Yates Verdict In. And the winner is...

[Drbio]

And as for hate...do I hate murderers? Absolutely. Even more than I hate the dipshits that try to absolve them...but only barely more.

[MavKikiNYC]

I see no sensibility or reason in your expressions of violence and hatred toward that woman.

You're a pathetic excuse for law enforement. If they know of your true mental state, I'm sure they're quite relieved that you're no longer active. I know I am. Waste of tax dollars in disability though.

I mock you not because you disagree, but because of the deliberate violence that you express that you'd like to see inflicted on that woman. As if you are one bit less deserving of it yourself.

You advertise your hatred proudly, fortunate that you've never been prosecuted for it. That woman commited an unspeakable act against her children, her family and herself, but I see YOU as the more culpable of the two.

[Drbio]

You just don't have a clue. I believe wholeheartedly in the death penalty. It is clearly spelled out in the law and is a legal practice. It doesn't matter if you don't like ti or not...it is the law. She commited a capital offense that is subject to the death penalty as defined in the law. She MURDERED four CHILDREN. She deserves to die. I don't give a rats ass if you like it...it's the law. If you don't like it..then lobby your congressman...otherwise..quityourbitchin! You have no idea what law officers stand for or go through...although I am sure that you will come back with some bullshit pompous comment to the contrary.

[Drbio]

I mock you not because you disagree, but because of the deliberate violence that you express that you'd like to see inflicted on that woman. As if you are one bit less deserving of it yourself

The woman earned the right to be subjected to the death penalty since she MURDERED HER KIDS. You would have the same penalty for someone who agrees with the law and is vocal about it. Not a liberal my ass. Free speach is obviously a foreign concept to you.

[Drbio]

You obviously think it is ok to let a murderer go free as long as they have something screwy in the head going on. If you ever get arrested for murder, have them call me to testify...I will definitely confirm that you are screwy in the head. It is high time that people started taking responsibility for their actions. If someone murders someone...they shold be punished under the constraints of the law. This case clearly qualifies for the death penalty. We should use it.

What a freak!

[MavKikiNYC]

You're a clueless idiot--a disgrace to honest police officers, hiding yourself not behind a police officer's badge, but behind the anonymity of an internet chatroom to voice opinions that would get you dismissed from any reputable police force.

Contemptible.

I obviously think that THIS woman was not sane by any stretch of the law when she committed the murders. You are obviously too psychotically stupid to make any distinction.

Sorry to disappoint you on the death penalty (which, in case you missed it, I support.). She'll be serving life in prison.

[Drbio]

Once again...you judge without substance. Two-time peace officer of the year and decorated veteran. You haven't a clue what it means to be an officer or what we go through. I am happy to not "hide behind a chatroom" as you allege. You are losing an argument that is clear. Murderer's should be punished as allowed by law. So, you resort to ambiguous name-calling and misguided statements. Before you accuse me of name-calling as well...you would be right. But it sickens me to hear someone dispute that Yates MURDERED her kids....four helpless trusting kids that had noone to look after them when the person they loved and trusted most...MURDERED them summarily and with premeditated action. Sick...just sick.

[MavKikiNYC]

You are psychotic, sir. Possibly delusional. Clearly anti-social.

Willing to pass judgment on this woman without knowing ANY facts firsthand, denying the need to even consider her state of mental health. The concept of 'premeditation' is meaningless if you're dealing with a person who was mentally incapacitated.

Sickening.

[Drbio]

voice opinions that would get you dismissed from any reputable police force.

hardly...the vast majority of police officers support the death penalty and it's appropriate use in cases such as this. We are sick and tired of bullshit lawyers using bullshit pycho-analysts to undermine the law. And those opinions would not only NOT get an officer fired, it would instigate a standing ovation at any departmental meeting in the US.

[MavKikiNYC]

So you would smear the reputation of law enforcement officers large-scale by equating your psychotic opinions with theirs?

That's how much you respect the profession?

[Drbio]

You are so quick to judge...to label people you do not know...you lob the accusations you are so clearly guilty of yourself. It's sad.

[MavKikiNYC]

You're right, in part. I assumed that you had no first-hand knowledge of mental illness. I'm certainly reconsidering that assumption.

[Drbio]

Anyone who labels someone else as psychotic becuase they believe in the death penalty and wish for it to be carried out in the most heinous of cases (like this one where four kids were MURDERED) just doesn't have a f*cking clue.

[Drbio]

Two things are obvious....you have no kids....and you have no clue.

[Drbio]

Maybe we should just agree to disagree....

and if I offended with profanity...sorry. But I do believe she is guilty of the most heinous of all crimes...the murder of her 4 precious and helpless kids. Kids that trusted her above all...the definition of innocence. She is guilty of the worst thing imaginable. The jury found her guilty therefore the mental illness issue is moot by law. The law is clear that the death penalty is allowed. I may have stated it too sternly for your liking, but the penalty should be carried out.

[MavKikiNYC]

And if you have kids, I pity them.

[Drbio]

Your opinion and pity mean nothing.

[Murphy3]

dock, you may be a bit extreme..however, to be so blatantly attacked by someone such as mavskiki..well, his actions are reprehensible.

mavskiki..to attack him in such a manner on this board and to say things such as "you don't know me" when you say things about doc that would indicate that you are insinuating that you know him..well, it's very hypocritical of you..

it's fine to throw out your opinions but the way you're attacking a fellow member in such a blatant manner is disgusting in light of the fact that dj has so recently posted a code of conducts..

i'm not saying that doc didn't violate any....however, the main rule is to not attack fellow members. you have done so and then become hypocritical about it.

[Drbio]

Murph- good post. I freely admitted (and apologized) for the use of profanity. Did I state my view too sternly...probably.....

I've extended the olive branch post...but I am done with it. I will never apologize for being offended when someone murders children. Apparently others feel that it might be ok to murder children if you claim to be mentally ill.

Thanks for pulling me back in...

[MavKikiNYC]

Read the thread and you'll see where the violence began and who accused whom of what first.

And while I commend you for your puerile attempt to restore civlity to the board, your effort, like your opinions, are unnecessary.

In short, screw you, Princess.

[Drbio]

Well that was nice.

[Murphy3]

i did read what was said.
and yes, i do believe that doc was/is to extreme. however, you started with the personal comments.

i will not stoop to the level that this post has already gone to. I am simply trying to restore some peace.

yes, debate, that's fine. i enjoy a good debate. however, i would like for some of the posts to continue to discuss the topic ..not simply escalate from one put down to another

[Drbio]

I just re-read the entire thread. I agree that I went off...made a few statements that were in poor judgement and was probably a little too stern. But I make no apologies for being offended when someone tries to justify the actions of a murderer with worn out claims of mental deficiency. It is high time for people to take responsibility for their actions. I am done with this argument. I'd rather talk hoops.

[Murphy3]

and doc..there's no reason to apologize for your opinion.

it is good of you to apologize for going overboard. It's very humane of you

[Drbio]

I'd rather talk hoops...

[djb]

Going back to what Drbio said previously, since the jury found Yates guilty of the murders, doesn't that make the whole "mental" issue moot?

[MavKikiNYC]

Mother Who Drowned 5 Children in Tub Avoids a Death Sentence
By JIM YARDLEY

HOUSTON, March 15 — Andrea Pia Yates, the mentally ill mother convicted of drowning her children in a bathtub, avoided the death penalty today as a Texas jury recommended a life sentence that requires that she spend at least 40 years in prison.

The jury of eight women and four men, which took less than four hours on Tuesday to reject Mrs. Yates's insanity plea and find her guilty of murder, took only 35 minutes today to return a life sentence. Mrs. Yates, 37, seemed to smile at her lawyers before leaving the courtroom, and one of them, Wendell Odom, later described her as "relieved," if somewhat confused by the proceedings.

The punishment phase of the trial was notable for the passivity of Harris County prosecutors, usually considered among the most aggressive in the nation. Months ago, District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal had brushed aside criticism to pursue the death penalty against Mrs. Yates. Yet during closing statements today, one prosecutor, Joe Owmby, never asked jurors for a death sentence and almost seemed to be steering them to vote for life.

The other prosecutor, Kaylynn Williford, was more forceful, asking jurors to remember the brutality of the killings and saying the crime met the standard for a death sentence. But she also said, "Whatever decision you make, the state will accept."

Prosecutors made no opening statement in the punishment hearing and presented no witnesses.

Russell Yates, Mrs. Yates's husband, expressed relief at the life sentence, but added that his family was "offended she was ever prosecuted." Mr. Yates blamed the medical establishment and the justice system for failing his wife and others with mental illness.

Asked if he bore any responsibility or would change anything he had done, Mr. Yates paused. "I can't change the past," he said at a news conference after the trial. "I know I did all I could."

Given a second chance, Mr. Yates said, he would have taken his wife to a different hospital in the months before the killings and to a different psychiatrist. Defense lawyers had criticized the last psychiatrist to treat Mrs. Yates for taking her off the anti-psychotic drug Haldol about two weeks before the drownings.

"All of us in our family, we all stand behind Andrea," Mr. Yates said.

The four-week trial attracted national attention as advocates for the mentally ill argued that the standard for an insanity defense was too strict in Texas and that society needed to do more to recognize and treat mental illness.

Mrs. Yates, who had received diagnoses of postpartum depression and psychosis after her fourth and fifth children were born, confessed to the police that she drowned her five children, ages 6 months to 7 years, in a bathtub on June 20.

She later told relatives and psychiatrists that Satan was inside her and that she had killed her children to save them from "hellfire and damnation."

Patrick Kennedy, a brother of Mrs. Yates, said, "We don't as a family believe justice was accomplished here because we believe a sick person has been sent to prison for 40 years."

Dr. Lucy Puryear, a psychiatrist who testified on behalf of Mrs. Yates, said she is taking anti-psychotic medication and that because of its numbing effect, "she doesn't really have an emotional understanding of what's going on."

Defense lawyers read a short letter Mrs. Yates wrote in which she said, "I thank God I was blessed with such a precious family."

George Parnham, a defense lawyer, said Mrs. Yates "regrets that this illness brought her to a place where she could kill her own children."

Throughout the trial, lawyers and family members have been silenced by an order from Judge Belinda Hill of State District Court. But today, Mr. Yates spoke freely, saying the silencing order had been "personally injurious" to his reputation.

He responded to accusations that he was a controlling husband who had done too little to support his wife, saying he and his mother had taken responsibility for the children and other concerns during Mrs. Yates's bout with psychosis. He sharply attacked the local medical community and said he had not known that Mrs. Yates was psychotic and never thought she would harm their children.

"She never told me she'd had any thought of harming the children before," he said.

Asked if he would remain married, he said, "I don't know." Mr. Yates, a NASA engineer, said he might pursue a new career. Asked if he would like to have more children, he said: "I don't know. Maybe."

The possible sentences for capital murder in Texas are death or life in prison. Texas law requires two conditions for a death sentence: that the defendant be considered a future danger to society and that no mitigating factors warrant the lesser life sentence. Jurors today found that Mrs. Yates posed no future danger, so did not need to address the issue of mitigating factors. The date of the official sentencing has not been set.

Outside the courthouse, prosecutors were repeatedly asked about their actions during the punishment phase and their approach toward the death penalty.

Mr. Rosenthal, the district attorney, said the trial had concluded as "we had predicted," and he repeated his position that he had pursued the death penalty so jurors would have a full range of sentencing options.

Ms. Williford denied she had softened her argument. If faced with the decision again, she said, she would still have sought the death penalty.

Mr. Owmby, though, said he did not "think the facts in this case" warranted his recommending the death penalty.

Before closing arguments today and without the jury present, defense lawyers made an unsuccessful motion for a mistrial after discovering that an expert witness for the prosecution, Dr. Park Dietz, had made a mistake in his testimony. Dr. Dietz, a psychiatrist, testified that the television program "Law & Order," for which he is a consultant, broadcast an episode shortly before the killings in which a mother was acquitted on an insanity defense after drowning her children in a bathtub. But no such episode was ever taped.

Mr. Parnham, the defense lawyer, argued that this error was critical because the jury could have considered it evidence of possible premeditation after prosecutors suggested she could have seen the program.

[MavKikiNYC]

DJ:

Even though there was a guilty verdict, the issue wasn't moot--it would've been considered a mitigating factor as to whether she was sentenced to life in prison instead of execution.

It became moot when jurors decided that she did not pose a future threat to society.