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.
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..........
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.