Posted on 02/27/2006 12:12:47 PM PST by dmz
HOUSTON, Texas (AP) -- A woman accused of drowning her children has rejected a plea offer that would have sent her to prison for 35 years and is expected to face a retrial in March, her attorney said Monday.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
WOrks for me... Now sentence her to the death she deserves.
Why should she? She’ll get off. A vagina is a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Yep, and my wife never leaves home without it.
Agreed.
This woman should have been sitting on death row years ago...either that, or put to death, years ago...I don't have any sympathy for people like this.
Where can I find one?
Execute her.
"She is crazy if she rejects this deal."
Ya think?!
She has a deal of thirty-five years in exchange for murdering five innocent little kids? That psychopath should JUMP on that deal since it's only seven years per corpse. Hopefully she bites the dust long before she is eligible to get out of prison. My preference would have been that she receive the lethal injection.
If I sound heartless it is because I don't feel any particular mercy towards her. She is a violent, heartless, and dangerous criminal.
~ Blue Jays ~
Where can I find one?
Some are born with one, the rest have to rent it. Be warned, they ain't cheap.
I think you should lay off the Irish whiskey and start drinking something more fitting ... bitters might work.
Just kidding - a fellow marylander I see.
Double-Jepordy is a myth.
What about her husband? I have more disgust for him. She is nuts, for sure, but he knew she was nuts and did nothing to help her. She home schooled that bunch and they lived for years in a converted bus while renting out their house. He went to work, church and to the gym while she stayed home with the kids 24/7. The life he forced her to live would drive anyone crazy. He needs to be punished too.
Can they sentence her to death if convicted in a retrial???
Joseph Heller would appreciate this.
Agree. He's a pig and just as responsible for the murder of his children. Also, any family members that knew what was going on and didn't try to get those kids out of there.
wow. more disgust for him than the one who rounded her kids one by one and drowned them. he's no peach, but try to maintain perspective.
very few of us would think our spouses capable of such an act.
Especially if she was really coaching a fellow inmate on how to act crazy..
He didn't force her to live that life. She chose to. She could have left in the middle of the night and the children would still be alive.
They can't apply the death penalty in the re-trial, becuase they didn't ask for it in the original trial.
That being said, they only charged her with two of the murders in the first trial. They could still charge her with the other murders and ask for the death penalty in those cases without incurring a problem with double-jeopardy.
He knew she was capable. Read her history.
Evil woman deserves to go to the gallows. Hell can't wait for her.
Can she still get the death penalty or is that off the table?
I'm inclined to believe that if pressure was that great, she could have packed her bags and taken a taxi to the nearest Greyhound terminal and hopped a bus to anywhere in the country. Her husband won't win any parenting awards, but he didn't hold those poor kids underwater in the bathtub until they turned blue.
~ Blue Jays ~
Can she still get the death penalty or is that off the table?
__________
Unfortunately the limited info available at this time doesn't say.
Which is why they only charged her with the 2 murders originally. They have kept the other 3 in the back pocket for just this contingency.
I doubt they will go for Death on those 3, but I can garauntee that she will have the book thrown at her if she passes up this plea deal -- she will never see the light of day for the rest of her life.
Under our justice system, if she really is crazy, she doesn't need the plea deal. So by rejecting it she proves she's crazy and goes off to an asylum.... QED.
I think I'll still hold the person who actually drowned the children to a much greater degree of responsibility.
I wonder if she is available as a nanny. She seems so good at controlling children.
No one is "forced" to do anything they don't want to, this woman could have run away under cover of nite, those kids would still be with us. I don't have any sympathy for her.
No, Yates is the one rightly held accountable.
At some point she could have left but after she descended into madness he had years (2 babies later) to recognize her condition. He needs to be figured in the blame along with her. If anyone was ever insane it is her. She needs to be locked up in an insane asylum until the day she dies. He on the other hand will (or has) remarry and start over again.
"She is crazy if she rejects this deal."
Can they use that as part of an insanity defense?
Call a cab, that's the ticket! If crazy people were thinking straight they wouldn't be crazy would they?
Trust me on this: when I have grandchildren, if I think they are in ANY danger I WILL do whatever it takes to get them to safety. At least one of the grandma's knew as they were supposed to be supervising her the day of the murders. And this wasn't a case of no one being aware of Andrea's "illness". They ALL knew.
Would you trust your grandchildren to a woman that had been in and out of the psychiatric hospital because voices told her to hurt her children?
Agreed. If there was any justice, Rusty would be in prison right along with her. What a callous disregard for her well-being and that of the children.
I'll never forget the contrast between those two on the day that happened. She looked like a skinny wretch and he looked very well taken care of.
An actively psychotic person is capable of anything. Maybe good old Rusty should've listened to the doctors who told him his wife should never ever have another child after her first psychotic break.
A regular Catch-22.
Wasn't one of the excuses for killing those poor kids, was that they were the embodiment of Satan or some such? Now if her perspective was that Rusty = Satan, therefore offspring of Rusty = seed of Satan, than that kind of rational is not as crazy at it first appears. The guy is a freak and as head of household, demonstrated what kind of home he presided over.
So, if she believed that the children were genetically handicapped, then she was thinking "logically" on that point. However, she forgot to look in the mirror, because it wasn't Rusty who drowned them. Where's old Sparky when you need him.
People who are stark raving loons aren't exactly known for making sound decisions.
Call a cab, that's the ticket! If crazy people were thinking straight they wouldn't be crazy would they?
Catch 22. If you want to go to prison, you are crazy and can't be tried.
But if you don't want the plea deal, that indicates you are not crazy...
What about the fool who marries him? Will she be held accountable for enabling this man to potentially repeat the tragic circumstances of his former wife and late kids?
I think it's unwise to seek to spread accountability like this. That the man contributed to the creation of the tragedy is true, but the woman is who murdered the kids. I think it wiser for laws to hold people accountable for their own actions, rather than the actions of those close to them. He didn't drown any kids.
Another scenario: The wonderful teenage boy who committed suicide -- should his short-sighted, selfish, stupid single mother, who has his blood on her hands, be held legally accountable? Even though I may (and do) hold her morally responsible, I do not believe she should be held legally responsible. No one forced the boy to pull the trigger, even if some did create the environment that successfully tempted him to do so.
"Immoral" and "illegal" are two different things, and rightly.
She certainly has renewed vigor in these new legal battles. How does such a crazy loon regain her sanity so fast?
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.