Let's try this one more time.........

Yates Formally Sentenced to Life
The Associated Press
Mar 18 2002 12:11PM

HOUSTON (AP) - A judge formally sentenced Andrea Yates to life in prison Monday in the drownings of her five children. Some of her relatives, meanwhile, accused her husband of not doing enough to help her.
Yates, clad in an orange Harris County jumpsuit instead of the civilian clothes she wore during her four-week trial, was fingerprinted in the courtroom. She looked into the gallery, but her only close supporters there were jail psychiatrists Melissa Ferguson and Debbie Osterman.

``Good luck to you, Mrs. Yates,'' state District Judge Belinda Hill said as she dismissed the 37-year-old woman, who will be eligible for parole in 2041. When Yates arrives in the Texas prison system, she will join 69 other women serving time for killing one or more of their children.

Defense attorney George Parnham requested that she stay at the Harris County Jail for as long as possible to continue receiving medical care.

Jurors rejected an insanity defense and convicted Yates last week of capital murder in the June 20 drownings of Noah, 7, John, 5, and 6-month-old Mary. Evidence also was presented about the drownings of Paul, 3, and Luke, 2.

The same jury took less than an hour Friday to reject lethal injection, meaning Monday's life sentence was automatic.

Yates' husband, Russell, and other relatives appeared on several national TV shows Monday, as did several jurors.

In a group interview with Houston television station KTRK that was aired on ABC's ``Good Morning, America,'' some members of Yates' family criticized Russell Yates.

Brian Kennedy, a brother of Andrea Yates, called Russell Yates an ``unemotional'' husband inattentive to his sister's needs.

Andrea Yates' mother, Jutta Karin Kennedy, said her son-in-law told her after the birth of their fourth child that he had never changed a diaper.

``I think that any man and woman whose spouse was that severely down, confused, that sick, that I would do whatever it would take to make sure my other half would get the help that was necessary,'' Brian Kennedy said.

Asked about criticism of his role, Russell Yates told NBC's ``Today'' show that some people ``don't understand the biochemical nature of Andrea's illness ... so they'll say there must have been something else going on in that household, or there must have been this or that and it's all false.''

Yates told CBS' ``Early Show'' that ``I think I have to'' sue those responsible for her medical care. He contends that his wife was wrongly taken off antipsychotic medication before the killings despite lapsing into severe mental illness following the births of her last two children.

``She was never diagnosed, she was never treated and they didn't protect our family,'' he said.

Several jurors described their decisions on conviction and sentencing, and said that the way Yates drowned her children in the family bathtub seemed premeditated and methodical.

Juror Leona Baker told the ``Early Show'' that a ``couple'' of jurors initially voted for death, then the jury discussed it and became unanimous on the life sentence.

``I believed that she was not going to be a threat to society being in prison for the next 40 years of her life,'' she said.

On the ``Today'' show, juror Melissa Ryan said, ``I think she should be punished for what she did considering she did know right from wrong and I think prison's the way to go.''

On NBC's ``Dateline'' juror Jill Sweeney said as Yates explained to police how she drowned the children, it seemed as if she was ``thinking pretty clearly.''

One juror pointed to Yates' decision the night before to drown the children and the organized manner in which she went about holding each child beneath the water's surface before calling in the next.

When she finished, Yates called police.

``She was able to describe what she did. ... I felt like she knew exactly what she was doing, and she knew it was wrong, or she would not have called the police,'' juror Roy Jordan told ``Dateline.''


This is the fourth thread on this subject. This is an interesting topic and I refuse to not talk about it because of personal attacks that have taken place in the past. Guess what, we're not all going to agree!!! Holy cow!! It's not going to happen, BUT if people are RESPECTFUL of other opinions and don't start attacking others personally, we should be able to keep this thread in the lounge....knock on wood. Any posts that are purely there to call names, attack others personally or rattle cages will be deleted. Thanks in advance for your cooperation

As well as the interview last night of the four jurors from the trial. The part that stuck with me the most, was the part shared that during Andrea Yates taped confession she told the police that Noah kept telling her how "Sorry he was that he was bad" when she was drowning him. That chilled me the bone.

On the Russell Yates interview, the entire time he was interviewed, there were no visible tears, no stammering or hesitation of speech, no sorrow, and he kept repeating over and over again what a "wonderful mother" Andrea is! Not having kids of my own, I asked Mike, who has 5 kids if his ex-wife had done what AY did, could he talk about it with such detachment even though it was a year later? He said no, he said he would be the first in line to have put a rock around his wife's neck and throw her in the ocean if she had done this. I know we will never know the true story about what happened, but I also know that Russell is more to blame than most. Russell is also talking about suing several doctors and the criminal court. I just kept thinking about how controlled Russell was and wondering what the rest of the story is that we will never know?

Any time there is a murder it is horrible. Anytime the death is a death of a child it is inexcusable. We have just had a recent situation in Toronto similar to this one. A man, who was seperated from his wife and who had a restraining order against him. He was allowed to see his kids (2 girls aged 4 and 2 I think), but was allowed no where near his wife. He had a weekend visit with his daughters and only returned the eldest. They spend days looking for the 2 yr old, but he wouldn't tell were she was - just kept saying she was safe. After about 5 days he led them to a spot in the woods where her body was. He had cut her throat. That poor baby must have been terrified. Just think about the rest of her family. I don't know why he only killed her and not her older sister.

Oh my..I felt physically ill after reading that. She held a child under the water and then called in the next. I can't even begin to imagine the fear those children felt, seeing the dead bodies of their siblings and knowing they would share their fate. MA, thats absolutely heartbreaking that little Noah said that to her. I hope that haunts her for the rest of her life- and beyond.

All I see so far is a lot of excuses- the doctor took her off her meds, its his fault. The husband didn't change any diapers, its his fault. For goodness sake- while I think there were things that could've been done to possibly prevent it, its no ones fault but the sick b**** who held those kids under. How about we start making people accountable for their actions? Maybe this will be a wake up call that the not guilty by reason of insanity cop-out won't work.

Shes so lucky she got life in prison. I wonder if her and the other baby killers in her prison block will have a lot in common? I'm so angry that this happened and that people still say 'Oh , the poor thing, wheres the compassion'. If it was my spouse who killed my kids, they'd never make it to prison because I'd kill them myself. Thats harsh, but honest.

I hope this thread can stay "clean"! It is an interesting topic and I think that most of the posts on the past threads have been really good, well written opinions. Even dissenting opinions have been good to hear! We all need to hear the other side of the issue as well as cheering our own.

The more I hear about what Andrea Yate's husband says, the more I think he has more responsibility in this case. She did have mental problems. However, they did have another child even after she was having the problems, against the advice of her Dr. He obviously didn't do anything to help her with the care of the children. And now he wants to sue the shrinks? There is only so much a psychiatrist can possibly do. There is a lot of stigma that goes along with seeing one to begin with, let alone telling them all of your darkest secrets, which Andrea obviously had a few.

Also, one of the past threads had an article about the religious zeal that they adhered to. Nothing wrong with having a strong faith. I just have a hard time believing that he is telling everything that went on in that house. Zealots usually know that their practices are not accepted outside of their circle, and will sometimes even deny what they do so as not to arouse public disapproval.

Anyway, I guess my point is - Why can't he accept that he did play a role in this whole thing? You can't just blame everyone else. But then again, he won't even really blame his wife for what she did. Can you say DENIAL!?!?

There was an article in TIME Magazine with friends of Andrea Yates, and her best friend said that "Russell is only concerned with Russell" It appeared that he did not think it "unusual" that his wife would walk around in endless circles about 30 times a day, or tear out huge tufts of her own hair. It appears in this interview that he was wanting to build his own "Empire" and have a large family, though Andrea did try to tell him after the second son, that she was tired and didn't want anymore. My guess is yes, he is probably an abusive husband and father and a very controlling force. Heck, (and I know this is kind of off the subject in a way)But not having my own children only cats I can only use them for comparison, but Smudge who was Micheal's cat and died over 3 years ago, when he speaks of her to this day, he still gets choked up! Yet Russell Yates who lost those 5 beautiful children speaks effortlessly on the subject? Something smells here badly.

I've been avoiding this thread because the whole situation horrifies me. Not so much the articles that get quoted but all the other stories or little details that get added later. I can't imagine dying at your parent's hands . . .

Anyway, as far as Yeats is concerned, I think this is an acceptable outcome. She is guilty of killing the children, there is no doubt there, but given her medical history and her husband's reaction (which says something about the state of their relationship and household), I think lethal injection would have been unfair. She should definitely pay for what she did, but on another level she didn't act in a vacuum. To execute her would have said, to me, that she alone was responsible for what happened. I feel that a life sentence says she did the wrong thing by choice and was maybe even aware she was making a mistake, but that there were other influences on the situation. I think justice really was done in this case.

As for not being insane because she called the police, well, Jim's dad is suicidal off and on, because of the pain he's in. He drank a gallon of bleach not too long ago, then went to the hospital. I believe he wanted to die when he did it, but something changed afterwards. So when you are talking about someone's mental state, I can believe that they have moments of insanity and moment of being lucid. And who knows, if hubby was as cold as he seems, she could even have thought it was wrong to kill the children but they would be better off dead than living in that family. Still delusional and wrong, but somehow more human and understandable.

I am in complete agreement w/ SusieQ....Russell Yates is just as responsible, and I really wish he had been tried as well.

Thank you, Airprincess, for starting this thread again. I was disappointed (but not terribly surprised) to see the last thread disappear. It got all personal, then *poof*.... sigh... the drama...

I think the outcome was reasonable, and the law was applied correctly. It would have been very disconcerting if she had been found not guilty, since she did so obviously kill the children, had planned to do it, and was in some way aware that it was unacceptable. However, the mitigating circumstances of her psychosis warranted the application of a life sentence and not the death penalty.

I have been thinking about crime and punishment a lot lately; the Ottawa Citizen newspaper is running a series about it this week, comparing different justice and prison systems. It was interesting to see the actual stats for different countries. In Canada, the incarceration rate is 119 per 100,000 people, in the US it is 702, while in Finland (profiled in today's paper), it is only 52. For 5 million people, they have only 8500 police officers. However, the crime rates in Finland compared to other European countries with a more American "tough on crime" approach, were almost identical. Meanwhile, reforms in the Finnish prison system have saved the taxpayers almost $200 million over the last 20 years, as well as having 6500 person-years of available societal contribution by the people not in jail. They have also removed a lot of the stresses of prison life which are the main cause of prison violence and death. Mothers are allowed to live with their small children in prison, men and women are housed together, some prisoners are allowed to work in society and to have visits home, and there are educational opportunities available to everyone, usually without the supervision of guards. The point is not so much to punish people, but to rehabilitate them, and get them to where they want to leave prison and be a contributing member of society, and not be involved in crime again.

It seems to me to make a lot more sense than what we're doing on this side of the ocean. My compassion for Andrea Yates does not negate my compassion for her children. I, too, was nearly in tears and chilled when I heard some of her confession. But anything that happens to her now cannot change the past. Perhaps some people feel better when the person who hurt them or their family is killed in retaliation for a crime (ie. death penalty), but many do not. They just feel that another life has been wasted.

Devil's advocate speaking here: People say, she has to pay for what she did... I have to ask, in all seriousness, why? To deter other psychotic people from killing people they love? Are they really going to make that connection? Doubtful... I agree that she certainly has to be treated for her illness, carefully watched, and not allowed to have children again, but I would have thought that before she killed her children. It has nothing to do with punishment.

Whew, that's long... too many days spent thinking and not posting...

Yates Family Members Decry Husband

HOUSTON (AP) - Andrea Yates' family accused her husband Monday of not doing enough to address her mental illness in the days before she drowned their five children.

The comments came in a group interview with Houston television station KTRK that was also aired on ABC's ``Good Morning, America,'' on Monday.

Brian Kennedy, a brother of the 37-year-old Houston homemaker convicted of capital murder in the deaths of three of the children, called
Yates' husband, Russell Yates, an ``unemotional'' husband inattentive to his sister's needs.

Andrea Yates' mother, Karin Kennedy, said her son-in-law told her after the birth of their fourth child that he had never changed a diaper.

``I think that any man and woman whose spouse was that severely down, confused, that sick, that I would do whatever it would take to make sure my other half would get the help that was necessary,'' Brian Kennedy said.

Asked about criticism of his role, Russell Yates told NBC's ``Today'' show Monday that some people ``don't understand the biochemical nature of Andrea's illness ... so they'll say there must have been something else going on in that household, or there must have been this or that and it's all false.''

Several of the jurors who voted to convict Andrea Yates of capital murder last week said the way she drowned her children in the family bathtub seemed premeditated and methodical.

In television interviews, the jurors described their decision to find Yates guilty in the June 20 deaths of three of the five children and
recommend that she be sentenced to life in prison.

The jury's recommended sentence was expected to be formalized Monday by State District Judge Belinda Hill.

Juror Leona Baker told CBS' ``The Early Show'' that a ``couple'' of jurors initially voted for death, then the jury discussed it and became
unanimous on the life sentence.

`I believed that she was not going to be a threat to society being in prison for the next 40 years of her life,'' she said.

On the NBC ``Today'' show Monday, juror Melissa Ryan said, ``I think she should be punished for what she did considering she did know right
from wrong and I think prison's the way to go.''

A juror identified on NBC's ``Dateline'' as Jill, a social worker, said as Yates explained to police how she drowned the children, it seemed as if she was ``thinking pretty clearly.''

One of the jurors pointed to Yates' decision the night before to drown the children and the organized manner in which she went about holding each child beneath the water's surface before calling in the next.

When she finished, Yates called police. 'She was able to describe what she did ... I felt like she knew exactly what she was doing, and she knew it was wrong, or she would not have called the police,'' said a juror identified by ``Dateline'' as Roy, a math teacher.

The jurors on the Sunday broadcast of ``Dateline'' said they started by considering what they found to be the most compelling evidence - the videotaped confession to police and photographs of the children, alive and dead.

Yates could have faced the death penalty based on the two capital murder convictions for the drowning deaths of Noah, 7, John, 5, and 6-month-old Mary. Evidence also was presented about the deaths of Paul, 3, and Luke, 2.

Yates, 37, will have to spend at least 40 years in prison before becoming eligible for parole.

The jurors said they believed Yates was mentally ill, an opinion shared by both the prosecution and the defense, but they also believed that she knew right from wrong - a key element in determining whether a defendant meets the legal definition of insanity.

`Andrea Yates, herself in her interviews, said she knew it was wrong in the eyes of society,'' Jill said. ``She knew it was wrong in the eyes of God, and she knew it was illegal. And, you know, I don't know what wrong means if all those three things aren't factored in.''

Yates had been treated for schizophrenia and severe depression after the births of her last two children.

Russell Yates told ``The Early Show'' that ``I think I have to'' sue those responsible for her medical care. He contends that she was wrongly taken off antipsychotic medication before the killings.

``She was never diagnosed, she was never treated and they didn't protect our family,'' he said.

Originally posted by Hell603
Andrea Yates' mother, Karin Kennedy, said her son-in-law told her after the birth of their fourth child that he had never changed a diaper.

Click to expand...

Everytime I hear of a child being murdered, I want to go get my children and hug them and tell them that I love them dearly. I cannot imagine hurting them. I don't even spank them. All they get is time outs. By the way, how old is Yates and how old do you think she will be when she is paroled in 2041? I hope she gets her tubes tied and she dosen't have any more kids!

She is 37 and has been sentenced to 40 years in prison before she can go to her first parole. That means she will be 77 years old.

He never changed a diaper????????? OMG.....I think my husband has changed more diapers than I did with my kids!
That is such a travesty.....obviously he was not a "hands on" father and that probably contributed to her postpartum psychosis state in the first place!

Hi ya'll... Long time no post huh..

First off, AP Im sorry you had to post this so many times.. I don't get it, ya know...
Secondly.... Danger to society or not, I really think she ought to be put to death in the same manner as the deaths she caused. It would be fitting.

Thirdly (not sure if an "E" goes in there or not)

From what I've seen and read, mind you it probably isn't all of the story, but I really think her hhusband has a very large part of the blame here and therefore should be tried as an accessorie (or would that be a "Y" on the end????).

What really gets me, besides maybe a little emaotion that he showed on the day of the murders, has anyone ever seen him ACT like he was sad??????

For me, I would be so very broken that there is no way I could face the media...

Kinda makes ya wonder huh..

*smiles*
Ken

Julie you bring up some really good points, and I do think that we, as a society, should re-think our prison system. Unfortunately, the US does not really aim for rehabilitation of its prisoners. (If you look to the history of the prison system in the US, the first prison was set up by the Puritans, who's sole intent was to punish. Even though many other Puritan philosophies have faded away, that one has stuck around.) The other unfortunate side affect of this is that we have many more repeat offenders and those repeat offenders are often better at their crimes than before they went in.

Right or wrong I guess that also, philosophically, answers your Devil's Advocate question. Punishment is not always used as a deterrant, although one would hope that it may make someone think twice about breaking the law. Psychotics probably won't view it as a deterrant, but the laws and punishments are not written exclusively for psychotics. At the same time, there are many people with very serious mental disorders that still abide by the rules, more's and laws of whichever society they are in.

As for me personally I was taught that for every action there is a consequence. Some are good and some are bad depending on your choice of actions. As a country that values personal freedom almost above all, the harshest punishment is to take that freedom away.

Don't forget, Russell Yates was holding a press conference on his front lawn, showing as much emotion as one might show when they announce that the mailman had come or the dog needs to go out. His kids weren't even cold yet.

Also, I think it's sickening that he's going to sue everybody. The reasons his wife snapped is because HE kept pulling her out of the hospital AMA!

He's already talking of divorcing her, and having more kids with another woman someday. Like anyone would marry that freak!

The Harris County DA has expressed regret in not having enough evidence to bring charges against him. Unfortunately, the only thing plainly evident is that he is phenomenally self-centered, self-absorbed, and stupid.

Unfortunately, Cooie, there's some woman somewhere that thinks he's cute, or it's all Andrea's fault, or it would be different if he was with her, etc. My dad used to say, "the rocks in his head match the holes in hers" There are people who just fit together, and sometimes they even find each other. {sigh}

HOUSTON -- The cloistered household in which Andrea Pia Yates drowned her five children was laced with offbeat, even dangerous, religious zeal, according to testimony in Yates' capital murder trial Thursday.

It was a home in which the husband and wife stuck to traditional roles. It was a home in which medicine was frowned upon, school systems were unacceptable and institutional religion was a tool of evil. Doomsday leaflets mailed to the house gave hysterical warnings against demonic influences that threaten young children.

"I cannot stress how serious the whole thing is: By the time a child is 14 or 15 years old, it's too late," the Perilous Times newsletter said. Yates' husband, Russell "Rusty" Yates, read aloud from the tract during Thursday's testimony. "If you feed them with the world's ways, you reap what you sow." "Do you have any idea how the information you just read would play to the mind of a psychotic individual?" defense lawyer George Parnham asked Rusty Yates.

When she confessed to killing her children on a summer morning, Andrea Yates told detectives, "They weren't developing properly." Later that week, she told her brother that Satan was living inside her. Yates has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.

For years, Andrea Yates suffered suicide attempts, catatonic states and psychosis. In a quavering voice, her best friend told the jury she watched helplessly while the 37-year-old mother wasted away, stopped talking to her children and paced aimless circles with a baby on her bony hip. Yates stopped bathing and grew too emaciated to breast-feed, said Deborah Holmes. The two women became friends before Yates' marriage, when they worked together as nurses in a Houston hospital.

For two years before the Yates children were killed, Holmes had kept a diary chronicling Andrea Yates' condition "in case something bad happens."

"I called her husband crying and sobbing, saying she needs help now," said Holmes. "He'd say, 'I'll look into it.' I'd say, 'She's not going to make it through the weekend.' "

Holmes said Rusty Yates considered child care a woman's responsibility and refused to help his wife tend the children. "I'm not saying he didn't play with them or enjoy them, but as far as care for them, he didn't," Holmes said. "If the kids' faces or hands were dirty, he'd say, 'Wait till your mother comes.' "

Therapist Earline Wilcott counseled Andrea Yates for months in a Christian center. The only time she met Rusty Yates, he quoted from the Bible: Wives must submit to their husbands. "Sense of [Andrea Yates] being overwhelmed and trapped with no alternative," Wilcott jotted in her notes.

"I hoped she could have more support from him in terms of helping with home school and having more time off," the therapist testified Thursday.

The religious tracts apparently wielded a heavy influence over the family's lifestyle. They were written by Michael Woroniecki, a preacher who roams college campuses with a message: "You are going to hell."

During his undergraduate years, Rusty Yates met Woroniecki on the grounds of Auburn University and the two struck up a friendship. They stayed in touch, and the preacher's wife exchanged letters with Andrea Yates.

The leaflets said women have a biblical duty to endure natural childbirth as a "humbling" rite of passage. Andrea Yates gave birth to all five of her children without the aid of medication.

The pamphlets also insisted on the importance of home schooling. While his wife sat catatonic in a mental hospital, Rusty Yates was out house-hunting. He had a stipulation: There had to be space for a home school, which was Andrea Yates' job. "The social interaction the world tells you is so important is exactly what you need to protect your children from," the leaflet reads.

The decision to abandon their first suburban house in favor of a nomadic life in trailer parks came after the birth of the Yates' two eldest children. The family lived for a time in a converted Greyhound bus Rusty Yates bought from the Woronieckis for $37,000. A pregnant Andrea Yates--who had recently miscarried--slept on a couch because she was afraid to climb over the steering wheel into the couple's bed, Holmes said.

The family adored its newfound simplicity, Rusty Yates said. "We had a lot of stuff, a surprising amount of stuff," he told the jury. "It became burdensome."

But it was more than that, Holmes and Wilcott testified: The couple insisted upon moving into the trailer, they said, because they feared the children would become materialistic. So they held a garage sale, and Andrea Yates lost her wedding gifts, furniture--just about everything except her sewing machine and cookware.

"You saw her give up everything she'd worked so hard to gather when she was out on her own?" prosecutor Kaylynn Williford asked Holmes.

"Yes," Holmes replied. Meanwhile, Rusty Yates rented a storage space for his tools, she said.

"Are you very fond of Rusty Yates?" Parnham asked Holmes at the end of her testimony.

"That's irrelevant," Holmes replied. "It's her husband."

MEGAN K. STACK, LA TIMES STAFF WRITER

I would like to sat thankyou blue. It's contributing factors such as you posted that set me and many,many others against the knee-jerk reaction of execution. This process described above is known as brain-washing. This was and is used to make people do the most insane acts imaginable. It's not a game..it's all too real. There's a recognized and legal religion that will let it's children die rather than recieve such a simple thing as a blood transfusion. They have even used the courts to enforce their beliefs and train the children from birth to refuse treatment. Could this not be viewed as pre-meditated murder?

Sometimes I wonder why God doesn't obliterate the human race and start over.