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."
Good point. I have a friend here in Florida (where this type of so-called religion is also very common) who was married to a minister, who used to lock her in a closet to "discipline" her. She has a pretty voice, but he forbade her to sing in church because she might get "vain." Her life was a minefield of restrictions and forbidden things, harmless or good things that were forbidden by her husband, that is.
And his family was 100% on his side, since, naturally, this was where he had learned that women are creatures who need to be trained by being shoved into the hall closet and padlocked in. I'm sure that you're right, and that the in-laws, who obviously knew what was going on in that household, contributed a lot to this awful scenario.
From reading this testimony, I'm inclined to think that maybe he is a stealth Muslim.
I tend to agree with you. Even with five children, a parent needs time for themselves--and less than a half an hour a day doesn't cut it for decompression time. I mean, were bathroom breaks included in those three hours? Bathing time? Was she able to bank her time so that if she didn't use all three hours in a week was she able to carry that over to the next week? And I bet she had to account for every penny she spent (with money the husband doled out to her), and was grilled if she couldn't account for it.
Her personality seems to have been totally submerged in her husband's. She lost her sense of self, and with someone who had psychological problems to begin with, coupled with post-partum psychosis, she was like a tinderkeg. "A traditional wife" doesn't mean that the husband makes all the decisions without any input from the wife besides her assent (because he's told her that's what "a traditional wife" role has to be)--even if it's not in her best interest--then labels the decision "ours."
I'm very curious to see what kind of rebuttal case the prosecution puts on. I'm sure they have some rent-a-shrinks lined up, but I'm curious as to why they didn't put on any in their case in chief.
No, wrong..... unfortuately she's not as DEAD as her 5 children!
embrace her all you want... How many liberals would want this poor woman (barf) babysitting their kids? If you want her free, offer her a job while you're at it.
I think based upon what I have read about this case that she is guilty, but surely severely mentally ill and probably legally insane, but that is a closer call. I think Mr. Yates is morally guilty of murder, but legally only of some sort child abuse, reckless endangerment or the like. I suspect when he meets his Maker, he will be in for the same sort of surprise as some of the Moslem terrorists who find paradise uncomfortably warm and devoid of the expected houris.
I really believe that will all the freaking social programs in our society today, there had to have been someplace, or someone out there who could have seen this coming or done something before it got to this point. She was seeing a mental therapist or something, and a medical doctor...friends (true friends) and family (HER FAMILY if they are more mentally stable than HIS) SOMEONE had to have seen this coming.
Because her husband said "we" decided to have as many children as nature would allow. By my rough calculation, that'd mean they would've ended up with about 15 more children.
Do I like the way he treated her? No, and every woman who has ever known me would tell you it is the exact opposite of the way I (or any other gentleman) would behave.
Do I think his fascistic behavior was in keeping with Scriptural precepts? Or course not -- unless, like liberals, he simply struck from God's word that which was not in keeping with his decidedly demented views.
But, do I think she was a total "victim" who deserves naught but our sympathy? Well, frankly, that's absurd. All along the way, she quite obviously took part in their decisions -- including the decision to get married. When you see the boat you are on is headed for the falls, it is best to jump off at some point -- any point! -- before it hits the rapids. She chose not to. Instead, she chose -- yes, libs and feminazis -- chose to kill her innocent children instead.
IN my humble and saddened opinion, she deserves to die. And he deserves to be shunned by all who know him -- especially by any woman who hopes to lead anything even resembling a sane existence.
She's guilty and if she gets away with it then every mother who has a hard life and doesn't have the emotional strength to handle it is going to get away with murder.
Embrace ? No more like pity. In her mental state, I can't think of anyone who would allow her to watch over their kids, with Mr. Yates being the only exception. He knew of her condition and allowed his children to remain in a very dangerous situation.
I didn't say she should be free, ever.
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.