Posted on 07/28/2006 9:14:42 PM PDT by Niuhuru
"It's a shame that there's no law that can give Russell Yates his due," writes syndicated columnist Debra Saunders. "Russell Yates ought to be locked up instead of his wife," says writer Cindy Hasz. Creators Syndicate's Froma Harrop sneers that he probably "misses the obedient drudge who bore and raised his five children more than the five children." Harsh words for Russell Yates have come from many others, particularly former O. J. Simpson prosecutor Marcia Clark.
What these and others forget is that it's hard to make the right decision when you don't have a lot of options. According to Andrea Yates' brother, Andrew Kennedy, Russell Yates "did his best....He trusted the doctors and he did everything they said to do. He made sure she took her medication."
Psychiatrist Mohammed Saeed took Yates off the drug Haldol on June 4. Russell Yates, worried about his wife, brought her back to Dr. Saeed on June 18. The doctor said he saw no sign of psychosis and sent her home.
Two days later, she killed their five children.
Instead of using 20-20 hindsight, let's look at the situation as it must have appeared to Russell Yates before June 20. Mental illness is difficult for untrained people to cope with and to comprehend. Dr. Saeed had indicated that he believed that Andrea Yates was getting better, and Andrea herself has testified that she told nobody, not even her husband, about the "voices in her head." While Russell surely had doubts about leaving the kids with her, he didn't have a lot of choices. He couldn't quit his job to care for the kids--somebody had to put food on the table. Ending the home-schooling, a violation of both of their beliefs, might have been a severe blow to his fragile wife's self-esteem, perhaps pushing her over the edge.
Instead, Russell made the one move he needed to make--he brought his mother in from Tennessee to watch the kids every day. He generally left for work at 9 am and his mother arrived at 10 am, and he thought he had the situation under control.
He also probably believed that the best thing to do was to try to keep their family life stable, to try to be cheerful and to make the kids happy, and to hope that the medications would work and that his wife would get better. He may have believed that much of what Andrea was going through was simply post-pregnancy mood swings, and that the best thing to do is to be patient and to wait them out. He also attributed much of his wife's distress to the death of her father early last year. And he no doubt was in some denial, as people who are trapped in difficult situations often are. But should he really have expected that his troubled wife would kill their children?
The genuine mistakes Russell Yates made came earlier, when both he and Andrea decided to have a fifth child (perhaps because one or both of them wanted to have a girl), and when they decided upon home-schooling. Yet these decisions, which are now used against Russell, were mutual and were based upon the religious and moral beliefs of both Russell and Andrea. In fact, the testimony of Terry Arnold, a local merchant, indicates that Andrea Yates may have wanted a sixth child. Arnold testified that when he asked Andrea last year if they planned to have another child, a sudden wave of sadness washed over her.
"I felt like I had hit a sore subject," Arnold said. "There was a change in her demeanor...I thought she was going to cry."
Andrea's best friend claims that Russell didn't help out much around the house. It's hard to know how true this is, but we do know that Russell Yates was involved with his kids--he coached their sports teams, played basketball with them in the driveway regularly, selected and purchased some of their school materials, and was often seen around the neighborhood in the evenings as he walked with his family and pushed his youngest daughter in a stroller. He and his kids made lists of things they could do to cheer mommy up. And Russell alone shouldered the burden of supporting a wife and five children--a task certainly equal to the strain of being a housewife if home schooling is not in the equation.
Andrea Yates' defenders claim that she is not guilty of her crimes due to mental illness, and they may be correct. But the husband who has stood by his wife from the day of the tragedy, who has testified in her defense, and who has fought the public perception of her as a monster, deserves better than to be blamed for the murders and to be vilified as a cruel, domineering patriarch. Russell Yates is a flawed yet decent human being who tried to do what he could in a difficult and cloudy situation. Whether sane or insane, it is Andrea Yates, not Russell Yates, who killed their five children.
Good post. Hope your flame suit's handy.
My favorite character on Rawhide...
VASECTOMY!!!
Wasn't that cousin Rowdy? Rusty & Rowdy?
Prior to the murders, there isn't much that he could have done. Who would suspect the mother of your kids would do such a thing? After the murders, in his shoes, I'd have made sure she didn't live to go on trial...no jury would have convicted him for killing her.
Rowdy's evil twin was Russell. Clint played both roles. The only way to tell them apart was Russell wore ballet slippers and woe to the man who commented on them...
The same people who believe Andrea is and was clearly non compos mentis then try to argue that making mutual decisions when one half of the equation is not playing with a full deck is an acceptable form of reasoning.
This guy is the most selfish bastard I've ever seen, and he has the nerve to criticize others?
Frankly, I don't think he gave one damn about his wife, especially after he brought that goofy street preacher into his house, and let him convince a psychotic woman that she had to watch out for Satan!
Dude, he just posted the article. That doesn't mean he/she agrees with the contents.
Thank you for reminding us that sex is something that men do... to women. That was very helpful.
Important to remember, that were these kids, still alive, the Libs, the Fed/Guv and many States would be busting their a$$ to push queers on them and other kids in the public schools. Too true, ain't it? Sleep well.
He was saying and doing some very bizarre things from the day of the murders onward.
I kept thinking "Mr Yates is going to wake up one day soon and realize he was in shock when he said and did these things, then he'll change his tune." But he never did!
They were homeschooled, by Andrea.
Haldol? What was she taking Haldol for? That is an old anti-psychotic. I took it once, when I was a kid (they mis-diagnosed me - I was just depressed, but I had a reaction to it). I know MANY people who are not psychotic, but take many anti-psyotics... They seem worse than they were before. I know some who are truly crazy (schizophrenic) who need the meds just to function. I still wouldn't trust them with more than a hamster... I should read up on her case. I'm afraid it's easy to think she was insane, cause she took Haldol, but that doesn't mean much anymore. Instead of shrinks, they just pump people full of drugs now, even if all they need is an ear. I question the sanity of the jury.
He was not a stupid man, and didn't he have them living in a "bus". More than that I personally would have wanted the head of anyone including my spouse had they done this to my children. They would have to sedate me.
Brave poster. You're about to get flamed, I'm sure.
This is a sad and disturbing case on many levels. As I have listened this week to the hysterical know-it-alls, I have wondered how many of them have coped with a relative who is profoundly mentally ill.
I have. Twice. Two gentlemen, good providers and good citizens, both crazy as loons when not under medication. Close kin to each other. You have to wonder about genetics.
I would never have left my children alone with either of them.
Supervised care for the mentally ill is hard to come by and expensive. As soon as the medication takes effect and they can think clearly, they must be turned loose. Feeling better, feeling no need for meds, the cycle starts again, and they're on the road to being a danger once again to themselves and to others.
I hurt for everyone involved in the Yates case.
*My true love will be waitin', be waitin' at the end of my ride ... Move 'em on, head 'em up, Head 'em up, move 'em out, Move 'em on, head 'em out ... Raaawww-hiiide!*
Aw, what the hell:
Rollin', rollin', rollin'
Rollin', rollin', rollin'
Rollin', rollin', rollin'
Rollin', rollin', rollin'
Rawhide!
Rollin', rollin', rollin'
Though the streams are swollen
Keep them dogies rollin'
Rawhide!
Rain and wind and weather
Hell-bent for leather
Wishin' my gal was by my side.
All the things I'm missin',
Good vittles, love, and kissin',
Are waiting at the end of my ride
Chorus:
Move 'em on, head 'em up
Head 'em up, move 'em on
Move 'em on, head 'em up
Rawhide
Count 'em out, ride 'em in,
Ride 'em in, count 'em out,
Count 'em out, ride 'em in
Rawhide!
Keep movin', movin', movin'
Though they're disapprovin'
Keep them dogies movin'
Rawhide!
Don't try to understand 'em
Just rope, throw, and brand 'em
Soon we'll be living high and wide.
My hearts calculatin'
My true love will be waitin',
Be waitin' at the end of my ride.
Rawhide!
Rawhide!
"I would have acquitted Andrea Yates" - Charles Krauthammer http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer031802.asp Well, this article is from 2002. I wonder if more has come out that might influence his opinion.
Andrea Yates was nuttier than a fruit bat. Anyone who has to take medication to get through three hours of the day simply is not responsible for what she does when she's not on her fruit bat pills.
Makes me wanna play "Crack the Whip" and yell "Yee Haw!"
Makes me hanker for all the things I'm missin',
good vittles, love, and kissin'
So they're better off dead?
I truly don't understand the fascination with this thing. He was a little nuts. She was a lot nuts. The kids are dead.
There's no way to understand motivation or "how someone could do such a thing" because she nuts and none of the standard rules apply.
As others have said, the poster didn't write the article. May not even agree with it... I have known people who are crazy. I have had neurological incidents (seizures) where I hallucinated, and didn't know what I was doing, or thought I was losing my mind. I was misdiagnosed (my reg Dr thought it was OCD, till I had a Grand Mal). The sad thing is, too many have played games with the justice system, and I have little tolerance for anyone saying they are insane. Yet there are insane people. I don't know if she was. If she was, the just thing would have been guilty, but insane, and locked up in a hospital ward of a prison for the rest of her life. John Hinkley (who I believe was insane) should not even be allowed to leave the hospital grounds.
But of course not...
Reasonable people might suspect she now has a reason to lie about that.
This woman possesses a remarkable will to live and go free for someone who is supposedly (more or less) sane now and is guilty of murdering her five children.
Russel Yates, for his part, demonstrated a criminal negligence for the situation. Your wife is crazier than a craphouse rat and you think homeschooling and more children is going to help things?
She deserves some sort of middle age death sentence and he should be castrated with a rubber hammer.
Instead in our mad world she gets a sympathetic pat on the back and he's off drilling for another shocking headline.
Oh, grow up! He was "doing it" to a nutcase...and he KNEW she was a nutcase!!
Loved that line - hadn't remembered it until seeing it in your post.
I can't help but always think of the Blues Brothers with the theme song now.
Oh, grow up! He was "doing it" to a nutcase...and he KNEW she was a nutcase!!
To quote Van Morrison:
She give me love, love, love, love, crazy love
OK. I'll assume she was. Now, isn't there the chance that she will be released? I don't see how this is good for anyone. I've known women with post partum, many years ago. Kind, good-hearted, who feared they would hurt their kids. Got help (locked up in loony bin). With her though, and the way things are now, I could imagine her getting out in the future... Awful situation all round.
All the powers-that-be keep saying she will never leave the system and will live out her days in a mental hospital, yada yada. It will take the judge and even a jury to get approval for her to do anything.
But, legally, how in the world can that be if the verdict is "not guilty"? It just doesn't compute.
OMG. She was seeing a psychiatrist and didn't tell him about the voices in her head? Why?
You're right. I just wish this brute she was married to would realize that nobody gives a damn what he thinks about anything.
But, legally, how in the world can that be if the verdict is "not guilty"? It just doesn't compute.
She's got a head full of bad wiring. Alot of the stuff you think of as making up a person is short circuited.
Because he might think she's craaazzzy!
You're right. I just wish this brute she was married to would realize that nobody gives a damn what he thinks about anything.
He's probably trying to reclaim his life and get some mesure of redemption. It probably won't happen.
I only have two words to say about this case.
"Not Guilty"????????
Until I read this article, I didn't know that people were blaming the husband at all. It seems from the article that the hardened feminist types that believe that any time a woman shoots a man, the man had it coming, unsurprisingly are blaming Andrea's husband.
What I'm really surprised about is that the people on this forum are saying he should be locked up. Having 5 kids used to be common, and by itself does not drive someone to multiple acts of homicide. From what I remember in the news early on was that postpartum depression had to do with this. Isn't this a temporary condition? Wouldn't a clean bill of health from a psychiatrist be convincing enough proof that it was over?
I think the comments that he should have stopped having kids sometime before 5 (2 or 3?) are ignorant in the extreme. The rest of the world has more than 2 or 3 kids. Attitudes like this are why western countries are dying out.
I am the mother of a daughter, who had the same diagnois as Andrea Yates, and this happened 25 years ago.
My daughters husband decided to divorce her "for she would never be well", the doctors said. The husband got control of the two children and I never saw them again as children. The older son was forced to leave his home at 19 and overdosed on drugs, and he is dead. The daughter is now 27 and was given up for adoption as a smaill child by her father, who did not want to pay child support.
So to me, Rusty Yates just does not look too bad. Maybe he was too optimistic, and maybe he had too much faith in doctors. Maybe Rusty was short on imagination. I am willing to let God judge Rusty Yates, and I am just not so sure that I could have done better.
When she called him and told him "she did it"....he asked "which one"? She said "all of them".
Doesn't this make one wonder if he did NOT know what she was thinking? (about killing a child/children?)
I've got to side with you and probably most other sane individuals would side with us on this, but the real question that needs to be address is:"Why did she do it?", my answer to that is one of two things, One she didn't want the kids to grow up and be like she was or is and that is a nut case.
The other thing that I've thought about is a little more complex to understand. Considering they were not dealing with run of the mill Churches their is no telling what kind of teaching they got from there so call spirtually leaders, but even if they were the discussion of the so call "age of accountability" in relationship to salvation probably came up. I don't hold to this view but to sum it up, if one was to die before reaching a certain age of accountability they would go to heaven, straight to heaven, do not pass go, just go straight to heaven,
---but after you've get beyound that age of accountability you could end up going to hell if you do not believe in Jesus. I highly suspect that her reasoning for drowning the kids was because she probably thought that if she killed the kids before they reached that age of accountability they would all go to heaven. So in her mind set, if this is the case, she was doing the best thing she could for the kids and that is giving them a straight path to heaven. If this is the case, this is something you just don't talk about to the majority of the masses. She and he is just one set of nut cases out there, there are a lot more of them out there then most would want to admit, to bring up the discussion that she drowned them because she didn't want them going to hell, just gives the same idea to many other nut cases that would do the same thing to there kids if you let them think about it long enough.
Just brought home 2 CD's after watching Nevada Slim and Cimmeron Sue at the local County Fair.
Fun music.
While that may well be the case with some people, I don't blame Rusty because he's a man. It's not a male/female issue to me. It's a crazy/sane issue. This woman had to be hospitalized for acute psychosis after her 4th child was born and Rusty was warned by the doctors that having more children would be an extremely bad idea and in no way in her best interests. They both chose to ignore that, but I find him more at fault because he was the sane one. He ignored the grave danger to her and to his children because he wanted more children. He put his own desires before his wife's health and I find that to be profoundly selfish. And I'd feel the same way about the situation if he was the psycho and she was the sane one.
In my eyes, Russell Yates is guilty of child endangerment and manslaughter. Andrea was a ticking time bomb who needed to be in a mental institution instead of taking care of young children. Furthermore, his insistence that they have more kids and that Andrea homeschool the kids likely put more stress on her and worsened her condition.
Based on this guy's statements after the crime, Russell Yates seems to be a real catch... sarcasam off: I hope that God makes sure that he's haunted every night by what happened to those children..
Is it a fact that HE made this decision, that it was not a mutual desire?
Aside from that, I agree with the poster who said that if Russell was the sane one in the marriage, versus his wife who suffered mental problems, he had the responsibility to make sure she did not get pregnant again. Also, I don't understand how he could allow a trouble wife to homeschool their children. It just doesn't add up to me.
Whether or not he carries any guilt for this horrible occurrence, I think he would have to have a mind-block not to be haunted.
How sad. Russell sounds like imagined that it would cheer Andrea up to have more kids in the household. Many normal or near-normal people are simply nonplussed by severe mental illness.
Not EVERYONE should stop having kids...geez...read what people have written!!! SHE should have stopped having kids!!
Multiple suicide attempts, medication, institutionalization....sorry, but you're ignorant on this one!!
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.