the other two children ? Paul, 3, and Luke, 2 ? but Yates was not charged in their deaths.
Yates was sentenced to life in prison.
The First Court of Appeals in Houston overturned Yates convictions last January because the state's expert witness, forensic psychiatrist Park Dietz, testified that television's "Law and Order" series aired an episode about a woman with postpartum depression who drowned her children shortly before Yates killed her five children. Such an episode never existed.
-
They better give her the CHAIR. Better yet Drown her. :flame: :flame: :flame: :flame:
-
Andrea Yates' attorney doesn't want her to go free
Yates due back in Houston courtroom
(1/08/06 - KTRK/HOUSTON) - Monday morning, Andrea Yates will walk back into a court room for the first time since an appeals court overturned her capital murder convictions.
Yates will go back on trial for the murders of three of her five children. Yates claimed she drowned them to keep them from going to hell. She has been serving a life sentence at an east Texas prison.
During Monday's hearing a judge may ask Yates to enter a plea. Her attorney would like to see Yates committed and kept off the street.
Attorny George Parnham said, "I don't think that's the & place for her. I think that she would be subjected to threats of physical harm. I know that to be a fact."
A trial date has not yet been set.
(Copyright © 2006, KTRK-TV)
-
I dont blame him. Who in there right mind would want to see this Baby Killer go free? She needs to go to jail so what if shes subjected to physical harm she needs a jail house ass beat down. Tell me what is the price to pay for killing Babies? This BITCH makes me sick and all that feel sorry for her. Feel sorry for those poor kids that didnt have a chance in hell of getting away from her that sad,sad day. :skull:
-
Look, she obviously is or was out of her cotton pickin mind when she did it. And she'll have to live with that for as long as she lives. Nobody, probably not even she, wants her on the loose. But what would be the point in tormenting her? Prison is for people we're afraid of, not people we're mad at. Long as she's locked down so that she can't harm anyone, I have no desire at all to see her suffer any more than all that.
Resentment is like taking poison and waiting for the other person to die
-- Malachy McCourt
-
This woman was batshit crazy no matter what the root cause, environmental or organic. To tell ya the truth, I'm just as concerned if not more about her husband and that religious nutcase whose teachings they were following, Michael Peter Woroniecki.
http://hometown.aol.com/pranalite/main.html (http://hometown.aol.com/pranalite/main.html)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates)
Some believe or believed that her husband, Russell "Rusty" Yates, an employee of the Johnson Space Center, was responsible for creating the conditions that culminated in the tragedy. Andrea's psychiatrist, Dr. Eileen Starbranch, testified that she urged the couple not to get pregnant again to avert certain future psychotic depression, but the procreative plan taught by the Yates' preacher, Michael Peter Woroniecki, a doctrine to which Rusty Yates subscribed, insisted she should continue to have "as many children as nature allows".
Andrea Yates told her jail psychiatrist, "It was the seventh deadly sin. My children weren't righteous. They stumbled because I was evil. The way I was raising them they could never be saved. They were doomed to perish in the fires of hell."
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
-- John F. Kennedy (1917-63), U.S. Democratic politician, president. Speech, 13 March 1962, the White House.
-
The religious crazy-making could have been exaggerated by an adverse reaction to the psych drugs she was taking, aka drug induced mania.
The public will never know if that was the case. It won't even be explored because her new trial is funded by the psych industry. She will be used as a pawn, to ensure that all people get access to MH services.
The witness that gave false testimony is from the media, worked for NBC.
Prime opportunity to use her to further the political their agenda with high media attention.
At this point, it's not about the truth or justice.
She'll remain in prison and the psych industry will prosper... and the chirade will continue....
-
On 2006-01-11 09:41:00, Deborah wrote:
"
The religious crazy-making could have been exaggerated by an adverse reaction to the psych drugs she was taking, aka drug induced mania.
The public will never know if that was the case. It won't even be explored because her new trial is funded by the psych industry. She will be used as a pawn, to ensure that all people get access to MH services.
The witness that gave false testimony is from the media, worked for NBC.
Prime opportunity to use her to further the political their agenda with high media attention.
At this point, it's not about the truth or justice.
She'll remain in prison and the psych industry will prosper... and the chirade will continue...."
What kind of statements are these?
Rusty kept her off her meds, I thought.
I don't recall anyone blaming psych meds
during the trial, did they?
Why and how would the Pharmaceutical Industry
fund this trial, it is not about meds?
-
I am surprised at the hatred directed
toward this lady.
Look at her history.
RN to Home School Mom, Husband and Religion
dictacting that she pop out kids like a
photo copy machine, and then take care of
them by herself!
No help, no social life, no sanctuary.
Nope, Rusty is not to blame, no percentage
at all.
I would like to see how each one of us
would handle the very same conditions.
Our outcomes might be the same!
---
Furthermore, when she exhibited Schizophrenia
it is hard to believe Rusty and her church
did not take it seriously and help her,
instead they demanded more kids and more
stress.
What would you expect you would do in the
same situation.
---
You might want leniancy and freedome after
this debacle.
All she is asking for is to be in a psychiatic
hospital setting that is a type of prison.
Not a prison with little or no mental health
services.
Her husband already denied her treatment,
should the courts continue the essentially
torture treatment she received since she
got married.
---
Remember, RN, Home School Mom, stress,
mental illness, torture ... psychosis.
Doesn't sound like a monster to me, does it
to you?
-
Did Drugs Cause Mom to Drown Her Five Children?
By Kelly Patricia O'Meara
Andrea Yates' crime shocked the nation. Did mind-altering drugs prescribed to treat her depression actually drive this young mother of five to drown the children she loved?
Only weeks ago, Houston wife and mother Andrea Pia Yates methodically drowned each of her five children. One by one Yates forced her children, ages 6 months to 7 years, into the family's bathtub and held their struggling bodies under the water until each fell limp.
Whatever possessed the 36-year-old mother to commit these unconscionable acts remains murky. Depression and postpartum syndrome topped early speculation, but there has been little discussion about the possible effects of the powerful mind-altering drugs she was taking.
Although Texas District Judge Belinda Hill issued a gag order concerning the case, family members have released disturbing facts about Yates' psychiatric treatment that specialists say may account for her state of mind at the time of the murders.
During a two-year period, Yates was prescribed four extremely potent mind-altering drugs intended to help her through two episodes of severe depression that began after the birth of her fourth child.
The first of these psychopharmacological cocktails included Haldol, an antipsychotic most often used to treat schizophrenia; Effexor, an antidepressant very similar to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs); and Wellbutrin, a unique antidepressant that has amphetaminelike effects.
ccording to Yates' husband, Russell, his wife appeared to respond well to this treatment regimen and, after a short time, became her "old self."
At the onset of the second episode of depression following the birth of her fifth child, and the subsequent death of her father, Yates again was prescribed a psychopharmacological cocktail. This one contained Effexor and, at the end, Remeron.
While information about the Remeron dosage was not made public, Yates' husband has said that his wife was given Effexor at a dosage nearly twice the recommended maximum limit. Just days before the murders, the Effexor was for some reason reduced to just slightly more than the recommended maximum dosage of 225 mg per day and the Remeron was added.
Psychiatrist Peter Breggin, court-qualified medical expert and author of numerous books, including Talking Back to Prozac and the recently released The Anti-Depressant Fact Book, tells Insight:
"The mixture of Remeron and Effexor would tend to be extremely agitating and certainly could lead to behavioral disturbances. The mixture of Haldol, Wellbutrin and Effexor is unpredictable in its effects. Haldol actually can cause depression, and putting the three drugs together is somewhat experimental."
Breggin continues: "Haldol is a very blunting drug. It's difficult to come to any definitive conclusions with so little data about her state of mind at the time. However, Haldol is a drug that produces what can only be referred to as a chemical lobotomy that tends to make a person more docile and robotic."
Many Americans who have read or heard reports about this case have little doubt that Yates was "out of her mind" when she killed her children. What appears to be developing, however, is an argument within the medical community about whether the mother's homicidal state of mind was triggered by the depth of her depression or by the mind-altering drugs prescribed to her.
Were these the actions of a severely depressed woman who "lost it," or did the mind-altering drugs push this emotionally distraught woman over the edge? Should the latter be established in the criminal court, it could raise an even greater issue: Who was responsible? Was it a chemically poisoned mother who carried out the crazed act, the physician who prescribed the mind-altering cocktails or the pharmaceutical companies that manufactured and marketed the treatment?
Only recently have pharmaceutical companies been held responsible for violent behavior associated with their product lines of mind-altering drugs. A case in point is a June trial in which a jury in Cheyenne, Wyo., found that the antidepressant Paxil, one of the newer SSRIs distributed by GlaxoSmithKline PLC, "can cause some individuals to commit suicide and/or homicide."
The jury said Paxil caused Donald Schell, a retired oil-rig worker, to shoot and kill his wife, daughter and granddaughter before turning the gun on himself. Schell had been on the mind-altering drug only two days.
The jury awarded surviving family members $8 million in damages, finding that 80 percent of the fault lay with the drugmaker. Andy Vickery of the Houston law firm of Vickery & Waldner, lead attorney in the Wyoming case, has taken dozens of similar cases seeking to hold responsible those dispensing and manufacturing these drugs.
"The important thing," Vickery explains, "is to lay the responsibility and accountability at the doorstep of those who ought to have it and those who could and should do something about it. Whether it's criminal or civil responsibility, there isn't a lot of difference."
As Vickery puts it, "Look, if I give you a loaded gun and for whatever reason it's likely that you're going to shoot someone, then I'm an accessory before the fact of murder. Shouldn't the drug company that's encouraging doctors to prescribe a drug and is aware that these drugs cause adverse reactions be held responsible?
No one can believe that a mother would do such a thing. It's too horrible. But the fact is these people get completely out of touch with reality because of these drugs. Unfortunately, in most of the cases that I get involved with, we never know if the people committing the violence knew what they were doing when they did it because they also killed themselves."
Although alcoholic-beverage distillers have yet to be held responsible for the overwhelming number of fatalities resulting from alcohol abuse, in many states bartenders are held civilly and criminally liable when customers get drunk and cause automobile fatalities. With the growing number of physicians and psychiatrists prescribing mind-altering drugs and the alarming data filtering out about adverse reactions to them, tort lawyers are asking if medically trained dispensers of psychotropic drugs shouldn't also be held liable.
For example, Yates' psychiatrist, Muhammad Saaed, reportedly prescribed at least one mind-altering drug (Effexor) at almost twice the maximum recommended dose as part of a cocktail of mind-altering drugs that also included Haldol and Wellbutrin during her first bout with severe depression.
A cautionary note in the Physicians Desk Reference says Effexor negatively interacts with Haldol. Apparently, Effexor hinders Haldol's drug clearance by a factor of more than 40 percent and can cause Haldol concentration levels to increase by nearly 90 percent, creating toxicity.
Did Saaed know the contraindications associated with the cocktail he prescribed? If the psychiatrist was unaware of the toxic mix, would ignorance of the potential poisoning make him any less liable than if he had known and prescribed the mind-altering drugs anyway? These are just a few of the questions Saaed may be asked should he have to defend his treatment under oath.
According to Ann Blake Tracy, executive director of the International Coalition for Drug Awareness and author of the recently updated book Prozac: Panacea or Pandora?, there is little doubt about Saaed's culpability.
Tracy, a doctor of health sciences specializing in adverse reactions to serotonergic medications, tells Insight that "when doctors start prescribing 'off label' outside the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] guidelines, they run the risk of being sued for malpractice. In the case of Yates, her psychiatrist already had her on superhigh doses, and on the Monday before the tragedy he dropped the Effexor back to almost the maximum dosage, then added Remeron.
It's well-documented that when doses are increased or decreased, patients experience negative reactions. A great many of the court cases, but certainly not all of them, are a result of the drastic change in the medication."
According to Tracy, "There's a lot of science to demonstrate that depression is the result of an inability to metabolize serotonin, but somehow the drug companies have got the world believing that an increase in serotonin, rather than an increase in serotonin metabolism, is what the depressed person needs. This is the exact opposite of what research on depression shows and, if you look at the research over the last 50 years it is clear that there has been a horrible mistake.
There is such a wanton disregard for life. Why can't these doctors at least read the package inserts so they know how to prescribe the drugs properly? They're not supposed to prescribe over the maximum doses, and they know that they are at toxic levels at that point. That's why they have maximum-dose information; that's why the Food and Drug Administration puts a maximum dose on the packaging. They do it to show that over the allowable dose level, a person becomes toxic and it's extremely dangerous."
When asked what questions she might have for Yates' psychiatrist, Tracy tells Insight: "I'd want to know how he could have ignored so many warnings and contraindications in [reportedly] giving this poor woman this dangerous drug cocktail. I'd also like to know which sleeping pill he uses to knock himself out at night when those five children's faces run over and over again through his mind?"
Harsh words? It appears this is just the beginning. Many who follow such matters say that because of the high profile of the likely trial of Yates for capital murder, it may turn into a landmark case pitting the pharmaceutical giants against the medical practitioners and vice versa, perhaps even dragging in the American Psychiatric Association.
George Parnham, Yates' attorney, has reported that he will enter a not-guilty plea on behalf of his client for reasons of insanity. After meeting with Yates and speaking with psychiatrists that had examined her, Parnham told reporters, "I've accumulated evidence in the last 24 hours that strongly suggests that the mental status of my client will be the issue."
Just what Parnham has discerned is anyone's guess, including whether he'll defend his client by challenging the pharmaceutical companies and his client's psychiatrist. In the meantime, sources close to the case report that Yates still is being medicated. Saaed has turned his files on Yates over to the court and has, to date, made no public statement.
Insight Magazine July 2001
-
According to the E story, she stopped taking
her meds shortly after leaving the hospital.
Read on:
http://www.eonline.com/On/Holly/Shows/Yates/ (http://www.eonline.com/On/Holly/Shows/Yates/)
An Infanticide Trial Grips the Nation and Shakes Up the Texas Law Books
Andrea Yates
Things were finally looking up for Rusty and Andrea Yates when they moved out of their cramped, renovated bus into a nice suburban home in Houston. The outlook was even brighter for their five young children. Then things got dark. Very dark.
Andrea Yates: E! True Hollywood Story examines the descent and destruction of a mother whose psychiatric struggles led her to do the unthinkable: drown her four sons and infant daughter. See what motivated a mother to commit such heinous crimes and the strange, meandering murder trial that followed.
What were the warning signs? Was Andrea Yates insane, or was she suffering from an extreme case of postpartum depression? And how did an episode of the legal drama Law & Order overturn her murder conviction?
When Rusty Yates came home from work one day to find his wife shaking involuntarily and chewing on her fingers, he knew she needed help. A brief hospitalization and a strict regimen of medication seemed to put Andrea Yates back on the road to recovery. But it wasn't long before she stopped taking the pills. She became paranoid and told her husband that the characters on TV shows were talking to her and the children.
Andrea's psychiatrist warned them that having another baby might bring on more episodes of psychotic behavior, but the Yates wouldn't listen. Six months after the birth of their first daughter, Andrea drowned her children one by one in the bathtub, saying she wasn't a good mother and needed to be punished.
Prosecutors claimed the gruesome murders Yates committed and her insanity defense were inspired from an episode of Law & Order. A jury found her guilty after three and a half hours of deliberation, but Yates' defense team later discovered that there was no such episode.
An appeals court ruling could lead to a new trial, but what is your verdict on Andrea Yates? Tune in to her True Hollywood Story--and judge for yourself.
-
At the onset of the second episode of depression following the birth of her fifth child, and the subsequent death of her father, Yates again was prescribed a psychopharmacological cocktail. This one contained Effexor and, at the end, Remeron.
While information about the Remeron dosage was not made public, Yates' HUSBAND has SAID that his wife was given Effexor at a dosage nearly twice the recommended maximum limit. Just days before the murders, the Effexor was for some reason reduced to just slightly more than the recommended maximum dosage of 225 mg per day and the Remeron was added.
-
Is the office an escape from the kids?
Jan. 19: "Today" show host Katie Couric
talks with authors Ayelet Waldman and
Lisa Belkin about work being more
relaxing than vacations.
---
I found it interesting how these folks
where laughing about how bad it is to
be around kids. The solution, drop them
off at school and take seperate vacations
if possible.
---
I couldn't help thinking about Andrea Yates.
* 24 hour stay at home mother.
* Homeschooling her kids in isolation
* Absentee, unhelpful father
* Forced pro-creation by cult church beliefs
* Developed Schizophrenia and no changes made
I wondered how these ladies would have reacted
to a profile such as this before she murdered
her kids and now after.
---
People who are spoiled in life get all the breaks.
People who are abused catch no breaks.
If it is a mentally ill person they are damned.
Nice society we live in!
I doubt that anyone here at Fornits could have
done what Andrea Yates did for her husband, her
church and her kids in that same situation without
snapping.
Did you notice in the Andrea Yates information so far that she did nothing for herself, it was a
a sacraficially life where she gave 100% to others.
-
Fuck her the bitch KILLED her kids. Give to others my ass, who the fuck are you a member of her fan club? She KILLED her kids, chased them down like animals and KILLED them. For one second put yourself in those kids shoes. What do you think was going on in there little heads when there own mother was KILLING them one by one? Why should the tax payers pay for that Bitch to be in jail or a hospital? She needs to be put to death just like she did to those poor babies. Put her in a tub and let her go through just what her kids went through. And anyone who feels sorry for her or defends her by saying OH SHES SICK, is just as Sick as her. ::fuckoff::
-
On 2006-01-19 08:23:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Is the office an escape from the kids?
Jan. 19: "Today" show host Katie Couric
talks with authors Ayelet Waldman and
Lisa Belkin about work being more
relaxing than vacations.
---
I found it interesting how these folks
where laughing about how bad it is to
be around kids. The solution, drop them
off at school and take seperate vacations
if possible.
---
I couldn't help thinking about Andrea Yates.
* 24 hour stay at home mother.
* Homeschooling her kids in isolation
* Absentee, unhelpful father
* Forced pro-creation by cult church beliefs
* Developed Schizophrenia and no changes made
I wondered how these ladies would have reacted
to a profile such as this before she murdered
her kids and now after.
---
People who are spoiled in life get all the breaks.
People who are abused catch no breaks.
If it is a mentally ill person they are damned.
Nice society we live in!
I doubt that anyone here at Fornits could have
done what Andrea Yates did for her husband, her
church and her kids in that same situation without
snapping.
Did you notice in the Andrea Yates information so far that she did nothing for herself, it was a
a sacraficially life where she gave 100% to others."
She did so much for her kids, WAKE up she KILLED her kids. She did so much for her husband , she KILLED his children. You sound like a bleeding heart and I bet you write the bitch every day. Go take a nap.
-
How about prosecuting husbands who force
their spouses into harmful situations.
He should be at fault, for that.
If he was prosecuted, it may deter others
from similar actions.
She will spend the rest of her life in
prison, or a psychiatric hospital much
like John Hinkley.
I don't think the person posting is asking
to let her off, just stating some facts,
that apparently you two are too afraid to
hear.
Perhaps you like the husbands actions?
You don't mind home school mom's being
consumed with obligations with no breaks
for themselves.
I don't believe in torturing anyone and
then blame them 100% for their psychotic
reactions.
Just think, if her husband had listened
to the doctor, and had become rational
all the kids would be alive today.
Just slamming her, and not him, just
perpetuates the problem.
There are many similar situations going
on all over the country, time bombs, with
no change in site.
-
I think when someone hears that a mother can kill her own kids I think it makes some of us feel hate towards that person. I myself hate the both of them and feel he should be charged as well. All he wanted to do was BREED. He went out and made the money and thats all he thought he had to do. He never thought of being a father, or husband. He didnt give a damm about her or what she was going through all he cared about was makeing more kids. Yes he is a very big factor here. They both are. There should have been a live in nanny,to help her out. Family should have stepped in and took the children if they saw she was haveing troubles and she needed time. BUT the fact of the matter is She was the one who killed her own kids. Yes she was driven to it But she did it.There were alot of other choices she had. She called her husband after the fact, why didnt she call him or someone before she did it? After she killed the frist one how was she able to gone with the rest of them? Why not call for HELP then? Why kill them all?I will NEVER feel sorry for anyone that can do something like this to someone they loved, to someone who loved them back so much. How does one live with themself? I think its too late for her to get any kind of help now. The damage has already been done. :cry: :cry: :sad:
-
On 2006-01-20 07:23:00, screann wrote:
There were alot of other choices she had. She called her husband after the fact, why didnt she call him or someone before she did it? After she killed the frist one how was she able to gone with the rest of them? Why not call for HELP then? Why kill them all?
There are others that probably know this better, but
from watching all those crime shows on TV, I think when someone is psychotic they are possessed to do what the voices are telling them.
If someone comes into the room they get "engaged" and the voices go away.
When no longer engaged the controlling voices come back.
In this case, perhaps, the voices were telling her to kill the kids because they where not going to heaven according to her minister. The kids could not dis-engage her because they were the object of the voices. After they where dead she became dis-engaged and was able to call her husband and police realizing, after she became dis-engaged that she did wrong, very wrong.
People with psychosis should not be ignored ...
a lesson to the next person who wants to manipulate a mental person.
BTW - remember earlier in this thread she went from RN, to Home School mom. She must be pretty smart. The scary thing, to me, is that perhaps this could happen to anyone ... ???
Regardless, I think the whole point of this thread
is not to bash, or forgive her, but I think it is to have the laws changed in some manner so that the husband could be held accountable also.
Interesting, a thought just popped in my head. If the child people from the county stopped by and the house was a mess, they would have stepped in.
If they stopped by and she was overwhelmed with the kids, breeding, homeschooling, cult type religion, psychosis, on and off medications, NO THERAPY, I don't think they could have done anything.
As I said, there are probably better people to answer some of these thoughts more factually.
The bottom line to me, somewhere there is a dopey
husband doing the same thing, and there is nothing
legally to help the wife, mother, breeder, home school teacher ... nothing.
-
Yates attorney asks judge to set $50,000 bond
HOUSTON -- Andrea Yates' attorney requested Friday that a judge set a $50,000 bond and allow Yates to be housed at a state mental hospital while she awaits her new capital murder trial.
Meanwhile, District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal said Yates, who drowned her five children in the family's bathtub in 2001, should remain in the Harris County Jail and receive a bond of no less than $1 million.
"There is a concern that (Yates) could decompensate within the confines of the Harris County Jail, endangering not only her mental health, but also her constitutional right to be determined legally competent when tried for these offenses," her attorney, George Parnham, wrote in his request for a bond hearing.
Rosenthal said he doesn't understand why Parnham is asking for Yates to receive psychiatric care somewhere other than the Harris County Jail, which is home to a large psychiatric facility.
"The motion is kind of silly because what he has asked to do is take her out of the Harris County Jail and put her someplace that he can't put her without the judge ordering something," Rosenthal said. "And the judge can't order it."
Parnham asks that the court allow Yates to be committed to the Rusk State Hospital less than a mile from where she was imprisoned at the Skyview Prison Unit following her 2002 convictions.
"Bigger isn't always better," Parnham said of his reason for wanting Yates transferred to Rusk. "I want her moved because everybody who is knowledgeable in the psychiatric arena understands the best place for her is Rusk."
Psychiatrists testified during Yates' original trial that she suffered from schizophrenia and postpartum depression, but defense and prosecution expert witnesses disagreed over the severity of her illness and whether it prevented her from knowing drowning her children was wrong.
Parnham said the Harris County Sheriff's Department has agreed to transport Yates between her Houston court appearances and East Texas leading up to the new trial, which is set for March 20.
"As a condition of bond, at no time would Andrea Pia Yates be 'free' within the boundaries of this or any other community," Parnham wrote.
Rosenthal said it is appropriate that Yates receive a bond. He just doesn't think it should as low as Parnham has requested. Rosenthal has suggested $500,000 on each of the two capital murder charges Yates faces.
Earlier this month, Yates, 41, again said she is innocent by reason of insanity of the two capital murder charges.
To prove insanity in Texas, defendants must show they suffered from a severe mental disease or defect and did not know the conduct was wrong.
Jurors rejected Yates' insanity defense during her original trial, finding her guilty of two capital murder charges for the deaths of three of the children drowned in the family bathtub: 7-year-old Noah, 5-year-old John and the youngest, 6-month-old Mary. Evidence was presented about the drowning of the other two children _ Paul, 3, and Luke, 2 _ but Yates was not charged in their deaths.
The First Court of Appeals in Houston overturned Yates' convictions last January because the state's expert witness, forensic psychiatrist Park Dietz, testified about a nonexistent episode on television's "Law and Order" series. Dietz said a show about a woman with postpartum depression who drowned her children aired shortly before Yates killed her five children.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press.
-
:wave: hi screanne
-
On 2006-01-21 16:07:00, Anonymous wrote:
" ::bandit::
-
Attorneys in Yates case struggling to reach plea deal
(1/24/06 - HOUSTON) - Attorneys in Andrea Yates' capital murder case said Tuesday they are still negotiating a plea deal but have hit dead ends.
If they can't work through those areas, prosecutors and defense attorneys say they'll be ready for a second trial in March.
"Both sides are exhausting every avenue that we can possibly go down to try our best to avoid having to retry this case," Yates' attorney, George Parnham, said outside the Harris County courthouse.
Prosecutor Alan Curry said Yates will have to plead guilty or no contest to drowning her children as part of any plea agreement. Parnham has said his client will not plead guilty in the deaths of three of the five children she drowned in the family's bathtub in 2001.
"The non-negotiables may or may not be sticking points, but they remain non-negotiables," Curry said. "We understand their position and they understand ours."
Lawyers on both sides met privately Tuesday with state District Judge Belinda Hill, who set a Feb. 1 bond hearing for Yates. Her trial is set for March 20.
Parnham has requested Hill set bond at $50,000. Prosecutors want a $1 million bond because of the seriousness of the crime.
"She killed five people," Curry said.
Parnham also would like Yates to be housed at a state mental hospital in East Texas while she awaits trial, instead of in jail.
Curry said prosecutors worry that moving Yates from the Harris County Jail could cause her to become unstable and make it more difficult to get her to court for pretrial hearings. Hill will decide where Yates awaits trial.
In her first trial, Yates pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. Psychiatrists testified that she suffered from schizophrenia and postpartum depression, but expert witnesses disagreed over the severity of her illness and whether it prevented her from knowing that drowning her children was wrong.
Jurors found her guilty of two capital murder charges for the deaths of three of the children: 7-year-old Noah, 5-year-old John and the youngest, 6-month-old Mary. Evidence was presented about the drownings of Paul, 3, and Luke, 2, but Yates was not charged in their deaths.
The First Court of Appeals in Houston overturned Yates' convictions last January because the state's expert witness, forensic psychiatrist Park Dietz, testified about a nonexistent episode on television's "Law & Order" series. Dietz said a show about a woman with postpartum depression who drowned her children aired shortly before Yates killed her five children.
Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press
-
Andrea Yates's attorney may be playing with this woman's life. The climate has changed a lot since she was tried the first go round. Yates could easily get the death penalty if she is tried again. The "shock" of what she did to these 5 children has worn off; and people seem to be ready to have this woman pay for her crime. It may be wise for her to accept whatever plea the prosecutor is willing to offer.
-
Fry the Bitch. ::unhappy:: ::unhappy:: ::unhappy:: ::unhappy:: ::unhappy:: ::unhappy:: ::unhappy:: ::unhappy:: ::unhappy:: ::unhappy:: ::unhappy:: ::unhappy:: ::unhappy:: ::unhappy:: ::unhappy:: ::unhappy:: ::unhappy:: ::unhappy:: ::unhappy:: ::unhappy:: ::unhappy:: ::unhappy:: ::unhappy:: ::unhappy:: ::unhappy:: ::unhappy:: ::unhappy:: ::unhappy:: ::unhappy:: ::unhappy:: ::unhappy:: ::unhappy:: ::unhappy:: ::unhappy:: ::unhappy:: ::armed:: ::armed:: ::armed:: ::armed:: ::armed::
-
http://letters.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet ... _mom/view/ (http://letters.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2006/01/25/blame_the_mom/view/)
Mommy blame
Well some of their points are valid. There are plenty of examples of women who sublimate their own needs and allow abuse to go on for romantic love, or the appearance of it. I just don't like that these blogging bitches don't realize that there are fathers who do the exact same thing.
As for personal responsiblity, yes, I believe that a person who allows another person to abuse their children deserves jail time too. I fully believe Andrea Yates's husband should be sitting in a jail cell. But then you start getting into murky territory, who is going to care for these kids who lived, when both guardians are in jail? Then there is just the murkiness of how do you prove that a parent allowed abuse to go on. Who will pay to care for all of these kids of abuse? It really sucks that life sucks, but there is really no way around it, unless we start big brothering every home in the US and rarely let parents raise their own children unless they pass parenting tests and force people to care for children not their own.
But perhaps a better question is why do they do this? Why do they blame the mother/victim? I believe the people that do this are the ones who think that there is some sort of life safety policy in the universe. That if you live a pure and good life, nothing bad will ever happen to you.
Imagine how draining it would be to distrust all the people you date or let into your life. Imagine how draining and stressful it would be to always be on guard from criminal attack. Then imagine how much eaiser it is to tell youself that something like this would never happen to you because you would never do something that stupid or immoral. So you get to feel all superior and safe at the same time.
But yeah, I'll consider that these ladies are uppity bitches who buy into that everything wrong in the world is pretty much a womans' fault. Just like a lot of bigots who place the blame of their hardships on minorities backs or feminists who think everything is men's fault. It's very easy to create strawmen to blame complex problems on, it's so much easier than thinking about cause and effect or personal responsiblity and having to realize that there are things outside of anyone's control.
-- No Name Given
-
Shes out of jail at in a mentel hospital asof today.
-
This is a 19 part series:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_m ... index.html (http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/andrea_yates/index.html)
-
Yikes, this is an interesting read ...
Two weeks before she filled up the bathtub,
but Rusty was home, so she didn't go
through with the drownings.
I am freaked that he knew what the command
voices where saying to her, and he still
didn't bring in any help for her!
-
The Call
Around 10:00am on June 20, 2001, Rusty Yates received a startling phone call from his wife, Andrea, whom he had left only an hour before.
"You need to come home," she said.
Puzzled, he asked, "What's going on?"
She just repeated her statement and then added, "It's time. I did it."
Not entirely sure what she meant but in light of her recent illness, he asked her to explain and she said, "It's the children."
Now a chill shot through him. "Which one?" he asked.
"All of them."
He dropped everything and left his job as a NASA engineer at the Johnson Space Center. When he arrived fifteen minutes later, the police and ambulances were already at their Houston, Texas home on the corner of Beachcomber and Sea Lark in the Clear Lake area. Rusty was told he could not go in, so he put his forehead against a brick wall, trying to process the horrifying news, and waited.
Restless for information, he went to a window and on to the back door where he screamed, "How could you do this?" According to an article in Time, at one point Rusty Yates collapsed into a fetal position on the lawn, pounding the ground as he watched his wife being led away in handcuffs.
John Cannon, the police spokesperson, described for the media what the team had found.
On a double bed in a back master bedroom, four children were laid out beneath a sheet, clothed and soaking wet. All of them were dead, with their eyes wide open. In the bathtub, a young boy was submerged amid feces and vomit floating on the surface. He looked to be the oldest and he was also dead.
In less than an hour that morning, five children had all been drowned, and the responding officers were deeply affected.
The children's thin, bespectacled mother---the woman who had called 911 seeking help---appeared able to talk coherently, but her frumpy striped shirt and stringy brown hair were soaked. She let the officers in, told them without emotion that she had killed her children, and sat down while they checked. Detective Ed Mehl thought she seemed focused when he asked her questions. She told him she was a bad mother and expected to be punished. Then she allowed the police to take her into custody while medical personnel checked the children for any sign of life. She looked dispassionately at the gathering crowd of curious neighbors as she got into the police car.
Everyone who entered the Spanish-style home could see the little school desks in one room where the woman apparently home-schooled them. The house was cluttered and dirty, with used dishes sitting around in the kitchen. The bathroom was a mess.
Yates' family photo
Yates' family photo
This crime story would unravel in dark and strange ways, with the reasons why a loving mother of five had drowned all of her children tangled in issues of depression, religious fanaticism, and psychosis. The nation would watch with polarized opinions , as the State of Texas was forced into a determination about justice that was rooted in glaringly outdated ideas about mental illness.
But in the meantime, Andrea Yates sat in a jail cell and Rusty Yates had to deal with a demanding media that not only wanted a scoop but also wanted an answer. Why would any mother murder all of her children?
-
Confession
The Yates children ranged in age from six months to seven years, and all of them had been named after figures from the Bible: Noah, John, Luke, Paul, and Mary. Four were boys and the infant a girl.
Once they were known to be dead, the children were left in place for three hours to await the medical examiner's van. Rusty, 36, was kept outside his own home, says Suzy Spenser in Breaking Point, for five long hours. He told the police that his wife was ill and had been suffering from depression. She'd been on medication.
At Houston Police headquarters, an officer turned on a tape recorder to take the formal statement of the woman who had already admitted to killing all of her children. Her name was Andrea Pia Yates and she was 36 years old. She stared straight ahead as she answered questions and said, with little energy, that she understood her rights.
"Who killed your children?" the officer asked.
"I killed my children." Her eyes were blank.
"Why did you kill your children?"
"Because I'm a bad mother."
For about seventeen minutes, they pressed her for details of exactly how she had proceeded that morning.
She had gotten out of bed around 8:10 and had waited for her husband, Rusty, to leave for work at nine. The children were all awake and eating cereal. Andrea had some, too. Once Rusty was gone, Andrea went into the bathroom to turn on the water and fill the tub. The water came within three inches from the top.
Then one by one, she drowned three of her sons, Luke, age 2; Paul, age 3; and John, age 5. She put them in facedown and held them as they struggled. As each one died, she then placed him face up on a bed, still wet, and then covered all three with a sheet. Each had struggled just a few minutes. Next was six-month-old Mary, the youngest, who had been in the bathroom all this time, sitting on the floor in her bassinet and crying. When Andrea was finished with Mary, she left her floating in the water and called to her oldest son, Noah.
He came right away. "What happened to Mary?" he asked. Then apparently realizing what his mother was doing, he ran from the bathroom but Andrea chased him down and dragged him back to the tub. She forced him in face down and drowned him right next to Mary. She admitted in her confession that he had put up the biggest struggle of all. At times he managed to slip from her grasp and get some air, but she always managed to push him back down. His last words were, "I'm sorry." She left him there floating in a tub full of feces, urine and vomit, where police found him. She lifted Mary out and placed her on the bed with her other brothers. Andrea gently covered her before calling the police and her husband. It was time.
Had the children done something to make her want to kill them? The officer asked.
No.
You weren't mad?
No.
She admitted that she was taking medication for depression and she named her doctor, whom she had seen two days earlier. She believed she was not a good mother because the children were "not developing correctly." She'd been having thoughts about hurting them over the past two years. She needed to be punished for not being a good mother.
The questioning officer was confused. How was the murder of her children a way to achieve that? "Did you want the criminal justice system to punish you?" he asked.
"Yes."
She had almost done the same thing two months earlier, she admitted. She had filled the tub. Rusty was home at the time, so she just didn't do it.
The officer asked for the birth dates of each of her children and then stopped the tape.
The media soon learned that Andrea had suffered from depression for at least two years and had been hospitalized for attempted suicide.
By the end of that first awful day, Andrea Yates was charged with capital murder for "intentionally and knowingly" causing the deaths of three of her children, using water as a weapon. She was not charged in the deaths of the two youngest boys. There was no indication on this report, says Spencer, that she suffered from mental illness.
Andrea Yates in prison
Andrea Yates in prison
Yet Rusty was telling the media that she had suffered bouts of serious depression since the birth of their fourth child two years earlier.
In fact, her most recent psychiatrist, Dr. Mohammed Saeed, had called Rusty on the day of the drownings. He appeared to be stunned and apparently wanted to make it clear that he had believed that Rusty's mother was always at the home.
On the local radio, talk show hosts were buzzing, asking people to call in and express their outrage at a mother who would do such a thing. They tried her in the court of public opinion and found her worthy of death.
However, Rusty had made a decision. He felt torn, he said, but it was not his wife who had killed the children, but her illness. He went out to the throng of reporters and, holding a portrait of the once-happy family, told them everything he could recall from that dreadful day. He believed that the Andrea he knew was not the one who had turned against their kids. As he searched desperately for reasons that hadn't been obvious before, he made it clear that he intended to support her.
"She wasn't in the right frame of mind," he said.
-
Study: Postpartum Depression Might Be Predicted by Fatigue
United Press International - February 10, 2006
An Ohio State University study suggests persistent fatigue immediately after childbirth may predict whether a woman will develop postpartum depression.
Elizabeth Corwin, the study?s lead author and an associate professor of nursing, said women who reported still feeling extremely fatigued two weeks after having a baby were more likely to suffer from postpartum depression a month after giving birth.
All mothers are tired right after having a baby -- it helps them get the rest that they need to recover and heal from the physical and mental stressors of childbirth, said Corwin. But for most women, fatigue steadily fades within the first two weeks of giving birth.
In Corwin?s research it was fatigue -- not stress or a history of depression -- that was the best indicator of which women went on to develop postpartum depression.
The study appeared in a recent issue of the Journal of Obstetric, Gynecological and Neonatal Nursing.
-
I HATE this Bitch so much!
-
On 2006-02-13 23:27:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I HATE this Bitch so much!"
I understand, and don't necessarily disagree, but
there is something to be learned by understanding
the dynamics of this atrocity ... so it doesn't happen again.
-
Evaluation
On June 22, Andrea appeared before Judge Belinda Hill and listened to prosecutor Kaylynn Williford state the case against her. It was Williford's first capital case and she went at it with all she had. Andrea then quietly said that she did not have an attorney. The judge appointed public defender Bob Scott, who requested a gag order. The county prosecutor's office had not yet said whether they would seek the death penalty, but Williford and her partner, Joseph Owmby, told the press that they did not intend to make their decisions public. Owmby said that it was the most horrendous case he'd ever seen.
Andrea Yates prison ID
Andrea Yates prison ID
Rusty looked for an attorney to take Andrea's case. He talked with family friend, George Parnham, who agreed to get involved. His first act was to get family members in to see Andrea. Spencer describes the initial meeting between Rusty and Andrea, according to Rusty. Andrea's first words were, "You will be greatly rewarded." She rejected the attorney and told Rusty to "Have a nice life." He was completely confused. Later he found out that she had been given a sedative.
Wendell Odom came on the case to assist Parnham, and he said that all Andrea asked when he sat with her was what kind of plea they were going to enter and insisted she did not want to plead not guilty. He watched her, with her sunken eyes and hair hanging over her face, and believed she might not even be competent to stand trial. She had said that she heard the voice of Satan coming out of the walls of her cell. Dr. Lucy Puryear, a psychiatrist from the Baylor College of Medicine, said on Court TV's Mugshots program "She was the sickest person I had ever seen in my life." In those early days, Andrea was unbathed, dressed in an orange prison uniform, and seemingly unaware of what was going on around her. She was shaking, and every now and then she absently scratched at her head. Puryear believed she was suffering from postpartum psychosis.
Andrea's medical records were subpoenaed from the Devereux Texas Treatment Network, where she'd last been seen.
While postpartum depression occurs in up to twenty percent of women who have children, psychotic manifestations are much more rare, and thus much less understood. Only one in five hundred births result in the mother's postpartum psychosis, says forensic psychiatrist Michael Welner. Unlike in Britain, where the mental health system watches mothers for months afterward for signs of depression and mood swings, people in America have a difficult time understanding how hormonal shifts can actually cause violent hallucinations and thoughts. Such women can become incoherent, paranoid, irrational, and delusional. They may have outright hallucinations, and are at risk of committing suicide or harming their child?particularly "for the child's own good." The woman herself will not recognize it as an illness, so those countries that have programs for it generally advise immediate hospitalization.
A psychiatric examination was ordered for Andrea. One psychiatrist, featured on Mugshots, asked Andrea what she thought would happen to the children. She indicated that she believed God would "take them up." He reversed the question and asked what might have happened if she had not taken their lives.
"I guess they would have continued stumbling," which meant "they would have gone to hell."
He wanted to know specifically what they had done to give her the idea they weren't behaving properly. She responded that they didn't treat Rusty's mother well, adding that, "They didn't do things God likes."
Five days later, on the day of the children's funeral, the judge issued a gag order, effectively ending information leaking to the press. For the time being, anyway. Items kept leaking out.
Russell Yates
Russell Yates
Time reporter Michelle McCalope attended the June 27 funeral for the five children at Clear Lake Church of Christ and published an account of the service. Rusty looked tired and grim in the unbearable humidity. He looked at the small cream-colored caskets, open for viewing, and placed Mary's favorite blanket inside hers. The baby was dressed in pink. Rusty cried as he spoke his final words to her. He did the same at each of the other four open coffins, telling them they were now in good hands and placing some favorite item inside.
He gave a half-hour eulogy that addressed each child's personality and offered family stories. He had a projector on which he showed pictures of the children, happy and having fun. Then he offered some scriptures, saying that what had happened was God's will. At the end, he sat down, clearly still in shock.
Andrea's relatives attended as well.
By June 28, a staff writer for ABC News predicted what might happen to Yates. While juries tend to punish the killing of strangers harshly, they often are more lenient with mothers. Juries have a difficult time in America sending a mother to lethal gas or the electric chair. In 2000, Christina Riggs was a notable exception. She killed her two children in a suicide attempt, and was put to death in Arkansas. At the time of the article, there were eight other women on death row, yet approximately 180 children are murdered annually by their mothers.
Typically, a woman has a believably tragic story to go along with her deed, although some like Mary Beth Tinning, Susan Smith, and Marie Noe turned out to have killed for reasons other than their initial excuses. Thus, excuses become suspicious. And sometimes an act is so overwhelming that no mental condition seems to count as a reasonable explanation.
-
Mom Admits Letting Newborn Drown In Toilet
Infant Was Woman's Second To Be Born In Toilet
POSTED: 5:56 am PST February 15, 2006
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- A Florida woman who gave birth on a toilet and knowingly allowed the baby to drown will be sentenced March 30.
Shatoya Nelson, then 21, pleaded guilty to aggravated manslaughter. She was originally charged with first-degree murder.
She told investigators she didn't know she was pregnant until she gave birth at her mother's Tamarac home July 21, 2004. According to detectives, Nelson, then 21, said she left the infant in the toilet for several minutes before taking her out and wrapping her in a towel.
The girl's mother discovered the dead baby the following morning and insisted Nelson take the body to the hospital.
Earlier in the day, she had appeared in court on child neglect charges. Detectives said she gave birth to another baby on a toilet the year before, and left him in front of her grandmother's house. The judge ultimately ruled she was fit to take care of her two children.
Those children are now living with her parents.
Nelson's attorney said he'll ask that she be sentenced to probation and counseling.
Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press
-
Legal Decisions
On July 31, a Houston grand jury indicted Andrea Yates for capital murder in the cases of Noah, John, and Mary. Because she had killed someone under the age of six and had killed more than one person, she was eligible for the death penalty. There was talk that the prosecutors would keep the other two deaths as fallback, in case they did not get convictions. Judge Hill ordered a third psychiatric examination, with the results due before Yates' arraignment.
A deteriorating Andrea went to court on August 8 to enter an insanity defense. She was even thinner now than she had been in June, although she had been medicated with Haldol, the only drug that had worked for her. A rudimentary psychological report done for the court indicated that she was competent to stand trial. But Parnham and Odom weren't content. They wanted a jury to make that determination, since their own psychiatrists had concluded that she was not competent. In other words, she was not able to participate in her own defense with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and comprehension of the court proceedings.
The judge granted their request to look at the medical testimony that Dr. Saeed's gave to the grand jury and set a date for a competency hearing. She granted the prosecution's request to have their own experts examine Andrea.
The next day, the prosecutors stated that they would be seeking the death penalty. No one was allowed to comment publicly, not even Rusty. Yet on September 5, he met with Ed Bradley from 60 Minutes to answer questions. He turned over videos of the children and talked about Andrea, but shied away from his feelings about the forthcoming trial. He was also prepared to answer questions for Time magazine and anticipated that they would come out after the hearing. He had hired an attorney, Edward Mallett, to fight the gag order. At some point during the hearing, DA Chuck Rosenthal spoke with the 60 Minutes crew as well.
On September 18 (postponed one week due to the September 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S.), a jury selection began for the competency proceeding. Eleven women and one man were selected. In Breaking Point, Spencer gives a comprehensive account of the proceedings.
Andrea's attorneys filed hundreds of pages of documentation on her history of mental illness. Their experts claimed she was not ready, while the prosecution experts were about to declare her competent. Andrea's mother and siblings were subpoenaed, as were several jail employees. The lawyers argued over the State's psychologist seeing Andrea without the defense's knowledge, and the judge made a ruling that the information could not be used?although toward the end of the hearing, it was.
Parnham called Dr. Gerald Harris, a clinical psychologist who had interviewed Andrea in prison on four occasions. On June 25, she had shown signs of psychosis and hallucinations. She said she had seen Satan in her cell and he was talking to her. She had a difficult time processing Harris's questions and sometimes did not seem to hear them at all. She did make it clear that she wanted to be executed so that she and Satan, who possessed her, would be destroyed. She had insisted that she would not enter a plea of not guilty. She did not need an attorney, and she wanted her hair cut into the shape of a crown. She believed the number of the Antichrist, 666, was imprinted on her scalp.
By the end of August, on medication, she was much improved. She reported no hallucinations and was able to hold a conversation. She still had delusions about Satan but insisted she was not mentally ill. Her intelligence was above average, but she had difficulty remembering things?an important issue for competency. She believed that Satan lived inside her and the way to be rid of him was for her to be killed.
Dr Lauren Marangell, an expert on depression, testified about changes in the brain during different psychological states. She also provided a map of Andrea's psychotic episodes since 1999. She concluded that Andrea would be competent in the foreseeable future, with continued treatment.
The prosecutors took their witnesses?mostly prison staff?over the thirteen points involved in assessing competency. Then they questioned Dr. Steve Rubenzer, who had spent over ten hours with the defendant and who had administered a competency examination on several successive occasions?the very assessments that were in dispute because they were done without Parnham's knowledge. It was his opinion that the defendant's comprehension had improved over time and that she did pass the state's competency stipulations. However, he believed that Andrea Yates did have a serious mental illness and he thought her psychotic features were only in partial remission.
Under cross-examination, he admitted that she believed that Satan inhabited her and that Governor Bush would destroy him. But Bush had not been the governor of Texas at that time.
Two more mental health experts testified, and while they were divided on the competency issue, all recognized psychosis in Andrea's condition and no one thought she was malingering.
On September 24, the jury deemed Andrea Pia Yates competent to stand trial. The defense quickly prepared motions.
Now it was time for both sides to learn more about who she was, what her mental health history was, the quality of her marriage, and what factors had been involved in her fateful decision.
-
::noway:: ::puke::
-
SEARCH:
Home Page
Home Page
Home
Home
News
News
Weather
Weather
Sports
Sports
Health &...
Health &...
Legal
Legal
Community
Community
Entertainment
Entertainment
Business/Financ...
Business/Financ...
Marketplace
Marketplace
Classifieds
Classifieds
Features
Features
Education
Education
Ask An Expert
Ask An Expert
Senior...
Senior...
Lifestyle
Lifestyle
Listens
Listens
Contact Us
Contact Us
Programming
Programming
Food 4 Thought
National News
Texas Headlines
Streets of Speed
Super Doppler 4 Storm Tales
24/7 Weather Team
Regional and State Weather...
Travel Weather
24/7 Weather Team
Live Super Doppler 4
KGBT Sports Team
NFL in the Valley?
NCAA Top Headlines
Legal
Bankruptcy
Employment Discrimination...
Family Law Nested
Personal Injury Nested
Medical Malpractice Nested
Community Calendar
Contact Us
Action 4 News Internship...
kgbt4.com Photo Gallery
Entertainment
Horoscopes
Here's what's on KGBT-TV
Aries
Taurus
Gemini
Cancer
Leo
Virgo
Libra
Scorpio
Sagittarius
Capricorn
Aquarius
Pisces
Auto Center
Jobs Center
People Search
Personals
Yellow Pages
Today in Auto
Auto Insurance
*Auto News from PR Newswire
Eduardo V. Rodriguez
Driscoll Children's Hospital
Harlingen Foot & Ankle Center
Palm Valley Health Care
AG Edwards
Thurmond Eye
Weslaco Nursing &...
Dr. Todd Shenkenberg
Upper Valley Interventional...
Energy Spinal Centers
Bodies Under Construction
Law Offices of Phillip J....
Dating
Education
Health
Horoscopes
House & Home
In the Know
Money
Pets
Recipes
Seniors
Tech
Sports
Travel
Weddings
What's Next
More...
Today in Education
Latest Health News
Healthy Living
Encyclopedia: A-Z
Health Centers
Women's Health News
Men's Health News
Children's Health News
Senior's Health News
Dieting And Your Health News
Cancer Center
Health Quizzes and Tools
Interactive Human Atlas
Aries
Taurus
Gemini
Cancer
Leo
Virgo
Libra
Scorpio
Sagittarius
Capricorn
Aquarius
Pisces
This Week: Winter Concerns
House & Home Main
Latest Home & Garden Features
Today's Mortgage Rates
Help Around the House
Money Home
Today in Money
This Week in Money
2006 Tax Guide
For Small Businesses
Business News
Credit and Debt
Insurance Center
Real Estate Finances
Sun Sign Guide to Money
66 Ways to Save Money
This Week in Pets
Astrology for Pets
Training Tips
New Pets
Pet Care
Loss of a Pet
Pet Travel
This Week: Soups & Stews
Latest Features in Food &...
Our Newest Viewer Recipes!
Nutrition for a Healthy...
Browse Recipes
Sports Home
Auto Racing
National Football League
Boxing
Major League Baseball
Hockey
NBA/WNBA
Golf
Tennis
Soccer
Horse Racing
Travel Home
Today in Travel
Book Your Travel
More Travel Features
Travel Tips by Sun Sign
This Week in Weddings
Destination Weddings
Should we include information...
Wedding of the Week
Planning Ideas & Advice
Trying to Track Down Old...
Hot Products, Trends and More
Home Page
Home
News
Weather
Sports
Health &...
Legal
Community
Entertainment
Business/Financ...
Marketplace
Classifieds
Features
Education
Ask An Expert
Senior...
Lifestyle
Listens
Contact Us
Programming
Email Print Text Size
Defense asks judge to bar children's photos at Yates trial
HOUSTON A lawyer for a Houston woman who admits drowning her five children in 2001 doesn't want their photos shown during her retrial.
About 30 pretrial motions in the Andrea Yates capital murder retrial were made public today.
Defense attorney George Parnham also is asking that his client's confession to police -- be suppressed.
Prosecutor Alan Curry says the photos of the children are evidence.
A judge has scheduled a motion hearing for Friday.
Yates faces trial March 20th in Houston.
Such photos and a crime scene video taken by police were shown during her 2002 trial.
Jurors convicted Yates and sentenced her to life in prison.
An appeals court last year overturned the two capital murder convictions for three of the deaths.
Yates, who's at a state mental hospital, again has entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press.
-
SEARCH:
Home Page
Home Page
Home
Home
News
News
Weather
Weather
Sports
Sports
Health &...
Health &...
Legal
Legal
Community
Community
Entertainment
Entertainment
Business/Financ...
Business/Financ...
Marketplace
Marketplace
Classifieds
Classifieds
Features
Features
Education
Education
Ask An Expert
Ask An Expert
Senior...
Senior...
Lifestyle
Lifestyle
Listens
Listens
Contact Us
Contact Us
Programming
Programming
Food 4 Thought
National News
Texas Headlines
Streets of Speed
Super Doppler 4 Storm Tales
24/7 Weather Team
Regional and State Weather...
Travel Weather
24/7 Weather Team
Live Super Doppler 4
KGBT Sports Team
NFL in the Valley?
NCAA Top Headlines
Legal
Bankruptcy
Employment Discrimination...
Family Law Nested
Personal Injury Nested
Medical Malpractice Nested
Community Calendar
Contact Us
Action 4 News Internship...
kgbt4.com Photo Gallery
Entertainment
Horoscopes
Here's what's on KGBT-TV
Aries
Taurus
Gemini
Cancer
Leo
Virgo
Libra
Scorpio
Sagittarius
Capricorn
Aquarius
Pisces
Auto Center
Jobs Center
People Search
Personals
Yellow Pages
Today in Auto
Auto Insurance
*Auto News from PR Newswire
Eduardo V. Rodriguez
Driscoll Children's Hospital
Harlingen Foot & Ankle Center
Palm Valley Health Care
AG Edwards
Thurmond Eye
Weslaco Nursing &...
Dr. Todd Shenkenberg
Upper Valley Interventional...
Energy Spinal Centers
Bodies Under Construction
Law Offices of Phillip J....
Dating
Education
Health
Horoscopes
House & Home
In the Know
Money
Pets
Recipes
Seniors
Tech
Sports
Travel
Weddings
What's Next
More...
Today in Education
Latest Health News
Healthy Living
Encyclopedia: A-Z
Health Centers
Women's Health News
Men's Health News
Children's Health News
Senior's Health News
Dieting And Your Health News
Cancer Center
Health Quizzes and Tools
Interactive Human Atlas
Aries
Taurus
Gemini
Cancer
Leo
Virgo
Libra
Scorpio
Sagittarius
Capricorn
Aquarius
Pisces
This Week: Winter Concerns
House & Home Main
Latest Home & Garden Features
Today's Mortgage Rates
Help Around the House
Money Home
Today in Money
This Week in Money
2006 Tax Guide
For Small Businesses
Business News
Credit and Debt
Insurance Center
Real Estate Finances
Sun Sign Guide to Money
66 Ways to Save Money
This Week in Pets
Astrology for Pets
Training Tips
New Pets
Pet Care
Loss of a Pet
Pet Travel
This Week: Soups & Stews
Latest Features in Food &...
Our Newest Viewer Recipes!
Nutrition for a Healthy...
Browse Recipes
Sports Home
Auto Racing
National Football League
Boxing
Major League Baseball
Hockey
NBA/WNBA
Golf
Tennis
Soccer
Horse Racing
Travel Home
Today in Travel
Book Your Travel
More Travel Features
Travel Tips by Sun Sign
This Week in Weddings
Destination Weddings
Should we include information...
Wedding of the Week
Planning Ideas & Advice
Trying to Track Down Old...
Hot Products, Trends and More
Home Page
Home
News
Weather
Sports
Health &...
Legal
Community
Entertainment
Business/Financ...
Marketplace
Classifieds
Features
Education
Ask An Expert
Senior...
Lifestyle
Listens
Contact Us
Programming
Email Print Text Size
Defense asks judge to bar children's photos at Yates trial
HOUSTON A lawyer for a Houston woman who admits drowning her five children in 2001 doesn't want their photos shown during her retrial.
About 30 pretrial motions in the Andrea Yates capital murder retrial were made public today.
Defense attorney George Parnham also is asking that his client's confession to police -- be suppressed.
Prosecutor Alan Curry says the photos of the children are evidence.
A judge has scheduled a motion hearing for Friday.
Yates faces trial March 20th in Houston.
Such photos and a crime scene video taken by police were shown during her 2002 trial.
Jurors convicted Yates and sentenced her to life in prison.
An appeals court last year overturned the two capital murder convictions for three of the deaths.
Yates, who's at a state mental hospital, again has entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press.
-
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_m ... tes/4.html (http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/andrea_yates/4.html)
Legal Decisions
On July 31, a Houston grand jury indicted Andrea Yates for capital murder in the cases of Noah, John, and Mary. Because she had killed someone under the age of six and had killed more than one person, she was eligible for the death penalty. There was talk that the prosecutors would keep the other two deaths as fallback, in case they did not get convictions. Judge Hill ordered a third psychiatric examination, with the results due before Yates' arraignment.
A deteriorating Andrea went to court on August 8 to enter an insanity defense. She was even thinner now than she had been in June, although she had been medicated with Haldol, the only drug that had worked for her. A rudimentary psychological report done for the court indicated that she was competent to stand trial. But Parnham and Odom weren't content. They wanted a jury to make that determination, since their own psychiatrists had concluded that she was not competent. In other words, she was not able to participate in her own defense with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and comprehension of the court proceedings.
The judge granted their request to look at the medical testimony that Dr. Saeed's gave to the grand jury and set a date for a competency hearing. She granted the prosecution's request to have their own experts examine Andrea.
The next day, the prosecutors stated that they would be seeking the death penalty. No one was allowed to comment publicly, not even Rusty. Yet on September 5, he met with Ed Bradley from 60 Minutes to answer questions. He turned over videos of the children and talked about Andrea, but shied away from his feelings about the forthcoming trial. He was also prepared to answer questions for Time magazine and anticipated that they would come out after the hearing. He had hired an attorney, Edward Mallett, to fight the gag order. At some point during the hearing, DA Chuck Rosenthal spoke with the 60 Minutes crew as well.
On September 18 (postponed one week due to the September 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S.), a jury selection began for the competency proceeding. Eleven women and one man were selected. In Breaking Point, Spencer gives a comprehensive account of the proceedings.
Andrea's attorneys filed hundreds of pages of documentation on her history of mental illness. Their experts claimed she was not ready, while the prosecution experts were about to declare her competent. Andrea's mother and siblings were subpoenaed, as were several jail employees. The lawyers argued over the State's psychologist seeing Andrea without the defense's knowledge, and the judge made a ruling that the information could not be used?although toward the end of the hearing, it was.
Parnham called Dr. Gerald Harris, a clinical psychologist who had interviewed Andrea in prison on four occasions. On June 25, she had shown signs of psychosis and hallucinations. She said she had seen Satan in her cell and he was talking to her. She had a difficult time processing Harris's questions and sometimes did not seem to hear them at all. She did make it clear that she wanted to be executed so that she and Satan, who possessed her, would be destroyed. She had insisted that she would not enter a plea of not guilty. She did not need an attorney, and she wanted her hair cut into the shape of a crown. She believed the number of the Antichrist, 666, was imprinted on her scalp.
By the end of August, on medication, she was much improved. She reported no hallucinations and was able to hold a conversation. She still had delusions about Satan but insisted she was not mentally ill. Her intelligence was above average, but she had difficulty remembering things?an important issue for competency. She believed that Satan lived inside her and the way to be rid of him was for her to be killed.
Andrea Yates in court, much improved by medication
Dr Lauren Marangell, an expert on depression, testified about changes in the brain during different psychological states. She also provided a map of Andrea's psychotic episodes since 1999. She concluded that Andrea would be competent in the foreseeable future, with continued treatment.
The prosecutors took their witnesses?mostly prison staff?over the thirteen points involved in assessing competency. Then they questioned Dr. Steve Rubenzer, who had spent over ten hours with the defendant and who had administered a competency examination on several successive occasions?the very assessments that were in dispute because they were done without Parnham's knowledge. It was his opinion that the defendant's comprehension had improved over time and that she did pass the state's competency stipulations. However, he believed that Andrea Yates did have a serious mental illness and he thought her psychotic features were only in partial remission.
Under cross-examination, he admitted that she believed that Satan inhabited her and that Governor Bush would destroy him. But Bush had not been the governor of Texas at that time.
Two more mental health experts testified, and while they were divided on the competency issue, all recognized psychosis in Andrea's condition and no one thought she was malingering.
On September 24, the jury deemed Andrea Pia Yates competent to stand trial. The defense quickly prepared motions.
Now it was time for both sides to learn more about who she was, what her mental health history was, the quality of her marriage, and what factors had been involved in her fateful decision.
-
Andrea Yates was born Andrea Kennedy on July 2, 1964 into a middle class family in Houston, the youngest of five children. She had developed a very close relationship with her father, a high school teacher, and she liked to help other people. She graduated from high school as class valedictorian and had been captain of the swim team. She had been shy with boys but was goal-oriented like the rest of her family, and had good friends. She earned a nursing degree from the University of Texas Health Science Center and found work as a registered nurse. She quit after she married and had her first child.
Timothy Roche delved deep into her history for Time and discovered a rather disturbing picture of a troubled family, including a long history of mental illness for Yates. But there was more, emphasized in a documentary for Court TV's Mugshots. The form mental illness takes often has an outside influence, and this one was insidious.
Andrea and Rusty had met when they were both 25. Rusty had seen her swimming in a pool of his apartment complex and had decided he was interested in her. She introduced herself to him and they dated for three years. In 1993, they were married and a year later had Noah. They planned on having as many children as came along, whatever God wanted for them, and told friends they expected six.
Yet soon after Noah was born, Andrea began to have violent visions: she saw someone being stabbed. She thought she heard Satan speak to her. However, she and her husband had idealistic, Bible-inspired notions about family and motherhood, so she kept her tormenting secrets to herself. She didn't realize how much mental illness there was in her own family, from depression to bipolar disorder?which can contribute to postpartum psychosis. In her initial stages, she remained undiagnosed and untreated. She kept her secrets from everyone.
Rusty introduced Andrea to a preacher who had impressed him in college, a man named Michael Woroniecki. He was a sharp-witted, sharp-tongued, self-proclaimed "prophet" who preached a simple message about following Jesus but who was so belligerent in public about sinners going to hell (which included most people) that he was often in trouble. He even left Michigan, according to Mugshots, to avoid prosecution.
Michael Woroniecki
Michael Woroniecki
Rusty corresponded with Woroniecki, who wandered around with his family for several years in a bus, and eventually he believed he had found the Holy Spirit. Woroniecki spent a lot of time in his street sermons and letters to correspondents judging them for their sins and warning them about losing God's love. In particular, he emphasized that people were accountable for children, and woe to the person who might cause even one to stumble. He once stated, "I feel like I need a sledge hammer to get you to listen." He denounced Catholicism, the religion with which Andrea had grown up, and stressed the sinful state of her soul.
He also preached austerity, and his ideas were probably instrumental in the way the Yateses decided to live. As Andrea had one child after another, she took on the task of home-schooling them with Christian-only texts and trying to do what the Woroniecki and his wife, Rachel, told her.
"From the letters I have that Rachel Woroniecki wrote to Andrea," says Suzy Spencer on Mugshots, "it was, 'You are evil. You are wicked. You are a daughter of Eve, who is a wicked witch. The window of opportunity for us to minister to you is closing. You have to repent now.'"
According to a former follower, the religion preached by the Woronieckis involves the idea that women have Eve's witch nature and need to be subservient to men. The preacher judged harshly those mothers who were permissive and who allowed their children to go in the wrong direction. In other words, if the mother was going to Hell for some reason, so would the children.
After two more children had come along, Rusty decided to "travel light," and made his small family sell their possessions and live first in a recreational vehicle and then in a bus that Woroniecki had converted for his religious crusade and sold to them. Andrea didn't complain?she was the type of woman who just went along with decisions---but she got pregnant again and had a miscarriage. Yet it wasn't long before she recovered, was again pregnant and had her fourth child, making their 350-square-foot living quarters rather cramped. She continued to correspond with the Woronieckis and to receive their warnings. They thought it was better to kill oneself than to mislead a child in the way of Jesus?a sentiment she would repeat later in prison interviews.
Not surprisingly, she sank into a depression. She was lonely. She tried to be a good mother, but the pressures were building. At the same time, her father grew ill with Alzheimer's and she had to help care for him. Then things got bad.
-
In 1999, Andrea called Rusty at work and told him she needed help. When he arrived home, he found her shaking and chewing her fingers, so he took her and the children to his parents' home, where she said she felt better. But then she tried to kill herself with a drug overdose from her father's medication, and with Andrea's mother's help, Rusty finally got her into treatment. Later she said she had just wanted to "sleep forever." She was diagnosed with a major depressive disorder. She admitted to anxiety and having overwhelming thoughts. Those who observed her and spoke to Rusty, according to several accounts, believed that he was controlling.
Andrea was prescribed Zoloft for depression, but she was resistant to taking medication, ostensibly because she wanted to be able to breast-feed her youngest child. Many presumed it was because the Woronieckis would judge her harshly for it. She soon withdrew and began to sleep a lot. She worried about the hospital bill and would not talk about her home life. The insurance money ran out.
The ailing mother was discharged and another psychiatrist switched her to Zyprexa, an antipsychotic drug for bipolar disorders and schizophrenia. Andrea flushed the pills down the toilet. Then she got worse.
She told her psychiatrist that she was hearing voices and seeing visions again about getting a knife. She began to scratch at herself, leaving sores on her legs. Then Rusty found her in the bathroom one day pressing a knife to her throat. He took it away and got her hospitalized.
Andrea confessed to one doctor that she was afraid she might hurt someone. She refused medication and withdrew from all efforts to help. She refused to answer questions. Finally, she was given a shot of the antipsychotic drug Haldol. She got a little better, and then worse, so she was given more Haldol. She improved slightly, but would not eat. She was afraid of what her visions might mean.
Relatives had pressured Rusty to buy a house for his family, so he did, moving the bus into the yard by the garage at their new Clear Lake home.
Andrea sometimes talked with social workers, but often changed her story. She'd been suicidal, she had not been suicidal. She did admit that she got anxious when stressed and she vaguely associated stress with her children. The doctor anticipated that electroshock therapy might eventually be needed. It was controversial, but had shown some positive benefits for depressed older women. Andrea, he wrote, also needed to develop coping strategies for stress. For two days, she refused her medication. Then she was discharged with more prescriptions for pills that she would avoid taking.
She continued therapy, which included group therapy, and said she wanted to get off medication so she could get pregnant again. She seemed anxious, so her outpatient therapist, Dr. Eileen Starbranch, switched her to the sedative Ativan. She worried that Andrea's plan for more children could result in psychosis. Andrea did not take the Ativan.
At home, Andrea remained secretive and seemingly obsessed with reading the Bible. Rusty thought that was a positive thing. Andrea's therapist took her off Haldol, but had her continue with several other antidepressants. Andrea decided to discontinue them on her own. Despite doctors' warnings to have no more children, they had a baby girl, Mary, late in 2000. Rusty believed he would spot the onset of depression and get help if needed. He was sure any bad effects could be controlled with medication.
To this point, she'd experienced several episodes of psychotic hallucinations, survived two suicide attempts, taken a number of different medications, and been diagnosed in several institutions with major depression. Now she had five young children to care for, three of whom were still in diapers.
When Andrea's father died a few months later, she stopped functioning. She wouldn't feed the baby, she became malnourished herself, and she drifted into a private world. Rusty forced her back into treatment at Devereux Texas Treatment Network in April under yet another doctor, Ellen Albritton, who put her on antidepressants.
Then psychiatrist Mohammed Saeed took over her care. He received scanty medical records from her previous treatment and no information from her, so he put Andrea on Risperdol, a new drug, rather than Haldol. He had not heard about hallucinations, and he observed no psychosis himself, so he felt Haldol was unnecessary. However, Suzy Spencer indicates that the notes kept on Andrea were disorganized and scribbled over someone else's chart. The descriptions of Andrea's condition, which was near catatonia, were vague. Saeed discharged Andrea into her husband's care, with a suggestion for partial hospitalization, and gave her a two-week prescription.
Rusty's mother came from Tennessee to help out with the children, but Andrea wound up back in the hospital. When she started to eat and shower, she was sent home, with the proviso that she continue outpatient therapy. One day she filled the tub and her mother-in-law asked why. She responded, "In case I need it."
It seemed a strange statement, and no one knew how to interpret it, so they let it pass. They did not see the forewarning except in hindsight.
Yet Rusty was worried, so he took Andrea back to the doctor, telling him that she was not doing well. According to Roche, Saeed reportedly assured him that Andrea did not need shock treatment or Haldol, but Spencer says that he did suggest shock treatments and did prescribe Haldol. Andrea was shuffled back and forth, and early in June, Dr. Saeed took her off the antipsychotic medication.
Then on June 18, Rusty was back. Andrea was having problems. Saeed supposedly told Andrea to "think positive thoughts," and to see a psychologist for therapy. However, he says that he did warn Rusty that she should not be left alone. Rusty told author Suzy Spencer that on that day Saeed had cut Andrea's medication?now it was Effexor--too drastically and he had protested, but the doctor had reassured him it was "fine." Rusty had filled the prescription, still confused as to why the doctor thought that an obviously sick woman was doing okay. That was two days before the fatal incident.
Andrea sat at home during those days in a near-catatonic state, and to Rusty she seemed nervous. However, he did not think that she was a danger to the children, so on June 20 he left her alone. Since his mother was coming, he felt sure everything would be fine. Andrea was eating cereal out of a box, which was uncharacteristic of her, but her demeanor seemed okay. He didn't think a few minutes alone would be a problem.
How wrong he was.
On that morning, she had a plan.
-
Legal Maneuvers
On October 30, Parnham and Odom filed nearly three-dozen pre-trial motions, including a rather crucial request that the Court reconsider a procedure in the Texas Criminal Code that prohibited jurors from learning that a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) was not an outright acquittal. It involved sending the person to a mental institution for treatment and periodic re-evaluation. Those defendants did not just walk free. The attorneys believed that such knowledge could play a strong role in how the jury made a decision in this case.
The two attorneys also wanted Yates's confession thrown out because she had not been competent to waive her rights and they asked the Court to declare the insanity plea, as it was stated in Texas law, to be unconstitutional, because it was not in touch with what we now know about the true nature of mental illness.
In November, the prosecution's psychiatrist, Dr. Park Dietz, came to interview Andrea. A nationally prominent psychiatrist who consulted for the FBI and worked on such cases as serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer and Susan Smith (who also drowned her children), he generally only worked for the prosecution. He had limited knowledge of postpartum depression.
Dr. Park Dietz testifies in court
Dr. Park Dietz testifies in court
The interview was taped, and after the trial it was released to the public. Andrea told Dietz that at the time of the killings in June, Satan was inside her, giving her directions. "I was pretty determined," she admitted, "to do what Satan told me to do." She also indicated that she felt that by killing her children before they went downhill morally, she was ensuring they would get into heaven. That's the only place where they would be safe. Dietz asked her several times whether she knew that what she had done was wrong and she answered yes. She had planned for at least a month to kill them at some point when she was alone with them.
December was a difficult month. Andrea's lawyers tried to fight the capital murder charge, and failed. While they were granted a number of motions, they did not get those they felt were most crucial. In particular, the jury would not learn that in the event of an NGRI verdict, Andrea would go into treatment.
Both Rusty and the police officers who had gone to the scene testified at a hearing. The judge ruled that Andrea's 911 call and her confession would be admissible. Rusty had spoken out in September, violating the gag order, and his 60 Minutes interview was broadcast on December 9. A special independent prosecutor was appointed to probe the violation by both Rusty and DA Rosenthal, but the talk was that he would delay it until after the trial, which was fast approaching. By the end of the trial, the issue would be moot.
Jury selection began on January 7, 2002. It took a week, and in the end, eight women and four men were seated. Seven had children and two had degrees in psychology. They were "death qualified." The trial date was set for February.
Andrea would have to prove that on the morning when she had drowned her children she'd had a mental disease or defect that prohibited her from understanding that what she had done was wrong. Since she was claiming that she did indeed know that it was wrong, the attorneys needed experts who could prove that her manner of processing this information was in itself rooted in psychosis. Not only did they have to meet one of the most restrictive standards in the country for insanity, they had to educate the jury in ideas about mental illness that were rife among the public with stereotypes and misperception and to help them get beyond the literal interpretation of "right" and "wrong." A mock trial that the defense had tried had already shown them that a jury in their area might have a difficult time accepting that someone can confess to such a crime and not understand what she had done.
They had to present a very strong case.
-
http://www.courttv.com/trials/yates/index.html (http://www.courttv.com/trials/yates/index.html)
-
The Case Against Her
Andrea Yates was being tried on two counts of capital murder?one for the two older boys and one for Mary. Because it had caught the nation's attention and because it was so controversial, her case was to become a high-profile arena for the battle of medical experts.
Opening statements began on February 18. The prosecution claimed that Andrea Yates had drowned her five children and had known it was illegal and wrong. There would be plenty of signs supporting that. For example, she waited until her husband had gone to work so he would not stop her, she prepared for it, she was methodical, and she called the police afterward. Owmby and Williford wanted to keep the jury focused on whether she knew right from wrong at the time of the offense. Her mental illness, they would insist, was not relevant to that.
Prosecutor Joseph Owmby
Prosecutor Joseph Owmby
The defense said that she did not know what she was doing because she had been legally insane. She'd been suffering from postpartum depression with psychotic features and her delusions had driven her to kill her children. Her illness, said Parnham, "was so severe, so longstanding that Andrea Yates' ability to think in abstract terms, to give narrative responses, to be able to connect the dots was impaired." He explained that it was important that they not give the impression to the jury that they were claiming a "devil made me do it" defense. They were trying to indicate the disordered nature of Andrea's thinking.
In other words, the primary question in this case was whether Yates had killed the children while in a state of disabling psychosis or had knowingly done it to escape a life she hated or to punish her husband.
The real problem for the defense was that medication had stabilized Andrea over the eight months since the crimes had occurred and in court she appeared to be normal---a far cry from her initial prison interview on the day of the crime. Yet they ethically could not have withheld medication for demonstration purposes. It was a dilemma.
The prosecution laid out its case first, with the 911 call, the testimony of police officers who responded to the scene, Andrea's prison confession, and with autopsy reports from medical examiners. Jurors heard about how one child had strands of his mother's hair clamped in his little fist. They showed photos and home videos of the children, while Andrea cried.
Andrea's mother-in-law then took the stand and discussed her observations of "her precious daughter-in-law" during the time she had been helping with the children. Mrs. Yates described Andrea as nearly catatonic, staring into space, and did not think she was aware of what she was doing when she killed the children. She was a better witness for the defense, it seemed.
The prosecutors entered the children's pajamas into evidence, over Parnham's insistent protest, to "show" how much smaller these children were than their mother. Parnham believed it was merely to inflame the jury, but Judge Hill sided with Owmby. He then worked hard at proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Andrea Pia Yates had knowingly murdered her children.
After three days, the prosecution rested and the defense called its first witness.
-
Andrea's Defense
During the defense's presentation of proof of Andrea's insanity, Parnham and Odom used prison psychiatrist Melissa Ferguson to testify to Andrea's state of mind soon after her arrest. After being placed on medications that allowed her to process questions and to talk, she admitted to her fears about Satan: He had spoken to her and the children through cartoons they were watching on television. They were bad because they were eating too much candy. He demanded that she kill the children, and to be rid of him, she believed she had to get the death penalty. Her children, she said, could never be saved, because she had not raised them right. She had decided on drowning because stabbing was too bloody.
Rusty also took the stand and described his wife's manner with the children. He admitted that he had not grasped the full extent of his wife's illness and often just did not know what to do. Andrea did not tell him about the hallucinations or voices and he had assumed that the doctors he took her to had done whatever could be done. He admitted being frustrated with Dr. Saeed's refusal to use Haldol or keep her hospitalized.
Saeed had written in her records that she had no symptoms of psychosis. He went on the stand during the start of the third week of trial. He had diagnosed her with depression with psychotic features but did not have evidence that she was psychotic two days before the fatal incident. Parnham accused him of doctoring his notes to protect himself, based on his perception that the handwriting about the lack of psychotic features was smaller than other writing on the report. Saeed vehemently stated that he had written the notes on the same day.
Then Andrea's mother took the stand to talk for ten minutes about Andrea being a wonderful mother. There was no cross-examination.
Now it was time for the big guns. Odom and Parnham called on psychiatrists Phillip Resnick from Case Western University in Ohio, Steve Rosenblatt, and Lucy Puryear to explain that Andrea suffered from schizophrenic delusions and had believed that killing her children was the right thing to do.
The defense psychiatrists tried hard to show the jury that Andrea was incapable of knowing what she had done within a normal context of interpretation.
"It's not like she could come up with a list of options," Puryear said. "She was psychotic at the time and driven by delusions that [the children] were going to Hell and she must save them."
Rosenblatt, who interviewed her five days after the killings said that he observed that she was in a deep state of psychosis, and it would have taken her weeks to get that sick. He concluded that she had been in that hallucinatory state at the time of the incident. He could not say why she had stopped taking her medication.
They described Andrea's suicide attempts and her hallucinations after her first child was born. Puryear talked about her shame over such ideations and her need for secrecy. She also educated the jury in the difference between postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis, and indicated that Andrea was suspicious that Satan may have influenced her doctors.
Dr. Phillip Resnick
Dr. Resnick, a specialist in parents who kill their children, described the killings as "altruistic." He admitted that Andrea did know that what she was doing was illegal but believed her decision to kill her children was nevertheless right, for the protection of their eternal souls. He believed, after seeing her in her cell on two different occasions, that she suffered from schizophrenia and depression. While he contradicted the other doctors, he said each had his own interpretation of the data.
-
Stressed Women More Likely to
Miscarry in Early Pregnancy
United Press International - February 22, 2006
University of Michigan scientists say women showing signs of stress are three times more likely to miscarry during the first three weeks of pregnancy.
Pablo Nepomnaschy and colleagues measured the levels of cortisol -- a stress-induced hormone -- in urine samples taken three times weekly for a year from 61 women in a rural Guatemalan community.
Nepomnaschy conducted the field work while a doctoral student at UM, both in the anthropology department and the school of natural resources and environment.
The Guatemalan study is believed the first known to link increases in cortisol levels to very early-stage pregnancy loss.
Most previous studies began when women noticed they were pregnant, about six weeks after conception. However, most miscarriages are known to occur during the first three weeks of pregnancy.
The only way to capture the first three weeks of pregnancy is to begin collecting (the female participant?s) urine from before they become pregnant. That is extremely labor intensive and expensive, Nepomnaschy said.
He is now a post-doctoral fellow at the epidemiology branch of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
-
http://www.ABC13.com (http://www.ABC13.com)
Bombshell dropped in Andrea Yates case
Teacher's email cited in motion to bar retrial
KTRK By Deborah Wrigley
(2/22/06 - KTRK/HOUSTON) - There was a bombshell from Andrea Yates' defense team on Wednesday. In a court document obtained by Eyewitness News, they claim the state's star expert witness in Yates' first trial not only made a major mistake. They say prosecutors gave him the idea.
It was one of about thirty motions recently filed by Yates' attorney, George Parnham. This one was a motion to bar Yates' retrial. It's based on the notion of double jeopardy, meaning she can't be tried twice for the same crime because of what the defense says was prosecutorial misconduct.
Yates was arrested in June of 2001 for the drowning deaths of her five children. One week later, a Tomball teacher emailed the Harris County DA's office. The email reads in part,
"A few day before the Yates children were killed, A&E had an episode of LA Law, where a young woman killed her child using a postpartum psychosis defense and was found not guilty. I just thought it was odd and thought your office should know."
The state's star witness, Dr. Park Dietz, according to the writ on file, was told about the email. He testified instead at the trial that he consulted on a Law and Order episode dealing with postpartum psychosis, but no episode ever existed.
A second email was sent to prosecutors by the Tomball teacher, saying it was LA Law, not Law and Order.
The DA's office concedes there may have been confusion.
"Somebody confused LA Law for Law and Order," said Alan Curry with the Harris County DA's office. "We don't know for sure. I don't know if we'll ever know for sure, but whatever happened, there was no prosecutorial misconduct."
That's the key. Did prosecutors mishandle the case on purpose? That could create double jeopardy, but it's hard to prove, experts say.
"It's going to be a stretch because they have to prove in this particular case that the state intentionally kept the information from the defense," said ABC13 legal expert Joel Androphy.
A judge will rule on the motion on Friday. The teacher from Tomball is expected to attend.
Yates was released earlier this month after posting a $200,000 bond. She was taken directly from the Harris County Jail to the state psychiatric hospital in Rusk. Her second capital murder trial is scheduled to begin next month.
(Copyright © 2006, KTRK-TV)
-
Associated Press
Inmate Says Andrea Yates Said to Copy Her
By PAM EASTON , 02.23.2006, 10:01 PM
Andrea Yates once advised a fellow inmate that she could escape prosecution by pretending to be mentally ill and persuading a psychiatrist she suffered from serious disorders, according to court documents filed Thursday by prosecutors.
Felicia Doe, who spent four days in a jail block with Yates in 2002, told prosecutors last year that Yates instructed her not to eat, not to speak properly and not to be friendly or open in front of people if she wanted to "beat her case."
Yates, who is awaiting a new trial in the drowning of her young children, allegedly said "if you could get the jail psychiatrist on your side, they could testify to your mental health, and they couldn't prosecute you if you were sick," according to the documents, which describe interviews with witnesses who could be called during Yates' trial.
"According to the witness, the defendant basically told her, 'Do what I'm doing,'" prosecutor Kaylynn Williford wrote.
Yates' defense attorney, George Parham, called the account "sad and ludicrous."
"That is absolutely so bogus, it doesn't even deserve a response," he said. "That discounts the medications that this woman was on, the mental illness she suffers from."
Yates, 41, has pleaded innocent by reason of insanity.
During her 2002 trial, psychiatrists testified Yates suffered from schizophrenia and postpartum depression, but expert witnesses disagreed over the severity of her illness and whether it prevented her from knowing right from wrong.
A jury rejected Yates' original insanity defense and sentenced her to life in prison for the drowning of three of her five children ages 7, 5 and 6 months. Evidence was presented about the drowning of two others, ages 3 and 2, but Yates was not charged in their deaths.
Her convictions were overturned last year based on false testimony by an expert witness.
Doe, who could not be reached for comment by the AP, also told prosecutors that Yates disclosed details of the slayings, explaining that she locked a door so her oldest son, 7-year-old Noah, could not escape the house and describing him as crying so hard he vomited.
"She hit his head against the bathtub several times in an effort to incapacitate him," Doe told prosecutors.
Another inmate, Lynnette Licantino, told prosecutors Yates said her children "were just too much" and that her husband at the time, Russell Yates, would not let her put them in day care, according to the documents.
A phone listing for Licantino could not be found Thursday.
Judge Belinda Hill is scheduled to hold a hearing Friday to consider pretrial requests from both sides. The trial is set to begin March 20.
Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed
-
Lawyer: Retrying Yates is double jeopardy
HOUSTON, Feb. 23 (UPI) -- An attorney representing Andrea Yates says retrying the Houston woman accused of killing her children would amount to double jeopardy.
Yates pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity in the drowning deaths of her five children.
The Houston Chronicle reports attorney George Pamham filed papers this week arguing testimony about an episode of the television show "Law and Order" during her first trial amounted to prosecutorial misconduct.
Psychiatrist Park Dietz testified the series had run a show portraying a woman who drowned her children but no such episode ever was run. Yates was a fan of the show.
Yates, 41, is set to be retried March 20. Her initial conviction for capital murder was overturned because of Dietz's testimony.
© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc.
-
I hope some big crazy bitch on the inside kills that fucking child killer. Im so sick of hearing and reading all the bullshit with this Killer. We all know what she has done, she knows what shes done. Come on why prolong this any longer, .Fuck the trial, 5 counts of murder thats cause for DEATH. What the hell are they waiting for? This world is full of bleeding hearts. :flame: :flame: :flame: :flame: :flame: :flame: :flame: :flame:
-
On 2006-02-24 14:08:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I hope some big crazy bitch on the inside kills that fucking child killer. Im so sick of hearing and reading all the bullshit with this Killer. We all know what she has done, she knows what shes done. Come on why prolong this any longer, .Fuck the trial, 5 counts of murder thats cause for DEATH. What the hell are they waiting for? This world is full of bleeding hearts. :flame: :flame: :flame: :flame: :flame: :flame: :flame: :flame: "
Yup, it is always mom's fault ...
-
Rebuttal
Dr. Park Dietz, in from TAG, his threat assessment firm in California, was a rebuttal witness after the defense presented its case. Much was made in the media about the fact the Resnick and Dietz were once again head to head. They had been on opposite sides of several other high-profile cases and Dietz usually won the day. His forte was to make complicated psychological issues simple for juries, and in the Yates case he used a Power Point presentation to do so. While he admitted that Andrea was seriously ill, possibly even schizophrenic, he also insisted that she had nevertheless known that what she was doing was wrong.
He pointed out that she had not acted like a mother who believed she was saving her children from Satan, and she had kept her long-festering plan a secret from others. Thus, while she knew she was having delusions about harming others, she had done nothing to protect them. She even admitted she knew that what she had done was wrong?it was a sin---and by Texas law, these facts were sufficient for the jury to convict Yates of first-degree murder. She knew she deserved the death penalty and that it was a punishment for doing something wrong. She also believed that God would judge her act as bad, and Dietz interpreted her covering of the bodies with a sheet as evidence of guilt. The fact that she had not comforted and reassured them in death indicated that she had not killed them as an act of love and protection.
"Ordinarily when someone keeps a criminal plan secret," Dietz said, "they do it because it's wrong."
He tended to blame others, notably Rusty. He described the note from Dr. Saeed in her medical records that she was not to be left alone. That implied that she was severely impaired and was not safe to leave with children. He pointed out that she did not follow the advice of her various doctors and made decisions based on her belief that she knew what was best for herself. She had been living in unhealthy conditions during her illness and not gotten good continuous care. In her cell when Dietz interviewed her, Andrea had admitted that it had been a bad decision to kill the children, and said, "I shouldn't have done it." She thought the devil had left after she committed the crime. "He destroys and then leaves."
To counter much of what the defense's psychiatrists had laid out, Dietz opened up possibilities to the jury when he said that Andrea's psychosis may have worsened the day following the incident, while in jail where psychiatrists first saw her. "There seemed to be new delusions and disorganized thinking on June 21." The motive for killing her children, he indicated, appeared to be the same as her suicide: to escape an intolerable, high-stress situation.
Dietz also had learned that Andrea was an avid viewer of the television show, Law and Order, for which he consulted, and he believed that an episode of that show in which a mother drowns her child in a bathtub had inspired Andrea. His observation gave her actions the quality of premeditation.
Dietz was the final act before both sides summed up their cases for the jury.
-
Feb. 24, 2006, 9:25PM
Attorney wants judge to block new Yates murder trial
By PAM EASTON
Associated Press
Prosecutors and an expert witness from Andrea Yates' original trial testified today they didn't give much thought to a television legal drama a resident pointed out to them as having similarities to Yates' case.
"Even if this show aired, it didn't matter because we couldn't prove she watched the show," prosecutor Kaylynn Williford testified today during a hearing into defense attorney George Parnham's request to bar a retrial of Yates. "It didn't matter to me. There was so much other evidence."
Parnham says prosecutors used a nonexistent episode of Law & Order to imply Yates had a blueprint "to get out of a trapped marriage by murdering her children and escaping prosecution or a conviction by pleading insanity."
He has asked State District Judge Belinda Hill to halt a retrial of Yates on double jeopardy grounds claiming prosecutorial misconduct.
Parnham says prosecutors knew the testimony offered by their expert witness was false. Prosecutors say it was simply a mistake.
Testimony about the Law & Order episode by the state's expert witness, psychiatrist Park Dietz, led to Yates' two capital murder convictions being overturned last year.
In 2003, a grand jury found there was no wrongdoing by Dietz. The First Court of Appeals, which overturned Yates' conviction, found no prosecutorial misconduct.
Yates, 41, faces retrial March 20 on two capital murder charges for drowning deaths of three of her five children. She has again pleaded innocent by reason of insanity.
Hill said she would listen to additional testimony Monday before issuing a ruling on Parnham's request to halt the retrial.
Prosecutor Joe Owmby testified today that he asked Dietz to check into an episode of Law & Order based on the e-mail his office received. Owmby said he often has confused L.A. Law with Law & Order.
When Dietz responded to a question on cross-examination from Yates' attorney during her 2002 trial about whether a Law & Order episode existed in which a woman was acquitted of killing her child based on insanity, Owmby said he had no reason to doubt Dietz's response that such a show existed.
"As a factual matter, he never said anything he could not document," Owmby said of Dietz. "When he said that, I was positive he had documentation of it."
Dietz, however, said he had ignored the prosecutor's request because he didn't think it had anything to do with Yates' case.
"This was just noise, hardly more important than the boarding announcements as you walk through the airport," Dietz testified. "I knew quite a bit by then. I knew there was already ample evidence of planning, ample evidence of knowing it was wrong."
Shauna Thornton sent the e-mail to the Harris County District Attorney's office a week after Yates' 2001 arrest for drowning her five children, who ranged in age from 6-months to 7-years.
Thornton said an episode of L.A. Law in which a mother smothered her child and then was found innocent by reason of insanity due to postpartum psychosis aired in the weeks before Yates drowned her children.
"This probably is not important, but I thought it was a weird coincidence," Thornton wrote. "I just thought it was odd and thought your office should know."
Thornton said she received a dismissive e-mail later followed by two calls from the district attorney's office. She said she responded with what she knew about the show and then months later, during Yates' trial, realized prosecutors referred to Law & Order instead of L.A. Law.
She said she sent another e-mail attempting to correct the name of the show.
Owmby said the trial had concluded by the time he received the e-mail.
"I certainly didn't purposely make it up," testified Dietz, who said he immediately took steps to correct his testimony upon learning he was wrong.
Jurors were told of Dietz's false testimony after they rejected Yates' insanity defense but before hearing evidence in trial's sentencing phase. Yates was sentenced to life in prison.
During her 2002 trial, psychiatrists testified Yates suffered from schizophrenia and postpartum depression, but expert witnesses disagreed over the severity of her illness and whether it prevented her from knowing that drowning her children was wrong.
This article is: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/met ... 83410.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/3683410.html)
-
Blah,Blah, Blah.He says , she said, they said, its all bullshit! You can type all the court papres you want. The FACT is she KILLED her kids! She did it, not her husband, not her mother, not her father not any of her friends HER. Nobody broke her arm and told her to Kill her 5 kids, she did it all on her own.Sick fucken bitch, I would love to get my hands on her.And to the rest of you that feel sorry for her, your just as sick as she is and you should think about getting help for yourself.
-
On 2006-02-24 20:46:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-02-24 14:08:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I hope some big crazy bitch on the inside kills that fucking child killer. Im so sick of hearing and reading all the bullshit with this Killer. We all know what she has done, she knows what shes done. Come on why prolong this any longer, .Fuck the trial, 5 counts of murder thats cause for DEATH. What the hell are they waiting for? This world is full of bleeding hearts. :wstupid:
-
Verdict
For closing statements, Kaylynn Williford asked the jury to be silent for three minutes so they could experience the amount of time each child had endured the drowning process before dying. It was a dramatic maneuver and Parnham could do nothing to prevent it. He wrapped up his case by emphasizing the points the psychiatrists had made. It was clear that he cared very much what might happen to the woman in his charge.
The trial had lasted three weeks, but it took the jury less than three hours on March 12, 2002, to return a verdict of guilty. Rusty buried his face in his hands and moaned. Andrea looked back at her brother Brian and tried to smile, but instead she began to cry and turned away to walk off with the prison guard.
"The way the case unfolded," said Owmby. "I was confident that the jury would find her guilty and reject the insanity defense." Williford, said, "I think the jury focused on the children."
The nation now debated whether Andrea Yates should be sentenced to death. Many felt the verdict was unfair and hoped the jury would do what they considered the right thing and at least give her only life in prison. Many others felt that a jury that had been quick to find her guilty might show no such compassion. Some raised the issue that the jury might have made a different decision had they understood that an NGRI verdict would have kept Andrea institutionalized and would have ensured mental health treatment. Why weren't they allowed to have that information?
Then the defense attorneys, says Roche, discovered a significant flaw in Park Dietz's testimony. The television episode that he claimed had inspired Andrea and which prosecutors had used to show premeditation had never aired. Dietz sent a letter admitting to his error and to the fact that Andrea had never mentioned the show to him.
He also did post-trial interviews in which he said that he disagreed with the way the state of Texas worded the insanity plea. He believed that people as sick as Andrea Yates should be handled differently than other criminals were.
In light of all this, Parnham and Odom asked for a mistrial. Judge Hill said no.
During the penalty phase that spring, the same jury quickly returned a sentence of life in prison (in less than forty minutes) rather than death, and Andrea Yates received this news with little emotion. She would be eligible for parole in 2041, when she was 77. She was sent to Mountain View Unit, a state psychiatric prison in eastern Texas.
Rusty announced that his family had been mishandled by the mental health system. He did not see that he had been adequately warned and he insisted that Andrea had not been adequately treated. He decided to set up a Web site to inform people about mental illness and to post pictures and facts about his children.
-
I hope they kill her in there. :skull:
-
Monday, Mar. 18, 2002
Andrea Yates: More To The Story
As a judge formally sentences the convicted murderer, TIME's Timothy Roche examines the role of a key prosecution witness
By TIMOTHY ROCHE
It had come down to the final moment. Andrea Yates, wearing a white sweater, sat next to her lawyers at the defense table in the courtroom. Several rows back, her husband, Rusty, could hardly believe their lives had turned out this way. Their five children were dead, drowned by their mother in a case that shocked their family and stunned the world. His wife, charged with capital murder and convicted two days earlier, could be sentenced to death by lethal injection unless the jury of strangers who found her guilty now spared her life. The jurors had been gone for 35 minutes. Behind closed doors, they were weighing the facts and deliberating her future. Did she pose a future threat to society? Or was the killing of her own children a redeemable act?
Until his wife's arrest last summer, Rusty had supported the death penalty. He still remembered the times when he and Andrea would sit in their living room discussing the rights and wrongs of execution. His views on capital punishment, like so many others in his life, had been based upon Scripture. It was from Romans 13 that he'd first read to her how God gave the authority to rulers of the land to uphold their laws, for governments to carry out his will against the evil of murderers. Andrea later marked the passage in her Bible. Now, the word of God could come back to haunt her, like the voice of demons that she claimed drove her to kill her own.
In Texas, the law on insanity defenses is among the most restrictive in the nation. So narrow are the nuances of the state's centuries-old law that it was not enough for Yates' defense lawyers to simply prove that she twice attempted suicide, had been hospitalized four times for psychiatric care and nursed a psychosis before the drownings clearly documented in thousands of pages of medical records. No, Andrea's motives may have been delusional, but if she were able to distinguish right from wrong ? good from evil ? while committing the crime, jurors had little choice but to reject her plea of not guilty by reason of insanity and convict her.
To reach their verdict, jurors seemed to rely heavily on the persuasive testimony of a famous forensic psychiatrist, Park Dietz, who was paid $500 an hour by prosecutors to dispute claims that Andrea Yates was insane under the Texas law. Now, TIME has learned, questions are surfacing about the reliability of the state's key witness who has admitted that he mixed up facts that prosecutors wound up emphasizing to the jury. Dietz also has told TIME that he opposes the very law that he helped prosecutors apply to Yates and jurors used to deny her insanity defense.
Inside the Courtroom
The trial had been long and emotional. At times, the evidence was complex and overwhelming. Jurors listened to a taped confession in which Andrea told a detective that she had to kill her five children, whom she home-schooled, because she had failed them as a mother. Jurrors saw police photographs of the bathtub where she drowned them one by one, and the bed where she had laid them side by side. They heard how one boy's fist still held strands of his mother's hair, which he must have yanked out during their struggle. They watched home videos of laughing children and their parents in happier times. At nearly every turn, prosecutors Joe Owmby and Kaylynn Williford reminded jurors that the victims were young and innocent and their deaths were cold and calculated.
While defense lawyers called several expert witnesses who had different opinions about Andrea's actual diagnosis, each told jurors she obviously had been psychotic and delusional at the time. After her arrest, jail psychiatrist Melissa Ferguson testified, Andrea was put on medications that enabled her to finally talk about the visions and voices that she says guided her actions. It was only after she was placed in a jail cell, naked, on suicide watch that Andrea spoke of the Satan inside her and the only was to be rid of him: She had to be executed. And she had to kill the children, as Satan demanded, to get the death penalty.
Andrea tried to explain. "It was the seventh deadly sin. My children weren't righteous. They stumbled because I was evil. The way I was raising them they could never be saved," she told the jail psychiatrist. "They were doomed to perish in the fires of hell."
Jurors took notes as Rusty testified about his life with Andrea, whom he had met when they were both 25 years old and living in the same apartment complex in Houston. He told them how their family had grown, and how they had moved from a house in suburbia to a camping trailer to a bus converted into a motor home, where Andrea focused on raising the toddlers. After the birth of their fourth child, Luke, in 1999, Andrea tried twice to commit suicide. She was hospitalized both times and was diagnosed with postpartum depression and psychosis.
The couple and their four sons moved from the bus into their house on Beachcomber Lane in a Houston suburb. She recovered while using Haldol, but eventually stopped taking the medication. Against the advice of her psychiatrist, Andrea soon became pregnant again with their fifth child, Mary. Within months, following the death of her ailing father, her psychosis returned. Instead of taking her back to the same doctor who'd treated her before, Rusty told jurors that he and Andrea went to the Devereux-Texas Treatment Network, where Mohammed Saeed became Andrea's psychiatrist. Rusty testified that he never knew that Andrea had visions and voices; he said he never knew she had considered killing the children. Neither did Dr. Saeed, even though the delusions could have been found in medical records from 1999. Andrea would not talk or eat.
After only slight improvement, Andrea was released from Devereux. A month later, she had another episode. Rusty took her back to Devereux. Again, she was released. Dr. Saeed reluctantly prescribed Haldol, the same drug that worked in a drug cocktail for her in 1999. But after a few weeks, he took her off the drug, citing his concerns about side effects. (For more on Saeed's response, see our previous examination of the Yates trial.) Though Andrea's condition seemed to be worsening two days before the drownings, when her husband drove her to Saeed's office, Rusty testified, the doctor refused to try Haldol longer or return her to the hospital. Rusty was frustrated, he told the jury, and he didn't know what else to do.
'Satan destroys and leaves'
As the trial continued, the parade of experts included the celebrated psychiatrist Park Dietz, whom the District Attorney's Office paid $500 an hour to analyze Andrea and explain to the jury why she should be convicted despite the insanity law because, by her own admission, she knew her actions were wrong.
Known for his testimony as a prosecution witness in high-profile crimes, Dietz had worked on the cases of John Hinckley, who attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan; Susan Smith, who killed her children by driving her car into a pond; and the Unabomber. He also helped proclaim legally sane Jeffrey Dahmer, who kept the heads of his murder victims in his freezer. He had credentials that the Texas prosecutors thought qualified him to review Andrea Yates, though he had limited knowledge of postpartum psychosis.
Dietz's two days of testimony would be riveting and revealing. His polished demeanor captivated the jury; he used a Powerpoint presentation to illustrate how he reached his conclusions and a video to show his interviews with Andrea in the Harris County Jail.
"Before you did it," Dietz asked Andrea during one videotaped session, "did you think it was wrong?"
"No."
Dietz asked, "Why did you not think it wrong?"
Andrea answered without hesitation. "If I didn't do it, they would be tormented by Satan.
"It was a bad choice," she continued. "I shouldn't have done it." She began to sound regretful as the camera recorded the interview. "There was distress, but I still felt I had to do it."
Dietz zeroed in. "As you drowned each one, did you think it was the right thing to be doing?" Andrea nodded yes. Dietz asked, upon drowning the kids, if she thought about heaven.
"I was praying they would go there."
She said she called the police because she knew the murders would be perceived as bad, despite her higher purpose. Now, Andrea also told Dietz, she believed she was psychotic when she thought the devil had guided her. "He left when I committed my crime," she said.
Dietz asked why Satan would leave her after she had obeyed him.
"He destroys and then leaves," Andrea replied.
On the witness stand, Dietz took the jury through what he had dubbed Andrea's "Homicide Phase" and "Post-Homicide Phase." In both, Dietz testified, she knew right from wrong. The reasons: she had contemplated murdering the kids for two years but stopped herself; she called police and wanted to be arrested; she related the death penalty to a punishment; she believed God would judge her actions as bad; and, he said, guilt caused her to cover the bodies on the bed.
That day of the drownings, June 20, Andrea suffered some psychosis, he said. But her symptoms became more severe the next day in jail. In his testimony designed to persuade jurors that she was not legally insane when killing the children, Dietz stressed that her "extreme sickness" and "gross psychosis" occurred only after the deaths. "There seemed to be new delusions and disorganized thinking on June 21st," he said. George Parnham, the bespectacled Houston defense lawyer who represented Andrea with his longtime friend Wendell Odom, pushed the doctor to explain why, then, did she kill the kids on the 20th?
Dietz told jurors he would be inclined to believe Andrea's fears of Satan, except that her actions spoke louder than words as the mother violently held her precious children underwater. "I would expect her to try and comfort the children, telling them they are going to be with Jesus or with God, but she does not offer words of comfort to the children."
He doubted whether Andrea really felt tormented by demons before she was jailed for killing her children because he would have expected her to talk to a friend or minister about her thoughts. But Dietz did not tell the jury that the religious overtones of her delusions ? a mother doomed for the fires of Hell ? could be linked to what religious influences she did have in her life. She and Rusty had their own Bible study in their home because Rusty had not found a church he liked. Besides Rusty, her only other spiritual source was her husband's former spiritual mentor, Michael Woroniecki, a renegade minister whose writings fault women for the woes of their children.
But Dietz did attempt to explain that the simple life that Andrea and Rusty sought by living in the bus and home-schooling the kids left her feeling "controlled" by the circumstances of her life. To show jurors how psychosis manipulates reality, fears and thought process, Dietz used the examples of her two suicide attempts in 1999. "This was her way of escaping an intolerable situation," he testified. "Escape is something she couldn't admit she needed."
Describing her methods as part of a "criminal plan" instead of a psychotic state, Dietz said he found contradictions in her logic: "If it's true that she believed that killing the children would save them, then why would she not want it to happen? She would want to talk about it so it came true and the children would be saved. So, I concluded at that point she's keeping it secret, she knows that other people are going to stop her, that it's wrong, that it's a bad idea. She admits that she knows people will stop her."
Dietz told jurors that Andrea got the idea of drowning the children from a recent episode of Law & Order, the TV crime show for which he happens to be a consultant. He had been told that Andrea frequently watched the program, and he testified that he once worked on an episode in which a woman drowns her child in a bathtub.
The videotaped exchanges between Andrea and Dietz were more dramatic than any TV show. At one point, he told jurors, Andrea recounted how she drowned each child before ending with Noah, the oldest. "I'm sorry," Andrea quoted Noah's last words as he struggled in the tub of water.
Closing arguments
Throughout the trial, Rusty and other witnesses subpoenaed to testify were not allowed inside the courtroom. He would sit in the hallway, often playing Tetris on his Palm Pilot. Sometimes he paced. He would talk to reporters sent to cover the sensational murder trial, and even allowed ABC-TV researchers to shadow him for a few days until one of them reportedly made a remark that insulted him.
Last week Rusty found a seat in the courtroom to hear closing arguments. He and his family stayed together on one side of the courtroom while Andrea's mother, Karin Kennedy, and her brothers sat on the other. Not even for the sake of a unified front for Andrea's trial could Rusty and his in-laws fake a truce in a relationship that has seemed strained since Rusty and Andrea married. Some in the Kennedy family still criticized Rusty for doing too little to get treatment for her ? and at least for failing to hire a nanny or housekeeper. On June 20, Rusty spent the night in a motel with his relatives but did not go see Andrea's elderly mother. The distance between Rusty and her became more evident when Mrs. Kennedy, who had come alone one day, sobbed sadly outside the courtroom. With no other relatives there, a reporter comforted her.
A hush fell over the courtroom when Assistant District Attorney Kaylynn Williford, trying the first capital murder case of her career, began to explain why the state of Texas would prosecute a mother with a history of mental illness. Williford aroused the emotions of the jurors and reminded them that the victims were helpless as Andrea forced them into the water. Noah, she recalled graphically, had died in water containing vomit and feces from the others who died before him. "Is this the act of a loving mother?" She asked. Then, she asked them to take three minutes of silence while they were back in the jury room. That's how long it takes for a child to lose consciousness, she told them. She used Andrea's own words against her, telling jurors to think back to her confession: "I killed my kids," she told both the detective and the first officer on the scene. Andrea did not say, "I saved my kids."
In the end, jurors had to weigh the disputed testimony of the experts ? do they believe Dr. Dietz or the array of defense experts who could not agree on Andrea's condition? When the jury finally was escorted to the conference room where they deliberated, nobody could predict whether they would be gone for hours or days or whether they would even be able to reach a decision.
It turned out to be two hours. Jurors sounded a buzzer on the door and walked in quietly. A court clerk announced their verdict: guilty as charged. The conviction was not unexpected under the limitations of Texas' insanity law, yet it seemed unbelievable. Rusty buried his head in his large hands and moaned, "Oh God."
If jurors could reject her insanity plea and convict her, then they could very well vote to execute her since Texas requires jurors to determine the punishment. Family and friends looked for a glimmer of hope. Maybe the jurors cut a deal with themselves ? convict her, but don't send her to death row. After all, the law prevented them from knowing that she would be hospitalized if she were found not guilty by insanity. Maybe they had convicted her because they did not want her to just walk free. Maybe the conviction was a compromise. In two days, the jury would return for the penalty phase of the trial.
A question about testimony
But first, the pair of defense lawyers had discovered a flaw in the testimony of Park Dietz, the psychiatrist who had told jurors "as a matter of fact" that the Law & Order episode that inspired Andrea to drown the kids in the bathtub aired shortly before the fatal day. Prosecutors also had emphasized it as proof of premeditation in closing arguments.
As it turns out, the defense lawyers learned, the episode as he described it had never aired and the plot line was different than he recalled. When they prepared to call the show's producers as witnesses to persuade the judge to declare a mistrial, Dietz sent a letter to prosecutors acknowledging his error.
"My memory about the content of the show was incorrect. I was confounding the facts of three filicide cases I worked on ? Susan Smith, Amy Grossberg, and Melissa Drexler ? and two episodes of Law & Order that were based in part on those cases" Dietz wrote in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by TIME. Additionally, he had been wrong about being told directly that Andrea watched the TV series. In fact, he only had read another doctor's report in which Rusty once said his wife liked to watch every episode of the show. "I also wish to clarify that Mrs. Yates said nothing to me about either episode or about the Law & Order series," he wrote.
Further, Dietz told TIME in an interview at his California office, that while he agreed with the jury's verdict, he disagreed with the law. "I believe we should recognize our sick parents in several ways and handle them differently both during hospitalization and when they commit crimes," he said. For example, British doctors will keep depressed mothers and their newborns together in hospitals to monitor them over a period of weeks or months.
The penalty
Back in Houston, after a one-day, the trial of Andrea Yates resumed for the penalty phase without jurors who convicted her knowing that Dietz, personally, was unsure about the fairness of the law used to reject her insanity defense. Andrea's lawyers, who questioned whether he misled the jury, asked for a mistrial based on his mistaken testimony about the influence of the TV show, a request denied by Judge Belinda Hill.
On Thursday, the jurors began to hear about the softer soft of Andrea. Before deciding whether she should live or die, they heard pleas to spare her life from witnesses who described Andrea as the devoted mom who wanted her children to be curious and bright, the helpful daughter who cared for her ailing father until his death, the remarkable young woman who loved being a nurse and swimming before she got married and had as many children as God would give her before the Devil stole them away.
During the closing statements, prosecutor Joe Owmby stopped shy of telling jurors specifically why the case met the criteria for the death penalty. But Kaylynn Williford, the other prosecutor, did. She pointed to photos of the children, asking jurors to take the pictures with them into the deliberation room. "Everyone is trying to make this a woman's issue or a political issue," she told jurors, "but the issue to me is five dead children."
When defense lawyer George Parnham and Wendell Odom took their turns, they choked back tears as they talked about Andrea and the life of suffering ahead of her, knowing what she has done to her children, to her husband and to herself. Hadn't she been punished enough?
As the four men and eight women returned to the courtroom one last time and took their seats in the jury box, Andrea stared straight ahead, void of emotion. None of the jurors would look at her. Four sheriff's deputies guarded the doors of the courtroom filled with friends, relatives, legal secretaries, reporters and others who came to see the outcome of four weeks of heart-wrenching testimony. Judge Hill warned against outbursts. If you can't control yourself, she said, leave now.
Everyone stayed. Andrea and her lawyers stood as Judge Hill reviewed the jury's paperwork, which was read aloud by a court clerk. At least 10 of the 12 jurors opted for life in prison, not death by lethal injection.
Sitting in a middle row and nodding his head, Rusty showed no other reaction. Neither did Andrea. She did not understand the decision until she saw the reaction of her lawyers. As the deputies ordered everyone to leave the courtroom, she did not glance back at Rusty. The husband who had supported her even though she killed their children walked outside in the afternoon drizzle, standing behind a cluster of microphones and a mob of reporters and cameramen. He had something to say; and he knew the world was watching.
First, he told the crowd, his family had been let down by the mental health system. And even though Andrea would not be executed, the murder conviction alone meant that his family also was let down by the criminal justice system, too. "We were offended that she was even prosecuted," he said. He initially wanted Dr. Saeed charged with a crime for giving his wife inadequate treatment, but he has told TIME that prosecutors laughed, saying, "Fat chance."
Outside the courthouse, Rusty had waited for months to stand before the cameras and talk so publicly about his family's ordeal. But a judge's gag order prevented him and others in the case from talking. Liberated by the verdict against his wife, Rusty answered questions about why he did not find another doctor for her and why he risked the safety of his children by leaving her alone the morning of June 20. "We didn't see her as a danger," he said. "The real question to me is: How could she have been so ill and the medical community not diagnose her, not treat her, and obviously not protect our family from her."
Standing there, Rusty appeared to have no regrets about any of the choices he and Andrea had made in their life together. No regrets about moving into the trailer, then the bus. About having a fifth child, who had been "a blessing." About his own inability to recognize his wife's needs. About his own part in their lack of communication in which she apparently suffered scary visions for years but never told him. About not researching postpartum depression and psychosis in the two years before his wife killed their kids.
Moving on
Rusty still has thousands of dollars donated after the drownings to help pay for the funerals and others costs, and he has used part of the leftover funds to buy a cemetery memorial and start a website dedicated to his children. He hasn't decided what to do with the rest of it. He says he and Mrs. Kennedy are sharing his wife's legal fees.
Rusty has come a long way since the morning of the deaths, when he collapsed in a fetal position and cried as a police officer questioned him in the yard of their house on Beachcomber Lane. He told the officer that he never wanted to see his wife's face; she had killed their babies. He watched as officers led Andrea in handcuffs to a police car and drove away. But later the same afternoon, as crime scene technicians photographed the home and carried away evidence, Rusty stood outside and kept asking himself, "How could she do this? How could she do this?" Then it hit him. "It wasn't Andrea. It was the illness." He vowed to support her.
Alone in their empty house where he still lives, Rusty has thought about the future of their marriage. He worries about how they will ever be able to look at each other. Will the other person be a constant reminder of their loss? For a while, Rusty told TIME, he had hoped that she might someday return to Beachcomber Lane and they could resume their life together. But he has talked to psychiatrists who say it would be too traumatic for her to come back to the house where the kids died.
After the deaths, it might have been difficult for Rusty to imagine life without her or the kids. He did not doubt that his devotion would remain strong. As the weeks turned into months, however, his perspective changed. Perhaps he will get a divorce. Maybe someday he will have kids again. He will always support her, he says. But he has begun to question what will become of their relationship. And he has begun to wonder what will become of Andrea without him.
"I can't carry her through life," Rusty told TIME. "That's too great a burden to bear. I need her to walk on her own. I can hold her hand, but I can't carry her."
But it is unlikely that Rusty will ever hold her hand again.
Andrea will move from the Harris County Jail in Houston to a state prison known as Mountain View Unit in the scrubby rolling hills of Central Texas. There, she will be kept in protective custody because of her ongoing mental problems and possible threats from other inmates. She will be allowed no visitors.
Unless she needs intensive psychiatric care, the mother who only last year baked chocolate chip cookies and took her sons to ball games in the park will eventually mingle with the general population at the prison known for housing some of the toughest, meanest women in Texas. While inmates can greet and say goodbye to 10 visitors with a kiss and an embrace, prison officials doubt that Andrea will get those privileges when Rusty goes to see her. And, they say, conjugal visits will be strictly forbidden.
? With reporting by Deborah Fowler/Houston, Hilary Hylton/Austin and Anne Berryman/Atlanta
Copyright © 2006 Time Inc.
-
On 2006-02-26 21:39:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Monday, Mar. 18, 2002
Andrea Yates: More To The Story
snip
The trial had been long and emotional. At times, the evidence was complex and overwhelming. Jurors listened to a taped confession in which Andrea told a detective that she had to kill her five children, whom she home-schooled, because she had failed them as a mother. Jurrors saw police photographs of the bathtub where she drowned them one by one, and the bed where she had laid them side by side. They heard how one boy's fist still held strands of his mother's hair, which he must have yanked out during their struggle. They watched home videos of laughing children and their parents in happier times. At nearly every turn, prosecutors Joe Owmby and Kaylynn Williford reminded jurors that the victims were young and innocent and their deaths were cold and calculated.
snip
I think the problem with our criminal justice system is in cases like this, it is a penalty outcome only. There is no looking at it from a what do we do here. Why did she change so much, from valedictorian, rn, mom, home schooler to psychotic murderer.
All that counts is she murdered, and she should be wharehoused, killed, put in a jail hospital.
Ok, she is done for, as far as her life goes, but ...
There are 180 kids killed by their moms in the US ... every year.
Prisons, detention, grounding, criticism, knowing right from wrong is not stopping it.
Should we as a society do something, hot lines, mom relief teams, time out centers ???
Something, or nothing.
Apparently if one multiplies 180 kids a year times any amount of years picked, that is a of kids being killed by moms.
They have all been punished by the law.
None where stopped by the law.
This is a news year, right, 2006.
Every two days, another child is murdered by their moms.
We seem to do nothing about this phenominon except get
some kind of "debt to society" by penal system punishment.
In two days the next kid will be killed.
Two more days, the next kid ...
To continue as we are will not change anything, we learn nothing, and two more days, another dead child.
-
::bangin::
-
On 2006-02-27 12:42:00, Anonymous wrote:
" ::bangin:: "
OK, make room for 180 moms every year is prison.
That is some nice creative problem solving!
Are you in the prison industry?
-
Postpartum Psychosis: A Tough Sell
* On October 21, 2002 in Kansas City, Mary Bass, 32, was convicted of two counts of second-degree murder in the deaths of her two male children. She claimed that another personality named "Sharon" that she could not control had abused them to the point of death. She had locked them in a room and starved them, burning their legs and feet in scalding water to punish them. Psychologists said that she suffered from depression, posttraumatic stress syndrome, schizophrenia, and multiple personality disorder. She was also suicidal. She told police, "I killed my baby. I should go to jail." Social workers had seen the abuse but did nothing to remove the children.
* In Wisconsin, Kristin Scott, 22, pleaded not guilty by reason of mental deficiency on July 18, 2003, to charges that in January she let her newborn infant daughter die and hid the remains in a plastic tub. She had also similarly hidden the remains of a child she claimed had been stillborn in April 2001. Scott's parents discovered the remains of the most recent baby when Scott moved to Texas in June, leaving the tub behind in their home. She said that she had secretly given birth in January and because she was afraid of what people would say, the baby had to die. If convicted of reckless homicide and hiding a corpse, she faces seventy-five years in prison.
Naomi Gaines, mugshot
Naomi Gaines, mugshot
* Naomi Gaines, 24, had suffered for a long history of postpartum depression and mania. On July 6, 2003, she took her fourteen-month-old twins, Supreme Knowledge Allah and Sincere Understanding Allah, to the Mississippi River near St. Paul and dropped them both from a bridge 75 feet over the water. Then she jumped in after them, yelling "Freedom!" She and one boy survived when rescued in time, but the other infant drowned and his body was recovered several miles downriver near an island. She is charged with second-degree murder.
* Also in Minnesota, Khoua Her, 24, strangled her six children, ages 5 to 11, because she was depressed over her responsibilities. The police had been to her home fifteen times in a year and a half, responding to domestic violence calls, but social workers had not noticed any apparent danger to the children. The mother, who called 911 after the slaughter and spoke of suicide, was transported to the hospital with an extension cord still loosely tied around her neck. The children were found throughout the house. In a plea deal, she received a sentence of fifty years in prison.
* Evonne Rodriguez killed her 4-month-old baby in 1997 in Houston, Texas, because she believed he was possessed by demons. She had tried to "pull them out," her mother claimed, but ended up killing the child. Evonne insisted that she had heard screeching voices, "just like Hell," so she beat at her child with her hand and then choked him with a rosary. She wrapped him in plastic and threw him into water, but she concocted a story for police that he had been kidnapped?an indication that she knew what she had done was wrong. Her defense was that she was distraught over a bad relationship with her son's father that had created a state of temporary insanity. Her mother testified that she had suffered from bouts of depression. The jury acquitted her and she was sent for treatment.
In America, there are no clear standards in court for dealing with mentally ill mothers?not even in the same city. Andrea Yates killed five children to save them from hell and got life in prison. Evonne Rodriguez killed one because of demons and was acquitted. Andrea probably had a better case; Evonne got the better deal.
On a CNN broadcast, David Williams addressed the issue of how difficult it is to get juries to understand the kind of depression that can follow giving birth. The primary reason juries may not understand is because such depression is temporary and treatable. Such sufferers may have been psychotic and deeply disturbed during a violent episode some time after the birth, but by the time they go to trial, they've usually been restored to better mental health. That makes it difficult for juries who see them in their improved condition to believe these mothers were really suffering that badly.
It's also difficult in a country that views motherhood as sacred and asks women to see birth as cause for celebration to admit to postpartum depression. There's little compassion to be found for the 10 to 20 percent of mothers who really do suffer.
Twenty-nine other countries recognize postpartum depression as a legal defense, writes Williams, including Canada, Britain, and Australia. If a woman who has murdered a child under a certain age---usually one year---can prove that her mental processes were disturbed, the maximum charge is manslaughter. They receive probation and counseling. They do not have to prove they were insane at the time of the crime.
Yet clearly some women kill their infants for other reasons and might exploit this defense. American emphasis on free choice and personal responsibility, makes it likely that juries will continue to give mental illness issues uneven recognition.
-
"
On 2006-02-26 21:39:00, Anonymous wrote:
Should we as a society do something, hot lines, mom relief teams, time out centers ???
In addition to hotlines and other parental support:
Legalize abortion.
Adjust the economy so families aren't streached beyond their means and stressed out.
Every teen, as a requirement of graduation, works in a daycare center; preferably with infants and/or two year olds.
Teens are given accurate information regarding birth control and has easy access to it.
That would be a start in the right direction.
-
Aftermath
Andrea went to prison, but many people believed that she was not the only one who was culpable in this tragedy. Rusty had been warned not to leave her alone with the children and a doctor had taken her off medication while apparently believing that she could be a danger to herself or others. Many people believed that they shared in the blame.
Andrea Yates, mug shot
Andrea Yates, mug shot
About a week after the Yates cases concluded, Harris County DA Chuck Rosenthal looked into the issue. Numerous emails had come into his office insisting that Rusty be investigated, and it did seem important to try to understand why Rusty had disregarded the doctor's instructions. He had said repeatedly that since it would be only a short time between his departure that day and his mother's arrival, he had believed his wife would be fine alone with the children. His attorney, Edward Mallett, insisted that Rusty was innocent of any wrongdoing.
"It's a tragedy that Rusty now has to defend himself after standing by his wife," Mallett said to the press.
Rusty Yates in court
Rusty Yates in court
It was Rusty's contention that those who were most responsible are the doctors and hospitals that did not treat Andrea properly, and he talked about a lawsuit against them.
In the end, there was no investigation.
-
Insanity Issues
The film A Beautiful Mind details the peculiar twist of mental illness in the case of John Nash, a brilliant economist who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia much of his life. It revealed that a person can appear to function normally to everyone around him even while trapped in delusions where imaginary people play roles and hold conversations with him. Yet his illness finally became apparent, though it took much longer to be so for him. To his mind, this was the real world.
Doctors testifying for Yates made that claim. "She did what she thought was right in the world she perceived through her psychotic eyes at the time," said psychiatrist Phillip Resnick. In other words, even if she seemed to understand the difference between right and wrong, she did not know what she was doing.
The prosecutors claimed she knew her actions were wrong,.
How these two sides lined up on different poles of interpretation illustrates the great divide between the concepts of mental illness and legal insanity in the U.S. This case made it clear that it's time for courts to better address the gap.
Yates' defense team proved her history of delusional depression, use of anti-psychotic drugs, and suicide attempts, and there's documentation that postpartum mood swings can sometimes evoke psychosis. Yet no matter how many doctors testified to Yates' mental decline, the legal issue hinged on only her mental state at the time of the offense. As Yates drowned her children one by one, even chasing down seven-year-old Noah to drag him to the tub, did she really have any awareness that what she was doing was wrong? If so, then awareness implies the ability to choose.
Past juries have been convinced that even the delusional can see the moral implication of their behavior. Jeffrey Dahmer, the Wisconsin man who in 1991 confessed to killing 17 men, is one case in point. He admitted he'd drilled holes into the heads of some of his victims to create living zombies. He'd also envisioned building a shrine from their skulls.
Jeffrey Dahmer
Jeffrey Dahmer
Yet Dr. Park Dietz pointed out Dahmer's rational acts: When confronted by the police with one of his intended victims, he invented a misleading story and then took the young man home to kill him. He was mentally ill, yes, but he also knew that what he was doing would land him in prison and he obviously exercised some control. Thus, he was legally sane.
Kendra Webdale, victim & Andrew Goldstein
Kendra Webdale, victim & Andrew Goldstein
Andrea Yates knew that, too. In fact, she believed that the state's punishment for what she had done would finally defeat Satan. She fully expected to be jailed and even to be executed. Her case is similar to that of Andrew Goldstein, who in 1998 pushed Kendra Webdale in front of a Manhattan subway train, killing her instantly. He then leaned against a wall and said, "It was her turn." Like Yates, he'd felt compelled and also like Yates, he had stopped taking medication prescribed to alleviate the symptoms of schizophrenia. Despite seeing evidence of his psychosis in a video-taped confession, the jury convicted him of second-degree murder.
This gap between legal insanity and our evolving knowledge about mental illness has roots in a court decision in 1843. In England, Daniel M'Naghten felt persecuted by imaginary spies so he shot the Prime Minister's secretary. He did intend to kill, but his cognitive impairment was such that the court used his case to formulate a test of insanity: the defendant must not know the nature of his act or understand that it's wrong.
American courts eventually adopted this standard. Despite reforms, the court's confidence in free will yields little room for behavior driven by distorted perceptions. In Texas, Yates was presumed sane unless her team could show that she did not know that what she did was wrong. This is partly due to the shift in their standards in 1983, after John Hinkley's assassination attempt on President Reagan ended up in NGRI. Public outrage prompted many states, including Texas, rethink NGRI. They enacted the more restrictive terms of mere knowledge of right and wrong. If you know, then you aren't insane. That's that.
Andrea Yates waited that morning for her husband to leave, knew murder was a sin, expected to be punished, and called 911, so it appears that she could control her behavior. Yet that argument depends on a simplistic idea about the relationship between awareness and choice. It may be time to legally recognize that even someone who knows the law can still be seriously impaired regarding how they conform to that law.
Mental Health Weekly published an article that the Yates case has made lawmakers and mental health officials in Texas take another look at the issues, in particular with regard to more funding for the state's mental health system. State representative Garnet Coleman, a mental health advocate, indicated that he intended to introduce legislation to revise and refine the insanity defense laws. Legislators will be considering whether to return to a former Texas standard of acknowledging a person's inability to conform their behavior to what they know about right and wrong. It will be interesting to see what results.
-
http://www.postpartum.net/ (http://www.postpartum.net/)
Have you recently given birth? Are you feeling exhausted, anxious, depressed, or just not yourself? If you are?you are not alone. Many women are not prepared for the wide range of emotions they may experience after the birth of a child. They often feel sadness, anger, anxiety, or a sense of inadequacy.
These feelings may vary in frequency and intensity, but are collectively known as postpartum mood disorders. Help and support is an important part of getting back to feeling like yourself again.
The important thing to remember is that the symptoms are temporary and treatable with skilled professional care and social support. Whether you think you are depressed or just want more information, Postpartum Support International (PSI) is here to help.
http://www.postpartum.net/brief.html (http://www.postpartum.net/brief.html)
Beyond The Blues?A Guide to Understanding and
Treating Prenatal and Postpartum Depression
by Shoshana S. Bennett, Ph.D. and Pec Indman, Ed.D., MFT
Moodswings Press, 2003
Pregnancy and Postpartum Psychiatric Illness
Perinatal (during pregnancy and postpartum) mood disorders are caused primarily by hormonal changes which then affect the neurotransmitters (brain chemicals). Life stressors, such as moving, illness, poor partner support, financial problems, and social isolation are certainly also important and will negatively affect the woman?s mental state. Conversely, strong emotional, social, and physical support will greatly facilitate her recovery.
Any of the five postpartum mood disorders discussed in this chapter can also occur during pregnancy. These perinatal mood disorders behave quite differently from other mood disorders because the hormones are fluctuating. A woman with a perinatal mood disorder often feels as if she?s ?losing it,? since she can never predict how she will feel at any given moment. For instance, at 8:00 A.M., she may be gripped with anxiety, at 10:00 A.M. feel almost normal, and at 10:30 A.M. become depressed and lethargic.
Our clients who have had personal histories of depression tell us that postpartum depression feels very different (and usually much worse) than depressions at other times in their lives. One of Shoshana?s postpartum clients is a survivor of breast cancer. At a support group, she eloquently explained:
When I had cancer, I thought that was the worst experience I could ever have. I was wrong ? this is. With cancer, I allowed myself to ask for and receive help, and expected to be depressed. My friends and family rallied around me, bringing me meals, cleaning my house, and giving me lots of emotional support. Now, during postpartum depression, I feel guilty asking for help and ashamed of my depression. Everyone expects me to feel happy and doesn?t accept that this illness is just as real as cancer.
Women who experience these symptoms need to speak up and be persistent in getting proper care. In the past, these illnesses have been trivialized and even dismissed. Research has shown how important it is to treat perinatal mood disorders for the health and well-being of the mother, baby, and entire family.
The Psychiatric Issues of Pregnancy
Contrary to popular mythology, pregnancy is not always a happy, glowing experience! Approximately 15-20 percent of pregnant women experience depression. Of these, about 15 percent are so severely depressed that they attempt suicide.
It can be confusing that normal pregnancy experiences such as fatigue, appetite changes, and poor sleep are similar to symptoms of mood disorders. It is easy to make a blanket dismissal of these symptoms as just part of pregnancy. However, for that 10 percent, it is essential that the proper questions are asked and intervention is given when symptoms Pregnancy and Postpartum Psychiatric Illness 31 are outside the normal realm.
When symptoms of depression or other mood disorders cause limitations in the client?s ability to function on a day-today basis, intervention is necessary. This may include traditional (counseling and medication) or nontraditional modalities (such as Yoga or acupressure), or any combination thereof. The goal is to use whatever the individual woman needs in order to feel like herself again.
Depression during pregnancy has been associated with low birth weight (less than 2,500 grams) and preterm delivery (less than 37 weeks). Severe anxiety during pregnancy may cause harm to a growing fetus due to constriction of the placental blood vessels and higher cortisol levels.
Some women become pregnant while taking psychotropic medications for depression, anxiety, and other mood problems. Many of these medications are considered acceptable during pregnancy. A practitioner who is familiar with the current research about the safety of taking medications during pregnancy should be consulted. Often it is safer to continue a medication than risk a relapse.
The rate of relapse for a major depressive disorder (MDD) in women who discontinue their medication before conception is between 50-75 percent. The rate of relapse for MDD in those who discontinue medications at conception or in early pregnancy is 75 percent, with up to 60 percent relapsing in the first trimester. In one study, 42 percent of women who discontinued medications at conception resumed medications at some time during their pregnancy. Resources listed in the back of this manual provide helpful guidelines regarding the use of medications.
Mood Disorders
There are five postpartum mood disorders. This list details each of the principal disorders, some of their most common symptoms, and risk factors. It is important to note that symptoms and their severity can change over the course of an illness.
?Baby Blues? ? Not Considered a Disorder
This is not considered a disorder since the majority of mothers experience it.
? Occurs in about 80 percent of mothers
? Usual onset within first week postpartum
? Symptoms may persist up to three weeks
Symptoms
? Mood instability
? Weepiness
? Sadness
? Anxiety
? Lack of concentration
? Feelings of dependency
Etiology
? Rapid hormonal changes
? Physical and emotional stress of birthing
? Physical discomforts
? Emotional letdown after pregnancy and birth
? Awareness and anxiety about increased responsibility
? Fatigue and sleep deprivation
? Disappointments including the birth, spousal support, nursing, and the baby
Deborah?s story:
For about a week and a half after my baby was born I would cry for no reason at all. Sometimes I would feel overwhelmed, especially when I was up at night with my son. Once I even thought that I had made a big mistake having a child. I felt resentment toward my husband since his life stayed pretty much the same and mine was turned upside down. When I started going to the mother?s club at two weeks, I felt so relieved that all these other moms felt the same way.
Deborah?s treatment:
Since Deborah was experiencing normal postpartum adjustment, she did not require any formal treatment. Her hormones were balancing out by themselves. All she needed in order to enjoy her new life was a combination of socializing with other moms, taking time to care for herself, and working out a plan of sharing child and household responsibilities with her husband.
Depression and/or Anxiety
? Occurs in 15 to 20 percent of mothers
? Onset is usually gradual, but it can be rapid and begin any time in the first year
? Excessive worry or anxiety
? Irritability or short temper
? Feeling overwhelmed, difficulty making decisions
? Sad mood, feelings of guilt, phobias
? Hopelessness
? Sleep problems (often the woman cannot sleep or sleeps too much), fatigue
? Physical symptoms or complaints without apparent physical cause
? Discomfort around the baby or a lack of feeling toward the baby
? Loss of focus and concentration (may miss appointments, for example)
? Loss of interest or pleasure, decreased libido
? Changes in appetite; significant weight loss or gain
Risk factors
? 50 to 80 percent risk if previous postpartum depression
? Depression or anxiety during pregnancy
? Personal or family history of depression/anxiety
? Abrupt weaning
? Social isolation or poor support
? History of premenstrual syndrome (PMS) or premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD)
? Mood changes while taking birth control pill or fertility medication, such as Clomid
? Thyroid dysfunction
Lori?s story:
I was so excited about having our baby girl. My pregnancy had gone smoothly. I had been warned about the ?Blues,? but I just couldn?t shake the tears and sadness that seemed to get deeper and darker every day. My appetite was non-existent, although I forced myself to eat because I was nursing. I lost about 30 pounds the first month. At night I was having trouble sleeping. My husband and baby would be asleep but I would have one worry after another going through my head. I was exhausted. I felt like my brain had been kidnapped. I couldn?t make decisions, couldn?t focus, and didn?t want to be left alone with the baby.
I wanted to run away. I withdrew from friends and felt guilty about not returning phone calls. I couldn?t understand why I felt so bad; I had the greatest, most supportive husband, a house I loved, and the beautiful baby I had always wanted. At times I felt close to her, but at other times I felt like I was just going through the motions ? she could have been someone else?s child. I thought I was the worst mother and wife on the face of the earth.
Lori?s treatment:
Lori began psychotherapy and also saw a psychiatrist for medication. She was started on an antidepressant and the dosage was gradually increased. Initially she took medication to help her sleep as well. She began taking regular breaks to take care of herself. She also started attending a postpartum depression support group and met other moms with similar stories. After several months she felt like herself.
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
? 3 to 5 percent of new mothers develop obsessive symptoms
Symptoms
? Intrusive, repetitive, and persistent thoughts or mental pictures
? Thoughts often are about hurting or killing the baby
? Tremendous sense of horror and disgust about these thoughts (ego-alien)
? Thoughts may be accompanied by behaviors to reduce the anxiety (for example, hiding knives)
? Counting, checking, cleaning or other repetitive behaviors
Risk factors
? Personal or family history of obsessive-compulsive disorder
Tanya?s story:
Each time I went near the balcony I would clutch my baby tightly until I was in a room with the door closed. Only then did I know he was safe one more time from me dropping him over. The bloody scenes I would envision horrified me. Passing the steak knives in the kitchen triggered images of my stabbing the baby, so I asked my husband to hide the knives. I never bathed my baby alone since I was afraid I might drown him.
Although I didn?t think I would ever really hurt by baby son, I never trusted myself alone with him. I was terrified I would ?snap? and actually carry out one of these scary thoughts. If my baby got sick it would be all my fault, so I would clean and clean to make sure there were no germs. Although I had always been more careful than other people, now I would check the locks on the windows and doors many times a day.
Tanya?s treatment:
After meeting with Tanya twice individually, her therapist suggested that her husband join her in the next session. Tanya needed reassurance that her husband knew she wasn?t ?crazy? and would never really harm the baby. She did not want to tell him the specific graphic thoughts, so she referred to them generally as ?scary thoughts.? After being educated, her husband?s aggravation with her being ?nervous all the time? subsided.
Tanya started taking an antidepressant and within two weeks the scary thoughts were occurring far less frequently. Her therapist suggested that she wait another few weeks to join a support group since she was still too vulnerable to hear about the anxieties of others. In the meantime, she was given the names and numbers of a few women to connect with who had survived this disorder.
Panic Disorder
? Occurs in about 10 percent of postpartum women
Symptoms
? Episodes of extreme anxiety
? Shortness of breath, chest pain, sensations of choking or smothering, dizziness
? Hot or cold flashes, trembling, palpitations, numbness or tingling sensations
? Restlessness, agitation, or irritability
? During attack the woman may fear she is going crazy, dying, or losing control
? Panic attack may wake her up
? Often no identifiable trigger for panic
? Excessive worry or fears (including fear of more panic attacks)
Risk factors
? Personal or family history of anxiety or panic disorder
? Thyroid dysfunction
Chris?s story:
At about three weeks postpartum I stopped leaving my house at all except for pediatrician appointments. I was afraid I might have a panic attack in the store and not be able to take care of my baby. I never knew when that wave would begin washing over me and I would ?lose it.? The windows had to be open all the time or else I thought I would suffocate if I had an attack.
The first time I had a panic attack I thought I was having a major heart attack. A friend drove me to the emergency room and the doctor on call told me it was only stress. He gave me some medicine but I was too afraid to take it. I went home feeling stupid, like I had made a big deal out of nothing.
Everyone told me that breastfeeding would relax me, but it did just the opposite. I never knew how much milk my baby was getting and that really worried me. Sometimes when my milk would let down I would get a panic attack. The first therapist I saw told me I must have had issues bonding with my own mother, but I knew that wasn?t true and I didn?t see that therapist again. On many nights I woke up in a sweat, with my heart beating so fast and hard. My head was racing with anxious thoughts about who would take care of the baby when I die. I thought I was going crazy. I was so scared.
Chris?s treatment:
Chris had her first therapy appointment over the telephone since she felt she could not go outside. Her therapist talked her through taking a bit of the medication her MD prescribed, so Chris would know she had something that would help in an emergency.
Driving was too scary for her, especially in tunnels and over bridges. Her husband drove her to her next session, following a route that avoided those obstacles. Chris needed to sit near the door during the appointment just in case she felt the need to run outside for some air. Her therapist urged her to sleep for at least half the night, every night. Chris?s husband began taking care of his baby for the first half of the night on a regular basis. Chris noticed immediately how sleep lowered her stress level. She attended a stress management class which also helped. P
Psychosis
? Occurs in one to two per thousand
? Onset usually two to three days postpartum
? This disorder has a 5 percent suicide and 4 percent infanticide rate
Symptoms
? Visual or auditory hallucinations
? Delusional thinking (for example, about infant?s death, denial of birth, or need to kill baby)
? Delirium and/or mania
Risk factors
? Personal or family history of psychosis, bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia
? Previous postpartum psychotic or bipolar episode
Mike?s story:
My wife, Gloria, had a great pregnancy and a long labor. We were thrilled to have our first child, a son. But within days of his birth my wife began to withdraw into her own world. She became less and less communicative and she became more and more confused and suspicious. I almost had to carry her into the therapist?s office; by that time she could hardly speak or answer questions, nor write her name on the forms her therapist gave us. I was told to take her to the hospital immediately.
When we arrived at the hospital, she became fearful and then violent. She ended up in restraints. Fortunately, she responded pretty quickly to the anti-psychotic medication, and was able to come home after about a week. She continued to improve, and when she was back to herself again, she slowly weaned off all the medications.
We had always wanted two kids, so we consulted with our therapist and psychiatrist. With careful planning, we now have our second child with a very different story to tell.
Gloria?s treatment:
After being released from the hospital, Gloria continued therapy and saw the psychiatrist, who carefully monitored her medication. She worked to understand and process what had happened to her. Eventually she joined a postpartum support group which was quite helpful. Since there were no other moms present in the group who had experienced a postpartum psychosis, the group leader gave her the names and numbers of women who had ?been there? and who wanted to help.
Postpartum Psychiatric Illness Posttraumatic Stress Disorder
? There is no available data regarding the prevalence or onset
Symptoms
? Recurrent nightmares
? Extreme anxiety
? Reliving past traumatic events (for example, sexual, physical, emotional, and childbirth)
Risk factors
? Past traumatic events
Jennifer?s story:
During the delivery it all came flooding back. I felt terrorized and vulnerable. I thought I had already dealt with the abuse in my childhood. It seemed that all the years of therapy were a waste of time and money. I was so embarrassed for losing control during labor. I was angry that what happened to me as a kid was still affecting me after all this time.
My therapist told me the nightmares and flashbacks would go away but I just didn?t know. It was so real ? like the abuse was happening again over and over. I couldn?t even leave my poor husband alone with my baby. I got the sick feeling that I couldn?t even trust him. I was so messed up. I thought maybe I?d never be a normal mother.
Jennifer?s treatment:
Jennifer hired a postpartum doula who took care of her and the baby for two months. Having this trusted female companion with her almost everywhere she went gave Jennifer comfort. She began weekly therapy sessions and eventually joined a support group. She and her therapist agreed that she did not need medication at this point.
Consequences of Untreated Mood Disorders
Maternal depression was placed at the top of the list entitled, ?Most significant mental health issues impeding children?s readiness for school? (Mental Health Policy Panel, Department of Health Services, 2002). There is a tremendous amount of data regarding the profoundly negative impact of untreated maternal depression on infants, toddlers, preschoolers, school age children and adolescents. There is an increased incidence of childhood psychiatric disturbance, behavior problems, poor social functioning, and impaired cognitive and language development. When a depressed mother goes untreated, every member of the family and all the relationships within the family are affected. The quicker the mother is treated, the better the prognosis for the entire family.
Perinatal Loss
No matter how a pregnancy is terminated, whether by nature or by choice, depression and anxiety commonly follow. Not only should grief be addressed through counseling, but medications may also be useful in reducing symptoms due to loss and hormonal changes. When a stillbirth or neonatal death occurs, depression is, of course, to be expected. Counseling for the couple will be helpful, and medications may be needed to treat anxiety and depression. These women need to be monitored carefully for emotional symptoms in subsequent pregnancies and the postpartum period.
Need Help? Access the PSI Social Support Network
Take a Postpartum Self-Assessment Test
Contact The PSI President
-
What we forgot to add is that exclusive breastfeeding has throughout human history defended against this recent phenomenon called "post partum depression". Oxytocin and prolactin (two incredibly powerful hormones)
are secreted during lactation. The amount that is secreted through the maternal bloodstream depends on frequency, intensity, and duration of
nursing. If breastfeeding is hindered by supplemental formula feeding, pacifiers, scheduled feedings etc... the amount of oxytocin and prolactin is significantly lowered in the maternal bloodstream. In culture that practice evolutionary breastfeeding ( child has constant access to the maternal breast both day and night, no formula, no pumping, no pacifiers etc......) this syndrome is non -existent. It is important to remember our mammalian heritage.
Dr. Stolzer
-
Great points you bring up about Breast feeding!
I just finished the Time article, and now I
have more questions, instead of less.
-
An Honest Mistake?
On January 6, 2005, nearly three years after jurors sentenced Andrea Yates to life in prison, an appeals court overturned the conviction and ordered a new trial. While Yates' attorneys had appealed on nineteen separate legal grounds, including the claim that the Texas insanity standard is unconstitutional, the item that got the court's attention involved the testimony of Dr. Park Dietz, a prosecution psychiatrist. He apparently made a false statement, which figured into the way the case was presented to the jury. Who was actually to blame for this testimony is still a bit of a mystery, but the end result is that the three-judge panel of the First Appeals Court in Houston decided that the erroneous statements may have precipitated a miscarriage of justice.
Dr. Park Dietz
Dr. Park Dietz
Essentially, it appears that the prosecution was attempting to show that Andrea Yates had seen an episode of the popular crime show, Law and Order, in which a woman had drowned her children, and this had given her the idea that she could kill her own children and feign mental illness. That character had supposedly been found not guilty by reason of insanity, and the episode was said to have aired not long before Yates drowned her children. Evidence was offered that Yates was a regular viewer and it was surmised that she may have seen the story and related it to her own situation: She was a beleaguered mother seeking a way out. And that's how the prosecution presented it.
chapter continues
advertisement
Click to learn more...
Logo for Law and Order
Logo for Law and Order
But no such episode ever aired. Yates never saw a woman kill her children and thus could not have devised a copy-cat killing with a plan to fake an illness. (In fact, her years of coping with mental illness were well-documented and attested to by numerous mental health experts.) So the case presented by the prosecution was based on an idea with no factual basis. With a defendant's very life at stake, how did it happen? The stories are mixed.
KWTX.com indicated that after the appeals court decision, when Dietz was asked about his testimony, he called it an "honest mistake." He apparently indicated, according to this report, that he got the information about the episode from a conversation with the prosecution. Yet in the same article, Yates prosecutor Joe Owmby said that he asked Dietz whether the show had ever dealt with such a case and then dropped the subject until Yates' attorneys asked about it later. He did not believe that his request had caused the false testimony. Still, the story grew.
Logo for L.A. Law
Logo for L.A. Law
According to the Houston Chronicle, before the trial a local woman had sent the Harris County district attorney's office an e-mail indicating that reruns of a show called L. A. Law had featured an episode with this plot. It seems that the prosecution team might have confused the two shows while discussing the case with Dietz, but a writer attending the trial who heard Dietz's statement called the producers of Law and Order and told defense attorney George Parnham that Dietz was in error. Dietz said that he, too, attempted to correct the error by consulting with producers. He stated that he immediately researched the matter and sent an e-mail to the prosecutors, offering to return at his own expense. The letter was dated March 14, 2002, indicating that Dietz had confused an episode based on Susan Smith and an episode inspired by prom mom Melissa Drexler and the case involving Amy Grossberg. However, his letter did not get into evidence.
Jurors were told about the confusion before sentencing, but the appeals court still considered the original testimony legally problematic, especially since it was mentioned in the closing argument. While it's not clear who is to blame for allowing the incorrect testimony to become part of the trial record and jury deliberations, appeals courts are set up for just such occurrences. According to the Associated Press, the appeals court ruled thus: "We conclude that there is reasonable likelihood that Dr. Dietz's false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury. We further conclude that Dr. Dietz's false testimony affected the substantial rights of appellant."
Prosecutors insisted that the state did not knowingly rely on incorrect testimony, while also pointing out before the panel that Dietz's testimony, even if wrong, was not material to the case, as they had other ways of showing that Yates had planned to kill her children. The appeals court agreed, but since the prosecution had referred to the testimony in making its case, including mentioning it during the closing argument, it may well have influenced the jury's perception.
-
http://www.yateskids.org/ (http://www.yateskids.org/)
-
Tuesday, Mar. 19, 2002
Interview: Dr. Park Dietz
From his offices in California, Dr. Park Dietz talked at length about the conviction of Andrea Yates, the notion of excusable homicides and the need for revised laws dealing with distinctions between the mentally ill and the legally insane, particularly among mothers who harm their children.
In the Yates case, Dietz told TIME, Andrea's thought process still allowed her to appreciate the difference between right and wrong. Her mind recognized murder as wrong or she would not have sought the death penalty to get rid of her inner demons and protect her children from falling into his grasp because she had not properly raised them. By wanting to dispose of Satan, she had to believe Satan had evil ideas. Therefore, she still comprehended evil to be wrong. She also "knew that society and God would condemn her actions," Dietz said.
His testimony was viewed as crucial in prosecutors winning a conviction. On the witness stand, an analysis of his testimony shows, Dietz had emphasized facts and assessments that favored prosecutors. He also minimized the findings of doctors who earlier treated Andrea and noted as far back as 1999 that she suffered from delusions of being a bad mother, voices of unknown origin telling her "get a knife" and visions of violent acts. Instead, Dietz told jurors that "there was no hallucination prior to the crime" and whatever she suffered was nothing more than "obsessional intrusive thoughts."
Despite the emphasis prosecutors later put on his determination that Andrea did not become severely psychotic until the day after the drownings, Dietz told TIME he never denied or doubted that Andrea was indeed sick on June 20, the day of the killings. Some of her psychotic symptoms ? such as believing that cameras were planted in her ceiling and TV characters were sending messages to her ? were indisputable as much as two weeks prior to the deaths, he said.
He agreed with the jury's guilty verdict based on the current insanity law in Texas. Although he expects to be paid about $50,000 for time spent researching the Yates case and testifying on behalf of prosecutors trying to prove she deserved to be convicted under the state's insanity law, Dietz says the law, which has similar variations in two dozen states, allows a psychotic person's own disordered thoughts to be used against them.
"Even I disagree with this law for this case," said Dietz. "I believe we should recognize our sick parents in several ways and handle them differently both during hospitalization and when they commit crimes." For example, British doctors will keep depressed mothers and their newborns together in hospitals to monitor them over a period of weeks or months.
Already, insanity laws differ from state to state, some allowing jurors to find defendants "guilty but mentally ill" or "guilty but insane," which usually requires them to receive treatment for their mental illness in a state hospital, then transfer to a prison to serve out their sentence. Legislators surely would have difficulty trying to adopt laws that address the special circumstances of postpartum cases.
The country needs "someone like Mrs. Yates to be held responsible for an action that she knew was wrong, but be treated and confined until infertile, whether through natural biological effects or electively," Dietz said. "What's wrong with that analysis in the eyes of American legal scholars is that it would pressure women convicted of such crimes to have themselves sterilized in order to gain freedom. And that would not be true consent."
Copyright © 2006
-
Feb. 28, 2006, 1:37PM
Yates rejects lesser charge in drownings
Deal spurned, her attorneys say, due to concerns for her safety
By PEGGY O'HARE
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle
Andrea Yates has rejected a plea agreement that would get her a 35-year prison sentence for drowning her children, but prosecutors say the offer will stay on the table until March 10.
ADVERTISEMENT
The proposal calls for Yates, who is scheduled for trial March 20 on a capital murder charge, to plead guilty or no contest to a lesser charge of murder.
Her attorneys said Monday that they declined the offer, however, because of concerns about Yates' safety if she were among a prison's general population.
Details of the offer surfaced Monday as state District Judge Belinda Hill considered defense attorneys' contention that Yates should be spared another trial because of prosecutorial misconduct in her first trial.
After two days of testimony, Hill rejected the argument that a second trial would amount to double jeopardy. She also concluded that prosecutors did not act inappropriately in the first trial, in 2002, when their expert witness mistakenly testified that a TV program about a similar case had aired shortly before Yates killed her five children.
Hill is expected to decide today whether the defense's misconduct claims were frivolous. If she decides they were, the trial could begin on schedule, even if Yates appeals Hill's denial of her double-jeopardy claims.
If Hill does not declare the claims frivolous, Yates' new trial could be delayed for at least a year, prosecutors said.
After Monday's hearing, Yates grabbed her attorney, George Parnham, hugged him and kissed him on the cheek. She appeared in good spirits throughout the day, visiting briefly with her mother and holding hands with Parnham's wife, Mary Moore, who works as his paralegal.
Yates, 41, a former nurse, has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. She called police to her Clear Lake-area home on June 20, 2001, and told them she had drowned her four sons and one daughter in the bathtub. They ranged in age from 6 months to 7 years.
The 1st Texas Court of Appeals overturned her capital murder conviction last year, ruling that the state expert's mistaken testimony may have influenced the jury. Her life sentence was set aside and she has been released on $200,000 bail so she can stay at the Rusk State Hospital in East Texas until the new trial begins.
Prosecutors said the 35-year plea offer will remain open until March 10. Parnham said he is not quarreling with the 35-year offer, but wants Yates in a state mental health hospital instead of a prison.
"A woman with this notoriety, with this type of offense charged, would be at risk ... I have grave, grave concerns," Parnham said.
Monitoring mental health
Neither prosecutors nor the court can specify where Yates would serve her sentence if she accepts a plea agreement. Prison officials would make that decision, said prosecutor Kaylynn Williford.
Yates would be monitored by prison psychiatrists and would be moved to Skyview, a psychiatric unit, only if the doctors deemed it necessary, said prosecutor Joe Owmby.
"Inmates in the prison system go in and out of Skyview as their mental condition and treatment demands," he said.
He said prosecutors considered Yates' mental illness before offering the agreement.
"The only mitigating circumstance in this case is, we know she did suffer from a mental illness," Owmby said. "That did not necessarily excuse her conduct or criminal responsibility, but we did take that into account."
The two days of testimony focused heavily on nationally renowned forensic psychiatrist Park Dietz's claims in the first trial that, days before Yates drowned her children, the TV drama Law & Order aired a program about a woman committing a similar act.
Dietz told jurors that the woman depicted in the TV program suffered from postpartum depression and was found not guilty by reason of insanity. After Yates was convicted, but before her sentence was decided, jurors were told that no such episode existed.
An honest mistake
Yates' attorneys argued that prosecutors knew they were using false evidence from Dietz. They cited Tomball-area resident Shauna Thornton's e-mail to the District Attorney's Office one week after the Yates children died, alerting them to a re-run of L.A. Law that featured a homicidal mother's "postpartum psychosis" defense. But prosecutors said Dietz made an honest mistake and immediately alerted them when he realized his error.
Dietz's misperception about the nonexistent Law & Order program did not influence his decision that Yates was sane when she drowned her children, Williford said Monday. She and Owmby said they have done nothing wrong.
"We have both worked very hard on this case, to make sure Mrs. Yates had a fair trial and that Noah, John, Paul, Luke and Mary became known to the public ? that the public would know how these children suffered at the hands of their mother," Williford said outside the courthouse.
Appeal decision
Parnham said he expects to announce today whether he will appeal Hill's denial of his double jeopardy claim.
Hill granted permission Monday for another mental health expert chosen by prosecutors to evaluate Yates.
Parnham opposed subjecting Yates to another such interview because nearly five years have passed since she drowned her children and because of the effects such questioning might have on her mental state.
[email protected]
-
A New Trial?
Yates could still be tried in the deaths of two of her children, since she was only convicted in the deaths of three. However, a new trial, whether it be for the same deaths again or for those for which she has not yet been tried, may be a crap shoot for either side, and an expensive one at that. The defense has not only learned what did not work three years ago, but they also have access to another high-profile Texas case in which a mother was acquitted by reason of insanity for killing her children at the instigation of supernatural commands.
Deanna Laney
Deanna Laney
Deanna Laney, also evaluated by Park Dietz, stoned her three sons in 2003, two of whom died, because she believed God wanted her to. Dietz found her to be unaware of what she was doing, although she had nowhere near the history of mental illness that Yates had. "She struggled over whether to obey God or to selfishly keep her children," Dietz had testified. His impression was that she had felt she had no choice. Experts scratched their heads over why God's command made a woman insane but the Devil's command did not - especially after Dietz gave an interview to a Virginia newspaper in which he stated that Yates was indeed mentally ill.
Andrea Yates
Andrea Yates
While Yates did commit a horrendous crime when she drowned all five of her children, the nation has heard a great deal more since then about both post-partum psychosis and about the problems with the insanity defense. A new jury made up of people possibly exposed to all this information could be quite a different story.
Although Harris County prosecutors say they will appeal the court's decision, legal speculation indicates, according to Newsweek, that it's likely to be settled with Yates reassigned to a private mental institution rather than a prison. There she can be properly evaluated. Her husband, Rusty, filed for divorce in July 2004, but hopes the criminal charges will be dropped. Those who currently care for Yates indicate that she is still considered mentally unstable, and during the fall of 2004, when she was overcome with the horror of what she had done, she had tried to kill herself by refusing to eat, and was hospitalized. A settlement, rather than a trial, may well be in her best interests.
Yet the legal issue remains. While friends and associates of Dietz insist on his integrity and claim that he would not knowingly make a misstatement, one can only wonder why an expert who did not research the information beforehand would testify to it from vague recall. Or why the DA's office did not bother to check its accuracy. Yates's life hung in the balance. She might well have been given the death penalty. Fortunately her attorney ensured that the system worked appropriately.
-
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_m ... es/17.html (http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/andrea_yates/17.html)
-
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_m ... es/18.html (http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/andrea_yates/18.html)
-
Katherine Ramsland
Katherine Ramsland, Ph.D. has published twenty-five books. She holds graduate degrees in forensic psychology, clinical psychology, and philosophy. Currently she teaches forensic psychology at DeSales University in Pennsylvania. After publishing two books in psychology, Engaging the Immediate and The Art of Learning, she wrote Prism of the Night: A Biography of Anne Rice. At that time, she had a cover story in Psychology Today on our culture's fascination with vampires. Then she wrote guidebooks to Anne Rice's fictional worlds: The Vampire Companion: The Official Guide to Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles, The Witches' Companion: The Official Guide to Anne Rice's Lives of the Mayfair Witches, The Roquelaure Reader: A Companion to Anne Rice's Erotica, and The Anne Rice Reader. Her next book was Dean Koontz: A Writer's Biography, and then she ventured into journalism with a two-year investigation of the vampire subculture, to write Piercing the Darkness: Undercover with Vampires in America Today. Following that was Ghost, Cemetery Stories, and The Science of Vampires. She has also written for The New York Times Book Review, The Writer, The Newark Star Ledger, Publishers Weekly, and The Trenton Times.
Her background in forensic studies positioned her to assist former FBI profiler John Douglas on his book, The Cases that Haunt Us, and to co-write a book with former FBI profiler, Gregg McCrary, The Unknown Darkness. She has also written The Forensic Science of CSI, The Criminal Mind: A Writer's Guide to Forensic Psychology, The Science of Cold Case Files, and Inside the Minds of Mass Murderers and she pens editorials on breaking forensic cases for The Philadelphia Inquirer. Recently, she co-wrote A Voice for the Dead with James E. Starrs on his exhumation projects, and became part of the team. She also contributes regularly to Court TV's Crime Library and has written nearly three hundred articles about serial killers, forensic psychology, and forensic science. Her latest book is The Human Predator: A Historical Chronicle of Serial Murder and Forensic Investigation.
http://www.katherineramsland.com (http://www.katherineramsland.com)
Book titles:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/about/authors/ramsland/ (http://www.crimelibrary.com/about/authors/ramsland/)
-
March 1, 2006
Judge Clears Way for Yates' Retrial
By PAM EASTON Associated Press Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press
HOUSTON ? A judge Wednesday cleared the way for the second trial of Andrea Yates on murder charges in the 2001 drowning of her children in the family bathtub.
State District Judge Belinda Hill ruled that a defense motion accusing prosecutors of misconduct during the first trial was frivolous. The retrial is set to begin March 20.
Yates, 41, was convicted of capital murder in 2002, but the conviction was overturned because a forensic psychiatrist gave false testimony when he said an episode of television's "Law & Order" about a woman with postpartum depression drowning her children was aired shortly before the five Yates children died; the episode didn't exist.
Yates' attorney Wendell Odom said he would appeal Hill's ruling.
"We wouldn't have made this motion if we didn't think it was a legitimate motion that had some real issues that need to be heard," Odom said. "We think the court of appeals is going to listen to it and give us a fair shake and at least hear our issues."
Another Yates' attorney, George Parnham, on Monday rejected a plea offer from prosecutors that would have allowed her to plead guilty or no contest to a lesser charge of murder and serve 35 years in prison. The offer will remain on the table until March 10, prosecutors said.
Yates has pleaded innocent by reason of insanity, as she did the first time around.
During her first trial, psychiatrists testified Yates suffered from schizophrenia and postpartum depression, but expert witnesses disagreed over the severity of her illness and whether it prevented her from knowing that drowning her children was wrong.
Hill ruled earlier that Yates' attorney failed to prove any prosecutorial misconduct in the first trial. The defense had sought to prove misconduct and argue it would mean double jeopardy for Yates.
The Wednesday ruling was focused on whether a retrial should proceed as scheduled in the event Parnham appealed the rejection of his double jeopardy claim.
-
March 21, 2006
TIME TO TALK
With second trial of Andrea Yates delayed, prosecution and defense should negotiate humane outcome
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle
AFTER the first trial of Clear Lake housewife Andrea Yates ended in conviction, at least two facts were incontrovertible: Yates was mentally ill when she drowned her five children in a bathtub, and she remains a threat to herself and the outside community because of that illness.
An appellate court threw out the jury's verdict in the killings of three of the children because a key prosecution witness, psychiatrist Park Dietz, gave erroneous testimony. State District Judge Belinda Hill delayed until June the start of a retrial because two key defense witnesses were not available.
Now is the time for Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal and Yates' defense attorney, George Parnham, to negotiate a sensible plea bargain that will provide justice for the slain Yates children while providing Andrea Yates the treatment she needs for her psychosis. The community would be spared the cost and court time of another legal circus, and the elements for an agreement are within reach.
The defense refuses to accept a prosecution offer of a 35-year sentence in state prison because there is no guarantee that Yates would receive long-term care for her illness in prison. According to Parnham, Texas prison officials won't promise that Yates would remain in a mental health unit such as Skyview. Parnham contends she will be a danger to herself and at risk from prisoners in the general prison population. Parnham cites death threats Yates has received from inmates because of her status as a child killer.
The defense would not contest a murder charge if Yates were allowed to remain at Rusk State Hospital or another high security mental facility, perhaps in Houston, as part of a plea bargain. If there were any likelihood Yates might be released, prosecutors would always have the option of trying the defendant in the deaths of the other two children, for which there is no statute of limitations.
The district attorney's position that the public must have the opportunity to pass judgment on a mother who killed her five children is understandable, but his insistence that she serve her time in a penal facility that cannot guarantee her effective mental health treatment is not.
The fact is that Andrea Pia Yates killed her children while in a delusional state. All the evidence indicates she was psychotic before and after the drownings. For some unknown reason, the prosecution insists that Yates became legally sane at the time of her most shockingly insane behavior.
The last Legislature should have rewritten the law so that Yates and those like her could be found "guilty but insane" and given appropriate treatment.
Yates' defense team is only seeking a humane solution that puts Yates in a secure and safe mental institution for life. There are those who would rather see this tormented woman suffer ? and perhaps die ? in a Texas prison. What they are seeking is not enlightened justice.
-
Posted on Tue, Mar. 21, 2006
Series of failures doomed baby whose mother cut off her arms
BY JENNIFER EMILY AND KIM HORNER
The Dallas Morning News
DALLAS - Plano, Texas, police Officer Mike Letzelter was there at the beginning and the end of 10-month-old Maggie Schlosser's life.
Maggie was 6 days old the first time he entered her world. He was called to her home after her mother ran down the street screaming about demons, with Maggie's 5-year-old sister pedaling furiously after her on a bicycle. Maggie had been left alone in the bedroom of the family's West Plano apartment.
The next time Letzelter saw the family, Maggie lay in a crib, blood-soaked and missing her arms. Maggie's mother, Dena Schlosser, would later admit she cut off Maggie's arms. But now, Schlosser sat in a chair, covered in blood, as Letzelter and other responding officers ran frantically from room to room, searching for other injured children. Maggie's two older sisters were safe at school.
During Schlosser's capital murder trial, Letzelter, a former Marine, squirmed and looked ill on the witness stand as he told jurors that Maggie's death nearly made him abandon his career. She haunts him, and he's troubled that doctors, caseworkers, police, the system - anyone - could not save her.
The trial was designed to determine guilt or innocence, sanity or insanity, prison or mental institution. But over and over during the two-week trial, prosecutors, defense attorneys, jurors and witnesses kept coming back to a different question: Why couldn't Maggie have been saved?
"The system failed Dena Schlosser. (Husband) John Schlosser failed Dena Schlosser," prosecutor Bill Dobiyanski said in front of the jury box. "CPS failed. LifePath failed. ... The treating doctors failed."
Schlosser did not plummet into a psychotic break the day she killed her daughter. She slipped and skidded in and out of reality for the 10 short months of Maggie's life.
Psychiatrists agreed that the support systems available to Schlosser did not do enough to treat her postpartum psychosis and depression. Her breakdown began after she gave birth - without pain medication - in the family's Plano apartment. For several months, she experienced religious delusions and hallucinations, which continued as she grabbed the largest knife in the kitchen and severed Maggie's arms at the shoulders.
She said she believed it was the command of God.
The Schlossers lived in an apartment with their three children: baby Maggie and two other daughters, now ages 7 and 10.
The couple lost their home in Fort Worth when John Schlosser lost his job as a computer specialist. He worked intermittently as a consultant during Maggie's life, but the family struggled financially.
After Maggie was born, Dena Schlosser gave up her job at a local child-care center to stay home with the kids.
John Schlosser isolated his wife, her family members said.
He ruled his home in the manner prescribed by their minister, Doyle Davidson, a self-appointed prophet and apostle at Water of Life Church in Plano. Dena Schlosser did not have many friends, and her mother, Connie Macaulay, lives in Canada and has advanced Parkinson's disease.
John Schlosser kept family members in the dark once his wife's episodes began. He told no one that his wife had cut her wrist the day after Maggie was born. Once authorities were involved, he downplayed the severity of her illness and convinced doctors she was better off at home.
He never told anyone that the family's minister preached that mental illness was caused by demons and that medicine wasn't needed if you had faith.
Dena Schlosser's best friend, a fellow church member, often asked John Schlosser whether his wife was taking her medication. He told her not to pressure him.
Restless just days before Maggie's death in November 2004, Dena Schlosser took Maggie out for a walk in the middle of the night. She packed the baby into her stroller and walked the nearby streets.
Hearing the whir of a small engine, Dena Schlosser concluded that the sound was a chainsaw and that someone must be building an ark. She walked up and down the street in search of the woodcutter. God wanted him to have Maggie, she thought. She searched and never found.
She returned home downtrodden and told her husband what happened. God brought you home, he told her.
Forensic psychiatrist William H. Reid testified that John Schlosser and the church prevented Dena Schlosser from getting proper health care "when she needed it and when she wanted it."
Through his attorney, Schlosser denied keeping his wife from care but said that, in retrospect, he should have done things differently.
George Elwell, president of the Collin County chapter of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, said the Schlossers appeared to have been brainwashed by the church.
"I think he's the one who should be on trial - him (John Schlosser) and the church. Not her," Elwell said.
John Dornheim, a community liaison for Green Oaks Hospital, said more awareness of mental illness is needed so friends and family members can understand the warning signs.
"She made cries for help, but nobody interpreted them correctly," he said. "Most people in a severe case like that are giving out signs. It's a matter of can you interpret them or not. It sounds like her circle of friends would not."
Schlosser was first diagnosed as having postpartum psychosis after she ran away from her home just after Maggie's birth.
She was taken to Medical Center of Plano, and Child Protective Services was called because she left Maggie alone.
CPS said they considered the case high risk. Schlosser was to have no unsupervised contact with her children. Her mother-in-law came to stay with the family for a month. Then CPS decided that Schlosser could again be alone with her children, but caseworkers continued to check in every weekday.
By the time Maggie was two months old, the agency was visiting twice a week.
Neither Schlosser nor her husband told CPS about another psychotic break when Maggie was four months old. This time,
Schlosser wandered in to the nearby Medical Center in the middle of the night and was found on a bathroom floor. Yet CPS closed its case three months later after a psychiatrist deemed that Schlosser's mental health had improved. There was no further interaction with the agency until the day Maggie died.
Throughout the time CPS was involved, caseworkers wanted Schlosser to attend individual counseling, but she and her husband refused. The agency could have asked a court to order counseling, but it did not. The agency offers counseling to most clients, said spokeswoman Marissa Gonzales. She declined to discuss the Schlosser case because of privacy laws.
The clinical program director for Dallas' Child Abuse Prevention Center said CPS has a difficult job in determining whether children are at risk, especially given high turnover and understaffing at the agency.
"When you're looking at risk, you're always doing an educated guess," said Carol Duncan, who worked for CPS for 25 years.
At the same time that CPS was brought in, Schlosser was referred to LifePath Systems, the area's public mental-health system for low-income residents. The family did not have medical insurance.
Doctors sent Schlosser to Green Oaks Hospital in Dallas after her initial diagnosis at Medical Center of Plano just days after Maggie's birth. There, she stayed in the psychiatric hospital's 23-hour crisis stabilization unit, where patients are monitored to determine whether they can be released for outpatient treatment.
After her discharge, Schlosser was sent for follow-up treatment through LifePath.
From February to June 2004, Schlosser met with LifePath psychiatrist Nasir Zaki for 15 minutes a month after an initial 45-minute meeting. Zaki testified that LifePath's financial limitations prohibit longer or more frequent sessions.
"I think all of our doctors would like to have time to see clients on a more regular basis," said Randy Routon, LifePath's chief executive officer.
"We cannot do nearly as much following up as we'd like to." He also said few patients in the system receive psychotherapy because of tight funding.
There is no standard length for appointments, and the treating psychiatrist determines the time, said Tom Warburton, spokesman for ValueOptions, the managed-care company that the state contracts with to run its mental-health program.
Zaki stopped prescribing the antipsychotic drug Haldol each time Schlosser told him she did not want to take it. He said he did not pressure her to continue the medication because he could not force her to take it.
In May, the psychiatrist wrote a letter to CPS saying Schlosser was doing better. Later that month, she was found on the bathroom floor at the Plano hospital.
Doctors again diagnosed her as psychotic. But instead of going to Green Oaks, John Schlosser talked doctors into releasing her into Zaki's care. After that incident, Zaki started Schlosser on Haldol again. He said he did not know the full details of the bathroom episode, but he did not contact CPS.
Schlosser stopped going to LifePath after a July appointment in which she was incorrectly told that she would have to start paying $50 per appointment. Schlosser was never called to correct the error, a LifePath Systems employee testified.
Routon said he could not speak about Schlosser's case, citing privacy reasons. But he said some patients might be required to pay $50 for appointments if they have been deemed ineligible for treatment. Other patients may owe smaller co-payments on a sliding scale, depending on their income.
Elwell, president of the Collin County chapter of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, says more funding for mental health treatment might have saved Maggie's life.
He said patients in the public mental health system are released from hospitals too soon and without adequate follow-up care.
LifePath's Routon said the funds must be spread among too many patients.
"Obviously, this is one of the saddest cases we've ever seen in our community," Routon said. "I think the public is not always aware that Texas is almost last in funding for mental health services in the nation. That affects our court system, how many people are in jails, how many people are having disturbances in the street and how many lives are unproductive. It shows up in a lot of ways."
The day Davidson testified in Schlosser's trial, he thanked the court in his gravelly voice for the opportunity to spread God's word.
Throughout his testimony, he answered attorneys' questions by quoting Scripture and giving his interpretation of the Bible, which other clergy members have described as out of the mainstream.
In addition to believing that demons cause mental illness, he preaches that women are possessed by a Jezebel spirit and must submit to their husbands.
"All mental problems, I'm convinced, is caused by demons," he testified. "I do not believe that any mental illness exists that is not manifestation of demonic activity."
Davidson was the only person Schlosser immediately put on her jail visitation list besides her husband. The minister was also the first person John Schlosser called after his wife told him she had cut off Maggie's arms.
Schlosser was obsessed with Davidson. She constantly spoke of him to her family and sent them tapes of his sermons. She told a psychiatrist that she began to believe that God told her that Maggie was to marry Davidson.
The day before Maggie died, the Schlossers argued in the church parking lot because Schlosser wanted to give Maggie "to God" or "to Doyle." They continued arguing at home where, according to a psychiatric report of John Schlosser, he spanked his wife with a wooden spoon.
The role that Davidson played in Schlosser's life concerns some in the mental health field.
"Somebody has to start saying something about evangelical religion's role in these tragedies we've had in Texas," said Dallas psychologist Ann Dunnewold. She refers to Ms. Schlosser and another Texas mother, Andrea Yates, who drowned her five children in 2001 because, she said, she thought Satan threatened them.
"I don't think we know how to begin to address it, but I think it's complicating things."
Like the Schlossers, the Yates family was deeply religious and corresponded with a minister whom Andrea Yates' husband, Randy Yates, met while in college at Auburn University.
The preacher, who disparaged Andrea Yates' Catholicism, taught that since Adam and Eve, women are a source of evil and inferior to men. Andrea Yates felt that she was a bad mother and that drowning her children would save them. And like Dena Schlosser, Andrea Yates, who home-schooled the children, was relatively isolated.
Andrea Yates' capital murder retrial was scheduled to begin Monday, but a judge postponed it because of a scheduling conflict. A jury in 2002 rejected her claim of insanity but an appeals court later overturned the conviction.
Schlosser at times was well enough to care for herself. Medication helped, and she was judged by many around her as capable of making sound decisions.
But she and her husband repeatedly asked her psychiatrist to stop the Haldol. By all accounts, the drug was helping her.
She also refused counseling and was not forthcoming about her delusions and hallucinations when she was medicated.
She believed that a little boy who asked her for a glass of water in the summer of 2004 was Jesus. She believed that bloody streets turned into apostles heralding the Apocalypse. She believed that God told her to cut off Maggie's arms, as well as her own arms, head and legs.
Routon of LifePath said that because there is no physical test for mental illness, doctors determine how someone is doing partly based on how they - and their families - say they're doing.
"There's not a litmus test you can give: `Are they doing great or not?'" Routon said. "A lot of the practice of psychiatry involves self-report."
Many patients quit taking medications because they have started to feel better or because of what can be severe side effects.
Additionally, many women become adept at keeping quiet about postpartum depression, Dunnewold said.
"We have such taboos about mental health issues, but we have even bigger taboos about mothers being unhappy with motherhood," she said. "Women are able to keep it sort of under wraps, and then it can flare up. You want to believe it's coming together. Families want to believe it's all coming together."
---
NOTE: Last week, prosecutors sought a second capital murder trial for Dena Schlosser, accused of killing her 10-month-old daughter. The first trial ended in a mistrial on Feb. 25 after jurors failed to reach a unanimous decision on whether the Plano mother was not guilty by reason of insanity. The following story is culled from facts and descriptions from interviews and the testimony of various sources during the first trial.
---
DEPRESSION AFTER CHILDBIRTH
Postpartum depression can be caused by hormonal changes that can affect brain chemicals after giving birth. About 10 percent of new mothers experience some degree of postpartum depression. Treatment can include medication and psychotherapy.
Symptoms include:
Sluggishness, fatigue, exhaustion
Feelings of hopelessness or depression
Disturbances with appetite or sleep
Confusion
Uncontrollable crying
Lack of interest in the baby
Fear of harming the baby or oneself
Mood swings
Postpartum psychosis is more severe and less common, occurring in one to two of every 1,000 new mothers. Of those, an estimated 5 percent commit suicide, and 4 percent kill their babies. Risk factors include a family history of psychosis, bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. Postpartum depression can evolve into psychosis after a dramatic or traumatic event.
Symptoms, which usually arise within three days of delivery, can include:
Hallucinations
Delusions, for example, about a need to kill the baby, that the baby is possessed or a denial of the birth
Delirium, mania and frantic energy
Extreme confusion, memory loss or incoherence
Paranoia, irrational statements, preoccupation with trivial things
Refusal to eat
A woman who is diagnosed as having postpartum psychosis should be hospitalized until she is in stable condition, according to the National Mental Health Association. Doctors may prescribe a mood stabilizer, antipsychotic or antidepressant to treat the psychosis.
Sources: American Psychiatric Association; National Mental Health Association; Postpartum Support International
---
WHAT'S NEXT?
The state will prosecute Dena Schlosser again. A pretrial hearing is scheduled for Thursday.
A judge or jury could decide the verdict in a second trial.
A recent change to state law would allow the defense and prosecutors to agree that Schlosser was insane when she killed daughter Maggie. The outcome would be the same as a jury deciding that she was not guilty by reason of insanity: Schlosser would go to North Texas State Hospital in Vernon until state District Judge Chris Oldner decides that she should be released.
---
GETTING HELP
Postpartum Support International provides information for new parents, an online list of support groups, chats, discussion boards and a postpartum self-assessment test at http://www.postpartum.net (http://www.postpartum.net)
Depression After Delivery Inc. provides information, support and links to information at http://www.charityadvantage.com/depress ... chosis.asp (http://www.charityadvantage.com/depressionafterdelivery/postpartumpsychosis.asp)
-
Dont you bleeding hearts have anything better to do with your time. :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: ::kma:: ::kma:: ::kma:: ::kma:: ::kma:: ::kma:: ::kma:: ::kma:: ::kma:: ::kma:: ::kma:: ::kma:: ::kma:: ::kma:: ::kma:: ::kma::
-
Ah, no.
Problem solving is timely and difficult.
-
Fry the bitch!
-
:tup: :tup: I couldnt agree more.
-
On 2006-03-30 21:59:00, Anonymous wrote:
" :tup: :tup: I couldnt agree more."
Does any one else from the Rusty Yates
fan club want to jump on the "Fry the
Bitch" bandwagon?
-
I hope Andrea Yates gets the help she needs.
-
On 2006-03-31 11:08:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-03-30 21:59:00, Anonymous wrote:
" ::crybaby::
-
I think Andrea need's a BATH. :em:
-
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features ... -headlines (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/health/orl-ppd2706apr27,0,861216.story?coll=orl-health-headlines)
New programs help mothers contend with postpartum depression
David Crary
the Associated Press
April 27, 2006
NEW YORK -- The attention goes to celebrity sufferers, such as Brooke Shields, or to grim cases in which mothers kill their children.
The boldest move has come in New Jersey, where a first-of-its-kind law was signed this month requiring doctors to educate expectant mothers and their families about postpartum depression and to screen new moms for the widespread condition.
"What New Jersey has done is phenomenal -- it's what we want to have in every state in the union," said Cheryl Hill, president of the Washington-based Family Mental Health Institute.
Several other states have launched awareness campaigns, including TV and radio spots in New York. On May 12, advocates for more ambitious federal action will lobby on Capitol Hill, including Edrienne Carpenter of Texas, who was battling postpartum depression when she won the 2004 Mrs. United States beauty pageant.
"I learned the hard way that there is a need for more educational awareness, emotional and physical support, and medical resources to be at the fingertips of women," Carpenter said.
Among criminal cases in which postpartum depression was cited were the 2001 drowning of five children in Texas by Andrea Yates, another Texas case in which a mother severed her baby's arms, and the drowning of three sons by a Norfolk, Va., mother.
Hill, who suffered from depression after her now-grown children were born, said the publicity about such cases has mixed consequences.
"People are starting to understand the disease a little bit more; that's been helpful," she said. "But it hurts women who suffer from postpartum depression. They're afraid of coming forward. They don't want to be labeled as crazy."
About 10 percent to 15 percent of new mothers suffer postpartum depression, which experts say should be treated through therapy, group support or medication.
Copyright © 2006, Orlando Sentine
-
How can pepole still be hung up on this baby killing bitch? I say KILL her, she blew her chance for help. What chance did her kids have at a happy life? Wake the fuck up you Stupid pepole!!!!!!!!!!!!! She KILLED her kids. There is NO one to blame but her. Not her husband, not her family, and not her doctors. They did not put those children in the tub, they didnt chase the kids through the house only to drag em to there death. Anybody that feels the least bit sorry for this crazy, selfish, unloving uncaring monster is no better than her, and maybe you should seek Help before you end up in her shoes.
-
OK, OJ!
-
In my view, mental illness does not make what she did any more acceptable, or any less horrific.
If she is that messed up in her mind, she doesnt need treatment....she needs to be taken out of the gene pool.
You want to waste some compassion, try wasting it on her children, or how about all the mothers in the world who must watch their children die in front of their eyes because they are TRULY helpless?
This woman is a biological MISTAKE, and the sooner we start accepting THAT, the better.
-
Family Mental Health Institute
1050 17th Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
Contact: Cheryl Hall
Phone: 202-496-4977
http://www.ppdhope.com (http://www.ppdhope.com)
Mission Statement
To establish routine screening for maternal depression as a national standard of care; and provide peer-to-peer social support services to women suffering from postpartum depression.
Description
The Family Mental Health Institute is a 501 (c) (3) not-for-profit organization in the District of Columbia that has four priority areas to reduce the incidence of maternal depression: 1)Screening programs for early PPD detection; 2) Public education and awareness; 3) Peer support groups for women and their families; 4) Research and advocacy activities on behalf of women with PPD and related mood disorders.
Description
The Family Mental Health Institute (FMHI) is looking for volunteers to return incoming calls to the toll free crisis line for women and their families looking for help in coping with Postpartum Depression (PPD). Women will receive training in empathic listening and the return calls are made from their own homes, phone charges to be paid by FMHI.
Skills
Women must have experienced PPD themselves with at least a two year recovery before volunteering. Must speak clearly to women of all ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Must take clear notes and submit forms to FMHI.
-
When should she have been executed?
When she was Valedictorian in her high school class?
When she was an RN at Houston Hospital?
When she married Rusty Yates?
When she started worshipping that evangelist?
When she gave birth to any one of her children?
When she received was isolated at home?
When she was denied assistance with kids by Rusty?
When she was home schooling the kids, alone?
When she got psychotic?
When she saw a psychiatrist?
When she took psychotropic medications?
When she went to the psychiatric hospital?
When she first told Rusty of her command voices to
kill her kids to avoid them from going to
hell, according to the ministry that her
husband got her involved in.
When she reported the death commands the second
time?
When she had them the third, fourth or fifth time.
When she killed her kids?
When she became dis-engaged from the command
voices, because the deed was done. This
BTW happens, and is documented in many,
many command voice cases.
When she went to the hospital and stabilized by
agreeing to the medication regimin
prescribed by her doctor. BTW, when Rusty
was not there to influence her
treatments.
When she asked the court to kill her?
When she told Rusty to have a nice life, hers w
wasn't worth living?
Or when you decided that mental illness is bullshit?
-
On 2006-05-03 12:20:00, Carmel wrote:
"In my view, mental illness does not make what she did any more acceptable, or any less horrific.
If she is that messed up in her mind, she doesnt need treatment....she needs to be taken out of the gene pool.
You want to waste some compassion, try wasting it on her children, or how about all the mothers in the world who must watch their children die in front of their eyes because they are TRULY helpless?
This woman is a biological MISTAKE, and the sooner we start accepting THAT, the better."
:nworthy: :nworthy:
-
On 2006-05-04 17:38:00, Anonymous wrote:
"When should she have been executed?
When she was Valedictorian in her high school class?
When she was an RN at Houston Hospital?
When she married Rusty Yates?
When she started worshipping that evangelist?
When she gave birth to any one of her children?
When she received was isolated at home?
When she was denied assistance with kids by Rusty?
When she was home schooling the kids, alone?
When she got psychotic?
When she saw a psychiatrist?
When she took psychotropic medications?
When she went to the psychiatric hospital?
When she first told Rusty of her command voices to
kill her kids to avoid them from going to
hell, according to the ministry that her
husband got her involved in.
When she reported the death commands the second
time?
When she had them the third, fourth or fifth time.
When she killed her kids?
When she became dis-engaged from the command
voices, because the deed was done. This
BTW happens, and is documented in many,
many command voice cases.
When she went to the hospital and stabilized by
agreeing to the medication regimin
prescribed by her doctor. BTW, when Rusty
was not there to influence her
treatments.
When she asked the court to kill her?
When she told Rusty to have a nice life, hers w
wasn't worth living?
Or when you decided that mental illness is bullshit?"
Another Andrea Yates bleeling heart fan. Take a hike sicko. ::fuckoff::
-
This gose to all the Andrea Yates fans. Call up one of your friends, have em come over. Then fill your tub up with water. Next ask your friend to hold your head under the water and not let you up for 5 mins. Maybe then you people will feel the panic and the fear those kids felt, when MOMMY was killing them. :flame:
-
On 2006-05-09 21:22:00, Anonymous wrote:
"This gose to all the Andrea Yates fans. Call up one of your friends, have em come over. Then fill your tub up with water. Next ask your friend to hold your head under the water and not let you up for 5 mins. Maybe then you people will feel the panic and the fear those kids felt, when MOMMY was killing them. :flame: "
No one is saying that it wasn't a horrible, tragic event. No one is saying that the kids didn't suffer beyond imagination. What a lot of people ARE saying is that there seemed to be very clear signs that something was very, very wrong in that household. Andrea Yates should never be released into society but there is a difference between someone like her and Diane Downs (google her if you don't know her).
-
Who are you to discern whether or not there were "signs" in Yates household that foretold of something being very very wrong? You think because you have read a list of signs and symptoms that you can make that judgement? Its like the list of druggie type behaviours given to our parents, suddenly everyone is a friggin expert.
Id like for you to elborate on what the "difference" between the two are. One drove her kids to the hospital and one just made a phone call? One showed remorse, the other didnt? Okay, these are differences, but completely inconsequential ones. Like saying one or the other ate chocolate cake before offing her children as opposed to vanilla.
What "they" ARE saying, my friend, has no bearing on what these women ARE. There is no excuse, period. Why do people feel the need to do everything possible to keep from just calling it what it is? Do you find it fascinating? Like watching painful "reality" TV of people tearing each other to shreds? So long as its not in YOUR backyard, I bet.
Have you ever lost a child? Have you ever lost anyone? Well I have, both. And I am here to tell you that you dont have the first clue in your dalliance into the psychology of what it would take to kill your own child. You dont know what it takes to even live through losing one, much less the crushing insanity of being the one responsible. Its a whole hell of alot more than some clinical depression and overwhelming domestic frustration. You arent earning any universal brownie points for trying to paint a black fence pink.
[ This Message was edited by: Carmel on 2006-05-10 10:44 ]
-
Even Andrea Yates is not asking
to go free. She wants to be in
a psychiatric hospital forensics
facility. It is still jail.
There are two troubling issues here:
1) Her husband was culpable, but there
was no law to charge him on his actions
to trigger his wife's murderous acts to
satisfy the pastor/teachers sermons.
There is still no law. Rusty Yates and
other husbands can still put their wives
through horrendous home lives, with no
culpability.
2) There are 180 more children that will
be killed by their moms this year, next
year and every year thereafter, on average.
There are no "home school" stress hotlines
being set up.
There are no "mommy time out" call centers
being established.
Frankly, there is nothing being learned from
the Andrea Yates debacle.
All the energy and public outcry is to see
her put to death. Big stupid deal.
Her future is sealed, jail, or a jail hospital.
The future for spousally abused women has not
been helped, at all, by the Andrea Yates case.
The next 180 kids will die, then the next.
---
The only hopeful thing that I have seen posted
here is the Family Mental Health Association in Washington DC, that is a start up, and they
are asking for volunteers to call back messages
left on their phone service for post partum depression.
That is it!
Did anyone with ppd experience call to volunteer?
Did anyone on this thread forward the message to moms who have had ppd?
Or is everyone to busy tooting their horns that Andrea Yates needs to be fried. The ultimate answer for the future of our youth. Fry Andrea and all will be well on earth, amen.
-
There are always going to be moms who do this, and it isnt because they never got the memo for the mommy hotline.
What about the rest of us who have to actually go through life taking responsibility for ourselves and our children?
Why do human beings act so damned entiltled?
What there is to learn about this woman is an ugly reality that people like you prefer to cover up with bullshit band-aids about "time-out".
And your crap about the husband being culpable is typical. There are millions of crappy men on this planet beating the shit out of their families and you dont see the mothers offing their kids.
Youre driven to "understand" this behaviour and "learn" from it, because you have no experience of your own. The reality is much uglier than you can concieve.
Should we be setting up special studies and hotlines for radical terrorists? Maybe they wouldnt have blown themselves and 50 others up if there had just been a volunteer hotline to give them "time-out". You think that this sort of thing is avoidable by calling up some bored tennis wife volunteer?
Its almost laughable.
I want the world to be a better place, I agonize over the suffering we all face...BUT THAT IS REALITY...and setting up hotlines and blaming the damn MAN isnt goin to solve it. If you knew anything about mental illness or grief youd know that blame is a bottomless pit of despair. Blame the hubby, blame the meds, blame society, blame PPD, but by no means EXPECT ANYONE to just take responsibility for their actions or their choices. Tsk! Tsk!
I still would like to know why you see a difference in the two women you mentioned.
If I killed my child or anyone else, I would expect to be punished, not sent of to a glass observation bubble with three hots and a cot, and the top researchers in the field that cost the griveing families of my victims hundreds of thousands a year in tax-dollars.
-
Oh, and PS-
Who GIVES A FLYING ASS MONKEY what Mrs. Yates wants? A psychiatric facility? She should be so lucky. She relinquished her humanity when she stopped behaving like one.
-
I don't know what should be done. I do believe though that there is a difference between Yates and the likes of Downs or Susan Smith. The latter two killed their kids because they didn't want the responsibility of being a mom. They both wanted to be with men who expressly stated that they did not want to be fathers. Yates, to me, seems to be one of the rare people that are truly mentally ill. Whether it was organic or environmental or a combination, there is a difference between mental illness and being flat out selfish and cruel. Not that the consequences aren't just as tragic but I think there is a difference. In my humble opinion
-
Well let me think about this ...
A husband's wife changes dramatically.
She starts talking strange and acting
stranger.
Next she is a psychiatric hospital
diagnosed with Schizophrenia and
Post Partum Depression.
The doctor advises him to get her
help at home, and not to have any
more kids.
He brings her back home and continues
to isolate her with the 4 kids. Then
has another baby.
She goes in and out of psychosis, and
he still doesn't bring in any help
with now five home schooled children
at home.
Nope Carmel you are right, Rusty is
an angel, too bad some other chick
married him before you found out where
he lives!
-
Treat Depression in Mothers
(From USA Today)
Successfully treating a mother's depression can alleviate or even prevent psychiatric problems in her children, a study reports today.
But a mother's continued depression increases her child's risk of such problems, the study shows. Researchers said it is the first published study to show that a child will benefit if the mother's depression is treated effectively.
Researchers studied 151 mother-child pairs. The mothers were taking medication as part of a larger study about treating depression in the general population. The children's ages were 7 to 17, and the average age was 12.
At the beginning of the study, about a third of the children had a psychiatric disorder, including depression, anxiety and disruptive behavior.
By the end of three months, about a third of the mothers saw their depression go into remission. Among their children, there was an 11% drop in rates of psychiatric diagnoses. Among children of mothers who were still depressed, there was an 8% rise in diagnoses.
The relationship between mothers' depression and children's diagnoses at the end of three months was similar whether or not the children had a diagnosis at the beginning of the study, the researchers write in The Journal of the American Medical Association.
"We know that depression and other disorders are brought on by strong environmental stresses," says lead author Myrna Weissman, a psychologist at Columbia University and the New York State Psychiatric Institute. "Having a parent with an illness is a big environmental stress."
Weissman and her colleagues speculate that the mothers' remission initiated a "virtuous cycle" in which the mothers and children positively influenced each other. Researchers are continuing to assess the mothers' depression and children's diagnoses every three months for a total of two years.
William Beardslee, academic chair of psychiatry at Children's Hospital Boston, called Weissman's data "very encouraging."
"In our view, depression in parents is a family calamity, but it is one that can be overcome."
-
"I brought you into this world and
I can take you out of this world"
-
Charles Manson never murdered anyone. Why is he in Jail. More of the American blame game! Free Charlie!
-
On 2006-05-10 17:35:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I don't know what should be done. I do believe though that there is a difference between Yates and the likes of Downs or Susan Smith. The latter two killed their kids because they didn't want the responsibility of being a mom. They both wanted to be with men who expressly stated that they did not want to be fathers. Yates, to me, seems to be one of the rare people that are truly mentally ill. Whether it was organic or environmental or a combination, there is a difference between mental illness and being flat out selfish and cruel. Not that the consequences aren't just as tragic but I think there is a difference. In my humble opinion"
So would you concede that that level of selfishness and cruelty is not the product of mental illness? what would that kind of thing be then? Wheres the articles and endless rhetoric on "mean and cruel"? Where are the 'nasty temperment" medications?
Would you then concede that that level of mental illness could not be considered selfish and cruel?
You dont think they may be one in the same?
Trying to fit Yates into a nice little USA today diagnosis of depresion and psychosis is a cop out. I never said her husband was an angel, but blaming him for "triggering" her murderous acts is weak and futile and the territory of small minds who refuse to look at the reality.
The whole thing is a contradiction....you think there is a difference betweeen these women? The others were just "hateful and evil"? How clinical of you. This isnt about true understanding, its championing a cause thats safe because its all tidied up with a nice medical diagnosis and history of medication and domestic abuse. Something the simple folk can wrap their minds around. We must love the beautiful crazy person because no one else will. Its crap, in my humble opinion.
Lets take a good honest look at what we really are, animals. We are subject to the laws of nature and biology, and we WILL behave according to them no matter how many times we find jesus or run a marathon for breast cancer or sell Mary Kay. THIS is why atrocities happen and people are killed and children die and so forth......and why they always will. That may sound pessimistic, but its the truth and the the sooner people can come to accept it, I think the sooner people may be able to effect REAL change. But it willl never go away. Its like telling a lion to become a vegetarian.
-
Well Carmel you're lumping me in with the other anons, understandable but sorry.....I ain't signing in.
I didn't post the USA Today article, don't really put much stock in it. All I said was that there, IMO, is a marked difference between Yates and Downs or Smith. That's all. You either agree or don't. No biggie.
I don't completely blame any ONE person. It was a combination of things, not the least of which was a serious and severe phychosis which from everything I've read was pretty obvious to those close to her. Of course Andrea bears responsibility for this!! I just don't think it's completely her and I think it's a very different situation than with Downs and Smith.
-
On 2006-05-11 05:15:00, Carmel wrote:
"...and the the sooner people can come to accept it, I think the sooner people may be able to effect REAL change.
...
"
What is the real change that you are talking about?
-
Sorry to get you confused, but in a debate like this I guess you run the risk without defining whos who.
You are entitled to your thoughts, no contest there.
I still stand behind my posting to the other Anon who thinks the media and policy is the best way to define mental illness. This is what I mean by NO EXPERIENCE. You dont truly comprehend it, so you read off the list hoping to covver all the angles, meanwhile, back at the halls of justice....you can say you did your duty without ever having to walk a mile in anyone shoes over it.
-
Looks like someone simply doesn't believe
in mental illness, nor any influence on
human action except free will.
A logical example would be the Nazi's who
went to work everyday running the concentration camps,killing the mentally ill first, then
the Jews. After work they went home to their
families.
They had no excuse, they are guilty too.
Just because they where under the influence of Hitler's reign means nothing.
They chose to go along with his orders, rather
than being killed themselves for insubordination.
-
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
PRESS RELEASE
AI Index: AMR 51/018/2006 (Public)
News Service No: 022
Embargo Date: 31 January 2006 00:01 GMT
USA: Too slow to help, too eager to kill
Systemic failure and the execution of severely mentally ill offenders
Published
Hundreds of severely mentally ill offenders in the US, are mired within a healthcare system that is too slow to help and a justice system that is too quick to pass death sentences, said Amnesty International today as it launched a major report on the use of the death penalty against mentally ill offenders in the US.
The report focuses on the systemic problems confronting the mentally ill and chronicles the cases of 100 severely mentally ill offenders who have been executed since 1977 -- 1 in 10 of the total number of executions carried out since then.
Citing pervasive systemic failures in both the healthcare and criminal justice systems, the report also highlights the grim situation of the mentally ill currently on death row, which according to the US National Association of Mental Health is 5 to 10 per cent of the US?s total death row population of approximately 3,400.
"The execution of those suffering from severe mental illnesses is a cruel and inhumane practice, which has been overlooked for far too long. Prejudice and ignorance give rise to fear and for many people it is easier to sentence a mentally ill offender to death rather than to find genuine treatment solutions," said Susan Lee, Amnesty International Americas Programme Director.
An illustrative case is Scott Panetti, who was sentenced to death in Texas in 1995 for killing his parents-in-law in 1992. He has a long-documented history of hospitalization for his mental illness, including schizophrenia ? which caused him visual and auditory hallucinations.
During his trial, Scott ? who acted as his own lawyer dressed as a cowboy ? said that demons had been laughing at him as he left the scene of the crime.
One of the doctors who was at the trial said: "? Scott was completely unaware of the effect of his words and actions. Members of the jury had hostile stares and looked at Scott in disbelief while he rambled and made no sense?"
Scott is still on death row.
In June 2002 the US Supreme Court outlawed the death penalty for people with mental retardation (the term mental retardation, rather than learning disability, is used in the USA) on the ground that mental retardation diminishes personal culpability and because of the difficulty to justify the deterrent argument.
"Mental retardation and mental illness are not the same but the symptoms can have similar consequences -- a mentally ill person?s delusional beliefs may cause them to engage in illogical reasoning and to act on impulse. There is a profound inconsistency in exempting people with mental retardation from the death penalty while those with serious mental illness remain exposed to it," said Susan Lee.
"Capital punishment is a highly politicized punishment. For far too long, politicians have generally failed to offer the electorate any measurable evidence that judicial killing, let alone of offenders with mental illness, offers a constructive solution to violent crime."
According to Amnesty International?s report, the case of Scott Panetti is representative of the circumstances in which people with severe mental illnesses are given death sentences and executed.
In many cases, those with severe mental illness don?t understand the charges against them or the seriousness of the crime they committed. In others, the defendant is heavily medicated for the trial, and perceived by the jury as remorseless. Lack of remorse is a highly aggravating factor that weighs heavily in a jury?s decision to impose the death penalty.
Some defendants have even been forcibly medicated in order to make them "competent" to be executed.
Amnesty International calls on all US authorities to immediately ban the use of the death penalty against mentally ill offenders and to put an end to the broken capital punishment system once and for all. Additionally, public officials at all levels must ensure that pleas for help by those suffering from mental illness do not go unanswered and that adequate medical treatment is given to those who need it the most.
For a copy of the 189-page report: "USA: The execution of mentally ill offenders", please see:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/indexAMR510032006 (http://web.amnesty.org/library/indexAMR510032006)
For a copy of the 43-page summary report: "USA: The execution of mentally ill offenders", please see: http://web.amnesty.org/library/indexAMR510022006 (http://web.amnesty.org/library/indexAMR510022006)
For more information and updates on AI?s campaign against the death penalty, please see: http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-index-eng (http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-index-eng)
-
Help for low-income women with postpartum depression
Thursday, May 11, 2006
By Nancy Holland / 11 News
Next month Andrea Yates will go on trial again for the drowning death of her five children.
Because of that horrific event there has been much discussion of postpartum depression.
The Mental Health Association?s latest efforts hope to turn one family tragedy into help for thousands.
People think the city?s WIC, or Women, Infants, Children clinics, are just places to come for formula.
Sammye Malone said she?s always tried to dig deeper into what women are feeling.
For the first time, WIC screeners have been given specific questions to help identify postpartum depression.
?Women tend to keep their fears, their anxiety, their concern to themselves because if they share it there must be something wrong with them,? Malone said.
In fact, one in 10 women will have postpartum depression, two in 10 if they?re low income.
Roshonda Patterson admits she has been down.
?Now, yeah. Lately because it?s a different environment,? Patterson said. ?I?m from New Orleans.?
The new program that may direct her to a counselor has its roots in the death of Andrea Yates? five children.
The first result of a fund named for them was a brochure on postpartum depression.
It is of course impossible to measure a negative, but the Mental Health Association people believe they have already helped thousands of people.
The next phase, the screening is aimed at tens of thousands.
?Doing this and getting those moms in treatment will have a profound impact on the children,? Betsy Schwartz with the Mental Health Association said. ?There?s a lot of research that documents that a depressed mother is not available emotionally and often physically to take care of her children.?
To get help they say women must have a way to speak up when they are down.
Online at: http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/ ... 9832a.html (http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/khou060511_ac_postpartum.2fe9832a.html)
-
On 2006-05-10 20:22:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Charles Manson never murdered anyone. Why is he in Jail. More of the American blame game! Free Charlie!"
:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:
-
Mother's Murder Conviction Turns Insanity Defense Suspect
Michael Grinfeld
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/article ... =175801752 (http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/article/showArticle.jhtml?articleId=175801752)
Psychiatric Times June 2002 Vol. XIX Issue 6
In certain respects, what happened after Andrea Yates killed her five children last June was no different from what happens in any other murder case. Once her husband left for work, according to her confession taped by police, she methodically drowned her four sons and one daughter, ranging in age from 6 months to 7 years, by placing them one-by-one into the filled bathtub in her home in a Houston suburb. Those acts were followed by the predictable tragic aftermath of sorrow, pain, confusion and bewilderment, and then by the legal system stepping in to bring justice and, finally, retribution.
What it did not do, like every other similar mass murder that came before it, was resolve the seemingly age-old conundrum of criminal responsibility for acts committed while insane. Once again, media pundits raised troubling questions: Was the insanity defense implemented either too harshly or too leniently? Was mental illness treated too aggressively with myriad medications of limited value, or too haphazardly with a startling lack of collaboration among physicians?
The Yates murder case also raised gender issues. Feminist groups rallied around Andrea and her misunderstood postpartum depression, while men's rights groups railed against critics of her husband, Rusty, who was accused of a lackadaisical response to his wife's illness.
Although not in time for the Yates case, these issues may be resolved soon. The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law (AAPL) is scheduled to release its practice guidelines this summer, a first-ever effort to bring some consistency to forensic evaluations of mentally ill individuals accused of crimes. Two years in the making, the Practice Guidelines for Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation of Defendants Raising the Insanity Defense will catalogue accepted methods for handling such cases, Howard V. Zonana, M.D., told Psychiatric Times. Zonana is AAPL's medical director and professor of psychiatry at Yale University School of Medicine.
"People have argued for hundreds of years about what the appropriate test for insanity is, and there's always a great deal of distress there," Zonana said. "There are a lot of myths about the insanity defense, [such as] how frequently it's used."
That passage of time, even though it has seen major advances in the understanding and treatment of mental illness, still has not resulted in forensic psychiatrists knowing any more about what makes people respond to the symptoms of their disease in certain ways.
"There are a lot of people who hear command hallucinations, but not everybody listens to the commands," Zonana told PT. "You can't just say because someone has command hallucinations that they had to follow those commands. But we don't have any test to know which people do, can or can't follow those things. We are still left to sort of dealing with a certain degree of approximations in those answers." He continued, "Most schizophrenics stop at red lights. Just the fact that you have a disorder doesn't get you over the hump."
Variation in the insanity defense among the 50 states and the federal court reflects the breadth of public attitudes about mental illness and the degree to which it should exonerate criminal behavior, Zonana said. On one end of the spectrum, some jurisdictions allow consideration of volitional aspects of brain diseases. They consider whether mentally ill individuals not only appreciated the difference between right and wrong but also whether they were able to conform their conduct to the requirements of law. Others have, in effect, abolished the insanity defense.
The practice guidelines, Zonana said, will at least help assure some consistency in the way that forensic experts handle cases when criminal defendants assert the insanity defense. At the same time, Zonana said that he hoped the guidelines would also help still some of the misperceptions -- at times advanced by the media -- that arise during high profile cases.
"I think psychiatry takes a beating in the press all the time. All you need is one bad testimony and that's what people remember and think about psychiatry," Zonana said. "Even though the statistics show that most people who get insanity defenses are really very ill and psychotic, [the public] tends to focus on people getting away with something. So I hope [the practice guidelines] will upgrade more the quality of evaluations and testimony and give some sense that these are hard issues but that there are reasonable ways to do these evaluations."
The Yates case had its moment of what the defense will claim on appeal was "bad" testimony. During the trial, for example, Park Dietz, M.D., a forensic psychiatrist from Newport Beach, Calif., who is nationally recognized for his participation in many high profile cases, testified that Yates' conduct bore a resemblance to an episode of the television show Law and Order. In that episode, a woman who killed her children was exonerated by the insanity defense. The prosecution used Dietz's testimony to subsequently argue that Yates followed the model created by the show.
The trouble was that no such episode ever aired, a fact disclosed only after the jury rendered its guilty verdict. No one has accused Dietz, who has acted as a consultant during the show's production, of lying to jurors, and the trial judge refused to declare a mistrial, but an appeal based on the error is likely.
"I would give him the benefit of the doubt and see it as an honest error," said Phillip J. Resnick, M.D., professor of psychiatry at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland and a past president of AAPL who testified as a defense expert in the Yates case. Resnick further told PT, "I certainly don't see it as malicious. I think it was just a simple error. It turns out since it was used in closing argument it may be problematic with respect to an appeal."
Resnick said that he read Dietz's "103-page, single-spaced report" and didn't recall seeing any reference to the Law and Order episode, adding that he would have asked Yates about it had he known. Dietz was unavailable for comment.
Resnick told PT that in two discussions with psychiatric professional audiences regarding the verdict of the Yates case, sentiments ran three-to-one in favor of Mrs. Yates, with attendees tending to be "disturbed by the outcome." Nevertheless, it is doubtful that this opinion will result in any changes to the standards used in the insanity defense. "The general public is a bit more mixed, with some people feeling that a mother who killed her children is the ultimate betrayal, but psychiatric audiences tend to be sympathetic to her," Resnick said.
Ultimately, legislators who must consider any reforms are swayed more by the political implications than the medical ones, Resnick said. Legislators perceive their chances of election are greater if they present a tough stand on law and order, and efforts to broaden the insanity defense are most often viewed as soft on crime.
"When a high profile insanity defense is successfulåthere tends to be a backlash against the insanity defense and a political demand to either narrow or abolish the defense," Resnick told PT. "When a high profile insanity case like Yates' is unsuccessful there will be a few voices saying that the insanity defense is too narrow, but rarely will it be of sufficient political clout to make a difference."
With two nationally recognized forensic psychiatrists pitted against one another in the Yates case, it was not surprising that questions would again arise as to whether the expert testimony is really something jurors listen to anyway. Legal commentators and others have criticized the prosecutor from Harris County, Texas, who brought Yates to trial, claiming his decision to seek the death penalty was merely a ruse to seat a more conservative jury who would more likely convict rather than exonerate based on an insanity plea.
"It's not really a battle of the experts," said prosecutor Joseph S. Owmby, during a post-trial press conference. "The question of sanity is a question of common senseåand the experts are there to help them frame, help present the evidence from the medical side. The jurors can't say that this is a severe mental disease or defect, but lay people can tell you whether they believe a person knew right from wrong at the time."
But it's not that simple, said Saul J. Faerstein, M.D., clinical professor of psychiatry at University of California, Los Angeles, School of Medicine and forensic expert who has consulted in high profile cases, including working for the defense in the O.J. Simpson case. He told PT that he is not convinced that any reform in the procedures by which insanity defenses are governed will ever actually bring any consistency to these emotionally laden cases.
"What's interesting is that the two experts involved [in the Yates case] are two very well-respected, highly credentialed, effective witnesses. I mean Phillip Resnick and Park Dietz are the cream of the crop, so you're not dealing with people who don't know what they're talking about," Faerstein said. "One would have to raise the question, if two people are so smart, and know the history of the insanity defense and know the standards of the insanity defense so well, how could they interpret it in polar opposite ways if they're both using the same data, the same facts, the same reasoning, the same history and the same legal basis for interpreting what the insanity defense was? How could one say black and the other one say white? That's a very troubling concept for me."
The problem with psychiatric defense is who should try them, Faerstein continued. Everyone -- including judges, lawyers, juries and even psychiatrists -- brings their own biases to the process, and nothing will eliminate them. Reflecting on the Yates case, he added, "I don't think that it's ever possible to have totally objective trier of fact on a case of that nature. People will listen to the facts and listen to the law, but their own prejudices will be superimposed on that substrate, and they'll decide whether a person is sane or insane based on their attitudes toward this woman, their attitudes toward fundamental Christianity, their attitudes toward Rusty Yates and how he treated his wife, their attitudes about lots of things that have nothing to do with what [Texas's insanity defense] test says."
Larry H. Strasburger, M.D., assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and AAPL's president, agreed that cases like Yates' do not make understanding the issue easier.
"My sense is that in some ways we've gone backward with verdicts like this," he said in an interview with PT. In addition, he is not convinced that the public is interested in any "improvements" in the statutes, citing an opposite trend that results in the enactment of more restrictive standards, such as guilty but mentally ill or eradication of the insanity defense altogether.
For George Parnham, the Houston lawyer who defended Yates, Texas' insanity defense yielded a harsh result for his client that failed to reflect the reality of her illness. He also criticized the lack of integration among health care providers who failed to provide the level of care that may have averted the tragedy. But even he concedes that, ultimately, jurors decide cases such as these in a way that sometimes ignores the expert testimony.
"What compelled the jury was the pictures of those children in those pajamas," Parnham said in an interview with PT. "We can talk all day long about mental health, medications, delusions and psychosis, but by golly when you take a picture of a 7-year-old boy who is lying face down in the tub, rigor mortis has set in, and you flip him over and you see the agony on his poor face, that's a toughie."
-
http://newsroom.lilly.com/ReleaseDetail ... eID=197630 (http://newsroom.lilly.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=197630)
Psychiatry: Mark Ragins, M.D., Los Angeles
When a social worker friend was killed by a homeless, mentally ill man in Los Angeles, Dr. Ragins knew the true culprit was a system that couldn't successfully care for its mentally ill. Since then, he's helped build The Mental Health Association's Village Integrated Service Agency, a model mental health agency focusing on patient wellness and recovery instead of patient illness. As the Village's medical director, Dr. Ragins has focused on creating a program that feels more like a second home than a hospital -- where treatment means more than just medication, and patients are partners in the process of recovery. Dr. Ragins also works alongside and mentors workers who reach out to the homeless population in some of the poorest areas of Los Angeles.
-
http://www.depressionafterdelivery.com/ (http://www.depressionafterdelivery.com/)
-
Damm when will you pepole wake up????? It really makes me wonder how sane YOU are.Tha woman killed her kids,she planed it out, she followed through with it. Now how stupid are yous? Shes no more crazy then you or I.Depressed my ASS. How many of you have been depressed to the point to where you want to kill a family member or a loved one? How many of you have followed through with those feelings? I see all the time here on this post Poor Andrea,her husband pushed her to the brakeing point.BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!! How about those poor kids and what there last moments were, what they went through knowing MOMMY was about to kill them. Think about how they were begging MOMMY to stop promsing that they would be good. It makes me sick to think of it and it should you pepole too. Fuck that Scum bag.Shes no good.she needs to be put to death.It piss's me off that my tax dollars are going to houseing and feeding that BITCH.I think you pepole should start thinking of the kids and not her.
-
Hey, I think you have successfully ignored the facts!
-
Insanity's legal fall from grace
5/29/2006
By Jonathan Turley
In the National Gallery of Art in Washington hangs a cherished Rembrandt titled Abraham's Sacrifice.
It is an etching of Abraham about to slay his son, Isaac, upon the orders of God, to show his faith. The scene from Genesis 22:1-12 is repeated in stained glass windows, paintings and other displays worldwide. It is also a scene being repeated in real life by demented individuals who believe that they have been given divine instructions to slay their loved ones.
In the past few months, the nation has found itself again in the middle of one of the law's greatest quagmires: how to define insanity, and when it should be a defense.
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in the case of Eric Michael Clark of Flagstaff, Ariz., who at 17 was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia in June 2000 when he killed a police officer whom he thought was an alien. The case might determine whether there is a constitutional basis for the insanity defense.
While Clark allegedly believed he was fighting aliens, many murder defendants in insanity cases believe they're acting on orders from a higher authority:
?In San Francisco, Lashaun Harris is on trial in the murder of her three kids, whom she allegedly threw into the frigid waters of San Francisco Bay in October. Harris believed that God wanted her children as a sacrifice, police said.
?In Houston, a new trial has been ordered for Andrea Yates, a suburban housewife who has admitted to drowning her five children ? ages 7 years to six months ? to save them from Satan. Despite a long and documented history of schizophrenia and postpartum depression, Yates was found sane and guilty in the first trial.
?In McKinney, Texas, Dena Schlosser was tried for a second time and found not guilty by reason of insanity (after a first jury deadlocked) in the killing of her 10-month-old daughter, Maggie, on orders from God.
?In Lamar, Colo., Rebekah Amaya was tried after telling police she killed her two kids upon orders from a spider. She was found insane.
?In Tyler, Texas, Deanna Laney was found insane after she crushed the skulls of her three children; she believed she was given instructions, like Abraham, from God.
The Hinckley precedent
These, and other recent cases, show a disturbing lack of consistency among the states on the insanity defense.
Much of this confusion can be traced to the acquittal of John Hinckley on the grounds of insanity after he wounded President Reagan and three others in 1981. It was too much for state legislators, who proceeded to drastically narrow the insanity defense.
Four states ? Idaho, Kansas, Montana and Utah ? have eliminated any defense that one is insane. Many states, such as Arizona, allow insanity to be used as defense only when defendants could not understand that their conduct was wrong.
Many people might know or suspect that an act is wrong but are unable to resist the impulse or stop themselves from doing the act. Indeed, they might believe that an otherwise "wrong" act is justified by divine instruction.
As for Abraham, he would have made an even worse defendant than Yates does. Abraham recounted how he was told by God, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."
Abraham, if he had not been stopped at the last second by an angel, would have been toast in Arizona. Genesis 22 shows Abraham displaying complete control and even subterfuge in bringing his son to the place of slaughter. Shortly before the planned killing, Abraham told his servants to hold back and allow him and Isaac to go forward alone.
Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, Isaac spoke up.
"Father?"
"Yes, my son?" Abraham replied.
"The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"
Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.
Notably, in discussing the story of Abraham and Isaac, churches uniformly emphasize that, as one Internet site called rationalchristianity.net explains, "God's command to Abraham was not wrong, for God has the right to take human life and therefore had the right to command Isaac's death."
God's intervention
For defendants such as Yates, Schlosser, Laney and others, killings were compelled by the same motivation as Abraham's, albeit because of delusions of divine direction. They didn't have an angel who "called out ... from heaven, Abraham! Abraham!' ... 'Do not lay a hand on the boy.' ... 'Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God."
From a defense standpoint, the angel was truly godsend. The convergence of religion, the law and insanity makes for the most difficult cases. Even so, just as religion teaches that we must obey the command of the Almighty even in killing a child, the law must recognize that troubled persons may be acting under the delusion of such orders.
When states fail to recognize the difference between a premeditated and delusional act, they commit an act every bit as immoral as disobeying the command of God.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, and he is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/ed ... ense_x.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-05-29-insanity-defense_x.htm)
-
Bye-bye, Katie
Thursday, June 1, 2006
We were all prepared to remark how much fresher the air seemed to smell this morning now that Katie Couric has departed NBC's "Today" show.
Then we remembered that Ms. Couric's replacement is Meredith Vieira.
Oh, well.
Couric spent 15 years in the anchor chair of the perennial No. 1 morning network broadcast. And what an amazingly liberal run it was.
She slobbered over Jimmy Carter as one of "the best ex-presidents this country has ever had" in 1991; she threw around the "flamethrower" label against then-new Republican National Committee Chairman Rich Bond in 1992.
Couric accused the Reagan administration of "greed" and "materialism" in 1993; in 1995 she called those who believe in gun rights "Second Amendment fundamentalist zealots."
In 2001, Couric shilled on the air for the defense fund of confessed child-killer Andrea Yates; in 2002, she intimated that President Bush had advance knowledge of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
A year later, Couric -- perhaps influenced by her favorite ex-president -- told the world how one of her daughters opposed the war in Iraq; in 2004, she gushed to the point of embarrassment over Bill Clinton's speech at the Democratic National Convention.
We could go on and on. But we won't. After all, it's breakfast time and eggs and Katie Couric just don't go together very well.
-
On 2006-06-01 16:15:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Bye-bye, Katie
Thursday, June 1, 2006
We were all prepared to remark how much fresher the air seemed to smell this morning now that Katie Couric has departed NBC's "Today" show.
Then we remembered that Ms. Couric's replacement is Meredith Vieira.
Oh, well.
Couric spent 15 years in the anchor chair of the perennial No. 1 morning network broadcast. And what an amazingly liberal run it was.
She slobbered over Jimmy Carter as one of "the best ex-presidents this country has ever had" in 1991; she threw around the "flamethrower" label against then-new Republican National Committee Chairman Rich Bond in 1992.
Couric accused the Reagan administration of "greed" and "materialism" in 1993; in 1995 she called those who believe in gun rights "Second Amendment fundamentalist zealots."
In 2001, Couric shilled on the air for the defense fund of confessed child-killer Andrea Yates; in 2002, she intimated that President Bush had advance knowledge of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
A year later, Couric -- perhaps influenced by her favorite ex-president -- told the world how one of her daughters opposed the war in Iraq; in 2004, she gushed to the point of embarrassment over Bill Clinton's speech at the Democratic National Convention.
We could go on and on. But we won't. After all, it's breakfast time and eggs and Katie Couric just don't go together very well. "
I knew I liked this woman. Good things all and every word of hers was true.
-
It is hard to rationalize mental illness.
Common sense doesn't apply. It is an illness.
I would say that most delusions are the ill
person thinking that they are God.
Then paranoia.
Then command voices to kill someone.
Remember, the US average for mothers killing
children is 180 murders per year.
-
On 2006-06-02 08:31:00, Eliscu2 wrote:
"It seems like these voices always command you to kill innocent Children as some kind of sacrifice to G-d. Any kind of real Mother would have to question her faith at this time! I would choose my Children first as all Mothers do. Even Animals in the wild put thier Children first! Funny how Andrea was so depressed she did not kill herself?
I have no doubt she was insane. I just have a hard time believeing she did not take it out on herself not the Children!
"
I want to address your statement about a real Mother questioning her faith. I am going to go way out on a limb here and reveal some things that I have never told anyone, ever. But, I think it might be illuminating.
My Mom suffered from schizophrenia. She heard voices. Now, I am no expert on this stuff and can't get inside her head to tell you what it is like but I can share some experiences.
I remember once as a small boy going into the kitchen where my Mom was laughing at jokes I could not hear. I wanted a drink and tried to get her attention. I couldn't. I jumped up and down, screamed at her, and tugged relentlessly on her arm. When she eventually noticed me, I asked her what she was laughing at. She said, "Oh nothing. I was just thinking funny things." She zoned out again, and my older sister lifted me to sink to get my drink.
My Mom would sometimes pull me from grade school for no reason and go 'shopping.' She would spend money way beyond what the family could afford. Fortunately, we lived in a small town where everyone knew us. The merchants would allow my Mom to buy this stuff, but they would call my Dad out of work to come get her and return these things. I remember standing on a street corner with my Mom and the packages and we were lost (within walking distance of home) and she would be having conversations with unseen people (or talking to herself). I couldn't get her attention to lead her home. My Dad would pick us up.
Later in life I learned that my Dad had a difficult time in getting my Mom committed to mental hospital and it must have been emotionally devastating to him. My Mom spent about a year in a mental hospital. I was about 8 or 9 years old.
I have learned that when people hear voices, they need to reconcile these voices with their lives. They need a rationalization for them. Some people come to believe that God or demons are talking to them. My Mom came to believe she was experiencing mental telepathy. My Mom was a paranoid schizophrenic and believed these voices were the result of a conspiracy on the part of my Dad's family. She believed my Dad's family was jealous of her for taking my Dad away from them. She suspected they were 'causing' the voices by using mental telepathy.
As a teen, I tried to explain to my Mom that what she was experiencing was an illness caused by a chemical imbalance in her brain and the medication she was taking helped treat the symptoms. She would have none of that! The medication was part of the conspiracy and she suspected the pills may have even allowed the telepathy to be possible. She only took her medication because she feared if she didn't she would be sent back to the mental hospital.
Once, when my Dad was explaining to me that my Mom underwent ECT while in the hospital (this was in the 1960s) and this damaged her memory, my Mom overheard and was livid. She had no recollection of the ECT and denied it vehemently.
At this point, I want to say that my Mom was an intelligent and loving person. She had a college degree in education and wanted to be a teacher, but of course, she could not. She could not enjoy books, or movies, or even long conversations because she could not focus on these things through the voices. So, she enjoyed variety shows and just being with her family. My Mom was always nice to me.
I am fortunate in that I came from a supportive and loving family and we did what we could for my Mom and for each other. It wasn't easy and hurt most in my teen years when I was too ashamed to bring friends home.
When I read stories like those of Andrea Yates, my heart goes out to the kids and people involved. It is difficult to understand, let alone deal with a mentally ill person in your immediate family, especially if you are a child. I consider myself lucky that my Mom came up with 'telepathy' instead of God or demons. I guess I am just lucky to be here.
Be careful before you judge Andrea Yates. You have no idea what it must be like to be trapped inside her head. These voices are very real to those who hear them. They are all consuming. They cannot help it. We must help them if we can.
I am teary eyed writing this. My Mom died of cancer in 1995. I miss her.
-
On 2006-05-29 19:27:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Hey, I think you have successfully ignored the facts!
"
No I think you have.
-
On 2006-05-30 11:31:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Insanity's legal fall from grace
5/29/2006
By Jonathan Turley
In the National Gallery of Art in Washington hangs a cherished Rembrandt titled Abraham's Sacrifice.
It is an etching of Abraham about to slay his son, Isaac, upon the orders of God, to show his faith. The scene from Genesis 22:1-12 is repeated in stained glass windows, paintings and other displays worldwide. It is also a scene being repeated in real life by demented individuals who believe that they have been given divine instructions to slay their loved ones.
In the past few months, the nation has found itself again in the middle of one of the law's greatest quagmires: how to define insanity, and when it should be a defense.
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in the case of Eric Michael Clark of Flagstaff, Ariz., who at 17 was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia in June 2000 when he killed a police officer whom he thought was an alien. The case might determine whether there is a constitutional basis for the insanity defense.
While Clark allegedly believed he was fighting aliens, many murder defendants in insanity cases believe they're acting on orders from a higher authority:
?In San Francisco, Lashaun Harris is on trial in the murder of her three kids, whom she allegedly threw into the frigid waters of San Francisco Bay in October. Harris believed that God wanted her children as a sacrifice, police said.
?In Houston, a new trial has been ordered for Andrea Yates, a suburban housewife who has admitted to drowning her five children ? ages 7 years to six months ? to save them from Satan. Despite a long and documented history of schizophrenia and postpartum depression, Yates was found sane and guilty in the first trial.
?In McKinney, Texas, Dena Schlosser was tried for a second time and found not guilty by reason of insanity (after a first jury deadlocked) in the killing of her 10-month-old daughter, Maggie, on orders from God.
?In Lamar, Colo., Rebekah Amaya was tried after telling police she killed her two kids upon orders from a spider. She was found insane.
?In Tyler, Texas, Deanna Laney was found insane after she crushed the skulls of her three children; she believed she was given instructions, like Abraham, from God.
The Hinckley precedent
These, and other recent cases, show a disturbing lack of consistency among the states on the insanity defense.
Much of this confusion can be traced to the acquittal of John Hinckley on the grounds of insanity after he wounded President Reagan and three others in 1981. It was too much for state legislators, who proceeded to drastically narrow the insanity defense.
Four states ? Idaho, Kansas, Montana and Utah ? have eliminated any defense that one is insane. Many states, such as Arizona, allow insanity to be used as defense only when defendants could not understand that their conduct was wrong.
Many people might know or suspect that an act is wrong but are unable to resist the impulse or stop themselves from doing the act. Indeed, they might believe that an otherwise "wrong" act is justified by divine instruction.
As for Abraham, he would have made an even worse defendant than Yates does. Abraham recounted how he was told by God, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."
Abraham, if he had not been stopped at the last second by an angel, would have been toast in Arizona. Genesis 22 shows Abraham displaying complete control and even subterfuge in bringing his son to the place of slaughter. Shortly before the planned killing, Abraham told his servants to hold back and allow him and Isaac to go forward alone.
Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, Isaac spoke up.
"Father?"
"Yes, my son?" Abraham replied.
"The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"
Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.
Notably, in discussing the story of Abraham and Isaac, churches uniformly emphasize that, as one Internet site called rationalchristianity.net explains, "God's command to Abraham was not wrong, for God has the right to take human life and therefore had the right to command Isaac's death."
God's intervention
For defendants such as Yates, Schlosser, Laney and others, killings were compelled by the same motivation as Abraham's, albeit because of delusions of divine direction. They didn't have an angel who "called out ... from heaven, Abraham! Abraham!' ... 'Do not lay a hand on the boy.' ... 'Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God."
From a defense standpoint, the angel was truly godsend. The convergence of religion, the law and insanity makes for the most difficult cases. Even so, just as religion teaches that we must obey the command of the Almighty even in killing a child, the law must recognize that troubled persons may be acting under the delusion of such orders.
When states fail to recognize the difference between a premeditated and delusional act, they commit an act every bit as immoral as disobeying the command of God.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, and he is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/ed ... ense_x.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-05-29-insanity-defense_x.htm)"
BLUH BLUH BLUH.
-
On 2006-06-02 08:31:00, Eliscu2 wrote:
"It seems like these voices always command you to kill innocent Children as some kind of sacrifice to G-d. Any kind of real Mother would have to question her faith at this time! I would choose my Children first as all Mothers do. Even Animals in the wild put thier Children first! Funny how Andrea was so depressed she did not kill herself?
I have no doubt she was insane. I just have a hard time believeing she did not take it out on herself not the Children!
"
I agree with u a 100%.
-
If your husband or wife or someone u knew took one of your family members and killed them in cold blood just because they were DEPRESSES what would u do? What if you came home and your husband KILLED your kids? Would u feel sorry for him?Would U have a pitty party for him? Hell I know I would want him or her DEAD. We are tlking about children here not a puppy or a cat.I think if the same think happend to you BLEEDING HEARTS you would feel diffent. Wouldn't ya's. You are all a bunch of DUMB ASS's. ::unhappy:: ::fuckoff:: ::bangin::
-
On 2006-06-03 08:57:00, AtomicAnt wrote:
Be careful before you judge Andrea Yates'. You have no idea what it must be like to be trapped inside her head. These voices are very real to those who hear them. They are all consuming. They cannot help it. We must help them if we can.
I wholeheartedly agree with this AtomicAnt. Anyone who is a mother knows that only insanity would lead to actions such as Andrea Yates'. I can (slightly)understand the mother who slaps a child out of anger. But, the premeditated murder of not one, but five of her children was truly insane. And this was not an out of the blue incident. She had been medicated for years for depression. I often wonder at the husband's sensibilities ... who left his very despondent wife home with 5 small children.
Mental illness is so misunderstood.
Don't get me wrong, I am of the opinion that criminally insane persons need punishment. I just have a hard time believing that she was of a "right mind" when she drowned her own flesh and blood. No sane mother could do such a thing.[ This Message was edited by: Truth Searcher on 2006-06-04 10:28 ]
-
On 2006-06-04 10:19:00, Anonymous wrote:
"If your husband or wife or someone u knew took one of your family members and killed them in cold blood just because they were DEPRESSES what would u do? What if you came home and your husband KILLED your kids? Would u feel sorry for him?Would U have a pitty party for him? Hell I know I would want him or her DEAD. We are tlking about children here not a puppy or a cat.I think if the same think happend to you BLEEDING HEARTS you would feel diffent. Wouldn't ya's. You are all a bunch of DUMB ASS's. ::unhappy:: ::fuckoff:: ::bangin:: "
One of the tenants of civilization is to get past these extreme feelings and deal with situations in a sane, humane, and rational way.
Yes, the emotional trauma would be devestating and the intial reaction would be to kill the killer. If you come home and find your wife in bed with another man, you might think similar thoughts. But that does not justify murdering your wife and her lover.
In order to live a truly moral life, we must extend our values to everyone around us; even those who commit actions that are heinous. They do not lose their humanity, nor should we lose ours. Two wrongs do not make a right. Revenge is not justice.
Laws and policies, and the decisions made based on them, should not be made out of anger and reaction, but based on the criteria of what is best for society and what is fair and humane.
You can call me a bleeding heart if you like. I wll wear that badge with honor and pride.
Let me go on record and state; I oppose the death penalty.[ This Message was edited by: AtomicAnt on 2006-06-04 11:33 ]
-
On 2006-06-04 11:32:00, AtomicAnt wrote:
just because they were DEPRESSES what would u do?"
Was that you in the Spelling Bee on TV the other night?
Regardless, she wasn't just depresses, she was actively psychotic with command voices.
-
http://www.circleofsecurity.org/ (http://www.circleofsecurity.org/)
-
Defense attacks DA in appeal
Attorney for mentally ill Hoosick Falls mother challenges murder conviction in drowning of son
By MICHELE MORGAN BOLTON, Staff writer
Click byline for more stories by writer.
First published: Thursday, June 8, 2006
ALBANY -- Rensselaer County District Attorney Patricia DeAngelis broke nearly every rule of the court to convict a mentally ill woman who thought she was seeing werewolves on the night she drowned her son in 2002, her lawyer argued before an appellate court Wednesday.
Jerry Frost made the case before the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court for the reversal of Christine Wilhelm's 50-to-life state prison sentence for murder, asking for a new trial.
Frost accused DeAngelis, then a deputy district attorney, of denying the Hoosick Falls woman the justice and treatment for mental illness she deserved before and during a six-week trial in 2003.
Frost said Wilhelm belongs in a psychiatric hospital, where she would likely remain for the rest of her life, not behind bars at a downstate women's facility.
"The public should be concerned about everything in this case," Frost told the five-member panel of judges. "Shame on Rensselaer County. The whole prosecution influenced the jury inappropriately. Ms. DeAngelis was so out of control I felt compelled to object 80 times during her summation."
The trial jury's verdict, which rejected Frost's defense that Wilhelm was not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, was "impelled by unfairness and inflamed by passion," he claimed.
"It left me to ponder at sentencing whether I was a visitor from a distant planet," he said. "There were eyes that didn't see. Ears that didn't hear. And hearts that did not feel."
Handling the appeal for DeAngelis, attorney Jennifer Shatz vigorously defended her boss.
"I would deny any misconduct took place," Shatz said. "There was so much overwhelming evidence of Christine Wilhelm's guilt and that she knew and appreciated the difference between right and wrong."
Wilhelm asked both for a priest and for forgiveness as she waited for arraignment in a Hoosick Falls police holding cell, Shatz said.
Frost claims DeAngelis intentionally delayed Wilhelm's arraignment and had a police matron spend long periods with the defendant with no attorney present to get evidence in the case.
Wilhelm's own statements during a 10-hour videotaped interview with forensic psychiatrist Park Dietz in which she calmly described the events of April 15, 2002, were the basis of the prosecution's case, according to Shatz. "I can't imagine anything to give a clearer picture of her state of mind than her own words," Shatz said.
Frost countered by recalling how Dietz shocked prosecution team when the expert witness who was paid $25,000 admitted under oath that he had no opinion about whether Wilhelm knew her actions were wrong.
Dietz's testimony in another case helped to convict Texas mother Andrea Yates of murder in the drowning of her five children four years ago. However, an appellate court in Texas later ordered a retrial because of errors in Dietz's testimony. That retrial is scheduled for later this month.
According to evidence presented at her trial, Wilhelm, who is a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic, submerged 4-year-old Luke in his bath three separate times that night. Twice she resuscitated him, and the last time she held him down until he drowned, according to statements by Wilhelm made in a videotaped interview introduced at her trial.
She also pulled 5-year-old Peter under water by his ankles, after wrapping them with a dog leash, but then released him when he begged her to let go, according to Dietz's testimony.
During her argument Wednesday, Shatz also pointed to a phone call Wilhelm made to her mother on the night of the drowning. During the call, Wilhelm not only admitted what she'd tried to do to her little boys; she also asked whether police should be called.
The call, Shatz said, supported the prosecution contention that Wilhelm was rational at the time of the drowning.
Frost refuted the prosecution's claim Wilhelm was sane by reminding the court, during his rebuttal, of Margaret Kosiba's memorable trial testimony in which she claimed she wasn't sure if the call from her daughter was real or a dream.
According to Shatz, perhaps most damning were Wilhelm's words "I will go to jail for you," uttered as she carried her son back to the bathroom for the final time -- a scene that was described in detail by DeAngelis during the trial. Even Frost's expert witness, Dr. Stephen Price, conceded Wilhelm knew her conduct was illegal in the eyes of society, Shatz said. "The defendant has a record of using her insanity to her benefit."
Price testified over three days that Wilhelm was so delusional she believed she was helping the boys when she harmed them.
"The jury had every reason to reject Dr. Price's testimony and expert opinion, because it just didn't stand up to the light of common sense," Shatz said.
The foundation of Frost's appeal is that Wilhelm was so psychotic after opting to discontinue her medications that she thought her husband planned to sacrifice the boys in a satanic ritual. She also believed they'd been sexually abused.
After calling 911 to report the death, Wilhelm was arrested and held for 24 hours before being arraigned, which is the official start of a criminal case, he said.
He said police and DeAngelis delayed that intentionally as they acquired search warrants for the home, photographed Wilhelm nude and then reported she made spontaneous confessions in her cell -- all without a lawyer present.
Key to the prosecution's case was the testimony of county caseworkers Casi Maloney and Kathleen McGarry, who Frost claims were essentially acting as police agents on April 17, 2002, when they interviewed Wilhelm in Rensselaer County Jail. The women claimed Wilhelm told them she knew her actions were wrong.
The testimony of the social workers solidified DeAngelis' case, even though the women had destroyed their notes, Frost said. Rensselaer County Judge Patrick McGrath allowed the testimony to be presented to the jury, over Frost's objections, and in spite of an appellate decision of a similar case that said statements taken by police agents without an attorney present are inadmissible.
After Wednesday's hearing, a spokesman for DeAngelis downplayed Frost's allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and said the facts to be decided are clearly the dispute over the case workers' role. Of DeAngelis, Eric Wohlleber said, "We're confident she did nothing wrong."
A decision is expected sometime in July, Frost said.
Morgan Bolton can be reached at 434-2403 or by e-mail at [email protected].
-
Wilhelm Attorney Argues Prosecutorial Misconduct
TROY---The alleged prosecutorial misconduct in yet another case prosecuted by Patricia DeAngelis and the Rensselaer County District Attorney's office is the issue in yet another case argued last week before the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court.
When Christine Wilhelm was convicted in 2003 of drowning her four-year-old son Luke in the bathtub and trying to do the same to five-year-old Peter, critics said that Wilhelm was mentally ill and shouldn't have been taken to trial. Her attorney says that she was seeing werewolves the night she drowned her son. He also says that DeAngelis, then an assistant district attorney, denied Wilhelm mental treatment.
DeAngelis pushed for a harsh sentence for the woman, now 42 and serving 50 years in prison---25 years to life for murder at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility and another 25 years to life term for attempted murder.
The jury had rejected Frost's trial defense that Wilhelm was not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect.
In his argument before the appellate judges, Wilhelm's attorney Jerome Frost says that her rights were violated virtually from the minute she was arrested in April 2002. He says she was held for hours, denied access to an attorney before she was arraigned. His argument for a new trial is that she was mentally incompetent at the time of the crime and that prosecutorial misconduct permeated the entire case.
The district attorney's office claims everything was done properly and that Wilhelm had a fair trial.
"The jury's verdict had nothing to do with who they were or what they were. Justice was absent from Rensselaer County from the beginning of Christine Wilhelm's trial right through the verdict." Frost says that even if the court finds that Wilhelm's conviction should be set aside, she will be institutionalized for the rest of her life. He argued that admissions that Wilhelm made to social service workers weren't admissible because they aren't part of law enforcement.
It's expected that a decision in Wilhelm's appeal will be handed down sometime in July.
David Seay, executive director of the National Alliance for Mental Illness, says that Wilhelm never should have been taken to trial but in that she was, she should have received treatment rather than been imprisoned.
Seay said that Wilhelm and Andrea Yates, who also drowned her children in a bathtub, "have obviously committed horrific acts and no one can ever forget that" Seay said "On the other hand, these are very sick individuals with diagnosis of schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses. These individuals need treatment."
Wilhelm is a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic, according to Frost, who is incapable of understanding her actions or to stand trial.
Frost wrote in the appeal brief that prosecutorial misconduct by DeAngelis deprived Wilhelm of a fair and that a reversal of the Wilhelm's conviction is mandated. He said there was a "litany of prosecutorial misconduct" by DeAngelis which included attacking Wilhelm's exercise of her right to counsel, accusing her of other crimes, asserting arguments without factual basis and even contrary to the fact, denigrating Wilhelm, her defense and her attorney, her expert witnesses and making herself an unsworn witness.
"Ultimately the DA's argument degenerates into an emotional diatribe made up of distortions of the facts and law and appeals to the jurors' emotions".
Frost said in the brief that there was no "rational support for the jury's verdict. The court should conclude as a matter of law that Christine Wilhelm at the time of her son's drowning and attempted drowning lacked substantial capacity to know or appreciate her conduct was wrong and hold her not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect".
Frost also writes in his brief that following Wilhelm's arrest on April 16, 2002, that D'Angelis supervised her at the Hoosick Falls lockup prior to the arrival of a jail matron. Frost said this was grounds for DeAngelis to have been disqualified from prosecuting the case.
In the last two years, DeAngelis has been reversed at least five times by the state Appellate Division, four times for prosecutorial misconduct and once for lack of knowledge of the law. She was admonished for prosecutorial misconduct before a Grand Jury in 1998 and recently received a "confidential" letter from the Committee on Professional Standards, the disciplinary agency for attorneys, for inappropriate behavior.
Four times since last June, the appellate court has overturned sex crimes convictions on the grounds that DeAngelis and her office improperly attempted to shift the burden of proof, repeatedly strayed beyond the bounds of permissible conduct and denied defendants a fair trial.
Although ADA Jennifer Shatz argued for the district attorney's office that a 10-hour videotaped interview with forensic psychiatrist Park Dietz in which Wilhelm admitted her acts, Frost said that Dietz, who was paid $25,000 for his testimony, admitted under oath that he didn't have any opinion if Wilhelm knew her actions were wrong.
Dietz is the same forensic psychiatrist who had testified at the Andrea Yates trial, leading to her conviction in the drowning of her five children. But due to errors in Dietz's testimony, a Texas appeals court reversed the Yates conviction and ordered a new trial which is scheduled to begin this month. 6-10-06
© 2006 North Country Gazette
-
I am thinking about printing out this thread and mailing it to Ms. Yates, what do you guys think?
-
June 15, 2006, 12:20PM
Groups call for limit on experts at Yates retrial
Judge will decide whether to narrow witnesses to those with expertise in postpartum issues
By PEGGY O'HARE
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle
A group of women's mental health advocates, doctors and professors joined Andrea Yates' attorneys Wednesday in challenging the qualifications of expert witnesses the prosecution is expected to use in Yates' upcoming retrial.
ADVERTISEMENT
The 21 organizations and individuals, who jointly filed a motion in a Harris County court, argue that only experts fully familiar with postpartum psychosis should be allowed to testify on whether Yates knew that drowning her children was wrong.
Yates' attorneys are challenging the qualifications of the state's expert witnesses, including Dr. Michael Welner, a New York forensic psychiatrist who evaluated Yates during a two-day period last month at Rusk State Hospital.
The issue is pending before state District Judge Belinda Hill, who will preside over Yates' new capital murder trial, scheduled to begin June 26.
Conviction thrown out
Yates, 41, has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. She was sentenced to life in prison in 2002, but an appeals court threw out her capital murder conviction last year.
The court cited concerns that an expert's erroneous testimony might have swayed the jury.
The advocates who filed Wednesday's motion say that Yates clearly suffered from "severe postpartum psychosis" when she drowned her five children in a bathtub at the family's Clear Lake home on June 20, 2001.
But postpartum psychosis is an illness that is unfamiliar to many forensic mental health experts, the advocates said.
They argue that the integrity of the verdict is at stake, depending on which experts are allowed to testify in Yates' trial.
"Knowledge of the current research is required to ensure that the jury receives necessary information about postpartum psychosis and how it affected Mrs. Yates," the motion states. " ... The lack of expertise in the relevant mental health area presents the peril of misleading the jury."
The parties joining the motion included National Advocates for Pregnant Women, the Postpartum Resource Center of New York, Postpartum Support International and Texas Mental Health Consumers.
Harris County prosecutors said they will fight any effort to narrow the witness list.
"The state is going to oppose any attempt to prevent the jury from hearing everything it needs to hear in order to decide whether Andrea Yates is insane," said Alan Curry, appellate division chief of the District Attorney's Office.
"Limiting the evidence the jury is going to hear is probably not appropriate in a case like this."
Entitled to a hearing
Curry said he doesn't believe the judge is required to consider the advocates' brief, which he noted was filed by New York lawyers who do not purport to be licensed in Texas.
But the defense is entitled to a hearing on whether certain experts' testimony ? such as Welner's ? is admissible, he said.
"They're going to have every opportunity they need to explore his opinions and the basis for those opinions before he testifies," Curry said.
"I don't know if they're going to be satisfied as to his expertise, but I'm pretty confident the judge is going to be satisfied."
A postpartum disorder is a serious complication resulting from childbirth, the group said in its motion.
Its rarest and most severe form is postpartum psychosis, which can cause new mothers to hallucinate, hear voices and suffer insomnia, confusion or cognitive impairment, the advocates said. Only 0.2 percent of childbearing women suffer such severe symptoms, they said.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/met ... 70741.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/3970741.html)
-
Cops: Man Stands By As Wife Drives Off Cliff With Kids
Children Survived
June 16, 2006
STONY POINT, N.Y. -- A man who knew his wife wanted to die stepped aside as she crashed their minivan down a 300-foot cliff with their children in the back seat, authorities said Friday.
Images: Mother Dead, Children Injured After Minivan Plunges Over Cliff
The children, who were strapped in, suffered only minor injuries, but their mother, 35-year-old Hejin Han, died.
Her husband, Victor Han, was arraigned Friday in Justice Court in the suburban town of Stony Point, about 40 miles northwest of New York City, on charges of promoting a suicide attempt, reckless endangerment and endangering the welfare of a child.
Bail was set at $75,000 cash or $100,000 bond, court clerk Diane Quinn said. There were no defense or prosecuting attorneys present at the initial court appearance, according to the town judge, William Franks.
Police said the family had stopped the car along a road in Bear Mountain State Park around 5:30 p.m. Wednesday. Han got out of the minivan and his wife "put the vehicle in drive and locked the doors," park police Col. James Warwick said Friday.
The vehicle then rolled over the cliff, tumbling nose-first, through scrub growth, down the mountainside into rocks below, police said.
Hejin Han was declared dead at the scene; the couple's 3- and 5-year-old daughters were taken to the hospital with minor injuries.
The car was parked on a scenic overlook, with a view of the Hudson River. Boulders have been placed there to keep cars from going off the cliff, but police said the vehicle just fit between two of them.
In the Staten Island neighborhood where the family lived, neighbors were "in disbelief. I knew Victor very well," said Kim Barbagallo, whose husband and Victor Han had worked together recently to rebuild the Barbagallo's home; Han designed it and Anthony Barbagallo, a builder, constructed it.
The two families lived across from each other on Elvin Street, where their four young children played together in the close-knit neighborhood that was a mix of various nationalities.
"Our kids were always outside playing ball together, or blowing bubbles," Kim Barbagallo said. "She was an at-home mom who took good care of the children. She'd always smile when you met her."
Another neighbor, Pamela Cropley, agreed, describing the family as caring and happy.
"They were playing with the children all the time," said Cropley. "His family was always outside waiting for him when he got home. They were just a happy, happy family."
The criminal complaint prepared by New York State Park Police states Victor Han "did intentionally drive Hejin Han to Perkins Memorial Drive while she was in a suicidal state of mind, park her vehicle near a steep cliff embankment, get out of the vehicle and walk away from the vehicle with the belief that Hejin Han wished to go to Bear Mountain to commit suicide."
It said Hejin Han was driving when the car went off the cliff.
Police had said Thursday that it looked like an accident that happened as Victor Han was outside looking at the scenery.
But by Friday they said the evidence indicated Han left the car knowing that his wife was suicidal. Han "afforded her an opportunity for her to carry out her intentions," state park police said in a news release.
Han was being held at the Rockland County jail pending another hearing Tuesday in Stony Point.
On Staten Island, "everybody on the block is very confused. Nobody was suspicious," said Barbagallo.
With their father in custody, 5-year-old Arianna Han and 3-year-old Itana Han, reportedly were released to their grandparents.
Associated Press
-
Andrea Yates Moved Out of Mental Hospital ? (06/16/2006)
Andrea Yates will be moved out of a mental hospital and into a jail cell for her upcoming retrial.
Yates is challenging 2002 ruling during which she was convicted of killing her children. Yates's attorney spent several hours in today?s hearing asking that Yates be transferred to a private mental health clinic during her retrial, claiming she is mentally unstable.
However, his motion was unsuccessful. Yates will be held in a jail cell for the length of her retrial.
-
Posted on Fri, Jun. 16, 2006
ANGELA K. BROWN
Associated Press
HOUSTON - Andrea Yates often struggles with deep depression or hallucinations around June 20, the day in 2001 when she drowned her five children in the bathtub. This year, Yates will be in court at her second murder trial around the anniversary.
In July 2004 Yates was hospitalized after starving herself for up to six weeks, losing about 30 pounds, according to the University of Texas Medical Branch Hospitals' discharge records. She believed she saw "babies yelling for help," the records showed.
Jurors in the retrial who will be selected beginning Thursday, will hear largely the same evidence as in the first trial, but also will hear about her psychotic episodes since her 2002 conviction that was later overturned on appeal, defense attorney George Parnham said.
"We've got four years of mental health records to show she's still severely mentally ill," Parnham said.
He maintains that severe postpartum psychosis prevented her from knowing that drowning her children, ages 6 months to 7 years, was wrong.
But prosecutors still insist that Yates does not meet Texas' legal definition of insanity: not knowing at the time that one's actions are wrong. Prosecutors plan to present the same evidence of how Yates killed the children after her husband left for work and before her mother-in-law arrived to help, and how Yates called 911 to report the crime.
"Everything I've seen has reaffirmed that she was sane at the time she killed her kids," prosecutor Kaylynn Williford said. "What's at the crux of this case is: You can be mentally ill and know right from wrong and be held criminally responsible."
Yates once again is pleading innocent by reason of insanity, and if convicted could be imprisoned for life. Because the first jury rejected the death penalty and decided on a life sentence, prosecutors cannot seek the death penalty again without presenting new evidence.
Last week, more than 20 individuals and groups - including Postpartum Support International, North American Society for Psychosocial Obstetrics and Gynecology, Texas Mental Health Consumers and New Jersey's former first lady Mary Jo Codey - asked the court to limit expert testimony to those familiar with postpartum psychosis.
The brief, which would affect some prosecution witnesses, says only those with significant experience treating the rare disorder should testify about whether Yates knew her actions were wrong.
The judge isn't required to consider the brief filed by New York attorneys. Opening statements start June 26, and the trial is expected to last through the end of July.
Last year the 1st Court of Appeals in Houston overturned her conviction, saying a prosecution witness' erroneous testimony could have influenced the jury's decision.
Dr. Park Dietz, a psychiatrist who has been a consultant for the "Law & Order" television series, told jurors that one episode depicting a woman who drowned her children in a bathtub - and was acquitted by reason of insanity - aired before the Yates children were killed.
Yates frequently watched the show, according to other testimony, and a prosecutor - not Dietz - suggested that she got the idea from the episode.
After the jury found Yates guilty, attorneys in the case learned no such episode existed.
Although Parnham argued to halt the retrial, saying that testimony constituted prosecutorial misconduct and would result in double jeopardy if Yates were tried again, an appeals court upheld the judge's ruling that there was no misconduct because the error was unintentional.
For a year-and-a-half prosecutors have reviewed boxloads of evidence while preparing once again for the trial.
"That's what's kept me going," Williford said, pointing to one of the state's exhibits, a large board containing family pictures of the youngsters: 6-month-old Mary in a baby carrier; 2-year-old Luke holding his baby sister; 3-year-old Paul wearing pajamas and a fireman's hat; 5-year-old John leaning against a tree; and 7-year-old Noah grinning from ear to ear.
"It's very emotionally draining and difficult to go through this again: reviewing the evidence, looking at the autopsy photos. It's hard as a human being; it's harder as a mother," Williford said. "It's not any easier looking through those pictures five years later."
Prosecutors will call Dietz to testify again, along with other witnesses from the first trial, Williford said. She said the witness list was still being prepared and declined to say what the state may do differently this time.
"Basically, our case in chief will be the same," she said.
Parnham said he planned to call 40 to 50 witnesses, including the same doctors who previously testified about Yates' mental condition. as well as more about her stays at a psychiatric hospital shortly before the 2001 drownings,
Andrea's then-husband, Russell Yates, testified for the defense in her first trial. Parnham said he planned to call Rusty Yates again but would approach him in a "different" way. He declined to elaborate.
Rusty Yates, who did not return calls seeking comment, has said he continues to stand by Andrea, who he divorced last year.
In March Rusty Yates married Laura Arnold, an attractive, blond fellow NASA worker who is divorced with two children. Their wedding, at the same church where the funeral for the Yates youngsters was held, was two days before the originally scheduled start of Andrea's second trial.
Andrea Yates, who has been in a state psychiatric hospital since her release on $200,000 bond earlier this year, will be in the county jail during the trial, a judge ruled Friday.
-
June 16, 2006, 11:30PM
Yates to be jailed for retrial
Judge denies her attorney's request to house her at a Ben Taub unit
By PEGGY O'HARE
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle
Andrea Yates will not be allowed to remain free on bail during her new capital murder trial, which begins later this month, a judge ruled Friday.
Yates' bail will be revoked on Monday and she must report to the Harris County Jail by 6 p.m., state District Judge Belinda Hill said.
Yates, who has been confined at Rusk State Hospital while awaiting her second trial for the June 2001 drownings of her children, was not in court for the ruling.
Attorneys for both sides agreed earlier this year that Yates' bail would be revoked and she would be housed in the County Jail's Mental Health and Mental Retardation Authority unit during her new trial, which begins June 26.
But defense attorney George Parnham asked the judge to reconsider on Friday, saying the Neuropsychiatric Center at Ben Taub General Hospital had agreed to accept Yates as a patient.
Noting that Tuesday will be the fifth anniversary of the children's deaths, Parnham told Hill that Yates' mental state typically deteriorates around that time.
He presented medical records showing that Yates stopped eating and lost 30 pounds in the summer of 2004.
"Each year, records will reflect, it is more or less a tough time for her," Parnham told the judge.
But prosecutor Joe Owmby said the county jail's mental health unit has two psychiatrists and can provide quality care and medication.
Owmby also contended that Yates' period of self-imposed starvation in 2004 resulted more from her husband's revelation that "he wished to get on with his life, divorce her and marry someone else."
Russell Yates divorced his wife in 2005 and remarried in March this year.
Hill denied Parnham's request without comment.
After the hearing, Owmby said Yates should not receive special treatment by being allowed to stay somewhere other than the jail during her trial.
"The treating physicians at the jail are competent professionals and do a good job," he said.
Yates, 41, has again pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to capital murder charges. She drowned her five children, ranging in age from 6 months to 7 years, in the bathtub at the family's Clear Lake-area home on June 20, 2001.
Yates was tried for three of those deaths and convicted of capital murder in 2002, but an appeals court ordered a new trial because of mistaken testimony from a forensic psychiatrist.
Yates will be on anti-psychotic medication during her new trial, but won't be as heavily medicated as she was during the first trial, Parnham said.
"The legal issue is one of competency: Can we get her through this while being legally competent? I think we can. ... She's not the same person she was in 2001," he said after the hearing.
Yates' history of mental illness includes diagnoses of schizophrenia and severe postpartum depression.
Efforts to head off a second trial failed earlier this year as Parnham rejected an agreement in which Yates would be sentenced to 35 years if she pleaded guilty or no contest to the lesser charge of murder. He asked that she serve her sentence in a mental institution, but prosecutors insisted on prison.
Also in Friday's hearing, Hill granted Parnham's request that prosecutors turn over any tests used by their new mental health expert, Dr. Michael Welner, during an 11-hour evaluation of Yates last month, or any other tests he relied on in concluding whether Yates knew right from wrong at the time of the drownings.
Prosecutors said they have not yet received Welner's findings.
At prosecutors' request, Hill also agreed Friday to prohibit any mention during the trial that Yates' capital murder conviction was reversed on appeal. She also forbade any reference to the erroneous testimony of forensic psychiatrist Park Dietz during the first trial.
Jury selection for the new trial will begin Thursday.
[email protected]
-
June 20, 2006, 4:24PM
Potential jurors in Yates' case answer questionnaires
Associated Press
Sixty potential jurors in Andrea Yates' murder trial arrived at the courthouse and filled out jury questionnaires today, exactly five years after she drowned her five children in the bathtub.
ADVERTISEMENT
The other half of the 120-member jury pool was to fill out the questionnaires Wednesday, and jury selection was set for Thursday. Opening statements start Monday.
Yates, who has pleaded innocent by reason of insanity, will stay in a state Mental Health and Mental Retardation unit of the Harris County Jail during the trial. Later today, she was to be taken to jail from the state psychiatric hospital in Rusk where she has been staying since her February release on $200,000 bond.
The judge revoked her bond Friday and ordered her to return to jail this week, denying defense attorneys' request that she stay in a private mental facility in Houston during the trial.
She is being tried again because her 2002 conviction was overturned last year when an appeals court said jurors may have been swayed by a prosecution witness' erroneous testimony.
Dr. Park Dietz, a psychiatrist who has been a consultant for the Law & Order television series, told jurors that one episode depicting a woman who drowned her children in a bathtub ? and was acquitted by reason of insanity ? aired before the Yates children were killed. After Yates was convicted, those involved in the trial learned no such episode existed.
If convicted of capital murder, Yates, 41, will be sentenced to life in prison. Because the first jury rejected the death penalty and decided on a life sentence, prosecutors could not seek death again unless they had found new evidence.
As in the first trial, Yates is being tried only in the 2001 deaths of 6-month-old Mary, 5-year-old John and 7-year-old Noah. She was not charged in the deaths of 2-year-old Luke and 3-year-old Paul, which is common procedure in a case involving multiple slayings.
-
http://www.CBSNews.com (http://www.CBSNews.com)
Insanity Remains Focus in Yates' 2nd Trial
HOUSTON, Jun. 18, 2006(AP) Andrea Yates often struggles with deep depression or hallucinations in the weeks around June 20, the date when she drowned her five children in their bathtub in 2001. During that period this year, Yates will be in court for her second murder trial.
Jurors, who will be selected beginning Thursday, will hear largely the same evidence as in Yates' first trial, but they also will hear about her psychotic episodes since her 2002 conviction, which was overturned on appeal, defense attorney George Parnham said.
In 2004, for example, Yates was hospitalized in July after starving herself for up to six weeks, losing about 30 pounds, according to the University of Texas Medical Branch Hospitals' discharge records. She believed she saw "babies yelling for help," the records show.
"We've got four years of mental health records to show she's still severely mentally ill," Parnham said.
Yates is again pleading innocent by reason of insanity. Parnham maintains that severe postpartum psychosis prevented her from knowing that it was wrong to drown her children, ages 6 months to 7 years.
Prosecutors, however, insist that Yates does not meet Texas' legal definition of insanity: not knowing at the time that one's actions are wrong. They plan to present the same evidence showing how Yates killed the children after her husband left for work and before her mother-in-law arrived to help, and how Yates called 911 to report the crime.
"Everything I've seen has reaffirmed that she was sane at the time she killed her kids," prosecutor Kaylynn Williford said. "What's at the crux of this case is: You can be mentally ill and know right from wrong and be held criminally responsible."
If convicted, Yates could be imprisoned for life. Because the first jury rejected the death penalty, prosecutors cannot seek that penalty again without presenting new evidence.
She has been in a state psychiatric hospital awaiting her retrial since she was released from prison earlier this year on $200,000 bail. Opening statements start June 26, and the trial is expected to last through the end of July.
Yates' conviction was overturned last year by the state's 1st Court of Appeals, which said a prosecution witness' erroneous testimony could have influenced the jury's decision.
That witness, Dr. Park Dietz, a psychiatrist who has been a consultant for the "Law & Order" television series, testified that one episode that aired before the Yates children were killed depicted a woman who drowned her children in a bathtub and was acquitted by reason of insanity.
Yates frequently watched the series, according to other testimony, and a prosecutor _ not Dietz _ suggested her actions were inspired by that episode.
After the jury found Yates guilty, attorneys in the case learned no such episode existed.
In preparation for the retrial, prosecutors have reviewed boxloads of evidence.
"That's what's kept me going," Williford said, pointing to one of the state's exhibits, a large board holding pictures of the youngsters: 6-month-old Mary in a baby carrier; 2-year-old Luke holding his baby sister; 3-year-old Paul wearing pajamas and a fireman's hat; 5-year-old John leaning against a tree; and 7-year-old Noah grinning from ear to ear.
"It's very emotionally draining and difficult to go through this again: reviewing the evidence, looking at the autopsy photos. It's hard as a human being; it's harder as a mother," Williford said. "It's not any easier looking through those pictures five years later."
Prosecutors will call Dietz to testify again, along with other witnesses from the first trial, Williford said.
"Basically, our case in chief will be the same," she said, declining to say what the state may do differently this time.
For the defense, Parnham said he planned to call 40 to 50 witnesses, including the same doctors who previously testified about Yates' mental condition. He said jurors also will be told more about her stays at a psychiatric hospital shortly before the 2001 drownings.
Andrea's then-husband, Russell Yates, testified for the defense in her first trial. Parnham said he planned to call Rusty Yates again but would approach him in a "different" way. He would not elaborate.
Rusty Yates did not return calls seeking comment but has said he continues to stand by Andrea. He divorced her last year, and in March he remarried at the same church where the funeral for his children was held.
-
Wednesday » June 21 » 2006
Insanity remains focus in Andrea Yates' 2nd trial in drownings of 5 children
Angela K. Brown
Canadian Press
HOUSTON (AP) - Andrea Yates often struggles with deep depression or hallucinations in the weeks around June 20, the date when she drowned her five children in their bathtub in 2001. During that period this year, Yates will be in court for her second murder trial.
Jurors, who will be selected beginning Thursday, will hear largely the same evidence as in Yates' first trial, but they also will hear about her psychotic episodes since her 2002 conviction, which was overturned on appeal, defence lawyer George Parnham said.
In 2004, for example, Yates was hospitalized in July after starving herself for up to six weeks, losing about 30 pounds, according to the University of Texas Medical Branch Hospitals' discharge records. She believed she saw "babies yelling for help," the records show.
"We've got four years of mental health records to show she's still severely mentally ill," Parnham said.
Yates is again pleading not guilty by reason of insanity. Parnham maintains that severe postpartum psychosis prevented her from knowing that it was wrong to drown her children, ages six months to seven years.
Prosecutors, however, insist that Yates does not meet Texas' legal definition of insanity: not knowing at the time that one's actions are wrong. They plan to present the same evidence showing how Yates killed the children after her husband left for work and before her mother-in-law arrived to help, and how Yates called 911 to report the crime.
"Everything I've seen has reaffirmed that she was sane at the time she killed her kids," prosecutor Kaylynn Williford said. "What's at the crux of this case is: You can be mentally ill and know right from wrong and be held criminally responsible."
If convicted, Yates could be imprisoned for life. Because the first jury rejected the death penalty, prosecutors cannot seek that penalty again without presenting new evidence.
She has been in a state psychiatric hospital awaiting her retrial since she was released from prison earlier this year on $200,000 US bail. Opening statements start June 26, and the trial is expected to last through the end of July.
Yates' conviction was overturned last year by the state's 1st Court of Appeals, which said a prosecution witness' erroneous testimony could have influenced the jury's decision.
That witness, Dr. Park Dietz, a psychiatrist who has been a consultant for the Law & Order television series, testified that one episode that aired before the Yates children were killed depicted a woman who drowned her children in a bathtub and was acquitted by reason of insanity.
Yates frequently watched the series, according to other testimony, and a prosecutor - not Dietz - suggested her actions were inspired by that episode.
After the jury found Yates guilty, lawyers in the case learned no such episode existed.
In preparation for the retrial, prosecutors have reviewed boxloads of evidence.
"That's what's kept me going," Williford said, pointing to one of the state's exhibits, a large board holding pictures of the youngsters: six-month-old Mary in a baby carrier; two-year-old Luke holding his baby sister; three-year-old Paul wearing pyjamas and a fireman's hat; five-year-old John leaning against a tree; and seven-year-old Noah grinning from ear to ear.
"It's very emotionally draining and difficult to go through this again: reviewing the evidence, looking at the autopsy photos. It's hard as a human being; it's harder as a mother," Williford said. "It's not any easier looking through those pictures five years later."
Prosecutors will call Dietz to testify again, along with other witnesses from the first trial, Williford said.
"Basically, our case in chief will be the same," she said, declining to say what the state may do differently this time.
For the defence, Parnham said he planned to call 40 to 50 witnesses, including the same doctors who previously testified about Yates' mental condition. He said jurors also will be told more about her stays at a psychiatric hospital shortly before the 2001 drownings.
Andrea's then-husband, Russell Yates, testified for the defence in her first trial. Parnham said he planned to call Rusty Yates again but would approach him in a "different" way. He would not elaborate.
Rusty Yates did not return calls seeking comment but has said he continues to stand by Andrea. He divorced her last year, and in March he remarried at the same church where the funeral for his children was held.
© The Canadian Press 2006
-
Suzanne O'Malley
BIO
Suzanne O'Malley writes frequently for dramatic television series including NBC's Emmy-winning Law & Order, Law and Order: Special Victim's Unit and the former New York Undercover. She is a freelance producer and on-air News Consultant for NBC and MSNBC, and has recently appeared on the Today Show with Katie Couric, Fox News, the CBS Early Show with Hannah Storm, CNN-TV Live Today, Court TV's Catherine Crier Show, MSNBC's Deborah Norville Tonight, American Morning with Paula Zahn, and National Public Radio's hour-long The Diane Rehm Show.
Suzanne O'Malley's insightful dispatches on the Andrea Yates trial appeared in The New York Times Magazine, Salon.com, O, The Oprah Magazine and on Dateline NBC. The author's discovery of false testimony during the Yates trial resulted in the pending appeal of Yates' conviction. Her book on the Yates case, ARE YOU THERE ALONE, was published in January 2004 by Simon & Schuster.
She is a former Editor-at-Large at Inside.com (2000-2001), Contributing Editor of New York Magazine (1994-1996), and senior editor of Esquire Magazine. She was nominated for a National Magazine Award by Redbook in 1997 for an article on legal trends in rape defenses, and by Harper's Bazaar in 1994 for reporting on girl gang initiation rituals involving sex with HIV-positive partners. Dateline NBC and Donahue featured the story.
Her investigative reporting, articles and reviews have appeared in The New York Times Magazine, The New York Times Book Review, New York Magazine, People, O, the Oprah Magazine, Esquire, Harper's Bazaar, Cosmopolitan, Glamour, Ms., Child, Playboy, Redbook, and Texas Monthly. She was restaurant critic for Esquire magazine (1978-80), and book editor/reviewer at Houston City and D Magazine (1979-80).
Ms. O'Malley was raised in Dallas and is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of The University of Texas at Austin. She lives in New York City and Houston, Texas.
Back to top.
INTERVIEW
February 20, 2004
In June 2001, Andrea Yates drowned her five children. The following year she was sentenced to life imprisonment for these murders. Suzanne O'Malley, a journalist, covered this trial for numerous publications and had unique access to Andrea and Rusty Yates. As the author of ARE YOU THERE ALONE?: The Unspeakable Crime of Andrea Yates, O'Malley talks to Bookreporter.com's Diana Keough about Andrea and Rusty Yates, the depths of Andrea's mental illness and what she has been hearing from readers.
Q: You are the only writer in communication with Andrea Yates. Did that change how you feel about her? What do you feel about Andrea Yates?
SOM: Receiving 30,000 words of correspondence from Andrea Yates informed my thinking about her --- big time. I encourage Bookreporter.com readers to read Andrea Yates's letters themselves and form their own feelings and opinions.
Q: You are the only writer who got to spend considerable time with Rusty Yates. Did that change how you feel about him? What do you feel about Rusty Yates?
SOM: Sure, spending time with Rusty Yates changed my thinking about him. But the 2,000 pages of Andrea Yates's medical records affected me more. Before I read them, I felt Rusty Yates was a monster.
Q: Who do you feel is most culpable in the crimes of Andrea Yates?
SOM: I'd say "what," not "who," is the question. My answer is Ignorance and Fear. In writing ARE YOU THERE ALONE?, I discovered that Andrea Yates was misdiagnosed, improperly medicated, and inadequately treated. There are psychiatrists who could have diagnosed her over the phone. Trouble is, there are only about 5 of them in the world. This is why parents, grandparents, educators, physicians and lawyers are reading "Are You There Alone?" Postpartum depression is THE most common adverse event of childbirth. If this scenario could happen to the Yates family, it could happen to you.
Q: You are a mother. Did you have to turn a part of yourself off emotionally to be able to listen to the tapes of Andrea describing how she drowned each child, how they struggled, etc.?
SOM: No. As Anna Quindlen wrote in Newsweek, what got to me was that forbidden look that passed between women that secretly said "I understand how this could have happened."
Q: Were there any other things you listened to or discovered during the course of the trial or researching this book that were emotionally hard to hear/write about?
SOM: For me, nothing is as hard to endure as not being allowed to learn. However difficult a piece of research was for me, it was always less painful than the ignorance that preceded it.
Q: You repeatedly reference the strong religious beliefs of not only the Yates, but also the Woronieckis, as well as other friends of the Yates and the entire state of Texas. What is your own religious background?
SOM: I am Roman Catholic.
Q: How do you feel about strong religious beliefs in others?
SOM: I respect strong religious beliefs held by others. Religious beliefs that result in civil strife, however, are tragic and antithetical to my idea of religion. Not to mention making me furious.
Q: Do you consider religion to be a crutch?
SOM: No
Q: Is there something about religion in Texas ---- the state where you were raised --- that's different than religion as practiced elsewhere?
SOM: The only places I have lived for a significant time are New York City and Texas. In my experience, there's a stunning difference between the two places in the overt practice and integration of religion in daily life. My opinion is that New York is more secular and religious beliefs are often more metaphorically held than in Texas. I imagine these differences exist in other parts of the country (where I have less experience to draw from) as well.
Q: While you touch on religion and the Woronieckis as having a hand in Andrea's crimes, you never completely "go there." Why did you not hit this issue harder?
SOM: I didn't hit harder on the Woroniecki issue because I don't believe religion causes mental illness. But as I describe in ARE YOU ALONE?, the Woronieckis earmarked me --- as they did Andrea Yates --- to be potentially among their chosen, and that was a sometimes startling experience.
Q: Do you think Rusty has forgiven Andrea?
SOM: Absolutely.
Q: How do you explain that?
SOM: How I explain it is that Rusty Yates understands his wife is mentally ill. For him, the crime of killing their five children never required forgiveness --- the deaths were a tragedy from which to seek future safeguards, not blame.
Q: Can Rusty Yates ever forget that a psychotic person like his wife is capable of such crimes?
SOM: No.
Q: You reference a number of letters that Andrea wrote you. At any point does she speak of her feelings for Rusty?
SOM: Yes, Andrea Yates frequently speaks of her feelings for her husband in letters to me. She's in love with him.
Q: Do you think that a woman with her degree of mental illness is incapable of knowing what she really feels about another person?
SOM: I believe that Andrea Yates is capable of knowing what she feels about another person and expressing those feelings. Many mental illnesses, including Andrea Yates's, "wax and wane." The letters excerpted in ARE YOU THERE ALONE? were generally written when she was stable; she is unable to write when she is incoherent.
Q: At this point is Andrea getting treatment for her illness in prison?
SOM: Andrea Yates is receiving appropriate medication for her illness in prison. However, the point of prison is punishment for crime, not treatment for mental illness.
Q: Characterize Rusty Yates for us. He seems like a man who things happen to. The world seems to circle around him with him not really taking grasp of any issue except as a topline thought. He knew Andrea was ill, but never hired an attorney or other advocate to help him get her the care she desperately needed. He knew she was ill, but still left the children with her that morning. Andrea's attorney was hired by her three brothers without Rusty even being consulted. This does not seem like a man "in charge." Are these sentiments on target?
SOM: No.
1) There is a Rusty Yates standing on every street corner in America. I don't perceive him to be different from many spouses. If you are talking to him about feelings on a Sunday afternoon in front of the television set, he will interrupt what you're saying to appreciate a touchdown or a really good putt.
2) Read the book excerpts from the 2,000 pages of Andrea Yates's medical records. If there's one thing Rusty Yates is, it's an advocate. When psychiatrists are unable to diagnose an illness after years of family effort, I wonder how a family, a lawyer, or any layman can succeed.
3) Hindsight is 20/20. Andrea Yates was left alone with the children for an hour that Wednesday morning when Rusty Yates left for work. Andrea and the children were watching television and Rusty's mother was on her way over to look after them. When Andrea had been ill the first time (in 1999, after the birth of her 4th child), she had twice tried to kill herself. The family's focus was on making sure she didn't try to kill herself again. They never thought she would harm the children.
4) Andrea Yates's attorney was hired by her then 72-year-old mother two days after the murders (with the consultation of her three brothers). Prior to that Friday morning, Rusty Yates was identifying the dead bodies of his children at the coroner's office, selecting their coffins, making funeral arrangements, seeing a NASA grief counselor, ferrying relatives to and from the airport, giving the Assistant District Attorney a tour of the crime scene, and seeking advice from a friend who is an attorney. Rusty Yates had also scheduled a meeting that Friday afternoon with noted defense attorney Mike Ramsay (who recently won the Robert Durst murder and dismemberment case in Galveston, Texas). Ramsay had been recommended to Yates by the office of NBC's Katie Couric. So had the attorney Andrea's mother had selected. Rusty Yates agreed with his in-law's choice of George Parnham.
Q: In his grief, just about everything Rusty did --- from creating a website in his children's memory to the way he methodically cleaned out the bathtub and removed the bed the children were placed on after they died --- seems like the actions of someone rather emotionally detached from the situation at hand. Did you feel this way about Rusty?
SOM: First, let me say that, it was Randy Yates --- Rusty's brother --- who cleaned the bathtub. Relatives had begun to arrive for the funeral and some were staying at the house. Rusty says he himself was never able to set foot in that tub. He had it removed and smashed to pieces with a sledgehammer.
Rusty Yates is a career NASA engineer. His job is safety systems for the space shuttle program. It is fair to say he is methodical.
Q: Are Andrea and Rusty hard people to read or did your editor discourage you from including more of your own insight?
SOM: My ambition was to be the reader's proxy --- to uncover facts that enable readers to have their own insights.
Q: Do you have any personal insights on them that you didn't include?
SOM: Nope. I left it all in the book.
Q: It seems incredible in this day and age, between the Internet and e-mail, that the key fact about the falsehood of the "Law and Order" episode about the mother killing her children from postpartum depression and getting off was not vetted immediately by the defense. Why do you think this happened?
SOM: Yates's defense attorney George Parnham asked forensic psychiatrist and expert witness Park Dietz whether he was a consultant for the television series Law & Order. Dietz said yes and volunteered the information regarding the episode. Who had any reason to think Dietz was mistaken? More than that, Dietz had consulted on 300 episodes of Law & Order --- who was going to screen them all to see if he'd made a mistake?
Q: High profile trials like this one often take on a media frenzy that gives them almost a life of their own. How was this trial similar or dissimilar to others that you covered?
SOM: I believe that the unprecedented media frenzy surrounding the Yates case --- not even 9/11 knocked it out of the headlines --- was in large part due to the gag order the trial judge placed on witnesses. An information vacuum drove the mystery. A month after Andrea Yates was sentenced to life in prison, the gag order was declared unconstitutional by a special prosecutor.
Q: Is this a case that will haunt you, or does your role as a journalist not allow this?
SOM: No, this case won't haunt me --- though it would have if I hadn't written the book. Once you pull back the curtain, shed light in all the dark corners, the haunting vanishes.
Q: What is the question you are most being asked as you do media for this book? What are you hearing from readers?
SOM: The question I am most asked is: 'How could this have happened?' What I hear often is how sorry people feel for Andrea Yates and her family. How they don't think she belongs in prison. Shocking, considering she killed five children. Not a single person has condemned Andrea Yates during interviews with me.
Q: What's your next project?
SOM: I've begun writing another book that solves a case which has withstood twenty years of legal and media scrutiny with no conviction.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redir ... 0743244850 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=thebookreport01&creative=9325&camp=211189&link_code=as2&path=ASIN/0743244850)
© Copyright 1996-2006, Bookreporter.com
-
Friday, June 23, 2006
Jury selected in Yates re-trial
Wire Report
HOUSTON - A jury of eight men and seven women was selected Thursday to hear the second trial of Andrea Yates, who has pleaded innocent by reason of insanity in the drowning deaths of her children five years ago this week.
The 15-member panel includes three alternates, who will be released before deliberations begin.
Several of the potential jurors questioned during the daylong proceedings said they disagreed with the insanity defense in general. Texas' legal definition of insanity states that the defendant, as a result of severe mental disease or defect, did not know at the time of the offense that the conduct was wrong.
-
Reported by Foti Kallergis
June 23, 2006 - 6:54PM
If you haven't been following the Andrea Yates trial, you'll have a second chance. That's because the Houston jury in her re-trial has been selected and will begin hearing arguments to determine her destiny on Monday.
Deborah Bell/Yates Support Coalition "She needs care and treatment, and she needs it in the right kind of place, not behind prison walls."
Whether in prison or a psychiatric hospital, Yates' punishment is likely to be as controversial as questions about her mental illness, and whether it caused her to drown her five children in a bathtub.
Beaumont Psychiatrist Dr. Sudheer Kaza says he's seen an increase in patients who say they suffer from post partum depression.
"This particular person is hearing voice that are telling her she's a bad mother, she doesn't know how to take care of her kids," said Kaza. "She thinks she's the bad mother so that's why if she is going to die she is going to kill the babies then kill herself."
It's reffered to as the baby blues, and it's an illness Kaza says is becoming more accepted.
"It's mainly because of the big movie stars and TV and newspapers more talking about this and especially the trials coming on the screen and how people are watching and Oprah talking about that."
And it's for that reason Kaza and Yates' defense believe the jury in the re-trial will see her as mentally ill and not guilty by reason of insanity, but not a murderer.
Testimony in the Yates capital murder retrial begins Monday in Houston.
In June of 2001, Yates drowned her five children in a bathtub in the family's home.
In 2002, a Houston jury convicted Yates of capital murder and sentenced her to life in prison. That conviction was overturned last year.
FOR COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS STORY E-MAIL [email protected]
-
New Trial for Andrea Yates Will Test American Attitudes on Mental Illness
By ANGELA K. BROWN Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press
HOUSTON - Since Andrea Yates first stood trial on charges of drowning three of her five children, the facts of the case haven't changed. What her defense teams hopes has changed is the public's view of mentally ill defendants.
Since Yates' 2002 conviction, which was overturned on appeal, several other Texas mothers have killed their children and been found not guilty by reason of insanity.
Those verdicts as well as community outreach and education efforts about mental illness are encouraging to Yates' attorneys and advocates, who say her severe postpartum psychosis prevented her from knowing her action was wrong.
"More people know it's a brain disorder and not just something you can snap out of," said Betsy Schwartz, director of the Mental Health Association of Greater Houston. "We can only hope the jury will have a keen awareness of the chemistry and physiology of what was going on in Andrea Yates' brain when this happened."
Yates' retrial was to begin Monday with opening statements. As in her first trial, she has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. If the jury agrees, she could be committed to a state hospital, with periodic hearings to determine whether she should be released. A guilty verdict would mean life in prison.
A prosecutor in the case said the jury must consider only the evidence presented in this case not get caught up in public sentiment or try to send a message about mental health issues.
"This is not cookie-cutter justice," prosecutor Kaylynn Williford said. "I believe in the insanity defense, in which someone can commit a crime and not be held criminally responsible. I do not see that in this case based on the evidence."
Prosecutors say they will again call Dr. Park Dietz, the psychiatrist who testified that Yates knew her actions were wrong. Dietz, also a consultant to the "Law & Order" television series, told jurors that one episode depicting a woman who drowned her kids in a bathtub and was acquitted by reason of insanity aired before the Yates children died.
Attorneys learned after Yates was convicted but before jurors sentenced her to life in prison that no such episode existed. That mistake caused an appeals court in Houston last year to overturn Yates' conviction.
Prosecutors say Yates planned the murders during the small window of time when she'd be home alone with the youngsters on June 20, 2001, after her husband went to work and before her mother-in-law arrived. Then she called her husband and 911 and later confessed, prosecutors say.
Other Texas youngsters' deaths at the hands of their mothers have drawn comparisons to the Yates case.
On the day before Mother's Day in 2003, Deanna Laney bashed her three sons' heads with rocks, killing the 8- and 6-year-olds and severely injuring the 14-month-old. The woman from the Tyler area said she believed God ordered her to kill her children, and she was found not guilty by reason of insanity.
Lisa Ann Diaz drowned her 3- and 5-year-old daughters in September 2003 in the bathtub of their Plano home. Diaz, tried only in the older child's death, was found not guilty by reason of insanity.
In 2004, Dena Schlosser cut off her 10-month-old daughter's arms in the family's Plano apartment, then called 911 while a church hymn played in the background. She, too, was found not guilty by reason of insanity.
Determining whether those verdicts indicate a trend is difficult because the cases were not identical or in the same county, said Fred Moss, an associate law professor at Southern Methodist University's Dedman School of Law in Dallas.
"This part of the country in particular is very retributive in their notions of justice and think somebody has to pay for a death," Moss said.
As in her first trial, Yates is being tried only in the deaths of 6-month-old Mary, 5-year-old John and 7-year-old Noah. She was not charged in the deaths of 2-year-old Luke and 3-year-old Paul, which is not uncommon in a case involving multiple slayings.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures
-
Why would anybody want her to get away with killing her children? Thats what will happen if she goes to some nut house. She Has to pay for her crime. Life if not Death.
-
On 2006-06-26 10:16:00, screann wrote:
"Why would anybody want her to get away with killing her children? Thats what will happen if she goes to some nut house. She Has to pay for her crime. Life if not Death."
Oh yes, you are absolutely right, why would anyone
who has no choice over her illness not fool the doctors to get no treatment and get to prison as fast as possible.
We know that staying in a psych hospital for the rest of one's life is better than skateboarding on
butter.
Let's hope those damn experts don't get their way
and she fools the snot out of them with no symptoms for the last 15 years or so.
-
Insanity defense raised at murder retrial for Houston housewife
By Lisa Sweetingham
CourtTV
HOUSTON, Texas (CourtTV) -- Shortly after Andrea Yates methodically drowned her five children in the bathtub, she told an investigator that she did it because she was such a bad mother she had doomed her young to eternal damnation.
The only way to save them, she said, was to kill them.
Yates' attorneys are now trying to save the former nurse and Texas housewife from a life in prison. (Watch opening arguments -- 1:50)
For a second time to a new jury, they are putting forth a case that Yates is not guilty of murdering her children because she was insane on June 20, 2001, the day she drowned them.
"There was no question she was psychotic, not depressed, but absolutely psychotic," defense attorney George Parnham told jurors Monday during his opening statement. Yates had a history of mental illness, Parnham said.
Records show Yates had twice attempted suicide, was diagnosed with recurrent postpartum depression, and had been hospitalized several times for psychiatric care.
When first asked by detectives why she killed her children, Parnham told jurors Yates was unable to "connect the dots" and she had no answer.
But she was put on medication for 24 hours, Parnham said, and she began to tell a doctor -- who is expected to testify for the defense -- the reasons for her unspeakable actions.
Mark of the beast
"She talks about a prophecy," Parnham said.
"These children of hers needed to die in order to be saved," he added, "because Andrea Yates was such a bad mother that she was causing these children to deteriorate and be doomed to the fires of eternal damnation."
Parnham said that Yates believed she had the sign of the devil, 666, burned on her scalp, and she begged therapists to look at her head. What they found, Parnham said, was not the sign of the beast, but scabbing from where Yates had tried to pick away the numbers she thought were there.
Defense experts are expected to testify that "knowing that something is illegal does not mean that you know something is wrong," Parham said.
But prosecutors say Yates understood what she was doing when she pinned each child to the bottom of the tub until they were dead. She knew what she was doing when she laid their lifeless bodies side by side in the bed she shared with her husband and called 911.
"It was wrong," Assistant District Attorney Kaylynn Williford said during opening statements.
Yates knew right from wrong that morning, prosecutors say, and therefore, by Texas law, should not be found legally insane.
Yates calm in court
Yates, 41, sat quietly at the defense table staring at her hands as Williford described how she called her children one by one into the bathroom to kill them.
She started with Paul, 3, then Luke, 2, John, 5, Mary, 6 months, and ended with Noah, 7. She later told investigators the boy asked, "What's wrong with Mary?" when he saw his baby sister floating face-down in water tainted by urine and feces.
Williford told jurors that all the children showed bruises and signs that they had struggled, even the infant girl.
Yates' ex-husband Russell "Rusty" Yates appeared in court Monday with his mother.
Andrea Yates' own mother was also in court, but sat at the other end of the row and did not speak to her former son-in law. As witnesses for the defense, they were ordered by the judge to leave the courtroom and will not be allowed back until they testify.
Rusty Yates, a NASA engineer, told Courttvnews.com that he remarried earlier this year but says he still speaks with his wife and is very supportive of her defense.
Andrea Yates was found guilty on March 12, 2002, of the capital murder of three of her five children by a jury that deliberated just under four hours. Prosecutors did not bring charges for the deaths of Paul and Luke. (Full coverageexternal link)
Conviction overturned
But Yates' conviction was overturned by an appeals court because a prosecution witness, forensic psychiatrist Park Dietz, testified about an episode of "Law and Order" in which a woman is acquitted of drowning her children by reason of insanity.
Prosecutors suggested to the first jury that the episode gave Yates the idea of how to get away with murder. After the verdict was reached, attorneys discovered that no such episode existed.
Her conviction was overturned in January 2005. Jurors in Yates' first trial rejected the death penalty, saving her from a potential death sentence in the second trial.
If she is found guilty, she faces life in prison. If jurors find her not guilty by reason of insanity, Yates will be sent to a psychiatric hospital and her case will be monitored by the court, which will determine when she could be released.
Jurors also listened Monday to Yates' 911 phone call, placed minutes after she drowned her last child. During the brief recorded conversation, Yates sounds calm, asks for an officer to come to the house, and tells the dispatcher that, no, her husband is not home.
But Yates' breathing is heavy, and she sounds disoriented when the operator repeatedly asks her why she needs police. "I just need them to be here," Yates finally replies. "You sure you're alone?" the operator asks. "No, my kids are here," Yates replies.
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/26/yates.trial (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/26/yates.trial)
-
June 27, 2006, 1:16PM
Yates sobs as video shows her dead children
By DALE LEZON
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle
Andrea Yates sobbed in a crowded courtroom this morning as a police video showed the bodies of her five drowned children where officers found them after she called them to her Clear Lake-area home.
ADVERTISEMENT
Yates ? on trial for a second time on capital murder charges ? had watched quietly along with jurors as the video opened with a view of the one-story home as it appeared on June 20, 2001.
The camera then moved to the back yard, where children's toys could be seen.
The video, recorded by Officer Glenn West, then turned to the front door and moved inside the house, panning across the living room and then moving to the kitchen.
There, viewers could see bowls on the kitchen table and countertop, half-full of cereal and milk. The sink was filled with unwashed plates, cups and drinking glasses.
The camera then moved along a hallway to a bedroom with wooden bunks beds, then proceeded along the hallway to the bathroom, where the hallway carpet was soaked.
At this point, Yates put a hand to her mouth, looked down and began to sob while the camera moved into the bathroom.
Jurors and courtroom spectators watched on two large-screen TVs as the camera panned across the bathroom, showing the body of Yates' 7-year-old son, Noah, dressed in white pajamas and face-down in the murky water in the bathtub.
Yates, 41, sobbed and her shoulders shook as she continued looking down.
The camera then moved down a hallway and into a bedroom, where Noah's four younger siblings lay in a bed, side by side, covered by a brick-red comforter.
Jurors and spectators remained quiet and showed no obvious emotional response, but Yates kept her gaze turned downward and wept.
The video, about 15 minutes long, slowly fades to black after someone off-camera pulls the comforter back to show the four small bodies, dressed in their pajamas. West, who shot the video and still photos of the home, testified today that the children and the mattress were wet, as was the hallway carpet leading from the bathroom to the bedroom.
Also this morning, Houston police Sgt. David Svahn testified that he saw Russell Yates, Andrea Yates' husband, running toward the house, screaming and crying about 10:00 a.m.
"He was running and hollering 'what did you do to my kids? What did you do to my kids?''' Svahn testified.
He said Russell Yates told them his wife had called him at work and told him to come home because "she had hurt all five of the kids'' and ''had finally did it."
Prosecutors also are expected to present testimony about the autopsies on the children's bodies as they continue presenting their case against Yates today.
Although they acknowledge that Yates is mentally ill, they maintain that she knew right from wrong when she drowned her children, one by one, in the bathtub after her husband left for work.
Defense attorneys contend that Yates is insane and should be in a mental hospital instead of a prison.
If she is convicted of capital murder, Yates will be sentenced to life in prison. Prosecutors cannot seek a death sentence this time because she was sentenced to life in her first trial and they are not presenting any new evidence in the retrial.
Although a large crowd turned out again today to see the trial, fewer spectators came to the Harris County Criminal Justice Center today than on the trial's opening day Monday.
The number of news media representatives also has dwindled somewhat, with fewer reporters from national media at the trial today.
http://www.HoustonChronicle.com (http://www.HoustonChronicle.com) | Section: Front page
This article is: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4006092.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4006092.html)
-
July 1, 2006
Expert: Yates needs lifelong medication
Jury is told she wasn't faking her symptoms in 2001, she remains mentally ill
By PEGGY O'HARE and DALE LEZON
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle
While Andrea Yates' mental state has improved while she has been in jails and hospitals, she is not cured and will require treatment for the rest of her life, a psychiatrist told jurors Friday.
Dr. Debra Osterman, a staff psychiatrist at the Harris County Jail who has treated Yates occasionally for five years, said Yates was not faking her symptoms when she was brought to the jail in 2001, and she remains mentally ill.
Osterman's testimony came on the fifth day of Yates' capital murder trial after jurors heard a former jail nurse recall that he first met Yates as she mumbled to herself and tried to scratch away what she believed was a mark Satan had placed on her head.
State District Judge Belinda Hill gave jurors a four-day break at the end of Friday's testimony, telling them to return Wednesday morning.
Defense attorneys hope to convince the jury that Yates, who will turn 42 on Sunday, was insane when she drowned her five children in the bathtub of the family's Clear Lake-area home on June 20, 2001.
Prosecutors contend that she knew right from wrong and should be found guilty of capital murder.
Yates will automatically be sentenced to life in prison if she is convicted. If the jury finds her not guilty by reason of insanity, she will be sent to a mental hospital and remain under the supervision of Hill's court, likely for the rest of her life.
No matter what the jury decides, both sides agree Yates will not walk out of the courthouse a free woman.
Osterman, who began treating Yates 12 days after the drownings, said she eventually diagnosed the former homemaker and nurse with a type of bipolar disorder, or manic depression. Yates also has been diagnosed with postpartum depression with psychotic features and schizophrenia.
Yates fully believed her delusions were real and was convinced that drowning her children was the right thing to do at the time, Osterman said.
"My recollection is, she thought Satan was inside of her," Osterman told the jury. "She thought she was a bad mother and had irrevocably harmed the children ? and in order to save them, she had to kill them."
As another psychiatrist indicated Thursday, Osterman said Yates did not believe she was mentally ill or needed psychiatric medication after her arrest.
As she responded to medication and her psychosis began to dissipate, she could no longer recall why she had believed her children had to die, Osterman said. She said Yates also did not recall some of the bizarre statements she made during her early evaluations.
Yates' hallucinations gradually diminished, and she remarked two months after the drownings that she was "coming out of a cloud," Osterman said. At that point, Yates said she didn't understand the delusions that led her to kill her children.
During cross-examination by prosecutors, Osterman agreed that a psychotic person, despite the illness, could be capable of choosing a time to kill without interruption.
She also acknowledged that a psychotic person could hide evidence of a crime.
Yates drowned her children during a one-hour period when she was left alone with them, after her husband had left for work and before her mother-in-law arrived at the house.
A family member, speaking outside the courthouse Friday, agreed that Yates will never be cured or totally recall the drownings.
"She'll never, ever have a normal memory of that day ? never, ever," said the Rev. Fairy Caroland, an aunt of Yates' ex-husband, Russell.
Caroland, a Georgia resident who has been attending the trial, said Yates has suffered at least three psychotic breaks since going to prison.
"She's never going to be well," Caroland said. "It's kind of like alcoholism and drug addiction. ... It can't be cured, but you can control it."
She added that she does not believe Yates can get the medical treatment she needs in prison.
Jurors also learned that Yates was staring at the wall and mumbling when a nurse at the county jail's Mental Health and Mental Retardation Authority unit first saw her the morning after the drownings.
John Bayless, now a nurse in the Cypress-Fairbanks school district, testified that Yates' lips were moving rapidly, but he couldn't discern what she was saying.
"I pronounced her name. She paid no attention. She didn't even know I was there," Bayless said. "I used her full name. I used a louder voice. She then turned her head slowly toward me, looked at me and then turned her head back to the wall and resumed her conversation."
Bayless said Yates was picking at her scalp and told him that Satan had put a mark on her head.
Assistant District Attorney Joe Owmby noted that Bayless had not mentioned some of those details in Yates' first trial four years ago.
"Often, on progress notes, you don't write down everything you see," Bayless replied.
Yates was convicted in that trial and sentenced to life in prison, but an appeals court ordered a new trial because of erroneous testimony by the prosecution's mental health expert.
Defense attorneys expect to call Yates' former mother-in-law, Dora Yates, to testify Wednesday, along with other doctors and nurses familiar with Yates' mental health history.
[email protected] (http://mailto:[email protected])
-
Associated Press
Jail Psychiatrist Says Yates Improved
By ANGELA K. BROWN
06.30.2006
About a month after drowning her five children in the bathtub, Andrea Yates said she was no longer seeing Satanic ducks and teddy bears on her cell walls and was hearing fewer noises from hell, a jail psychiatrist testified Friday.
Dr. Debra Osterman, who started treating Yates 12 days after the June 20, 2001, deaths, said the remission of Yates' hallucinations indicated she was starting to respond to anti-psychotic and antidepressant drugs.
"She finally looked as if she had a little bit of life behind her eyes," Osterman told jurors in Yates' second murder trial. "While a very tiny step, it was a major improvement to how she had been."
Yates was convicted of murder in 2002, but the conviction was overturned last year because of erroneous testimony. She has again pleaded innocent by reason of insanity.
Prosecutors contend Yates knew her actions were wrong because she called 911 about the drowning deaths of Noah, 7, John, 5, Paul, 3, Luke, 2, and 6-month-old Mary and later told a detective she killed her children because she was a bad mother and wanted to be punished. She also said she did it when she would be alone with the youngsters, after her husband went to work and before her mother-in-law arrived.
Prosecutors rested their case Wednesday.
Osterman said that in mid-July, Yates didn't remember a prophecy she had talked about the day after the deaths, in which she thought Satan was inside her and the only way to save her kids from eternal damnation was to kill them.
"At the time of the killings, she thought she was doing the right thing ... based on a delusional belief," Osterman told jurors.
Osterman said Yates' inability to remember the prophecy meant that her mental state was improving.
Osterman testified that when she started treatment, Yates reported hallucinations such as Satanic ducks and teddy bears, showed no expression and rarely talked.
Under cross-examination, Osterman acknowledged that a lack of emotion was one side effect of the anti-psychotic medicine Yates was taking.
Yates, who remains medicated, is still severely mentally ill with bipolar disorder but is now "essentially well," Osterman said. She can make small talk and has a full range of emotions, she said.
Osterman has continued treating Yates since she recently returned to the mental health unit of the Harris County Jail. Yates left prison for a state psychiatric hospital after being released in February on $200,000 bond, which was revoked before the trial started.
The trial will resume Wednesday after an extended break for the Independence Day holiday.
Prosecutors said that during the trial's rebuttal phase, after the defense presents its case, they will call Dr. Park Dietz, the psychiatrist whose testimony caused Yates' conviction to be overturned.
Dietz, also a consultant to the "Law & Order" television series, told jurors in her first trial that one episode depicting a woman who drowned her kids in a bathtub - and was acquitted by reason of insanity - aired before the Yates children died.
But no such episode existed, attorneys learned after Yates was convicted but before jurors sentenced her to life in prison.
Yates, who turns 42 on Sunday, will be sentenced to life in prison if convicted. She is being tried in only three of the children's deaths, a common practice in cases involving multiple slayings.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed
-
By GINA SUNSERI
June 26, 2006 ? Andrea Yates has trouble sleeping, and still fights deep depression, despite the medications she will be on for the rest of her life, her attorneys say.
Yates' mother, Karin Kennedy, says she still has hallucinations around the anniversary of her children's deaths. Andrea Yates finds some solace in art. She draws pictures of rainbows and flowers that her mother displays in her home.
For Harris County prosecutor Joe Ownby, the case against Yates is very simple. All he has to do is remember the five children who died when she drowned them in the bathtub of her suburban home five years ago.
The crime scene video tape that will once again be played in court haunts many who saw it during the first trial. The police photographer walks in the front door, shows the children's school room, the living room, the kitchen where cereal bowls sit on the table. The camera tracks through the home, showing a child's wet sock in the hallway, then turns into the bathroom where the body of one of her children is face down in the bathtub. The videotape ends in a bedroom where four tiny bodies were laid neatly on a bed and covered with a sheet.
Fairy Caroland, Andreas' relative from her marriage to Russell Yates, sees it differently.
"Andrea was very sick, is still very sick, and suffered from delusions that her children were irreparably harmed and damaged by her,"Caroland said. "And the only way for them to be 'saved' and go to heaven was for them to die at their young ages, so that they could immediately go to God."
A Second Trial, A Second Insanity Defense
Once again, Andrea Yates is being tried on two charges of capital murder in the deaths of three of her five children. Once again she has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.
Her defense team and the prosecution agree on one issue: Yates was clearly a troubled mother. But prosecutors contend she knew what she was doing was wrong.
In Texas, that is all that is needed to convince a jury thatYates was mentally ill, but not insane when she decided to systemically down her children one-by-one, at a time when she knew her husband would be at work.
Yates is being tried again because her conviction was overturned on appeal. The appeals court was concerned that testimony from prosecution psychiatrist Park Dietz ? which was wrong ? may have influenced the jury's decision to convict Yates in the first trial.
Yates' attorney, George Parnham, is optimistic that he can persuade a jury this time to find her not guilty. He believes people are smarter about the postpartum depression, which triggered Yates into psychosis. Parnham says Yates is still a very sick woman.
"She is on a heavy dosage of antipsychotic medication to keep her from drifting into psychotic delusions," Parnham said. "She certainly appreciates what happened on June the 20 of 2001, and she understands that she has to go back through the cause of a trial. You can imagine the hell Andrea Yates lives with every day."
A jury of seven women and eight men has been chosen to hear this second trial. They will have to decide if Yates knew right from wrong when she drowned her children.
If Yates is convicted, this jury will not have to decide if she should be sentenced to death. Prosecutors are not asking for the death penalty this time.
-
Friday , June 30, 2006
HOUSTON ? Andrea Yates stared at her cell wall the day after she drowned her five children in a bathtub and appeared to be talking to someone who wasn't there, a psychiatric nurse testified Friday.
John Bayliss, who worked in the mental health unit of the Harris County Jail, testified in Yates' second murder trial that the suburban Houston woman slowly turned to look at him only after he repeatedly called out her name. She then turned back to the wall and continued rapidly mumbling and picking at her hair, he said.
Click here to visit FOXNews.com's Crime Center.
"(It) is something I had not observed in any other patient I had dealt with," Bayliss said.
Yates was convicted of murder in 2002, but the conviction was overturned last year because of erroneous testimony. She has again pleaded innocent by reason of insanity.
Dr. Melissa R. Ferguson testified Thursday that she evaluated Yates the day after the children ? 6-month-old Mary, 2-year-old Luke, 3-year-old Paul, 5-year-old John and 7-year-old Noah ? were drowned in their home in June 2001. Ferguson, then the medical director of psychiatric services at the Harris County Jail, said Yates at first showed no emotion but then started crying and yelling.
"She screamed, 'Couldn't I have killed just one to fulfill the prophecy? Couldn't I have offered Mary? Are they in heaven?"' Ferguson said.
Ferguson testified that Yates said her children were not righteous and had stumbled because she was evil, and they could never be saved because of how she was raising them. Yates then paraphrased Luke 17:2, saying, "It is better for someone to tie a millstone around their neck and cast them into a river than to stumble," Ferguson told jury.
She added that Yates did not believe she was mentally ill.
Prosecutors, who rested their case Wednesday, contend Yates knew her actions were wrong because she called 911 after the crime and later told a detective she killed her children because she was a bad mother and wanted to be punished. They also said she did it after her husband went to work and before her mother-in-law arrived.
Ferguson testified that Yates showed signs of paranoia when she reported hearing voices and said the media had put cameras in her cell, but prosecutors showed the jury pictures of Yates' cell that had a surveillance camera and intercom.
When she asked Yates if she was suicidal, Ferguson testified, Yates said, "I cannot destroy Satan; only the state can." Ferguson said Yates believed President Bush was still the Texas governor, and that Yates said that he would destroy Satan.
On Thursday, a former case worker testified that the day after the drownings, Yates asked for a razor to shave her head. She said "666" ? the "Number of the Beast" in the Book of Revelation ? was on her scalp, Corey Washington testified.
Washington said he stood to look at the back of Yates' head and noticed three marks that he was told were scabs where she had picked at her scalp.
"I kind of buckled a little bit," Washington said.
Prosecutors still plan to call Dr. Park Dietz, the psychiatrist whose testimony inadvertently caused Yates' conviction to be overturned. They said that he would testify during the trial's rebuttal phase, after the defense presents its case.
Dietz, also a consultant to the "Law & Order" television series, told jurors in Yates' first trial that one episode depicting a woman who drowned her kids in a bathtub ? and was acquitted by reason of insanity ? aired before the Yates children died. No such episode existed.
Yates, who turns 42 on Sunday, will be sentenced to life in prison if convicted. She is being tried in only three of the children's deaths, a common practice in cases involving multiple slayings.
-
Psychiatrist had warned Yates against bearing more children
Testifies to thinking 'lives were at stake'
ASSOCIATED PRESS
July 8, 2006
HOUSTON ? A psychiatrist testified yesterday that she warned Andrea Yates not to have any more children after she tried to commit suicide twice within months of having her fourth child in 1999.
?I could pretty much predict that Mrs. Yates would have another episode of psychosis,? Dr. Eileen Starbranch told jurors in Yates' second murder trial.
Advertisement
Starbranch said Yates suffered from postpartum psychosis, which she said causes a mother to have delusions and lose touch with reality, making it much more severe than postpartum depression.
Yates drowned her five children in a bathtub in June 2001, six months after the birth of her fifth child, Mary. She is being tried again because an appeals court overturned her 2002 murder conviction based on erroneous testimony that might have influenced the jury. She has again pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.
Yates' attorneys have never disputed that she killed her children, but say she didn't know the drownings were wrong.
Prosecutors say Yates may be mentally ill but doesn't meet the state's definition of insanity, and that she planned the killings in advance. Along with Mary, Yates drowned Luke, 2; Paul, 3; John 5; and Noah, 7.
Starbranch said she treated Yates after she tried to kill herself by overdosing on sleeping pills in June 1999.
About a month later, Starbranch said, Yates' then-husband, Rusty, told her that Yates had held a knife to her own throat the previous day.
Starbranch said Yates had a bald spot on her head from scratching it, had not been taking her anti-psychotic medication, had filthy hair and couldn't function. Starbranch said she sent the couple immediately to a mental hospital so Yates could be admitted.
Over the next two weeks or so while hospitalized, Yates steadily improved while on anti-psychotic drugs, Starbranch said. But then in March 2001, Rusty Yates called Starbranch's office trying to make an appointment, saying his wife was getting worse since having the couple's fifth child in November, Starbranch testified.
?I knew that was a very ominous sign . . . that lives were at stake, so I asked that she be brought in immediately,? Starbranch said.
The couple never showed up, but Starbranch later learned that Yates was admitted to another mental hospital, the psychiatrist testified.
-
Andrea Yates had filled the tub before
HOUSTON Andrea Yates had filled the bathtub before -- and it apparently caused two of her sons to worry.
Her mother-in-law, testifying yesterday at her second murder trial in the drowning of her children, spoke of an incident from nearly two months before the drownings of all five Yates children in the tub.
Dora Yates said she was at the family's home when the two oldest boys rushed into the living room and asked her why their mother was filling the tub with water. She says she asked her daughter-in-law, who told her it was because she "might need it."
She testified for the defense at the trial, where Andrea Yates is once again pleading not guilty by reason of insanity. Her first conviction was overturned because of some erroneous testimony.
Dora Yates says she thought her daughter-in-law had simply forgotten she had turned on the water. She says she never imagined that she would hurt the children. But she says the incident indicated a relapse in Andrea Yates' mental condition, so she was re-admitted to a mental hospital where she had just spent a couple of weeks.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
-
Antidepressant Used by Yates Questioned
By ANGELA K. BROWN
Associated Press Writer
Last Updated:July 09. 2006 10:03PM
July 09. 2006
Andrea Yates is escorted after a court appearance in Houston in this Jan. 9, 2006, file photo. An antidepressant that Yates took in the months before she drowned her five children in 2001 recently had "homicidal ideation" added as one of its rare adverse events, but the drug's manufacturer says it believes there is "no causal link between Effexor and homicidality."
A widely prescribed antidepressant that Andrea Yates took in the months before she drowned her five children in 2001 had homicidal thoughts added recently to its list of rare adverse events. But the drug's manufacturer says it believes Effexor doesn't cause such phenomena.
Wyeth spokeswoman Gwen Fisher said that while Effexor was being studied for use in treating panic disorder, the company found one person reported having homicidal thoughts in its clinical trial.
"Homicidal ideation" was added last year as one of Effexor's rare adverse events, defined as something not proven to be caused by the drug. The Madison, N.J.-based company never notified doctors or issued warning labels because it found no causal link between its drug and homicidal thoughts, Fisher said.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration defines rare as occurring in less than one in 1,000 people. In the U.S. alone, about 19.2 million prescriptions for Effexor were filled last year.
"We believe there is no causal link between Effexor and homicidality," Fisher said. "In our minds, we've taken every precaution."
Dr. Moira Dolan, executive director of the watchdog group Medical Accountability Network, criticized Wyeth for not doing more to publicize it, saying "homicidal ideation" is listed on page 36 of Effexor XR's label.
Dolan said she discovered the labeling change about two weeks ago after stumbling across the FDA's MedWatch November newsletter.
"Families don't know to be aware of this possible effect," said Dolan, an Austin doctor who reviewed Yates' medical records after her first trial at the request of her then-husband. "As doctors we're not going to look through 36 pages of labeling."
Fisher said the warning about "homicidal ideation" also appears on the one-page package insert given to all patients.
Yates, 42, has pleaded innocent by reason of insanity in her second murder trial that started two weeks ago. Her 2002 capital murder conviction was overturned on appeal because some erroneous testimony may have influenced jurors.
Yates' attorneys have never disputed she killed the youngsters but say she didn't know that the drownings were wrong. Prosecutors say Yates may be mentally ill but does not meet the state's definition of insanity.
She had been prescribed Effexor in varying doses after her first suicide attempt in 1999 and after staying at a mental hospital in 2001. A month before the children's bathtub drowning deaths, her daily dose had increased to twice the recommended maximum dose, Dolan said.
Yates continues to take Effexor, according to a psychiatrist testifying in her retrial.
Yates' lead attorney, George Parnham, said Wyeth should have publicized information about the possible rare adverse event, but said that will not affect Yates' case.
"Obviously this is a severely mentally ill individual who was on a plethora of psychiatric meds," Parnham said. "There's no question mental illness killed those children."
In 2004, the FDA ordered that all antidepressants carry "black box" warnings that they increase the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior in children. That action was driven by data that showed that on average 2 percent to 3 percent of children taking antidepressants have increased suicidal thoughts and actions.
Effexor is Wyeth's top-selling drug, with $3.46 billion in 2005 sales worldwide, more than twice the total for its No. 2 product and 18 percent of its total revenues for last year.
---
AP Business Writer Linda A. Johnson in Trenton, N.J., contributed to this report.
-
This woman makes me sick. Plain and simple. Plain and friggin simple.
Sure, she checked out and killed her kids, but not because she couldnt help it. She made a choice. She knew she made one, she called 911 and admitted what she did.
It makes me ill that people want to sit around and justify this horrific deviation. It wasnt her fault? I guess the kids held their own heads under the water.
Its not unlike the government keel-hauling Iraq over rumors off WMD's, all while watching North Korea shoot missles over our heads and wondering if we should do something about it.
Has anyone else on this thread lost a child besides me? I didnt kill mine by the way.
Fucking Morony.
-
I haven't been following this thread... FFS, PLEASE don't tell me there's really any debate about this...GUILTY!!!!!!!!!! ::both::
-
There was debate a while back. Now it's just someone posting the latest articles that have been written.
Carmel, my condolences. I can't even imagine. :cry:
-
Thanks, I appreciate it.
Its just because I got really furious reading the last CNN article about how they are going back and forth over whether or not it was "her fault".
Makes me sad for humanity, thats all. Really sad.
I just wonder sometimes if these bleeding hearts have ever had children of their own, or lost children of their own. If they know anything about the maternal bond, and what it truly means to make that kind of departure from it. If she never knew it was wrong, I wonder then why she called the police and asked to be punished?
I know the debate is long over. But still, to sit there and pretend like its anything short of completely unacceptable and unforgivable, is beyond me. Let her husband forgive her if he likes, he'll die from that burden someday. But dont make the rest of the world try to see it as anything less than sub-human. Its cowardice against ones own species in my eyes.
[ This Message was edited by: Carmel on 2006-07-10 15:07 ]
-
Not even the courts are debating her guilt.
What is the case is about?
Whether to give her life in prison, or life in a prison mental hospital. Like where John Hinkley is locked up for life.
What the public seems to be doing is applying logic to the illogical delusions of a psychotic person and comparing it to their notion of right and wrong.
From what I have observed it seems those that have mental illness, or know someone who has a mental illness looks at this case and says why waste the courts money, just put her in the prison hospital.
Those that do not believe in mental illness say send her to prison.
Whatever ... ?
-
Jurors see video of Yates' interview with psychiatrist
HOUSTON A videotaped jail interview shows Andrea Yates crying as she tries to explain to a psychiatrist why she drowned her five children in a bathtub.
Yates, in the video played today for jurors, told Doctor Lucy Puryear, that in their innocence, she thought they would go to heaven.
The defense offered the interview in the Houston capital murder retrial of Yates.
Her 2002 convictions were thrown out. Yates has again pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.
-- Court ended at midday today because of a scheduling conflict. Testimony resumes tomorrow.
Puryear is an expert on reproductive-related psychiatric disorders.
In the video, Yates often clenched her jaw and paused for up to a minute or more after some questions.
Her attorneys say Yates suffered from severe postpartum psychosis and did not know that killing her children was wrong.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
-
I guess people with a mental disorder who have had these deadly command voices, delusions and hallucinations that are reading people's opinions about their illness are pretty offended also.
Fortunately, the illnesses are real, and there are treatments that help. In some cases full remission!
Command Hallucination:
Psychotic individuals sometime describe hallucinations of voices commanding them to engage in specific activity.
Psychotic:
This term encompasses those serious mental disorders, including schizophrenia, major depression, alcohol withdrawal delirium, and others where the individual "loses touch with reality." Hallucinations and delusions are generally considered psychotic symptoms. The individual experiencing them may be described as psychotic.
-
There was just segment on that explained this trial pretty clearly.
First, this is being held in Texas. They have the toughest insanity defense law in the nation that in effect there is no insanity defense law in Texas.
To win this or any case, even if justified in all the other states will be miraculous.
In most other states she would have been found insane and sent to a prison psychiatric hospital for life. Simple as that.
The newsfolks have this debate going on, and it shouldn't be ... at all.
Apparently the truth about psychosis is that a person can know an act is wrong but the illogical thought patterns cause by the illness make stopping the act impossible. Unless that persons illness profile is stabilized by psychiatric care, most likely medicine. That is it, that is all there is to it.
So all this talk about how people are interpreting her actions, without taking psychosis into account are just not educated in this field.
-
Mary Zdanowicz
Copyright © 2006 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.
"Recovery from mental illness is possible," wrote the director of one Maine psychiatric hospital, painting a rosy picture of life with schizophrenia. A week after his piece was published, one of his recently released patients stood accused of bludgeoning his mother to death.
William Bruce wasn't afforded that chance at recovery. After Bruce was accused of killing his mother, the hospital director explained why. "In Maine, a client can choose not to be engaged in treatment ... [t]he major issue is when someone does not appear eminently [sic] dangerous and cannot be committed."
This attitude is emblematic of a bizarre tendency by some in the mental health community to bank on an illusion of recovery for everyone, ignoring issues like awareness of illness and violence in the hope that disregarding them will eliminate stigmata.
The problem with that strategy is that it isn't true. And anyone who reads a newspaper knows it.
The mantra is that schizophrenia is not disabling and people who have it are no more violent than the general public. That simple message is more damaging than the one it tries to correct -- that schizophrenia means a life of disability and violence.
A small group of people with mental illnesses are more violent than the general public; those are the ones not taking medication. Failing to acknowledge this -- because of a misguided sense of political correctness or fear of stigmatizing everyone with a mental illness -- keeps everyone from acting to help that small group.
A recent national study clarifies who is at the greatest risk of being dangerous. Schizophrenia patients with "positive symptoms" (paranoid delusions, hearing voices, having imagined superhuman powers) were at least three times more likely to be violent than other schizophrenia patients.
Scientific data like this helps clarify who most needs treatment interventions, reducing stigma for others with mental illnesses -- and saving lives.
The establishment also tends to ignore the science on insight into illness. They talk about "choice," disregarding studies showing some people are unable to choose. The most common cause of nonadherence to treatment is actually not side effects, stigma, or medication cost, but a lack of insight into illness. That can seriously interfere with a patient's ability to weigh meaningfully the consequences of various treatment options.
How does that affect choice? We understand that William Bruce thought the CIA had implanted a device under his skin. How will seeing a psychiatrist help you if the CIA is after you? Building a trusting therapeutic relationship is impossible if a patient imagines his doctor is part of a CIA plot. Medication is needed to combat the delusions.
Maine, like every other state, has a law allowing civil commitment for people who meet strict standards. Sadly, the law is misunderstood even by mental health professionals.
In one news story, William Bruce's father, Robert Bruce, recounted what he said to his wife the night before she was killed: "I can't believe they allow these people out on the streets. ... What do we have to wait for? Do we have to wait for him to hurt somebody or kill somebody before they do something?'"
Too late for the Bruce family, the correct answer is "no." Maine's law does allow intervention before someone is deemed "imminently dangerous," and it is within the scope of the law for the hospital director to make discharge from a psychiatric facility conditional on someone taking medication.
But some mental health professionals assume it is harmful to mandate someone to accept treatment. This is a myth. In one study, individuals in court-mandated community treatment had low levels of perceived coercion, similar to individuals who had never experienced any form of leverage -- they didn't feel "forced," in other words. But those same people reported significantly higher treatment satisfaction than those whose treatment had been voluntary, probably because they didn't get to choose whether to take medication or not.
Maine's laws are weak in that they only allow civil commitment on an inpatient basis -- and there are too few beds to go around. A small pilot program is bringing an outpatient version of civil commitment to Maine -- states with similar programs have seen phenomenal results, reducing arrests, homelessness, and violence for participants. Hopefully that program will soon be available statewide.
Until then, the mental health community must retool its message based on science. Yes, most people with mental illnesses can and do live independent and violence-free lives. But denying the truth about those who remain strips them, and sometimes their caregivers, of the chance to live any kind of life at all.
Mary Zdanowicz is the executive director of the Treatment Advocacy Center (www.psychlaws.org (http://www.psychlaws.org)), a national nonprofit dedicated to removing barriers to treatment of severe mental illnesses.
-
The interesting discussion is not really about Andrea Yates' guilt or innocence. It's all about the drugs.
If you get tanked on alcohol or meth and do something fucked up, it's all on you. Everybody knows or should know how those drugs effect us because we have lots and lots of experience with them to draw from. If you decide to get tanked and neglected to get a reliable friend to babysit you, well that's your fault and you're responsible for whatever you do.
But if you take a drug because a professional assures you that it's safe and effective and then you wind up doing crazy shit under the influence, is it really your fault? To my mind, fuck yeah, it is! I'm sorry that this always offends people but I think somebody's got to be the asshole and state it outright as many times as it takes till it takes. And, well, I'm just that kind of asshole. Find something you're good at you stick with it, right?
You have to be dumber than paint to take rx drugs without checking for yourself to see what we know about them. What, have you slept through the last 3 decades of recalls and tragic headlines behind the latest, greatest wonder drugs that turned out to be bad friends? Come on people!
I think the object lesson behind the Yates story is don't take candy from strangers, even strangers w/ white lab coats, clean fingernails and impressive looking documents hanging on their well appointed office walls. We all come into this world naked and screaming and we all check out the same way. Think for yourself!
-
Defense rests in Andrea Yates' retrial
HOUSTON (AP) ? The defense in Andrea Yates' murder trial rested Tuesday after her best friend tearfully told jurors that the woman who drowned her five children in the bathtub "misses them terribly."
Debbie A. Holmes, who met Yates about 20 years ago when both were nurses at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, said she still visits Yates and writes her letters.
Yates, 42, is being retried in her children's 2001 bathtub drowning deaths because her capital murder conviction was overturned by an appeals court that ruled erroneous testimony might have influenced the jury. She has again pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.
Her attorneys say she suffered from severe postpartum psychosis and did not know it was wrong to kill 7-year-old Noah, 5-year-old John, 3-year-old Paul, 2-year-old Luke and 6-month-old Mary.
Prosecutors began their rebuttal case Tuesday. They have said they plan to call Dr. Park Dietz, the psychiatrist whose testimony led to Yates' conviction being overturned.
Story continues Story continues
Advertisment
Dietz, also a "Law & Order" television series consultant, told the first jury that in one episode of the crime drama a woman was acquitted by reason of insanity after drowning her children in a tub. He said the show aired before the Yates children died. But after her 2002 conviction, it was discovered no such episode existed.
Holmes testified that Yates was a sweet friend, dedicated nurse and loving mother, but that after the birth of her fourth son she turned into a "total zombie" who stared into space and couldn't finish sentences.
Holmes said she helped care for her friend's children in 1999 after Yates returned from a psychiatric hospital following two suicide attempts. Holmes said that a few months later she asked Yates why she had been so depressed.
"She asked me if I thought Satan could read her mind and if I believed in demon possession," Holmes said.
Earlier Tuesday, prosecutors cross-examined a neuropsychologist who evaluated Yates about six months after the drownings.
Dr. George Ringholz said Yates recounted a hallucination she had after the birth of her first child.
"What she described was feeling a presence ... Satan ... telling her to take a knife and stab her son Noah," Ringholz said.
Ringholz acknowledged that he did not perform certain tests to see if Yates was trying to make her mental illness appear worse, but he said other tests and safeguards as part of the extensive two-day evaluation indicated she was not faking. Ringholz diagnosed schizophrenia.
Ringholz said Yates was delusional the day of the drownings and did not know her actions were wrong, even though she called 911 and knew she would be arrested. Her delusion was that Satan had entered her and that she had to be executed in order to kill Satan, he said.
"Delusions cannot be willed away," Ringholz said.
-
July 15, 2006, 2:09AM
Doctor says Yates justified killings
Psychiatrist says mother thought deaths were better than lives of sin
By DALE LEZON
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle
Andrea Yates believed killing her children was sinful, but considered it the best thing she could do for them, a psychiatrist testified Friday.
Park Dietz, a forensic psychiatrist, said Yates quoted Scripture to him when she talked about the killings.
"My children weren't righteous," she said. "They were going to stumble. Better for them to tie a millstone around their necks and they should perish than they should stumble."
Dietz, whose erroneous testimony four years ago resulted in Yates' new trial, said the former Clear Lake-area housewife's religious beliefs indicate she knew the killings were wrong. She considered killing them a sin and believed her homicidal thoughts came from Satan, Dietz said.
"Mrs. Yates, in assessing her obsession to harm the children, regarded that idea of harming the children was a sin," Dietz said. "That killing the children would be sinful is an indication that it would be wrong from her point of view."
Yates, 42, is accused in the deaths of her five children, ages 7, 5, 3, 2 and 6 months, on June 20, 2001, at the family home near Clear Lake.
Defense attorneys are trying to convince a jury that Yates was insane when she killed the children.
Prosecutors say Yates, although mentally ill, knew right from wrong.
If convicted, she automatically will be sentenced to life in prison. She would be placed in a mental hospital and remain under the court's jurisdiction if she is found not guilty by reason of insanity.
Yates was convicted in 2002 and sentenced to life in prison, but an appeals court threw out the conviction based on Dietz's testimony about an episode of the television drama Law & Order in which a mother is found not guilty by reason of insanity for killing her children.
No such episode existed.
Attorneys have said state District Judge Belinda Hill prohibited them from mentioning the phantom program, but they could refer to the previous trial as a "preceding" and question Dietz about his testimony to determine if he was testifying the same way in the new trial.
Friday, when defense attorney George Parnham asked him about Yates' statements to him concerning the film Seven, Dietz said he remembered Yates had told him she had seen it, but he couldn't recall the plot specifically.
Parnham said there are similarities between Yates' delusions and the actions of one of the film's characters. The character killed and then hoped to be executed.
Mental health witnesses have testified that Yates believed she would be punished for killing her children and said Satan would be killed when the state executed her.
Parnham also asked Dietz about his testimony in the 2004 capital murder trial of Deanna Laney, who was acquitted by reason of insanity.
In Laney's trial, Dietz said that psychotic delusions made Laney unable to determine right from wrong during the killings ? the legal standard in Texas' legal standard for insanity.
Laney, who believed God chose her and Yates as witnesses after the end of the world, said she believed God had told her to kill her three children.
Dietz testified that Laney believed she was right to kill her children because God would never order her to do wrong.
Friday in Yates' trial, Hill told attorneys with the jury on break from the courtroom that she would not retry the Laney case, but allowed Parnham to ask Dietz questions about delusions based on religious faith.
Parnham asked Dietz if people commanded by God to kill are insane.
"Only if a person is of a faith that believes God is good and infallible."
He said Yates told him in a interview in November 2001 that Satan was the origin of thoughts about harming her children.
"Because Mrs. Yates said that the thoughts were bad, she knew it was wrong, and because of her faith she concluded they were from Satan," Dietz said.
Dietz said Yates suffered from mental illness as far back as 1994 but had not been "floridly psychotic" ? grossly psychotic ? until she was at the Harris County Jail the day after the drownings and after her arrest.
He said her symptoms most likely were signs of schizophrenia, he said.
[email protected]
-
The interesting discussion is not really about Andrea Yates' guilt or innocence. It's all about the drugs.
But if you take a drug because a professional assures you that it's safe and effective and then you wind up doing crazy shit under the influence, is it really your fault?
You have to be dumber than paint to take rx drugs without checking for yourself to see what we know about them.
I think the object lesson behind the Yates story is don't take candy from strangers
-------------------------------
I think that this is a great example of an emotionally based uninformed post.
Meds are bad? That means there are 25 million gullable people out there that are not feeling better, even though they do. Consumers of any type of product vote by their purchases. If 25 million people where unhappy with the effectiveness of meds they wouldn't be on them.
History of meds? Without meds there would still be large state run insane asylums. That is the real history.
Choosing to go to a doctor? Is mental illness a choice, I don't think so.
Empiracle evidence is not on your side Eudora.
Finally, although the meds are bad argument sounds wonderful and it is a feel good argument to jump on the bandwagon, especially if one does not have mental illness. The truth is 85% of schizophrenic patients do not take meds. Therefore only 15% do, meaning there is not this big drug everyone issue going on. The 85% voluntarily do not take their meds.
The patients that are a danger to themselves or others may be put on AOT, assertive outpatient treatment. But as the Andrea Yates case and the big mental/murder cases the public gets to read for the most part these patients where no forced to take their meds.
So I guess you got your wish, 85% of schizophrenics don't take their meds!
-
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/ ... xt/archive (http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2821/context/archive)
Andrea Yates Shows That Mothers Need Our Help
Run Date: 07/19/06
By Anne Eggebroten
WeNews commentator
Andrea Yates is on trial again for murdering her five children in 2001. Anne Eggebroten says mother-murder is a common phenomenon with predictable causes. One woman's escape offers guidance on prevention.
Editor's Note: The following is a commentary. The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily the views of Women's eNews.
Anne Eggebroten
(WOMENSENEWS)--Other mothers have killed their children since the Andrea Yates tragedy hit the headlines in June 2001, but they don't always make news beyond a local area.
I've encountered one such emergency scene myself. One day last October, I was visiting friends in San Francisco and happened to be near Pier 7 when screaming sirens stopped traffic. A psychotic young mother had just quietly thrown her three children into the cold water of the bay. The three boys--6 years, 2 years and 1 year--died. Their mother, Lashuan Harris, began her long journey through the legal system; so far she has been arraigned and ordered to stand trial.
These mother-murders abound: a U.S. mother kills her child at the rate of once every three days, according to legal scholar Michelle Oberman at Santa Clara University in California. Nevertheless, the extremes of the Yates case continue to draw attention: five children, two prior suicide attempts and a smiling, well-employed husband who expected the whole family to live in a bus.
"I could pretty much predict that Mrs. Yates would have another episode of psychosis," testified psychiatrist Eileen Starbranch in Houston during Yates' second trial. The first trial ended with a murder conviction that was overturned on appeal because of false testimony by a prosecution witness. Starbranch treated Yates after her overdoses with sleeping pills in June and July, 1999, and warned her and her husband not to have any more children.
How did Andrea Yates move from a seemingly happy bride in published photos to a killer? As her second trial plays out, it's clear that there were three steps in her metamorphosis: an oppressive marriage, repeated childbirths and mismanagement of mental illness.
Andrea and Russell Yates came under the sway of an itinerant evangelist who said that a woman not obedient to her husband was a "contentious witch" like Eve, seen as having argued with Adam and cursed the future of the human race. As the demands on Yates increased, she fell short and judged herself harshly.
Psychologist Harriet Lerner says that when a woman "does more giving in and going along than is her share" and loses control over her choices, she enters a "de-selfed position."
Repeated childbirths further weakened Yates physically and mentally, and her family history suggests a predisposition to certain mental disorders. Abrupt changes in her medications in the weeks and days prior to the killings may have been the final trigger. Yates became convinced that Satan was within her; she deserved execution, but her children could still go to heaven if sent while they were still innocent.
As in the Yates case, most mother-murders are caused by social isolation and despair, sometimes accompanied by mental illness, according to the research of Oberman.
An E-Mail About Escape
Last week I received an e-mail from a woman who escaped from a situation that, while crucially different from Yates' in some ways, was also very similar. She allowed me to share the essential facts of her situation while changing her name to protect her privacy.
Sarah contacted me because of an article I wrote four years ago pointing out the role of conservative Christian churches in empowering abusive husbands. She happened to find it while searching the Internet and reached me through the Web site of Evangelical and Ecumenical Women's Caucus.
"I was married to a conservative Christian husband and we had five children," Sarah wrote. "I left a social work career to stay at home and home-school my children." Yates also gave up her work as a registered nurse and home-schooled her children, as required by her husband.
"I then spiraled down to a dark and dangerous place emotionally," Sarah continued. "I felt every day that I was not a good mother. I was never good enough. Every pregnancy brought more health problems. By the fourth child, I would pass out from low blood sugar while the babies would be unattended. This makes me shiver now." She now recognizes that she was suffering from untreated clinical depression.
Unlike Andrea Yates, Sarah managed to get out of this predicament. She decided to go to graduate school and earn a master's in social work. (What a choice; grad school with five young children would have been enough to drive me to desperation.)
Sarah had another method of moving out of the "de-selfed position." She had a few affairs. Unable to speak up for herself, she unconsciously started to end her marriage by becoming sexually involved elsewhere. "I wanted to make a statement to my husband," she writes.
Post-Divorce Professional
The result was a divorce in which her ex got custody of her five children. Sarah has regrets, but she and her children are all alive and well today. She has a satisfying job. "Going to graduate school was the best decision that I made. I moved up professionally pretty quickly," she reports.
Sarah misses her children and still struggles with depression, but it is controlled with medication. Though Andrea's diagnosis of post-partum psychosis was much more serious than Sarah's depression, their family profiles were remarkably similar.
Sarah's recovery proves that there are ways of helping troubled mothers who are isolated and under pressure.
First, help women regain their sense of self, their voices and power over their own choices. Family therapy can help accomplish this. Some child-free activity outside the house can also be a life-saver. As in Sarah's case, a job or further education can be key.
Second, prevent further childbirth. Don't add the post-partum element to a depression or other mental illness.
Third, activate community responsibility when the warning light of possible psychosis is present. Doctors must not only warn but follow up. Is medicine taken? Is birth control being used? In addition, the church must be prevented from pressuring fragile women into additional childbirths. Any church that forbids contraception must be told: "This woman may die. Her children's lives are at stake."
Finding Our Roles
All of us can find a place in this important work. Pro-choice organizations need our energy and financial support. Doctors and mental health agencies need to move from a hands-off stance that stresses patient rights to a position of engagement with the community surrounding a patient.
Those of us in faith communities need to take on fundamentalist groups denying choice to women, as well as the oppressive reproductive policies of the Roman Catholic Church.
The San Francisco drownings illustrate an often overlooked aspect of the problem: the fixation on patients' rights that tends to keep children in the home of a troubled parent. In many cases preserving parental custody may be good, but when family members see signs of danger alarm bells should go off. When Lashuan Harris stopped taking her Haldol, a medication for schizophrenia, the children's grandmother attempted to gain partial custody but was refused, according to a family member. "They said she was sane, that they couldn't do anything," Joyce Harris, aunt of the children's mother, told the San Francisco Chronicle last October.
The issues are complex, but there are things that all of us can do for troubled mothers. Churches, clinicians, friends, families and pro-choice activists can defuse the pressures that entrapped Andrea Yates and Lashuan Harris.
Anne Eggebroten is a research scholar with the Center for the Study of Women at University of California, Los Angeles. Her pro-choice book "Abortion--My Choice, God's Grace: Christian Women Tell Their Stories" (New Paradigm, 1994) is available online or in bookstores.
Women's eNews welcomes your comments. E-mail us at http://www.harrietlerner.com (http://www.harrietlerner.com)
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
http://www.rcrc.org (http://www.rcrc.org)
Evangelical and Ecumenical Women's Caucus http://www.eewc.com (http://www.eewc.com)
Note: Women's eNews is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites and the contents of site the link points to may change.
-
HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com (http://www.HoustonChronicle.com) | Section: Houston & Texas
July 19, 2006, 6:03PM
Psychiatrist says Yates thought drownings were right
The Clear Lake mother believed two of her boys would burn in hell
By DALE LEZON
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle
Andrea Yates believed one of her sons would become a serial killer, another would be a mute homosexual prostitute and that both would burn in the fires of hell if she did not kill them, a psychiatrist told jurors today.
ADVERTISEMENT
Dr. Phillip Resnick, who interviewed Yates twice after her children's deaths and also reviewed other psychiatrists' interviews with her, said Yates believed she had ruined her children and that they would grow up to sin and then be sent to hell.
She believed she could save their souls if she killed them before they reached age 10, which she considered the age of responsibility, Resnick said.
He said Yates believed that John, 5, would become a serial killer.
"Another son would grow up to be a mute, homosexual prostitute,'' Resnick said.
Yates, 42, is charged with capital murder and will receive an automatic life sentence if convicted.
She would be placed in a mental hospital and remain under the court's jurisdiction if she is found not guilty by reason of insanity.
The former Clear Lake homemaker drowned her five children - ages 7, 5, 3, 2 and 6 months - on June 20, 2001 in the bathtub at their home.
Prosecutors say Yates, although mentally ill, knew right from wrong when she killed her children.
Yates was convicted in 2002 and sentenced to life in prison, but an appeals court ordered a new trial because of erroneous testimony from the prosecution's mental health expert.
Resnick, a psychiatry professor at Case Western Reserve University's medical school in Cleveland, Ohio, testified that Yates' mental illness made her delusional, resulting in her belief that she was doing the right thing by killing her children to save them from damnation.
He said she believed she had beaten Satan in the battle for their souls because they would go to heaven.
Yates' religious beliefs, he said, were the ``trellis'' on which her delusions grew. She believed, he said, that she had caused her children to stumble and Satan wanted them in hell.
"Mrs. Yates began to believe that not only was Satan tormenting her, but tormented her children,'' Resnick said. "She believed that Satan would have her children.''
After the deaths, she believed that she would be punished and executed by the state of Texas, the only entity that could destroy Satan, he testified.
[email protected]
-
Testimony ends in Andrea Yates retrial
20 July, 2006
By ANGELA K. BROWN, Associated Press Writer ago
HOUSTON - Testimony in the Andrea Yates murder case ended Thursday after a nearly monthlong retrial that included some new witnesses but no appearance by Rusty Yates, her ex-husband and father of the children she is accused of drowning.
Yates, 42, was retried in the drowning deaths of her children because an appeals court overturned her 2002 conviction because some erroneous testimony may have influenced jurors. Yates is charged in only three of the five children?s deaths, which is not unusual in multiple slayings.
The state?s key new witness was forensic psychiatrist Dr. Michael Welner, who evaluated Yates for two days in May.
The state also brought back its key witness from the first trial, Dr. Park Dietz, whose testimony led to Yates? conviction being overturned.
The judge barred attorneys in this trial from mentioning that issue.
Among the new defense witnesses was a psychiatric nurse in the mental hospital where Yates stayed twice in the two months before the drownings.
Rusty Yates did not testify, as he did in the first trial. He was sworn in as a witness the first day, and defense attorneys said during the trial that they might ask him to testify.
Rusty Yates, who remarried in March, did not immediately return calls seeking comment Thursday.
If convicted, Andrea Yates will be sentenced to life in prison. Prosecutors could not seek the death penalty this time because the first trial?s jury rejected execution, and authorities found no new evidence.
If found not guilty by reason of insanity, Yates will be committed to a state mental hospital.
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
26
-
Listening to the closing arguments today I heard the defense attorney make this statement. No one her doubts that Andrea Yates had mental illness before, or after the day of the murders.
The State of Texas is claiming she did not have mental illness that day only.
Hmmm, well said!
-
Jury Begins Deliberating in Yates Retrial
By ANGELA K. BROWN , 07.24.2006, 06:31 PM
A jury began deliberating in Andrea Yates' second murder trial Monday to determine whether she knew drowning her children in the bathtub was wrong.
After four hours of closing arguments, jurors began to sort through nearly a month of evidence and testimony from 40 witnesses.
During her closing, prosecutor Kaylynn Williford brought out the pajamas the children were wearing when they died. She also displayed the crime scene photos showing the four youngest children laid on a bed and 7-year-old Noah, who was killed last, floating face down in the bathtub.
"Is that the act of a loving mother? Were there words of comfort? Were there prayers? They didn't want to die," Williford said. "The legacy of this case should be that you will hold her accountable for the deaths of these children ... because she is criminally responsible."
The children's father stood and walked from the courtroom as Williford described Noah's intense struggle in the water and showed a close-up photo of his face after he was removed from the tub.
Rusty Yates, who has said he still supports Andrea and does not want her to be convicted, divorced her last year and remarried in March.
Andrea Yates showed no emotion during closing arguments until Williford showed the photos of the children's bodies. Then she cried for several minutes and wiped her nose with tissues.
Defense attorney Wendell Odom said Yates meets the state's definition of insanity: that a severe mental illness prevents someone who is committing a crime from knowing it is wrong.
Odom said that Yates was delusional when she killed Noah and 6-month-old Mary, 2-year-old Luke, 3-year-old Paul and 5-year-old John in June 2001. Yates thought the children were flawed because she was a bad mother and because Satan was inside her, and said she had to kill them to save them from hell, he said.
Odom noted Yates' long history of mental illness, including four hospitalizations since 1999 and two suicide attempts. He compared her case to a driver having a heart attack and running someone over, saying that person would not be charged with murder.
"Andrea Yates had a heart attack. It was a heart attack of the mind," Odom said. "The only reason we're here is there are five dead bodies, five precious children that have been killed. ... We want our pound of flesh. We want our accountability. We want someone to be punished."
Yates, 42, was convicted of capital murder in 2002 and sentenced to life in prison. But an appeals court overturned that verdict last year because some erroneous testimony may have influenced jurors.
Yates is charged in only three of the children's deaths, which is not unusual in multiple slayings. She has again pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.
Prosecutor Joe Owmby said Yates behaved normally with her husband the morning she drowned the youngsters so he would not suspect what she planned to do after he left for work at NASA's Johnson Space Center.
Owmby said Yates, who was valedictorian of her high school class and a successful nurse before she quit to have children, was a perfectionist who felt she failed as a mother.
"Of course it's not sane behavior. It's criminal behavior," Owmby said. "It's not cruel in any regards to hold Andrea Yates accountable for what she did."
If acquitted by reason of insanity, Yates would be committed to a state mental hospital. She will be sentenced to life in prison if convicted of capital murder.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed
-
This article is: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/ ... 70863.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/4070863.html)
July 25, 2006, 1:59PM
Jury deliberates in Andrea Yates trial
By ANGELA K. BROWN Associated Press Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press
HOUSTON ? Jurors deliberating for a second day in Andrea Yates' murder trial asked Tuesday to review evidence from a key prosecution expert who said he found 60 examples of Yates knowing that drowning her five children in their bathtub was wrong.
ADVERTISEMENT
The jury, which was sequestered for the night, already had deliberated longer than the four hours it took a first jury to convict her of murder in 2002. An appeals court overturned that conviction because erroneous testimony may have influenced jurors.
Shortly before a lunch break, jurors asked to review the slide presentation by Dr. Michael Welner, a forensic psychiatrist who evaluated Yates in May and testified that she did not kill her children to save them, as she claims, but because she was overwhelmed and felt inadequate as a mother.
Welner said that although Yates was psychotic on the day of the June 2001 drownings, he found multiple examples of how she knew that killing 6-month-old Mary, 2-year-old Luke, 3-year-old Paul, 5-year-old John and 7-year-old Noah was wrong.
Yates, 42, who has pleaded innocent by reason of insanity, is charged in only three of the children's deaths.
If the jurors find her innocent by reason of insanity, Yates will be committed to a state mental hospital, with periodic hearings before a judge to determine whether she should be released _ though prosecutors weren't allowed to tell that to the jury. If convicted of murder, she will be sentenced to life in prison.
During closing arguments, Prosecutor Kaylynn Williford described Yates as a woman who was overwhelmed, failing at home-schooling and feeling hopeless and helpless.
Williford brought out the pajamas that the children died in. She also displayed the crime scene photos showing four of the children laid out on a bed and 7-year-old Noah still floating face down in the bathtub.
"Is that the act of a loving mother? Were there words of comfort? Were there prayers? They didn't want to die," Williford said. "The legacy of this case should be that you will hold her accountable for the deaths of these children."
The children's father, Rusty Yates, walked out of the courtroom as Williford described Noah's intense struggle in the water and showed a close-up photo of his face after he was removed from the tub. Rusty Yates, who has said he does not want Andrea to be convicted, divorced her last year and remarried in March.
Andrea Yates started to cry after those photos were shown, but at other times looked down at the defense table without showing emotion.
Yates' attorneys said she meets the state's definition of insanity: that a severe mental illness prevents someone who is committing a crime from knowing it is wrong.
Defense attorney George Parnham said Yates suffered from severe postpartum psychosis. He said Yates thought she was a bad mother and that Satan was inside her, and that she had to kill the children to save them from hell. He said logic cannot be applied to a psychotic mind.
"It leaves intact the natural instincts of motherhood. You love. You nurture. You want to make certain that your child is safe from dangers. Every mother wants that," Parnham said. "But the danger that the mother perceives is twisted, and mom sees the danger where there is no danger."
-
Posted on Sun, Jul. 23, 2006
Yates to become prisoner, regardless of verdict
SHEILA FLYNN and JAMIE STENGLE
Associated Press
DALLAS - Life as a prisoner looms on the horizon for Andrea Yates, whether she's convicted of murder or acquitted by reason of insanity.
If she is found innocent by reason of insanity, as she has pleaded, she will spend the rest of her life in a state-run, maximum-security mental hospital - and it's no Hollywood sanitarium with rolling green hills and a country-club feel.
Patients at Vernon State Mental Hospital in north Texas, where Yates would be initially sent, live their days under orders, forbidden to eat, sleep or do anything else on a whim. They're allotted a short amount of daily free time, just like inmates in the state prison where Yates would spend the rest of her life if convicted. The rest of patients' days are scripted at the hospital campus encircled on all sides by a 17-foot high curved fence dotted with guard towers.
"I would say that anyone who thinks it too cozy, go up there and spend two nights," said David Haynes, attorney for Dena Schlosser, who was acquitted by reason of insanity in the death of her infant daughter and has been living at Vernon since spring.
"They are in there ... and they can't come out," he said.
A jury in Houston is expected to begin deliberations Monday in Yates' second murder trial for drowning her children in the family bathtub in 2001. She has twice pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. She was convicted of murder in 2002, but an appeals court overturned that conviction because some erroneous testimony may have influenced the jury.
After her husband, Rusty Yates, left for work and before her mother-in-law, Dora Yates, arrived to help, Yates drowned 7-year-old Noah, 5-year-old John, 3-year-old-Paul, 2-year-old Luke and 6-month-old Mary on June 20, 2001. She then called police and Rusty Yates to the house.
The perception that people who plead insane somehow beat the system is dead wrong, said Jerry McLain, Vernon spokesman.
"Just because a person is found not guilty by reason of insanity ... doesn't really mean that they get off scot-free," McLain said. "The reason for that is because of the dangerousness issue."
An insanity plea admits that the defendant actually has committed a crime - and is consequently a threat to society. Patients undergo rigorous rehabilitation and evaluation processes to determine when, if ever, they can be transferred to a lighter security hospital - and when, if ever, they can be released.
"There's no simple measure of continuing dangerousness," said Dr. Paul Appelbaum, chairman of the council on psychiatry and law for the American Psychiatric Association.
"Among the things that would be taken into account would be the state of mind associated with the previous violence, whether those symptoms are still present," he said.
The evaluations are so complicated and comprehensive that they're almost guaranteed to drag on, officials said.
"It literally can end up being years and years ... maybe their entire life before they would be eligible to be discharged," McLain said.
And often that time period exceeds the prison sentence a defendant would have gotten if simply found guilty, said Beth Mitchell, a lawyer with Advocacy, Inc. in Austin. The non-profit group works to ensure the rights of people with disabilities and mental illnesses.
She said that, while doctors may determine that a patient has been rehabilitated enough to at least warrant outpatient treatment, judicial officials who oversee patient reviews will refuse to authorize a release.
"Especially if it's more heinous crimes, the judge just sees that as they've committed the crime, and it doesn't matter if they do or don't meet commitment criteria," she said.
And being left in an institution - even a facility with less stringent security - is still comparable to being imprisoned, Mitchell said.
"They don't have the big fence, they don't have guards sitting on high towers watching the grounds," Mitchell said.
But "you're still confined. The doors are still locked. You still have somebody watching your every move and documenting your every move. ... Even though you could refuse some of the classes, your refusal oftentimes will inhibit your ability to possibly have a recommendation to be released."
So patients, consequently, are forced to live every moment in a routine imposed upon them, alongside other mental patients "day in and day out that you don't care to live with," she said.
For a person without mental illness to spend time in such a facility, Mitchell said, "you'd go crazy."
-
Jury Finds Andrea Yates Not Guilty Of Murder
10:31 am PDT July 26, 2006
HOUSTON -- Andrea Yates showed little emotion, as a Houston judge told her jurors have found her not guilty by reason of insanity in the drownings of her children.
Yates is expected to be committed to a state mental facility where she'll receive periodic reviews to consider her health and possible release.
The verdict was returned during the jury's third day of deliberations, after Yates' lawyers argued their client was delusional when she drowned her five children in the bathtub. Yates has admitted drowning all five of her kids that day in 2001.
Prosecutors contended that Yates may have been mentally ill, but she still knew what was wrong -- a defining issue for proving legal insanity in Texas.
In 2002, a jury took just four hours to convict her of capital murder. That verdict was overturned because of inaccurate testimony. The death penalty remains off the table because no new evidence was presented.
The state defines insanity as mentally illness so severe that a person doesn't know while committing a crime that it's wrong.
Jurors earlier asked to see more evidence Wednesday as they deliberated for the third day in Houston.
They asked to see a family photo and candid pictures of her five smiling youngsters taken before she drowned them in the family bathtub.
They were to decide whether the one-time Houston-area homemaker was legally insane when she drowned three of her children in the family bathtub.
Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press.
-
Posted on Wed, Jul. 26, 2006
A chronology of events concerning Andrea Yates
The Associated Press
Associated Press
Here's a look at milestones in Andrea Yates' life and her legal case following the drowning of her children:
_ April 17, 1993: Russell "Rusty" and Andrea Yates are married.
_ Feb. 26, 1994: Noah Yates is born. Yates later tells doctors that shortly after the birth that Satan told her to get a knife and stab someone.
_ Dec. 12, 1995: John Yates is born.
_ Sept. 13, 1997: Paul Yates is born.
_ Feb. 15, 1999: Luke Yates is born.
_ June 16, 1999: Andrea Yates calls her husband at work and asks him to come home. He returns to find her shaking and crying.
_ June 17, 1999: Yates overdoses on Trazodone, a prescription sleeping medicine given to her father after a stroke.
_ June 18, 1999: Yates is transferred to Houston's Methodist Hospital psychiatric unit and is diagnosed with a major depressive disorder.
_ June 24, 1999: Yates is discharged from Methodist.
_ July 20, 1999: Russell Yates wrestles knife away from his wife, who was holding it to her neck in the bathroom at her mother's house.
_ July 21, 1999: Yates is admitted to Memorial Spring Shadows Glen for psychiatric treatment and is prescribed Haldol, an anti-psychotic drug.
_ Aug. 9, 1999: Yates is discharged from Memorial Spring Shadows Glen.
_ Aug. 10, 1999: Yates begins daily outpatient care.
_ Aug. 18, 1999: Psychiatrist Eileen Starbranch warns the Yates couple that having another child could trigger another psychotic episode.
_ Nov. 30, 2000: Mary Yates is born.
_ March 12, 2001: Yates' father, Andrew Kennedy, dies. Rusty Yates later says his wife's condition begins deteriorating soon after.
_ March 31, 2001: Yates is admitted to Devereux Texas Treatment Network and begins taking anti-psychotic medication.
_ April 12, 2001: Yates is discharged and begins outpatient care at Devereux.
_ May 4, 2001: Yates is readmitted to Devereux and begins taking Haldol.
_ May 14, 2001: Yates is again discharged from Devereux.
_ June 4, 2001: Dr. Mohammad Saeed, a psychiatrist, tells Rusty Yates to have his wife taper off Haldol over next three days.
_ June 18, 2001: The Yates couple have follow-up visit with Saeed. Rusty Yates reports his wife is not improving.
_ June 20, 2001: Yates drowns her five children in the bathtub.
_ Feb. 28, 2002: Trial on two capital murder charges begins.
_ March 12, 2002: Yates is convicted of both charges.
_ March 15, 2002: Yates is sentenced to life in prison.
_ Dec. 14, 2004: Yates' attorneys argue her appeal before 1st Court of Appeals in Houston.
_ Jan. 6, 2005: 1st Court of Appeals in Houston overturns Yates' conviction, ruling that some erroneous testimony may have influenced jurors.
_ Nov. 9, 2005: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals upholds lower appeals court ruling overturning Yates' conviction.
_ March 17, 2005: Rusty Yates finalizes divorce.
_ March 18, 2006: Rusty Yates marries Laura Arnold.
_ June 26, 2006: Yates' second murder trial begins.
_ July 26, 2006: Yates found innocent by reason of insanity.
© 2006 AP Wire and wire service sources.
-
i am thankful for the verdict of insanity of andrea. god knows this poor woman is insane, and now she will be able to get the help that she desperately needs. post-pardom depression is real, and have made some women insane. i am thankful for those women who live public lives that have come out and spoke on the seriousness that it can have on reality. for those of you who speak against andrea, judge not, for you have not walked a mile in her shoes. instead of being so angry at her for what she did, thank your lucky stars, for it could have easily been you whose hormones went wacky after giving birth. i have chosen empathy over anger, for she is the only one that truly has to live with herself.
-
::bangin::
-
Andrea Yates' defense rests its case
Best friend testifies Yates became 'a total zombie' after 4th son
Tuesday, July 11, 2006; Posted: 6:03 p.m. EDT (22:03 GMT)
HOUSTON, Texas (AP) -- The defense in Andrea Yates' murder trial rested Tuesday after her best friend tearfully told jurors that the woman who drowned her five children in the bathtub "misses them terribly."
Debbie A. Holmes met Yates about 20 years ago when both were nurses at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. She said she still visits Yates and writes her letters.
Yates, 42, is being retried in her children's 2001 bathtub drowning deaths because her capital murder conviction was overturned by an appeals court that ruled erroneous testimony might have influenced the jury.
She has again pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.
Her attorneys say Yates suffered from severe postpartum psychosis and did not know it was wrong to kill 7-year-old Noah, 5-year-old John, 3-year-old Paul, 2-year-old Luke and 6-month-old Mary.
Prosecutors' turn Tuesday
Prosecutors began their rebuttal case Tuesday. They have said they plan to call Dr. Park Dietz, the psychiatrist whose testimony led to Yates' conviction being overturned.
Dietz, also a "Law & Order" television series consultant, told the first jury that in one episode of the crime drama a woman was acquitted by reason of insanity after drowning her children in a tub.
He said the show aired before the Yates children died. But after her 2002 conviction, it was discovered no such episode existed.
Holmes testified that Yates was a sweet friend, dedicated nurse and loving mother, but that after the birth of her fourth son she turned into a "total zombie" who stared into space and couldn't finish sentences.
Holmes said she helped care for her friend's children in 1999 after Yates returned from a psychiatric hospital following two suicide attempts. Holmes said that a few months later she asked Yates why she had been so depressed.
Satan and mind-reading
"She asked me if I thought Satan could read her mind and if I believed in demon possession," Holmes said.
Earlier Tuesday, prosecutors cross-examined a neuropsychologist who evaluated Yates about six months after the drownings.
Dr. George Ringholz said Yates recounted a hallucination she had after the birth of her first child.
"What she described was feeling a presence ... Satan ... telling her to take a knife and stab her son Noah," Ringholz said.
Ringholz acknowledged that he did not perform certain tests to see if Yates was trying to make her mental illness appear worse, but he said other tests and safeguards as part of the extensive two-day evaluation indicated she was not faking. Ringholz diagnosed schizophrenia.
Ringholz said Yates was delusional the day of the drownings and did not know her actions were wrong, even though she called 911 and knew she would be arrested. Her delusion was that Satan had entered her and that she had to be executed in order to kill Satan, he said.
"Delusions cannot be willed away," Ringholz said.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press.
-
June 15, 2006, 6:08PM
Rusty Yates' actions puzzle acquaintance
He wonders why Andrea Yates' ex-husband didn't persist in getting her medical help
By TERRI LANGFORD
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle
Not many people have had to have their lives defined by one horrific life moment as Russell "Rusty" Yates has.
ADVERTISEMENT
"What happened in my family will always be with me and associated with me," Yates told the Houston Chronicle in 2004. "But I would like people to know we had a great family. I'd like people to know something good can come from all this, and I want to be a part of it."
What happened was the event few will forget.
On June 20, 2001, Yates' then-wife, Andrea, a woman with a history of suicide attempts and psychiatric hospitalizations, drowned the couple's five children ? Noah, 7; John, 5; Paul, 3; Luke, 2; and Mary, 6 months ? in a bathtub.
Since that tragic act, the 41-year-old NASA engineer's marriage has been scrutinized by the legal system and the court of public opinion.
To some, Yates is a conundrum.
In the years since the children were killed, Yates has been quite visible as a supportive spouse, attending his wife's 2002 capital murder trial, going to hearings, pleading her case before the media. However, he declined to be interviewed for this article.
"I'm absolutely appalled at our legal system," Yates said in June 2002. "They never tried to understand why this happened. They treated Andrea like a hardened serial killer for no reason."
Even after he divorced her last year, he continued a campaign to get her out of prison and into treatment. But some say that kind of support was hard to see before the children's deaths.
"You've got a pre-June 20th Rusty and a post-June 20th Rusty," said Bob Holmes, who met Yates in 1989, when the couple was dating.
Holmes insists that Rusty Yates, vilified on Web sites and radio and TV talk shows, "isn't a monster."
But Holmes is counted among those who knew the couple and who question the way he dealt with his wife's mental illness, which seemed to materialize in their marriage after the birth of their fourth child, Luke.
"Did he lose his children? Yes. Do I feel bad for him? Absolutely," said Holmes, who along with his wife, Debbie, met then-Andrea Kennedy 20 years ago. "But he's the one person who could have stopped it."
Couple seemed 'optimistic'
Debbie Holmes, who deferred questions about Yates to her husband, met Andrea Kennedy at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, where the two worked as nurses. Kennedy lived in an apartment complex not far from the Holmeses', and the three became friends.
Kennedy didn't date much, so the couple was supportive when she introduced them to Yates, a NASA engineer.
"We were just happy for her," Holmes said. "We thought they were optimistic."
Born in New York, raised in Tennessee, Yates' path in life seemed typical as he headed to Auburn University in the early 1980s.
"He and his family are great people, and I can't imagine anyone ever having a bad thing to say about any of them," Missy Ballentine, who knew Yates in high school, said via e-mail to the Houston Chronicle. "Our community growing up was a small one, everyone knew everyone and he's a great guy."
But at Auburn, Yates came into contact with itinerant campus preacher Michael Peter Woroniecki, a man whose evangelical teachings touched Yates and changed his world forever.
Woroniecki's beliefs were rigid ones: that women are subservient to men and most, if not all, the world is filled with evil. Woroniecki holds organized religion in disdain because he believes it has diluted God's message over time.
After they were married, Yates introduced his wife to Woroniecki, a move that he would later regret.
"If I had it all to do over again," Yates said in a 2003 interview with the Dallas Observer, "I would never have introduced Andrea to the Woronieckis."
The Yateses embraced Woroniecki as their spiritual guide, listening closely to his teachings of living free of material things and erasing evil from their lives. They moved into a trailer, dispensing with most of their things, then eventually bought Woroniecki's bus and lived in it with three children.
After the birth of their fourth child, Andrea Yates threatened to kill herself twice, and the couple traded the bus for a house. Subsequent hospitalizations for Andrea Yates followed, as did a variety of psychiatric medications.
Then Andrea Yates became pregnant a fifth time in eight years, and her father died in the spring of 2001, two events that seemed to pry loose her tentative grip on reality.
Yates has insisted he made decisions about his wife's care based on doctors' assessments and that there was nothing more he could have done.
"If I'd known she was psychotic, we'd never have even considered having more kids," Yates told the Dallas Observer. "But all the doctors ever told us was that there was a 50 percent chance that she might become depressed again after having another baby, that she might even require some treatment. But by then we knew that the medicine ? a drug called Haldol ? had worked."
'She was very scary'
Thirteen days before she systematically drowned her children, Bob Holmes saw the Yates family in the grocery store. The woman he had known for years as a "24/7" mom was alone with a cart. Her children, who had always gathered around her, grouped around their father.
"She looked like a paranoid animal," Holmes recalled. "A dangerous animal. If you see a dog in the corner, with that kind of look, do you care what's going on in his head? She was very scary during that period."
His wife, Debbie, visited the Yates home six days before the children were killed. She saw the same blank look.
Testimony from Andrea Yates' capital murder trial revealed that she walked in circles and failed to eat or feed the children in the weeks before their deaths. Other adults ? her mother and her mother-in-law ? took turns staying with her.
Holmes said the hardest thing to understand is why Yates did not intervene at that point. "Put himself between the children and her. He could've always had Andrea committed. I will say that until the day I die."
In March 2002, Andrea Yates was convicted of capital murder. Her conviction was overturned a year ago, and on Monday she heads to court for a retrial.
Yates, who remarried Saturday, will be called to testify.
Holmes said Andrea Yates earlier learned of her ex-husband's wedding the way most people did, from someone else.
"This just kind of blindsided her a bit," said Holmes, who spoke to Andrea Yates by phone last week.
Holmes said Yates had told his ex-wife months ago of his engagement but did not tell her when the wedding would take place. A Yates family member said the wedding was set before his ex-wife's retrial date was determined.
Holmes said Andrea Yates realizes Rusty needs to get on with his life. But the timing of the wedding is "cruel," he said. "It is a distraction she does not need."
http://www.HoustonChronicle.com (http://www.HoustonChronicle.com) | Section: 5 children drowned
This article is: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/spe ... 33316.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/special/drownings/3733316.html)
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Peter_Woroniecki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Peter_Woroniecki)
Michael Peter Woroniecki, (A.K.A. Michael Warnecki, Worneki, Mike War and Shabar Ben), born February 4, 1954, is a self-ordained, itinerant, "fire and brimstone" preacher.[1]
One of his disciples was Andrea Pia Yates, to her detriment. His relationships with some of his disciples have been newsworthy.[2][3]
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Early life
* 2 Religious revival
* 3 Religious training
* 4 Preaching career
o 4.1 Andrea Yates case
* 5 Post-Yates career
* 6 Notes
* 7 References
* 8 External links
[edit]
Early life
Woroniecki was the youngest of a large Polish Catholic family who was raised in the city of Grand Rapids, Michigan. His mother became involved in the Catholic Charismatic Movement in the early 1970s and was earnestly seeking to introduce her remaining children to the "born again" experience. In 1971, seeking a way out of Grand Rapids, he "made a deal with God" that he would attend spiritual prayer meetings with his mother if he could make All-City Tailback and get a scholarship for college. He got the title and the scholarship.
Woroniecki attended Central Michigan University (CMU) from 1972 to 1976. However, when he arrived at college, Woroniecki says he had a "wild streak" involving himself in sex, drugs and alcohol, once being arrested for assaulting someone in a nearby college bar. He suffered a disabling football injury that threatened to destroy his dreams. Around April 1974 Woroniecki's mother gave him a Bible, which he began reading.
[edit]
Religious revival
Woroniecki attended the annual Catholic Charismatic Conference at Notre Dame University the weekend of June 14, 1974 with his mother, Rose, and sister, Mariane. Michael was in the stadium when he told God that he didn't know what this saying "born again" meant, but that he wanted everything the Lord had for him. At that moment, Michael believes that he was infused with the Holy Spirit and was born again.
In his remaining years at CMU, Woroniecki met his then cheerleader girlfriend, Leslie Jean Ochalek of Detroit (renamed "Rachel" in 1992), who would become his wife in 1979. He became the president of his Fellowship of Christian Athletes chapter. According to his own recorded testimony, he was attending an FCA retreat when he began to call all of his Christian peers "phonies." Distraught with his inability to control himself, he sought the counsel of his director-minister Dave Van Dam who then suggested to him that maybe he was called to be a "Jeremiah" (the office of a prophet who preached destruction).
Woroniecki obtained a B.S. in Psychology from CMU in 1976.
[edit]
Religious training
Michael attended Melodyland School of Theology at Anaheim, California starting in 1976. His mother died in July 1977 from colon cancer. He made an attempt before many people to raise her from the dead, but he failed in tears and embarrassment. There is a hint from his teaching materials that suggests the church cited his failure to heal and raise her was due to a lack of faith on his part, a teaching that Woroniecki now abhors. He applied to the Dominican and Franciscan Orders of the Catholic Church thereafter, but he was rejected both times on the basis he was "too zealous."
In 1978, Woroniecki was accepted at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA. In 1980, he met a lone radical street preacher carrying a sign, possibly Robert Engel, (A.K.A. Bobby Bible and Bobby Biblestein) or one of his disciples from the now disbanded Christian Brothers Church formerly based out of Long Beach, CA. (Some former disciples of Engel run a website at www.preachtruth.org (http://www.preachtruth.org) which Engel confirms is a faithful reproduction of his doctrines.) He criticized the students and faculty of Fuller Seminary for their comfortable "indoor" Christianity. He also carried a message that women are "witches" whose usurping nature of Eve was responsible for the fall of mankind, a teaching Woroniecki apparently gleaned from him. He assumed this same outdoor style, standing outside chapel criticizing his peers for what he perceived was their hypocritical confidence in their scholastic religious pride. He was again seen preaching several times at Fuller Mall. Woroniecki obtainied his Masters of Divinity degree in 1980.
[edit]
Preaching career
Michael returned to Grand Rapids in 1980 where he preached on the streets with a sign and a bull horn, starting his own unordained ministry called Cornerstone Christian Fellowship. He was arrested nine times for disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace. Faced with two upcoming trials in the first week of October, 1981, one of which involved a woman he allegedly followed for two city blocks, berating to tears, Woroniecki phoned the City District Attorney's office with a plea offer. He would leave town if the remaining six charges against him were dropped. The D.A. submitted his request to the District Court and the plea offer was accepted. He left for the city of Atlanta, Georgia where high volume street preaching was permitted. Woroniecki claimed in the Grand Rapids Press that he was coerced into leaving, but he later conceded in Suzanne O'Malley's book, Are You Alone? that he was the one who suggested the deal. Woroniecki returned to Grand Rapids in June of 1983 to once again preach there. He was arrested a tenth and final time. Woroniecki pleaded no contest, paid a $105 fine and never returned to preach there again.
Woroniecki is arrested at Brigham Young University in 1994.
Enlarge
Woroniecki is arrested at Brigham Young University in 1994.
Since then, Woroniecki has preached his gospel of "hellfire and damnation" throughout the continental U.S., Latin America and Europe. He and his family visited Casablanca in Morocco and preached on a streetcorner there. They were interrogated for eight hours by officials, then ordered to leave the country because attempting to convert a Muslim is considered a crime there. He went to Spain thereafter, where another confrontation with police resulted in Mr. Woroniecki physically wrestling with the officers and pushing one of them. Audio excerpt of Mr. Woroniecki's admission.
The central message Woroniecki has carried mainly to college campuses throughout the United States since 1980 is that all Christian churches are antichrist preaching a "false and polluted twentieth century gospel" which he believes has no redemptive power. Consequently, the only people on earth that he believes are saved are himself, his wife and his six children. When people ask him if anyone else is saved, Woroniecki often replies quoting Jesus from the gospels, "As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be at the coming of the Son of Man" (a time in which only eight persons were saved in an ark from a worldwide deluge, he says, emphasis on "eight.") If anyone else happens to be saved, he has told his disciples, he just hasn't met them yet.
He believes that "institutionalized education, along with employment and secular social activities, is a waste of time in God's eyes." Woroniecki preaches "that unless a person lives a jobless life spent preaching the gospel, he is damned to hell."
In 1989, when Woroniecki was confronted with the fact that one of his followers was hospitalized for attempting suicide, the follower claiming that the attempt was a consequence of the preacher's persistent condemning rebukes, Woroniecki countered on a widely distributed teaching tape saying that "suicide is the greatest self obsession." He dismissed the suicidal Texas A&M student with mockery for projecting blame onto his gospel message and for refusing to accept responsibility for his own emotional state. Audio Excerpt
Others have claimed to become depressed or anxious to the point of contemplating or attempting suicide after dwelling upon Woroniecki's messages. David De La Isla of Houston Texas claimed on national television that he also became suicidal as a result of Woroniecki's beratings. Woroniecki dismissed De La Isla on ABC Good Morning America saying that he only knew him for "fifteen minutes in a McDonalds fifteen years ago," despite the disciple's possession of a stack of letters he received from him over a period of twelve years, ABC host Charles Gibson pointed out.
Woroniecki was arrested at Brigham Young University in 1994 for disturbing the peace and preaching without a permit.[4]
In a video sent to followers in 1996, Michael Woroniecki emphatically warns followers who are parents that unless they abandon their "husband goes to work, wife just exists" Christian lifestyle (like the Yates were living), quit their jobs and take up his prophetic, itinerant lifestyle, their children would not be properly trained "in the Lord," reach accountability and "perish in hellfire." He also added that because of Mt. 18:6 the parents would suffer the "most severe judgment" for allowing an innocent child to stumble in this way. He also taught that it was better for parents to commit suicide than cause their offspring to stumble and go to hell.
[edit]
Andrea Yates case
On June 20, 2001, one of Woroniecki's disciples for the previous nine years, Andrea Pia Yates killed all five of her children. Eventually, Woroniecki surfaced in the media when evidence was admitted in court implicating Woroniecki's teaching in a newsletter called The Perilous Times as having negatively scripted Andrea's psychotic mind.[5][6]
Woroniecki became the focus of national media attention in March of 2002 for his influence on Yates.Letters from the Woroniecki family were found by investigative author Suzy Spencer that berated Andrea over her unrighteous standing before God. Only two months after receiving the harsh letters from the Woroniecki's, Andrea was hospitalized twice for two separate suicide attempts.[7][8][9]
Woroniecki's wife said on a March 27, 2002 interview of ABC's Good Morning America that the greatest problem they have with disciples is that "they try to emulate their lifestyle without coming to Jesus," suggesting that their disciples mistakenly choose to place themselves under the "yoke" of the Law of God, consequently crushing themselves under its burdensome weight.
Woroniecki denies that he had anything at all to do with negatively influencing Yates. He claims in a letter postmarked October 24, 2002 to author Suzanne O'Malley that Andrea's motive for killing her children was based on a deep and intense hatred for her husband that he learned from prior ministerial conversations with her and that she and the media conspired to use "religious rhetoric" to cover up her true motive. Only five months earlier, Woroniecki told the Leslie Primeau Show at CHED AM 630 in Edmonton, Canada that he had "no idea" what Andrea's true motive was, according to a recorded excerpt of the broadcast at an ex-follower's website.
[edit]
Post-Yates career
Woroniecki and his family remain active with their message.[10][11][12][13][14][15]
Two daughters of Mr. Woroniecki preached in 2005:
"You are on the wrong path, and there is nothing you can do about it... God's message is not unconditional love. It's unrelenting anguish and hopelessness!"[16]
[edit]
Notes
1. ^ *Oregon family delivers fire, brimstone sermon Oct. 1, 1998, PSU
2. ^ Eyes of a Recovering Mike-a-holic
3. ^ The Ultimate False Prophet by ex-follower
4. ^ *Anti-Mormon Protest Disturbs Campus BYU Press, October 6, 1994
5. ^ ABC NEWS, The Evil Inside, Jan. 21, 2002
6. ^ CrimeLibrary review of Yates case
7. ^ Rick A. Ross Institute News Summary March 18, 2002
8. ^ World Net Daily, Beware of Poisonous Preachers Mar. 23, 2002
9. ^ Archived Dallas Morning News Article April 6, 2002
10. ^ Traveling preachers descend onto PSU Sept. 23, 2004
11. ^ Zealots preach in Oak Grove September 27, 2004 The Penn, Indiana University of Pennsylvania
12. ^ Yates was one of Woroniecki's followers Sept. 30, 2004
13. ^ Relgious solicitors harass students October 5, 2004 The Collegiate Times, Virginia Polytechnic & State University
14. ^ Religious enthusiasts identified October 6, 2004
15. ^ Family warns, preaches: 'We are ... going to Hell'Oct. 18, 2005 The Digital Collegian, PSU
16. ^ The overture to Hell? The Collegian - student newspaper of the University of Richmond, Sep. 29, 2005.
[edit]
References
* "Are You Alone?" by Suzanne O'Malley
* "Breaking Point," by Suzy Spencer
* Dallas Morning News, Religion Section, April 6, 2002
* KTRK NEWS-Houston (ABC Affiliate), 15 broadcasts in 2002 investigating blame in the Yates tragedy: Jan. 21; Feb. 26; Mar. 4,17,18,21,27,28.
[edit]
External links
* Countercult.com profile of Michael Woroniecki
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Peter_Woroniecki"
Categories: 1954 births | Christian fundamentalism | Living people
-
Did price for prosecuting Yates twice exceed public benefit?
Thursday, July 27, 2006
By Dan Lauck
Never had the Harris County District Attorney?s Office paid as much money to hot-shot experts as it did in the prosecution of Andrea Yates. And still, it lost the case.
KHOU-TV
The district attorney's star witness, psychiatrist Michael Welner, was paid $200,000 for his testimony.
?We find the defendant, Andrea Pea Yates, not guilty by reason of insanity,? the jury foreman said as he read the verdict Wednesday.
It was a hopeless formality, but the prosecutors still wanted each juror asked publicly if this was his or her vote.
What followed was a roll call of rejection in this, the most expensive prosecution in the history of the Harris County District Attorney?s Office.
?These people need to get a dose of reality,? said George Parnham, Yates? attorney.
Reporter: ?Did they get a dose yesterday?
Parnham: ?Well, I sure hope so.?
George Parnham was speaking, specifically, about the D.A.?s star witness, psychiatrist Michael Welner, who testified the way prosecutors wanted.
?She absolutely knew it was wrong,? said Welner.
And, for saying that much, he was paid $200,000.
?I don?t know if people were turned off by that or not,? said District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal. ?I haven?t talked to any of the jurors.?
Rosenthal conceded the county had its own experts right around the corner at the county jail. But, instead, wanting the best, went for the doctors with the biggest reputations.
Park Dietz was paid a $100,000.
?What?s a child?s life worth?? said Rosenthal.
Or what?s a doctor?s opinion worth? For $200,000, is it like one of those circus balloons that can be twisted into a dog, a cat or even a rat.
?Clearly Dr. Welner is for sale,? said Wendell Odom, Yates? attorney. ?He was willing to be our witness and when that didn?t work out, he became their witness.?
?It?s a business. There?s no question about it. It?s money driven,? Parnham said.
It may be driven a new direction now that Andrea Yates has been found not guilty.
Rosenthal said the money for the expert witnesses came from a special fund, generated principally by seizures of drug money.
-
Yates foreman: 'It was pretty hard'
08:58 PM CDT on Wednesday, July 26, 2006
By Amy Tortolani / 11 News
The six men and six women on the Yates jury were together for 36 days. They spent so much time together, they now call each other family.
KHOU
Foreman Todd Frank said some jurors would have preferred to find Yates "guilty, but insane."
"To bring 15 people from such diverse backrounds, from different areas of town, different age groups -- and we absolutely all like each other -- absolutely," said jury foreman Todd Frank. "I was corrected last night. We don't like each other, we love each other."
But just like any relationship, this one was not easy: They had to decide the fate of Andrea Yates.
She sat in front of them every day on trial for drowning her children in the family bathtub.
KHOU
Other Yates jurors listen as the foreman speaks to the media.
"I can tell you I don't think any of us will ever forget it," said Frank. "Speaking for me personally, I have a 6-and-a-half- month old at home and it was pretty hard. But we paid attention for 36 days and, like I said, we all feel we made the right decision."
Frank said they did not believe what prosecutors had maintained -- that Yates failed to meet the state's definition of insanity: that she did not know her actions were wrong.
"It was very clear to us all -- as was presented by the majority of the doctors in the case, on both sides -- that they did believe she did have psychosis before, during and after," said Frank.
We learned one of the the tough discussions centered around whether that psychosis necessarily meant Yates wasn't guilty.
"The words are, 'not guilty by reason of insanity.' There were certain of us would rather it would have said, 'guilty but insane'," said Frank.
But in the end, the jurors agreed on a final decision -- not guilty by reason of insanity.
-
Mental-Health Advocates Say
Acquittal Reflects Awareness
Houston Chronicle (KRT) - July 28, 2006
HOUSTON--Mental health advocates saw the acquittal of Andrea Yates as vindication of sorts for their long campaign to increase public appreciation of mental illness and how drastically it can affect human behavior.
Joe Lovelace, longtime mental health policy adviser in Texas and the immediate past executive director of the state?s chapter of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, called Wednesday "a fine day for Harris County," which he attributed in part to years of media attention to mental illness, especially among mothers.
"I think this verdict sends a clear message that people understand how profoundly ill Andrea Yates was," added Betsy Schwartz, president of the local chapter of National Mental Health Association.
But others said another human tendency played a role.
"It?s easy to forget what happened five years ago," said local victims rights activist Dianne Clements. "The public consciousness has dimmed. There may have been jurors this time who weren?t even living here then."
Public reaction -- from radio talk shows to Internet blogs to the Houston Chronicle?s own reader forums -- was mixed. While many agreed with the jury?s verdict, others said Yates should have been held accountable for drowning her five children in 2001. The latter sentiment was echoed by Clements, president of Justice For All.
"I think it?s a black day," she said. "I think it?s disconcerting and unjust when five children can be murdered by their mother, and there?s a statute that clearly defines what she did and the jury ignored it."
Clements said she felt the evidence was clear that Yates knew her conduct was wrong, the lone requirement for finding a defendant sane.
"She planned the murders. She did not hallucinate the day of or the day before. She did not hear voices. She hid her actions because she knew it was wrong," Clements said.
NAMI?s national director, Michael J. Fitzpatrick, praised the Yates jury for not "compounding one tragedy with another" and pointed out that insanity defenses fail far more often than they succeed.
Three others in state
Though still a difficult defense to mount, Yates is the fourth woman in Texas in the last few years to be acquitted of murdering their children by employing it.
One chopped her baby?s arms off; another bludgeoned her sons with a rock; the third, like Yates, drowned her two girls in a bathtub. The common thread was religiously oriented delusions by a mother who had never shown any inclination to harm. The juries in each case came to the conclusion that the defendants did not know their conduct was wrong, even if they knew that the law and others would consider it so. The statute does not offer juries specific guidance on how to interpret or define its language.
"The state (penal code) has not defined what knowing right or wrong is -- that?s left to the juries to discern," said veteran Houston forensic psychiatrist Vincent Scarano, who also is a lawyer. "They are still allowed to determine whether the moral rightness of what she did outweighed the legal wrongness. In this case, the jury had a tough job. She clearly seemed to be wrong on the legal side -- meaning she knew that it was legally wrong -- but there was a strong argument to make that she felt it was morally right what she did."
Attorney Robert Udashen, who represented Lisa Diaz of Plano after she drowned her children, had to convince jurors in Collin County of exactly the same thing.
"She waited for her husband to leave, drew the blinds, and did not answer the door when her mother came over," Udashen said. "The state argued she had to know it was wrong if she did that, but there?s a difference between knowing that other people think it?s wrong and you thinking it?s wrong. It?s a fine distinction there. You win or lose the case on such a fine point."
University of Texas law professor George Dix, an expert on mental health issues, said the recent track record of prosecutors in such cases should give them pause in bringing obviously ill defendants to trial.
"If conscientious prosecutors can tell in advance what will be presented," he said, "elaborate trials like this ought not to be necessary. Yes, that?s a difficult decision to reach. But they make difficult decisions in other types of cases."
Wendell Odom, one of Yates? attorneys, and others agreed that two other things helped in Yates? defense: the passage of time and the fact that this jury, unlike the first, did not come from a pool who had to declare their willingness to impose a death penalty. Prosecutors did not ask for death in the retrial.
-
New Yates verdict points to reform
By Boston Herald editorial staff
Saturday, July 29, 2006
There were six victims in the case involving Andrea Yates, a fact hard to hold onto when considering the horrible deaths suffered by the five Yates children at their mother?s hands.
It is nothing short of remarkable that the jurors who endured more than 30 days of testimony, including an excruciating recounting of one child struggling to the surface of the bathtub to apologize to his mother for whatever he did wrong, could still render the just verdict that Yates was not guilty by reason of insanity.
?Today?s verdict affirms that individuals with severe mental illnesses cannot be held to the same standards of criminal responsibility as other Americans. It demonstrates we as a nation are rightfully reassessing our treatment of people with mental illnesses in the justice system,? said David Shern, president of the National Mental Health Association.
The father of Yates? children, makes the point even more simply: ?Andrea was ordinarily a loving mother, who was crippled by disease. Yes, she was psychotic on the day this happened,? said Rusty Yates.
And yes, the conclusion of Yates? retrial is a watershed moment in the understanding of mental illness. But it is also an opportunity for states, including Massachusetts, to consider their own laws governing the insanity defense.
Massachusetts? law, like that of many states including Texas, is based on the standard of whether or not the defendant can appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct.
In response to some verdicts which outraged the public, such as John Hinckley?s successful insanity defense, some states eliminated the option altogether. Others put the burden of proof on the defense rather than the prosecutors and still others adopted a ?guilty but insane? model.
Under the ?guilty but insane? standard, also called ?guilty but not criminally responsible,? defendants can receive the treatment they need from mental health providers but, if they recover, serve a normal prison sentence for their crimes.
The Yates jury foreman noted after the trial that some jurors would have preferred this option. Understandably, it is difficult to apply the words ?not guilty? on the self-confessed perpetrator of such a horrific crime.
?Guilty but insane? bridges that semantic gap, but it does more than that. It strikes a balance between mercy and justice. Given the tools they had before them, the Yates jury accomplished that. Future juries here and around the country deserve sharper tools.
-
I think you're the only one who is reading this anymore.
-
Juror in Yates case has new mission
She wants change in Texas insanity laws
KTRK By Kevin Quinn
(7/31/06 - KTRK/HOUSTON) - A juror in the Andrea Yates trial is speaking out, and says she has a new mission -- demanding a change to state laws. The juror says the decision to find Yates not guilty was a tough one, but it's one that's given her a new passion.
From her home in Kingwood, Lucille Kelley talks about how she wrestled for weeks with the notion or guilty or innocence for Andrea Yates.
"To me, she was guilty of that," said Kelley. "But by Texas law, we have to say not guilty."
Kelley says she was one of four jurors who initially voted that Yates be found guilty. She says she was the last holdout, the last one to change that vote after realizing the options available to her under the law.
"I'm saying that I disapprove the wording how the Texas state legislators have said that you must acquit if you feel as though that person was insane, not willfully knowing that the act that they committed was wrong," said Kelley.
Kelley says it's clear that Yates was insane before, during, and after the murders of her five children in Clear Lake in 2001. But insanity, she says, should not preclude guilt.
"In this case, she was guilty, but by reason of insanity," said Kelley.
Kelley has requested a meeting with the judge who presided over the Yates case and she's placed calls to several local legislators. She plans to ask them to change the law. Punishment for Yates, Kelley admits, won't ever come to be, at least, she insists, here on earth.
"I know God will be the ultimate judge for Andrea Yates," she told us.
The verdict Yates received keeps her in a state mental facility until such time that mental health professionals and the judge agree she's no longer a threat to society. If Kelley gets her way, a guilty by reason of insanity verdict could one day keep an offender in custody forever.
We talked with several other people from the jury this weekend.
Yates will soon be transferred to a maximum security state mental hospital. Her attorneys want her to go to Rusk state hospital, where she was placed before her retrial. A judge will review mental evaluations and could later decide to move her there. We'll let you know what happens.
(Copyright © 2006, KTRK-TV)
-
Jurors talk about Yates verdict
Toughest challenge was interpreting Texas law
KTRK By Andy Cerota
(7/29/06 - KTRK/HOUSTON) - Jurors in the Andrea Yates trial talked only to Eyewitness News about their verdict. They talked about why they decided the mother who killed her children was insane.
The four jurors that talked about the case for the first time are:
* Jacqueline Fowler, who is a certified pharmacy technician and full time college student, was the alternate juror,
* Bobby Chism, who works with computers.
* Jennifer Luna, an accountant.
* Gina Dickinson, who runs her own business.
They all believe Yates did not know drowning her five children was wrong because of postpartum psychosis. It took them 13 hours over the course of three days to reach that conclusion.
"We had to sit there and look at the law, break it down word for word, line for line and make sure we were getting the punctuation correctly because that's how you comprehend it," said Dickinson.
"She thought she was doing the right thing for her children," added Fowler. "The evidence proved that and the facts proved that."
Before announcing their decision, jurors looked at family photographs of Yates children during happier times. We now know it had nothing to do with their deliberations.
"We were grieving the losses of each child, so we took about 10 minutes and had a moment of silence for all the children," said Luna.
After listening to both sides present their cases, these jurors said they became somewhat overwhelmed because Yates' mental history was a lot to digest.
"The treating psychiatrist, their testimony was more compelling than the forensic psychiatrist," said Chism.
"He showed that it was one illness all the way through," said Dickinson.
The jurors said Yates' emotional breakdowns in court did not sway their decision.
"She was contemplating what she did," said Chism.
This group agrees that in the end, it was always about the testimony.
The jury said they are comfortable with their decision.
"I would have made the same decision they did if I had to make that decision," said Fowler.
"I do believe that. I have no problem sleeping at night," said Luna. "So, I'm very comfortable with my decision."
The jurors also say Yates is not someone they feel sorry for, but they do have compassion for her.
(Copyright © 2006, KTRK-TV)
-
Yates may end up at Vernon
Maximum-security hospital no stranger to high-profile patients
By Jessica Langdon/Times Record News
August 3, 2006
Even though media accounts report that Andrea Yates will be housed, at least for now, at the maximum-security North Texas State Hospital in Vernon, the state hospital can't acknowledge whether Yates - or anyone else - might be staying within its walls.
Confidentiality is "absolutely controlled," Chief Information Officer Jerry McLain said. "It's for the benefit of the patient."
Texas law requires confidentiality and always has.
Everyone who enters the facility in Vernon - the only maximum-security state hospital in Texas - does so through court commitments, McLain said.
The courts are also really the best way a patient's location could be disclosed to the public, he noted.
State District Judge Belinda Hill announced on July 27 that Yates would move from the Harris County Jail to the state hospital in Vernon, the Associated Press reported.
The announcement came one day after a jury found Yates not guilty by reason of insanity in the June 2001 drowning deaths of her children. Yates' first trial in 2002 produced a guilty verdict, but an appeals court later overturned it.
Yates' attorneys argued that she suffered from postpartum psychosis and she believed she had Satan inside her. Their case this time convinced jurors she believed she was saving the children - 6-month-old Mary, 2-year-old Luke, 3-year-old Paul, 5-year-old John and 7-year-old Noah - from hell by drowning them in the family's bathtub.
A hospital review of Yates' mental state will go to Hill, who will hold a hearing within 30 days to decide whether Yates will stay at the North Texas State Hospital or move to a medium-security facility, the Associated Press articles stated.
While McLain could not comment on any specific cases, he said the state hospital has dealt before with high-profile situations. Since this is the only facility of its type in Texas, and the state often receives national attention, the state hospital has worked with national and international media on projects covering forensic mental health issues.
"We're glad to have the opportunity to tell our story and help people understand a little bit about mental illness," McLain said.
The people - patients and staff - who are at the hospital always come first, he stressed.
The goal right now is to make sure things are normal for the patients as well as the staff, McLain said.
"The main thing is, regardless of any kind of high profile issues, we're here to serve the people of Texas, and we're going to do our jobs - always," he said.
A typical day at the facility varies from patient to patient. The hospital tailors programs to fit each patient's needs.
"It's almost like a cafeteria menu of activities that we have taking place," McLain said.
When someone is admitted, for example, for issues surrounding competency to stand trial or following a not guilty by reason of insanity finding, that person goes through an evaluation by an interdisciplinary team. That team includes psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers, McLain said.
Patients are awakened about 6:30 a.m.
"They get up and get themselves dressed and go to breakfast," McLain said. Then they might go back to their rooms and straighten up.
Next, they begin a series of hour-long blocks, which range from classes on personal grooming to education on the workings of the legal system to sessions with psychologists or psychiatrists to recreation therapy.
McLain offered basketball games in the gym as an example of recreation therapy.
While the activities might sound like fun, they're designed to help the patients with what brought them there, he said.
"It's a matter of there being therapists in there seeing how well the patients interact with one another," McLain said.
Part of it is seeing how the people on the losing side of the game deal with the loss and looking at how those who don't want to participate cope with having to take part in the activity.
The state hospitals in Wichita Falls and Vernon operate under what McLain called a social learning process.
"You and I do it," he said. "You get up in the morning, maybe even if you don't want to." At the end of the week or month, a paycheck is often the reward.
The state hospital follows the same philosophy. Someone who doesn't want to get out of bed - but does it - or who doesn't want to participate in an activity - and does so regardless - earns points for doing what's expected.
The points purchase special privileges, which could include movies, more time in the patient library or other activities.
"The idea is that you use the points that you earn for the appropriate kinds of behavior," McLain said. "Just like it is in life."
Classes go on until about dinnertime and, after dinner, the patients usually have a bit of free time. They also have the opportunity to get involved in more classes on their units.
Medication is also a significant component of patients' therapy.
Each aspect of a patient's treatment plays a role, but the real help comes from putting the whole picture together.
"We treat the whole person," McLain said.
Reporter Jessica Langdon can be reached at (940) 763-7530 or by e-mail at langdonj(at)TimesRecordNews.com.
-
THE SECOND ANDREA YATES VERDICT:
Why This Time, the Jury Did the Right Thing
By Elaine Cassel
FINDLAW.COM, July 28, 2006
On Wednesday, July 26, after eleven hours of deliberation, a jury found Andrea Yates - who in 2001 drowned her five children -- not guilty by reason of insanity.
This was Yates's second trial. In March 2002, a Texas jury deliberated only three-and-a-half hours before finding her guilty of capital murder, denying her plea for acquittal based on the insanity defense. (I discussed that verdict in a prior column.) The jury showed mercy, however: She could have received the death penalty; instead, she was sentenced to life in prison, without the possibility of parole. On appeal, the conviction was overturned - which resulted in the second trial.
In this article I will explain why Yates's first conviction was overturned, what was different about the trial this time, and why the second jury's decision was the right one.
The Stringent Texas Insanity Statute, and the Verdict in the First Trial
As I discussed at greater length in my earlier column, the Texas insanity statute makes it well nigh impossible for a defendant to mount a successful insanity defense.
Like many other states, Texas revised its insanity defense statute after John Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity for the 1981 attempted assassination of then- President Ronald Reagan.
The Hinckley verdict enraged many, and fed the common misperception that people acquitted on those grounds "get away with murder." But the reality is that the Hinckley verdict was unusual, for several reasons.
First, the Hinckley verdict was based on an unusual and now-repealed law that required prosecutors in the District of Columbia to prove that Hinckley was sane. Most laws then, as now, required the defendant to prove insanity.
Second, it was unusual that Hinckley asserted the defense in a murder case, and that he prevailed. Contrary to popular belief, less than one percent of people charged with crimes plead insanity and of those, few are charged with murder, and fewer still are acquitted.
A 2001 study of 100,000 indicted defendants found that only 75 pled insanity - and of these, only four were successful.
Despite the atypical nature of the Hinckley verdict, however, Texas and other states revised their statutes.
A key requirement in criminal law is mens rea: a "guilty mind." But what, exactly, must a defendant know and understand to possess mens rea? Texas and other states reacting to the Hinckley verdict defined mens rea as simply knowing that the act was wrong.
Laws that follow a less stringent standard require generally that defendants prove that as a result of a mental disease or defect, they lacked the capacity either to appreciate the criminality of their conduct or to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law.
In Yates's case, the prosecutors insisted, and the jury believed, that Yates indeed knew that the killings were "wrong." The evidence: She waited until her husband left the house before drowning the children, and she placed calls to law enforcement after she had killed them.
But this shows the limited nature of the Texas insanity defense, a limitation the Supreme Court recently sanctioned.
In Clark v. Arizona, decided in June 2006, the Supreme Court upheld a statute similar to that under which Yates was first convicted. As Sherry Colb explained in a recent column for this site, the decision validated insanity statutes that will not cover even seriously mentally ill people--like Yates--who were psychotic at the time of their crimes. Indeed, in Clark itself, the defendant was not even allowed to introduce evidence of the effect of his psychosis on his crimes. The Court's decision found no problem with this: The defendant, it held, could be deemed guilty of murder as long as he knew one thing: that he had killed a law enforcement officer. Never mind that the prosecution conceded that Clark was in a schizophrenic, paranoid, delusional state of mind.
In the end, it is not surprising that the jury in the first Yates trial found her guilty under the Texas standard. After all, it was plain that she "knew" she killed her children -- because she called and reported their deaths.
Why Was the First Conviction Overturned?
If the Texas insanity statute itself is valid, why was the first Yates conviction overturned on appeal? The answer is that the prosecution presented damaging evidence that turned out to be false - and that could have been key to her conviction.
In the first trial, the prosecution introduced as its expert psychological witness Park Dietz, a "star" mental health expert who usually testifies for the prosecution in famous trials. Dietz concluded that Yates knew what she was doing when she killed her children. He also embellished his testimony with an interesting tidbit that proved not to be true.
Yates had a long history of severe mental illness with delusional episodes. After the birth of her youngest child, six months before the murders, she was diagnosed with postpartum depression. But the prosecution still argued that her assertion of the insanity defense was some kind of ruse. And it enlisted Dietz to help with this argument.
Apparently, Yates was a "Law & Order" fan. Dietz surmised that her murderous plot was hatched after viewing a "Law & Order" episode in which a woman drowned her children in a bathtub and claimed post-partum depression as an insanity defense. The prosecutor hammered away at this point in his closing argument, arguing that Yates had wanted to kill her children because she was overwhelmed by them. This "Law & Order" episode, he argued, planted the seed for murdering her children and blaming it on her postpartum depression.
In fact, there was no such episode - as research by an investigative journalist who wrote for the show revealed.
The false testimony made a solid basis for appeal. Two appellate courts agreed that Dietz's testimony could have led to the guilty verdict, and ordered a new trial.
What Happened in the Second Trial?
In the second trial, the same mental health testimony -- taken from voluminous mental health records -- was introduced. It showed Yates to have been severely mentally ill at the time of the crimes. She was living under great stress with five children and her husband in a school bus. Shortly before the murders, she went for mental health treatment and begged to be hospitalized.
After her arrest, Yates told law enforcement and mental health experts that she felt that she was such a bad mother that if she killed the children they would be spared from the evil of living with her. In their innocence, she said, they would have eternal life in heaven.
These facts had not changed. So what made the second trial's outcome different? There are several possibilities.
When Yates was first charged with the murders, she was found incompetent to be tried (meaning that she was unable to understand the charges and the proceedings, and to assist her attorneys in her defense). She was hospitalized and ordered to take medication so that the trial could go forward. But, as courtroom observers noted, the medication made her appear unfeeling, even zombie-like. And the prosecution used this against her, to suggest she was not even mourning the loss of her children.
At the second trial, not only did she appear more human, but her defense team (the same attorneys from the first trial) introduced more witnesses to help show that she was, in fact, a fragile woman who loved her children, but delusionally believed death was best for them.
In addition, as one of her attorneys noted, the passage of time might have helped Yates. The first trial took place only six months after the killings.
Moreover, the makeup of the jury might have helped this time. The first jury consisted of eight women and four men. The second jury was evenly divided between men and women. It's possible that women, especially those who'd faced similar challenges as caregivers, might have been especially unsympathetic to Yates.
But also, as in the first trial, the Texas statute favored Yates in a single, but important way (even as it encouraged the jury to ignore her delusions). The statute put the burden on Yates to prove that she was insane at the time of the crimes, but she was only required to do so by a preponderance of the evidence - an evidentiary standard meaning, roughly, proof "more likely than not." So if Yates and her attorneys could tip the scales only slightly in favor of her insanity, the jury could find her not guilty by reason of insanity The prosecution, on the other hand, had to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
This time, the jury deliberated almost four times longer than it did the first time. Perhaps the first jury was able to move more quickly due to Dietz's false "Law & Order" claim. And perhaps this time, the second jury rightly focused on Yates's psychosis - evidence of which strongly militated against her "knowing" that her actions were "wrong."
Amazingly, the prosecution introduced the testimony of Park Dietz again. And the judge forbade the defense from mentioning the falsity Dietz had introduced into the proceedings the first time. (I believe that was an error: Surely, the falsity was relevant to Dietz's credibility as a witness. It may also have been an error serious enough, if a conviction had ensued, to lead to yet another reversal on appeal.) This time, Dietz admitted that Yates might have been psychotic at the time of the murders, but he still insisted that she knew what she did was wrong.
Until the jurors speak, if they do speak, we won't know the factors that led to their verdict. What we can say, and anyone who reads Yates's mental health records will likely agree, is that if ever there was a defendant who deserved the benefit of the insanity defense, it was this sad, sick woman.
Yates Didn't "Get Away With" Murder, and There Should Be No Third Trial
The Texas prosecutors might not be finished with Yates yet. She was only charged with the murders of three of her five children. This seems to have been a deliberate ploy to give prosecutors a second chance if she was acquitted at the first trial - a ploy that surely violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitution's Double Jeopardy clause.
Assuming prosecutors do not play that vindictive hand, however, Yates is far from a free woman.
She is sentenced to a maximum-security criminal ward in a state mental hospital, where she is likely to have less freedom than if she were in the women's prison. The difference, though, is that in the state mental hospital, Yates will have mental health treatment, and the chance to get better. Periodically, she will be examined to see if she is still insane and if she is still dangerous to herself or others.
The law requires that when and if Yates no longer meets either test, she must be released. But in reality, this will not happen anytime soon. John Hinckley, for instance, has been committed now for 25 years. (He only recently won the right to visit his parents in a setting outside of the hospital.)
In sum, Yates's insanity verdict is, for all practical purposes, a life term in a prison-like setting.
If she ever gets better, and thus gets out, she will probably be an old woman. She will also suffer a punishment that she might not have endured, had she remained in prison, without treatment: She will suffer even more keenly the loss of the children she killed, and of the grandchildren and great-grandchildren she will never hold.
-
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/djglp/ ... en10p1.htm (http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/djglp/articles/gen10p1.htm)
Cited: 10 Duke J. of Gender L. & Pol'y 1
[*pg 1]
WHO IS ANDREA YATES? A SHORT STORY ABOUT INSANITY
DEBORAH W. DENNO*
INTRODUCTION
I. THE EARLY LIFE AND TRIAL OF ANDREA YATES
A. Meet the Yates Family
B. The Yates Trial
II. THE INSANITY DEFENSE
A. A Brief Overview of the Insanity Defense
B. The Texas Insanity Standard
III. PARK DIETZ'S EXPERTISE AND PSYCHIATRIC PHILOSOPHY
A. Dietz's Background and Reputation
B. Dietz's Limitations in Expertise and Investigation
IV. ANDREA YATES'S HISTORY OF POSTPARTUM DISORDERS
A. The Early Years of Andrea's Marriage
B. The Start of Andrea's Breakdown
C. Andrea's Plunge into Mental Illness
D. Andrea's Killings and The Aftermath
V. PARK DIETZ'S INTERVIEW AND TESTIMONY IN THE ANDREA YATES CASE
A. Dietz's Interview with Andrea
B. Dietz's Empirically Unsupported Conclusions
C. Dietz's Attempts to Give "Logic" to Andrea's Illogical Delusions
D. Dietz's Criticism of Andrea's Inability to Nurture Her Dead Children
VI. OTHER VIEWPOINTS ON THE ANDREA YATES CASE
A. The Overall Defense and Prosecution Perspective
B. The Jurors' Comments
C. Religion and Culture
D. Andrea Yates's Competency
E. Final Comments
CONCLUSION
FOOTNOTES
INTRODUCTION
We all know by now the story of Andrea Yates. Or, at least we think we do. Andrea Yates, high school valedictorian, swim team champion, college graduate, and registered nurse married Russell ("Rusty") Yates in 1993 after a four-year courtship. Both were twenty-eight.1 Over the next seven years, Andrea2 [*pg 2] gave birth to five children and suffered one miscarriage, all the while plunging deeper into mental illness.3 Then on June 20, 2001, in less than an hour, Andrea drowned all of her children in the bathtub, one by one.4 Months later, she was convicted of capital murder in Harris County, Texas,5 where she now serves a life sentence.6
Some may think that a mentally ill mother who committed such an act should be judged insane. Yet, news accounts and court records suggest that Andrea impaired her attorneys' efforts to plead insanity.7 Such defense plans were already encumbered by the unusually strict Texas insanity standard8 and the state's renowned retributive culture.9 After a jury found Andrea competent to stand trial,10 she resented the efforts that her attorneys mounted on her behalf11 even as she faced possible execution.12 Andrea insisted there was nothing wrong with her mind13 and that she deserved to die.14 She seemed to be awaiting punishment for her sins.
To those closest to Andrea, this self-blaming reaction came as no surprise. They could testify that Andrea had been tormented by bouts of mental illness,15 [*pg 3] and, in fact, both the prosecution and defense agreed that she was mentally ill.16 Andrea's life was also distinguished by religious obsession and a steadfast devotion to tales of sin and Scripture,17 a "repent-or-burn zeal"18 that led her to believe she was a bad mother with ruined offspring.19 According to Andrea, she killed her children to save them from Satan and her own evil maternal influences,20 delusions that did little to help Andrea's defense because they fueled her own desire for punishment.
Public opinion on the Yates killings helps explain some of the more contradictory themes in the case. On the one hand, the public had much sympathy for Andrea and the life that she led.21 Yet, her composed behavior on the day she killed her children stirred a strong retributive response.22 Many were unable to comprehend such violence except by declaring it intentional and evil.23 According to this view, it could be said that Andrea was supremely sane -- her acts rational and premeditated24 -- despite her unquestioned history of postpartum psychosis.25 Andrea propelled this account, spurring the public, her "jury," to see her as the Satanic mother she believed herself to be.26
[*pg 4]
These complex and conflicting aspects of the Yates case fed into the prosecution's depiction of Andrea's mental state on the day she killed her children. But, one psychiatrist's testimony seemed to have a greater impact than the others on the case's outcome.27 The prosecution's star expert, Park Dietz,28 appeared particularly adept at persuading the jury to accept the prosecution's assertion that Andrea was sane and acting intentionally when she killed her children.29 Because the Yates case is on appeal, many of the court records are not available.30 In addition, the defense team still lacks funds to pay for the entire trial transcript31 so it too cannot be examined. Park Dietz's testimony, however, is now accessible32 and it warrants a thorough analysis in its own right.
[*pg 5]
What is most striking about Dietz's testimony is how his opinions about Andrea's mental state could carry so much authority with the jury. Criminal trials commonly involve different sides presenting competing legal "stories" about their version of the facts.33 The law's role is to ensure that just verdicts result from these conflicting representations. Courts must be perceived "as fair and disinterested, capable of rising above the self-serving and adversarial narratives by which cases are presented."34 While the law provides evidentiary standards and procedures to oversee what information is released in court and how,35 an immense amount of discretion exists nonetheless in the ways stories can be told. It remains unclear who is to police these narratives -- beyond the structures already in place -- or whether such oversight is even needed.
In the Yates case, the defense claimed that Andrea's mental illness caused her to believe that killing her children was the right course of action. Although Andrea's attorneys called a number of experts to prove their argument, each expert had a different twist on this central viewpoint.36 Therefore, the defense's story about Andrea, while emphasizing her insanity, was still somewhat muddled. In contrast, the prosecution's story about Andrea's sanity was clearer and also apparently consistent with the cultural norms of Harris County, Texas. The prosecution argued that Andrea may have been gripped by her belief in some demonic command, but she was still fully capable of knowing she was doing something wrong.37 And Andrea seemed to concur, damningly perhaps. Her story was congruent with the prosecution's. She had sinned and deserved punishment for acting out the devil's dictates.38 In all likelihood, however, Andrea's own story was indicative of her mental illness,39 not evidence of the disposition she felt she most deserved. Nonetheless, both her narrative and the prosecution's were accentuated by courtroom storyteller, Park Dietz.
This Article analyzes the problematic aspects of Dietz's testimony in an effort to contribute some balance to the Andrea Yates story. While Dietz's comments may have confirmed the Harris County jury's preconceptions, they were virtually unsubstantiated. Dietz also has no significant expertise in postpartum [*pg 6] depression or psychosis even though both sides agreed that Andrea severely suffered from the disorders and that they significantly affected her conduct.
Of course, expert witnesses are routinely used in litigation.40 Dietz is simply one of the more prominent and prolific examples of what the criminal justice system seeks.41 Despite the long history of expert witnesses in criminal trials, the justice system should question the fairness and efficacy of such an unregulated storytelling process. The potential for inequity is all the more pronounced in a case where the prosecution's story lacks factual justification, both sides agree the defendant is mentally ill, and the death penalty is at stake.
Part I of this Article briefly discusses Andrea's life up to her marriage to Rusty as well as the outcome of her trial. Part II provides an overview of the insanity defense and the strict Texas insanity standard. Part III examines Dietz's background, his reputation, and his psychiatric philosophy, in addition to his proclivity to testify for the prosecution. Part IV describes Andrea's history of mental illness, especially her postpartum psychosis that started with the birth of her first child and ended with a severe psychotic episode. Part V focuses on Dietz's testimony in the Yates trial, beginning with his pre-trial interview with Andrea and ending with an analysis of his conclusions. The discussion emphasizes the speculative nature of many of Dietz's statements and their lack of connection to Andrea's history of mental illness. Part VI presents the other perspectives and experts in the Yates case, and considers how the case might have reached a different result with a more consistent defense strategy or a less rigid insanity standard.
The Andrea Yates case is a vast, book-length, narrative. This commentary covers just a part of the trial. It is beyond this Article's scope, for example, to scrutinize the general role of psychiatric experts in the criminal justice system42 [*pg 7] or to review the research on postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis, which is available elsewhere.43 Nonetheless, examining one piece of the Yates story can be enlightening. "Narrative, we are finally coming to realize, is indeed serious business -- whether in law, in literature, or in life."44
I. THE EARLY LIFE AND TRIAL OF ANDREA YATES
A. Meet the Yates Family
Andrea Yates was raised in the Houston area. Her family background appeared to be middle-American and middle-class.45 Her father was a retired auto shop teacher who died of Alzheimer's disease shortly before the killings.46 Her mother, Jutta Karin, was a homemaker.47 Andrea, the youngest of five, was expected to be a high achiever48 and, in high school, she succeeded: she was captain of the swim team, a National Honor Society member, and valedictorian49 of her 1982 graduating class. Upon completing a two-year pre-nursing program at the University of Houston, she went on to the University of Texas School of Nursing in Houston, graduating in 1986. From 1986 to 1994, she was employed as a registered nurse at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center.50 [*pg 8] Andrea's nursing career ceased entirely, however, soon after her marriage to Rusty.51
Andrea and Rusty first met in 1989 at the Houston apartment complex where they both resided. Both were twenty-five at the time.52 Rusty, "a popular jock" in high school and a summa cum laude graduate of Auburn University, was designing computer systems for NASA.53 Andrea approached him first in conversation -- an uncharacteristically bold move for her, Rusty would later reveal.54 Only after Andrea's arrest would Rusty learn that she had never dated until she had turned twenty-three, that she was recuperating from a romantic break-up at the time they met, and that her directness in initiating contact with him was prompted by intense loneliness and, perhaps, depression.55 Andrea and Rusty spent the next few years becoming acquainted, "living together, reading the Bible, and praying."56
Their April 17, 1993 wedding ceremony was small and simple. Surprisingly, it was also nondenominational,57 perhaps because of the influence of Rusty's spiritual mentor, Michael Woroniecki, from whom "[h]e had learned the faults of organized religion."58 The couple confidently announced to wedding guests that they would not use birth control -- they wanted as many children as nature would provide.59 Their desire for children was immediately fulfilled. Within three months, Andrea was pregnant60 with the first of five children. Eight years later she would kill them all.61
B. The Yates Trial
On July 30, 2001, Andrea was indicted on two counts of capital murder for the deaths of Noah (seven), John (five), and Mary (six months),62 but not for the deaths of her other two children, Luke (three) and Paul (two).63 All of the indictments were for capital murder because they involved more than one person and victims less than six years old.64 On the same day, Andrea's attorneys, George Parnham and Wendell Odom, filed a "notice of intent to offer evidence of the insanity defense," based upon the testimony of two psychiatrists claiming [*pg 9] that Andrea was, at the time of the killings, "mentally insane" as defined by the Texas Penal Code.65
The insanity defense for Andrea would ultimately dissolve.66 Within eight months following her indictment, one jury decided that Andrea was sufficiently competent to stand trial for killing her children67 and another refused her insanity plea.68 Although this second jury declined to impose the death penalty,69 Andrea received a mandatory life sentence for the killings.70 Under the Texas capital felony statute, an inmate must serve forty years in prison before becoming eligible for parole.71 The case is currently on appeal.72
Many theories could explain Andrea's conviction. Of course, the primary theory would speculate that the jury was so horrified by Andrea's acts that any psychiatric evidence offered on her behalf paled in comparison. Yet, the continuing controversy and debate over Andrea's conviction73 suggest that there may be other, more complex, explanations.
Additional rationales primarily point to the retributive aspects of Texas law and culture. As one Harris County resident explained, "There's the rule of law, and there's the rule of law in Texas . . . . The rule of law in Texas is kind of cowboy law."74 For example, Texas consistently executes more individuals than any other state;75 annually it accounts for one-third of all executions in the country,76 a pattern that conflicts with both national and international abolitionist trends. Harris County in particular is responsible for over one-third of the state's death row inmates, making it the harshest death penalty jurisdiction in the country77 [*pg 10] and one of the most punitive in the Western world.78 If Harris County were considered a state, it would follow only two other states (Texas and Virginia) in its number of executions since 1977.79
Because the Yates prosecution sought the death penalty, Andrea's jury was "death qualified." In other words, the prosecution could exclude potential jurors for cause if their negative views toward the death penalty were so strong they "would 'prevent or substantially impair the performance of [their] duties as [jurors]'"80 and therefore render them "unable to faithfully and impartially apply the law."81 Research shows that death qualified juries are more anti-civil libertarian in attitude, particularly with respect to such principles as presumption of innocence and burden of proof, and they are significantly more likely to convict than juries that are not death qualified.82 Presumably, then, Andrea's jury was far less able to "comprehend the inconceivable"83 in evaluating an insanity defense relative to a jury that had not been death qualified.
The Texas insanity standard is a comparably strict rule of law; in the eyes of one legal commentator, it is "one of the most stringent" in the United States.84 [*pg 11] The Yates jury judged psychiatric testimony not only by Texas culture but also by that culture's narrow legal view of what constitutes insanity.
II. THE INSANITY DEFENSE
A. A Brief Overview of the Insanity Defense
Part II explores only the very basics of the insanity defense and how it is applied in the state of Texas.85 The insanity defense is considered one of the most controversial criminal law doctrines, not only because of intense debate over how "insanity" should be defined, but also because of increasing conflict over whether the defense should exist in any form.86 Statistics show that insanity pleas are seldom raised or successful in states throughout the country,87 including Texas.88 Nonetheless, the defense rankles social and community tensions over two conflicting goals: the desire to punish the horrendous, highly publicized crimes that the public typically hears about versus the need to understand that some mentally ill people should not be held responsible for what they do.89
1. The Major Legal Standards for Insanity
The legal standard for insanity varies across the fifty states.90 The first and strictest insanity test of modern usage was introduced in 1843 by the English House of Lords in the M'Naghten case.91 Under M'Naghten, a person is insane if, because of a "disease of the mind" at the time she committed the act, she (1) did [*pg 12] not know the "nature and quality of the act" that she was performing; or (2) if she was aware of the act, she did not know that what she "was doing was wrong," that is, she did not know the difference between right and wrong.92 The M'Naghten rule, which soon became the most widely accepted insanity test in the United States,93 considers only cognitive ability and not volitional conduct.94
Concern over the narrowness of the M'Naghten test prompted attempts over the years to replace it.95 The most successful attempt was the American Law Institute (ALI)'s 1962 insanity test which rapidly gained support from legislatures and courts; by the 1980s, the ALI standard was adopted nearly unanimously by the federal circuit courts and over one-half of the states.96 Under the ALI test, an individual is not responsible for her criminal conduct if, because of mental disease or defect, she either lacked "substantial capacity" to appreciate the "criminality" (or, at the opting of the state legislature, the "wrongfulness") of her conduct, or she failed to "conform" her conduct "to the requirements of law."97
The differences between the ALI and M'Naghten tests are striking. For example, the ALI test accepts both cognitive and volitional impairment as an excuse. In other words, the test considers a defendant's cognitive ability to "appreciate" the criminality or wrongfulness of her conduct as well as her ability to "conform" her conduct to the law.98 This added "conform" requirement is often characterized as a "lack-of-control defense," pertaining to those individuals whose mental disease or defect leads them to lose control over their actions at the time they commit an offense.99
The ALI and M'Naghten standards vary in other important ways. The ALI test requires only that defendants "lack substantial capacity," not total capac-[*pg 13] ity.100 In turn, the ALI applies the broader term "appreciate" rather than "know" when specifying the type of cognitive impairment that leads to insanity; hence, the defendant's lack of emotional understanding can be incorporated into the defense.101 The ALI test also allows the state legislature to consider "wrongfulness" rather than "criminality." This choice enables a finding of insanity if the accused does not know the act was illegal and also if she believes the act was "morally justified" according to community standards.102 At the same time, both the ALI and M'Naghten tests skirt any set definition of the term "mental disease or defect."103 According to the ALI, such an open-ended approach allows the term "to accommodate developing medical understanding"104 and therefore avoid the constraints of old science.
The popularity of the ALI test dwindled in 1981 when a jury found John Hinckley not guilty by reason of insanity, based on an ALI standard, for his attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan.105 The effects of the public furor over Hinckley's acquittal were immediate:106 the federal government and several of the ALI test states abolished the volitional component of the test entirely and imposed other limits, in some cases reverting back to a M'Naghten-type standard.107 According to a 1995 survey of insanity laws, about twenty states still use the ALI test while nearly half of the states apply "ome variation of the M'Naghten/cognitive impairment-only test."108 A handful of states have abolished the insanity defense entirely.109
2. Modern Problems with the M'Naghten Insanity Standard
The return to a M'Naghten-type standard spotlights the problems that the test has always had and why there have been continuing efforts to change it. For [*pg 14] example, the word "know" and the phrase "nature and quality of the act" can be defined either very broadly or narrowly.110 Such vagueness gives legal actors little guidance for interpreting the test and heightens the chance that they will apply it inconsistently across different cases. Likewise, it is not clear whether the "wrong" in the right-and-wrong prong pertains to legal or moral wrongdoing because the language in M'Naghten itself could bolster either approach.111 England has since established that the right-and-wrong element represents the defendant's recognition that an act is legally wrong.112 Yet, American law sides in the opposite direction.113 Most American courts have interpreted the word "wrong" to mean "moral wrong," not "legal wrong."114 This issue was important in the Yates case because Texas law does not specify a particular approach115 and a moral wrong approach would have benefited Andrea. According to some defense experts, Andrea knew that her acts were illegal but she believed they were morally right, given the context of her delusional circumstances.116
In American states that apply the moral right-and-wrong test, questions typically concern whether the defendant knowingly transgressed society's standards of morality, not whether the defendant personally perceived her acts to be morally acceptable. In other words, even if a defendant is mentally ill and, as a result, commits an offense that she believes is morally correct, she is considered sane if she is aware that her conduct is condemned by society.117 As one commentator notes, however, this difference can "be blurred to near extinction" depending on how the particular circumstances in a case are pitched.118 For example, a mentally ill individual "is apt to know that society considers it morally wrong to kill, but if she is acting pursuant to a delusionary belief that God wants her to kill, she might now believe that society would agree with her God-endorsed actions."119
Interpretation of the moral-right-and-wrong standard can vary somewhat in the few M'Naghten jurisdictions that have a "deific decree doctrine," in other words, a rule that allows a mentally disordered defendant to be judged legally insane if she believes that she is acting under the direct command of God (for [*pg 15] example, a belief that God commanded the defendant to kill someone).120 Two primary rationales explain the origins of the deific decree doctrine. First, the doctrine "was merely a logical extension of the Judeo-Christian belief that God would not order a person to kill another" because the Sixth Commandment prohibits murder.121 Therefore, a person thinking that God is commanding her to kill is entertaining a false belief and thus should not be held accountable. Likewise, nineteenth-century courts and juries would not grant the insanity defense to individuals contending that they acted under the command of the Devil or some other religiously corrupt figure because people accepted only "the One True God."122 Second, the doctrine may have been a vehicle for inserting a volitional component exception to the cognitive-only limitations of the M'Naghten rule so that M'Naghten could incorporate at least a narrow category of uncontrolled individuals.123
The exceptions and qualifications for the deific decree doctrine apparently still apply today for defendants experiencing such "command hallucinations."124 The doctrine presumes that the defendant's behavior results from a delusion (a "false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality"),125 and not from a religious conviction,126 although determining the difference between the two can be very difficult.127 While some jurisdictions treat the deific decree rule as an exception to the general insanity standard, other jurisdictions view it as a major factor in assessing an individual's capability to tell right from wrong.128 Irrespective of a jurisdiction's particular approach, these right-wrong issues were key in the Andrea Yates case. Andrea's command hallucinations were a focus of the [*pg 16] expert testimony and what was supposed to be considered "wrong" was neither specified, nor constrained, in the jury charge.129
B. The Texas Insanity Standard
In 1973, Texas joined the ranks of other states and adopted the more lenient ALI definition of insanity.130 A decade later, however, the state returned to a M'Naghten type standard, partly in response to developments surrounding the Hinckley verdict.131 Yet, a critical feature of the Texas test132 is that it is even narrower than M'Naghten, although comparably confusing. The typical M'Naghten standard refers to two parts: the defendant's ability to know (1) the "nature and quality of the act committed" or (2) whether the act was "right or wrong."133 The Texas standard, however, eliminates the first part and refers only to the second, that is, whether the defendant knew the act was right or wrong.134 Texas also limits the defense to cases of severe mental illness and puts the burden of proving insanity on defendants.135 As legal commentators rightly contend, the Texas standard "could hardly be narrower"136 or more "impossible to meet."137
Similar to the M'Naghten standard, defining the terms "right" and "wrong" is a problem.138 For example, the Texas insanity statute does not clarify whether "wrong" should be considered from a legal or a moral standpoint.139 This ambiguity was a key issue in the Yates case, both for the law and the psychiatric pro-[*pg 17] fession. As one psychiatric expert commenting on the case said, there is still no "test" available to determine who is genuinely controlled by command hallucinations; rather, psychiatrists must rely on "a certain degree of approximation[]" in their assessments.140 Likewise, the Yates jury charge did not specify what "wrong" should mean and expert testimony did not seem to restrict the definition of "wrongfulness."141 The Yates jury was free to use the term's "common and ordinary meaning"142 and apply "the statutory language to the facts as it saw fit."143
Such a legally muddled circumstance prompted conflicting approaches to interpreting the Texas insanity standard. As the Yates case evolved, for example, it became clear that both the prosecution and the defense would define the legal-or-moral wrong issue because of the statute's silence. Both sides agreed that Andrea was mentally ill and, in general, that she knew her actions were legally wrong.144 The issue of whether Andrea's mental illness rendered her unable to control her actions, although hotly debated, was moot under the narrow confines of the Texas insanity statute.145 Thus, only one significant question was left for the jury to resolve: Did Andrea know that her actions were morally wrong?
III. PARK DIETZ'S EXPERTISE AND PSYCHIATRIC PHILOSOPHY
There was little legal or psychiatric clarity guiding the determinations to be made in the Yates case. For this reason, the opinions of expert witnesses were especially important. According to a synopsis of the ethical guidelines established by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, "the medical expert is expected to provide a clinical evaluation and a review of the applicable data in light of the legal question posed and in the spirit of honesty and striving for objectivity -- the expert's ethical and professional obligation."146 The Academy specifies that such an obligation "includes a thorough, fair, and impartial review and should not exclude any relevant information in order to create a view favoring either the plaintiff or the defendant."147
According to some legal commentators, Park Dietz's expert testimony was considered "crucial"148 for the conviction of Andrea Yates -- the "defining moment" of the trial.149 Part III examines Dietz's background, experience, and psy-[*pg 18] chiatric philosophy in an effort to explain why Dietz's story about Andrea seemed so much more compelling than the other stories experts had to offer. Notably, much of the information about Dietz derives from interviews with Dietz himself, or from his supporters, in magazines and newspapers. Dietz is commendably forthright about his views in general and was immediately open to commenting on the Yates case as soon as Andrea was sentenced.150 What becomes apparent is how his own self-described, pro-prosecution leanings could mesh so well with a death qualified, Harris County jury.
A. Dietz's Background and Reputation
Park Dietz is considered one of the most "prominent and provocative" psychiatric expert witnesses in the country.151 In one professional capacity or another, he has been involved with a long list of famous homicide defendants: John Hinckley, Jr., Jeffrey Dahmer, Susan Smith, Melissa Drexler, the Menendez brothers, O.J. Simpson (in the civil case), and Ted Kaczynski, to name a few.152 He can now add Andrea Yates to that list. As the prosecution's star witness in the Yates case,153 he both interviewed and videotaped Andrea,154 and he subsequently testified in court about his evaluation.155
Dietz also has extensive professional credentials. He acquired a B.A. from Cornell in biology and psychology, an M.D. from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, and a Masters in Public Health and Ph.D. in sociology, both from Johns Hopkins. He has held academic posts at Johns Hopkins, the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard, and the University of Virginia.156 His professional experience is substantial, including consulting positions with the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.157 In addition, Dietz has over one hundred publications, "nearly all" of which concern violent or injurious behavior,158 and he has examined "thousands" of criminal defendants for forensic psychiatric purposes, including sanity determinations.159
Currently (and at the time he testified in the Yates trial), Dietz runs two businesses in Newport Beach, California. He is the president and founder of Park Dietz & Associates, Inc., forensic consultants in medicine and the behav-[*pg 19] ioral sciences, as well as president and founder of Threat Assessment Group, Inc. (TAG), which specializes in the prevention of workplace violence.160 Before arriving in Houston to testify in the Yates case, Dietz mailed his business brochure (describing his companies and the types of cases on which they work) to a wide range of members of Houston's legal community -- prosecutors, defense attorneys, attorneys specializing in premises liability for violent crime, and lawyers representing elder abuse victims.161 Although the Yates defense brought forth evidence of Dietz's brochure distribution during cross-examination in an effort to portray Dietz as a "professional testifier,"162 Dietz did not seem apologetic.163 Nor did such a revelation appear to dent the perceived validity of his testimony.
1. A Desire to Emphasize "Facts"
Media articles about Dietz claim he is known for emphasizing "facts" rather than "theoretical conjecture" when evaluating a case.164 Indeed, both Dr. Jonas Rappeport, a renowned professor of Dietz's at Johns Hopkins Medical School,165 as well as Roger Adelman, one of the prosecutors in the Hinckley case,166 credit Dietz's precision and "focus on the facts" as major contributions Dietz has brought to modernizing the field of forensic psychiatry.
In line with this facts-driven orientation, Dietz seems to be more concerned with the physical evidence linked to a crime than with the defendant's history that can be acquired in an interview.167 According to Dietz, for example, interviews with defendants have typically "been the linchpin of forensic assessments"; yet, there are "serious risks" associated with them because the "[n]atural human techniques for gaining information from an interview unthinkingly cut corners by suggesting answers or guessing at the answer or offering multiple choices."168 Such leading or suggestive procedures are comparable to crime scene evidence that has been contaminated or corrupted.169 Dietz favors instead the second source of mental evidence, which includes examining the crime scene, analyzing autopsies and weapons, and interviewing witnesses to the crime.170 Although "the ideal" would be to have both types of evidence when making an evaluation, Dietz has stated that, "f I had to choose between [*pg 20] the interview [with the defendant] only or everything except the interview as a means of getting to the truth, I'd prefer everything except the interview because it would get me to the truth more often."171
Dietz's apparent stress on facts,172 combined with what even Rappeport views as a "rigid" approach towards defendants,173 has prompted criticism. According to an article about Dietz in Johns Hopkins Magazine, "ome forensic psychiatrists" have accused him of presenting "mere informed opinion as solid fact, and [complain] that his standard of criminal responsibility is harsh and unforgiving of mentally ill defendants."174 For example, during his testimony in the Yates case, Dietz indicated that because Andrea claimed that Satan, rather than God, told her to kill her children, she knew her actions were wrong.175 Andrea also failed to act in a way a loving mother would if she really thought she was saving her children from hell by killing them. As Dietz stated, "I would expect her to comfort the children, telling them they are going to be with Jesus or be with God, but she does not offer words of comfort to the children."176 However, there appears to be no empirical support for this kind of interpretation of the deific decree doctrine, if in fact that is what Dietz was referencing.177 Rather, if Dietz's explanation has any source at all, it seems to derive from the centuries-old, Judeo-Christian origins of the doctrine itself.178 As one legal critic asked in response to Dietz's comments, "Is one to infer that it is somehow more loving to invoke the name of Jesus while you drown your children than to drown them without any religious commentary?"179 In other words, Dietz appears to be stressing religion, not facts, a focus more aligned with Southern Bible belt culture180 rather than with a medical assessment of Andrea's mental state.
Even Dietz's supporters have admitted that his inflexible approach may prevent him from being able (or willing) to comprehend "some of the psychological nuances of human behavior."181 According to Rappeport, a strong advocate,182 Dietz has the capability to understand and apply knowledge of human behavior, he simply chooses not to.183 As Rappeport explained, "I have a suspicion he may not like to do that. So he may find himself more frequently on the side of the prosecutor, who doesn't like to do those things either."184 Such an omission is a troubling handicap in a field where "[f]ifty percent or more of [*pg 21] medicine is emotional."185 It is particularly problematic given that the cases that typically involve Dietz's testimony often turn on the very "nuances" that Dietz discounts.
Indeed, in media interviews186 and his testimony in the Yates case,187 Dietz has made clear that he does not treat patients in a psychiatry practice. This lack of engagement with patients is "rare" among medical expert witnesses.188 Rather, Dietz opts to concentrate on research and one-time interviews with criminal defendants.189 Yet, such a view of the psychiatric world is distorted. For example, it is difficult to comprehend how Dietz can evaluate an individual's normality or abnormality if he only engages in short-term interviews with highly abnormal people. By encountering briefly only the most extreme criminal cases, all Dietz sees is pathology. He has no "control group" as a comparison, no in-depth evaluations of individuals from whom he can learn nuances. Such an approach may explain additional criticisms concerning where Dietz draws the line for distinguishing sanity from insanity. According to Fred S. Berlin, associate professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins and one of the defense's psychiatric experts in the Jeffrey Dahmer case, Dietz's line is too stringent. "He has a high threshold for evidence that tends to suggest impairment. A narrow range for what he defines as psychiatric disorder."190
Consistent with this view, in the Yates case Dietz minimized the defense expert witnesses' testimony that Andrea had suffered years of delusions, auditory hallucinations, and visions of violence.191 Instead, Dietz claimed that Andrea had, at most, experienced "obsessional intrusive thoughts."192 Yet, contrary to other high profile defendants pleading insanity, Andrea had a substantial and documented history of mental illness before she killed her children.193 Not only had she twice attempted suicide, she had also been hospitalized and prescribed anti-psychotic drugs after the birth of her fourth and fifth children.194 The de-[*pg 22] fense could call experts who had actually treated Andrea, some repeatedly,195 in sharp contrast to Dietz's relatively brief interview. As one scholar on expert testimony emphasizes, "[t]he legal system assumes that the treating doctor is more credible than a nontreating doctor"; therefore, the treating physician "is frequently sought to provide expert testimony."196
Nonetheless, Dietz's effectiveness as a witness appears to be due to his alleged emphasis on fact. Because jurors received conflicting expert testimony during the Yates trial, minimal statutory guidance, and unclear stories from both the prosecution and defense, they were left with little to rely on other than the supposed "facts."197 Compounding this dilemma, the multiple defense psychiatrists gave somewhat contradictory analyses of Andrea's mental state,198 presumably in part because she had been treated or assessed by a number of them during different stages of her illness. Such a multiple-theory defense narrative contrasted with the more uniform "factual" narrative presented by Dietz. Given a choice, Dietz's story may have been the preferred alternative; the jury could base a decision on something tangible -- "facts" -- rather than confusion.
2. A Prosecutorial Bent
Almost immediately, Dietz's testimony and post-trial commentary about the Yates case sparked notoriety for the views he expressed both inside and outside the courtroom. In an interview with the New York Times six weeks after his trial testimony, Dietz stressed that his involvement in the Yates case was "troubling," both "professionally and personally."199 As he explained, "t was obvious where public opinion lay, it was obvious she was mentally ill, it was obvious where professional organizations would like the case to go."200 Therefore, while "t would have been the easier course of action to distort the law a little, ignore the evidence a little, and pretend she didn't know what she did was wrong," it also would have been "wrong . . . to stretch the truth and try to engineer the outcome" in that way.201
Dietz also tried to justify his career-long tendency to appear primarily for the prosecution. According to Dietz, prosecutors, like good forensic psychiatrists, strive "to seek truth and justice" and therefore to make available all the information important in a case.202 In contrast, defense attorneys attempt to help their clients -- a goal that conflicts with a thorough search for data. "- ften there are pieces of evidence that are not in their client's interest to have disclosed or [*pg 23] produced."203 Of course, Dietz's statements imply that defense attorneys and their witnesses want to distort information in some way and shield the truth.204
The irony of Dietz's points, however, were spotlighted a week later by Andrea's attorneys. They discovered a factual error that Dietz had made during cross-examination. As the next section discusses, their research showed that Dietz had testified incorrectly about the existence of a television episode about postpartum depression that never aired.205
3. A Mistake in Testimony
Dietz is a technical advisor to two television shows: Law & Order and Law & Order Criminal Intent. In his advisory capacity, he has viewed nearly three hundred episodes of both shows.206 During the Yates trial, Dietz mistakenly testified that, shortly before Andrea killed her children, Law & Order aired an episode involving a postpartum depressed mother who successfully won an insanity appeal after drowning her children in a bathtub.207 The episode never existed.208 When Dietz learned of his error, he wrote prosecutors Joe Owmby and Kaylynn Williford and informed them that he had confused the insanity episode he testified about with other Law & Order episodes and infanticide cases. Dietz's mistake about such a fact, however, may be part of the grounds for Yates's appeal.209 It is not a stretch to think the jury may have been affected by Dietz's implication that Andrea was somehow influenced by the show.
Dietz's statements about the "truth seeking" differences between the prosecution and the defense were also problematic in other ways totally beyond his control and, presumably, his awareness. For example, trial testimony revealed that the defense was not able to acquire copies of particular documents, including Andrea's police offense report. George Parnham, Andrea's attorney, was allowed only to read her police report but not to photocopy it.210 Therefore, Parnham resorted to taking notes on the report, based only on what he could remember of it. As one defense expert later revealed, having only Parnham's notes on Andrea's report put the expert "at a real disadvantage."211
Dietz also claimed that the defense experts asked "shocking examples of leading questions" of Andrea and provided only partial, and biased, videotapes of their interviews with her.212 Predictably, his accusation prompted a response. According to Lucy Puryear, a Houston psychiatrist who testified for Andrea's [*pg 24] defense, Dietz did the same.213 Puryear added that Dietz edited his eight hours of videotaped interviews with Andrea and only "showed the jury portions that supported his testimony."214
Such media debates simply seem to accentuate the general problems associated with incorporating psychiatric testimony in an adversarial process, as well as the weaknesses of the profession itself. Legal commentators emphasized the extent to which both sides in the Yates case differed in their conclusions about Andrea's mental state given that they were purportedly examining the same evidence.215 As the following sections suggest, however, the backgrounds of the experts appeared to have an impact on what kind of evidence they believed was most significant and why.
B. Dietz's Limitations in Expertise and Investigation
This section examines the extent of Park Dietz's background and experience for testifying in a case involving a defendant with an undisputed history of postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis. As one scholar on expert witnesses has emphasized, "[m]edical professionals who undertake the role of expert witnesses are generally expected . . . to be knowledgeable and experienced in the area in which they are functioning as a medical expert."216
1. Postpartum Depression and Postpartum Psychosis
The Yates trial revealed the degree to which Dietz was unfamiliar with patients diagnosed with postpartum depression or postpartum psychosis and his admitted void in treating patients.217 This observation is not meant to elevate the psychiatric classification of postpartum disorders to a level of scientific precision and sophistication that it does not deserve.218 Rather, this section makes clear that there is still much to be learned about postpartum disorders and how much they can justifiably mitigate criminal culpability, if at all. At the same time, what is known medically about the disorders -- especially their neurobiological aspects -- should not be ignored. Two postpartum experts highlighted the problem of such informational inadequacy specifically with respect to the prosecution's approach in the Yates case: "The real challenge for psychiatry is to educate the legal profession and juries about the physiological underpinnings of postpartum disorders and other psychoses . . . and, ultimately, to encourage verdicts based on facts."219
Of course, Park Dietz was not responsible for such a lack of education. It is not the role of the expert witness to provide answers to questions that are never asked or to draw conclusions without a foundation. Andrea's defense attorneys could have more aggressively revealed Dietz's gaps and confronted him with [*pg 25] the history of Andrea's illnesses that Dietz bypassed in his evaluations. Nonetheless, without a fuller expertise on postpartum issues, Dietz's story about Andrea offered a much simpler mental landscape -- and a greater level of speculation -- than may have been warranted given her background.
Direct and cross examinations in the Yates trial made clear that Dietz has been asked to consult on an "unusually high proportion" of cases concerning mothers who kill their children.220 Yet, according to his testimony, the last time he ever treated a female patient with postpartum depression was twenty-five years ago (in 1977).221 Nor was Dietz "sure" that he ever treated a patient for postpartum depression with "psychotic features."222 Dietz conceded that he stopped treating patients totally "many many years ago," in "1981 or 1982"223 and that he has no expertise in women's mental health.224 Dietz's error concerning the showing of a Law & Order episode on postpartum depression225 came about when Parnham was cross-examining him to assess two issues: the sources of Dietz's income, but also whether Dietz had any more expertise in postpartum disorders, even at the level of consulting for television shows, than what he indicated in his testimony on direct examination.226 It appears Dietz did not have more background because he did not offer any information other than his consultancy on a nonexistent show. Such inexperience does not comport with accepted diagnostic principles of psychiatry.227
Dietz's lack of expertise in postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis is striking given the psychiatric community's recognition of postpartum disorders228 and the acceptance by both sides that Andrea was afflicted with one.229 The disorders are included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), published by the American Psychiatric Association, and now in its fourth (text revised) edition (DSM-IV-TR).230 As courts and professionals have noted, "[t]he DSM is often referred to as 'the psychiatric profession's diagnostic Bible.'"231 DSM-IV-TR also clearly recognizes the link between postpartum-related mental disorder and infanticide in the context of delusions.232 Notably, [*pg 26] however, postpartum psychosis is not presently treated as an individual diagnostic classification in the DSM-IV-TR. Rather, the symptoms are categorized according to the established criteria used to diagnose psychosis (for example, major depressive, manic, or mixed episode). The "postpartum onset specifier" applies if symptoms occur within four weeks after childbirth.233
2. Andrea's Postpartum Risk Factors and Life Stressors
It appears that Dietz never really adequately investigated or acknowledged Andrea's postpartum risk factors -- most particularly in the context of the postpartum period's "unique . . . degree of neuroendocrine alterations and psychosocial adjustments," which the DSM emphasizes.234 In other words, the medical literature stresses that the risk factors for postpartum disorders cover a broad scope of biological, psychological, and social influences. These factors include an individual's personal and family history of depression, biochemical imbalances, recent stressful events, marital conflict, and perceived lack of support from the partner, family, or friends.235
[*pg 27]
Andrea experienced all of the postpartum risk factors that the DSM mentions.236 She was also subject to a host of family and environmental life stressors shown to be linked to postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis.237 Dietz only occasionally alluded to these stressors if he mentioned them at all in his testimony. Even if it could be argued that the direct and cross examinations of Dietz did not prompt further references to Andrea's disorders, it would be expected that they would be part of Dietz's evaluation of Andrea independent of his courtroom testimony.
Andrea's stressors were numerous. First, over the course of her marriage to Rusty (during which she was nearly always either pregnant or breastfeeding), Andrea consistently demonstrated DSM-listed criteria for postpartum mood disorder: "fluctuations in mood, mood lability, and preoccupation with infant well-being."238 Like the DSM specification, these feelings "ranged from overconcern to frank delusions"239 and they also took the form of suicide attempts related to the other circumstances in Andrea's life -- uprooted living conditions and transiency, home schooling her five children, her father's death, depressive illnesses throughout her family, Rusty's own bizarre behavior and pressure for more children, as well as Andrea's increasing obsession with religious doctrine, particularly as it was pitched by Michael Woroniecki and his wife, Rachel.240 As the DSM notes, "[t]he presence of severe ruminations or delusional thoughts about the infant is associated with a significantly increased risk of harm to the infant."241 Part IV considers in further detail how Andrea wove such delusional thoughts into a highly stressed life that seemed to spur the thoughts all the more.
IV. ANDREA YATES'S HISTORY OF POSTPARTUM DISORDERS
A. The Early Years of Andrea's Marriage
Andrea's postpartum difficulties appeared with her first pregnancy. Soon after Noah's birth in 1994,242 for example, Andrea experienced hallucinations -- a striking vision of a knife and her stabbing someone. She dismissed the image and never revealed it to anyone243until after her arrest, when she told Rusty.244 As research shows, postpartum depressed or psychotic women often feel ashamed or embarrassed to admit to others their thoughts about harming their infants.245
When Andrea became pregnant a second time in 1995 (with John), she gave up swimming and jogging and also saw less of her friends.246 Her lifestyle [*pg 28] switched yet again in 1996, when Rusty was offered work on a six-month NASA-related project in Florida -- an event that prompted the leasing of their four-bedroom suburban house and a drive to Florida in a thirty-eight foot trailer.247 That trailer would become their "home" in a recreational-vehicle community where Andrea would care for Noah and John while Rusty worked.248 In Florida, Andrea miscarried but then became pregnant a third time just when Rusty had completed his job and was ready to move back to Houston.249
The return to Houston did not mean re-inhabiting their house even though in 1997 Andrea gave birth to a third child, Paul.250 Rusty had other ideas. In an effort to live "light" and "easy," the Yateses rented a lot for their trailer.251 By 1998, after several months of trailer living, Rusty's "easy living" philosophy took a new twist. He learned that a traveling evangelist, Michael Woroniecki, whose advice had inspired Rusty in college, was selling a motor home that Woroniecki had converted from a 1978 Greyhound bus.252 Woroniecki, his wife Rachel, and their children had used the 350-square feet of bus for home and travel for their mobile lifestyle.253 Because Andrea and Noah preferred the bus to the trailer, Rusty bought it. Noah and John slept in the luggage compartment, while Andrea, Rusty, Paul, and now, Luke, who was born in 1999, slept in the cabin.254
While her brood expanded, Andrea also became devoted to helping her father, who now had Alzheimer's disease. This task was overwhelming for Andrea.255 At the same time, Andrea became further isolated from everyone. When she did choose to see people, she always visited them, never reciprocating by inviting them to the trailer.256
Rusty's role in Andrea's increasing aloneness, oddity of lifestyle, religious obsession, and continual state of pregnancy should not be downplayed with respect to any facet of Andrea's behavior.257 And it may never be known to what extent Andrea's pregnancies were based on a mutual decision with Rusty or primarily a product of Rusty's desire for a large family. A number of people, including Andrea's mother and her friend Debbie Holmes, suggested Rusty was a dominating force in the Yates family, including the decision to have babies.258
[*pg 29]
B. The Start of Andrea's Breakdown
On June 16, 1999, Andrea called Rusty at work, sobbing and hysterical. He returned to find her shaking uncontrollably and biting her fingers.259 His efforts to calm her to no avail, Rusty took Andrea to her parents' home that evening.260 The next day, while Andrea's mother was napping and Rusty was out doing errands, the full force of Andrea's troubles became unmistakably clear. She attempted suicide by taking forty pills of her mother's antidepressant medication.261 An unconscious Andrea was rushed by ambulance to Methodist Hospital, with Rusty following behind.262
Andrea told the staff at Methodist Hospital that she had consumed the pills to "sleep forever," but afterwards she felt guilty because she had her "family to live for."263 At the same time, her recovery was slow. According to notes taken by a hospital psychiatrist and a social worker, Andrea was evasive about the reasons for her suicide attempt and deflected questions.264 Although Andrea was still depressed, the hospital discharged her for "insurance reasons," the explanation written on her medical chart. The psychiatrist prescribed Zoloft, an antidepressant, and Rusty took Andrea back to her parents' home to rest.265
Andrea did not like taking the medication, however, and her condition only worsened.266 She would stay in bed all day and self-mutilate. At one point, she scratched four bald patches on her scalp, picked sores in her nose, and obsessively scraped "score marks" on her legs and arms.267 Later, she would tell psychiatrists that during this time, she saw visions and heard voices, telling her to get a knife. She also watched a person being stabbed, although she would not identify the victim.268 At the same time, Andrea refused to feed her children or nurse her baby Luke, claiming that they were "all eating too much."269 Such delusions and thoughts about her children are consistent with the criteria listed for postpartum disorders in the DSM.270
It was only after Andrea's attempted suicide that her relatives discovered the extent of her family history of mental illness: Andrea's brother and sister had ongoing treatment for depression, another brother was bipolar, and in hindsight, her father also suffered from depression.271 According to the DSM, this [*pg 30] family history of mental disorder (particularly bipolar disorder),272 along with Andrea's pre- and post-pregnancy experiences with depression,273 are all factors that would heighten the likelihood of postpartum psychotic features. As the DSM explains, "- nce a woman has had a postpartum episode with psychotic features, the risk of recurrence with each subsequent delivery is between 30% and 50%."274
At different times, Andrea also experienced bizarre delusions and hallucinations. She believed that there were video cameras in the ceilings watching her in various rooms in the house and that television characters were communicating with her. She told Rusty of these hallucinations; however, neither of them informed Andrea's doctors, even though Andrea was continually asked whether she had hallucinations.275
Of all of her family members, Andrea seemed to suffer the most and her condition continued to deteriorate. The day before she had an appointment with one of her psychiatrists, Eileen Starbranch, Rusty found Andrea in the bathroom looking at the mirror with a knife at her throat. Rusty had to grab the knife away.276 When Rusty told Starbranch of the incident, she insisted that Andrea be hospitalized again, this time at Memorial Spring Shadows Glen, a private facility in Houston.277
The initial results of this hospitalization were disastrous. Andrea was virtually catatonic for ten days.278 According to clinicians, catatonia is an objective sign of mental disorder whether or not an individual reveals what he or she is thinking.279 It was also only during Andrea's stay at Memorial Spring Shadows Glen that there would ever be any record suggesting that she experienced hallu-[*pg 31] cinations.280 This record was based on a doctor's report and observations by the doctor's assistant.281
Starbranch gave Andrea a multi-drug injection that immediately improved Andrea's behavior, according to Rusty.282 After a sound sleep, Andrea seemed much more like the person he had first met and they had in the evening what he thought was one of their best conversations.283 Only later did Andrea assert that she considered the injection a "truth serum" that led her to lose self-control in a way she abhorred.284 Andrea's view of the injection as a "truth serum" could be considered yet one more bizarre delusion on her part.285
When Andrea returned to her family after treatment, "home" was neither her parents' house (which was too small) nor the bus, which her parents considered unhealthy for her and the children. With her parents' urging, Rusty, a well-salaried ($80,000 a year) project manager at NASA, bought a three-bedroom, two-bath house in a tree-lined, residential neighborhood.286 The house even had a place to park the bus, which was still very important to Rusty. In the more serene surroundings, Andrea apparently prospered -- swimming laps at dawn, baking and sewing, playing with her children, and fostering an environment for home schooling,287 which Rusty encouraged despite the past stress on Andrea.288 At this point, Andrea admitted to Rusty that she had "failed" at their life in the bus; this new phase in their life was a chance to succeed.289
During this period, the family was engaging in three nights per week of Bible study in the living room because Rusty did not like any of the churches in their area. Again, the views of the bus-selling traveling minister Michael Woroniecki would come to have a profound effect on the lives of Andrea and Rusty.290 Through Woroniecki, Rusty came to doubt organized religion, even though Rusty was not in complete agreement with Woroniecki's views.291 Andrea was another story, however. Woroniecki's "repent-or-burn zeal"292 captivated her and she corresponded with Woroniecki and his wife for years after she and Rusty bought their bus.293 Indeed, at times, the Yates family seemed to imitate the Woronieckis -- a bus-living, home-schooling, Bible-reading brood relishing the isolation of itinerancy.294 According to Woroniecki, "the role of woman is derived . . . from the sin of Eve."295 Likewise, he thought that "bad mothers" create [*pg 32] "bad children."296 There came a time when Woroniecki's "hell burning" influence on Andrea was so great, it distressed both her parents and even Rusty.297
By the spring of 2000, Andrea became pregnant again, a decision seemingly made with Rusty when Andrea started to improve so markedly.298 Yet, the news greatly alarmed Starbranch, who had warned that Andrea's problems could be far more serious if they returned,299 as well as Andrea's mother, who had believed all along that Rusty's demands prompted Andrea's breakdown.300 Debbie Holmes, a former nursing colleague of Andrea's, echoed this view of Rusty, claiming that Andrea continually depicted Rusty as manipulative and controlling and that Rusty pushed her to have the fifth baby.301
C. Andrea's Plunge into Mental Illness
Starbranch's predictions rang true. Andrea's pregnancy was met by another downward dive into mental illness, this time precipitated by the death of Andrea's father.302 Andrea also became more absorbed with the teachings of the Bible.303 The effects of the traumatic circumstances surrounding her father's death were obvious: Andrea stopped talking; she would continually hold Mary but not feed her; she would not drink liquids; she scratched and picked at her scalp until she started to become bald again.304
On March 31, 2001, four months after Mary's birth,305 Rusty sought to rehospitalize Andrea, with Starbranch's urging. This time, Rusty took Andrea to the Devereux Texas Treatment Center Network,306 a trip that Andrea adamantly resisted.307 Only with much prodding from Rusty and her brother did Andrea finally agree to go to the hospital. Once there, she refused to sign forms admitting herself. Because he thought Andrea's condition was dangerous, her attending psychiatrist, Mohammed Saeed,308 initiated the process of requesting that a state judge confine Andrea to Austin State Hospital.309 Only after Rusty's continual pleading did Andrea finally agree to sign the forms admitting herself to Devereux.310
Saeed's account of Andrea's condition appeared to be based entirely on Rusty's description rather than from Andrea's treating psychiatrists or from Andrea herself who, Saeed said, rarely spoke.311 When Rusty insisted that Saeed [*pg 33] put Andrea on Haldol,312 a drug that had been helpful to her in the past, Saeed complied.313 Saeed discontinued the treatment shortly thereafter because, he said, her "flat face" seemed to be a side effect.314 Later, Saeed would testify that, based on the little Andrea said, she did not seem psychotic, never described the torment she was going through, and denied experiencing hallucinations and delusions.315
After ten days at Devereux, Andrea finally started feeding herself again -- a behavioral improvement which, in Saeed's opinion, justified discharging her even though her medication regime was still not stable.316 Also, Andrea wanted to go home and Saeed thought that Rusty could take care of her.317
When Andrea returned home, Rusty's mother, Dora, visited from Tennessee to help out during the day while she stayed at a motel in the evenings.318 Yet, there were clear signals of Andrea
-
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/cassel/20060622.html (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/cassel/20060622.html)
----
Executing the Mentally Ill and the Mentally Retarded:
Three Key Recent Cases from Texas and Virginia Show How States Can Evade the Supreme Court's Death Penalty Rulings
By ELAINE CASSEL
----
Thursday, Jun. 22, 2006
Since the Supreme Court lifted its ban on the death penalty in 1976, Texas and Virginia have led the country in executions; Texas has executed 366 defendants; Virginia, 95. Both states' death penalty verdicts have been subject to a high level of scrutiny in the past few years, by both state and federal courts.
Over the past two months, three especially troubling cases played out in these two states; two are from Virginia, and one from Texas. The defendants whose lives hung in the balance were mentally ill or retarded and, in one case, both.
Click here to find out more!
In spite of Supreme Court decisions that should have limited the men's punishment to life in prison without the possibility of parole, prosecutors in both states were dead-set on seeing the men die.
In this article, I will explain the current status of the law on executing mentally ill and retarded persons, and argue that in states like Texas and Virginia, the Supreme Court's mandate that these classes of persons be spared the ultimate penalty has been reduced to mere wishful thinking.
The only good news here, as I will explain, is a conscientious decision by Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine to reexamine one of these cases.
The Legal Standard for Not-Guilty-By-Reason-of-Insanity
The 1968 Supreme Court decision of Ford v. Wainwright was unequivocal: The Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment bars the execution of a prisoner who is, by the applicable legal standard, "insane."
Before considering the standard when execution is at issue, it's useful first to consider the related, but distinct, standard to find a criminal defendant not guilty by reason of "insanity" - of which readers may be more likely to be aware.
For a jury to find a defendant not guilty by reason of insanity, it generally must find that, by reason of mental defect or illness, the defendant did not appreciate the wrongfulness of the criminal conduct, and thus should not be held culpable under the law.
Column continues below ?
At the minimum, to meet this standard, a person must be diagnosed or diagnosable with a mental disorder, personality disorder, or mental retardation, pursuant to the criteria set out in the current edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the standard psychiatric diagnostic handbook in the United States.
Typically, at trial, a battle of experts is waged -- as prosecutor and defense psychologists give their varying opinions of the defendant's mental state at the time of the crime. Then jurors must decide who and what to believe - and apply the legal standard.
As I wrote in a column explaining the 2002 verdict in the case of child killer Andrea Yates, the legal standard, especially in states like Texas, where Yates was prosecuted, and Virginia, often does not protect even very sick people from being found culpable. That's often because the law does not recognize that people suffering from delusions or psychosis can know what they are doing, but not know that it is wrong. Yates, for instance knew she was killing her children, but thought she was "saving" them by doing so. She was suffering from depression with delusional episodes.
The Legal Standard for Not-Constitutional-to-Execute-Due-to-Insanity
As I mentioned above, the standard in the execution context - though related - is different. As Justice Powell explained in his concurring opinion in Ford, to be spared execution on grounds of insanity, defendants must be "unaware of the punishment they are about to suffer and why they are to suffer it." (Emphasis added.)
On this issue, too, a battle of experts is waged -- and the bottom line remains that even a diagnosis of severe mental illness does not, by law, render one incompetent to be executed. If a jury finds that a defendant's single point of clarity in an otherwise hopelessly deranged mind is that he knows the state wants to kill him to punish him for his crime, then that is enough to send him to his death.
That brings us to the three recent Texas and Virginia cases.
The Case of Virginia's Daryl Atkins
The case of Daryl Atkins made it all the way to the Supreme Court - to little effect.
In 2002, the Court held, in Atkins's case, that it was a violation of the Eighth Amendment to execute persons suffering from mental retardation - as defined by each state's law.
Most states have adopted laws that mirror the DSM criteria: To suffer from mental retardation, a person must have an IQ below 70 and evidence of maladaptive functioning in everyday life. In addition, because the DSM defines mental retardation as a developmental disorder, it must have arisen during childhood --either as a congenital "defect" or as the result of trauma.
Though the Court accepted Atkins's Eighth Amendment argument, it did not spare his life. Instead, it sent his case back to the Virginia trial court for resentencing. This time, the sentencing jury would consider whether Atkins suffered from mental retardation, and thus could not be executed.
Resentencing was a debacle. The judge ruled -- over the strenuous objections of Atkins' defense counsel -- that the prosecutor could tell the new jury that Atkins had previously been sentenced to die by another jury, but that the Supreme Court had reversed the sentence.
On June 8, the Virginia Supreme Court correctly held that this ruling could have biased the jury - and sent the case back down for yet a third sentencing proceeding.
Will this proceeding be fair? Don't count on it.
At the second proceeding, the court rejected a defense-offered witness, a pediatrician, who would have testified as to indicators that Atkins was retarded before reaching the age of 18. The court may well do the same once again.
Moreover, for the Atkins prosecution, the third time may be the charm - for it's been shown that the more a defendant is subject to IQ tests, the higher his score will be. Indeed, in the Atkins case itself, that phenomenon has been well illustrated: With respect to the second sentencing proceeding, after the Supreme Court decision, the prosecution's expert gave the test to Atkins two days after a defense expert had done so.
Unsurprisingly, Atkins's score was not only higher than his score on the defense's test, but also higher than his score the first time the prosecution tested him! Is Atkins gradually getting smarter? Of course not. He's just getting better at an increasingly familiar test.
More generally, it is extremely - and unfairly - difficult for defendants to meet the Supreme Court's standard to show retardation. Remember, they must show that the condition was manifest in childhood. But demographics guarantee this will be extremely difficult, if not impossible.
Death row inmates are typically poorly educated and impoverished. School and medical records may be hard to find - or simply nonexistent. And while wealthy children with mental retardation may receive special attention from teachers and doctors, poor children may receive just the opposite: They may be ignored.
The upshot is that when prosecutors, and their experts, argue that a death row inmate's reduced cognitive capabilities developed not in early childhood, but much later --- perhaps even in prison - the inmate may not have proof to rebut that contention, even if false.
The Case of Texas' Scott Panetti
It turns out that inmates whose attorneys try to prove mental illness, rather than mental retardation, fare no better. On May 9, a three-member panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that Scott Panetti - though schizophrenic-- was sane enough to be executed by the State of Texas. A petition for a rehearing by the full panel of judges on the Court is pending.
As a child, Panetti almost drowned, and was nearly electrocuted by a power line. Since then, he has been addicted to drugs and alcohol, and in and out of mental institutions a staggering fourteen times.
Nevertheless, Panetti was allowed to represent himself in his 1994 trial for killing his wife's parents. According to a recent New York Times article, Panetti wore cowboy costumes to court, delivered rambling monologues, put himself on the witness stand and sought to subpoena the Pope, Jesus, and John F. Kennedy. The jury convicted him nonetheless.
All those years in prison have only worsened Panetti's mental state. Yet, at a competency hearing, a Texas judge found him "sane enough" to die - claiming that Panetti met the Supreme Court's minimum standard, as set out in Ford: He knew what punishment he was about to suffer, execution, and why. Given Panettit's history, this finding seems absurd.
The Case of Virginia's Percy Walton
Perry L. Walton is both mentally ill and mentally retarded. Thus, he ought to be exempt from execution based not only on the Supreme Court's decision in Ford, but also on its later decision in Atkins. But the law was no help to him, not in state or federal court.
In the course of several appeals, Walton's mental status has been the subject of analysis by numerous mental health experts. None deny that he is suffering from schizophrenia. And a neutral expert appointed by a federal court said Walton was "totally crazy."
On the mental retardation issue, experts say his IQ is 66. Yet prosecution experts say that Walton does not fit the DSM "early childhood genesis" requirement for mental retardation, for, they claim, his low IQ is a result of being incarcerated.
Fortunately - and rightly -- on June 8, Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine stayed Walton's scheduled execution for six months to consider a clemency grant. Kaine -- a devout Catholic and former missionary to Central America -- took a strong stand against the death penalty which almost cost him the campaign in 2005.
But Kaine promised to sign death warrants if justified under the law and the facts. He has already rejected one clemency plea. We can hope that his judgment in Walton's case will be different.
Do the Supreme Court Decisions Matter? Probably Not in Texas or Virginia.
Obviously, psychological diagnoses and psychological experts are not the key to carrying out the mandate of the Supreme Court decisions that have rightly held that it is cruel and unusual to execute the mentally retarded and the mentally ill.
With standards that are too technical, and practical realities that hurt defendants' ability to prove they meet the standards, even when they do, the hope occasioned by these decisions has not been realized in the courts.
The fact is that in America, the mentally ill and mentally retarded are still executed - as the tenuous situations of these three defendants attest.
To paraphrase one of Percy Walton's attorneys -- as quoted in a June 10 Washington Post article -- the question here is this:
Do we, as a society, want to execute people in the throes of florid schizophrenic delusions, or with the cognitive capacity of a child? The answer should be a clear no. We ought to be better than that.
In the words of Justice Marshall who wrote the majority opinion in Ford v. Wainwright, sparing the mentally ill from execution not only protects the condemned from "pain without comfort of understanding," but protects "the dignity of society itself from the barbarity of exacting mindless vengeance."
Maybe someday, the tide will turn in Texas and Virginia and prosecutors will find better things to do than to insist on death for the most vulnerable, no matter how unseemly, no matter the cost.
Alternatively, perhaps the Supreme Court will someday realize the need to match legal principles to reality, and make the Eighth Amendment's protection not a theoretical principle, but a promise.
Elaine Cassel practices law in Virginia and the District of Columbia and teaches law and psychology. Her textbook, Criminal Behavior (2nd ed., in press, Erlbaum), explores crime and violence from a developmental perspective. Her book, The War on Civil Liberties: How Bush and Ashcroft Dismantled the Bill of Rights, was published by Lawrence Hill in 2004. Her website, Civil Liberties Watch, is published under the auspices of Minneapolis, Minnesota's City Pages.
-
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/cassel/20020318.html (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/cassel/20020318.html)
----
THE ANDREA YATES VERDICT AND SENTENCE:
Did The Jury Do The Right Thing?
By ELAINE CASSEL
----
Monday, Mar. 18, 2002
"If this woman doesn't meet the test of insanity in this state, then nobody does," said Andrea Yates's defense attorney George Parnham to the jury as they prepared to deliberate as to whether his client was guilty or insane.
Despite Parnham's passionate contention, it took the jury only three and one-half hours to decide that Yates did not meet the stringent Texas standard. Yet, it also took them only thirty-five minutes to spare her life at the sentencing phase of the trial.
What accounted for the swiftness and certainty of both the jury's harsh verdict and its more compassionate sentence? The answers lie in the law, the evidence, and the stage upon which this tragic drama was played out--Harris County, Texas.
The Setting: The Leading Death Penalty County In the Country
Texas is a death-penalty-hungry state. Since executions resumed in the United States in 1976, Texas has executed more than three times as many defendants as its closest competitor, Virginia. As of March 15 of this year, 262 defendants had died in the Texas death house (compared to 84 in Virginia).
If that were not bad enough, Harris County leads the country in death penalty verdicts by jurisdiction. It accounts for one-fourth of Texas executions. And that ratio is on the rise. Of the 454 condemned prisoners on Texas's death row today, 154, or 29.5 percent (and three of the seven women, or 42.8 percent), were sent there by Harris County juries.
To make matters even worse for Yates, Prosecutor Joe Ownby claimed he had God on his side. Confiding that he had prayed before seeking the death penalty, he referred to Yates's criminal acts as "sin." And Yates's jury was "death-qualified" - meaning they were willing to impose a death sentence, and, according to studies, more likely to convict. Eight of the twelve jurors were female and, as research indicates, more prone to apply a legalistic, black-and-white interpretation of the law.
The Law: One of the Country's Most Stringent Insanity Defense Tests
All but two states have laws creating an insanity defense. But these laws vary from state to state. Texas has one of the most stringent insanity defense standards in the country.
Column continues below ? According to section 8.01 of the Texas Penal Code, Yates had to prove a negative--that "at the time of the conduct charged...as a result of severe mental disease or defect, [she] did not know" that her conduct was "wrong." This is one interpretation of the mens rea requirement of criminal law--the defendant must have had "criminal intent" or a "guilty mind."
Texas's law is derived from the most restrictive legal insanity standard, the M'Naghten Rule (so named for a precedent-setting British insanity defense case). But unlike Texas's statute, the more typical version of the M'Naghten Rule asks whether at the time of the offense, as a result of mental disease or defect, the defendant was unable to know either the nature and quality of the act committed, or whether the act was right or wrong. In contrast, as noted above, under Texas's standard the defendant must prove the latter factor--failure to know the act was wrong. The law could hardly be narrower.
What constitutes "knowing one's act is wrong" in this context? What is "knowing"? Does "wrong" mean "legally wrong" or "morally wrong"? The statute does not explain, so the jury was left to apply the statutory language to the facts as it saw fit.
This they did by listening to tapes of the confessions in which Yates described the murders. So important were her words that they heard the tapes a second time--asking the court to provide them during deliberations. Yates's recitation of her deeds indeed shows an awareness, a perception, of what she was doing. It was clear that she knew she was killing her children and not giving them a bath.
Granted, insanity would have been easier to prove if Yates had thought she was giving her children baths. Then it would have been obvious that she did not know her act was wrong. But the defense is not foreclosed just because she knew she was killing her children - for other evidence showed she did not know that to kill her children was wrong.
Yates's attorneys offered evidence that she believed she was saving her children by killing them. From her deranged perspective, she was doing right and not doing wrong. This distorted belief was a product of her delusions and hallucinations. Commands from a voice told her drowning her children was the way to save them from "damnation."
If this evidence is to be believed, Yates knew what she was doing, but did not know that it was wrong. She should have been found-even under Texas's narrow law--not guilty by reason of insanity.
Psychosis--A Different Kind of "Knowing"
Then why didn't the jurors find Yates to be insane? One answer may come from the fact that many people have difficulty understanding that people suffering from delusions and psychosis can know what they are doing, and yet not know that it is wrong.
It may be possible for most people to understand someone not knowing what they are doing; most of us have seen people under the influence of drugs or alcohol whose judgment about what is going on around them is dramatically impaired. But we have not generally had experience with people who are not just impaired, but actually delusional.
Yates "knew" that a voice was telling her to kill her children. That voice was plausible to her because it had hijacked her thinking. In psychiatric terms, this is called "thought control override," and it occurs when one's delusions have taken over one's thinking to the point that the delusions seem entirely real. In short, delusional thinking redefines what, to the normal mind, is "knowing."
The internal control over Yates's behavior was given over to the voices that told her to do what she did to save her children. The voices in her head were just as real to her as the voice in a sane mother's head that tells her, no matter how irritated or stressed she may be, not to harm her child.
The prosecutors argued that Yates knew that she killed her children and she knew that killing them was wrong; she called her husband and 911 and reported what she had done. Applying this legalistic and simplistic interpretation to events, Yates's insanity defense was likely to fail. In what may be grounds for an appeal, the jury might have convicted Yates without finding that she had mens rea, the intent to do wrong.
Did Yates intend to commit a crime? The evidence strongly suggests that from her own perspective, which is the only one that matters for insanity defense purposes, she did not. Yet the jurors may have been misled by the prosecution to believe that even if they accepted this strong evidence of lack of intent (or mens rea), they could still convict her.
What Is Insane Under Texas Law?
Defense attorney Parnham was right -- under the definitions urged by the Yates prosecution, Texas effectively has no insanity defense. Very few defendants could meet this test.
Consider Russell Weston, the man with schizophrenia who stormed the U.S. Capitol in 1998 and killed two Capitol Hill police officers. Weston believed he was on a mission to obtain the "ruby red satellite" that would save the world from cannibalism. When the court examined him to see if he was competent to be tried, he said he knew the victims were dead, but that he could bring them back to life at will.
One might argue that Weston, at least, would be found insane even in Harris County, Texas. After all, Weston does not appear to "know" that he did anything "wrong," either legally or morally. But is he so different from Yates? He, too, knew at least that he had killed. But like Yates, he was delusional about what the effect of the killing would be. She thought her children would be saved; he thought his victims could live again. Both were delusional and wrong.
What if Texas had used the typical, two-prong M'Naghten test (that is, whether, as a result of mental disease or defect, the defendant was either unable to know the nature or quality of the act or whether the act was right or wrong)? Yates might have fared much better.
The prosecution and defense differed over the meaning of "right" and "wrong." The prosecution said she killed her children, that killing them was "wrong," and Yates knew it was wrong. The defense said she killed her children in order to save them from damnation, and that was not "wrong" to Yates.
The prosecution's perspective of right and wrong was based on legality; the defense's view of right and wrong was grounded in morality. Yates, in her delusional and hallucinatory state, believed her acts were morally "right." If the jury could have considered whether Yates "knew" the "nature" and "quality" of her act, it could have concluded that she knew she was killing her children, yet did not perceive that to be "wrong." But Texas law precluded this analysis.
The Sentence: Little Evidence For Death, and Much For Life
At the sentencing stage, the prosecution failed to make out what the law calls a "prima facie" case for death--that is, a case strong enough to put the "life or death" question to the jury. To do so, the prosecution would have needed to introduce evidence that Yates would be a danger to herself or others while imprisoned.
The prosecutors introduced no such evidence. Indeed, they put on no witnesses--though they argued for death. The judge might well have sentenced Yates to life, as a matter of law.
Nevertheless, to be on the safe side, the defense offered Yates's mother and husband, as well as friends and a mental health advocate, to plead for her life. The advocate, who was well-intentioned but misinformed, assured the jury that if they spared Yates's life, she would get the treatment she needed in prison.
On balance, the jurors had no choice but to sentence Yates to life in prison. It is not surprising their deliberations were brief.
Treatment in Prison: Why Yates Will Probably Receive Little Help
In truth, Yates is unlikely to find proper treatment in prison. Instead, she will become part of the growing mentally ill inmate population.
Recent data indicate that at least a quarter of prisoners have been diagnosed with a severe mental illness such as schizophrenia, major depression, and bipolar disorder. (Others suffer from milder forms of depression, substance abuse disorders, and anxiety, adjustment, and personality disorders; in total, about 60-75 percent of prisoners qualify as mentally ill.) Women prisoners, particularly, suffer from high levels of depression and anxiety disorders.
The mentally ill in prison are more prone to be abused by prison guards and other prisoners, and to die in prison from abuse or medical and physical neglect. Few receive appropriate diagnoses or treatment. The treatment they do receive consists mostly of medications. There is little, if any, cognitive-behavioral therapy, the kind that would help prisoners actually effect change in their lives.
How the Yates Tragedy Might Have Been Prevented
This tragedy could have been prevented. Serious mental illness existed on both sides of Yates's family. Once Yates suffered her first psychotic break after the birth of a child, she should have been educated as to the serious risks associated with having future children - due both to her severe postpartum depression and family history of mental illness.
Upon release from each of several hospitalizations, Yates should have been red-flagged by community mental health treatment centers for continued follow-up. Indeed, Texas law could mandate outpatient follow-up for mentally ill patients like Yates who are on medication, but dangerous when they stop taking it. Several states have adopted these laws. They only work if health care providers, family, and neighbors are educated and vigilant - noticing changes in mentally ill persons they know, and being willing to notify the court if a mentally ill person is ignoring an order directing them to take medication.
Finally, in the days before the murder, as Yates became increasingly delusional, the professionals who treated her should have petitioned the court for a civil commitment, rather than relying on Yates or her husband to make this difficult call.
How Texas's Insanity Law Should Be Reformed
Meanwhile, insanity laws like those in Texas should be reformed so that a seriously mentally ill person like Yates can benefit from them. Jurors should be instructed that insanity acquittees are committed to a state penal psychiatric facility, and cannot be released until they prove that they are no longer mentally ill or dangerous - and that the period of commitment is typically a far longer period of time than they would have been incarcerated if convicted.
We need to adopt a more compassionate approach that tempers mean justice with mercy and, while confining the mentally deranged, also treats them - rather than vilifying them, denying them meaningful treatment, and even executing them.
That the jurors spared Yates's life is of some comfort. But, as her husband has indicated, to some extent, it is cold comfort. That the jury convicted her at all is itself insanity. We can only hope that they did not know that their decision was wrong.
Elaine Cassel practices law in Virginia and teaches law and psychology. Her textbook, Criminal Behavior (Allyn & Bacon, 2001), explores crime and violence from a developmental perspective. She writes and lectures for continuing legal education courses in Internet law, privacy, genetics, and health law. She is Vice-Chair of the Behavioral Science Committee of the ABA Science and Technology Law Section and a member of the Section's Privacy and Computer Crime Committees. In an earlier article for this site, Ms. Cassel discussed the Supreme Court's consideration of whether to prohibit the execution of the mentally retarded.
-
The political trial of Andrea Yates
Author: Paul Hill
People's Weekly World Newspaper, 08/03/06 17:02
On July 26 a Houston jury found Andrea Yates not guilty of murder, by reason of insanity, in the 2001 drowning of her five children. Yates will likely spend the rest of her life in a state mental institution.
The two Yates trials were political trials whose aim was to support the criminalization of the mentally ill and terrorize their families. It has to be considered in the context of the right-wing assault on mental health care.
Her second trial was a result of an appeal of her highly publicized first trial over four years ago. Defense attorneys presented a strong case that she was clearly psychotic when she drowned her children. Professionals testified that she had various hallucinations, and believed that she was Satan and that killing her children would prompt the Bush government to execute her. She believed that the only way to save the children from Hell was to kill them. She and her husband had been involved in a fanatical, fundamentalist Christian church which, no doubt, exacerbated and validated her psychotic delusions.
The Republican-controlled Harris County District Attorney?s Office sought the death penalty for Yates in the first trial. She was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison. Later, it was disclosed that the prosecution?s psychiatric testimony was based on erroneous assertions.
In the two trials, prosecutors spent $350,000 of taxpayer money to pay for two ?hired gun? psychiatrists. Their testimonies were so convoluted and illogical that as I read them in the newspaper, I wondered who was insane. The defense attorneys produced a large number of mental health professionals who all testified that Mrs. Yates was indeed insane. These professionals were not paid for their testimony and had meaningful contact with Yates.
Fortunately, the jury in the second trial could see through the testimony of the hired guns and were persuaded, instead, by the testimonies of unpaid professionals.
After it was all over, I asked myself the question, ?Why did the District Attorney?s Office spend $1.5 million of the taxpayers? money to try this case when Texas is slashing funds for education and health care for children?? The Harris County District Attorney is right-wing Republican Chuck Rosenthal. The trial was conducted in the courtroom of Judge Belinda Hill, who was appointed by George W. Bush in 1997. The prosecutors pressed hard to punish Yates.
During George Bush?s presidency, mental health treatment funding has been slashed. Health care in general has suffered tremendous losses. Medicaid and VA funding cuts and attempts to privatize Medicaid and Medicare have broken the health care system. In Houston, these cuts in mental health care funding have resulted in the closing of many outstanding psychiatric hospitals, including Spring Shadows Glen, one of the hospitals where Yates was treated successfully. In fact, this hospital had closed before she drowned her children and she was admitted, instead, to another hospital where she was released prematurely with inadequate medication and little outpatient monitoring. The hospital where she had been successfully treated was not available to her at the time she drowned her children.
Bush set the stage before all this happened. Early in his presidency he appointed John Walters as ?drug czar.? Walters was notorious for his testimony before the U.S. Senate before Bush came to power, in which he emphatically stated that there was too much treatment and too little incarceration of drug offenders. He also maintained that liberals were conspiring to develop a ?therapeutic state.?
President Bush has followed through with this line of thinking. Prisons are growing rapidly and dramatically, and treatment facilities are disappearing. One example of this is the closing of the venerable Charity Hospital in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina devastated the area. Charity Hospital had provided health care to poor and working-class people for many years. Bush has also advocated strongly for ?faith based? health care, which can be more easily manipulated to serve the interests of big business than scientific, public health care.
Thanks to the jurors in the second Yates trial, the right wing?s vicious plan was handed a resounding defeat. People recognize that some severely mentally ill people, particularly when inadequately treated, are capable of performing horrendous acts. However, that does not make them criminals, but sick people who need appropriate care. This means that the public should demand the restoration and improvement of our health care system. Further, we should demand a national health care system available to all. If such a program had been in place, it is possible that Mrs. Yates could have been stopped before she committed her awful acts.
Paul Hill ([email protected]) is a mental health worker in Houston.
-
Andrea Yates and postpartum depression
EDITORIAL - 08/05/2006
In finding Andrea Yates not guilty by reason of insanity in the drowning of her five children, a Texas jury confirmed the obvious. The original guilty verdict, later overturned, was wrong.
Compounding the terrible tragedy of the children`s deaths is the fact that their lives might have been saved if Ms. Yates` severe mental illness had only been treated properly.
Once again, the Yates case raises awareness about postpartum depression. But that diagnosis is incorrect. She is an extreme example of much rarer postpartum psychosis.
Postpartum depression is far more common and easily treated. It is also widely misunderstood and often trivialized. Fortunately, the groundbreaking law that takes effect in New Jersey in October will help some of the thousands of women in this state who experience depression after giving birth.
Its champion, Mary Jo Codey, the former governor`s wife, was at the signing ceremony at Hackensack University Medical Center last spring when the bill became law. It requires doctors and nurse-midwives to screen all new mothers for postpartum depression and also educate pregnant women about the disorder.
The law is the first of its kind in the nation and may become the model for a federal law that would also increase awareness and education and require screenings.
Postpartum depression still carries a heavy stigma, as evidenced by the mean-spirited comments of a Trenton radio "shock jock" about Mrs. Codey`s acknowledgment of her postpartum depression.
New Jersey`s new law is intended as an antidote to such ignorance. It provides a way to tell women they are not alone and they can get help.
The Record of Bergen County/ AP
-
Can't look beyond the Yates murders
First published: Monday, August 7, 2006
A brutal crime was committed in 2001. Five Texas children were killed. Their mother, Andrea Yates, was charged with their murders. A second brutal crime was committed just this summer, in Houston: Yates was found "not guilty" of the crime "by reason of insanity."
There is, of course, no question that Yates is a deeply disturbed (yes, sick) woman. Her children -- Noah, 7; John, 5; Luke, 3; Paul, 2; and Mary, 6 months -- are dead, believed to have been drowned one at a time.
She was originally convicted on charges related to their deaths, only to have the sentence overturned because of erroneous testimony. A retrial resulted in this new "not guilty" injustice.
During her trials, prosecutors said that Noah, whose body was found with internal and external bruising, scratches and abrasions -- lived the longest, having put up the biggest fight; his mother, according to testimony, had to chase him down and drag him to the bathtub where his siblings had just been drowned.
Prosecutors argued that, though ill, she knew right from wrong and what she was doing when she killed her kids one at a time. Her lawyers argued she knew what she was doing, but thought it was right -- she was battling Satan, according to Yates, and her children would go to heaven if she killed them. It was all for the good, in her post-partum-depression mess of a head.
We certainly should feel empathy for the mentally ill. But what about the children who suffered at her hands -- the ones now dead?
There's something off about "justice" when a perpetrator of such an unspeakable evil can be declared, essentially, blameless. We should be worried what it means for us if we let the memory of those dead children get lost in the ebb and tide of other headlines in a fast-moving world.
Instead, absent in our national consciousness -- if media chatter is any indication -- are the Yates children. When we read or hear of a "Yates," it's anyone but the murdered innocents. When the "not guilty" came in, Yates's ex-husband (he since remarried), Rusty, was seen smiling. We're apparently supposed to care about how he's feeling and she's feeling (if Matt Lauer's questions are any indication).
The dead children's father has probably been Andrea's biggest public booster, though he's certainly not alone in working to soften her image. Among those are feminists. Judith Warner, now a New York Times columnist, in her 2005 book "Perfect Madness," called Yates "a supermom unhinged." Groups have rushed to make her a poster girl. The National Organization of Women, no friend to children, rushed to establish the Andrea Pia Yates Support Coalition.
Feminists, though, are not alone. The cult of victimology has taken on Yates as one of its own. Her actions, by the way, also exposed "the dark side" of home-schooling, a CBS report told viewers.
And why wouldn't everyone want to get a piece of Andrea Yates? She's everymom! As Rusty Yates said on verdict day, as he often does, "Andrea was ordinarily a loving mother, who was crippled by disease."
Enough! -- five times over.
That she was mentally ill was not breaking news the day the kids turned up dead. No stranger to psychiatric hospitalization, she had recently tried to take her own life. Why exactly was she home alone with the children to begin with? Does any logical person think that, with Andrea's psychiatric history and recorded psychotic behavior, this wouldn't eventually end poorly, whether it was for Andrea herself or her children?
As for her husband, is he kidding? Rather than refusing to place blame for murder where it's due, and instead attacking prosecutors for prosecuting, he ought to be reflecting on what factors led up to this completely irredeemable tragedy. Instead, this parental disaster has become a national shame.
Wait, no it hasn't. That's the problem.
We're told that Andrea and Rusty are "happy" about the verdict. It's been five years since their five kids were murdered. They've moved on. Perhaps we should move on too?
In fact, when I blogged on this the day of the ruling, many of my readers told me to do just that. Stop writing about the insanity of the Yates insanity verdict.
No, no, no, no, no. That would be ... insane.
The bond between a mother and child is humanity's most fundamental. In a country where abortion, cloning -- and other practices that make us less inclined to protect human life -- are routine, a lack of focus on the real, unreturnable victims of the Yates murders only further compromises our obligations to protecting the most vulnerable among us. And, contrary to Mr. Yates's contention, the only "tremendous victory" in Mrs. Yates's verdict was one for a culture of death.
"The jury looked past what happened and looked at why it happened," Rusty Yates said outside the Harris County courtroom after the "not guilty" word came in.
Rusty, please ask Noah, John, Luke, Paul and Mary to look past what happened.
Oh, wait -- you can't.
No one can.
Kathryn Jean Lopez is the editor of National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com (http://www.nationalreview.com)).
Her e-mail address is [email protected].
All Times Union materials copyright 1996-2006, Capital Newspapers Division of The Hearst Corporation, Albany, N.Y.
-
We certainly should feel empathy for the mentally ill. But what about the children who suffered at her hands -- the ones now dead?
This problem is not new with the Andrea Yates trial. It is a paradox in every trial. Even the name of the trial indicates the focus on the living.
It is obviousl when one dies, we lose all our rights, especially in trials.
The problem lies on both law, and humans trying to figure out what to do - after the fact - to bring justice.
It is impossible, that is reality, and yup, it sucks.
Prevention is the only thing to work on.
Figuring out justice is a cash cow for those involved but it doesn't help society. Only the future helps society, not what has
happened.
Here is the book that was quoted:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594481709/ (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594481709/)
-
The travesty of mercy to Andrea Yates
By Gennady Stolyarov II
web posted August 7, 2006
When a wild or domesticated animal loses control over itself, enters a rage, and kills or maims a human or another animal, that act is sufficient for the animal to be rightly put to death. The animal has shown irrefutably that it cannot exist in a civilized setting; it cannot behave without aggressing on individual humans' lives and property. The animal is not given any second chances; it is not "rehabilitated," and no one entertains the delusion that just because the animal killed or injured someone already, it will not kill or injure anyone again.
Yet when a human being loses control over herself, enters a "depression," and systematically drowns her own five children, she is not only not put to death to prevent such further uncontrolled outbreaks -- she is not even locked away in prison to suffer for her vile and murderous acts. Instead, she is absolved of any guilt in the brutal murder and put in a mental hospital, where she receives food, lodging, and medical care at taxpayers' expense. This -- in its stark essence -- is what the "not guilty by reason of insanity" verdict given to child murderess Andrea Yates means.
The bizarre argument underlying this verdict is that because Yates allegedly did not have control over her own thoughts, emotions, and actions during the murders, she can be absolved from guilt and punishment for those murders. It is questionable that Yates committed the murders without knowing their full implications and wanton evil. However, even if we accept that premise, it follows that her punishment should only be greater than it would have been otherwise.
Every human being has the inalienable moral responsibility to honor the rights of other human beings. That is, every human being must not infringe on other human beings' lives, liberty, and property. This responsibility is the fundamental imperative underlying all civilized human interaction; without it, rights could not be honored and would remain in perpetual jeopardy. Furthermore, because individual rights are eternal and inalienable, the responsibility to honor individual rights is likewise eternal and inalienable. It does not depend on the internal or external condition of the individual in question.
Honoring individual rights is easy; a person in a vegetative state can manage it perfectly. Such a person will not kill other people, injure them, restrain their freedom, or steal their possessions. Violations of individual rights are always active; they require an individual to move her body in some way as to deprive another of life, liberty, or property. The responsibility to honor individual rights is in essence a responsibility not to act in certain ways.
The human being not only has responsibility over her actions; she has responsibility for being responsible over her actions. If an individual suffers from "mental problems" that prevent this control, she inhibits her ability to lead a life proper to a human being -- to the extent that these problems are present. If these deficiencies harm only the individual and no one else, then the individual still maintains her essential humanity -- for she still has enough self-control to fully respect the rights of others. However, if an individual with "mental problems" harms other people, she should be punished to the extent that she violates their rights. Their rights are sacred and immutable -- as is her responsibility to honor them. Any time she forfeits that responsibility, she also forfeits the higher standard of treatment pertaining to human beings.
With lesser violations of rights -- especially those where the harm can be compensated for by fines or other reparations -- the offending party need not be permanently restrained, because the damage can be undone. However, where the damage is permanent, the punishment for the damager should be permanent as well. Two categories of rights infringement meet this criterion: murder and permanent injury.
If we, as civilized, moral people, are concerned with attaining a society where individual rights are honored and enforced, we should implement measures to punish infringers so as to prevent further violations. The deterrent effect provided by permanent punishment will discourage many would-be violators from ever resorting to crime. Even animals are subject to the effect of deterrence; a hungry wolf will not attack a flock of sheep if the shepherd aims a gun at the predator. "Mentally troubled" humans are far more intelligent than the animals -- so their ability to understand and be affected by deterrence should be even greater.
If the deterrent effect fails in a given situation and the permanently damaging crime is committed nonetheless, permanent punishment for the criminal will minimize future crime by ensuring that the offending person never violates another person's rights again. Thus, the principle of permanent punishment for permanent violations of rights leads to a worst-case scenario of one criminal incident per violator and a best-case scenario of none due to the deterrent effect.
Mercy and help offered to those who could not restrain their active violations of others' rights constitute a bizarre attack on the civilized imperative of honoring all individual rights. Mercy to those who killed "in cold blood" -- though still unwarranted -- makes more sense. The "cold-blooded" killer who knew what he was doing might be evil, but he still has control over his mind and body -- his ideas and his actions. There exists an extremely slim chance that he might be "reformed" during the course of his imprisonment and upon release pose no further danger to individuals' rights. Such a chance should typically not even be considered, but extreme cases are conceivable where it might be more significant than usual -- as in the case of Raskolnikov in Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment.
But keeping a "mentally troubled" murderess from permanent punishment is like letting a rabid dog who has bitten and killed five children remain on the loose or even residing comfortably in a veterinary facility. There is no guarantee that this woman will not kill again -- unknowingly, unpredictably, unwarrantedly, and uncontrollably. No civilized, rational methods are available to assure her future safety to others.
Andrea Yates's drowning of her own five children -- an act abhorrent to natural law, moral conscience, and civilization itself -- clearly demonstrated her as being worse than a rabid beast. The rabid beast enters an occasional wild and indiscriminate rage, but Yates -- being human -- could still kill systematically, though ostensibly without recognition of the implications and consequences of such an act. Yates, a human, is far more capable of inflicting harm than a mere animal. If we rightly put violent, murderous animals to death -- though the animals, too, do not recognize the consequences and implications of their actions -- then it is even more fitting that Yates be terminated as soon as possible. Permanently imprisoning Andrea Yates was the least the court could have done to prevent further violations of rights on her part. Alas, even that act was rejected by those who would use mercy to perpetuate savagery.
G. Stolyarov II is a science fiction novelist, independent philosophical essayist, poet, amateur mathematician, composer, contributor to Enter Stage Right, Le Quebecois Libre, Rebirth of Reason, and the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Senior Writer for The Liberal Institute, and Editor-in-Chief of The Rational Argumentator, a magazine championing the principles of reason, rights, and progress. His newest science fiction novel is Eden against the Colossus. His latest non-fiction treatise is A Rational Cosmology . Mr. Stolyarov can be contacted at [email protected].
© 1996 - 2006, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.
-
Well, nice rant, as long as one doesn't believe in mental illness.
Many don't.
Or they say they do, but they really don't.
Odd how a family member, or a homeless person, or an old schoolmate can be dismissed for non-accomplishment because they are mentally ill, but held totally responsible if a crime is committed.
What is that called, selective, convenient opion? Or just plan irrational.
The reason Scientology attacking mental illness and niche players like Thomas Szazz, Peter Breggin etc. are dangerous is that they contribute to both this type of rant, while selling books, lecturing = making money.
One last comment ... since when did everyone get the idea that people like Andrea Yates will ever get released from mental hospitals after getting a NGI?
Does anyone quote a list of released not guilty by reason of insanity people? Why not? There is none, or so few there is no list.
As part of this false impression, it would seem like staying in a forensic psychiatric hospital = jail hopital, is fun and games.
Ever been to one? Do it, take a tour, then render an opinion!
-
Mommies who kill
Monday, August 07, 2006
There is often no explanation given when mothers kill their children, and sometimes post-partum depression is blamed. In the latest known case, American Andrea Yates was recently found not guilty of drowning her five young children, an episode she blamed on severe post-partum psychosis.
Andrea Yates was found not guilty by reason of insanity for the deaths of her five children.
In Jamaica, a mother who kills her baby who is less than a year old can claim, in her defense, that she was suffering from post-partum depression and had not fully recovered from giving birth. She can be convicted of infanticide rather than murder and will face charges similar to that of manslaughter, with a maximum sentence of life in prison.
Infanticide - the killing of an infant less than a year old - though rare in Jamaica, does happen and according to the Police Statistics Department, there were four known cases in 2004, none last year, and none so far this year.
The Andrea Yates story
Andrea Yates, a Texas mother with a history of psychological problems, drowned her five small children in the bathtub of her home on June 20, 2001, claiming she was suffering from post-partum psychosis, a severe form of post-partum depression.
She was charged with capital murder in the deaths of eight-month old Mary, Noah, 7, and John, 5. She called police to her home afterwards and admitted drowning the children along with their brothers Paul, 3, and Luke, 2.
On July 26, 2006, Yates was found by a Texas jury to be not guilty by reason of insanity.
It was after the birth of her second child that Yates became reclusive. After the fourth child, she was urged by her therapist not to have more children, since it would guarantee future psychotic depression.
Yates was captivated by the teachings of a travelling minister with non-traditional religious views who preached that bad mothers created bad children and would go to hell. She was suicidal, depressed, hallucinated, and in 1999 was diagnosed with a major depressive disorder and was medicated.
On June 20, her husband had just left for work, when she filled the tub with water and systematically drowned the three youngest boys, then placed them on her bed and covered them. The baby was left floating in the tub. The last child alive was the first born, seven-year-old Noah. He was dragged and forced into the tub and drowned next to his sister's floating body. She said that Satan had already won the battle with her children.
Yates later contended that she was suffering from a severe case of recurrent post-partum psychosis. She said her first episode of post-partum psychosis had occurred after she had her fourth baby. She was committed to a state mental hospital.
Moms who kill in Jamaica
In February 2002, the Observer reported that a 16 year-old girl of Capture Land in Highgate, St Mary was admitted to hospital under police guard after she dumped her newborn baby in a pit toilet in the area.
The girl had gone to a neighbour's house and asked to use the toilet. After she left, someone went in and saw the baby inside, wrapped in a blanket in a black plastic bag.
The infant, who was still breathing at the time, was removed and taken to a nearby medical facility where she was pronounced dead.
The teenager was already mother to a 2 1/2-year-old boy.
In February 2004, the police arrested a St Ann woman whose newborn baby girl was found buried in a shallow grave in her yard.
According to the police, citizens contacted them and reported that the 30-year-old had dumped her baby in a pit latrine.
The woman took the police to the latrine but no baby was found then. Later the infant's body was found wrapped in a plastic bag and buried in a shallow grave.
In June 2004, six-month-old Jamal Grant was thrown from the balcony of his Tivoli Gardens home in Kingston, allegedly by his 25-year-old mother.
After the baby's skull shattered from making contact with the pavement, the mother was held by her neighbours who handed her over to the police.
The police said the incident occurred after the woman and her mother had a domestic dispute. There was some speculation that the 25-year-old vented her anger by hurling her child from the building.
Psychologist Dr Leachim Semaj theorised then that if that were the case, the mother's action may have been the result of depression.
"Everybody has their pressure points and she may have used the child as a pawn, depending on how important the child was to her mother," he said.
In August 2004, the Clarendon homicide unit was called to investigate a case of suspected infanticide after the discovery of the remains of a day-old male child in a pit latrine in White Chapel District in Mocho.
According to the police, a 22-year-old woman, whose relative discovered that she was bleeding profusely, was taken to the May Pen Hospital and when she was examined, it was found that she had recently given birth.
The police were then called in and after interrogating the woman, they went to her home where the infant's body was fished out of the pit latrine. The child had a piece of black cloth tied around his neck.
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/magazine ... _KILL_.asp (http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/magazines/AllWoman/html/20060806T180000-0500_110695_OBS_MOMMIES_WHO_KILL_.asp)
-
"Everybody has their pressure points ...
Prevention is where the money and efforts should go!
-
Amnesty International has released a new report on the continued execution of mentally ill offenders in the USA. The report, USA: The Execution of Mentally Ill Offenders, highlights inconsistencies in the case law that has emerged from the administration of the death penalty over the last 20 years in relation to mentally ill offenders. Focusing on the legal definitions used to distinguish between mental retardation (an accepted mitigating circumstance in the avoidance of the death penalty) and mental illness, the report aims to challenge the acceptance of such distinctions and the use of the death penalty against those suffering often debilitating mental illness.
USA: The Execution of Mentally Ill Offenders seeks to illustrate the continued sentencing to death and execution of people with serious mental illness in the US, the inadequacy of existing safeguards in preventing this from happening, and the profound inconsistency in exempting people with mental retardation from the death penalty while those with serious mental illness remain exposed to it.
More than 1000 men and women have been put to death in the USA since the resumption of the death penalty in 1977. Dozens of these people had histories of serious mental impairment. Some had mental retardation(a term commonly used in the US to describe those with learning disabilities), others suffered from mental illness (a term used to cover a range of conditions including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder, among others), and some were diagnosed with both. For some, the diagnosis was of mental disorders caused by appalling childhood abuse, prison violence, or combat experience from time spent in the US army. For others, mental illness appears to have been inherited. Mentally ill inmates are among the more than 100 people since 1977 to have dropped their appeals and ?consented? to their own execution, a death wish made possible by a state all too willing to see freedom of choice for such individuals carried through to its lethal conclusion.
Scott Panetti was sentenced to death for killing his parents-in-law in Texas in 1995 . He has a long history of mental illness, including schizophrenia. He was hospitalised more than a dozen times in numerous facilities before the crime, which he claimed was committed under the control of an auditory hallucination he called ?Sarge?. He also claimed that divine intervention had meant that his victims did not suffer, and that demons had been laughing at him at the scene of the crime. Prior to the murder, Scott?s wife, Sonja, and her mother had appealed to police to remove Scott?s hunting guns from their home after he had threatened to kill his wife and her parents. These pleas were ignored. Scott was deemed competent to stand trial and thereafter waived his right to an attorney amid paranoia that they were out to ?get? him. He chose and was allowed to represent himself. During the trial, Scott dressed as a cowboy and gave rambling presentations in his defence. He issued subpoenas to call Jesus, JFK and numerous other dead actors and actresses as witnesses. The trial was deemed by various commentators to be a ?circus? and a joke.A lawyer appointed as Scott?s stand-by counsel, wrote in an affidavit: ?This was not a case for the death penalty. Scott?s life history and long-term mental problems made an excellent case for mitigating evidence. Scott did not present any mitigating evidence because he could not understand the proceeding?. He recalled that ?[h]is trial was truly a judicial farce, and a mockery of self-representation. It should never have been allowed to happen.? Despite all this, the state of Texas continued to defend the death sentence in the case. Scott was due to be executed on the 5 February 2004. This was stayed on the 4 February in order to allow for review of his competence. During appeal it emerged that while Scott understood that he was to be executed, he believed that the state, in league with demonic forces, wanted to execute him in order to prevent him from preaching the gospel. At the time of writing his appeal is ongoing.
121 countries have now abandoned the use of the death penalty as a punishment in law or practice. Amnesty International opposes all executions, regardless of the nature of the crime, the characteristics of the offender, or the method used by the state to kill the prisoner.
To oppose the death penalty is not to excuse or minimize the consequences of violent crime, whether it is committed by mentally impaired offenders or anyone else. Instead, to end the death penalty is to recognize that it is a destructive, diversionary and divisive public policy that is not consistent with widely held values. It not only runs the risk of irrevocable error, it is also costly both in terms of public spending and in social and psychological terms. It has not been shown to have a special deterrent effect. It tends to be applied discriminatorily on grounds of race and class. It denies the possibility of reconciliation and rehabilitation. It promotes simplistic responses to complex human problems, rather than pursuing explanations that could inform positive strategies. It diverts resources that could be better used to work against violent crime and assist those affected by it. It is a symptom of a culture of violence, not a solution to it.
The use of the death penalty is antithesis to the fundamental human rights principles upheld by Amnesty International.
The continued execution of offenders suffering from serious mental illness is particularly offensive to widely held standards of decency. The report, USA: The Execution of Mentally Ill Offenders, includes an appendix of 100 people known to have a mental illness not constituting mental retardation, executed in the US over the past 29 years. This represents one in every ten people executed in this period. This is not an exhaustive list. There are currently around 3,400 people on death row in the USA. It is not known how many of them suffer from mental illness.
-
(http://http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/060728/fairrington.gif)
-
The cartoon is right on, no matter the intention of the cartoonist.
Moms do need "me" time, and gratitude, and common sense by their family, friend and society in general.
Great post, great find!
-
Use of `stigma' does disservice
Posted August 14 2006
E-mail story
Print story
Most e-mailed
News on your cell
XML RSS news feeds
MOST E-MAILED
(last 24 hours)
1. John Deere wedding
2. Ireland's Inn giving way to luxury beach resort
3. Alligators' 'ferocious' immune system could lead to new medicines for people
4. Coconut Creek police probe shotgun death of Army veteran's wife
5. Black-handed spider monkey
See the complete list ...
Click here to subscribe Subscribe today to the Sun-Sentinel
and find out how to get one week extra!
Click here or call 1-877-READ-SUN.
LocalLinks
As recorded in your Aug. 6 editorial on the Andrea Yates verdict: " ? so sufferers of even milder cases of postpartum depression struggle with the stigma linked to this oppressive mental illness ?"
The use of the term stigma serves only a negative purpose.
People struggle with a lack of knowledge, which is easily corrected when physicians act responsibly and inform, when society acts responsibly and informs.
Harold A. Maio
Former Consulting Editor
Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal
Boston University
Fort Myers
-
Scientist at Work | Thomas McGlashan
A Career That Has Mirrored Psychiatry's Twisting Path
By BENEDICT CAREY
Published: May 23, 2006
The patient, Keith, was a deeply religious young man, disabled by paranoia, who had secluded himself for weeks in one of the hospital's isolation rooms. In daily therapy sessions he said little but was always civil, seemingly pleased to have company and grateful for a cigarette and a light.
Skip to next paragraph
George Ruhe
ALTERED NOTIONS Dr. Thomas McGlashan
Related
Mixed Result in Treating Schizophrenia Pre-Diagnosis (May 1, 2006)
Revisiting Schizophrenia: Are Drugs Always Needed? (March 21, 2006)
Complete Coverage: Schizophrenia
Enlarge this Image
The New York Times
Until one spring morning, when he wrestled the lighter from his therapist's hand and held it to his own head ? igniting his hair.
"I grabbed him and was slapping at the flames, and he immediately became passive," said Dr. Thomas H. McGlashan, the man's therapist. "He went limp and pulled a blanket over his head."
He added, "That patient, that experience, changed everything for me."
In a career that has spanned four decades, Dr. McGlashan, now 64 and a professor of psychiatry at Yale, has with grim delight extinguished some of psychiatry's grandest notions, none more ruthlessly than his own. He strived for years to master psychoanalysis, only to reject it outright after demonstrating, in a landmark 1984 study, that the treatment did not help much at all in people, like Keith, with schizophrenia. Once placed on antipsychotic medication, Keith became less paranoid and more expressive. Without it, he quickly deteriorated.
Dr. McGlashan turned to medication and biology for answers and in the 1990's embarked on a highly controversial study of antipsychotic medication to prevent psychosis in high-risk adolescents. But doctors' hopes for that experiment, too, withered under the cold eye of its lead author.
Early this month, Dr. McGlashan reported that the drugs were more likely to induce weight gain than to produce a significant, measurable benefit.
Through it all, he has remained optimistic, restless, hopeful that he is close to understanding some of schizophrenia's secrets. In a way, his work mirrors the history of psychiatry itself, its conflicts and limits, its shift away from talk therapy to drugs and biological explanations for illness.
And for those who want a sense of what direction the field will take next ? and how ? Dr. McGlashan may serve as a kind of bellwether.
"Basically, you're talking about a person who can walk into an extremely hostile environment and deliver bad news; I don't know how to describe him better than that," said Dr. Wayne Fenton of the National Institute of Mental Health. He is a former colleague of Dr. McGlashan's at Chestnut Lodge, a psychiatric hospital in Rockville, Md., closed in 2001.
"At the lodge, he stood up and, in essence, told all these giants of psychotherapy that there was not a shred of evidence that what they were doing with schizophrenia patients was helping, much less curing the disorder," Dr. Fenton said. "And the therapies were being advertised as cures."
Dr. McGlashan is recognizable from a distance, a lean figure striding across the grounds of the medical school as if against a strong wind, chin forward beneath a mop of white-gray hair. On a typical day, he visits with adult patients at a state mental hospital in the morning and with adolescents in a private institute in the afternoon. He is a deliberate presence, solemn for long periods; but then he will remark on something absurd and tip backward with laughter.
This unsettling combination ? gravity punctuated by sudden levity ? may help explain his comfort with the world of psychosis.
"I thought he was the Antichrist when I first met him; I thought all the therapists were," said Keith, the patient at Chestnut Lodge who changed Dr. McGlashan's thinking in 1982. "But in the end I liked his sense of humor, and he liked mine, and I keep in touch with him."
Keith, who is now 47 and spoke by telephone only on the condition that his last name not be used, said he set his hair on fire that day because he was terrified that a great tribulation was at hand, during which he would be dragged by his hair before the devil.
"I really believed it was coming, any moment, and there was no way to escape," he said. "I still believe it's coming, but not right now; I'm not afraid of it." Dr. McGlashan joined the staff of Chestnut Lodge at a time when psychoanalysis was in ascendance in psychiatry, nowhere more so than at the lodge, which became known for its commitment to treat severe mental illness without antidepressants, antipsychotic drugs or electroshock therapy. It was thrilling just to be there, Dr. McGlashan recalled, hearing so many accomplished therapists offer seemingly powerful ideas about what troubled patients and why.
At the time he was treating Keith, Dr. McGlashan was pursuing a study for the hospital's owner, Dr. Dexter Bullard, to track patients years after treatment. Their records were revealing artifacts, detailing thousands of interactions in which therapists, steeped in psychoanalytic theory, tried to interpret patients' every word and gesture.
In one account, a psychiatrist described an outing when he bought a patient an ice cream cone. The patient refused it vehemently. "This was very exasperating to me," the therapist wrote. "She never did accept the cone, and I had to throw it away. I thought of it at the time as having represented a kind of rape situation to her."
Yet in his analysis of 446 cases, Dr. McGlashan found that about two-thirds of the former patients with schizophrenia who had been treated with psychoanalysis were functioning poorly and struggling in their relationships and in their jobs, if they had them. Their lives were no better than those of similar patient groups who had received little psychotherapy or none at all.
"I felt like people at the lodge had become lost in the process," he said. "We would have all these erudite conversations, talking about interpretations, and meanwhile the patient is crumpled in the corner of his or her room."
Chestnut Lodge changed some of its policies as a result of the study, allowing more drug treatment, job training and other programs.
Dr. McGlashan's intensity, and willingness to reverse course, was evident even in childhood. An ardently religious boy, he grew up with two sisters near Rochester, where his father worked at Kodak. In middle school, the youngster pored through the Bible, to the dismay of his father and the bemusement of his mother.
The devotion was isolating, Dr. McGlashan remembers, creating a mostly private world of mystery and awe. Then in his first year of high school, he met other Christian students, who belonged to a group devoted to proselytizing.
He was reluctant to join, and his father sensed it. "He saved me," Dr. McGlashan said. "He picked me up after a meeting and said it was O.K. to pull back" from the group.
"He was giving me permission."
He graduated second in his high school class and studied chemistry at Yale. He then entered the University of Pennsylvania's medical school, where, during a psychiatry rotation, he met his future. He interviewed a middle-aged Philadelphia businesswoman, who described to him a tortuous plot being hatched against her, involving family members and the F.B.I. "I thought, 'She can't possible believe this,' " Dr. McGlashan said.
He was hooked. Psychosis was isolating, too, and deeply mysterious even to scientists who spent their lives thinking about it. By the 1990's, most psychiatrists believed schizophrenia to be a genetically based brain disorder involving developmental changes that occurred well before the first full-blown psychosis. No one knew precisely what those changes were, but studies strongly suggested that they were real.
Moreover, psychiatric clinics periodically saw adolescents who seemed to be experiencing mild, prepsychosis symptoms. They were "prodromal," in the medical jargon, perhaps destined to develop a full-blown psychotic episode, perhaps not.
Dr. McGlashan and several others saw in these converging threads a possibility: maybe treating young people with drugs before they became psychotic would prevent the illness, and perhaps even help illuminate its cause.
Dr. McGlashan recalled patients at Chestnut Lodge who had spent decades receiving daily psychotherapy, to no avail, before receiving antipsychotic drugs and reclaiming some portion of normal life. One woman spent 18 years at the lodge, barefoot, unkempt, closeted in her room. One day, he said, he looked out a window and saw her going for a morning walk, smartly dressed, wearing shoes; she had recently been given medication and began taking daily walks.
"What right did we have denying her that?" he asked. "Small changes in a person's life, which I think is what we can expect, can make a big difference."
The risks of using drugs to try to prevent psychosis seemed to him moderate. New antipsychotics were becoming available, and, though they could have serious side effects, they appeared to be more tolerable than the older generation of drugs, and to reduce the risk of debilitating, Parkinson's disease-like side effects. So Dr. McGlashan began a study, financed in part by Eli Lilly, giving medication to adolescents considered at high risk for developing psychosis. But almost immediately, there were difficulties.
The test that Dr. McGlashan developed to identify those at high risk proved less reliable than he had hoped, meaning many adolescents would be exposed to drugs needlessly. Participants for the trial were hard to recruit. Mild psychosislike symptoms are rare in adolescents; and some who came in chose to continue seeing Dr. McGlashan or another psychiatrist but did not enter the study.
An ethical debate over the wisdom of early treatment ensued, and not everyone thought the potential benefit was worth the risk.
"Given the likelihood that psychosis is delayed and not prevented by the drugs, and given the severe side effects of the drugs, this is an idea that needs to be taken with great caution," said Dr. Steven E. Hyman, a professor of neurobiology at Harvard and a former director of the National Institute of Mental Health.
And in 2000, Vera Sharav, a prominent patient-protection advocate, wrote to government officials calling the experiment unethical, because "healthy children ? who are not capable of voluntary, informed consent ? are being put at high risk of harm for experimental purposes."
Officials from the federal Office for Human Research Protection began an investigation. About a year later, the agency concluded that the researchers needed to strengthen their informed consent documents to emphasize the side effects of the medication.
The researchers made the required changes, and the trial continued. But in a paper published this month, the authors reported that more than two-thirds of the participants had dropped out, rendering the trial inconclusive. Moreover, those on medication gained an average of about 20 pounds.
The entire process, almost 10 years in the making, has altered Dr. McGlashan's thinking again.
"I'm more pessimistic about all this now," he said. "I don't think the drugs can prevent full-blown psychosis, only delay it." He added, "I think more than ever we need to follow a group of prodromal adolescents who get no drug treatment to see more clearly what happens and refine our understanding of what the prodrome is."
Sitting in his office on a recent Tuesday morning, after having seen three patients taking a total of 10 drugs, Dr. McGlashan sighed. "I've never written so many prescriptions in my life," he said.
He said he had recently gotten a call from someone in England organizing a debate over whether high-risk adolescents should be treated with drugs. "He wanted to sign me up for the pro side, and I said absolutely not," he said.
Now colleagues are watching the progression of his thinking, wondering where his drive for answers will ultimately take him. "It's funny, he seems to be coming full circle," said Dr. Barbara Cornblatt, the director of the Recognition and Prevention Program at Zucker Hillside Hospital in Glen Oaks, N.Y., and an early critic of preventive drug treatment. "I may be more optimistic about early treatment than he is at this point."
-
Hinckley seeks four-day visits
By Jim McElhatton
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published August 15, 2006
Attorneys for John W. Hinckley Jr. are asking a federal judge to allow the would-be presidential assassin to stay at his parents' house four nights at a time pending a move to expand his freedoms from a D.C. psychiatric hospital, court records show.
Hinckley, 51, who tried to kill President Reagan in 1981, was permitted to go on seven overnight trips to his parents' house in Williamsburg after a judge's ruling in December.
He has one trip left but is barred from taking any more releases from St. Elizabeths Hospital without a court order.
The U.S. attorney's office last week objected to the move, saying there isn't enough information available for government analysts to evaluate how Hinckley is faring on the overnight stays.
"The government recognizes, as it has in the past, that Mr. and Mrs. Hinckley have been a model of dedication to a child stricken with mental illness," Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas E. Zeno said in a memo to U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman last week.
"However, there are many issues regarding Mr. Hinckley's return to live with his parents which must be addressed," the memo states.
For instance, federal prosecutors said in court documents that they need to subpoena Hinckley's medical records but note that they can't get access until a court hearing is scheduled.
In addition, prosecutors said, psychiatrist John J. Lee, who agreed to meet with Hinckley during the overnight stays in Williamsburg, is "untested as a reporter of information about Mr. Hinckley."
Hinckley's attorneys were unavailable for comment yesterday.
In a memo filed Thursday, the attorneys called the government's objection "wholly without merit," saying the overnight stays have been therapeutic for their client.
Hinckley's overnight trips to Williamsburg provide the most freedom he has had since he was found not guilty by reason of insanity in 1982 in the shooting of Mr. Reagan, press secretary James Brady, Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy and Metropolitan Police Officer Thomas Delahanty.
He said he shot the president to impress actress Jodie Foster, whom he did not know.
In recent years, Hinckley gradually has won increasing freedoms from St. Elizabeths, including short trips with his parents, such as a 2005 outing to the National Air and Space Museum, and unsupervised overnight stays in Williamsburg.
He has expressed a desire for finding a girlfriend on his trips to Williamsburg, but said it would be difficult.
"I can tell when a man or a woman is interested in me for my notoriety, and I don't want a woman who is interested in me for that," Hinckley said, according to a clinical assessment dated July 20, 2005, included in court filings.
Judge Friedman noted in his ruling in December that the goal of Hinckley's treatment is "reintegration into society, whether that takes place in his parents' community or elsewhere."
Hinckley's attorneys and the U.S. Attorney's Office held a telephone conference call with Judge Friedman to discuss the dispute Friday.
Executive Assistant U.S. Attorney Monty Wilkinson yesterday said government attorneys have no comment beyond what is in court pleadings.
He said Judge Friedman did not say during Friday's conference call when he will decide whether to permit Hinckley more overnight stays.
A hearing on expanding Hinckley's conditions of release has been scheduled for Nov. 6.
Mr. Wilkinson said government attorneys will not know what kind of loosened restrictions Hinckley's attorneys will seek until next month.
Hinckley's attorneys have said that the overnight trips have been a success.
"Mr. Hinckley has complied fully with all of the conditions of release, and not a single negative occurrence has been reported in connection with any of the trips," Adam Proujansky, said in a memo to Judge Friedman.
Mr. Proujansky also questioned the concerns from prosecutors about the reliability of information about Hinckley's overnight stays.
"There is nothing in the record to suggest that the hospital staff, Dr. Lee or Mr. Hinckley's parents have not been completely truthful in their reporting of Mr. Hinckley's behavior."
Copyright © 2006
-
Risk Factors for Depression in Pregnant and Postpartum Women: Presented at APA
By Kristina R. Anderson
SAN DIEGO, CA -- May 21, 2007 -- Major depression and anxiety disorders in pregnancy and during postpartum are conditions that are routinely under-diagnosed and often go untreated or under-treated. That's according to findings presented here at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association (APA).
The researchers say women at risk of developing major depression during pregnancy need to be correctly screened and identified because the depression can carry over to the even more vulnerable postpartum period and can put the bonding process at risk.
"We've always known about the link between depression and the postpartum period but depression in pregnancy itself is being diagnosed more routinely," said Deidre Ryan, FRCPC (Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of Canada) and associate professor of psychiatry, University of British Columbia, Canada, Women's Hospital. "But the symptoms such as sleep, appetite and energy changes can overlap, especially in the first trimester of pregnancy, making diagnosis difficult."
Dr. Ryan also noted there is a spectrum of mood changes from the "blues," which are experienced by 50% to 70% of women and usually resolve spontaneously and rarely require treatment, all the way to postpartum psychosis where suicide is a risk.
The risks of untreated depression during pregnancy, she said, are lack of good prenatal care; risk of medical/obstetrical complication, such as intrauterine growth retardation; self-medication and substance abuse; lack of bonding, which generally begins in pregnancy; and although very uncommon, the risk of suicide exists. "Although suicide rates are lower for women when they're pregnant than at any other time in their lives, those with untreated depression will go on to develop postpartum depression," said Dr. Ryan.
Then there is the "Andrea Yates" syndrome, which had "huge repercussions throughout the world," Dr. Ryan said. "Forty percent of women with postpartum depression report obsessional thoughts, for instance, images of harm occurring to the baby." Yates killed her five young children in 2001 by drowning them in the bathtub. The DSM IV postpartum psychosis occurs not only, as commonly thought, within the four weeks after birth, but actually within the first year of the birth. There can be mood swings, insomnia, hallucinations, and symptoms that require admission to a hospital. This is the time that women are at the highest risk for suicide, Dr. Ryan noted.
There are also comorbid issues that require screening, such as eating disorders. "Many women are preoccupied with weight and shape," Dr. Ryan said, suggesting that all pregnant women be screened between 28 and 32 weeks of pregnancy and also postpartum, between one and four months.
Some of the biological risk factors for perinatal depression include a prior history of depression, family history of psychiatric illness, discontinuation of medications, significant medical/obstetrical problems, hypothyroidism, and cessation of lactation. "The time of weaning or cessation of lactation is a risk time for developing perinatal depression and, at this time, we do not know if breast feeding offers protection from depression or not," said Dr. Ryan. "Chronic maternal depression results in higher rates of anxiety, depressive and behavioural disorders in toddlerhood, preadolescence, and adulthood."
The psychosocial risk reactions that put women at high risk for perinatal depression include:
• Lack of a partner, family, and social support
• Stressful life events
• Death of a family member
• Breastfeeding difficulties
• Colicky babies and infant health problems
• Unplanned pregnancy
• Socioeconomic status
• Abuse issues
• Cultural issues and disappointment over the sex of the child
"Depression not only affects the woman, but the entire family is at risk if the woman is not treated," said Dr. Ryan, "especially the child who exhibits internalizing behaviour."
The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale is now the gold standard for identifying women who are suffering from postpartum depression but Dr. Ryan said that the future goal was a screening tool for all anxiety disorders that put women at risk during and after pregnancy.
[Presentation title: "Management of Psychiatric Disorders in Pregnant and Postpartum Women"]