Yates lived by rigid schedule, according to husband
Posted on 03/01/2002 1:45:51 AM PST by MeekOneGOP
Yates lived by rigid schedule, according to husband
Husband also testifies she was allowed 3 hours a week without her kids
03/01/2002
HOUSTON - Russell "Rusty" Yates told jurors Thursday about how his wife, Andrea, lived by a rigid schedule as housekeeper and teacher and was allowed three hours each week to do whatever she wanted, alone, without her children.
"Man's the breadwinner and the woman's the homemaker," Mr. Yates said Thursday during Mrs. Yates' capital murder trial. Mrs. Yates pleaded insanity after admitting that she drowned her five children in June.
While he talked proudly of the couple's decision to toe a higher ethical line based on biblical teachings and lessons gleaned from a conservative newsletter called "Perilous Times," Mr. Yates coincidentally painted a picture for jurors of a bleak life bereft of any outlet for Mrs. Yates besides her children.
AP "A scared animal" is how Debbie Holmes testified that her friend Andrea Yates behaved in the days before she killed her children. |
Mr. Yates, 37, told the jury that he and his wife agreed before their wedding in 1993 to a "traditional" marriage in which he would serve as sole breadwinner and she would be homemaker.
The pact included being a stay-at-home mother, primary caregiver and, eventually, home-school teacher. Mr. Yates said that he controlled the cash and that she stuck carefully to an allowance.
Therapist Earline Wilcott, who met with Mrs. Yates after her suicide attempts, testified that her client felt overwhelmed and trapped.
Ms. Wilcott said Mrs. Yates felt criticized for the way she ran the household. Ms. Wilcott said Mrs. Yates told her that her husband bought her a book on how to get organized.
When pressure from raising their children appeared to be getting to Mrs. Yates, she could always look forward to Thursdays. Mr. Yates testified that for three hours once each week from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Mrs. Yates could do whatever she wanted, alone, without the children.
The free time was to provide some relief for his wife, Mr. Yates said. "I guess that's what we decided," he said.
Mrs. Yates is a diagnosed schizophrenic predisposed to pitch-black depressions that followed the births of her last two children. Testimony has shown that the 37-year-old registered nurse with perfectionist tendencies and a solid Christian faith went along with the home management plan she and Mr. Yates hammered out before marriage.
During a second day of testimony, this time during questioning by Harris County prosecutor Joe Owmby, Mr. Yates, a NASA engineer, said he and Mrs. Yates agreed before marrying that she would give up her job at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center at Houston.
"We thought it best that Andrea be home," Mr. Yates testified.
Prosecutors say Mrs. Yates was fully aware of what she was doing when she drowned Noah, 7; John, 5; Paul, 3; Luke, 2; and 6-month-old Mary in the family bathtub.
Mrs. Yates' trial, which began Feb. 18, is expected to go through next week. She faces life in prison or lethal injection if convicted.
During questioning, Mr. Yates said his wife was quiet and remarkably modest. After they were married, Mrs. Yates wouldn't undress in front of her husband. "That's a pretty personal question, but generally that's true. She's shy," he testified.
While Mr. Yates found time for interests such as biking to work, joining a gym and working in the garage, Mrs. Yates had the children and home-schooling to keep up with.
Their life also included some unusual experiments and choices.
Almost as soon as their first home was built, they rented it out, trading it for a 38-foot trailer to live a "simpler life."
"I think a lot of it was that Andrea was generally happy in the house, I probably wasn't as happy in the house," he said.
After being married 41/2 years, with three young children and another on the way, they sold the trailer for a $37,000 converted Greyhound bus.
"I didn't view it as a hardship," Mr. Yates said. "We like it better than a house."
After the 1999 birth of their fourth child, Luke, the close quarters appeared to get to her. She summoned her husband home one day. He found her sobbing and shaking in the back of the bus.
The next day, she took an overdose. Less than a month later, she held a knife to her throat.
Mr. Yates told jurors how he faithfully drove his wife to therapy after her two suicide attempts.
He also told jurors that his wife opted for natural childbirth.
Although he conceded that the newsletter he and his wife read advocated natural childbirth for a "humbling experience for a woman," Mr. Yates said it was his wife's idea to go without local anesthetic.
"It was her choice," he said. "Sometimes Andrea liked to take the hard road instead of an easy road."
Despite warnings from at least one psychiatrist who said having more children would bring Mrs. Yates a harsher version of the depression that sent her to try to kill herself, they had a fifth child on Nov. 30, 2000.
They knew that Haldol pulled her out of the depths in 1999, after the birth of Luke. When Mrs. Yates faltered again, particularly after her father died in March 2001, they asked for the drug again.
"I knew she was sick," Mr. Yates said. "She wouldn't have tried to commit suicide if she hadn't been sick."
Four days before she drowned her children, Mrs. Yates awoke screaming that she was trapped. As her husband comforted her, she told him about her nightmare. "Something about in her dream she was trapped in her bed," Mr. Yates said.
"A scared animal" is how Debbie Holmes later testified that Mrs. Yates behaved in the days before she killed her children. The women met about 16 years ago at M.D. Anderson.
Mrs. Holmes said Mrs. Yates spoke only three complete sentences to her in the four months before the children died. Her hair greasy and matted, her body reeking, Mrs. Yates was a walking zombie then, Mrs. Holmes said.
"I was appalled," said Mrs. Holmes. "She looked like a cancer patient." When she heard that the children were drowned, a teary Mrs. Holmes said she collapsed.
"I fell on the floor, and I just cried," Mrs. Holmes said. "I was screaming. It can't be my Andrea."
I hope they make him miserable but they can't hold him responsible directly for their death. Andrea was *free* to leave the guy if he was such a control freak but she made her choice... to live like that was better than the stigma of divorce or separation or even the seeking of counseling. At some point this woman chose to believe a lie or several lies. The lie that she should have her life micromanaged. The lie that what she was experiencing was love. The lie that she had to fit into the mold Russell created for her. The lie that drugs would get rid of her sadness. The lie that being dishonest about her discontent and keeping it all inside was the right thing to do.
Remember I did say "meaningful time" ;-)
There are large numbers of Christian households who are organized along the lines of the traditional Biblical family. Both the husband and wife think they are right. They turn out well balanced and well educated kids. None of them have killed their children.
Methinks that many will see in this trial what they want to see according their own fears and angers. Andrea Yates had a palate of choices before her and she selected from them. Justice requires ahe pay for those choices.
If her husband bears the level of responsibility you assign, the Lord will judge him. I don't think any of us are competent to do so summarily from some testimony from a man who has demonstrated by words and actions that he will do anything to protect his wife.
Probably, many that are plugging into this story are doing so from their own percieved abuses from "control freaks". This is where the decades of feminist propaganda pays off, and, if it gets Andrea Yates any less sentence that removal from the world, the paycheck will written with the blood of those who want to live according to the natural orientation of men and women as practiced for millenia. 
And don't for a minute make it look worse than it is. Although hubby and I choose not to live this type of lifestyle (although we homeschool), we know some people who follow similar paths. They are happy and well adjusted, with happy children, as well. They usually don't own tvs, dress modestly, and have more healthful eating habits. They frequently homechurch, but homechurch with other families (like the homechurches in scripture). It's all a matter of degree, and most of families I know like this I rather admire. Furthermore, the men we know are very active in the upbringing of their children, believing that children need strong, male role models engaged in their lives. Their wives get a break. Our country could do a lot worse than to have more of these types of families, imo.
LOL, but remember that HE was doing all the thinking and decision making. I think we know what HE thought was 'meaningful' time together! ;-)
People who are mentally ill get there by choosing to believe lies.
I have a half-sister who is manic depressive/schizophrenic. She made stupid choices which screwed her up for life. Now she keeps *choosing* not to take her meds and going back to live with people who are bad for her. She makes everyone miserable. She has had her meds adjusted thousands of times I'm sure.
Her older sister is not technically mentally ill but she sure is a manipulative scheming jerk. She plays her mentally ill sister like a fiddle and makes trouble for everyone. Still my mentally ill sister hasn't killed anyone yet. And if she did because she refused to take her meds, I don't think anyone else would be to blame directly.
Ummmm, Which Adult in the house was Sane, and which was not ?
Is it not prosecutable under Child Neglect or endangering the Welfare of, to leave your kids with, say a 7 year old baby sitter ?
It is the change aspect you mentioned that would be the desirable(oh, how that chokes...) result. Maybe instead of protecting children from Reasonable sometimes corporal discipline, those busybodies could do Good work.
IF he had been willing to DO anything to protect his wife, he'd have stopped impregnating her, he'd have made sure she was getting help, instead of turning a blind eye to it, he'd have removed some of the responsibilities placed upon her, particularly after the suicide attempts and knowing that she was suffering mental distress, he'd have given her more free time and he would have taken her consideration into account before removing the, from a house where she was happy, and moving them into a bus.
No. What is demonstrated by his actions is that he didn't give a rip about her.
I wish more people understood this!
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.
