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

[Texana]

AMEN. I'm all for legislation that would remove the children from the home. I'm sorry, but if the primary caregiver is hearing voices telling her to kill the kids, parents rights END there and then. What about the childrens' rights? Sure, its not mom's fault that she's a lunatic, but I think the kids' rights should then trump her right to be a parent. She can no longer take care of herself, so it reasons that she can no longer take care of them.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Amen to that.

Not bathing, not eating, unable to attend to basic hygiene needs--She was no more fit to be alone with those children or responsible for their care than a crack addict. But if she'd been a crack addict, there would have been no hesitation in removing the children from the home.

It infuriates me that severe post-partum depression is seen only as affecting the patient and the safety of the children doesn't take priority over things like patient privacy, etc.

.

 

[Details]

AMEN. I'm all for legislation that would remove the children from the home. I'm sorry, but if the primary caregiver is hearing voices telling her to kill the kids, parents rights END there and then. What about the childrens' rights? Sure, its not mom's fault that she's a lunatic, but I think the kids' rights should then trump her right to be a parent. She can no longer take care of herself, so it reasons that she can no longer take care of them.

Exactly - it's not about fault - it wouldn't be her fault either if she was in a coma, but that doesn't change anything about what the children need. Their rights are not considered nearly often enough - there's still too much of that old attitude that children are the flat out property of their parents.

 

[Wudge]

AMEN. I'm all for legislation that would remove the children from the home. I'm sorry, but if the primary caregiver is hearing voices telling her to kill the kids, parents rights END there and then. What about the childrens' rights? Sure, its not mom's fault that she's a lunatic, but I think the kids' rights should then trump her right to be a parent. She can no longer take care of herself, so it reasons that she can no longer take care of them.

Andrea was on medication until two days before the murders. More legislation will not reverse bad judgment by doctors, spouses and others.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Andrea was on medication until two days before the murders. More legislation will not reverse bad judgment by doctors, spouses and others.

Yes, but she was still hearing the voices. Removing the children would have been the best thing.

 

[Anita Richman]

Yes, but she was still hearing the voices. Removing the children would have been the best thing.

I absolutely agree!!

 

[jilly]

They were discussing the Texas law on this the other day on Catherine Crier. I'm tending to agree with the one person who said they should change the legislation to keep the law as it is for the guilt phase (because there is no doubt that she did it) and then have a penalty phase which they can bring all this psychiatric evidence in to show that they were mentally incompetent. (I think I'm explaining it correctly). This way she would get a guilty verdict and then have a better chance of going to a mental hospital.

 

[Texana]

A voice told her to kill her kids. Nevertheless, according to Dr. Dietz (the State's moron psychiatrist), it was ok to find her guilty. His fallacious logic is believing that he (an allegedly sane person) can tell if an insane/delusional person had presence of mind to truly know right from wrong.

If they follow a voice, that says it all: Insane, not guilty.

Wudge, I agree with you.

Which means the end of the world is near.
:chicken:

 

[Wudge]

Yes, but she was still hearing the voices. Removing the children would have been the best thing.

I will not argue against that obvious and sad truth.

People (spouses, doctors, etc) should always mitigate against disasters. In addition to medicinal treatment, doctors can refer cases to child services. In my mind, her doctor took a huge risk with the kid's lives.

When a person who is out of their mind kills someone that other people knew were in danger: Who is to blame? (purely a Socractic question)

 

[concernedperson]

Wudge, I agree with you.

Which means the end of the world is near.
:chicken:

LMAO! I do too. This is a first for me and I am on the floor. Wudge, please take this with good humor it has been a long haul for all of us.

I can't believe it but as Seeker posted on another thread my dash has been expanded.

 

[Wudge]

Wudge, I agree with you.

Which means the end of the world is near.
:chicken:

(chuckle) Like a blind pig finding a truffle, every now and then I get something right.

In truth, if a person is insane, "not guilty" should legally be considered an accomplished fact. For, in and of itself, "insanilty" provides for reasonable doubt.

The legal argument wherein an insane person can be said "beyond a reasonable doubt" to have known right from wrong is a logical absurdity.

 

[concernedperson]

I will not argue against that obvious and sad truth.

People (spouses, doctors, etc) should always mitigate against disasters. In addition to medicinal treatment, doctors can refer cases to child services. In my mind, her doctor took a huge risk with the kid's lives.

When an person who is out of their mind kills someone that other people knew were in danger: Whose is to blame? (purely a Socractic question)

Back to being serious. I agree. There are too many instances of denial among family groups. This is the one very public case that screams to me. I see so much dysfunction and I see where they could have stepped in but deferred. They deferred to doctors in a lot of instances which means they didn't provide the whole truth just a version.

Andrea will never be fit for society but she will serve her own demons. Rusty should have a piece of that pie.The children will never have a place in society and never have the opportunity to be dysfunctional or contribute. They are dead.

 

[Texana]

Back to being serious. I agree. There are too many instances of denial among family groups. This is the one very public case that screams to me. I see so much dysfunction and I see where they could have stepped in but deferred. They deferred to doctors in a lot of instances which means they didn't provide the whole truth just a version.

Andrea will never be fit for society but she will serve her own demons. Rusty should have a piece of that pie.The children will never have a place in society and never have the opportunity to be dysfunctional or contribute. They are dead.

Could not agree with you more about the family groups. I have seen it with families of students I taught, and with other notorious cases in Harris County. The medical profession does not take the strongest stance and sometimes, the government agencies such as CPS fail as well. When all three collide, there is a perfect storm that results in children dying.

I think that Rusty may have experienced some of those consequences when he left the courtroom during closing arguments.

 

[Texana]

(chuckle) Like a blind pig finding a truffle, every now and then I get something right.

Mr. Texana says, "Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn (once in awhile." )

That is so close to what you said, Wudge, that I KNOW the end of the world is coming. Y'all are on your own now.

 

[Wudge]

Back to being serious. I agree. There are too many instances of denial among family groups. This is the one very public case that screams to me. I see so much dysfunction and I see where they could have stepped in but deferred. They deferred to doctors in a lot of instances which means they didn't provide the whole truth just a version.

Andrea will never be fit for society but she will serve her own demons. Rusty should have a piece of that pie.The children will never have a place in society and never have the opportunity to be dysfunctional or contribute. They are dead.

This case represents yet another example of how high-profile cases work against the defendant. Andrea was widely condemned from day one. The jury pool was poisoned.

Based on post verdict comments, I do not consider the jury in the first trial to be highly reasoned. At a minimum, the first jury let Dr, Dietz do their thinking for them.

The logic for "insanity demanding an acquittal" is so crystal clear, I will say that I almost assuredly "know" that professional jurors (schooled in base Aristotlelian logic) could not find her guilty.

 

[Texana]

This case represents yet another example of how high-profile cases work against the defendant. Andrea was widely condemned from day one. The jury pool was poisoned.

Based on post verdict comments, I do not consider the jury in the first trial to be highly reasoned. At a minimum, the first jury let Dr, Dietz do their thinking for them.

The logic for "insanity demanding an acquittal" is so crystal clear, I will say that I almost assuredly "know" that professional jurors (schooled in base Aristotlelian logic) could not find her guilty.

Well, in all fairness, it was hard for them to decide otherwise, when Dr. Dietz testified that there was a Law & Order episode which featured a woman who supposedly had PPD,and drowned her children to get out of her marriage. AND--that Andrea regularly watched Law & Order.

A completely fictional episode. The jury was told to disregard that piece of evidence, but it was hard to unring the bell.

Dr. Dietz should never have been re-hired as a state witness or allowed even to testify again.

 

[Anita Richman]

Well, in all fairness, it was hard for them to decide otherwise, when Dr. Dietz testified that there was a Law & Order episode which featured a woman who supposedly had PPD,and drowned her children to get out of her marriage. AND--that Andrea regularly watched Law & Order.

A completely fictional episode. The jury was told to disregard that piece of evidence, but it was hard to unring the bell.

Dr. Dietz should never have been re-hired as a state witness or allowed even to testify again.

Dr. Dietz should have suffered professional repercussions for that, IMO!

 

[Details]

Dr. Dietz should have suffered professional repercussions for that, IMO!

Criminal repercussions - he lied in a trial, false witness to try to imprison someone based on that lie! That's a criminal act.

 

[Anita Richman]

Criminal repercussions - he lied in a trial, false witness to try to imprison someone based on that lie! That's a criminal act.

Ok, criminal AND professional repercussions! (And they should name a wimpy, insignificant and ineffective psychologist on Law & Order after him for good measure!)

 

[Wudge]

Well, in all fairness, it was hard for them to decide otherwise, when Dr. Dietz testified that there was a Law & Order episode which featured a woman who supposedly had PPD,and drowned her children to get out of her marriage. AND--that Andrea regularly watched Law & Order.

A completely fictional episode. The jury was told to disregard that piece of evidence, but it was hard to unring the bell.

Dr. Dietz should never have been re-hired as a state witness or allowed even to testify again.

The real sham is that the Judge would not let the defense expose/impeach Dr. Dietz by using his testimony from the first trial.

 

[Texana]

Criminal repercussions - he lied in a trial, false witness to try to imprison someone based on that lie! That's a criminal act.

He claimed he was mistaken, relied on someone else's knowledge, etc, etc. (even though he was a consultant to the tv show.) No penalty other than a little egg on his face.

The Houston Chronicle reported he was paid approx. $100,000 for his second testimony.

I gotta get me one of those jobs.