Andrea Yates conviction overturned

WHAT?! Well what does that mean for Andrea, is she gonna be freed or what?

Well, its the prosecutions own fault for not checking its own witnesses. If they really wanted to make sure they convicted her, they would do their job thoroughly.

I think her husband is responsible as well - he left her at home while she popped out more babies and knew about her problems - yet continued to let her have more babies.

If one was to be mad about the waste of the tax payers money, then blame the prosecution. It IS the defense's job to make sure she gets a fair trial and if they did this, then she didn't.

Even IF she had been influnced by an episode of Law & Order, how does that change anything? She still murdered her kids!

Poor excuse. Why was she only convicted of three murders and not all five?!!?!

because they held two 1st degree murder charges back in case there was a hung jury or a finding of not guilty. It's a relatively commonly used ploy during multiple homicide cases.

Now. A note or two about Andrea Yeats.

I am, personally, thrilled she's gotten a new trial. Her Post Partum Depression, and her other mental illnesses, are so well documented that one can't help but see that there was significant mental illness and a non-understanding of right/wrong ("M'Naughton Rule") and inability to control actions to the degree that she should not be in a prison but under strict psychological and physical care.

I have huge pity for her, and my heart cries for those children lost to this illness.

And frankly, I believe her husband should've been charged as accomplice after the fact in the very, very least.

Best-
Michele

I agree totally, Kellye. Particularly the part about her husband - it was really irresponsible of him to keep impregnating her, knowing that she suffered from depression, and to expect her to take care of five young children and homeschool the older ones.

The report I read in the Washington Post said that the prosecution did stipulate that the episode was never broadcast; however, I think Dietz's testimony would have to have influenced jurors. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Jan6.html

No matter how heinous the crime, the defendant still has the right to a fair trial.

I agree with you 1000%...she def was suffering with Post Partum Psychosis...which is hugely different than Post Partum Depression.

I'm sure there are others with a lot more knowledge about this, but I thought someone judged not guilty due to insanity would be hospitalized, for long-term treatment. It doesn't mean she didn't commit a crime, it means that she didn't know what she was doing, and should be hospitalized (for treatment, but still kept off the streets), rather than jailed or sentenced to death. (Is that correct?)

I can't imagine what it would be like for her if she regains her sanity and realizes what she's done - it would probably tip her right back off into insanity.

This whole story just makes me so very sad. I feel terribly sad for the children, and sad for the mother. I'm still shocked and amazed that her husband didn't recognize how serious the situation was, and send her to the hospital before this horrible thing happened.

So did I, but my impression of him is that he tailors his testimony to suit the needs of whichever side is paying him. I might be wrong, but that's really what I've gleaned from "true crime accounts".
There really is such a thing as "post-partum psychosis", as Barbara called it. I'm sure I've mentioned this on TCS before. My brother-in-law's wife totally flipped out after their oldest was born, and his first few years were divided between my in-laws' and our house(s), with supervised visits from his mother. His sister, six years younger, didn't face quite the same fate, but her mother was under constant psychiatric care and medicated while she was little. The diagnosis after both births was "severe postpartum depression", but has meanwhile been changed to "schizophrenia". The kids are now 17 (tomorrow) and 11. My sister-in-law was perfectly "normal" before our nephew's birth, but started to have delusions while she was in the hospital following his birth, mainly the conviction that she was being spied upon by the KGB, and visions of butcher's knives, etc.. It was absolutely mind-boggling, and very, very frightening. Having been through this experience, I really don't believe that Yates belongs in prison - she's neither sane nor rational, and deserves more pity than condemnation. My s-i-l drives me absolutely insane at times, but I've come to realize that she has absolutely no control over the situation, and recognizes herself that the kids need other people to depend on. She has two older brothers who've been wonderfully supportive, so everybody has been able to deal with the situation. I don't think Andrea Yates got that kind of support.

People can be cured and/or treated properly with a mental illnesses. With todays medicines and high tech treatments, people with mental illneses can lead normal and productive lives. Most of the people you see on the street babbling to themselves or worse have never been treated, or if they have they were misdiagnosed, underdiagnosed, or went through maltreatment. The book/film "A Beautiful Mind" is an example, just to name one example. I pity Andrea Yates, her mind caused beyond comprehending anguish to herself and others, that that god most of us will never have to experience.

I always felt badly about judging her husband, he was so obviously a decent man and had a horrible loss. But I never understood why he just left her alone with the kids like that all the time. I mean 5 kids is hard for a SANE person. Let alone someone with ANY depression.

You know I hope that people know that family values also involves women not getting the child raising duties thrust on them solely. I felt that her husband was so old fashioned and just thought well....she is the Mom so she should be home with all of them.

Perhaps it's time for the Victorian "McNaughten" rule to be abolished?

No it doesn't. People who are psychotic can have perfectly lucid moments, between the periods of psychosis, hallucinations, both auditory, tactile, olfactory, and visual. Again, I bring up the "A Beautiful Mind Story", this man, forgive me, I forget his name, had lucid moments in between hallucinations.

Thanks for the links, Heidi.

On the other hand, would a "sane" person who committed these deeds actually call the police?

It's a shame that people with no medical or neurological background can decide and claim knowledge of the workings of the human brain, the most intricate organ we have.

My post was for anyone who does not fully understand the word psychosis!

Well, I am angry that Dietz, the 'celebrated' expert witness, has caused this. Good thing Jeffrey Dahmer is already gone so his conviction can't be overturned, too. I have been mad all along that the husband always came out smelling like a rose.

My question is this: you are all talking about a new trial. Wouldn't that be considered double jeopardy? Or would they prosecute her for the other kids?

Allissa,

No one is arguing that the crime was horrid. No one is arguing that what Andrea Yates did was acceptable, or even comprehensible to the average person.

What some are saying, however, is that what happens to someone's thought process and/or ability to function is severely disrupted by a medical condition is to be considered here. If you've not had first hand experience with mental illness, I think you're fortunate. But there are those here who have; one has posted already, and I have clinical depression.

What I don't think you really understand is what happens in the brain. Our brain is what creates thoughts. And like any other organ, when it is not correctly functioning, there are significant issues. Because our brain creates thoughts, it is not impossible for someone who has a brain problem to think differently, and it is nearly impossible for someone who hasn't experienced that to understand just how differently this thinking can be.

Your contention that Andrea had "a convenient hallucination" speaks to your not understanding her case specifically.

What is your understanding of what an hallucination is? If I knew, perhaps I could explain a bit more thoroughly than just guessing. And also, just because your response has made me curious, I was wondering what your background regarding medical and psycho/neurological issues is?

Best-
Michele

[


Beautifully stated Michele/
If I recall correctly at one time when Yates was in the psych hospital after another bout with PP depression, the doctors warned her and her husband not to have anymore babies. The husband replied with something to the effect with "whatever is Gods will" So yes, I believe he has some responsibility here. Another thing that struck be odd, and made me think of a religious obsession were the names of her children. I believe they were along the line of Luke, Matthew and so on. It is quite common for people who hallucinate to have religious themes. I really believe that Andrea truly thought God or the devil was talking to her that horrid day.

Double jeopardy attaches when someone has been through a trial, and has been found not guilty.

As Allissa said, if one is found guilty, and that conviction is overturned on appeal (appeals generally don't assess the guilt or innocence of a person, with rare exception regarding new evidence), it is back to the beginning. The DA's office will have to sit down and reassess the likelyhood of a conviction and/or a plea, and go from there.

The DA's office has an opportunity to appeal the overturning of the conviction, and I think they will challenge it. But I also think it will stick, so like I said, it's back at the beginning.

As for them trying her on the other two children, I think that's a possibility. It's a fresh, new case without appellate issues, and they have a good idea of what the defense is now. They are also intimately familiar with all aspects of both cases, and I can easily her getting charged with the two murders, and then secondarily charged with the original three once appeals run out.

Best-
Michele

Did any of you read the article about the Yates in Readers Digest? (I can't remember the month.) In the article, one person stated that her eyes were as cold as 'shark eyes'. And her husband visited with her EVERY week, bringing a candy bar and a soda. I remember reading the story and feeling 'off kilter' afterwards, as if the story was too weird to understand.

I still say she belongs in a mental institution...no one can kill their children like
that and be sane - JMO

I heard about all of this while I was in bed half asleep and had the news on...I thought I was dreaming about this "Law and Order" contraversy.....wow....thats incredible...you also have to think to yourself...how many people were convicted because of false information presented by "Expert witnesses"....I wonder though if this "expert" had his crime dramas confused....oh well