Andrea Yates Leaves Jail for Hospital

[NYC Liberal]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/wireStory?id=1569380

HOUSTON Feb 2, 2006 — Andrea Yates left jail early Thursday for a state mental hospital where she will await her second capital murder trial for the drowning deaths of her young children.

Yates' attorney posted her $200,000 bond, releasing her from incarceration for the first time since the five children were drowned in the family bathtub in June 2001.

State District Judge Belinda Hill set the bond Wednesday.

[hang a left]

1. I never followed this case closely.

But this just really pisses me off:

snip>

"An appeals court last year overturned the convictions based on testimony by the state's expert witness about a nonexistent episode on television's "Law & Order" series. The expert, Park Dietz, said a show about a woman with postpartum depression who drowned her children had aired shortly before the Yates children were drowned."

snip>

How could that expert lie like that? Especially when someone's life is on the line? I am not excusing her crimes, only showing disgust at the prosecutions dishonesty.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

5. Google up Park Dietz.

From what you can find, there are questions about the gentleman.

[LostinVA]

13. That SOB should be in prison, imo

[Bridget Burke]

16. The "expert" testimony was probably the main reason....

She was sent to prison rather than to a hospital.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. I think the hospital is where Yates belongs

she is insane. I don't see how staying in prison is going to help her get better-but I think now this country is only interested in punishing people, no matter what the circumstances.

[tatertop]

4. Her husband should be punished for his part in this

he is a cruel and unusual bastard
with no respect for other humans

[Lance_Boyle]

6. WTF?

He didn't hold anyone under the water 'til the bubbles stopped. He may be a religio-nutjob and a bastardly bugger of the first order, but he did not break the law - she did. She should be receiving mental health treatment concurrently with the appropriate prison sentence for however many murders she committed.

[LostinVA]

11. She murdered no one; she killed her children

She has extreme psychosis, she is not a sociopath. People in this country have no understanding of what true mental illness is. She should have never served one day in prison.

Yup, I know it would only be a few posts before Yates was lambasted. And I'm not picking on you -- yours was mild. I guarantee there will be some corkers on this thread before long.

And Russell Yates is definitely morally culpable in the deaths of his children, even if our screwed up legal system says he isn't.

[0007]

19. Exactly! Russell Yates and Mrs. Russell Yates wrote the Requiem

for their children's deaths and then danced to the tune. Russ lead and Andrea followed in the name of Jesus Christ their Lord and Savior.

Of course they weren't Catholic, but for all moral purposes isn't it all the same with extreme psychosis?

[AngryOldDem]

23. Care to explain this comment?

<<Of course they weren't Catholic, but for all moral purposes isn't it all the same with extreme psychosis?>>

[0007]

25. Sure!

Requiem" is associated with the Roman Catholic Church. Right ? A mass for a deceased person. A musical composition for said mass.

We all know that the Yeats's weren't Catholics. But we do know that they were the victims of extreme victims of severe mental disorders. So being of any religion wouldn't have made a difference.

[AngryOldDem]

27. I agree with you

Religious extremism to me is a form of mental illness (we discussed the Yates case in a psych class I was taking last fall, and no one seemed to want to touch that premise with a 10-foot pole when I raised it). And I see Andrea as more of a victim than Randy. He knew full well his wife's mental state. Yet, he chose to make her go through another pregnancy and birth. I also hold her doctors responsible as well. She needed medication, and at no point as far as I can tell was she ever stable enough not to be on it. Many people failed Andrea and her children here.

Sorry if I seemed touchy in my question to you.

[0007]

28. No apology is necessary! I do whole heartily agree with you

and appreciate your honesty. I only wish I could have sent my original response to you, but lost it while researching a fine point. Sorry!

I sometime get a little to esoteric and in depth with my thoughts and don't come across to clear.

[raccoon]

52. "Religious extremism to me is a form of mental illness"

Amen! :-)

Growing up in a small town in the South, I thought religious people were "good." But even then, I realized there was something a little off-key about people who were fanatic about it. Or who used religion as a club to beat you over the head with.

Don't remember at what age I realized that "religious" does not equal "good."

I think many people use religion to control others (yeah, no kidding!) not just on the macro level but on the personal level too. So many people use religion to control kids. "God wouldn't want you to do that." "God's always watching you." Much of the time, what they say God would/would not want you to do is what THEY want you to do/not do.

Which is one reason why so many people grow up with a bad taste in their mouths about religion.

[Megahurtz]

81. For Sure!

And those are the same religious pro-life whackos who are trying to outlaw abortion
and force women and girls to pop out one baby after another!:puke:
If abortion ever gets outlawed (and it better not) you will see a lot more cases like Andrea Yates!:think:

[Bridget Burke]

41. Andrea was raised Catholic & Randy was Protestant.

However, they did not attend any church at all. Randy was influenced by the teachings of Michael Peter Woroniecki, who taught his followers through videos.

"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!" Message preached by two daughters of Mr. Woroniecki as reported by the editorial staff of The Collegian--Student newspaper of the University of Richmond, Sep. 9, 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Peter_Woroniecki

Belonging to a congregation--of any denomination--can serve a social purpose. There's Mother's Day Out, so the ladies could go to Baybrook Mall, look at the silly fashions for sale & buy an expensive coffee drink at Starbuck's. Nosy church ladies--"Why don't you tell Randy to keep it zipped, Honey?" Andrea was alone except for her family duties.

A local pastor offered his services after the children died. There was a funeral service, but no Requiem was played.

Sorry, you can't blame the Catholic Church for everything.

[Bridget Burke]

14. Andrea Yates had serious mental problems.

Then, she suffered postpartum psychosis (not depression) after the birth of one of her children. It was recommended she not have another child. But Randy went ahead & impregnated her again.

[Roon]

20. Just so you know

the father never changed one diaper.

[LisaL]

36. Well, you can't exactly send someone in prison for that, can you?

[dogday]

91. He lived with her and she was in bad shape

He knew it. She would walk back and forth in 2X2 ft squares talking to herself. She was bald in places where she had pulled her hair out. She was obviously fucked up in her head, this was not something that happened in one day and the Husband knew this and made a lawful choice to leave his children with someone so unstable... It was only a matter of time...

[noonwitch]

7. I'd settle for him receiving a vasectomy

He never needs to sire children again. I hate to use the term "father" to describe someone who was as irresponsible about breeding as he was.

I do think Andrea Yates belongs in a mental hospital for the rest of her life. Unless they invent a miracle cure for schizophrenia that does not rely on taking medication daily, a violent schizophrenic needs to be hospitalized forever. One of the manifestations of the illness is a delusion that the medication is poison, partly because of the side effects of some of the meds used. Patients with that combination of symptoms will stop taking meds as soon as no one is monitoring them anymore.

[tatertop]

9. I would like to see him in prison for a spell

Such an utter disregard for his wife's well being (and the
ill effect that was sure to have on the welfare of the children) deserves punishment.
I saw no remorse in that man at all.

[TexasBushwhacker]

18. He's seeking a divorce ....

if he hasn't already gotten it. He said that he wanted to start his life over and start a new family.

[LostinVA]

31. I've read he's dating a woman he met

via a CHristian dating service.

[raccoon]

53. She must be mentally ill to be dating him. nt

[LostinVA]

54. Seriously... or just totally deluded.

[LisaL]

97. I sure hope he gets this one checked by a shrink.

Before starting with procreation.

[Megahurtz]

87. Oh Good God.

That guy needs to get fixed because he's just acting like a dog.

And I seriously cannot believe that this Administration and all of the
right-wingnut religious zealots actually condone this kind of behaviour.:banghead:

[zann725]

60. He was quoted as wanting enough boy (children) to have a baseball team

Her youngest was a girl. Not only was she over-burdened with child-care, but she was NOT living up to her husband's expectations for a family softball team. And her primary babysitting help was her HUSBAND's mother, who would naturally find NO fault with her son's part in anything.

Also, regarding her refusing "therapy" BEFORE the murders...was anything mentioned in the press about her family's Religion-of-choice? I remember in a family pic BEFORE the murders, the livingroom had a VERY LARGE religious pic centered behind the couch. What kind of therapy was she being steered toward? One that made her feel guilty for her OWN needs and thoughts as a Woman?

It is clear this woman was an overwhelmed baby-machine, with no one to talk to (without feeling guilt) for a very long time. That "god" was the one who told her to kill the children, clearly had some context that no one addressed.

[LisaL]

32. What exactly is going to help her to get better?

By the way, another patient in that hospital got knocked up. Something like that for sure is going to help Andrea.
:eyes:

[iverglas]

44. maybe nothing

The point is that we do not punish people for being ill. Not any more, at least not in theory.

[barb162]

38. She definitely needed therapy for a long time

and probably fewer kids and definitely a different husband

[hopeisaplace]

3. this is absolutely the right thing to do

she is a very sick mentally - very sick

[GoldenOldie]

8. Her husband is as responsible as she if not more so.

He knew she was mentally unstable and yet he impregnated her again?

Birthing babies one right after another and never heeding the symptoms of post-partum mental illness or taking them seriously makes him crazier or even worse an irresponsible asshole.

Those who cannot accept mental illness as a factor in this woman's actions are as blind as her husband was to the time bomb he helped create.

[tatertop]

10. He is a beast and should be caged like a beast

[LostinVA]

12. hey, he wanted enough for a baseball team -- yuk yuk

He makes me sick.

Look at the photo of Andrea Yates on cnn's front page...

[Mithras61]

24. It's been quite a while, so I don't recall clearly...

but didn't he also take her off the anti-psychotics she was on, saying that she only needed God & she'd be fine or some such nonsense?

[marshall]

55. He is not her keeper

Blaming the husband like this only feeds into the idea that women are nothing more than oversize children whose medication and lives should be monitored by their husbands. They were adult partners in a marriage, each responsible for themselves.

[iverglas]

61. nope -- but he was his children's keeper

Blaming the husband like this only feeds into the idea that women are nothing more than oversize children whose medication and lives should be monitored by their husbands.

Actually, people who are as mentally ill as Andrea Yates appears to have been are generally regarded as incapable of acting in their own best interests, and spouses do in fact have some legal obligations for each other's care, where there is a dependency relationship.

I fail to see how suggestions that a husband has at least a moral responsibility for the well-being of his incompetent wife sets us off on any slippery slope toward the idea that all women are incompetent. I can't imagine that a wife in Mr. Yates' position would be seen any differently by anyone here who has suggested he shared responsibility for the children's deaths. (Not that it's very easy to imagine a wife in Mr. Yates' position ...)

Parents have a responsibility to "monitor" the conduct of people to whom they assign the care of their children, be those people spouses, extended family members, hired help or strangers. Not in the interests of those people, but in the interests of their children, to whom they have responsibilities by law.

[BikeWriter]

66. I'm 100% with you on that statement.

[marshall]

75. She was under treatment of a doctor

Ms Yates was being treated by a doctor, and at any rate she hadn't evinced any violent behavior before the drowning incident. I can't see any grounds Mr Yates would have had to deny his wife having custody of their children.

[Nikia]

76. It was bad judgement to leave them alone with her

He probably exhibited bad judgement in impregnating her that many times too, but that aside. Ms. Yates was mentally ill. Even if she hadn't done anything violent, there was a great potential that she would be unable to take care of several small children in her condition. Responsible parents leave their small children with responsible, able minded and able bodied adults. Anything less is neglect.

[iverglas]

77. what I can't see

I can't see any grounds Mr Yates would have had to deny his wife having custody of their children.

Is where I suggested doing any such thing.

Two ideas occur to me.

Enrol the older children in school where they belonged.

Hire some childcare help in the home.

Oh, really, a couple more do occur too.

Get a vasectomy, as has been suggested here.

Participate in arranging for Ms. Yates' father, an Alzheimer patient she was caring for in addition to "home schooling" some children and tending to the others, to be placed in an appropriate facility.

Ms Yates was being treated by a doctor, and at any rate she hadn't evinced any violent behavior before the drowning incident.

Apparently true. It is also apparently true that she was not providing appropriate care for the children, regardless of whether she ever went completely off the deep end.

[marshall]

84. Husbands rule over wives?

I'm not ready to allow husbands the right to decide their wives are not capable of raising their children. Her doctor could have committed her or referred the case to child protective services if there was a reason to do so--in fact he would be legally bound to do so. Would you have Mr Yates doctor shop until he found somebody who would agree to sign papers declaring his wife incompetent? It used to be fairly easy to have that done, but is less so now.

[iverglas]

85. you know what I'd suggest you do with your "question"?

You're the lucky winner today. You're the one with the vicious and false accusation that I'm not about to tolerate.

What did I say that would support your insinuation that I propose that husbands rule over wives?

NOTHING. So ... oh, I'd say it, but I don't think I need to bother.

I'm not ready to allow husbands the right to decide their wives are not capable of raising their children.

Bully for you, big fucking deal, I don't give a toss.

I'm not ready to absolve fathers of responsibility for the rearing of their children. And I just don't give a crap whether you're ready to eat green cheese on the moon.

Would you have Mr Yates doctor shop until he found somebody who would agree to sign papers declaring his wife incompetent?

Would you speak to anyone in the real world the way you've decided to speak to me? If so, I have to imagine you don't speak to many people twice.

Why would you ask me that question? What did I say that would support your insinuation that I would "have" anything of the sort?

Did you consider READING MY POST before you "replied" to it? Apparently not. So let me offer you, once again, what I actually said:

Two ideas occur to me.

Enrol the older children in school where they belonged.

Hire some childcare help in the home.

Oh, really, a couple more do occur too.

Get a vasectomy, as has been suggested here.

Participate in arranging for Ms. Yates' father, an Alzheimer patient she was caring for in addition to "home schooling" some children and tending to the others, to be placed in an appropriate facility.

Now what part of that -- you do know how to copy and paste? -- suggested to you that I would "have Mr Yates doctor shop until he found somebody who would agree to sign papers declaring his wife incompetent"? If your answer is "no part of it" -- the only possible honest answer -- then what might your reason have been for asking me whether I would have that?

Maybe I whisper in your ear when no one is looking, and only you know what I reaaallly think. If that's the case, maybe you'd like to tell the world what I'm thinking right now.

[marshall]

89. But did she have any say-so in the children?

My question was based on the seeming assumption that all the decision making regarding the raising, education, and welfare of the children rested in Mr Yates. As long as the wife is not declared unfit and denied custodial rights, she has just as much ability to put the children in or out of a school, keep them in home school, etc.

Okay, I'll copy and paste:

Two ideas occur to me.

Enrol the older children in school where they belonged.

Hire some childcare help in the home.

Oh, really, a couple more do occur too.

Get a vasectomy, as has been suggested here.

Participate in arranging for Ms. Yates' father, an Alzheimer patient she was caring for in addition to "home schooling" some children and tending to the others, to be placed in an appropriate facility.


Again, those all suggest that Mr Yates has the sole discretion over what to do with the children. She was under the care of a doctor (I don't want to further disempower her by saying Mr Yates had her under the care of a doctor, perhaps she got herself under the care of a doctor?) That doctor hadn't declared her incompetent. Mr Yates only recourse, if he is to exercise sole decision making over the children, is doctor shopping.

[Mithras61]

80. She was under the treatment of a doctor?

There was no doctor providing care. She was left alone with no vehicle, and with children. He had refused to get her medication for her from the pharmacy, claiming that God would take care of her and the children. Her extended family saw no reason to help her because "Rusty" was a "good provider."

After her PREVIOUS pregnancy and post-partum psychosis (not just depression), her doctor advised that having further children may in fact cause psychotic episode and/or extreme behaviors, and recommended that she not have any more children. She got pregnant again at "Rusty's" insistence. Their religious beliefs made her subordinate to him in all things relating to the family.

Perhaps she is solely responsible (although apparently the courts question HOW responsible she could have been, since she apparently had a psychotic episode - and Texas courts are notoriously unforgiving of mental illness), but he certainly owed her at least decent medical/psychiatric treatment, and denied that to her.

I'm not saying he should be in prison, but he was definitely negligent of (at LEAST) her, and from what has been published and broadcast here locally (Houston/Spring/Conroe, TX) from the original trial, there's a good argument that he was at least partially culpable for the murders, since he failed to provide psychiatric care for her or protection (should have known better, since he had been so advised) for the children.

[LisaL]

94. That is not true. She was definitely under a treatment from a Dr.

Her medications had been adjusted just prior to her murdering her children. She had also been hospitalized in mental hospitals from time to time prior to the murders.

[LisaL]

95. Nope.

[barb162]

39. but he comes off as such an angel in interviews

he should have been locked up. There was something very detached about this asshole...he saw no blame in himself

[lavenderdiva]

15. I noticed your tag line picture of 41 and his wife...

and noticed the distinct similarity between her in that picture and THIS one taken from the movie, 'The Picture Of Dorian Gray'.



The picture on the left is the actor, Hurd Hatfield, who portrayed Dorian Gray in the movie. The picture on the right, is the portrait Dorian paints, in the movie, that grows increasingly disturbed and inhabits all the aging that Dorian doesn't.

When I saw your tag line photo of Babs, I couldn't help remembering the disturbing portrait of Dorian and thinking that it was shockingly similar!

[Raine]

30. Heh

that's about it, she gets uglier everytime I see her. :puke:

[NYC]

33. Interesting.

Thank you.

[AlCzervik]

17. what about her ex husband? Why isn't he in jail?

[LisaL]

21. Because he didn't kill anyone.

[preciousdove]

22. He is MORE responsible than she is...

He was the sane parent. He knew she was not rational when he left her alone with the children. He was supposed to call his in-laws when he left the trailer and chose not to. He encouraged prayer and more children despite post partum depression rather than treatment for her mental illness.

[clspector]

26. Her doctor's TOLD him

that she might have a psychotic break if she got pregnant again. He could have said, "No more babies." He could have a had a fucking vasectomy or used rubbers or done something. Instead, he knocked her up -- from all accounts her mental state had been fragile at the best for years --and then left her alone with those children. He hands are not clean in all this.

[LisaL]

29. O'key, great. So it's his fault. Whose fault is it going to be

if she kills someone else, if she gets out and is a free woman?

[clspector]

34. Way to miss the point.

I didn't say it was all his fault. I said he shared some of the responsibility. He left his children alone with a woman he knew was not in her right mind. If she hadn't been his wife and he'd left them with a person he knew was psychotic and this happened, you'd be calling for his balls.

She's mentally ill, for fuck's sake. She doesn't belong in prison; she belongs in a mental institution, which is where she's finally going. And I have doubts that she will ever leave there given how profoundly mentally ill she is.

[LisaL]

35. Geez, they don't keep them in mental institutions for long.

A few years, and then they are declared cured and are send out.
Who exactly is going to be sharing responsibility then? At least Rusty has an excuse- I doubt he knew what she was capable of. Now we all do.
Look at this guy-he killed his mother, and now they are planning to let him go. Don't fool yourself-she will be out too. And exactly who will be responsible if she does something again? Clearly, it won't be her. So, maybe we shouldn't be so quick to blame Rusty. Cause our system is a lot worse than he is, although none of you seem to even have a problem with that.

"State psychiatrists say a Troy man who bludgeoned and mutilated his mother to death in 2000 should be released from an institution, placed in a group home and eventually returned to the community because his mental illness is in remission.

Oakland County prosecutors, however, plan to fight his release at a hearing Wednesday."
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006602020646

[Bridget Burke]

43. Hey, Randy's single now!

Come down to Houston if you're looking for a nice Christian hubby.

[LisaL]

63. And Andrea might be getting out too.

She is probably not even past her child bearing years.
She can make someone a lovely wife.

[Critters2]

90. I've always wanted

to live in a bus!

[lastliberalintexas]

58. Nice right wing spin on what happens in our legal system

Some people are institutionalized for the rest of their lives following a criminal conviction, as their illness does not respond to treatment or medicine. Others do, and are put on the track to be reassimilated into society- just as many other convicted persons are.

Unless you plan on keeping people in prison for the rest of their natural lives for ANY conviction, you darn well better have a plan for when they are released. And isn't is much better to have them released as a more educated, mentally and physically healthy individual who can contribute to society? Given the tone of your posts, I wonder if you even think that our system should be about rehabilitation at all, or if our system is just there to satisfy your apparent need for revenge.


The American legal system is actually the one area in which the US is truly better than the rest of the world. But thanks for repeating the right wing talking points about how bad it is.

[iverglas]

62. ah, careful there

The American legal system is actually the one area in which the US is truly better than the rest of the world.

That's overreaching a bit.

In the Canadian legal system, we don't kill people, and we don't deny people convicted of criminal offences (including those currently incarcerated) the ability to exercise their democratic rights under our constitution, i.e. vote. On top of all those guarantees like fair trials, right to silence, counsel, interpreters, and so on. Numerous other countries' legal systems have those guarantees too.

But I'll take your assertion as hyperbole for a good purpose. ;)

[LisaL]

67. The guy viciously murders his mother. A few years in the hospital,

and he is better. He is in remission. But the problem is, that once he is released, he will go off his meds and most likely ending back right where he started. And then, there is very little doubt in my mind that he would viciously murder someone else.
If you think that's contributing to society, WTF am I to argue with that? The world is overpopulated as it is.

[iverglas]

46. if Andrea Yates had been babysitter rather than mother

... would a parent not indeed be held criminally responsible for placing the children in her care?

Up here in Canada, we have an offence called "failing to provide the necessaries of life" for a dependent person; in US states, I believe "child endangerment" is an offence.

A parent who leaves his/her children in the care of someone who fails to care adequately for them (whether because s/he is unwilling to do so or unable to do so) would appear to be breaking the law. Parents may not leave their children alone or in the care of a 10-year-old; why should they not be liable if they leave them in the care of an adult whom they knew, or should have known, was incapable of caring for them, or might actively cause them harm?

Unfortunately, that's one of those offences that isn't likely going to come to public attention unless and until some harm occurs, particularly in a case like this where the one adult capable of making rational decisions maintained the family in isolation.

The "home schooling" craze unfortunately puts more children like this at risk, and it would seem that a whole lot more monitoring of such children would be a good idea. No parent should ever be the only person in the world who knows what is happening to a child.

[lastliberalintexas]

56. We also have "reckless disregard" murder or manslaughter

Mr. Yates was very likely guilty of child endangerment and reckless disregard murder, though I would still like him to be tried before we all pass complete judgment. Very sad, sick situation- and one that he could have very easily prevented.

[iverglas]

57. didn't mean to suggest otherwise!

though I would still like him to be tried before we all pass complete judgment

I was just responding to the queries about what law he might have broken!

I might think, based on my wholly incomplete knowledge of the facts, that there would have been a case to be made, and I would hope that the appropriateness of laying such a charge was at least considered.

That said, it is sometimes the case that shit happens and no one is to blame, i.e. criminally liable. Intent to do wrong can be absent as a result of both mental illness and gross but well-intentioned stupidity, although in the latter case we do tend to apply an "ought to have known" standard.

[lastliberalintexas]

59. Sorry- I didn't mean you personally

Sometimes on this board there are posters who forget that we have a presumption of innocence in the US- at least for the time being we still do. So my comment wasn't directed at your post, I just threw that in as a reminder to some here who are repeating wight wing talking points about our legal system.


Yes, sometimes things just happen. If he wasn't a parent of the children, he'd have had no legal duty to them whatsoever. The US system does not hold me accountable for failing to act for another in the absence of a duty to do so. I could have seen Ms. Yates drowning her children and not acted and not be legally responsible (tho of course morally repugnant). Our laws do impose duties on parents, though, and Mr. Yates had a duty to protect his children. He might have a legitimate excuse for his failure to act which would negate his conduct- we'll just never really know since he'll not be put to that task by the prosecutors. Which is funny, because the Harris County DA's office is usually so gung ho about their prosecutions that they seek the death penalty for jaywalking. (and that's only a small touch of hyperbole, as others familiar with that office can attest)

[superconnected]

79. When you go that route, you now need to lock up parents of child

killers - after all the kids are underage and if they kill someone, it must be the parents fault.

Until he breaks the law, he should not be locked up. Yes he's responsible for putting her in the situation to do the henious thing she did. But he may be too dumb to understand that. If you lock him up, you open up a case to lock up a lot of married partners and family of people who kill.

[Mithras61]

82. "Rusty" wasn't too dumb...

He is LITERALLY a Rocket Scientist! (well, an engineer at NASA, anyway)

[LisaL]

96. And she wasn't dumb either. Andrea was a nurse by profession.

She was also an excellent student (according to her family).

[bleedingheart]

49. he did kill indirectly....his indifference to her condition is what

led to the death of his children.

If I recall correctly, his mother (or her mother) was supposed to be coming over to help Andrea with the children...all because he knew she couldn't be left alone...it is before her helper arrived that she murdered her children.

She was a loaded gun and he left her unattended with 5 innocent children.

Why? I have wondered why he didn't get her help...and I think it is combination of denial and also selfishness.... If she were to have gotten proper help she would have had to be in a hospital and I think he didn't really want to have his life interrupted like that.

I think he should have been charged with reckless endangerment

[LisaL]

65. Try to get someone locked up in the mental hospital-

and then come back and post here. Considering how much it all costs-and her insurance had run out. No one was going to lock her up in the mental hospital, even if Mr. Yates begged for it.

[bleedingheart]

86. My brother was committed against his will to a mental hospital

and he had no insurance.

If you are truly mentally ill, you can be and will be committed.

My brother had been severely depressed. Went out with the some people one night and got very drunk and his behavior became very erratic and scary...His friends thought that his behavior was way over the top and took him to a local ER. During the exam my brother started talking about the end of the world, his desire to die ...etc....the attending doctor immediately signed the forms to commit him to a local mental hospital. He was transported to that hospital where he remained for two weeks.

edit:...I went to his committment hearing and even though the state wanted to let him out (they always want to push people out if they can...) I insisted they keep him until they came up with an appropriate treatment plan and told them that they would have his blood on their hands if they sent him home and he killed himself.

Today with treatment and medication he is a tremendously happy person and doing very well.

[LisaL]

92. Two weeks wasn't going to do much for Andrea.

At the time she murdered her kids, her insurance had run out and so she couldn't be committed. She had spend time in mental hospitals prior to that, which obviously didn't do her any good.

[Megahurtz]

88. No, he only forced Andrea to have

one baby after another for his own selfish fucking reasoning!

Oh, I guess for that he deserves a medal or something. :sarcasm:

[Renew Deal]

37. Fuck her

Just reading this story pisses me off. It would have been preferable if she put herself out of her misery instead of those poor kids. I've heard all the BS and excuses about the husband. You know what? He didn't kill anyone. She's an evil piece of shit and the sooner the planet is rid of her, the better.

[Tarc]

45. Agreed

[Thtwudbeme]

48. Quite frankly, I think the world would be better off without barbaric

people who really truly believe in their hearts that death solves problems.

The mentally ill I can live with; it's the "well" people out there walking around hoping for more death that scare the fuck out of me.

[LostinVA]

69. Of course she isn't evil, it saddens me that you think she is

There is true evil in this world, true sociopaths, but this psychosis-ravaged woman is not one of them. I honestly hope you NEVER have a loved one affected by this horrible, horrible ILLNESS, not personality disorder.

And, why does it sadden me? Because this is 2006, not 1506, or 1806, or even 1966. The ignorance in this country about mental illness is sad. Any BS that's been written on this thread has been written by you. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is entitled to their own facts. Yates isn't evil, she isn't sociopathic... she is sick. She should be hospitalized her whole life, not incarcerated.

[clspector]

78. Don't bother trying to reason

with the posters on this thread who say, "Fuck her" or "She'll get out and do it again" or "They won't keep her locked up in a metal facility." They are too ignorant, scared, and thoughtless to understand the subtleties between psychotics, psychotic states, mental illness, and sociopaths. To them it's all the same thing.

They are the ones who burned "witches" at the stake in Salem and across Europe. They're the ones who saw "Commies" under every bed during the McCarthy-era. They're the ones who *know* that the world is black and white, good and evil, us versus them. In short they're simplistic fools who will never experience the world beyond a 3rd grade level.

[LostinVA]

83. *sigh* You're right, CLSpector -- thanks!

[pookieblue]

40. her husband and the rest of the family KNEW she had severe mental problems

the doctors warned the husband about having another child. so what happpened? They had another child anyways, Then he left her alone with the kids ...even though he saw that was going on. the woman (from what I remember) wasn't even changing her own clothes or feeding herself.. I can't remember all of the details...but he (along w/the rest of the family) saw what was going on but did nothing about it.

While yes Andrea did kill the children.... he has some part in this to. He saw what was going on, he knew that she was bad off and he chose to leave it all in "God's hands".

as someone already said, if he had left the kids with someone else as mentally ill as Andrea was... people would be calling for his head.

[OldHistoryBuff]

73. Right

Not only did the family know she was very unstable he was having his mother come help out because they knew Andrea was barely functioning. I forget why the mother wasn't there that day.

It has been awhile since I read about the case but wasn't it mentioned that Mr. Yates suspected what she had done when he got the phone call?? As her husband he should have gotten her the help she needed as soon as it was realized she was having problems.

[alcibiades_mystery]

42. Good

The bloodlusters will no doubt display their savagery on this thread, but it is the right move.

[iverglas]

47. you forgot to mention

The bloodlusters will no doubt display their savagery on this thread, but it is the right move.

The happily, smugly ignorant. And yup, thar blow a couple.

[Thtwudbeme]

50. Don't mistake human meanness for

ignorance.

And they aren't neccesarily "happy" either---if I had such black thoughts in my heart ("More death is good--some killing is justified") I wouldn't classify myself as "happy," would you?

[GoldenOldie]

51. It's apparent that a few posters don't comprehend mental illness disables.

the sane thinking process.

They want the Andrea Yates to be strung and hung leaving the irresponsible hubby (maybe he is equally disturbed), to go on with his good christian life.

[LisaL]

64. Maybe he is equally disturbed?

So, why do you want him to be hung and strung? Poor guy is obviously mental too.

[iverglas]

68. I give up

So, why do you want him to be hung and strung?

Why would you ask someone WHO DID NOT SAY OR IMPLY ANY SUCH DESIRE why s/he wants something s/he did not say or imply that s/he wants?

Are there not enough adversaries in the world without building straw ones? If you object to something someone else says, can't you do it without pretending s/he said something s/he didn't say, or thinks something you have no reason to believe s/he thinks?

[LisaL]

70. I never said I want Andrea hung and strung either.

But you don't object to the poster claiming "people want Andrea hung and strung", do you?

[iverglas]

71. funny thing is

the poster in question wasn't talking to you. (Actually, the poster in question was talking to me.) Perhaps you have assumed that the poster in question was talking about you. Not for me to guess.

[LisaL]

72. Was the poster in question suggesting you want Andrea

hung and strung? Is that what you are saying?

[iverglas]

74. it must indeed be less than happy

to be as dense or as wilfully contrary as it seems to me one would have to be to persist in this.

Was the poster in question suggesting you want Andrea hung and strung? Is that what you are saying?

Oh yes indeed, that is surely what I was saying. Of course it was. I am just madly prone to saying such moronic and pointless things in public. There is no other possible interpretation of anything I said.

Of course, the thing is that your interpretation is NOT a possible interpretation of what I said. How you arrived at it, other than through sheer force of will, I can't imagine.

The poster in question said, to me:

It's apparent that a few posters don't comprehend mental illness disables the sane thinking process.

They want the Andrea Yates to be strung and hung leaving the irresponsible hubby (maybe he is equally disturbed), to go on with his good christian life.

The poster said that in response to my own comment about ignorance, which was in response to someone else's comment about bloodlust.

You weren't involved in the subthread in question. No one was speaking to you. No one was speaking about you by name. I wasn't thinking about you when I wrote my own post, and I have no idea whether the other two posters were thinking about you. I was thinking about someone, but it wasn't you.

Now if you want to imagine that we were all talking about you, you go right ahead. All I can think of to say is: if the shoe fits.

If you want to continue this pointless meta-discussion about things that no one said, I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you. Maybe you can find someone else who'd enjoy it.

[Megahurtz]

93. Lol!

:D

[Moderator]

98. Lock

This thread is no longer providing any productive discussion