Prosecutors 'Seriously Considering' Case Against Russell Yates (Negligent Homicide)

ABC News ^ | March 16, 2002 SGT | Elenn Davis and Mike von Fremd

[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.

[craigoethe]

No one can seem to answer why they kept having children even though she clearly had mental problems. Did Rusty really think a mentally ill woman should continue having children?

[I_Love_My_Husband]

I'm talking about adults. And yes, it's almost impossible to get adults committed. I have a friend who's brother cannot commit his girlfriend. And she seriously needs it, and he's gone through all the channels. I DO know what I'm talking about.

[I_Love_My_Husband]

Ok, I see what you're saying. You're talking about schooling. I'm talking about real mental institutions.

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

"...What is so traditional about telling your wife when she may have free time..."

And you really believe this is precisely what happened in this particular scenario?

You truly believe that our corporate media and our legal system are devoted to rooting out the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? And dedicated to conveying that truth, unedited, to us, the people?

Hmmm. If so, that explains a lot.....

[conservative cat]

The morons on this thread calling for this guy to go to jail have obviously never had the unfortunate opportunity to care for a loved one who has a serious mental illness.

Ummmmm. Actually, I have. I sure as heck wouldn't have added more pressure to that person (more babies, living in a bus, and homeschooling)-especially when it concerned my children. Most people dealing with the mentally ill try to keep them OUT of situations where they can cause harm. I know someone who suffered severe (hospitalized, memory loss) post-partum depression after her first child. She and her husband chose to stop at one.

[craigoethe]

That is what he said in his testimony.

And why did he keep having children? Was he hoping one more would make it right?

[cake_crumb]

Your post #167...

I disagree. Noting that there are men who are control freaks is nothing more than noting that there are men who are control freaks. Just as noting there are women who are control freaks is nothing more than noting there are women who are control freaks.

I represent one FReeper on this thread who is not as gullible as you say.

I believe that anyone of reasonable intelligence, whether he or she is a licensed mental health professional or not, is incapable of NOT noticing danger signs evidenced by an individual they live with every day and sleep with every night.

Normal people who have constant personal contact just pick up on behavioral quirks eventually. Add to that the fact that Russel admitted that he A:)knew his wife was psychotic, B:)knew his wife had stopped taking her meds, and C:)knew her insanity was either set off or hormonally exacerbated by her having children... and you have Russel, an intelligent, educated individual who expects the public to believe that he did not know that his wife's insanity could be dangerous. And wants not only to blame everyone but himself and his wife, but wants to sue everyone to boot.

Who's pulling the wool over WHOS eyes, here?

[Sir Charles]

You can't conclude any of that from a single thread. If you do, you're likely to swallow anything that happens to be posted by a few as representitive of the whole lot. Very dangerous.

[antidemocommie]

Creative Prosecution. That all this is. Just a bunch of whiney, do nothings who want to hold the father responsible for what were clearly the actions of his wife.

THE DEVIL MADE ME DO IT!

Lets prosecute Satan in abstentia, too.

[Robert_Paulson2]

our feminist freepers should love this. Woman who KILLS kids gets 40 years, reduced to 7 years on appeal for "mental health" reasons.

EVIL man who did NOT kill his kids gets the freakin' chair. AXIOM of feminism:"No matter the facts, no matter the patriachal system's corrupt and oppressive findings of guilt or culpability, behind EVERY evil act committed by any woman, stands an evil man, who SHOULD and WILL be held responsible."

We got a LOT of freeper women who blame the guy. "HE LET HER DO IT." and "HE PUT HER IN A MOBILE HOME" or... whatever. And they call themselves conservatives. rofl.

I guess the matriachy JUST cannot face the facts. Women do evil things too, without ANY help or culpability from the male... but the hegemony of matriarchal oppression just cannot let this stand.

... this should be rich.

[Merovingian]

Very moving story, and accurate description of the experience of many families faced with severe mental illness. Schizophrenia and Post-partum psychosis are the two most serious mental disorders, and BOTH are caused by brain bio-chemistry flaws. In the Yates case, she already had the brain chemistry problem, but when that was combined with severe post-partum hormone surges, it was a lethal combination.

Pinheads like Bill O'Reilly and many here are very evidently ignorant of these medical facts.

[Thumper1960]

The theif said that he's not fully responsible for burglarizing the house. It's a bad neighborhood. The homeowner knew that. If the homeowner hadn't had the stereo and computer equipment, the burglar wouldn't have broken in to steal it.

The "victim" is culpable. The victim should have known his home had "treasure" to be stolen....hence, he's as much to blame as the thief.

Imprison them BOTH!

[Brownie74]

A lot of people have said all along that he is as guilty as his wife, or nearly as guilty anyway. I will go with negligent homicide - I have no problem with that.

[Dave S]

What this really is, contrary to what many will say on this thread, is an attack on traditional lifestyles. The liberal elite and many misguided others cannot stand people like these, who make do on one income, who teach their kids at home instead of State Indoctrination Centers, who believe that children are a gift from God, not an inconvenience to be killed without hesitation. These people love the fact that one of the traditionalists had this terrible situation happen to them, as it is being used to attack all of us who live life in a more traditional way. Conservatives who scoff at these traditionalists should be put on warning: you are next.

If you think that the Yates are an example of a traditional lifestyle than you are off your meds too. I lived in a traditional family and your "Whine" here makes a mockery of my upbringing. Yates religious beliefs were not mainstreem either. You scare me if you hold these abberants up as poster parents for a way of life.

Frankly, if this had been a single mom living with her kids in public houseing and sending her kids to public inner city schools, she would have been convicted even quicker and she would have been sentenced to death.

[Robert_Paulson2]

Yes, and they just might get it. OUR pseudo conservative, no-so-closet feminist, man-blaming freepers will crow like a rooster at sun-up too.

"I just knew that this evil male was behind all the murders and abuse!" Once again, the poor woman is a victim, instead of a vicious murderor.

ridiculous.

[Dave S]

I do not see this as an attack on the one income family, or anything like that.

Of course you don't. You think the elites are so obvious? They count on sheep like you see on this thread to buy their b.s

Before I was joking about you being off your meds. Now Im not so sure. Have you ever been treated for paranoia?

[the_doc]

Sounds like we have a feeding frenzy here. I think some of today's FReepers are a little too ravenous. (Maybe they had too much sugar with their Saturday morning Cocoa Puffs and are now hypoglycemic.)

***

If Andrea Yates had gotten the death penalty, that would have ended the whole matter, IMO. But the pollution associated with her five murders remains in some strange ways--so, the State is automatically tempted to go after her husband.

In other words, justice has not been clearly served, so the State is still unwilling to rest. To use my earlier metaphor, the State got a distinctly unsatisfying [short-lived] taste of justice in the form of Andrea's sentence and is now experiencing a justice letdown which makes it ravenous for more justice.

(I'm not convinced that this is a good situation for our system of retributive justice. Personally, I do think Russell Yates is a fool in several ways, but if it is criminal to be a fool, I know a fair number of FReepers who should be in jail.)

***

BTW, have you seen any Internet discussion of Andrea Yates's theology as potentially underlying her murder of her children? I haven't. But I can't help but remember that she said she was trying to save them from the devil. And notice that she killed them by baptizing them.

Maybe her pastor should be indicted as an accomplice to the murders.

Seriously, the whole mess is weird, isn't it?

[Dave S]

And I bet you, if he does divorce that miserable wretch, he'll find another woman and start making babies again, because it's obvious he wants a brood mare and not a wife. He strikes me as a man with some kind of compulsion to prove the motility of his seed 365/24/7.

He came out yesterday or today and said he doesnt know if he will remain married. He misses the companionship of a wife and wants more kids.

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

"...Noting that there are men who are control freaks is nothing more than noting that there are men who are control freaks...."

The psychobabble designation of a complex human being as a control freak is a symptom of of the Big Problem.

As R.L. Stevenson wrote:"..Man is a creature who lives not by bread alone, but primarily by catchwords...."

I suppose all this facile pigeon-holing serves a useful purpose by taming our societal fears. After all, if only Mr. Yates had done this, that, and the other thing; if only he hadn't been such a contolling bastard--so comforting to have a catchword to hug now that our baby pillow has finally lost all its feathers---if only the correct chemical balance had been achieved in poor Mrs. Yates' prescriptions; if only the benign Child Protective services had burst in at the right moment and rescued those children---well, we could all live happily ever after.

And, any day now, with enough funding and research and education and birth control we're going to discover the way to banish all our fears and dream nothing but happy dreams.....

[I_Love_My_Husband]

I'm not so sure that the men on this thread blaming Russell Yates are feminists. I think the men on this thread feel that the man in the family needs to be responsible for the family. Period. And that he dropped the ball.

Certainly there are feminist freeper women, however, I think the reason that so many are angry at Russell is that he didn't take responsibility when there were obvious signs that she was out of her gourd.

In my opinion, he tried as best that he was able, but, again, reiterating what I said, why have the last 2 children when she had a knife, talked about killing herself, was on meds, and needed his mother there by her side?

What part of not doing your wife when she's stinky and got greasy hair did he not understand? And what kind of man would do his wife in that condition???