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.
You are right on the money ellery. This has nothing to do with an attack on traditional values. If Zviadist really believed in them, he would realize that Russell Yates failed miserably in his God given duty to protect his wife and children.
It is not a traditional value to keep impregnating a sick wife.
It is not a traditional value to allow that sick wife be in the sole care of your children.
It is not a traditional value to go in front of the world after your wife has been given life imprisonment for murdering your children and talk about getting a new wife so you can impregnate her and have even more children.
This man is pathetic. He was a terrible husband who did not love her 'as Christ loved the Church.' He was a terrible father who did not protect his own children.
Zviadist, if this man represents traditional values to you, and if criticizing him looks like a leftist conspiracy, you have no clue as to what real traditional values are.
That is an insult to the real traditional families that really do love and care for their families.
The mosaic law is not in force anymore, you know i hold to that position.
Interesting point about that case about the ER doc. Stuff like that is what is making me seriously reconsider going into medicine, and beginning to lean towards law instead. (I'd kinda like to be a prosecutor).
Could it be that they are both guilty of this heinous crime? Could it be that they are both guilty of bearing more children when she could not deal with it? Believing that Russell Yates bears responsibility for the death of his own children does not mean that one believes that Andrea is any less guilty.
Andrea Yates is going to spend the rest of her life behind bars, and rightfully so. Russell Yates belongs there too. He's a sorry excuse for a man.
And he still left his kids playing on the railroad tracks knowning a train might come along.....and it did. - Tom
Well now, that sounds like some nasty freepers I know! :o)
From : BAFFauthor@aol.com
Subject : KILLER MOM
Date : Fri, 15 Mar 2002 22:46:05 EST
Killer Mom and Husband Portrayed as the Victims
By Jon Christian Ryter
Copyright 2002 All Rights Reserved
It took her jury less than a hour to find Andrea Yates guilty of capital murder on Thursday, March 13, 2002, about five times the length of time it took Andrea Yates to drown each of her five children: Noah, 7; John, 5; Paul, 3; Luke, 2; and Mary, 6 months in the bathtub of their Houston, Texas home on June 20, 2001. But it took her jury about five times as long to affix her sentence as it did to find her guilty of one of the coldest, most callous murders in recent history. Yates was sentenced to life in prison.
Two jurors failed in their task.
To pass a death sentence on Yates, a sentence mandated by the hideousness of her crime, the jury of eight women and four men had to be unanimous in their decision. They were not. Ten jurors voted for death, two held out for life. Apparently two of the jurors were absent during the testimony when testimony confirmed that when he saw his mother murdering his three brothers and baby sister, seven year old Noah broke for the door and headed out of the house to get help. [Judy's Note: ???? I thought a juror had to be present during ALL phases of a trial.]
Yates, who was busy drowning one of his brothers, bolted to her feet and chased Noah down, dragging him screaming back to the bathroom where he would shortly meet his fate in the crowed bathtub. As he struggled to keep his head above water, little Noah cried out to his mother:
"Did I do something wrong, mama?" he cried out.
"If I did...mama...I'm sorry!"
As he cried out for his life, Yates pushed Noah's head back under the water, drowning out his cries for help. In less than two minutes the stru ggling stopped and the last of her five children was dead, drowned in only nine inches of cold water.
The task she planned for over six months was done.
Calmly, she dried her hands, brushed a wisp of hair from her face, and went downstairs to telephone her husband, Russell, at NASA where he worked as a computer engineer. When she got him on the phone, she said quite simply:
"Well, I did it."
Instead of asking "did what?" Russell Yates, knowing, said:
"How many?"
She replied:
"All of them."
His remarks at that time clearly indicate she had discussed killing her children on at least one previous occasion, perhaps within the past couple of days.
That conversation, reported in the media before the trial started appeared to be forgotten by everyone except those who hoard old newspapers as research material. When Russell Yates stood before the media today after his wife was sentenced, he portrayed both his wife and himself as the victims since, he said, he knew his children had forgiven their mother for killing them since she loved them so much, he indicated when asked, that he had absolutely no reason to believe that his wife posed a threat to his children and that she had never indicated an intent to harm them.
Andrea Yates' remark to the media suggests otherwise. His remark suggests that she had told him she intended to kill her children. In point of fact, she discussed killing them while she was still pregnant with Mary but, on newspaper reported early on, decided to wait until Mary was born so she "...could get them all."
Andrea Yates told authorities that she killed her children because she believed they "...were not righteous" and had they been allowed to grow up, they would have been doomed to Hell. Andrea Yates' lawyer, Wendell Odom argued that Yates believed she was saving her children from damnation.
Prosecutors Joseph Owmby and Kaylynn Williford believed there was a different motive. Their investigation suggested to them that Andrea Yates was the victim of a domineering husband who controlled every aspect of his wife's life and, tired of being mentally abused by Russell Yates, Andrea Yates killed his children as an act of revenge to punish him.
Throughout the trial Odom attempted to portray Andrea Yates as a loving mother who was simply the victim of an uncaring State that failed to properly treat Yates for the severe mental problems she had. In the press conference, with mental health advocates and family members poised for the cameras, Andrea Yates and her husband were presented as the victims of a miscarriage of justice. While chief prosecutor Owmby admitted that he did not seek the death penalty because he thought the jury might buy Yates' insanity plea if the only alternative they had was lethal injection.
Owmby was blowing smoke.
Owmby didn't ask for the death penalty because he doesn't believe in it. Williford does. She asked the jury, in her closing statement, to sentence her to death. And, the jury almost did. Eight voted for death. Two held out for life. I'd almost be willing to bet that the two who held out for life had never given birth to a child.
Was there a miscarriage of justice in the Andrea Yates sentence?
Yes, there was.
Andrea Yates, the jury notwithstanding, should have been sentenced to death. Her crime demanded that punishment.
Texas law argues that to be held not liable for a crime committed, the perpetrator, in claiming not guilty by reason of insanity must not be able to distinguish between right and wrong. It is that simple.
Owmby tried to make it complicated because it is easier to hide the truth behind smoke and mirrors. It doesn't matter if Andrea Yates is clinically depressed, chronically depressed, or an out-and-out fruitcake. She knew killing her children was wrong. If the prosecution was correct in their supposition that Yates killed her children to punish her husband, we can assume that while heartless, Andrea Yates was not medically insane. Her act was not spontaneous. It appears to have been premeditated.
And, what's more, it appears that she discussed the possibility with Russell Yates because, as mentioned, when she completed the deed and called him and said:
"Well, I did it..."
he did not ask what, he asked how many.
He knew.
And the only way he could know was because she told him what she planned to do...someday...to make him pay.
Yes, there was a miscarriage in the Yates sentence.
Too bad it can't be fixed.
The watery cries of five dead babies demanded justice and two jurors let them down.
They will never get it.
I hope the two jurors that let Yates live dream about Noah, John, Paul, Luke and Mary every night for the rest of their lives. It is for sure Andrea Yates won't.
Jon Christian Ryter
Author of:
THE BAFFLED CHRISTIAN'S HANDBOOK
PRINCE ALBERT: PROPHET OF UTOPIA
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO AMERICA?
website: www.jonchristianryter.com
old website: http://hometown.aol.com/baffauthor/jonchristianryter.html
(note: highlighting and emphasis are mine)
I've read/heard a few different stories, and I don't know which is the true one...
--- "they" (not sure if the "they" is Andrea & Rusty or Andrea & her doctor*) decided to take her off one of the medications or change medications because she was having some sort of trouble with side effects (loss of appetite??)
* Rusty said after the sentencing that she had been on a combination of medications that 'really worked", so why would they change them ? Therefore it was most likely the doctor-but keep in mind that this doctor was not told her complete history (was her previous suicidal behavior & hospitalization omitted or "skimmed over" by Rusty ??)
--- Rusty implied that he could not afford the medications (they ARE expensive) and that his health insurance would not continue to pay for them -- also would not pay for (or would not allow them to see) a better doctor or for extended hospitalization (probably true)
the "bad doctor" complaints seem to come mostly from the Yates family...the gym & fancy bike comment was from either a friend or neighbor
I won't even dignify that cartload of cacaa with an answer. YOU made my point however. Thanks.
And if you use the word 'cacaa' in your next reply to me, I will ignore it and assume your level of maturity is consistent with the use of that word, and that you are incapable of intelligent dialogue.
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.