If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
! Andrea Yates found Not Guilty of drowning her five children
That's an incredibly sad story. When I think of all the pain and
suffering the woman went through to birth five children. Then all the love, time, and energy she spent raising them. She absolutely had to have lost it for some reason to destroy her entire legacy. She will always have to live with that. So putting her in an insane asylum is fine I guess. I don't think she would last long on the streets without any medical, or psychological help. She would probably commit suicide within six months. She looks like such a nice woman. those are the kinds of bizarre, evil things that people do when they have their minds mis-programmed. That's why I constantly try to educate Whites on White supremacy matters. 90% of white America is totally brain damaged, and all of this slaughtering of innocent babies, children, pregnant women, and other civilians is a result of the thinking that comes about when people are insane with ethnic hatred. Satan is gleefully waiting on the arrival of these hate-monges and other psychologically corrupt Caucasians. On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 17:38:34 +0000, no justice wrote: Yates not guilty by reason of insanity Jury reached verdict after three days Wednesday, July 26, 2006 HOUSTON, Texas (AP) -- After three days of deliberation, jurors found that Andrea Yates was legally insane when she drowned her young children in a bathtub. The jury spent 11 hours Monday and Tuesday trying to determine if Yates was legally insane. Wednesday morning, they reviewed the state's definition of insanity and then asked to see a family photo and candid pictures of the five smiling youngsters. After about an hour of deliberations, they said they had reached a verdict. In Yates' first murder trial, in 2002, the jury deliberated about four hours before finding her guilty. That conviction was overturned on appeal. In both trials, Yates, 42, pleaded innocent by reason of insanity. Under Texas law, a person can be found insane if, because of a severe mental illness, he or she does not know the crime is wrong. The jury earlier asked to review the videotape of Yates' July 2001 evaluation by Dr. Phillip Resnick, a forensic psychiatrist who testified for the defense that she did not know killing the children was wrong because she was trying to save them from hell. Resnick told jurors that Yates was in a delusional state and believed 6-month-old Mary, 2-year-old Luke, 3-year-old Paul, 5-year-old John and 7-year-old Noah would grow up to be criminals because she had ruined them. Jurors later asked to review Yates' November 2001 videotaped evaluation by Dr. Park Dietz, the state's expert witness whose testimony led an appeals court to overturn Yates' 2002 capital murder conviction last year. Dietz, a forensic psychiatrist, testified in her first trial that an episode of the television series "Law & Order" depicted a woman who was acquitted by reason of insanity after drowning her children. But no such episode existed. State District Judge Belinda Hill barred attorneys in this trial from mentioning that issue. On Tuesday, after jurors asked for the trial transcript involving defense attorney George Parnham's questioning of Dietz about the definition of obsessions, the judge brought the jury back into the courtroom. The court reporter then read the brief transcript, in which Dietz said Yates "believed that Satan was at least present. She felt or sensed the presence." Dietz had testified that Yates' thoughts about harming her children were an obsession and a symptom of severe depression -- not psychosis. Earlier Tuesday, jurors reviewed the slide presentation of the state's key expert witness, Dr. Michael Welner, a forensic psychiatrist who evaluated Yates in May. He testified that she did not kill her children to save them from hell as she claims, but because she was overwhelmed and felt inadequate as a mother. Yates will be committed to a state mental hospital, with periodic hearings before a judge to determine whether she should be released -- although by law, jurors are not allowed to be told that. Prosecutors could not seek death this time because the first trial's jurors sentenced her to life in prison, and authorities found no new evidence. She is charged in only three of the deaths, which is common in cases involving multiple slayings. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
! Andrea Yates found Not Guilty of drowning her five children
I can't believe they didn't find her guilty. She did it right? That is
for certain. So how can they find her not guilty? Crazy or not, she killed her babies. She didn't have any right to do that to them. She needs to be put away somewhere. If she ever had another child, she would only do the same thing to them. I don't feel sorry for her. Everyone has some kind of problems, but we don't kill our children because our lives get us down. Give me a break. I don't care what they do to her. They should just cut her hands off I guess, to keep her from hurting more people. But I guess it's only the children she wants to hurt. Good luck to everyone who comes in contact with her. Sorry I have no sympathy for her. Why should I? My first child died at 32 weeks gestation and I was horribly devastated. I wanted him so much. I could never understand how someone could take a child's life on purpose. Oh well, it's not for me to figure out, that's up to God. I don't think you should kill anyone, especially not children. Precious little angels. 127.0.0.1 wrote: IamIaam Knowledge wrote: That's an incredibly sad story. When I think of all the pain and suffering the woman went through to birth five children. Then all the love, time, and energy she spent raising them. How in the hell can anyone feel sorry for that evil bitch?!! Someone needs to do to her, what she did to those children. Same with that Susan Smith whore, strap that bitch in the back seat of a car and push it in a lake. I can't believe we have sick *******s like you in the world who make excuses for these baby killers. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
! Andrea Yates found Not Guilty of drowning her five children
"That's an incredibly sad story. When I think of all the pain and suffering the woman went through to birth five children. Then all the love, time, and energy she spent raising them." Hey, I have given birth to five children so far, and I thought the pain and suffering as you call it was well worth it. I have no doubt something made her snap, but she is still guilty, she cannot change that fact. Crazy woman- I think she is a nut. IamIaam Knowledge wrote: That's an incredibly sad story. When I think of all the pain and suffering the woman went through to birth five children. Then all the love, time, and energy she spent raising them. She absolutely had to have lost it for some reason to destroy her entire legacy. She will always have to live with that. So putting her in an insane asylum is fine I guess. I don't think she would last long on the streets without any medical, or psychological help. She would probably commit suicide within six months. She looks like such a nice woman. those are the kinds of bizarre, evil things that people do when they have their minds mis-programmed. That's why I constantly try to educate Whites on White supremacy matters. 90% of white America is totally brain damaged, and all of this slaughtering of innocent babies, children, pregnant women, and other civilians is a result of the thinking that comes about when people are insane with ethnic hatred. Satan is gleefully waiting on the arrival of these hate-monges and other psychologically corrupt Caucasians. On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 17:38:34 +0000, no justice wrote: Yates not guilty by reason of insanity Jury reached verdict after three days Wednesday, July 26, 2006 HOUSTON, Texas (AP) -- After three days of deliberation, jurors found that Andrea Yates was legally insane when she drowned her young children in a bathtub. The jury spent 11 hours Monday and Tuesday trying to determine if Yates was legally insane. Wednesday morning, they reviewed the state's definition of insanity and then asked to see a family photo and candid pictures of the five smiling youngsters. After about an hour of deliberations, they said they had reached a verdict. In Yates' first murder trial, in 2002, the jury deliberated about four hours before finding her guilty. That conviction was overturned on appeal. In both trials, Yates, 42, pleaded innocent by reason of insanity. Under Texas law, a person can be found insane if, because of a severe mental illness, he or she does not know the crime is wrong. The jury earlier asked to review the videotape of Yates' July 2001 evaluation by Dr. Phillip Resnick, a forensic psychiatrist who testified for the defense that she did not know killing the children was wrong because she was trying to save them from hell. Resnick told jurors that Yates was in a delusional state and believed 6-month-old Mary, 2-year-old Luke, 3-year-old Paul, 5-year-old John and 7-year-old Noah would grow up to be criminals because she had ruined them. Jurors later asked to review Yates' November 2001 videotaped evaluation by Dr. Park Dietz, the state's expert witness whose testimony led an appeals court to overturn Yates' 2002 capital murder conviction last year. Dietz, a forensic psychiatrist, testified in her first trial that an episode of the television series "Law & Order" depicted a woman who was acquitted by reason of insanity after drowning her children. But no such episode existed. State District Judge Belinda Hill barred attorneys in this trial from mentioning that issue. On Tuesday, after jurors asked for the trial transcript involving defense attorney George Parnham's questioning of Dietz about the definition of obsessions, the judge brought the jury back into the courtroom. The court reporter then read the brief transcript, in which Dietz said Yates "believed that Satan was at least present. She felt or sensed the presence." Dietz had testified that Yates' thoughts about harming her children were an obsession and a symptom of severe depression -- not psychosis. Earlier Tuesday, jurors reviewed the slide presentation of the state's key expert witness, Dr. Michael Welner, a forensic psychiatrist who evaluated Yates in May. He testified that she did not kill her children to save them from hell as she claims, but because she was overwhelmed and felt inadequate as a mother. Yates will be committed to a state mental hospital, with periodic hearings before a judge to determine whether she should be released -- although by law, jurors are not allowed to be told that. Prosecutors could not seek death this time because the first trial's jurors sentenced her to life in prison, and authorities found no new evidence. She is charged in only three of the deaths, which is common in cases involving multiple slayings. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
! Andrea Yates found Not Guilty of drowning her five children
Gawd loves us all. Thats why he killed your kid, to spare us the trouble. Andrea is now childfree and forgiven by me for her sins. lkfraley wrote: I can't believe they didn't find her guilty. She did it right? That is for certain. So how can they find her not guilty? Crazy or not, she killed her babies. She didn't have any right to do that to them. She needs to be put away somewhere. If she ever had another child, she would only do the same thing to them. I don't feel sorry for her. Everyone has some kind of problems, but we don't kill our children because our lives get us down. Give me a break. I don't care what they do to her. They should just cut her hands off I guess, to keep her from hurting more people. But I guess it's only the children she wants to hurt. Good luck to everyone who comes in contact with her. Sorry I have no sympathy for her. Why should I? My first child died at 32 weeks gestation and I was horribly devastated. I wanted him so much. I could never understand how someone could take a child's life on purpose. Oh well, it's not for me to figure out, that's up to God. I don't think you should kill anyone, especially not children. Precious little angels. 127.0.0.1 wrote: IamIaam Knowledge wrote: That's an incredibly sad story. When I think of all the pain and suffering the woman went through to birth five children. Then all the love, time, and energy she spent raising them. How in the hell can anyone feel sorry for that evil bitch?!! Someone needs to do to her, what she did to those children. Same with that Susan Smith whore, strap that bitch in the back seat of a car and push it in a lake. I can't believe we have sick *******s like you in the world who make excuses for these baby killers. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
! Andrea Yates found Not Guilty of drowning her five children
In article .com,
"lkfraley" wrote: "That's an incredibly sad story. When I think of all the pain and suffering the woman went through to birth five children. Then all the love, time, and energy she spent raising them." Hey, I have given birth to five children so far, and I thought the pain and suffering as you call it was well worth it. I have no doubt something made her snap, but she is still guilty, she cannot change that fact. Crazy woman- I think she is a nut. And the courts have confirmed that. The jury agreed that she was legally insane at the time. I'd prefer it if they could make the verdict "guilty but legally insane" instead of "not guilty by reason of insanity" -- but that isn't an option available to the jury. -- Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
! Andrea Yates found Not Guilty of drowning her five children
lkfraley wrote: I can't believe they didn't find her guilty. She did it right? That is for certain. So how can they find her not guilty? Crazy or not, she killed her babies. She didn't have any right to do that to them. She needs to be put away somewhere. If she ever had another child, she would only do the same thing to them. I don't feel sorry for her. Everyone has some kind of problems, but we don't kill our children because our lives get us down. Give me a break. I don't care what they do to her. They should just cut her hands off I guess, to keep her from hurting more people. But I guess it's only the children she wants to hurt. Good luck to everyone who comes in contact with her. Sorry I have no sympathy for her. Why should I? My first child died at 32 weeks gestation and I was horribly devastated. I wanted him so much. I could never understand how someone could take a child's life on purpose. Oh well, it's not for me to figure out, that's up to God. I don't think you should kill anyone, especially not children. Precious little angels. ----- Guilt is about responsibility and not just about if a deed is done or not. Andrea Yates was insane at the time of the act with a clear history of mental illness proceeding the killings. If you are not in your right mind and can distinguish between right and wrong or more precisely in this case think you are sending your babies to heaven so they wouldn't grow up sinful, you are not responsible for your actions. Responsibility depends on the ability to understand. It is the reason we treat children differently than adults even if they commit similar crimes, or animals who attack humans. We may kill them because they have tasted human blood and are uncontrollable, but we are not punishing them. I too feel for the kids, but they were victims of postpartum psychosis and other mental illnesses like perhaps schizophrenia that ran in Andrea's family and Andrea being in the thrall of a cultish clergyman Michael Peter Woroniecki. By way of comparison Susan Smith was totally sane and clear headed when she drowned her kids so that she could win the affection of a would be boyfriend. Who indicated that he did not want to be saddled with another man's kid. He was NOT involved in ANYWAY in those killings I stress. What Susan Smith did was evil, what Andrea Yates did was the result of sickness. ----Hunter |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
! Andrea Yates found Not Guilty of drowning her five children
127.0.0.1 wrote: Hunter wrote: 127.0.0.1 wrote: Hunter wrote: lkfraley wrote: I can't believe they didn't find her guilty. She did it right? That is for certain. So how can they find her not guilty? Crazy or not, she killed her babies. She didn't have any right to do that to them. She needs to be put away somewhere. If she ever had another child, she would only do the same thing to them. I don't feel sorry for her. Everyone has some kind of problems, but we don't kill our children because our lives get us down. Give me a break. I don't care what they do to her. They should just cut her hands off I guess, to keep her from hurting more people. But I guess it's only the children she wants to hurt. Good luck to everyone who comes in contact with her. Sorry I have no sympathy for her. Why should I? My first child died at 32 weeks gestation and I was horribly devastated. I wanted him so much. I could never understand how someone could take a child's life on purpose. Oh well, it's not for me to figure out, that's up to God. I don't think you should kill anyone, especially not children. Precious little angels. ----- Guilt is about responsibility and not just about if a deed is done or not. Andrea Yates was insane at the time of the act with a clear history of mental illness proceeding the killings. If you are not in your right mind and can distinguish between right and wrong or more precisely in this case think you are sending your babies to heaven so they wouldn't grow up sinful, you are not responsible for your actions. Responsibility depends on the ability to understand. It is the reason we treat children differently than adults even if they commit similar crimes, or animals who attack humans. We may kill them because they have tasted human blood and are uncontrollable, but we are not punishing them. I too feel for the kids, but they were victims of postpartum psychosis and other mental illnesses like perhaps schizophrenia that ran in Andrea's family and Andrea being in the thrall of a cultish clergyman Michael Peter Woroniecki. By way of comparison Susan Smith was totally sane and clear headed when she drowned her kids so that she could win the affection of a would be boyfriend. Who indicated that he did not want to be saddled with another man's kid. He was NOT involved in ANYWAY in those killings I stress. What Susan Smith did was evil, what Andrea Yates did was the result of sickness. ----Hunter Your logic if flawed moron! You would have to be mental to go around and kill people at random, yes? No sane person would do that, right? ---- First you have a cartoon image of mental illness. It is not always about running around drooling a jabbering to one's self. Most aren't that way. It is a warped view of the world, your own reality. A mentally ill person could be at first blush appear rational until you start taking to them at length. Mental illness could and often is very subtle. What Andrea Yates did was under the influence of bad chemical imbalances in the brain supplemented by her religious beliefs worrying about her children growing up in sin. I know all about it... I'm 15 and have ADD. I've never had the urge to kill anyone. Sane people kill all the time. For relief of stress, for personal gain. Susan Smith had no history of mental illness, and did not have a mental illness at the time of her killing her children. Also. Andrea Yates, who had a clear documented case history of mental illness made no effort to conceal the crime. Indeed, she called 911 as soon as she laid out her kids bodies on the bed. She thought, through her warped reality she was saving her children. Has it not ever occurred to you that she was just an evil bitch who got tired of babysitting? In contrast Susan Smith concocted a phantom black kidnapper to curry sympathy and to cover up her murder of her children for the personal gain of winning a would be boyfriend. Yes, she was evil also. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Smith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates How many serial killers have we executed? Serial killers are nut-cakes like Yates, both are mental and both should be KILLED! ---- No. Serial killers, most of them, are not mentally ill. Quite the opposite, they are very rational. How can you say serial killers aren't mental? NORMAL PEOPLE DO NOT GO AROUND KILLING PEOPLE. Uhhhh, that's not NORMAL BEHAVIOR. They made have suffered some child hood trauma that put them on that path and is suffering from unresolved rage but otherwise they know right from wrong. Sure they no right from wrong, but they kill anyway, that's what makes them mental. What's wrong with putting serial killers to death and not Yates? Both are mental. ---- Yates has a treatable disease that was and is responding to psyhcothropic drugs. Drugs she did not get before the killing for a mental disease she was known to have. What kind of drugs? Ritilan? Indeed, the clinic treating her turned her away. The fundamentalist church she belonged to may have discoraged her from seeking treatment relying on the Lord to help her instead. On the other hand Ted Bundy didn't have a detectable mental illness. Nonetheless Bundy was mental. NORMAL PEOPLE DO NOT GO AROUND AND KILL OTHER PEOPLE. He calculatingly tried to sloth off responsibility to the porn he read. John Wayne Gacy didn't have a mental illness. Aileen Wuornos didn't. Neither did Jeffrey Dahmer. Many serial killers did suffer some trauma as children including physical and sexual abuse that lead to their compulsions but they weren't mentally ill or legally insane at the time(s) of they committing murder. Most of them also have had a previous criminal history. Andrea Yates did not to the best of my knowledge. How can you say these guys weren't mental? The people you mentioned above killed others because they got pleasure in murdering other people. Only a nut-job gets pleasure out of hurting or murdering people. Care to deny that the Marquis De Sade was mental, even though some have called him a brilliant writer? I read - 120 Days Of Sodom and had bad dreams from reading that crap. None of that was true, right? Still dunno if that was fact or fiction - Fiction I think, I really don't think humans could do that evil stuff to another human. Is fiction, yes? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne_Gacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Bundy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileen_Wuornos This is the trouble many people have with mental illness. Monstrous acts can be and are committed by sane people, Susan Smith for one. But also a physical mental illness brought on by actual chemical imbalances in the brain can cause people to commit monstrous acts. People can't see mental illness but it is as real as a broken arm. I have ADD and I don't kill people, I don't drown children, I don't strap children in the back seats of cars and push the car in a lake. Many people at my school have ADD and we don't kill people. ----- There are different disease of the brain and mind just like there are different disease of the body. Having a skin rash is not like haveing skin cancer. Comparing Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD or AADHD if you are an Adult) and Postpartum psychosis would be like comparing a head cold with Lime disease. People afflicted with ADD don't have psychological breaks from reality. However, someone who doesn't know and understand your condition could interpret your possible forgetfulness, poor impulse control and mood shifts as willful, inconsiderate, irresponsible and childish behavior. Indeed, before it was diagnosed many people afflicted with ADHD where treated quite harshly by disciplinarians thinking they were dealing with recalcitrant children or selfish adults, just like people with Dyslexia where treated as stupid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attenti...ivity_disorder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postpar...rtum_psychosis Unless she is on the proper medication, it is not something she can help. Indeed, it was her not being able to get the drugs and trusting that God would see her through is what caused the tragedy. What would happen if you don't take your meds? You may not go out and kill someone, but your illness would manifest itself wouldn't it? Unfortunately Post-partum psychosis manifest itself in the form of delusions, which were deadly to her children. ----Hunter |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
! Andrea Yates found Not Guilty of drowning her five children
127.0.0.1 wrote:
IamIaam Knowledge wrote: That's an incredibly sad story. When I think of all the pain and suffering the woman went through to birth five children. Then all the love, time, and energy she spent raising them. How in the hell can anyone feel sorry for that evil bitch?!! Someone needs to do to her, what she did to those children. ------------------------- You're immature and stalled at a low level of developmental damage. Steve |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
! Andrea Yates found Not Guilty of drowning her five children
lkfraley wrote:
I can't believe they didn't find her guilty. She did it right? That is for certain. So how can they find her not guilty? Crazy or not, she killed her babies. She didn't have any right to do that to them. ---------------------- You're confused about the law. We don't punish people who didn't know what they were doing, who were actually delusional. The law requires that they FORM INTENT to do the evil perpetrated. That means they have to know the consequences and intend to do what they did. They did NOT form intent if they were deluded by some process not in their control. Steve |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
! Andrea Yates found Not Guilty of drowning her five children
127.0.0.1 wrote:
Your logic if flawed moron! You would have to be mental to go around and kill people at random, yes? No sane person would do that, right? How many serial killers have we executed? Serial killers are nut-cakes like Yates, both are mental and both should be KILLED! What's wrong with putting serial killers to death and not Yates? Both are mental. ---------------------------- If they did not plead insanity and were convicted, then there is no evidence of insanity. But you're right, they are insane and should be crippled surgically and then gently enslaved for a lifetime of simple work and supervision with proper recreation. Steve |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
misc.kids FAQ on Firearms Safety & Children | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | December 19th 05 05:36 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Firearms Safety & Children | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | November 18th 05 05:36 AM |
CHILD'S DEATH IN OVERCROWDED FOSTER HOME HIGHLIGHTS STATEWIDE PROBLEM | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 33 | August 12th 05 01:49 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Spanking | 12 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
Addtl Congressional hearing to monitor $ to foster care & adoption | Fern5827 | Foster Parents | 2 | November 14th 03 04:35 AM |