Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2004 13:00:24 GMT -6
This case is similar to the Andrea Yates case, except the State doesn't dispute the insanity aspect. The Yates case was clearly premeditated while this was spontaneous. Following paragraphs extracted from a story run in the "Tyler Morning Telegraph" on 29 Dec.
Early the morning of May 10, officials revealed that 38-year-old Deanne LaJune Laney told Smith County dispatchers she had just "bashed (her children's) heads in with a rock."
Smith County Sheriff deputies arriving at the Arizona Drive resident in New Chapel Hill found Joshua Keith Laney, 8, and Luke Allen Laney, 6, dead in the yard wearing only their underwear. Large rocks were found on top of their bodies.
A 3rd child, 14-month-old Aaron James Laney was found bleeding in his crib. The attack had apparently taken place while her husband, Keith Laney, slept.
In early August, a Smith County Grand Jury in State District Judge Kerry Russell's court indicted Mrs. Laney on charges of capital murder for the deaths of Joshua and Luke Laney, and injury to a child stemming from the attack on Aaron Laney.
Mrs. Laney has spent most of her time at the Smith County Jail in an isolated cell under suicide watch. She is being held in lieu of $3 million in bonds.
At a December pre-trial hearing, officials said mental health experts for the state and the defense agreed Mrs. Laney was legally insane when she allegedly stoned her 2 sons to death and injured a 3rd.
Under Texas law, a person is insane at the time she commits a criminal offense if at that time, because of severe mental illness or defect, she does not know her conduct is wrong.
Citing these findings during a pretrial hearing Dec. 19, the state filed notice of its intent not to seek the death penalty. Whether there will be a trial remains to be decided.
The mental evaluation is set for Jan. 12. Additional pretrial hearings have been tentatively postponed to Jan. 16.
Judge Kent said a resolution in the case could be sought in January instead of the previously set trial date of Feb. 17, depending upon the additional evaluation of Mrs. Laney and discussions between lawyers in the case.
|
|
|
Post by jamie on Jan 3, 2004 10:19:56 GMT -6
that is good news that the dp wouldn't be sought. Hopefully , Deanne is getting help and will continue to get help. She belongs in a mental hospital not prision. For her future mental health she should be sterilized.
Jamie
TRex- I've lost track of what Yates lawyer is doing in regards to getting her a new trial. Have you heard or know where I can found this out? Thank you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2004 14:59:26 GMT -6
that is good news that the dp wouldn't be sought. Hopefully , Deanne is getting help and will continue to get help. She belongs in a mental hospital not prision. For her future mental health she should be sterilized. Jamie TRex- I've lost track of what Yates lawyer is doing in regards to getting her a new trial. Have you heard or know where I can found this out? Thank you. Hi Jamie. Though you might like to see the latest on the case from an October CNN interview with her lawyer. =================================================== AMERICAN MORNING Interview with Defense Attorney George Parnham Aired October 14, 2003 - 07:43 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: The lawyer for Andrea Yates, the Texas woman who drowned her five children, says Yates may be trying to starve herself to death in prison. Yates is serving a life sentence. A Texas jury last year rejected her insanity defense. She is now under a suicide watch, and her attorney, George Parnham, recently visited Yates in prison. He joins this morning from Houston, Texas. Good morning to you, Mr. Parnham. Thanks for joining us. GEORGE PARNHAM, ATTORNEY FOR ANDREA YATES: Good morning, Soledad. O'BRIEN: Update us on the condition of Andrea Yates, if you can. PARNHAM: Yes. Andrea has recently just decompensated a mental meltdown, if you will. And the reality of her situation is that she's under excellent care where she is in, in Skyview (ph), by her doctors and the law enforcement authorities. But the catch-22 is the better you get mentally, the more you are able to understand and appreciate, much like us, what occurred. And as a consequence, that triggers setbacks. So, we're going simply through that process. O'BRIEN: There have been reports that she's trying to starve herself. Are those reports accurate? PARNHAM: I can't really characterize it. I know that she is having a difficult time eating. She is getting better, thanks to the care that she's receiving. But precautions have been taken to protect herself from herself and to make sure that she gets back on track. And I'm heartened by the fact that the last report is that she is improving. O'BRIEN: I'm curious to know why you're coming forward now, and how much of that has to do with the fact that you are appealing her conviction. Can you answer that for me? PARNHAM: Sure, and I am appealing her conviction, but I think the larger picture, Soledad, is that the public needs to understand the realities of mental illness. And the public by and large does not appreciate nor understand the true world of the psychotic, and that's the world that Andrea was in, in June. Until about four weeks ago, she was doing extremely well. I saw her a month ago, and I was heartened by where she was. And unfortunately, she's had a downturn in the last three weeks. That's simply the reality of the situation and is a portion of the larger picture that I hoped eventually the public, to include medical doctors, begin to understand. O'BRIEN: So, your theory, then, is since her condition to some degree is worsening as her mental illness is treated, she's sort of getting what she's done, that certainly helps your appeal down the road, right? PARNHAM: Well, I'm not sure it helps the appeal one way or the other. The appeal is based on the law. But what I am striving to do is to try to improve the acceptance and the understanding and the reality of mental illness as perceived in the minds of the public. We have to understand that the world of the psychotic person, the world of Andrea Yates is not our world. Her reality is upside down. One of the tragedies in this situation, and in every situation involving a mother who takes the life of a child, is that intact within the mind of the mother are the same, loving, caring, concern for the dangers of her children, but the reality of those dangers is upside down. We have the horrible situation of a mother who cares as Andrea did for her children and does now, misses her children desperately, but because she doesn't understand and because her world is not our world, that she reacts to what she perceives to be unreal dangers. O'BRIEN: George Parnham is an attorney for Andrea Yates and filing an appeal on her behalf. Thanks for joining us, Mr. Parnham. PARNHAM: Thank you, Soledad. O'BRIEN: Appreciate it. ================================================ Personally, I'd like to see the option of "guilty, but insane". The killer still has responsibility for her actions, but spends time in a mental hospital until able to join the regular prison population for the balance of her sentence. Let any reductions in criminal liability be the province of the parole board, not the medical community.
|
|
|
Post by jamie on Jan 3, 2004 15:38:15 GMT -6
Thanks so much for taking the time to get that. Guilty, but insane, would be a reasonable choice for juries. Time to celebrate my birthday with my family. I am am very grateful for that.
|
|
|
Post by Felix on Jan 14, 2004 9:02:35 GMT -6
she certainly sounds remorseful. I was involved in a case here where I witnessed the murder, and two years later the son still starts to improve to the point where realisation dawns on him and he swiftly descends back into psychosis. I feel very sorry for that poor woman, she obviously was a victim herself of a serious mental illness!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2004 13:49:48 GMT -6
Case Update 16 January:
The Deanna Laney trial has been pushed back a month. Jury selection has not begun and may never happen. As reported by the Tyler Telegraph: =============================================================== "The question of whether the mother will go before a jury or go before the judge to be declared legally insane will not be answered until the court-required evaluation by psychiatrist and clinical professor Dr. William Reid is finished. By statute, he has 30 days to submit his findings report.
At this point, with his evaluation of Mrs. Laney, Reid agrees with the other mental health experts (two hired by the defense and two by the state) that she was insane at the time of the slayings, 114th District Judge Cynthia Kent said. But, he does want to review newly acquired information before making his official decision.
If the case proceeds with a jury trial there are three options - Mrs. Laney could be found not guilty of any offense, not guilty by reason of insanity or guilty. If the defendant were found not guilty by reason of insanity, either by a jury or by the judge, the verdict would work as an acquittal, finding no evidence of guilt, she said.
Mrs. Laney would be sent to the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation for a 30-day evaluation to determine her current mental health condition. It would then be up to the court to decide if she would receive out-patient treatment or would be placed in an in-patient mental health facility on a temporary or permanent basis, Mrs. Kennedy said.
Mrs. Laney faces life in prison, if convicted. Her defense team includes attorneys Tonda Curry and LaJuanda Lacy. Assistant Smith County district attorneys Brett Harrison and April Sikes are prosecuting the case." =======================================================
Anybody else have a problem with the idea that, having murdered two children and severely injured a third, she could be declared "not guilty by reason of insanity" and treated on an "out-patient" basis? Insane or not, she needs to be confined for her own safety and the safety of others.
|
|
|
Post by jamie on Jan 19, 2004 10:13:45 GMT -6
Being treated as an outpatient should NOT be an option, especially so soon after the murder. Inpatient would be the best way to monitor and treat her. Not having anymore children should also be a condition of any sort of deal. If she starts to become coherent enough to realize her actions she could be a danger to herself and others. How could she completely supervised 24-7 outside of a hospital?
Jamie
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2004 22:02:02 GMT -6
Deanna Laney was found competant to stand trial for the stoning murder of her children. She may still use the insanity defense (really has no other), but it looks like it will go to a jury. Pre-trial hearing is next week.
The prosecutors have taken the death penalty off the table acknowledging mental imparment. The questions is, does mental illness excuse murder from long term confinement.
============================================================
Mom to stand trial for stoning deaths 12:49 PM CST on Friday, January 16, 2004 Associated Press
TYLER — An East Texas woman accused of stoning her two young sons to death and severely injuring another has been found competent to stand trial, a judge in Tyler said Friday.
Deanna Laney's attorneys plan to present an insanity defense in the capital murder case. Prosecutors last month said they would not seek the death penalty.
Laney has been held in Smith County Jail since the bludgeoning deaths of 8-year-old Joshua and 6-year-old Luke Laney. A 14-month-old son, Aaron, was found in his crib, bleeding from a head wound.
Their mother was arrested at the family's rural home near the Smith County community of New Chapel Hill shortly after she called 911 on May 10 to say she had stoned her sons on orders from God.
State District Judge Cynthia Kent set a pretrial hearing for March 17.
|
|
|
Post by Tylerite on Mar 23, 2004 21:46:13 GMT -6
As a matter of fact, Jury Selection starts in this case tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by jessika on Mar 29, 2004 15:47:01 GMT -6
>:(How can anyone wish that Laney not be put to death? What the hell is wrong with our society today that we go easy on women or men that kill their children. Who speaks for the children? Laney, beat her childrens head in with rocks....is there any decision to ponder? NO! Death is what she deserves. Insanity, is a cop out. Whether this woman is sick or not, she was aware enough to kill her children and then call and tell the cops what she did. She's sane. She's just evil and mean. I can't believe people are actually defending her. If it were your child that she bashed in, would you be defending her? I don't think so. The same goes with Joel Steinberg. Remember him? The prominent attorney from New York that killed little Lisa Steinberg, his adopted daughter? He's getting out in June!!! Our judicial system needs serious help. Think of your children and if they killed one of your children. You would want them dead!
|
|
|
Post by Edward on Mar 29, 2004 20:00:20 GMT -6
I agree with Jessika. She deserves to die for what she did to those children. What about Josh and Lukes rights and the lives they will never get to live?
Temporary insanity is ludicrous. A sane person would of wanted justice for her children the moment her "temporary insanity" passed. If she is so full of remorse and sorrow, why has she not requested the death penalty rather than live the rest of her days with the pain she is pretending to feel?
She wasn't temporarily insane but rather a ruthless, coldhearted, evil killer who should pay for what she did.
|
|
|
Post by LIARS on Mar 29, 2004 23:58:30 GMT -6
She should be burned at the stake for her actions.
Completly idiocy that she claims God told her to do it...
What are they putting in their water? LSD?
BURN HER!
|
|
|
Post by Erik on Mar 30, 2004 1:56:57 GMT -6
She is obviously NOT GUILTY. God DID tell her to do it and I'm surprised this kinda thing isn't happening more often. God commands each and every one of us to STONE our unruly children to DEATH if they won't behave. He is unequivocal about it, people... no way around it! Lev. 20:9For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. Dt. 21:18-2121:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: 21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; 21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. 21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. AND HIS BABY JESUS AGREES!!!Mt. 15:3-415:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. ***************** Wassamatta? Why you people don't do what God tells you?
|
|
|
Post by corey on Mar 30, 2004 9:50:03 GMT -6
Erik,
Your explicit interpretations of old mosaic law taken from scripture is a typical stab at those of us that actually understand scripture, as well as understand that in many cases the meaning of things are far deeper than they appear when passages are taken outside their intended meaning and context. Obviously God does not want people to start stoning their kids to death when they are disobedient. All kids are disobedient, and if putting to death every child that was disobedient meant death, than everyone would have to be put to death. What is implied when the passages use the term “Curse” goes much deeper than simply to “disobey his father or his mother”. For starters, modern day terminology is different than terminology used in Ancient times. A curse would be a deliberate act of evil directed to ones father and/or mother, outside the scope of simple disobedience. Most likely this represents acts such as attempted murder, rape, and many other crimes that deserve the death penalty even in modern day. Don’t attempt to make God look like the irrational unjust one, when you’re giving him unjust credit based on your irrational interpretations.
|
|
|
Post by jessika on Mar 30, 2004 13:53:16 GMT -6
:-XI don't even think that I have any words to express how I feel about Eriks post.....It's disgusting. He's just as guilty as Laney. To actually believe that God told her to kill her children....he's just as evil as she is. Pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by Erik on Mar 30, 2004 15:00:55 GMT -6
Corey,
Apparently you stopped reading after the first quote. Because if you had read the Deuteronomy quote it would be clear to you that God was talking about a mearly disobedient child. He says nothing about a murderous child or a child attempting to rape. He speaks specifically of a child that will not obey his father or mother.
"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them"
Stubbon and rebellious must have had different meanings back then, too, I guess....
... oh so I guess we are free to interpret that "Thou shalt not kill" thing too then huh?
You people just believe whatever you wanna believe... the bible says it - specifically - stone to death your disobedient children.
Ciao!
|
|
PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT DEE
Guest
|
Post by PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT DEE on Mar 30, 2004 15:39:48 GMT -6
;)Listen here... This is what i think and most of what i know by the facts. Deanna Laney (my aunt) Isnt at any fault. People believe what they here, and the thing is THEY KNOW NOTHING! Josh, and Luke.. (my cousins) were a blessing to her and she would never hurt them. Something surely came over her. That night we'll never know what it was but Dee didnt KILL HER KIDS. If you havent understood any of this by now you should realize she isnt SANE and she DOES need help. Aunt Dee was someone anybody could turn to, a leader a mother and a WONDERFUL person all in all. You can always here about "CASES" like this and talk bad about them over and over again but you'll never understand THEIR TRUE LIFE was about and EXACTLY what THEY were thinking. When something like this may happen to someone close to you, you're most likely to think differently. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE YATES CASE.SHE WAS SANE.
|
|
|
Post by Edward on Mar 30, 2004 21:29:36 GMT -6
Tell me, how did your family feel about Andrea Yates? I bet it was different when it wasn't your aunt killing your cousins. I'll bet your opinion was completely different. It blows my mind when I hear/see these husbands and families show support for the "POOR, SICK, SUDDENLY GRIEVING" KILLERS of these children! Again I ask you, where is the justice for the children? My heart goes out to your family for its loss, but I still feel the same about your aunt. She committed the most unthinkable crime and she deserves nothing less then the death penalty. Personally, I believe the death penalty is too good for her but that is another subject in itself. Get real people. If someone killed your child, would you feel so sympathetic for this woman? If your answer is yes then you are not a parent or you shouldn't be a parent. As for Erik, what do you think about "an eye for an eye"?
|
|
|
Post by Erik on Mar 30, 2004 23:15:53 GMT -6
Edward,
What do I personally think of "an eye for an eye"?
1) It's overly simplistic and ham-handed, especially when applied to criminal justice.
2) It's an archaic phrase written by unenlightened people who not only thought it was a really cool idea but it had the added benefit of being catchy - in a prehistoric kinda way.
... and last, but not least...
3) It's biblical, so it makes me puke.
I merely point out that if one believes the bible to be the true word of God... then God definitely told Deanna to kill her kids... REPEATEDLY!!
|
|
|
Post by sadie on Mar 31, 2004 8:39:21 GMT -6
i am a student studying the death penatly in MN and from what i have found out if the death penalty bill does pass this women you are talking about would be as guilty as they come without being a sex offender. Erik i think you need some [glow=red,2,300]mental help[/glow] because there is no way in any sane person would think the same way as a murderer. So get some help.
|
|
|
Post by Erik on Mar 31, 2004 13:17:54 GMT -6
Sadie,
Its a fact. The bible says it very clearly. I quoted only SOME of the bible verses that require stoning to death children who are disobedient to their parents.
I do not believe people should kill their children.
I believe Deanna was not sane at the time of the horrible event.
I believe the bible to be a wholly human thing; not devine in any way.
BUT... if you believe the bible to be the true word of a god... then you had better start stoning!
|
|
|
Post by sadie on Mar 31, 2004 13:37:56 GMT -6
if and when i ever have kids i would never even think about stoning my kids to death i think it was just a way for her to use the bible as a reseason to MURDER her kids. And yes i do believe in god and such but that was writen [glow=red,2,300]A LONG TIME AGO[/glow]! So some of the things that they could do then you cant do now.
|
|
|
Post by jessika on Mar 31, 2004 13:43:38 GMT -6
You've got to be kidding me!!!! Aunt Dee was not herself? Someone else took over? Yea, her evil, inhumane side. She knew exactly what she was doing!!! It makes me sick to hear people defending her. What, did she snap out of it after she killed her boys? Did someone overtake her body just long enough for her to kill her boys? That's bullcrap! We have to be responsible for our actions. We have to protect our innocent children. Can you imagine what those little boys felt? The oldest struggled with his mom after the first blow. He struggled! What he must have thought, what he was feeling. He didn't die instantly. He knew his mommy was hurting him. Can you imagine your last thoughts being, why is my mommy hurting me? This woman needs to die just the way she killed her boys. If I was her husband I would find a way to get to her and to hurt her, kill her exactly the way she killed his sons!
|
|
|
Post by corey on Mar 31, 2004 16:20:00 GMT -6
Erik,
Yes I did forget to respond to the quotation of “Deuteronomy 21:18-21”, my apologies. I was not ignoring it.
What can be clearly seen in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is a son that refuses to adhere to discipline, the son is mentioned as being consistently guilty of sins such as stubborn rebelliousness, consistent disobedience, profligate (NIV) [completely given up to dissipation and licentiousness] glutton (KJV) . The son that is being spoken of is displaying unchangeable evil. He is not judged and stoned by his parents alone, but rather brought before the elders of the city which can be compared to modern day judges, and the son that is out of control is given the death penalty. There are many cases where kids are disobedient, but most kids will respond to discipline. The son spoken of here is clearly beyond hope.
“Thou shalt not kill” from the actual Hebrew in which it was translated from: “kill” is “murder”. Murder is a crime against humanity. Stoning someone to death as due punishment for a crime does not fall into the category of “murder” therefore there is no contradiction.
I am also curious as to why you are so dead set sure that the Bible is not the inspired word of God. However, since this is going outside the context of this forum, if you care to enlighten me on your knowledge, please feel free to email me at cclas@hotmail.com, list out everything you have, I am curious and willing to listen.
|
|
|
Post by Craig on Mar 31, 2004 17:33:48 GMT -6
This woman is no different than Andrea Yates. Why is it always these religious nut jobs that do this stuff?
RELIGION KILLS. Bottom Line. If more people would realize that there is in fact no god, millions would be alive today. Especially the 3,000+ who perished on 9/11.
Insanity defense is a cop out. This psycho B**ch needs to die by a nice stoning party.
GOT ROCKS?
|
|
|
Post by jessika on Mar 31, 2004 17:37:15 GMT -6
OMIGOD! Somebody that believes exactly what I believe! Kudos to you Craig. There is no god! If there were, then those children as well as the 9/11 victims and every other victim of crime or disease would be alive and everyone would not suffer. You are right on the money Craig. Andrea, Deanne and Susan all deserve to die!
|
|
|
Post by DaveT on Mar 31, 2004 17:51:37 GMT -6
Were I the husband she'd already be dead. Further I can say with some confidence that a temp insanity plea on my behalf, more likely than not, would have prevented my doing any time for it as well.
I can't believe that he is supporting her.
|
|
|
Post by jamie on Mar 31, 2004 18:22:03 GMT -6
Andrea and Deanna weren't, Mary Sunshine one second murdering mother the next and then back to Mary Sunshine. Mental illness before, during and after the events. Both of these women are still being medicated and are in jail. I highly doubt they are pleased with what they did. They will forever be their own punisher.
Jessika, Erik and others who are slobbering over themselves to kill those with mental illness are in for a rude awakening in their lives when themselves or family have some form of mental illness, even if the affected person doesn't kill, you suddenly realize that things aren't so easy.
They killed their children. Their children suffered, mentally and physically, till they died. They should NOT have had to have this happen to them. The mothers were being altrusitic and because of their religious believes or brainwashing thought that they themselves have failed in the raising of their children and that the children would be better if they were in heaven. Where as if they would have just killed themselves the chidlren would still not be "worthy" (as percieved by the mother) and that they (children) would be on the wrong path.
But I am sure this isexplaination is just wasted on some here.
|
|
|
Post by jessika on Mar 31, 2004 18:29:50 GMT -6
So, Jaime, what I'm getting from you is we should excuse ALL murderers, because they have mental problems. I mean, it takes a person to be mental in order to go to those lengths to kill. Right? How pathetic. I think you'd have a different view on the matter if one of these women killed YOUR child. You'd wish to put them to death. I'm on medication for being bipolar, I go crazy at times, yet my three children are ALIVE and happy. I can't believe that there are people like YOU defending women like this. It's people like YOU that make our society grieve for the perpetrator instead of the victims. It's sickening! Let me kill my children really quick, and plea insanity. That way I can get off and everyone will feel sorry for me. You and everyone else out there that feels sorry for these women make me sick. If they have time to call the police to tell them calmly that they just killed their OWN children, they are sane enough to be put to death. These women shouldn't even have a trial. It's wasting valuable time and money. They admitted it, now it's their turn to suffer just like their children did. Where's your sympathy for the kids? You make me sick.
|
|
|
Post by jamie on Mar 31, 2004 18:52:15 GMT -6
For today your children are alive. Tomorrow never knows. If you feel so sure that you would never kill your children because of your BiPo, then make a legal document now while your sane, that should you break with reality and kill your children. Just to put you to death with no trial. That way you would save money and time. Or feel sympathy for you. That way no one has to help you.
Maybe, just maybe you should be shouting thanks to the world that you didn't kill your children even though your mentally ill. Instead of being so smug.
I am specifically talking about two cases. Two are not all.
Yates and Laney were reacting to their children and their role as mother. They weren't killing just any child.
I have lots of sympathy for Noah, John, Paul, Luke, and Mary and Joshua and Luke and Aaron. Do you think that they want their mother to be killed?
|
|