Error editing post! Your message is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 5 characters.
Ugh.. This pisses me off. She got the idea from "Law & Order"? Give me a fucking break. She even admitted for herself after she was caught, that she had tried to go through with it a couple of times before, but backed out. I don't believe shit about the PPD (Post Partum Depression). And I also don't believe that "God" told her to do it because it would save them.
She may be a fucking whackjob, but she KNEW what she was doing.
I'm pretty sure it was clear to her what she was doing when, after drowning the first four children, she had to chase her oldest all around the house to get him into the bathtub. That was the most horrifying fact that I read about this case. This little boy tried to RUN from his mother, after seeing his infant sister lying in the bathtub, dead.
The episode of "Law & Order" that supposedly aired with the mother drowning her children and claiming insanity, was shown just shortly before Andrea took the lives of her children. In court documents where she confessed, she had admitted that she had tried to go through with killing them two or three times before, and I believe that would have been prior to the airing of that episode.
Noah, John, Luke, Paul, and Mary deserve justice. Their lives were taken from the same person who gave them life. I can only hope that if and when they do let her out, the people around her make her pay with her own life. She doesn't deserve to live.
Below is the tribute site created by the childrens' father.
Oh yeah.. I caught the news this morning. I really don't know how they bought that whole "Law & Order" story. The episode mentioned did NOT air until AFTER she killed her children.
Blech.
she should be killed. slowly. with a pair of pliers and a blowtorch.
Hell fucking yeah, Scorpio.
That's such a joke, Scorpio. You know you would never let her off that easy.Originally Posted by scorpio
It's stories like these that just piss me off. AY was NOT the only person responsible for the kids' death. Her husband was responsible as well...along with every other member of her family that saw she was going through a depression and did nothing to help.
The only victims in this case are the children. They are dead because their family did not care enough to prevent their death. Nice. I won't support this cause for any reason.
Ja ja ja... that's the whole point - ya'll have this reversed; the PROSECUTION'S expert witness testified as to the episode's possible effect, and the PROSECUTOR used it in his closing arguments to the jury. And due to the reaction ya'll are having over the possibilities it raises, the court ruled that the prejudicial effect it may have had on the jury was too great for there to be any faith in the validity of their verdict.Originally Posted by Rhiannon
As for the general sentiments expressed regarding Yates, while I have no love lost for the woman if she doesn't meet the standard for legal insanity, there's no reason to continue the charade and keep the statute on the books - 'cause cases with this much well documented evidence of a long downward spiral into total insanity, complete with lengthy, full-blown delusional episodes lasting for significant periods of time are few and far between. And if her insanity defense is rejected and she's convicted again on the retrial, I suspect you'll eventually see that conviction reversed as well - when her challenge to the constitutionality of Texas' insanity statute is upheld.
"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


And it takes a LONG time to drown someone. 2-5 minutes. I can't understand how she was able to do that let alone chase down her older child who was probably struggling the whole time (and 9 year olds are quite large) yet she held him down the whole time... **Shivers at the thought**
On the legal matter, I believe that the judge should be held accountable for allowing the prosecution to use the false evidence in court. To me, the judge blew it and should be held accountable.
~*~ I must not fear. ~*~Fear is the mind-killer.Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.I will face my fear.I will permit it to pass over me and through me.And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.~*~ Only I will remain. ~*~
Originally Posted by Chani_Fremen
Not sure of the sequence of events in this case, but it happens all the time - for a variety of reasons. The Judge doesn't necessarily know exactly what the parties are going to offer up as evidence in advance, especially insofar as what's going to be said by witnesses when they take the stand. Moreover, the Judge doesn't really have the time or resources to track down and verify all the evidence offered by the parties... nor should he be charged with doing so. Instead, we rely on opposing counsel to use the rules of evidence and procedure to force the party offering the evidence to verify it. And finally, of course, the simple fact of the matter is that Judges do make mistakes and "blow it," which is why we have appellate courts (and hey, although I doubt it will happen, the State could appeal and win on "harmless error" or some other such crap, and the Judge will not be viewed as having really "blown it" at all).
Who should be held accountable is the D.A. - it's his witness, he DOES know everything that's going to come out of this guy's mouth, and he has both ethical duties and legal obligations which should have prevented this from occurring. Sad thing is, they do it all the time, and you'd be amazed how often they get away with it.
"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
Just because her conviction was overturned does not mean she's going to be walking out and about in the world any time soon, her own lawyers have stated that they are not trying to get her set free at all.
The Law & Order episode in question doesn't even exist and what is most annoying is the amount of money paid to this witness who spoke out of his ass.
Aja... and it's not like it's the first time he's done so. He's testified for the prosecution in several high-profile cases around the coountry, and always seems to provide them with this kind of incredibly damning "over-the-top" testimony... much of which has been professionally questioned and criticized by his peers.Originally Posted by Rebuildme
"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
Uh.. Yeah.. I didn't say that it wasn't the Prosecution that brought that whole story to the table. So I don't have anything reversed.Originally Posted by GnBeret
Anyway.. Chani.. Yep, that's how it happened, per her own words. She said that her oldest (Noah, 7 years old), was summoned to the bathroom by her, and when he saw his baby sister floating in the tub, he ran. She ran after him for quite awhile (again, her words), and finally got him into the tub.
I hate to be really graphic here, but the medical examiners who performed the autopsies on the children concluded that all of them had inhaled vomit, feces, and other bodily fluids, proving that they had struggled, and struggled very hard, for quite a few minutes, before dying.
So yes, it took quite a bit of strength to commit all 5 of those crimes. She freaking knew what she was doing, and had planned it well in advance. Nothing will convince me otherwise.
And your point would be what? Unless you're operating under the mistaken impression that the kinds of severe delusional states that render you legally insane are only of very short-term duration, how long they struggled is meaningless. On the other hand, barring the slim possibility that she managed to make it that far in life without anyone having a clue that she was the kind of full-blown sociopath that would get a kick out of holding a child down as described above, seems too me your description of what she must have seen, smelled, and felt for the several minutes it took her to drown even one of these children is a telling indicator of just how completely fucking delusional shhe actually was at the time!Originally Posted by Rhiannon
People who suffer such severe delusions are perfectly capable of making plans, etc., it's just that they do within the framework of their delusion, as opposed to the bounds of reality. Have you ever dealt with acute mental patients, Rhia? Ever seen them when they're suffering full-blown aural, visual, etc., delusions? They're literally off in their own little world... pieces of the reality around them interwoven with rest of what their mind has constructed for them to see as they look about and whatever God or whoever the hell else it is that's talking to them at the time is telling them... and while I know it's difficult to imagine if you haven't been arround them, they hear it just as clear as you hear your friend when ya'll are having a normal conversation... 'cept in their case, it's GOD...Originally Posted by Rhiannon
"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




You might say if Park Dietz were a SC entertainer, he'd be an extras girl.Originally Posted by GnBeret
-Ev
Uh.. Yeah, obviously she does have something wrong with her. That's clear to see. BUT.. My point IS.. She has said herself that she had planned to murder her children quite a few times BEFORE she actually went through with it. That's premeditation. She planned it. No denying that. The findings of the Medical Examiners (and the reason why I included the graphic details of them), proved that the children did struggle, and fought for their lives. I'm not buying it for a second that while she was holding each of them under the water, she didn't know what the hell she was doing to them. Even the most fucked up person would have realized it after the FIRST child. She was also very detailed in her confession, telling how she drowned each one, and chased the oldest down. Someone who was as severely fucked in the head as her defense claimed she was would hardly have such a vivid recollection of the events.And your point would be what? Unless you're operating under the mistaken impression that the kinds of severe delusional states that render you legally insane are only of very short-term duration, how long they struggled is meaningless. On the other hand, barring the slim possibility that she managed to make it that far in life without anyone having a clue that she was the kind of full-blown sociopath that would get a kick out of holding a child down as described above, seems too me your description of what she must have seen, smelled, and felt for the several minutes it took her to drown even one of these children is a telling indicator of just how completely fucking delusional shhe actually was at the time!
People who suffer such severe delusions are perfectly capable of making plans, etc., it's just that they do within the framework of their delusion, as opposed to the bounds of reality.As a matter of fact, yes I have. My younger sister was diagnosed with multiple personalities (they found 9), and also severe depression. I can't count how many times in the past I had to physically restrain her from hurting herself, and others. Have YOU ever dealt with something like that first-hand?Have you ever dealt with acute mental patients, Rhia?
I've seen my share of outbursts. But I will NEVER, EVER buy that sorry excuse for murdering FIVE children. She systematically drowned every last one of them. Are you trying to say that she was truly unaware of what she was doing? Why do you think that she called the police after she was done? She did confess.Ever seen them when they're suffering full-blown aural, visual, etc., delusions? They're literally off in their own little world... pieces of the reality around them interwoven with rest of what their mind has constructed for them to see as they look about and whatever God or whoever the hell else it is that's talking to them at the time is telling them... and while I know it's difficult to imagine if you haven't been arround them, they hear it just as clear as you hear your friend when ya'll are having a normal conversation... 'cept in their case, it's GOD...
You can defend her until your fingers fall off. It does not, and never will change what she's done. I don't care if she's suffering from every single mental ailment in the books. There is NO excuse, especially when she was fully aware of it.
I'm not going to argue with you, so you can stop at any time. You're no expert, and neither am I. We both can only speculate, and defend whatever it is we feel is right. Children being murdered by the same person who gave them life is one of the worst crimes imaginable. The ONLY victims in this case are those 5 children.
Last edited by Rhiannon; 01-09-2005 at 10:09 AM.




According to certain news stories, there was NEVER an L&O episode of that nature at the time of the trial. This Associated Press story reports the prosecution confused an L.A. Law episode with L&O when it asked Park Dietz about it before the trial, and Dietz subsequently failed to get his facts straight during testimony for the prosecution.Originally Posted by Rhiannon
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/20...pf-812903.html
-Ev
L&O, LA Law.. Doesn't matter, it's all the same. The whole "Art imitating life" thing is ridiculous.
Dietz is a moron anyway. I doubt he'd even know how to turn a television on, let alone find the channel to watch the show.




Are you sure she said that? We're at a disadvantage here because we don't have the court transcripts, only second-hand news reports and those can be lacking in detail or just plain wrong.Originally Posted by Rhiannon
This article seems to provide at least one person's analysis that she did not say that specifically.
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/djg...es/gen10p0.htm
This passage starts around footnote #23:
"She [Deborah Denno] takes particular issue with Dietz's obsession with trying to explain Andrea's actions as logical. For example, although Andrea had told others that she was concerned that she was under the influence of Satan, she never told anyone that she had thoughts of harming her children. Dietz based much of his opinion on the fact that her concealing her intentions showed that she acted intentionally. Denno points out that this explanation has no support in the psychological literature."
Therefore, I'm not saying you're wrong because that also is not first-hand information, nor do I want to argue the case. I suspect your viewpoint is based on larger issues than one specific fact. But it does concern me sometimes that we the public tend to form unshakable opinions on complicated legal cases based on the limited information in news reports, which can be incomplete, flawed, contradictory and/or misleading.
-Ev




Originally Posted by Rhiannon
For $500 an hour, you'd think he'd learn.
Say, moderator, is this thread getting too passionate? I think that GnBeret dude is getting too mouthy. Better lock it down!![]()
-Ev
LOL Ev.. I do think he's getting a bit mouthy. I'm definitely not going to engage in an online battle of words over this issue, that's for sure. LOL
As always, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Everyone pretty much knows that issues involving children are the ones that I feel most strongly about. No child should ever be abused, neglected, or even worse, murdered. And the fact that a mother could do such a thing chills me to the bone. I would first kill myself before harming one precious hair on any of my three children.
I'll try and dig up something about Andrea's confession, Ev. It does state that many times she had planned to "go through with it", but she couldn't do it for some reason or another. I believe it was in her actual confession that this was said, but I'll have to do some digging. I may have it bookmarked or something. I'll see what I can turn up.
*muah*
Found some links... I tried to find a link for the videotaped confession, but the search was unsuccessful. Court TV's Crime Library has a ton of information, with the confession details, her past thoughts about harming and killing her children, etc. In one section, it even talks about a suicide attempt made by Andrea, her reason was to prevent her from doing harm to her children. The confession link is first, and then after that, there's the main link, where you can go through everything that they have about the case.
From the link:
"She had almost done the same thing two months earlier, she admitted. She had filled the tub. Rusty was home at the time, so she just didn't do it."
Transcript of Andrea's confession:
Following is the transcript of Andrea Yates' interview with Houston Police Sgt. Eric Mehl:
MEHL: This is Sergeant Mehl. I'm with H.P.D. Homicide. The date is June 20th, 2001. It's 1:06 in the afternoon. I'm located in an interview room at 1200 Travis, within the homicide division. With me in the room is Andrea Yates, a white female, D.O.B. 7-2-64. Andrea, can you tell me your full and complete name?
YATES: Andrea Yates.
MEHL: And how old are you?
YATES: 36.
MEHL: And what's your home address?
YATES: 942 Beachcomber, Houston, Texas 77062.
MEHL: OK, and you and I have been talking for awhile, right?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: You understood your rights?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: OK, I'm going to read them to you again for the purposes of this tape recording, OK?
YATES: OK.
MEHL: You have the right to remain silent and not make any statement at all and that any statement you make may be used against you and probably will be used against you at your trial. Do you understand that?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: Any statement you make may be used as evidence against you in court. Do you understand that?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: You have the right to have a lawyer present to advise you prior to and during any questioning. Do you understand that?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: If you are unable to employ a lawyer you have the right to have a lawyer appointed to advise you prior to and during any questioning. Do you understand that?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: And you have the right to terminate this interview at any time. Do you understand that?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: Are you willing to waive those rights that I've just read to you and continue to take to me about this?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: OK, an incident happened at your house this morning, right?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: And that's at 942 Beachcomber?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: What part of town is that in?
YATES: Clear Lake.
MEHL: OK, and the incident we're about to discuss, um, resulted in the deaths of your five children, is that correct?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: OK. Now I think you told me earlier, you're married.
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: What's your husband's name?
YATES: Rusty.
MEHL: And how long have you been married?
YATES: Eight years.
MEHL: And, I think you described to me, you and Rusty have a pretty good relationship?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: Rusty a good father?
YATES: He's a good father, a good husband.
MEHL: OK, and where does Rusty work?
YATES: NASA.
MEHL: And he's been there 16 years, I think you told me?
MEHL: And, you stay at home with...
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: The children, is that correct?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: OK, and before, we went into a little bit about your education?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: Um, you have a college degree?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: And where is that from?
YATES: University of Texas School of Nursing
MEHL: And what year did you graduate?
YATES: 1986.
MEHL: And you went to high school hear in Houston, right?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: Where?
YATES: Milby.
MEHL: And what year did you graduate?
YATES: 1982.
MEHL: And at one time you were employed as a nurse at M.D. Anderson?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: OK. What year did you stop working at M.D. Anderson?
YATES: 1994.
MEHL: OK, and why did you stop working there?
YATES: I had Noah.
MEHL: OK, Noah, your oldest child?
YATES: Yes
MEHL: OK, and if you could, just go ahead and, and name your children and give me their ages.
YATES: Noah, 7 years old. John, 5 years old. Paul, 3 years old. Luke, 2 years old. Mary, 6 months old.
MEHL: OK, and we also talked earlier, um, You've been treated for depression. Is that right?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: And who's your current doctor?
YATES: Dr. Saeed.
MEHL: And the last time you saw him?
YATES: Two, two days ago.
MEHL: OK, this morning, um, what time was it that you got out of bed this morning?
YATES: About 8:10.
MEHL: OK, and who in your household was awake at that time?
YATES: Um, my husband, Mary, Luke and Paul.
MEHL: OK, and what time does Rusty leave for work?
YATES: He left about nine.
MEHL: And, by the time Rusty left, were all of your children awake at that time?
YATES: Yes
MEHL: OK. What was going on in the household at that time? Were they eating breakfast...
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: Or what?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: What were they having?
YATES: Cereal.
MEHL: Is that what you had as well?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: Um, after Rusty left, you filled the bathtub with water, is that correct?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: How many bathtubs are in your home?
YATES: One.
MEHL: OK, so it's just the, uh, the master bath I guess you would call it?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: OK, is it a regular sized bathtub or is it a big one?
YATES: Regular sized.
MEHL: How far did you fill it?
YATES: About three inches from the top.
MEHL: About three inches from the top, um, after you drew the bath water, what was your intent? What were you about to do?
YATES: Drown the children.
MEHL: OK. Why were you going to drown your children?
15 SECONDS OF SILENCE
Part II
MEHL: Was it, was it in reference to, or was it because the children had done something?
YATES: No.
MEHL: You were not mad at the children?
YATES: No.
MEHL: OK, um, you had thought of this prior to this day?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: Um, how long have you been having thoughts about wanting, or not wanting to, but drowning your children?
YATES: Probably since I realized I have not been a good mother to them.
MEHL: What makes you say that?
YATES: They weren't developing correctly.
MEHL: Behavioral problems?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: Learning problems?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: So after you drew the bath water, what happened?
YATES: I put Paul in.
MEHL: And how old is Paul?
YATES: Paul is 3.
MEHL: OK, and when you put Paul in the bath water, was he face down or face up?
YATES: He was face down.
MEHL: And he struggled with you?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: How long do you think that struggle happened?
YATES: A couple of minutes.
MEHL: And you were able to forcibly hold him under the water?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: By the time you brought him out of the water, had he stopped struggling?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: There was no more movement?
YATES: No
MEHL: And, after you brought him out of the water, what did you do?
YATES: I laid him on the bed.
MEHL: Face up or face down?
YATES: Face up.
MEHL: Did you cover him?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: Did you cover his entire body?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: With what?
YATES: A sheet.
MEHL: OK, so after you put Paul on the bed and covered him, then what happened?
YATES: I put Luke in.
MEHL: OK, how old is Luke?
YATES: He's 2.
MEHL: OK, and was he face down in the water or face up?
YATES: Face down.
MEHL: Did he struggle?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: How long do you think that struggle lasted?
YATES: Just a couple minutes.
MEHL: OK, and when you brought Luke out of the water, um, was he, any movement at all?
YATES: No.
MEHL: What happened to Luke then?
YATES: I put him on the bed.
MEHL: Um, did you cover him with the same sheet that you'd used to cover Paul?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: OK, so Paul and Luke are on the bed, then what happens?
YATES: I put John in.
MEHL: OK, and how old is John.
YATES: John is 5.
MEHL: OK. How did you get John to come into the bathroom?
YATES: I called him in.
MEHL: OK, and, and he came in...
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: Um, did you say anything to him?
YATES: I told him to get in the tub.
MEHL: OK, and did he?
YATES: No.
MEHL: Um, what did he do?
YATES: I put him in.
MEHL: Did you pick him up, how? Under the arms?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: And did he go into the water face down or face up?
YATES: Face down.
MEHL: OK. Did he struggle with you violently.
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: Did that struggle last longer than with the younger children?
YATES: A little bit, yeah.
MEHL: OK, but still you were able to hold John under the water?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: And eventually he stopped struggling?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: OK, when you brought John out of the water, was there any movement at all from him?
YATES: No.
MEHL: What happened then?
YATES: I put him on the bed.
MEHL: Did you then cover him along with Paul and Luke?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: OK, and then what happened?
YATES: I put Mary in.
MEHL: Did you actually have to go out into the other room to get Mary?
YATES: No, she was in there already.
MEHL: Was Mary in the bathroom with you when Paul, Luke and John all went in the water?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: OK, what was she doing?
YATES: She was crying.
MEHL: OK, was she, was she sitting in a chair, one of those . . .
YATES: She was sitting down.
MEHL: On the floor?
YATES: Um-hmm.
MEHL: OK, um, so you picked Mary up?
YATES: Um-hmm.
MEHL: She go into the water face down or face up?
YATES: Face down.
MEHL: OK, she was able to struggle with you?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: Because she's only six months old, right?
YATES: Um-hmm.
MEHL: But she struggled and how, how long do you think she was able to struggle for?
YATES: A couple of minutes.
MEHL: OK, and after Mary had died, um, what did you do with her body?
YATES: I left it in there and called Noah in.
MEHL: OK, did Noah come immediately?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: And, when Noah walked in the bathroom, did he see Mary in the tub?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: What did he say?
YATES: He said, `What happened to Mary?'"
MEHL: And what did you say?
YATES: I didn't say anything. I just put him in.
MEHL: Did he try to run from you?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: Did he get out of the bathroom or were you able to catch him?
YATES: I got him.
MEHL: OK, and Noah is 7, is that correct?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: Did Noah put up the biggest struggle of all?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: OK, did he go in the water face down or face up?
YATES: He was face down.
MEHL: Um, when you were struggling with Noah, did you have to, did he try to flip over and come up for air at any time?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: Did he ever make it out of the water long enough to get a gasp of air or anything?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: How many times?
YATES: A couple times.
MEHL: But you forced him back down into the water?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: How long do you think that struggle lasted?
YATES: Maybe three minutes.
MEHL: OK, and after Noah was dead, when you brought him out of the water, was there any sign of life from him.
YATES: No.
MEHL: What did you do with his body?
YATES: I left it there.
MEHL: OK, so Mary and Noah were left in the bathtub?
YATES: I took Mary out.
MEHL: After John, excuse me, after Noah was dead?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: OK, what did you do with Mary's body?
YATES: Put her on the bed.
MEHL: Did you cover her?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: And you left Noah's body in the tub?
YATES: Yes.
Part III
MEHL: OK, then what did you do?
YATES: I called the police.
MEHL: OK, did you call 911?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: What did you tell the, the dispatch clerk that answered the phone?
YATES: Needed a police officer.
MEHL: Did that clerk ask you why you needed the police?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: And what did you say?
YATES: I didn't really say anything. I just said I needed a police officer.
MEHL: OK, and you called your husband?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: After you called the police?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: What did you tell your husband?
YATES: I told him to come home.
MEHL: Did you say why?
YATES: I said it was time.
MEHL: Did he ask you what you meant by that?
YATES: Yes, I didn't say it well.
MEHL: What did he say when you said it was time, what did, what did he say?
YATES: He asked me what was wrong.
MEHL: And you, how did you respond to that?
YATES: I just said it was time.
MEHL: Did he agree to come home?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: Who got to your house first?
YATES: The police.
MEHL: OK, what did you tell the first officer that got there?
YATES: That, that I had drowned the children.
MEHL: OK, did you tell him why or, or go into it with him in any way?
YATES: No.
MEHL: Did you talk to your husband when your husband got there?
YATES: No.
MEHL: OK, did the officer put you in a police car, I take it?
YATES: No.
MEHL: He did not?
YATES: He set me on the couch.
MEHL: Oh, he set you on the couch?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: What happened when Rusty got there?
YATES: He was crying.
MEHL: OK, did he come in the house?
YATES: No.
MEHL: OK, so the officer kept him out?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: OK, you had told me earlier that, that you'd been having these thoughts about hurting your children for up to two years. Is that, is that about right?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: OK, is there anything that happened two years ago that, that made you, that you believe led you to have these thoughts?
YATES: I realized that it was time to be punished.
MEHL: And what do you need to be punished for?
YATES: For not being a good mother.
MEHL: How did you see drowning your five children as a way to be punished? Did you want the criminal justice system to punish you or did you . . .
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: OK, we were also talking earlier and there was one other time when you filled the tub with water and were going to do this and did not do it. Is that correct?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: How long ago was that?
YATES: It was two months ago.
MEHL: OK, were all the children at home at that time?
YATES: Yes, Rusty was there too.
MEHL: Rusty was there too? Do you think Rusty would have stopped you?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: So, you filled the tub with water that time. What is it within yourself that stopped you from, from doing it that time?
YATES: Just didn't do it that time.
MEHL: OK, Noah, what's his date of birth?
YATES: Feb. 26, `94.
MEHL: And John's?
YATES: Dec. 15, `95.
MEHL: And Paul?
YATES: Sept. 13, `97?
MEHL: OK, and Luke?
YATES: His is Feb. 15, `99.
MEHL: And Mary?
YATES: Nov. 30, 2000.
MEHL: OK, after all your children were dead, did you let the water out of the tub or did you . . .
YATES: I left it in.
MEHL: OK, so when the first officer got there, Noah was still in the tub?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: And the other children were on the bed?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: Were they still covered?
YATES: Yes.
MEHL: OK, it's now 1:23 in the afternoon and I'm going to stop the tape.
just give me 5 minutes with her and no witnesses to say I was there....
As pissed off as my girls can get me I have never thought of anything as revolting as killing them. Anyone who commits murder against children in my opinion should be stripped of their flesh, whipped with a whip soaked in salt and then tortured
Bookmarks