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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   


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.


You have more knowledge about it than I ever will, however I do know depression first hand. I lost a family member due to a drunk driver two weeks after I was laid off from work. I lost my job, my home, my mom all within several months - I was in acute depression, I couldn't sleep, couldn't eat, lost tons of weight, couldn't think clearly, couldn't remember anything - but I can tell you - the thought of injuring my then infant son NEVER not EVEN ONCE, entered my mind. He always was, is, and always will be my center of the Universe. Since then my life is back in order, and things are great. I don't want to hear about depression being the culprit. I sympathize I truly do - been there done that. Get help if you need it, but don't commit a crime, especially one so vile as this and expect me to cry for you.
And to the previous poster who put some blame on her husband, I agree - he should have seen some sort of warning signs.




posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   
dennis miller said it best...
"insane in the rain, we hang you on the plain."... (something like that)

really though... hopefully they will at least put her in some manditory mental health facililty after the trial for the other two counts... (hopeing they go thru)

and then there is the matter of the egoist Mr Parks... has anyone checked to see if the "episode for which he consulted" maybe just didn't air.... many times if a real life situation occurs, that is close to a story line, they will delay or suspend the episode altogether to prevent it from opening sore wounds with the public.
and if he really didn't ever consult for a show, then why did he lie, knowing that it could be found out? or did he just think that the defense was stupid? lawyers are many things, but not stupid... (no offense, dixon).

My question is why isn't he up on charges of perjury now?
and where did that damn star chamber go?



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Non taken. My guess would be that being such a high profile case, the egomaniac would have been asked to go over his testimony many times prior to beng produced as The Great Know All. The Prosecutor's office is gonna want his bacon......



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by superdude
I don't want to hear about depression being the culprit.


No one said it was, superdude. Yates was suffering from postpartum psychosis, a horse of entirely different color.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   


No one said it was, superdude. Yates was suffering from postpartum psychosis, a horse of entirely different color.


Good link with some good info. Thanx.

Honestly, I'd never heard of postpartum psychosis. I empathize, however I do not excuse her in any way whatsoever.
Also I'd like to know if this was a real diagnosis, or merely a rabbit pulled out of a hat by a shrewd defense lawyer.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Just read the AP newswire report on this. Seems the Appeals Court has ruled that the matter will go back to a fresh trial. But the prosecutor is sticking by the egomaniac, stating that the expert was confused and made a genuine mistake ! Prosecutor want to appeal this appeal and of course, if the further appeal fails, the matter will go back to trial. Gonna be long drawn ......



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Yes, it will probably be a long drawn out, EXPENSIVE process. Our tax dollars once again being frivolously spent on something that isn't worth the time.
The woman DID IT.
Five children - FIVE, as if one isn't horrifying enough.
I think we should throw her in a pool with a cinderblock around her foot with just enough rope that her lips can just break the surface of the water if she extends out as far as she can stretch.
Eye for an eye.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by superdude

Also I'd like to know if this was a real diagnosis, or merely a rabbit pulled out of a hat by a shrewd defense lawyer.


Real diagnosis. She had been in and out of psych hospitals for 2 years before the murders of her children, and had tried to kill herself at least once.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 01:58 PM
link   


Real diagnosis. She had been in and out of psych hospitals for 2 years before the murders of her children, and had tried to kill herself at least once.


Uuuuugggggghhhhh..........
While I do not waver in my stand on this issue, and I think I've made my point of view pretty obvious, this makes me even madder.

She has a history of mental illness, including a suicide attempt, and nobody puts up a red flag?
I still say she should be executed, however I would have to think that an investigation of the system should be implemented.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   
The appellate court sent the case back to the trial court for a new trial.

In general: there is no statute of limitations on a prosecution for murder; each murder victim is a separate and distinct charge; so long as there are no double jeopardy issues, the other two cases can be initiated at any time. But, if she is convicted and sent to a mental institution for life, what's the point of going through the trial process for all 5?

Apparently, no one, not even she, contends that she did not kill her children. The only real issue is whether she was insane or criminally culpable.

I have a very bright and good-hearted friend who gave birth to her first child four years ago. There was never a hint of any mental health issues. But she suffered from a tough bout of post-partum depression and was placed in the psychiatric ward of a local hospital for over a month and took about a year to fully recover with the help of therapy and medication. She never harmed anyone but was expressing suicidal thoughts and schizophrenic episodes. So, I don't doubt that Andrea Yates may genuinely have been insane.

There appears to be no issue but that the Yates prosecutor's expert witness gave false testimony. The prosecutor is now saying it was just a mistake and not an intentional falsehood? What? How could the expert possibly have been mistaken about something like that. Maybe there's more to the story than we know at this point. But prosecutors have been known to coach their witnesses to lie in order to get the result they want in a case. I'm not saying this prosecutor did that, just that it is widely known to have occurred far too often. This case is highly suspicious.

What does it matter whether the expert's false testimony was given "by mistake" (which I highly doubt), or intentionally? It was false either way and was clearly intended to and did weaken Yates' defense of insanity. It worked!

I think the appellate court is absolutely correct in ruling as it did. There appears to be no issue but that the expert's testimony was false and that the TV episode he cited never existed. The appellate court said:
We conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that Dr. Dietzs false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury, the court said in its ruling. We further conclude that Dr. Dietzs false testimony affected the substantial rights of appellant.

We cannot allow prosecutors and their witnesses get away with gaining convictions based on false testimony, whether by mistake or intention. If either the prosecutor or the expert witness are culpable of misconduct, their heads should role. After all, they are now directly responsible for creating the necessity of a 2nd trial and of wasting the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars that were spent on the first trial. Everyone in that prosecutor's office who had a part in this needs to be sanctioned appropriately.


To me, a more interesting and deeply sad aspect of this case is that five children were drown, including some who were apparently aware that mom was killing their siblings. But each none-the-less went in and allowed themselves to be killed like sheep going to slaughter when they could have run away and saved themselves. I haven't read all the facts of what happened on that tragic day. This is my impression based on what I have read and heard.

The depth of an innocent child's unconscious blind trust in a parent is truly amazing. My heart aches not only for the children but their mother as well. Post-partum depression is not to be taken lightly, as a number of recent highly publicized cases have shown.

[edit on 6-1-2005 by dubiousone]

[edit on 6-1-2005 by dubiousone]



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by superdude
She has a history of mental illness, including a suicide attempt, and nobody puts up a red flag?


Oh, sure they did. Her doctors basically said she was a walking time bomb. However, her insurance would only pay for a certain number of days in the hospital, and once that time was up, home she went...even when her doctors said she was still mentally unbalanced, and needed medication and observation.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   
WOW! You know what? I think I am going to go kill some people and then do the whole "not guilty due to insanity" bit and see if it works. I mean, afterall, why would a sane person commit and act such as murder? You have got to be insane to do it right?

So the guy speculated about a Law and Order episode that never aired? This counts as evidence or speculation? So you mean to tell me that the jurors were swayed so much by this "so called episode" that they found her guilty? I think not. It's just one of those holes the defense looks for to change the outcome of the case.

I feel sorry for the Yates woman. Not because she has to live with the fact she murdered her children, but the fact that if she ever does mingle back into society, she wont be accepted. How is it going to look when she goes to apply for a job? I HIGHLY doubt anyone wants to hire someone who killed their children. I think after she realizes that she wont be accpeted, she offs herself. The end.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   


I HIGHLY doubt anyone wants to hire someone who killed their children. I think after she realizes that she wont be accpeted, she offs herself. The end.


Well, let's give her a helping hand - Leave lot's of sleeping pills, rope, sharp objects in her cell, then suddenly remember that you have an important meeting on the other side of the building.
Imagine if she did manage to actually get out and be a part of society again - that would be the biggest travesty I'd heard of in my lifetime.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   
first let me say im not lonewolf im his wife under his name for a secone. but let me say

WHAT ABOUT THE HUSBAND HOW RUDE OF HIM HOW SELFISH OF HIM HOW COULD HE BE SO SO SELFISH HE COULDNT SEE THE HARM HE WAS CAUSING HER ONE BABY AFTER ANOTHER. ITS HARD TO HAVE TWO AND THREE MUCH LESS FIVE WITH ANOTHER ON THE WAY. WITH OUT HELP. THIS SELFISH MAN IM SURE DID NOT HELP HER. HE SHOULD BE THE ONE IN JAIL.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   
first let me say im not lonewolf im his wife under his name for a secone. but let me say

WHAT ABOUT THE HUSBAND HOW RUDE OF HIM HOW SELFISH OF HIM HOW COULD HE BE SO SO SELFISH HE COULDNT SEE THE HARM HE WAS CAUSING HER ONE BABY AFTER ANOTHER. ITS HARD TO HAVE TWO AND THREE MUCH LESS FIVE WITH ANOTHER ON THE WAY. WITH OUT HELP. THIS SELFISH MAN IM SURE DID NOT HELP HER. HE SHOULD BE THE ONE IN JAIL.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   
first let me say im not lonewolf im his wife under his name for a secone. but let me say

WHAT ABOUT THE HUSBAND HOW RUDE OF HIM HOW SELFISH OF HIM HOW COULD HE BE SO SO SELFISH HE COULDNT SEE THE HARM HE WAS CAUSING HER ONE BABY AFTER ANOTHER. ITS HARD TO HAVE TWO AND THREE MUCH LESS FIVE WITH ANOTHER ON THE WAY. WITH OUT HELP. THIS SELFISH MAN IM SURE DID NOT HELP HER. HE SHOULD BE THE ONE IN JAIL.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 03:18 PM
link   
UM SORRY ABOUT THREE POST THERE I MUST OF HIT THE REPLY BUTTON TO MANY TIMES.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   


To me, a more interesting and deeply sad aspect of this case is that five children were drown, including some who were apparently aware that mom was killing their siblings. But each none-the-less went in and allowed themselves to be killed like sheep going to slaughter when they could have run away and saved themselves. I haven't read all the facts of what happened on that tragic day. This is my impression based on what I have read and heard.


I don't even know how to respond to this remark. If mommy says it's the thing to do, almost every young child will do it. Imagine the horror, Mommy saying come here, then holding you under water. The one that you went to to fix a boo boo, the one who pulled you out of the water when you slipped. The last thing you see through the water looking up is Mommys face while you struggle to stay alive. Tragic is way to small a word to use.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 04:52 PM
link   
They ought to put her in a padded room and give her six bullits just in case the first 5 failed to hit the mark!



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 05:11 PM
link   
yes i agree that she should be in a hospital. i also believe she should divorce her husband and never have contact with such an EVIL man again. can u believe how he controls her every thought she was not an individual. she was whatever he told her to be. mostly barefoot and pregant it seems. what kind of a husband would not hire help for his wife with that many kids. give her some down time. time for herself. if he couldnt afford help for her then stop having them. he seems to be a selfish rude man.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join