TX - Five Yates children drowned, Houston, 20 June 2001 *Insanity*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
THIS IS AN ARTICLE ABOUT YATES AND THE DEATH PENALTY. AFTER THAT, I’VE POSTED INFORMATION ABOUT TWO WOMEN AND ONE MAN WHO MURDERED THEIR CHILDREN AND WERE FOUND NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY. I CANNOT SEE ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE WOMEN AND ANDREA YATES. (Sorry for the all caps, but I was trying to differentiate my post from the material copied and pasted)!!!
I. Misconceptions muddle insanity defense debate, law lecturer says
The debate over the insanity defense in the United States is clouded by public misconceptions -- about mental illness itself, and about what happens to defendants acquitted by reason of insanity, according to attorney and University of Texas professor Jennifer S. Bard.
"Jurors tend to imagine that such defendants will simply walk away" -- which is understandable, given that juries in many states are not told what will happen to people acquitted by reason of insanity, Bard said during an Oct. 17 lecture at Pitt's law school.
In fact, "the actual statistics show that defendants who were found not guilty by reason of insanity actually spent more time confined to institutions than people who were convicted of crimes and served sentences," she said.
Bard, an assistant professor and research director at the Institute for the Medical Humanities at the University of Texas, delivered the third Mark A. Nordenberg Lecture in Law and Psychiatry. The law school and the Center for Bioethics and Health Law presented the lecture.
Bard cited three other common myths about the insanity defense:
* Such defenses are common. Fact: A "big body of research" shows that the insanity defense is raised in just 5-14 percent of homicide cases, she said.
* Insanity defense criteria are so complicated that defense attorneys easily can fool juries into acquitting clients. "Actually, there is some really interesting research showing that the vast majority of successful insanity defenses come in bench trials. It's primarily judges who are most sympathetic to insanity defenses," Bard pointed out.
* The insanity defense usually is used in murder trials. Fact: Murder cases account for fewer than one-third of insanity defenses, Bard said. More often, Bard said, the insanity defense figures into trials for minor offenses such as shoplifting and assaulting a police officer -- unfortunate but predictable occurrences when mentally ill offenders are repeatedly convicted and released, rather than being treated for the root causes of their anti-social behavior, argued Bard.
* * *

Ironically, she noted, prison inmates are the only Americans who enjoy a Constitutional right (under the Eighth Amendment forbidding cruel and unusual punishment) to health care -- not that mentally ill prisoners necessarily receive appropriate care, Bard said.
The key question in the insanity defense controversy, according to Bard, is this: Do Americans believe that individuals can be so mentally ill that they are not responsible for their actions?
Her answer: Not entirely, and certainly not in Texas.
Bard recounted the case of Andrea Yates, the Texas woman convicted of murder (but spared the death penalty) last March for drowning her five children.
Yates "was suffering from schizophrenia and depression well before she had any children. Having children just exacerbated a bad situation," Bard said.
Two weeks before the killings, Yates's husband Rusty desperately sought treatment for his wife. Recognizing Andrea's symptoms of severe postpartum depression from previous pregnancies, he pleaded unsuccessfully with Andrea's doctors to put her back on anti-depressants following the birth of their fifth child.
On the day that she drowned her children one by one in a bathtub, Andrea Yates was not taking any medications, nor had she been prescribed any since her previous bouts with depression and schizophrenia.
* * *
"Research has shown that once you get a panel of jurors qualified as death penalty jurors -- that is, jurors who say they would be willing to consider the death penalty -- you automatically have a group of jurors who are highly suspicious of the insanity defense," said Bard.
For Yates's attorneys to mount a successful insanity defense under Texas's strict "knowledge-based" criteria, they had to convince the jury either that Yates did not know what she was doing when she killed her children, or that she didn't know that it was wrong. "Irresistible impulse" because of mental illness is not an accepted defense in Texas and many other states.
* * *
Bard argued: "I think it would be an important change to the insanity defense for there to be an acknowledgement that it is possible to have knowledge but not to be able to do anything about it. And that it is possible, just as it is possible to have degrees of kidney disease or heart disease, to have degrees of mental illness that affect the thought process and [that] should be taken into consideration while assessing criminal responsibility."
* * *
But a majority of states, including Pennsylvania, have replaced the strict "knowledge-based" criteria for insanity defenses with the hybrid standard of "guilty but mentally ill."
"This standard is very satisfactory to jurors because it acknowledges that a person committed a crime, but it also recognizes that they were mentally ill when they did it," Bard said.
However, the standard defies logic, according to Bard. "If we believe as a society that there are people who, because of mental illness, are not responsible for their actions, then it doesn't make sense to create a category of people who are mentally ill but are responsible for their actions anyway," she said.
* * *
-- Bruce Steele
http://www.pitt.edu/utimes/issues/35/021024/10.html

Woman not guilty by reason of insanity in drowning deaths of kids
Lisa Ann Diaz, 33, charged with capital murder, had pleaded innocent by reason of insanity in the deaths of daughters Kamryn, 3, and Briana, 5, in the family's home last September. She faced a mandatory life prison sentence if convicted.
The jury deliberated seven hours over two days before returning a verdict.
Lisa Ann Diaz's husband told jurors that she would never have harmed her children out of spite -- the argument submitted by prosecutors.
"If Lisa had been in her right mind," Angel Diaz testified, "this would never have happened."
Angel Diaz called police minutes after coming home from work to find the two girls naked on a bed in his three-bedroom house. He testified that he found his wife in the garage "rather pale, and a glazed look on her face."
He told authorities his wife said "something bad happened to the kids" and that she "didn't want them to suffer."
Diaz said his wife's list of physical problems grew dramatically after a flu shot in 2002, including fears of having a thyroid condition, ringworm, diabetes, lupus and tuberculosis. Defense attorney Darlina Crowder documented 180 doctor visits by the woman to her physician and specialists over five years.
Diaz said he eventually became fed up when his wife's health fears spread to belief that her daughters were experiencing the same troubles.
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/state/081204_APstate_drowningdeaths.html

Mom who said she killed on God's orders acquitted
Jury rules she was insane when she bludgeoned her 3 children
(CNN) -- A jury acquitted a Texas mother of killing two of her sons and seriously injuring the third after determining she was insane at the time.
As the verdicts were read, Deanna Laney's face quivered, but the 39-year-old shed no tears.
Laney would have received an automatic life sentence had she been convicted of capital murder.
Instead, she will immediately be taken for evaluation to a maximum security state psychiatric hospital, where she could stay as long as 40 years.
Laney admitted bashing her three children in the heads with rocks. She said God told her to do so.
Laney was charged with two counts of murder in the deaths of 8-year-old Joshua and 6-year-old Luke, and a single count of injury to a child for 15-month old Aaron, who survived the attacks on Mother's Day 2003.
Prosecutor Matt Bingham has said Aaron's vision is impaired and he will never be able to live on his own.
Bingham chose not to seek the death penalty in the case.
"I don't think anybody in this room or anybody in that courtroom wasn't touched by the evidence in this case," the Smith County district attorney told reporters after the verdicts.
"For the rest of my life I'll remember Aaron, I'll remember Joshua, I'll remember Luke. I'll never forget what happened to them that day," he said.
"We have believed as strongly as we could believe that our client was insane at the time of the events," Files said.
Files said in court that Laney believed God had told her the world was going to end and "she had to get her house in order," which included killing her children.
"The dilemma she faced is a terrible one for a mother," Files told the jury. "Does she follow what she believes to be God's will, or does she turn her back on God?"
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/03/children.slain/

Texas woman finds son, 5, dead in oven

BEAUMONT, Texas (AP) — The body of a 5-year-old boy was found in an oven at his home Friday, and his mother's boyfriend was charged with capital murder. The suspect, Kenneth Pierott, 27, previously had been found not guilty by reason of insanity in the 1996 slaying of his handicapped sister.
Pierott was arraigned and jailed Friday night in the death of Tre-Deven Odoms.
The child's mother, Kathy Jo Odoms, found her son's body in the oven Friday morning, Justice of the Peace Paul Brown said. The burners on the stovetop were turned on, the oven was not, he said.
The boy had no visible injuries, Brown said. Autopsy results were expected Monday.
Odoms told police she woke up Friday morning because she was hot and smelled gas, The Beaumont Enterprise reported in its online edition Friday. She found the burners were on and turned them off. She discovered the boy's body after Pierott left the house.
Pierott spent six months in state mental hospitals beginning in 1998, after he was found not guilty by reason of insanity in the December 1996 beating death of his 25-year-old sister, who had cerebral palsy.
Court documents obtained by the Enterprise show Pierott hit his sister in the head with a metal dumbbell. He was later diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1119302/posts
 
Sleuth said:
The jury found her legally sane at the time of her actions. I have no doubt that she was. She knew what she was doing
I agree with this. She killed her kids one by one. I do believe that she is mentally ill and needs a lot of help, however, if she was that sick, why kill the kids and not the husband. Actually, she should have just ran away from it all on her own to try and get more help for herself, or she should have called someone when she had the urge to kill her kids to help stop her from doing so. From what I've read she tried to kill them another time but didn't.
 
PaperDoll said:
I agree with this. She killed her kids one by one. I do believe that she is mentally ill and needs a lot of help, however, if she was that sick, why kill the kids and not the husband. Actually, she should have just ran away from it all on her own to try and get more help for herself, or she should have called someone when she had the urge to kill her kids to help stop her from doing so. From what I've read she tried to kill them another time but didn't.


I wish she would have just done herself in. However, you're asking about a lot of "why nots" and that just doesn't work when you're dealing with someone whose mentally ill. She felt she was a bad parent. She felt that her children basically didn't stand a chance of becoming good people. She felt that they only way they were guaranteed to enter Heaven is if she killed them before they sinned. Of course to you and I, that sounds wacked. However, to her sick mind, it made sense.

My problem is with the wording of the law itself. In that long post above, it talks about other jurisdictions allowing defendants to claim "guilty by reason of insanity." Other states allow defendants' doctors to prove that the mental illness was the SOLE reason for the defendant's actions and is, thereby, guilty by reason of insanity.

Another problem is that most people don't know, and the state isn't allowed to tell juries, that the defendant doesn't get to walk amongst the population. That being in the institution with a bunch of other mentally ill individuals is far worse than prison ever could be. They can't know that a judge will request dozens of tests to be conducted of the "inmate/patient" before even the smallest amounts of freedom are given.

The bottom line is that we ALL agree that Andrea Yates is and was mentally ill and if not for that, she never would have murdered the children. I'm all for locking her up, but it should be in a hospital where she can receive the medications and therapy she needs. After all, when she does take her medication and remembers what she's done, she is so remorseful that she wants to kill herself. How can we possibly punish her more than that????

Let's face it, not all mentally ill people were born that way. Sometimes they suffer from breakdowns. It could happen to any one of us here. I would think you'd like for your friends and family members to be given a little bit of consideration should the worst happen to them and they become mentally ill.
 
kk's mom said:
I have to say I agree with you Sleuth and I hope I don't offend anyone here as I respect all of your opinions. This is just my personal opinion. She may have some problems upstairs but she methodically planned out the killings, one by one. From running the bath water to calling in or dragging in her children to drown them. When I read about the oldest one coming in after she called him in and then him realizing what she was doing and then him running to get away from her and her chasing him around the house, it made me ill and to this day I still cry when I think of all those children being murdered by their own mother. She knew what she was doing - mental illness or no mental illness. I don't sympathize with this woman whatsover. She killed her own children. Whether they lock her up in a mental institution or return her to prison, I really don't care - but as long as she never takes a step outside of the bounds, that's fine with me. As far as Randy goes - he was an ignorant, selfish, controlling husband who should have seen the warning signs long before this happend.
I agree with you. She should never set foot outside a hospital or prison again. Even if she is *sick*, she is dangerous, and should never have the right to be free.

Furthermore both her and that worthless piece of crap husband of hers should be sterilized so that neither of them is responsible for bringing another helpless child into this world. They had their chance at parenting, and they FAILED! Let's not give them another chance!

ETA: I have no problem with her being in a mental institution for the rest of her days, but the problem with the insanity defense is (from my understanding) that if a panel of doctors decides that she is *cured* then she may be released. That should never happen, and if we can be guaranteed that it will never happen, then a hospital is OK with me. If there's even a slight change she will be given her freedom someday, then leave her in prison.
 
Jeana,
THANKS for that interesting post! Facinating...
I did know this...

In fact, "the actual statistics show that defendants who were found not guilty by reason of insanity actually spent more time confined to institutions than people who were convicted of crimes and served sentences," she said.
Bard, an assistant professor and research director at the Institute for the Medical Humanities at the University of Texas, delivered the third Mark A. Nordenberg Lecture in Law and Psychiatry. The law school and the Center for Bioethics and Health Law presented the lecture.

I wish more people would realize this...

But I never thought about this...

"Research has shown that once you get a panel of jurors qualified as death penalty jurors -- that is, jurors who say they would be willing to consider the death penalty -- you automatically have a group of jurors who are highly suspicious of the insanity defense," said Bard.
For Yates's attorneys to mount a successful insanity defense under Texas's strict "knowledge-based" criteria, they had to convince the jury either that Yates did not know what she was doing when she killed her children, or that she didn't know that it was wrong. "Irresistible impulse" because of mental illness is not an accepted defense in Texas and many other states.


Now this is just obvious now that I think about it. Sad I think. I think it goes to show just how flawed the system can be when it comes to the DP and insanity.

An irresistable impulse can't be used?? What in the sam hill would you call what Andrea Yates did??

I also agree Jeana, that mental illness is a strange and confusing and under understood (is that gramatically legal?). We have much to learn about mental illness, and we won't gain any knowledge on the subject if the people that are suffering from this type of disease, are locked away in prison...
 
Gabby said:
If you look at the pictures of Andrea when she was picked up/when she was on trial/look at they eyes ,you can tell by looking she was mentally ill. She suffered severe depression after the birth of each child, and Rusty kept right on getting her pregnant...he is MORE to blame for those children dying than Andrea...she was ILL regardless of the fact she planned and carried out the murders...she wasn't thinking rationally...no one who hasn't experienced depression has no way of judging how damaging the effects of it are. She was 'hearing voices' -- she was unable to reason the difference between truth and fantasy... She deserves to be where she can get help not in prison...I followed this case when it happened, and always thought there was a miscarriage of justice in her case. Someone should 'fix' Rusty before he reproduces and puts another woman through having as many kids as God will alllow....

:clap: I totally agree Gabby.
 
Gabby said:
............. Someone should 'fix' Rusty before he reproduces and puts another woman through having as many kids as God will alllow....
Someone should FIX both of them! They should not be allowed to breed again, EVER! Even if Andrea spends the rest of her days in some institution, there is no guarantee that she won't become pregnant again. Happens frequently in women's prisons and mental hospitals. She and Rusty both had one chance at parenting, and they miserably failed. Neither of them should have another chance to propogate their disgusting genes.
 
Pepper said:
Someone should FIX both of them! They should not be allowed to breed again, EVER! Even if Andrea spends the rest of her days in some institution, there is no guarantee that she won't become pregnant again. Happens frequently in women's prisons and mental hospitals. She and Rusty both had one chance at parenting, and they miserably failed. Neither of them should have another chance to propogate their disgusting genes.


Even if the virtually impossible happens and Yates gets preggers again, I seriously doubt that they'll allow her to raise the child in prison or in a mental hospital. We're all outraged at the murder of her five children, but let's be realistic here.

Rusty, on the other hand, should be taken out back and shot. ;)
 
Jeana (DP) said:
Even if the virtually impossible happens and Yates gets preggers again, I seriously doubt that they'll allow her to raise the child in prison or in a mental hospital. We're all outraged at the murder of her five children, but let's be realistic here.

Rusty, on the other hand, should be taken out back and shot. ;)

What's not being realistic? I don't want her getting pregnant even if the child is taken away. People incarcerated should not be allowed to reproduce! I'd allow anesthesia for Andrea, but not for Rusty!! :eek:
 
I followed this case and read the books and came away with the sense that Andrea could never find a way to just say NO to Rusty -- about the bus or the pregnancies or anything else -- mix that with some "religion" and it seems like you have the ingredients for mental illness if not everything you need to make an existing mental illness worse.

Since she was aware of her actions and their consequences, I always felt that all her anger and resentment toward Rusty and her own frustration with herself for not speaking up led her to this huge awful act of revenge.

What a tragic way to make your point...
 
There is no doubt in my mind that Andrea Yates, a former RN, at one time a smart and beautiful young woman, was insane by ALL legal definitions prior to, during, and after the murders of her sweet babies by drowning.

She will be retried- and if the state of Texas convicts this woman and puts her back in prison to rot, then ALL the WORLD needs to protest.

Justice was denied Andrea, and her stupid *advertiser censored* of a husband didn't ever help her, support her or get her the help she needed. He just impregnated her over and over, at times making her live in an old school bus while he was making close to $100,000 a year.

I hope so much that Rutsy will have NO part in her retrial as a witness or anything else. His disdain for her is obvious
I saw a clip of the man on TV this AM and he was laughing his fool head off about Andrea. He said " I asked her once if she got out of prison, what would she do?" and as he SNEERED, he said " She said she wanted a pizza and a BATH.
Yes, Rustywhoshouldbecastrated, we know that she drowned those sweet babies.
You don't have to remind us.

To the family and friends of Andrea ( this excludes Rusty by all definitions):
I hope your daughter, friend, cousin, neighbor, and our collective sister will be helped by a humane sentence which gives her the intensive psychiatric help she needs for the rest of her life. I am sure that she will never be returned to society because of the enormity of her crime, but I want her to have good medical care by people who understand the disease process of schizophrenia. I am very sad about the many children she bore and killed. If our mental health system worked like it was intended to do, then her mental problems would have been aggressively treated involuntarily if needed. And she would have been put on birth control or sterilized for the protection of unborn, now dead, babies.
 
Thanks, Jeana, for summarizing the other recent casese in Texas where women who killed their children and presented the same defense and very similiar actions were acquitted due to insanity.

Note that Deana Laney showed NO signs of mental illness to her family--none that they could discern. They were members of a charismatic church that included many things in their beliefs that can also be signs of mental illness, but overall Deana Laney was functioning normally to the outward eye. She had even invited her in-laws over for dinner the next day.

Andrea, on the other hand, was clearly mentally ill. She had been in and out of mental health facilities and had been on some powerful anti-psychotic meds. She wasn't even bathing or really feeding herself. Her in-laws were well aware as was anyone with any contact to the family--not that many people because Rusty kept them fairly isolated. In fact, one of Andrea's former nursing colleagues begged Rusty shortly before the horrible event to get help for Andrea.

We don't expect people with raging fevers such as, a patient with meningitis, to "get help" for themselves. But to expect people whose thinking is clearly disordered, and who in Andrea's case, are not even caring adequately for themselves, to "get help" for themselves? They can't think straight! They are mentally ill--and that means rational thought is gone. Period.

I don't think Andrea ever needs to be released from any facility, and Rusty should have been brought up on accessory charges, if she was guilty, so was he--at least of child endangerment.

He's probably hoping this won't affect the divorce papers he just filed.

And Dietz, whose testimony was the reason the verdict was overturned, is an idiot. He justified testifying that Yates was sane but Laney was insane, because Laney heard voices from "God," and Yates heard directions from "Satan," and therefore Yates should have known that the voices SHE heard were wrong. What the hell kind of crazy thinking is that? An person who hears voices is supposed to retain enough judgement to figure out which voice is the "good" one?

If anything, Laney was much more devious and "rational" than Yates. Her husband woke up as she was beating the toddler son with the rock. He heard the baby cry out, but Laney responded that everything was fine. She called 911, too. But she was acquitted by reason of insanity. Laney was also tried in a much smaller venue, with a jury pool more familiar with her, her family, church, etc. Yates was tried in Harris County with a huge geographical size--her jurors probably went near Yates' home area only as a drive-through on I-45 freeway, going to Galveston Beach.

Andrea should never be released from a secure facility, but she was insane. Overturning the verdict was the right thing to do.
 
kk's mom said:
I have to say I agree with you Sleuth and I hope I don't offend anyone here as I respect all of your opinions. This is just my personal opinion. She may have some problems upstairs but she methodically planned out the killings, one by one. From running the bath water to calling in or dragging in her children to drown them. When I read about the oldest one coming in after she called him in and then him realizing what she was doing and then him running to get away from her and her chasing him around the house, it made me ill and to this day I still cry when I think of all those children being murdered by their own mother. She knew what she was doing - mental illness or no mental illness. I don't sympathize with this woman whatsover. She killed her own children. Whether they lock her up in a mental institution or return her to prison, I really don't care - but as long as she never takes a step outside of the bounds, that's fine with me. As far as Randy goes - he was an ignorant, selfish, controlling husband who should have seen the warning signs long before this happend.


That's the worst part for me too. All of the children suffered, but the one who ran knowing he was going to die if his mother caught him just breaks my heart. I don't believe she was so out of it that she didn't know her actions were wrong. I think she belongs in prison, and if she is as sick as some think she is then it wont matter to her where she is. Problem is now there is a very good chance she will join us out here in society, free to do as she pleases. She could be having babies in a few years.
 
NewMom2003 said:
I couldn't agree more! This is great news, imo, she needs to be in a psychiatric hospital, not prison. I remember having this overwhelming feeling of sadness when she was convicted and I'm happy that the conviction has been overturned.

Yes, what she did was horrible and unspeakable, but the woman was sick for years and needed help badly. It's always been my opinion that her husband, Rusty Yates, should be the one in prison. He knew for years that his wife was sick and it got worse with each pregnancy. He never got her the help she needed (imo).

And and I agree with you Cass. This case isn't like the Susan Smith case at all. SS knew exactly what she was doing to her children and I hope she rots in jail for the rest of her miserable life. :furious:
I so totally agree with you. Why would the woman in Dallas that bludgeoned(sp) her boys to death be found not guilty by reason of insanity and Yates not when it was obvious for years Andrea was mentally ill and spiraling downward. Rusty did deserve to be charged as an accessory.
 
We were on vacation when this happened and I didn't sleep for two days. It was sickening. The details about how those children is so awful--However, unlike Diane Downs or many other women who kill their own children, the Yates children were not abused or neglected when Andrea was on medication and functioning well. If you compare Andrea medicated and Andrea NOT medicated, you can see that this was the action of a deranged woman. She deserves to be cared for and protected and society needs to be protected from her.

Yates knew what she was doing was legally wrong, but she was convinced she was morally right. She knew she was mentally ill and severely depressed and not doing a good job raising her children, so in her warped mind, she began to believe the "voices" that her children were doomed to hell unless she sent them right then to heaven. How could she let them live here knowing they would suffer in hell forever? Such is the thinking of a deranged mind.

Don't get me wrong, I get physically ill when I think of how those children died. I don't want Andrea Yates to be released. I think people with this degree of mental illness need to be kept within facilities, because they do have violent tendencies, and we can't run the risk of them not being medicated.

The worst thing about the death of the Yates children is that they could have been prevented.

That is the truly sickening thing. Every warning sign was there and nothing worked. And those children didn't have to die.
 
Haven't read the whole thread..too long...I too think she was so terribly mentally ill...thanks to the moron she was married too who kept poring the stress on...more and more kids...Anyway Catherine Crier today agrees and thinks the courts need to address this issue of insanity over again in all cases and I agree!!! But one thing she said that I hadn't heard before...the doctor who examined her said she was the absolute most psychotic patient he had ever seen!!! She still needs to be hospitalized and even if years later she got well and was released it scares me to think she would end up back with that jackass of a husband.......he would drive her right back to the funny farm!!! He is the most self-absorbed stupid idiot I have ever seen. I know many people do not understand mental illness but he takes the cake!!! On the surface he appears compassionate ..yada yadad...but he leaves her to care for them and then adds more to the burder...I'll tell you something , I had severe postpartum after my sons' birth and having a schizophrenic sister scared the crap outta me....I never had more children because I feared another pregnancy would land me in the hospital or worse........That Randy Yates makes me MAD...:furious: I always thought they shoulda charged him with criminal negligence!!
 
By the way ..no link just memory jogging...remember reading years ago of a woman hospitalized after drowning her two kids..after many years of treatment was out remarried had kids and did it again.......Not to scare anyway but you just never know!!!:hand:
 
Thank you so very much. :)\
I really appreciate you reading my post. She has always struck a chord with me because her illness was SO visible.. even in the face of her heinous crimes.
God bless all.
CL


Texana said:
Candlelight:

Amen! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
 
I've posted this question both here and on the Andrea Yates thread in the Jury Room.

Isn't there something we can do for this poor woman? I don't think the state should even be persuing prison for her ~ help, yes ~ prison, no.

I didn't follow the trial ~ but I just read that the jury deliberated 3 1/2 hours only before they returned the verdict??? And that Dr. Diptz-shitz who testified that Andrea watched a television program that never aired???

I just don't see how this woman could have been judged competant to stand trial. And why wasn't Rusty tried for willful negligance ???

Simply funding a new defense for this poor woman just doesn't seem to be enough ~ isn't there more that can be done for her?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
163
Guests online
2,655
Total visitors
2,818

Forum statistics

Threads
599,935
Messages
18,101,793
Members
230,957
Latest member
Sarah573x
Back
Top