Andrea Yates (woman who drowned children in bathtub) conviction has been overturned:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=3...t=Andrea_Yates
Andrea Yates (woman who drowned children in bathtub) conviction has been overturned:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=3...t=Andrea_Yates
"That's your answer Old Man? I guess you're a Hard Case too...."
- Luke
"Some men, you just can't reach...."
- Boss, re Luke
If there's one thing in my life these years have taught me,
it's that you can always see it coming, but you can never stop it.
-Cowboy Junkies





Not being a legal nut, I can't speak for how big a role this technicality of sorts played in AY's sentence being overturned. I will say some of the comments on the Yahoo message board there, are uhh, quite chilling.
My two cents: As heinous has her crime was, I doubt that was of sound mind when she commited it. She had serious mental problems and should have been sent to a psychiatric facility, not prison.
Former SCJ now in rehab.





Are you freekin kidding me!!!!!!!!
I dont consider this as the system working.I consider it as the system failing.
This isnt about if she is guilty or not,its about lawyers wanting to stay in the headlines.(fuckin lawyers!)
Ok so whats up with this doc who lied on the stand??Will they go after him?I sure as chit hope so!I hope he sees jail time,its deserved imo.
What about the two kids she killed that they didnt charge her on??
I dont think this will change a thing in the end,she will still be convicted and rightfully so.
Her lawyers should have told her to act crazy in jail all this time,now she is going to have a real hard time crying "crazy".The head doctors in jail will testify she is sane and has acted sane since the end of the trial.
Not alot of news stories send chills down my spine as much as this one.
I wish Texas would be Texas and just zap her.
I don't understand them turning over the conviction. Scott Peterson was obviously "out of his mind" when he killed his wife and unborn child. No one of "sound mind" would do something that heinous.
In the AY case, I believe it was a shining example of how one person raising small children can go "nuts". Her husband and family HAD to have seen the signs of "instability" coming in...they chose to ignore it...thinking it would go away. In my mind, not only is AY responsible for the children's murder, but so are her husband and family. Maybe the husband and family are not "directly" responsible, but they are responsible by ignoring the signs.





wow i hate thinking about the details of this case,its really disturbing to me.Originally Posted by VenusGoddess
I think your right though VG,they did know she wasnt stable before this happened,they are guilty of something,not sure what,but something IMO.
Shit goes in circles,they will get theres.





I doubt anyone would go after Park Dietz. He's rather well connected and somewhat famous.
It is my professional opinion () that her family is guilty of neglect and indifference. Will they ever be tried on those charges? No, probably not. Because in the eyes of the law, they are victims. The real victims were the children. The other victim was AY...if her family would have lived up to their responsibility, she would not have murdered her children. That does not mean that she is not "responsible" for the ultimate outcomes of her crimes, however, there is never "one perpetrator" and "one victim". Nothing ever affects one person...as is so blatant in this case.
But, I'm just a stripper... What do I know.
![]()
technicality??????Originally Posted by doc-catfish
Presenting absolute lies as cornerstone evidence, even repeated as a closing argument theme is a "technicality"? Say WHAT?
This term is right up with "activist judge" for title of the most simplisitcally used intentional malapropism of all time.
Lets call this one "bong hit cartoon justice".Originally Posted by BigGreenMNM
The system may have delayed to bring justice to the victims in this case, but succeeded without delay, in a more important, bedrock goal, preserving the system's own integrity.Originally Posted by BigGreenMnM
Of course. I'll ignore the surrounding context...Originally Posted by BigGreenMnM
Why is no one asking for the prosecutor to be charged? This is a frigin expert he HIRED. This was not surprise testimony. He put it in closing! Where's the outrage?
Atticus Finch where are you? (I'm sure a cartoon version of To Kill a Mockingbird is available somewhere....)
Last edited by stant; 01-07-2005 at 09:17 AM.
She gets a new trial. Hopefully somewhat closer to reality this time. The State get away with a pretty outrageous crime however, by getting a second bite at this apple. The Texas Appeal court was soft on crime...crimes of the State.Originally Posted by VenusGoddess
It is wrong to give a party whose advocate commits a heinous act a second bite at the apple. Otherwise they have no reason to curb their unethical ways.
Fining or jailing the lawyer is not enough because the party (in this case the state) could just keep tossing sacrificial lamb newbie attornies up to do the dirty deed. The State should pay.
It's this simple: State says, "We prove she planned this murder, by showing she copied a TV show."
Truth is NO SHOW WAS EVER ON TV. Case over. Done. But I guess cheating, lying, self-righteous prosecutors are OK in Texas. They get a second chance.
I disagree with GB now. The system did fail.
[Good question btw, one which people should discuss more when this happens.]
Last edited by stant; 01-07-2005 at 09:27 AM.





Like I said, I'm not a lawyer, and like most non-lawyers merely wish for three simple things from our justice system:Originally Posted by stant
1. People who commit crimes who were of sound mind when they did them should be convicted and sent to prison
2. People who commit crimes but only did so because they were nuts should be sent to a psychiatric ward somewhere for treatment.
3. People accused of crimes they did not commit, should be acquitted.
As far as I'm concerned, the fact that this so called witness lied about the existence of an episode of a semi-fictional television show plays no role in determining which of those three categories AY belongs in. Therefore to my bumpkin non-lawyer mind, the decision to overturn her sentence (which I did not agree with) was on account of a technicality, not because the system concluded that AY was put in the wrong group.
I know in reality, its a bit more complcated than that, but hey that's what we hire you experts for, right?
Former SCJ now in rehab.
OK I think you all are missing that she will be retried. The State gets a do over. OK? No decision is made about the findings of fact. And the decision here under your simple model has no group 3. SHE CONFESSED.Originally Posted by doc-catfish
What do you mean by "technicality"? You mean bullshit. Right? Not important stuff.
What do you mean by "so called" witness? You mean a bullshit witness. Right?
So why not just say it: "The law and the evidence is bullshit. I know better."
Or why not look at what really happened in court:
State says, "We prove she planned this murder, by showing she copied a TV show." Truth is NO SHOW WAS EVER ON TV.
So-called witness my ass. Doc Bumpkin, if you were trying a capital murder case and relied on the plot of a TV show the defendant supposedly watched to convince a jury that she planned the crime.....wouldn't you WATCH the show?
Outrageous liars, or the stupidest most negligent prosecutors in the country.
Give them a second chance?
***
Edit:
OK. I took a second look at what you said. I think the issue here is really how poorly this has been reported in the press. Almost an absolute given these days with every court decision. This jury had a very limited issue to decide, and NOT whether the defendant committed the act. They were tasked to evaluate the motive and mental state of the defendant. And THIS lying witness was a psychiatrist! THE ONLY ONE PROSECUTORS CALLED!
Take a look, that's it. "Sound mind" as you put it, or "too whacked to know right from wrong." Bad jury instructions by me here but you get the idea.
Looking at it now, what do you think?
Last edited by stant; 01-07-2005 at 10:31 AM. Reason: bad press impact
Generally, it was held under the Model Penal Code that a defendant was criminally insane "if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law."
After Hinckley was found to be legally insane for his shooting of Reagan (not to mention Brady), a number of jurisdictions scaled back to the more conservative M'Naghten approach - basically, that because of mental disease or defect, the defendant doesn't know right from wrong. Generally under M'Naghten, the defendant is presumed sane and has to prove insanity, although that's not the universal standard.
Legal esoterics aside, I have little sympathy for the State when it puts on false evidence. I have even less sympathy for someone who kills five children. Due to a little extra knowledge I have, it wouldn't have bothered me personally to see the conviction go through - but from a procedural standpoint, the State cannot put on false evidence and expect it to carry through successfully.
Next round.
Last edited by Jay Zeno; 01-08-2005 at 07:31 AM.
As I understand it, after a new trial the result this time could be she gets the death penalty.
If it works out that way I think she might rather have lost this appeal.
Yates is insane, She didn't have any reason to do what she did. No one should have allowed her to be the primary caretaker of those children after knowing she was having mental problems for years before. She shouldn't have been having more children with her post pardom depression. The doctors knew it, her husband knew it and nothing was done. If I was her, I wouldn't want to ever face the reality of what happened. The father and the doctors had a responsibility to protect the children and they didn't.
Bookmarks