It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Appeals Court Throw Out Andrea Yates Conviction

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Andrea Yates, the woman who drowned her children in a bathtub, had her conviction for the heinous crime overturned. She was originally sentenced to life in prison for the death of 3 of her children, however was never tried for the death of the other two children. Psychiatrist Park Dietz had claimed during the trial that he was a consultant on an episode of "Law and Order" in which a mother was found not guilty by reason of insanity for the drowning death of her children. As it turns out, no such episode exists. Due to the false testimony, the conviction was overturned by the appeals court.
 



www.signonsandiego.com
HOUSTON Andrea Yates' capital murder convictions for drowning her children were overturned Thursday by an appeals court, which ruled a prosecution expert witness gave false testimony at her trial.

Yates' lawyers had argued at a hearing last month before a three-judge panel of the First Court of Appeals in Houston that psychiatrist Park Dietz was wrong when he said he consulted on an episode of the TV show "Law and Order" involving a woman found innocent by reason of insanity for drowning her children.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Now I've seen everything. This woman in premeditatedly murdered her 5 children in cold blood. She drowned them 1 by 1 in the bathtub. Those poor little angels, may they rest in peace.
This MONSTER, and I use this word because the words I'd like to use would get me banned forever, should already be dead. Why is she even allowed to have an appeal. SHE MURDERED HER 5 CHILDREN!
A fictitous "Law and Order" episode, are you freakin' kidding me? Maybe it is true, our society is crumbling, we have no morals anymore. God help us.


[edit on 6-1-2005 by Banshee]




posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   
I'm stewing over this.

Here's a question for those who have a knowledge of law. Since this monster was only tried for the death of 3 of her children, and was never tried for the death of the other 2, can she now be tried for those 2?



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by superdude
I'm stewing over this.


Really? Her conviction was overturned because a star witness for the prosecution lied under oath to provide one of the most damning pieces of evidence. Our legal system actually worked this time, and you're "stewing" over it?

The conviction of Yates was an act of revenge, not justice. The woman was not sane at the time of her actions; therefore, she was not legally guilty.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   
The news thread is a little sktechy but since I am not out chasing ambulances at this time, I thought I'd give it a try.

The news thread was a little sketchy, so I have to make some suppositions.

It would appear that the Prosecution relied on the fibbing Expert Witness to debunk the Accused's defence of insanity.

The Appeals Court felt that the Jury in the trial would have placed great emphasis on the "Expert's" "expertness" and he turned out to be a egomaniacal liar.

So, excluding the Expert's testimony, you would have little, if anything, to counter the Accused's defence of insanity. Remember, in all criminal cases, the Prosecution have the duty to prove the Accused's guilt BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT...

And that's the "beauty" of due process....



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   


Really? Her conviction was overturned because a star witness for the prosecution lied under oath to provide one of the most damning pieces of evidence. Our legal system actually worked this time, and you're "stewing" over it?

The conviction of Yates was an act of revenge, not justice. The woman was not sane at the time of her actions; therefore, she was not legally guilty.


While your point is accurate and well taken, I have to say that YES, I am stewing over this. While I am certainly not going to be PC here, I don't give a rats behind whether she was sane or not. She is a danger to society, and therefore should be taken out of society. PERIOD.
Imagine the horror of those poor little children. Trying to fight mommy while she holds them under water. They watching their siblings get killed. OMFG. YES I AM STEWING.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I think that she can be tried for the other two as she was never tried for them in the first place. She can be retried on the first charge as well because it was overturned on a technicality.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   
i feel that the woman wasn't in her right mind at the time either. YES it is a terrible terrible tragedy but i don't think for a second that she was "of sound mind" when she did it.

postpartum psychosis isn't a fun thing and it is a VERY VERY serious illness.

i think the bigger issue for me is the fact that her husband seemed to be clueless over her illness..........he was there in the house day in and day out and never NOTICED her behavior or thought it to be strange????

the loss of the children is truly a terrible terrible thing..........but IMHO she was not of sound mind.

someone that WAS of sound mind...........that susan smith in NC.......the one that drugged her kids.......drove her car to a deserted lake boat ramp.....got OUT of the car........rolled it down the ramp in to the water and watched her babies drown.

THEN LIED about the whole thing..............lead the entire country to believe that some "BLACK MAN" carjacked her and the kids ...........knowing the entire time SHE was responsible for their deaths.

GRRRRRR now THAT was premeditation!!

this yates lady was seriously mentally ill.

angie



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by superdude

She is a danger to society, and therefore should be taken out of society. PERIOD.


Actually, superdude, I agree 100% with you on this. The woman had a long history of mental illness and has committed a truly heinous act. IMO, justice would be better served by locking her in an institution for the rest of her life, NOT by putting her back in jail.

[edit on 1/6/2005 by sandge]



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   
I agree with you amb1063.

Your points are true, however whether she was of sound mind or not makes no difference to me frankly. She is a danger to society. Take her out.
Here's a basic mathematical formula:
society + danger to = Bad
society - danger to = Good



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by superdude



Really? Her conviction was overturned because a star witness for the prosecution lied under oath to provide one of the most damning pieces of evidence. Our legal system actually worked this time, and you're "stewing" over it?

The conviction of Yates was an act of revenge, not justice. The woman was not sane at the time of her actions; therefore, she was not legally guilty.


She is a danger to society, and therefore should be taken out of society. PERIOD.


she wasn't a danger to society in general..............just to her family......specifically the children...........

i'm NOT condoning what the lady did..........it was a terrible terrible tragedy. i just don't think she was a danger to anyone but HERSELF and to the family.

that doesn't make it RIGHT............but she WAS insane at the time of the deaths to the children.

but that's my opinion..........i don't mean to be difficult on this point but i feel strongly about this. i've worked with women that have had true postpartum psychosis (i spent 14yrs working obstetrics) and it truly is something that is a VERY VERY real issue and VERY VERY scary for the families involved.

none of the patients that i had direct contact with killed family members. 1 did do serious damage to herself though. the only reason that she survived was IMMEDIATE intervention by family members.

that is what bothers me about this...........there were signs and the husband didn't act on them.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   


The woman had a long history of mental illness and has committed a truly heinous act. IMO, justice would be better served by locking her in an institution for the rest of her life, NOT by putting her back in jail.


Ok I can sort of agree with that, but doggone it, I think she should have a date with the needle frankly. If she's in a mental institution, it's just as good as jail. But if that's how it goes, I want to make sure that, like you said, it's for THE REST OF HER MISERABLE LIFE.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by superdude
I agree with you amb1063.

Your points are true, however whether she was of sound mind or not makes no difference to me frankly. She is a danger to society. Take her out.
Here's a basic mathematical formula:
society + danger to = Bad
society - danger to = Good




so superdude..............then we can AGREE to DISAGREE on this point!!

no harm done..............all in the spirit of strong beliefs going both ways here!


thanks
angie



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   


so superdude..............then we can AGREE to DISAGREE on this point!!

no harm done..............all in the spirit of strong beliefs going both ways here!


Works for me young lady!

Nothing like a good debate!



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Now, on what's next. If a conviction is overturned, it is overturned. From the news thread, I do not think Appeals Court directed the case to be re-tried.

Might try to go to the Supreme Court to get the appeal reversed. But it's not going to be a likely victory for the prosecution.

Imagine : "Your Honours, we would like the appeal reversed because it was a mere technical problem. The problem was that OUR OWN witness, who WAS SUPPOSED to be an expert witness, unbiased, extremely knowledgeable and extremely trustworthy person who was expected to GUIDE the jurors and the Court, just MERELY turned out to be an egomaniacal liar."

As for the other 2 deaths, there seem to be potential problems (coupled wit the fact that the news thread is sketchy) : It is common practice where multiple similar fact charges are laid against an Accused, for the prosecution to state that they are not proceeding on some charges but on the rest.

They can try to "resurrect" the indictments, but depending on the time elapsed, the indictments may well have become "spent".

Further, you must remember that NOT to proceed was the Sole Prerogative of the Prosecution.

The Accused is now going to argue that it would be manifestly unfair for the prosecution to subject her to a 2nd round of trial, repeating her suffering the antecedent costs and anguish of essentially, a repeat performance. Costs can be extremely prohibitive. Bottom line, the prosecution "dropped the baby" on this one and it is a very slippery slope if they try to ascend it.

Most importantly, remember INNOCENT until Proven Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt......



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   
This woman was and is clearly mentally ill. She did commit murder by reason of insanity and needed to be put away, but not into the regular prison system. The sad fact is that post partum depression is considered a "woman's" illness and is not seriously enough by society. I know that it sounds bleeding heart but there are too many instances of such incidents, some more fatal than others.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   
This woman was not crazy, just selfish. She should already be dead.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by superdude
can she now be tried for those 2?

Of course. And she most likely will. They had to throw the other conviction out, since it was based in false testimony, there's no way to get around it. Personally, i find it hard to beleive that the psych made it up. I'd hate to see that the episode simply wasn't aired, or that he just wasn't aware of what the episode was about.


sandge
Her conviction was overturned because a star witness for the prosecution lied under oath to provide one of the most damning pieces of evidence

Lets be realistic, the woman is guilty.

The woman was not sane at the time of her actions; therefore, she was not legally guilty.

You are a psychologist?

She can be retried on the first charge as well because it was overturned on a technicality.

I thought double jeopardy covered that tho?

If she goes to a psych center instead of jail then she gets released if they find her competent after treatment keep in mind. She'd be relased, and completley legally entitled to have more kids, and, well, we can guess what would happen.

She is the one who thought that god told her to kill the kids or else they'd go to hell right?



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   
nygdan

post partum psychosis does NOT occur w/each pregnancy necessarily.

the likelihood is greater for SURE that it could occur again.

if i had a say in her outcome i would definitely like to have her sterilized to prevent further pregnancies thus eliminating any chance of further problems of psychosis............but that's me.

as far as the law and order episode..............someone could GOOGLE on law and order and postpartum psychosis......and see what they find.....

i've seen most all of the original episodes and have seen several cases where mothers/fathers killed their infants,toddlers but don't recall a case of drowning.........

i remember several cases where the mom smothered the kid.....and one particular episode was dealing with the dx :munchausen by proxy syndrome........(she kept killing the kids cause she was a sympathy junky....thrived on the attention from the deaths.....so she kept having them and killing them) but i don't specifically remember a drowning.

might need to go google on that one.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   


This woman was not crazy, just selfish. She should already be dead.


Once again Doctor, I agree with you.

I don't want 1 single penney of my taxes to go towards feeding her, clothing her, keeping her comfortable - nothing.
Well maybe one thing, I'll purchase the needles, and the chemicals needed to put her down. I'll donate it to the state.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Dang! there goes my record for always agreeing with Nygdan.

"Lets be realistic, the woman is guilty."

quote: The woman was not sane at the time of her actions; therefore, she was not legally guilty.

"You are a psychologist?"


If she were insane at the time of the killings, then yes, she isn't guilty; you don't have to be psychologist or a psychiatrist to know that. If she pleaded "not guilty by insanity" and was found not guilty (either by the jury or an apellate court), then I thin it'd be fair to say she was truly not guilty by reason of insanity.

She can be retried on the first charge as well because it was overturned on a technicality.
"I thought double jeopardy covered that tho?"


Doesn't that depend on whether the case was dismissed with or without prejudice?

"If she goes to a psych center instead of jail then she gets released if they find her competent after treatment keep in mind. She'd be relased, and completley legally entitled to have more kids, and, well, we can guess what would happen."

That's true. She could be determined not guilty because she was nuts, be treated, no longer be officially nuts, and then released to do whatever she chooses. A scary thought, but that's the way it goes.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join