Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Prosecutors 'Seriously Considering' Case Against Russell Yates (Negligent Homicide)
ABC News ^ | March 16, 2002 SGT | Elenn Davis and Mike von Fremd

Posted on 03/16/2002 7:41:28 AM PST by codebreaker

Prosecutors will weigh a number of factors that may lead them to prosecute Andrea Yates husband Russell for either child endangerment or negligent homicide. ABC News has learned.

No decision has been made, but it is being seriously considered, sources said. Prosecutors would charge Russell Yates if an when the evidence warrants, but do not have the evidence now, sources said.

Andrea Yates 37, was convicted Tuesday of two capital murder charges filed in the killings of her children last June.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: charges; father; homicide; yates
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 381-395 next last
To: LaBelleDameSansMerci
Wow...unbelievable but I find myself in a majority agrrement with your ramblings.

Sincere Regards.

161 posted on 03/16/2002 10:02:22 AM PST by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

Comment #162 Removed by Moderator

To: A. Pole
Thanks. I'm always interested in why people have the views that they have and what in their life affects those views. It's kind of my own psychological research.

For me, I spent my childhood near where this tragedy occured, and I found out that I couldn't have children the same week this happened. It hit me hard... very hard. For that reason, I have little sympathy for Andrea or Mr. Yates. Very little. I don't care if they are both clinicially insane... it was horrible. There are plenty of mentally ill out there... very few hurt anyone. I tend to go with the theory that even though illness, drugs, etc, may cause someone do something evil, there is something in them that was allowed to come out. Something that was already there before the sickness.

She was angry, frustrated, and depressed. The mental illness removed her self control... to do what she may have wanted to do even when well... and that was to change her situation at all cost. I would expect that the real Andrea Yates (even a healthy one) is/was a selfish and weak person. She didn't have the strength to improve her situation so she lashed out.

Many factors led to this... and Andrea's underlying selfishness played a part. The mental illness just allowed it to come out in force.

163 posted on 03/16/2002 10:03:18 AM PST by StolarStorm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Pinlighter
The problem is, it's almost impossible to commit people these days.
164 posted on 03/16/2002 10:04:42 AM PST by I_Love_My_Husband
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

Comment #165 Removed by Moderator

To: Ulysses
May want to check that profile...

Hmm, looks like it is a woman. And a pretty one too!

166 posted on 03/16/2002 10:12:38 AM PST by A. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
In re your post #140--

This is exactly what I mean about theatrical productions--ESPECIALLY in the face of "incomprehensible" domestic disasters--like a mother chasing down and drowning five little children.

Any Freeper who has ever been in a court of law must be astounded at the gullibility being shown on these threads; the child-like belief that the carefully controlled flow of "information" has anything whatsoever to do with reality.

In particular, since the feminist cheering section on Free Republic seems to be growing by leaps and bounds, the portrayal of the, admittedly, unnatractive--even loathsome-- Mr. Yates as a "controlling" husband. As every heterosexual--and I'm assuming there are a few left on Free Republic---knows, the relationship between men and women is far more complex, subtle and indefinable than mere language can encompass.

And in this day and age when reason has been ousted by bumper-sticker slogans we are further than ever from an honest portrayal of the man/woman thing.

I'm sure everyone knows this in their hearts. I'm sure we all secretly know that in 8 cases out of 10, the "controlling" male is, in reality "the controlled".

But, being good little conservatives, we mustn't upset the apple cart and speak heresy. Women are victims, victims, victims. Men are demon gods. And that's a lucky thing 'cause we love to demonize them sooo much....

But, let me just continue on my heretical tac for one moment more by wondering if Mr. Yates isn't coming off so horribly precisely becuase his center of gravity, dare I say it--his controller--has just killed five little children and she's going to the big house for a long, long time and he's out and about without his leash. Just a thought.....

167 posted on 03/16/2002 10:12:50 AM PST by LaBelleDameSansMerci
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: stixnstones
"...AND while they are considering that, I hope that they also investigate ALL of the relatives, neighbors, friends, church members --- the whole lot of them, and find out WHY noone ever notified child protection services to learn WHY the mother wasn't hospitalized, as she was an obvious endangerment to her children. And since the psychiatrist didn't notice something amiss, find out if the receptionist of the shrink did...."

AND, a grand jury should find out if George W. Bush had anything to do with this fiasco. A fish stinks from the head, as we all know.....

168 posted on 03/16/2002 10:15:54 AM PST by LaBelleDameSansMerci
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: LaBelleDameSansMerci
dare I say it--his controller--has just killed five little children

That's exactly what I believe. It was he who was being manipulated and controlled by her. It's like the letter she wrote to her lawyers about her kids, extremely sick but also very cunning, to portray herself again as a loving mother.

169 posted on 03/16/2002 10:16:28 AM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: paix
finally an accurate response...but you missed two more drugs...keep looking and you failed to attempt to qualify what sugar has to do with the drugs.....a hint....go to drday.com ...also you can correspond with the legendary doctor via e mail..........will look for your response...
170 posted on 03/16/2002 10:17:21 AM PST by cactusSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Zviadist
Personally, I don't see why he should be charged with anything. He WASN'T the one who murdered his children, his wife was.

To me, this is also laced with a form of thought control, for they're saying that you should have known (in your mind) that she wasn't right and, thus, you're responsible. If you ask me, it is only one more step being incremented in the total thought control. That is, where one can be arrested based solely on what they think.

His wife, however, should be punished. After all, she murdered her children, and she's going to have to accept the punishment dealt to her.

I really get tired of hearing the excuses for Andrea Yates behavior. Excusing the inexcusable, in my opinion, is wrong. Furthermroe, placing blame on the individual who didn't commit the attrocious act is placing the blame on the wrong person.

I can just see NOW coming out and speaking on behalf of this child murdered. Oh yeah, they already did that. My only guess is that they'll now villify the husband, and try to paint him as the bad guy.

In sum, no one knows what he was thinking prior to his wife murdering his children. Furthermore, it is most likely that he didn't expect any sort of action to take place. There are various degrees of psychosis and can you honestly say that you'd believe that your spouse would do something so attrocious, regardless if she was "mentally ill"?

I'm of the opinion that laws should be based on actions and not thoughts.

171 posted on 03/16/2002 10:18:29 AM PST by FreedomFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: grlfrnd
"...The problem is, it's almost impossible to commit people these days...."

What are you talking about? Millions of children are committed to government-run institutions every year and forced, by law, to stay there for twelve years.

172 posted on 03/16/2002 10:18:52 AM PST by LaBelleDameSansMerci
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: codebreaker
Bring it on! This bastard is getting away with murder and how much cash if he wins his law suit against the doctors? Knowing that his wife wasn't fit to be around their kids, he had her homeschool them. That was 24 hours of Adreas Yates/ a day for these kids. This Russel Yates guy wanted his wife barefoot and pregnant and at home no matter how dangerous she was to the kids.
173 posted on 03/16/2002 10:19:00 AM PST by paltz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing; xsmommy; one_particular_harbour;
Ping for you.
174 posted on 03/16/2002 10:19:15 AM PST by NeoCaveman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
I ask again. Are they going to go after the doctor who negligently treated Andrea just before she killed her children? Are they also going to go after the HMO that screwed up bigtime? Why was it that no one knew she was schitzophrenic until the jail psychiatrist treated her? How was Russell to know if Saheed didn't know and in fact NEVER even bothered to look at her previous case history. Why was it that Andrea did not get the treatment she desperately needed until AFTER she drowned all five of her kids?

There are many people who should have their butts torn asunder for this entire mess. Going after Russell ALONE I think would be a travesty.

175 posted on 03/16/2002 10:19:24 AM PST by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: codebreaker
Russell Yates is an enabler and that may not be illegal. He thrived off her inability to cope but did nothing to harm the children. He is not required by law to know the dangers of his wife's condition and then act on the warning signs. Add that she was under the care of supposedly competent shrinks and he is a lot less indictable.
176 posted on 03/16/2002 10:21:46 AM PST by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zviadist
Attack on tradition? What is so traditional about telling your wife when she may have free time? I am a Christian, my wife is a stay at home mom. Yet I have never once dreamed of ordering her around like she was my servant.
177 posted on 03/16/2002 10:23:03 AM PST by craigoethe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NevadaY
nevaday...mental illness is as real as rain or trees However the diagnosis is SO WRONG it is criminal...Near 100% of ALL mental illness is blood causes....source:drday.com
178 posted on 03/16/2002 10:23:35 AM PST by cactusSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Zviadist
Even in, especially in, traditional families, moral responsibility and accountability are core essentials of living in a just socieity. Just because the family has a stay at home mother and single earner father doesn't mean all is well.

This has nothing to do with family lifestyle. It has everything to do with individual responsibility and common sense.

179 posted on 03/16/2002 10:26:52 AM PST by Sir Charles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LaBelleDameSansMerci
It's interesting how she turned on the tears during the testimony of the prosecution witness --the pediatric specialist who described how methodically she killed her babies. Tears would certainly be inappropriate if she did this out of "love" to protect them from Satan as she claims. And yet at the sentence, she was smirking.
180 posted on 03/16/2002 10:29:14 AM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 381-395 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson