www.justiceforchandra.com

[gozgals]

http://www.courttv.com/trials/yates/072606_verdict2_ctv.html?link=newsletter


Andrea Yates found not guilty by reason of insanity in children's deaths

Andrea Yates drowned her five young children in 2001.

FULL COVERAGE
Andrea Yates murder trial

PHOTOS


Case in pictures
Family album

By Lisa Sweetingham
Court TV
HOUSTON — A Texas jury has found Andrea Yates not guilty by reason of insanity of the capital murder of her children.

The panel, which deliberated for about 13 hours over three days, rejected the state's theory that Yates knew her actions were wrong when she drowned Noah, 7, John, 5, Paul, 3, Luke, 2, and Mary, 6 months, one by one in the family bathtub on June 20, 2001. Yates was only charged in the deaths of Noah, John and Mary.

Yates stared blankly at the jury while listening to the three "not guilty" verdicts, one for each child, but later hugged her attorneys and smiled slightly while speaking with a member of her defense team. (VIDEO)

The verdict is a life-changing turnaround for the 42-year-old former nurse who was originally sentenced to life in prison in 2002 after a jury found her guilty of capital murder. That decision was thrown out and Yates was granted a new trial by an appeals court due to the erroneous testimony of a prosecution medical expert.

When the verdict was read Wednesday, Yates ex-husband and the father of her children, Russell "Rusty" Yates, cried and nodded his head. He and his mother, Dora Yates, and aunt, Fairy Caroland, wept together and tightly held hands.


Yates' mother, Karin Jutta-Kennedy, cried in the front row.

Outside court, Rusty Yates told reporters, "It's a miracle."

Yates escaped spending the rest of her life in prison, but she will likely spend her life in a psychiatric ward. She will be committed to a state mental hospital, where she will undergo continued treatment for an unspecified period of time. Yates will remain under the supervision of Judge Belinda Hill's court.

In Texas, defendants who use insanity as a defense must prove that they were not only mentally ill, but that they did not know their actions were wrong at the time of the alleged crime.

Jurors listened to 17 days of testimony from investigators, medical experts and individuals close to Yates.

Officers who responded to the home after Yates called 911, testified that she appeared unemotional, unkempt and soaking wet as she calmly told police, "I killed my kids."

Yates' best friend testified that she was a sweet friend and loving mother, but after the birth of her fourth son, Luke, she turned into a "total zombie" who stared into space and couldn't finish sentences.

Jurors also heard about Yates' long history of mental illness. She twice attempted suicide, was diagnosed with recurrent postpartum depression and had been hospitalized several times for psychiatric care.

Yates' physician had gradually taken her off Haldol, an antipsychotic medication, just weeks before she killed her children. In his opening statements on June 26, defense attorney George Parnham posited to jurors that, if she had not been taken off Haldol, her children would still be alive.

Medical experts on both sides agreed that Yates was mentally ill, but prosecution experts said she knew the difference between right and wrong at the time of the drownings.

Forensic psychiatrist Dr. Michael Welner testified for the prosecution that Yates carried out an efficient and well-planned murder. She knew it was wrong, Welner theorized, as evidenced by the fact that she kept her homicidal plan private, and did not share the details of her psychoses until after the killings.

Prosecutors theorized that Yates drowned her children to escape the overwhelming stress of raising and home-schooling them.

Forensic psychiatrist Dr. Phillip Resnick testified that Yates believed in her heart and mind that killing her children was the right thing to do. Yates, according to defense expert Resnick, believed that Satan had taken over her body and soul and was eyeing her children's souls next. Yates told Resnick and others who evaluated her in the weeks after her arrest that she believed that if she killed her children while they were still innocent, they would be sent to heaven, and she would have defeated Satan.

Yates turned herself in immediately after the drowning deaths, Resnick said, because she thought her own death would fulfill a Biblical prophecy: If she were executed, Satan would be executed.

Resnick diagnosed Yates with schizoaffective disorder, severe depression with schizophrenic symptoms.

The jurors in Yates' first trial deliberated for less than four hours to find her guilty.

That panel rejected the death penalty and recommended life in prison, which was where Yates was living when she was granted a new trial in January 2005.

The appeals decision turned on the testimony of the prosecution's medical expert Dr. Park Dietz.

Dietz, a forensic psychiatrist, testified about an episode of "Law & Order" in which a woman got away with drowning her children in the bathtub by pleading insanity. Prosecutors suggested in her first trial that Yates watched the show and saw it as "a way out." But it was soon discovered that no such episode existed.

Dietz testified again at her new trial, and reiterated his contention that Yates knew her actions were wrong because Satan was the impetus. Dietz was barred from testifying about his erroneous testimony in the first trial.

Yates was alert, but slightly disengaged during her trial. She is currently on anti-psychotic and anti-depressant medications. Her hair and physical appearance have changed little since her first trial.

Yates' husband, Russell Yates, testified in her first trial and was on the witness list again, but was not called this time. As a potential witness, he was forbidden from talking to the press or watching testimony. Russell Yates remarried in March, but says he still stands by Andrea and visits her in jail. He was present when the verdict was read Wednesday.

[jane]

It is unbearable to even think about that case. If Andrea was insane when she committed the murders, she will need to stay insane the rest of her life just to be able to live with herself.

Maybe mental health workers need to be more accountable for ensuring that innocent children are protected from being in the care of people suffering from psychoses?

But it can be difficult to be vigilant enough - there was a case in Toronto a few years ago where a mother (a doctor with no prior history of mental illness) suffering from severe postnatal depression lept in front of a subway train with her infant. The child died immediately and the mother a day or so later. The woman's family (husband and other relatives) had been keeping a fairly close watch on her, but she left quickly with her child (drove to the nearest subway station) when the relative on watch was in the bathroom for a few minutes.

[gozgals]

I agree Jane.

I think Yates was definitely insane when she committed this horrid act upon her children. I have heard and read that every time she is controlled on her psychotropic medications she losses control and realizes what she has done. I don't think she will ever be free to walk the streets again.

In my opinion, I feel that her husband Rusty is also culpable for this crime along with the psychiatrists that were treating Andrea. Rusty lacked the responsibility of a husband by leaving her alone with the children when she showed signs of suicidal tendencies and psychosis. The psychiatrists did not appear to monitor her drugs correctly and therefore, I feel she lost complete control of her mind.

If there ever was a case of insanity, this is one I do agree with. Maybe this will, as you stated, serve as a wake up call for the mental health professionals.

Goz

[MrRich]

It never fails. A woman commits a crime and the man is branded the bad guy.

-Rich
_________________
All things being equal, the simplest answer is usually best.

[gozgals]

Mr. Rich:

I beg to disagree. I take each case on an individual basis. I feel Rusty acted indifferent toward his mentally disturbed wife which I mentioned above. All criminals- be it a woman or man should be punished equally.

In my opinion, I think M. Winkler should be tried and prosecuted just like any man for shooting her husband in the back. Darlie Routier, (who killed her two children) can weep all she wants and claim her innocence from death row, she is a killer. The punishment fits the crime. Another criminal who makes my skin crawl and should have been locked up for life with the key thrown away is Karla Homolka from Canada. I think even as she blamed her husband Paul Bernado for the crimes, she was just as guilty as him and should have been afforded the same life term, especially since she broke her plea agreement.

Equality for women that commit crimes.

Have a good day.

Goz

[jane]

Yes, our infamous Karla seems to have contributed to the criminality of her ex-husband, bigtime. It seems he was just a rapist until she got into the act...then the murders began. It's ludicrous that she's out of prison.

[MrRich]

gozgals - You said Rusty Yates was culpable in this crime. How? He didn't help her drown the kids. He didn't cover it up after the fact or plan it with her. His only "crime" is not being a perfect husband and father just as the medical and psychiatric professionals weren't perfect in the way they handled this. That hardly makes them criminals. It just seems to me that some women are always looking to demonize husbands. Teri Schiavo's husband, for example. How many times did we hear the baseless allegation that this man was responsible for his wife's condition? Or Mary Winkler's husband who was accused of being a wife beater or child abuser because "why else would a woman shoot her husband in the back?" Now it appears that his "crime" was yelling at his wife when he found out she had blown a small fortune on an internet ponzi scheme. What a monster! I wish we really did take these on a case by case basis but it appears that feminism has brainwashed our society to always look for a man to blame.

-Rich
_________________
All things being equal, the simplest answer is usually best.

[gozgals]

Mr. Rich

Of course Rusty could never be considered a criminal in our society so I stand corrected and maybe feel he is morally culpable for being a poor excuse for a husband and father. I think I have explained the reasons for why I have come to these decisions as have many who have viewed this case.

The Schiavo case is a bombshell I won't even discuss due to the heated nature of such an issue. I have read your personal story so I know you have firsthand experience in these type of matters. I will say even with the outcome of the Schiavo case, I am not one who appreciates Mr. Schiavo and I'll leave it at that. I had the unfortunate experience as a child of meeting Karen Quinlan where I grew up in North, New Jersey and remember her case in the "Right to Die Fight." (side note)

I ask you one question- Why do you say it is feminism that has brainwashed our society? I feel that we are lenient on women and look for excuses for their crimes for a variety of other reasons.

Have a good day.

Goz