Andrea Yates--NOT guilty by reason of insanity

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 5:59 pm

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ZDM/story?id=2238574

matt kevin jones · Post by **matt kevin jones** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:46 pm

I felt so Sorry for the Children
Imagine their horror

But IMO you would have to be Insane or just the Devil Himself to drown your own Children, or anybody for that matter, dont you think so ?

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:58 pm

Audrey, I think you wanted this URL:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/wi ... id=2238969

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 9:29 pm

Thank You Harry.... I see it was the wrong one!

Haulover · Post by **Haulover** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:16 pm

my frustration with this case has been the whole concept of not guilty by reason of insanity. as a society, i think we are terribly confused about this. the justice system is supposed to protect the innocent. these children were innocent -- they were the victims. yates had to really work hard to get them all killed. and here is the problem -- she is obviously depraved by any moral standard, and therefore insane. but how can she not be guilty of what she did? those i remember sticking up for her were saying that she herself was a victim of some sort, not responsible due to insanity. but whether she was insane or sane, she commited an act of cruelty. the victims were the children. was someone besides yates responsible? i can't see yates as a victim -- regardless of any diagnosis anyone makes of her. the children -- not yates -- were the victims. it is a point of fact that yates commited an act of cruelty. i can't get past the terrible reality of a mother killing her own children. everyone knows what "mother" means -- so just consider it. the woman exists in an awfully gray area -- of course, she must be out of her mind, but she also must be a monster.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 11:15 am

Haulover @ Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:16 pm wrote:my frustration with this case has been the whole concept of not guilty by reason of insanity. as a society, i think we are terribly confused about this. the justice system is supposed to protect the innocent. these children were innocent -- they were the victims. yates had to really work hard to get them all killed. and here is the problem -- she is obviously depraved by any moral standard, and therefore insane. but how can she not be guilty of what she did? those i remember sticking up for her were saying that she herself was a victim of some sort, not responsible due to insanity. but whether she was insane or sane, she commited an act of cruelty. the victims were the children. was someone besides yates responsible? i can't see yates as a victim -- regardless of any diagnosis anyone makes of her. the children -- not yates -- were the victims. it is a point of fact that yates commited an act of cruelty. i can't get past the terrible reality of a mother killing her own children. everyone knows what "mother" means -- so just consider it. the woman exists in an awfully gray area -- of course, she must be out of her mind, but she also must be a monster.

I know little about forensic medicine, but there is such a thing as "insanity" as a defense since the McNaughton Rule in the 1840s.
You need a "guilty mind" as well as the deliberate act to commit murder.

Example, if somebody kills a stranger because they believe they are persecuting them would be a case of insanity. In past centuries, they just might hang the perpetrator and let God sort it out.

This is why anyone dealing with the subject of Lizzie or Andrea should have a background in crime and law, as much as possible.
I'd recommend one of Ann Rule's books that are reprints of articles so they cover many such crimes. If a person is murdered, and the people who lived there didn't do it, guess what? Search for an Unknown Subject.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 11:17 am

Here's a quiz for you all. Over a month ago I read about a case.
The husband was outside mowing the lawn. When he went inside he found his wife stabbed to death!!! The police investigated, then arrested a suspect.

Would you like to guess who done it? Since then the case was dropped in the newspaper.

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 1:22 pm

Billy Borden V?

****************************************************************

Anyway, I've read the books about Andrea Yates, and I couldn't be more relieved that the poor, unhinged woman is out of prison and where she belongs. That idiot husband of hers who either didn't know what a condom was, or was obeying the dictates of his religion deserves a special punishment of his own - or, perhaps, the loss of his children is that punishment. In her agony, Yates was being "assisted" by fanatics when she should've been committed and kept away from the kids. I wish her some measure of peace in the years she has left.

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:07 pm

Billy Borden V?

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. If you read Brown's book you would know that Willy S. Borden had no children. Some sort of defect in either man or wife?

There is a thunderstorm coming up fast. Perhaps it is due to the fact that we agree about poor Andrea. I've read no books, but have cousins from families of 4, 5, or 6 shildren. In a rural area extra children help in chores around the house. No problems there. But they were from a close-knit family. Was Andrea part of a "nuclear family" No parents, sisters, or brothers around? Not the best way to live, IMO.

Andrea's fate is to be imprisoned in a mental hospital for 10+ years, past the child-bearing age. Hopefully she will get some treatment. Was it due to any physical condition like a sickness? Her husband has remarried and is on his way to another large family. No problem there. I wouldn't blame him unless I knew more. I don't know about any books in the Library, not worth spending $10 to learn about a closed case. IMO

Bob Gutowski · Post by **Bob Gutowski** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:48 pm

Yes, somewhere, pigs are flying!

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 4:56 pm

Ray: a short question. Of course you may respond by telling me it is none of my business. I will understand. And I don't mean this to come across offensive or rude, but in past posts you mention finding it in the library several times...................... What is the most you ever paid for a book....?

(Of course anyone may respond if they like.)

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:36 am

mbhenty @ Fri Jul 28, 2006 5:56 pm wrote:

Ray: a short question. Of course you may respond by telling me it is none of my business. I will understand. And I don't mean this to come across offensive or rude, but in past posts you mention finding it in the library several times...................... What is the most you ever paid for a book....?
(Of course anyone may respond if they like.)

I really don't remember. In the 1970s when Publisher's Clearing House sent me a catalog every other month or so I must have spent at least $5. Another book club in the 1980s would mean about $10.
Since then I realized my budget and space could never match the County Library System. So I buy surplus ($1 - $2) at the Library book sales. Or a paperback for less. I have enough books stockpiled unread for over 6 months of reading.
I prefer non-fiction, but mystery novels can also educate. One Supreme Court Justice is known as a fan of the Perry Mason novels. Surprised?
I looked up 'Rebello' in the card catalog. A 'Stephen' has 2 books on movie posters and Hitchcock's 'Psycho'.

I can judge a book by its cover (or dust jacket to be precise). I judge non-fiction by its photographs (in part). I browse a book before I buy it. It ususally works for me. Two mistakes in 2002 in not buying: one an Erle Stanley Gardner book on the Campus Revolts of the late 1960s; and Mark Felt's "FBI Pyramid". Now unobtainable.

Rebello's encyclopedia on the Borden case is still unread. But I can assure you that its a secondary work, even if he made no mistakes in quoting from the originals. It would never be allowed in courts, they would want the original documents or authenticated photostats. I wonder what he left out, if anything? The average person is best off with David Kent's "Forty Whacks" as a primer.

Now its your turn.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 12:26 pm

Yes Ray: Since this discussion is not about Yates, I have moved my response to "LizzieAndrewBorden" under "Leonard Rebello."

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 1:41 pm

Interesting and hearfelt insights, Eugene and Bob. Thanks.

I think she had tried to take her own life in the past but was stopped.
It's really something sad when a person who is saved from suicide goes on to become a killer. That happens enough to amaze me.

joe · Post by **joe** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 3:06 pm

Bob Gutowski @ Fri Jul 28, 2006 12:22 pm wrote: Anyway, I've read the books about Andrea Yates, and I couldn't be more relieved that the poor, unhinged woman is out of prison and where she belongs. That idiot husband of hers who either didn't know what a condom was, or was obeying the dictates of his religion deserves a special punishment of his own - or, perhaps, the loss of his children is that punishment. In her agony, Yates was being "assisted" by fanatics when she should've been committed and kept away from the kids. I wish her some measure of peace in the years she has left.

My sentiments, exactly, Bob! The husband should be put in prison.
Joe

matt kevin jones · Post by **matt kevin jones** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:50 pm

I just cant understand why Anybody would feel sorry for Andrea Yates,
She planned and executed Her children one by one.
The next time you start feeling sorry for Andrea, think about Her oldest Son, (I think His name was Noah) & how He fought and struggled with her, to try to save His own life. Think of the Horror He must have felt as water began entering his lungs & He began to drown.
OH Poor Andrea!!
They should euthanize Her & study Her brain, to try to prevent other Monsters from killing innocent little Children.
Andrea was the Murderer not Her Husband, why blame Him ?
She could have said No to sex,
If She was capable of multiple Murders, surely She was capable of saying NO.
Lets let out Charles Manson too, I'm sure somebody thinks He is a victim .

RayS · Post by **RayS** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:35 pm

matt kevin jones @ Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:50 pm wrote:I just cant understand why Anybody would feel sorry for Andrea Yates,
She planned and executed Her children one by one.
The next time you start feeling sorry for Andrea, think about Her oldest Son, (I think His name was Noah) & how He fought and struggled with her, to try to save His own life. Think of the Horror He must have felt as water began entering his lungs & He began to drown.
OH Poor Andrea!!
They should euthanize Her & study Her brain, to try to prevent other Monsters from killing innocent little Children.
Andrea was the Murderer not Her Husband, why blame Him ?
She could have said No to sex,
If She was capable of multiple Murders, surely She was capable of saying NO.
Lets let out Charles Manson too, I'm sure somebody thinks He is a victim .

I feel "sorry" for her because she wasn't in her right mind. Guilty? YES!!!
But insane. Its a tragedy.

qtpiegurl77 · Post by **qtpiegurl77** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 1:33 am

Every murderer is insane in some way, wouldn't you agree? That doesn't mean they aren't responsible for their actions....