What a beautiful family she had :(
Posted on 02/02/2006 10:59:32 AM PST by presidio9
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.
Yates, 41, didn't speak as she left the jail. She carried a brown paper sack and wore jeans and a blue-and-white striped shirt as she entered a car with her attorney and a private investigator for the drive to the mental hospital.
Her attorney, George Parnham, said he would answer questions after returning Yates to East Texas, where she previously spent more than three years at a prison psychiatric unit.
The judge said she couldn't order Yates to commit herself to the Rusk State Hospital, but said she set the bond based on Yates remaining there until her March 20 trial. Once the trial begins, Yates will return to the Harris County Jail. The trial is expected to last four to six weeks.
Yates faces capital murder charges for drowning three of the children and has pleaded innocent by reason of insanity.
A jury rejected her original insanity defense in 2002 and sentenced her to life in prison for the drowning of 7-year-old Noah, 5-year-old John and 6-month-old Mary. Prosecutors presented evidence about the drownings of Paul, 3, and Luke, 2, but Yates was not charged in their deaths.
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.
Yates should be given the old Andy Sippowitz's push her head down in the toilet trick three time a day for the rest of her life.
I hate that. Guilty but insane I can understand, but just because you lose your mental capacity, it doesn't make you innocent.
The wording is important. It shouldn't be "innocent," it's "not guilty."
Big difference.
I expect that this complete charlatan and liar, Park Dietz, will not be prosecuted for perjury, will not serve any time in prison and will be paid as an expert witness at other trials in future.
I hope that the truth about this fraud is spread far and wide, so any prosecutor faced with him on the witness stand can make him admit before the jury that he is a perjurer whose testimony is worthless.
I too have a hard time with that too; I think most people would agree, killing your children IS insane, but guilty should be the charge.
Am I wrong or is it different in some states? Is is EVER "innocent by reason of insanity" is is that a mistake made by the media?? (The same ones who call weapons "guns," ships "boats" and marines "soldiers.")
Think she'll stay?
They need to let Scott Peterson out too. He had some sort of depression or whatever I'm sure, it's time to let all the killers out of jail if that nut-case vicious murderer of babies is out.
It's not guilty, rather than innocent in all states, I believe.
As I recall, after she drowned the children, she called her husband at work sounding pretty grim. He asked if something was wrong, and she said yes. He asked if it was with the kids, and she answered yes. He asked which one, and she answered words to the affect of "all of them; you'd better come home right away." Sounds to me like the actions of someone who knew exactly what she had done, and that it was bad - hence knew the difference between right and wrong. Doesn't sound like insanity to me.
The legal standard is "Not Guilty". A moral standard is "Innocent". The correct disposition, at least in New York, by plea or verdict, would be "Not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect". Reporters, from whom the information is usually gotten, are too lazy, ignorant, or both to learn and use the correct terminology.
Insanity may make you legally "not responsible" for your crimes, but it should guarantee that you never walk free again. Someone who is insane is always a risk to the rest of the world... and you'd have a hard time convincing me that Scott Peterson is a risk to anyone else.
I think that she should spend the rest of her life in a prison for the criminally insane.
She is nuts! It is obvious to anyone with eyes, who saw her when she was escorted from her house to the police car that she was as nuts as you get. Its a travesty that her husband and family didn't take her away from her family until/if she got better.
The death of those children shouldn't be in vain but used to promote the research into the chemical imbalance that occurs in some during and after pregnancy instead of shluffed off as "in their head".
Doctors and husbands should be held accountable for letting a crazy woman care for children.
None of this is happening....no good will come of this tragedy because people wont admit that hormones during/after pregnancy can cause insanity.
"I hate that. Guilty but insane I can understand, but just because you lose your mental capacity, it doesn't make you innocent."
Agreed. Here, she's clearly a nut.
She was not merely a depressive, but had been involuntarily committed to the looney bin several time for hallicinations and "being a danger to herself and others."
She was on a pharmacy of drugs to mediate her behavior and had a LONG history of being a complete whack job.
Note, I am not saying she's innocent, but I am saying that, if we have "insanity" as a defense, she's the poster child for it.
Moreover, IMHO she should NEVER be let out of confinement because she'll inevitably have a bad spell and go do something like this again.
No, she should be given the Andy Sippowitz lie detector with the extra-thick phone book. Everytime she tells a lie, he goes: "BEEP-BEEP!", and cracks her over the head with the telephone book.
That'd be my choice.
Of course, we should be doing both to Bill Clinton as well.
I was saving that for John Kerry.
But I thought women were exactly the same as men minus one appendage.
Precisely the point I was trying to make. Your post was much more eloquent than mine.
"Innocence" is not a matter for the courts, no matter how sloppy we might all get with our terminology.
Problem is, once you're "cured", even if you're on meds, they have to turn you loose - you were found "not guilty" after all.
----She should have at the very LEAST been given life with out the possibility of parole. This woman was clearly 3 sandwiches short a picnic and to allow her bail for ANY reason says that those babies' rights were not as important as their murderers' are. This case reminds me a little of Susan Smith, that drove her car into the water and left her babies to drown strapped in their carseats. She killed 2 and gets a stiff sentence. Yates kills 5 and gets molly-coddled. What messege are they sending? If you kill in bulk, you get 50% off of your conviction?
"Problem is, once you're "cured", even if you're on meds, they have to turn you loose - you were found "not guilty" after all."
I agree. Society should never take a chance with letting them out.
That said, generally speaking (there are notable exceptions), they are never released. In fact, several studies have shown that those who found "not guilty by reason of insanity" (the studies covered all kinds of crimes, not just murder) spend MORE time in confinement than those who are found guilty of comparable crimes.
The solution in murder cases, since murder has no statute of limitations, is simply for the civil court to agree to indefinite civil committment and the prosecutor hold off on prosecution until such (unlikely) time as the nutso is pronounced "not a danger to himself or others."
That way, 99% stay in the looney bin forever and the 1% that do get out, get tried.
Yates is clearly a sick individual who had a well documented history of mental illness. I am in no way saying Yates should be excused because she is mentally ill but I do think the former witness's testimony clouded her trial and she should be given a new trial based upon the facts of the case. I also lay some of the blame on family members, particularly her husband, who knew this woman was not stable yet did nothing to intervene on behalf of his wife or five children.
Yep. It's true. And they have few priviledges too.
I read what you said and was elaborating a bit. No need to be so touchy. I didn't imply you said anything otherwise.
Of course nobody will admit that! It's not true, that's why. Just ask the esteemed Dr. Thomas Cruise.
/sarc
Got to love the replies on this thread.
Andrea Yates should spend the rest of her life in a mental institution. My opinion. Hubby and her(diminished capacity), rejected doctor's opinions that she should not have any more children, due to post partum depression already present. The husband also rejected the electroshock therapy offered. On one hand, Andrea could have actually ended up a vegetable, otoh, those babies would still be alive.
Myself, and others who have discussed this, have watched her husband's demeanor during this tragedy. We find his behavior rather odd.
Parnham having presser now. He said NO money was put up for the $200,000 bond today. He said that the bail bondsman agreed to put up the money for his costs only. Parnham thanks him for his charity.
Rusty said earlier today that he thinks it's great that she's out and can be in the mental health facility where she will get the treatment she needs and "we" can all learn from studies of her mental illness.
I'm drawing a blank on Rusty's marital status right now--did he or did he not recently re-marry?
Thanks for sharing your opinion with the thread. Have a great day.
Rusty remarried? I didn't hear about that. I'm glad that the bondsman did this. Mrs. Yates needs help for the rest of her life, and I'm keeping an eye on her husband. He should have had her either given IV meds, had her put in an institution, or hired nurses...imo. We can all learn from people like Rusty Yates and Michael Schiavo.
No, I can't find that Rusty actually has. I was asking if someone else knew.
I pay as little attention as possible to him, but something stuck in my head about "remarriage" and I think now it must have just been his comments when he divorced Andrea, saying he "wanted to" remarry -- and have more children.
He had a girl friend, but I can't find anything online that says he has tied the knot. There's no one else listed as living at his address and apartment number, as of January 2006.
What struck me today with all the discussion about Andrea's release, was all the "just trust me" being thrown about. If she were a man, I doubt seriously that so much "just trust me" would have been allowed.
Everyone knows she is very mentally ill, but "just trust me" that she'll be taken to the Rusk mental hospital and "just trust me" that she'll voluntarily commit herself and "just trust me" that the $20,000 bond will be paid -- that was incredible to see in a court room!
He used to have a website that was all about the crime and how he stood by his wife. Wonder if it's still up? I'll try to find it..........
Remember:
The Houston area chapter of NOW established the Andrea Pia Yates Support Coalition, which held vigils for Yates, provided courtroom supporters, and raised money for a legal defense fund that Yates' lawyers had set up.
Deborah Bell — president of the Texas state NOW and moderator of HANOW's e-group HoustonNOW — posted a message Feb. 20 on that forum from Winnie Howard, identified in the header as "Mr. Parnham's assistant." In message #175, Howard provided instructions on how members of HANOW could obtain a pass for seats in the Yates courtroom, perhaps avoiding the public lines. She ended, "It would be great if Andrea's supporters could fill the courtroom."
At NOW's 2001 national conference last summer, then-President Patricia Ireland declared that Yates revealed America as a "patriarchal society" where "women are imprisoned at home with their children."
http://tinyurl.com/9a695
August 31, 2001
The Texas National Organization for Women has helped establish the Andrea Pia Yates Support Coalition, a group of organizations that support confessed murderer Andrea Yates, a Houston-area woman who systematically murdered all five of her children in their bathtub. Information on supporting the coalition has been featured by Katie Couric on The Today Show.
Deborah Bell, the coalition’s organizer and president of the Houston NOW chapter stated that the coalition "may be some of the most important work of my life." She also explained, "One reason I am able to do so much [for the coalition] is that I am actually being paid a small amount from the Texas NOW State Chapter."
http://tinyurl.com/cq2kb
From what Parnham just said a while ago, it was the bondsman himself who went ahead and made the bond without any money put down at all.
Here, here's the name:
"George Parnham said his friend Billy Pastor agreed to write the bond and only charge his costs for it ... "
A couple of excerpts from local TV tell more of the bond story:
http://www.click2houston.com/news/6676962/detail.html
[snip]
....
State District Judge Belinda Hill said she couldn't order Yates to commit herself to the east Texas hospital, but said she set the bond amount based on Yates remaining at the hospital while she awaits her March 20 trial.
A bondsman, who has been friends with Yates' attorney for years, posted her $200,000 bond.
Parnham said his friend Billy Pastor agreed to write the bond and only charge his costs for it, which will be far less than the 10 percent or $20,000 normally required for such a bond.
"The conditions we've set up aren't much of a risk to him," said Wendell Odom, another of Yates' attorneys. The bond requires Yates to remain at the state hospital until her retrial.
"We are committed to him to come up with the costs of that bond, but he has given us some time to do it," he added.
Yates attorneys are talking with individuals who may cover the cost of the bond, but would not disclose who those individuals are nor what Pastor is charging to write the bond.
....
Prosecutors had asked that bond be set at $1 million.
Parnham had asked for a $50,000 bond, which would have required $5,000 in cash to release Yates from jail.
Prosecutor Joe Owmby said he was worried that the court and the bondsman would have no recourse if Yates left the state hospital.
Parnham said that if Yates tried to leave, the hospital would notify him and he would pick her up and return her to the custody of the Harris County Sheriff's Department.
~~~~~
*Just trust me*
Bondsman Billy Pastor testified that the bond would be written on the condition that Yates be committed to Rusk State Hospital to await trial. But prosecutor Joe Owmby said he worried that the court and bondsman would have no recourse if Yates left the state hospital.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.