Replies

prosecute Andrea Yates husband Russell for either child endangerment or negligent homicide

In this instant case, I would have to agree that Rusty should be looked at as partly culpable to his children being harmed by their mother....no, not that he did it or was, in the legal terms, "an accomplice." But he was aware of long-existing mental and emotional problems, had also been advised that his wife should have no more children, and why. I also believe her psychiatrist should be looked at....why did he decide to take her off her meds, so shortly after she was released from the hospital, yet again. Her treatment makes no sense. She should have been on meds for years, not months, after she got out of the hospital this last time......it's quite obvious, even to a layman, that she had substantial psychological problems that would not end within a short period of time....I question the doctor's treatment very strongly.

Two days before the murder, Russel Yates took his wife back to the doctor and requested she be put back on her medication. The doctor denied the request saying Andrea showed no signs of psychosis. He also had his mother coming in to help out with the kids. I'm not saying this guy isn't a pinhead and an idiot but he isn't as bad as people want to make him out to be. Fact is, Andrea Yates killed her kids without help from anyone else. She should have been put to death for it but instead she'll spend life in prison. Her doctor? IMO, needs to be investigated. Either Andrea's defense was a complete lie (which I tend to believe) or else her doctor should not be practicing for not seeing her in the psychosis that contributed to her killing 5 children.

why did he decide to take her off her meds, so shortly after she was released from the hospital, yet again.

A friend of mine is doing research on HMOs because his father's HMO in California wants to discontinue his prescriptions! This friend said Andrea Yates fell into the same type of problem. Their HMO began to disallow her treatment. Has anyone else heard of this?

Well, at least in Florida, we have The Baker Act and the first thing they ask before they initiate picking up someone under the Baker Act "Are you a danger to yourself or others?" Nobody ahead of time never picked up on that fact that she was crafty and this was a very elaborate plan. She was suffering from a mental disorder but she wasn't totally out of it to conceal each drowning from the next and the next and keep track of what she was doing. It must have been chaotic by the time she was chasing the seven year old around the house but he couldn't escape. They fought for their lives and she was resolute that they all had to die. She called the authorities.

That being said, the husband is negligent for the simple fact that he really was not participating in Andrea Yate's treatment. He gave a press conference and he said that all she had to do was to take her medicine and take a shower. Those were her only responsibilities. What did he think those five children were that were all over the house? mannikins? Why didn't he mention that the children were her responsibility and his. He forgot to mention the children AT ALL and I heard that sometimes during the trial, he played videogames out in the hallway.

He was negligent by not paying enough attention to a wife that was crafty and had a mental disorder as well. Human beings are very complex and due to his lack of sensitivity, he had no fatherly instincts that his children were in harm's way. He'd be a great guest on Jerry Springer and maybe he will try to capitalize on his undeserved celebrity. I won't be watching his pity party. I don't pity him. I feel only for those poor kids who were brutalized by mom and betrayed by dad.

"....I question the doctor's treatment very strongly."

. . .would not be surprised if it was 'Rusty' made this decision for Andrea.

Maybe she was not as good a 'companion' on her medication. . .perhaps, he could not tolerate her actually recovering.

. . .There was little in Andrea's life; he did not orchestrate.