|
Post by rayozz on Nov 12, 2005 22:06:18 GMT -6
It may not fit yet in this forum, but may soon. Andrea Yates who killed all her kids, may have a new trial.
This is DP for me.
Ray
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2005 7:57:36 GMT -6
It may not fit yet in this forum, but may soon. Andrea Yates who killed all her kids, may have a new trial. This is DP for me. Ray She isn't eligible for DP. If she is retried, which there may be a plea, she is most likely to either remain incarcerated for life or transferred to a mental facility.
|
|
|
Post by blakely on Nov 13, 2005 8:12:52 GMT -6
It may not fit yet in this forum, but may soon. Andrea Yates who killed all her kids, may have a new trial. This is DP for me. Ray She isn't eligible for DP. If she is retried, which there may be a plea, she is most likely to either remain incarcerated for life or transferred to a mental facility. Two counts of murder they did not try her on, so possibly they could charge those as capital offenses. However, there are 6th Amendment issues that may defeat proceeding in that manner.
|
|
|
Post by gabriel on Nov 13, 2005 9:06:36 GMT -6
That woman has to be insane. JMO It may not fit yet in this forum, but may soon. Andrea Yates who killed all her kids, may have a new trial. This is DP for me. Ray
|
|
|
Post by snowy111 on Nov 13, 2005 17:16:52 GMT -6
It may not fit yet in this forum, but may soon. Andrea Yates who killed all her kids, may have a new trial. This is DP for me. Ray She isn't eligible for DP. If she is retried, which there may be a plea, she is most likely to either remain incarcerated for life or transferred to a mental facility. Yes, they can ask for the dp. I didn't think they could but I saw attorneys interviewed on television saying the prosecution can ask for it.
|
|
|
Post by hrhofmonaco on Nov 14, 2005 11:47:43 GMT -6
She deserves the DP, and maybe this time justie will be served. Pray for those innocent babies.
|
|
|
Post by kat2 on Nov 14, 2005 14:30:27 GMT -6
I am very new here, so this may be the wrong thread to just jump into. So, please be gentle I work in mental health. I am also a mother. I remember when I first heard of her on the news, I cried for those poor babies and thought that women deserved to die a horrible death. Now, I work with psychotic patients on a daily basis. I know that these people stop taking their medication for many many reasons, sometimes horrible side effects are the cause. I realize and agree that what she did was horrible, but at the time, she thought that she was protecting them from the devil and in her mind that was 100% true. You cannot possibly realize what goes through a psychotic person's mind. What they see or hear is true to them, it doesn't matter how irrational it may be. I don't think that she deserves the DP because she was severely mentally ill at the time and had no control. I cannot even imagine what must be going through her head now that she is on medication and realizes the gravity of what has happened and just what she did to her babies. She loved those children, whether you believe it or not and I am 100% sure that she feels much more than remorse, I can bet she is devastated. I can bet if she does get the DP she won't make it to her date, she will kill herself out of guilt first.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 14, 2005 15:02:16 GMT -6
I can bet if she does get the DP she won't make it to her date, she will kill herself out of guilt first. Let's hope she does, as soon as possible.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 14, 2005 15:04:26 GMT -6
You cannot possibly realize what goes through a psychotic person's mind. What everyone knows for sure is that this woman premeditated the murders of her five children, with malice. What went through her mind was the deliberate slaughter of her kids.
|
|
|
Post by kat2 on Nov 14, 2005 15:05:28 GMT -6
Wow. Really? You don't have any compassion for a mentally ill person I take? How about someone with cancer, or some other horrible disease, do you have compassion for them? Because mental illness is no different. She has no control over her mind, just like someone with cancer has no control over that.
|
|
|
Post by kat2 on Nov 14, 2005 15:10:43 GMT -6
As strange as this may sound though, she was of no danger to anyone but her children. Her hallucinations told her she must kill her children. If the voices had not told her to do that, she would have never harmed her children. The hallucinations are very strong things.
|
|
|
Post by blakely on Nov 14, 2005 15:14:05 GMT -6
You cannot possibly realize what goes through a psychotic person's mind. What everyone knows for sure is that this woman premeditated the murders of her five children, with malice. What went through her mind was the deliberate slaughter of her kids. We don't live in JoeWorld, therefore, you don't get to speak for everyone. She couldn't premeditate the murders if she lacked the requisite criminal intent. Five mental health experts testified that she did not know right from wrong or that she thought what she did was right. The court of appeal found that there was a reasonable likelihood that Dietz’s false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury. A juror contacted the trial court afterwards and stated but for the fact of Diet's falsehood, she wd not have found the defendant guilt
|
|
|
Post by jamie on Nov 14, 2005 15:41:37 GMT -6
kat2- It is a breathe of fresh air to read your first losts here. JosephPhillip doesn't believe in mental illness easy as that. I have been through posts about this before with him and others and they don't even think that a brain tumor or Alzeheimers is any reason to act different. When mental illness comes to their family theya re in for a HUGE awakwening or NOT some have posted that it wouldn't happen to them and that they would be super human and know exactly what do before anything bad happened. Look forward to reading more from you. Jamie
|
|
|
Post by jamie on Nov 14, 2005 16:07:48 GMT -6
I just don't understnd how people can't wrap their head around mental illness and mroe specifically the Yates, Lanney and Scholsser cases.
I am out of breath (so to speak) of trying to explain this. The other absurdity is that people think that these mothers are cunning enough to beat all the systems single handedly mind you and are sitting back enjoying the good life and laughing it up. Whatever tether was holding these women together broke and hiedous murders happened. They were still ill after the killings. Medicine, if it works and when it works, will bring them to a horrible reality of what they did they are even more damaged then before. They would kill themselves before they killed another person. They aren't socipaths.
To those who don't believe the chit that can happen to the brain think about yourself and/or a loved one going through this and what sort of help you and your would get? If they system is set up the way you want it then you are just as f*cked and well that is your doing. Denying things that you don't think exist doesn't make it so.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Nov 14, 2005 17:00:21 GMT -6
You cannot possibly realize what goes through a psychotic person's mind. What everyone knows for sure is that this woman premeditated the murders of her five children, with malice. What went through her mind was the deliberate slaughter of her kids. Absolute gibberish Joe. The only thing you are establishing here is your own ignorance of the nature of mental illness. If a patient does not have insight into their illness and many dont, they will not see a reason to take their medication. I think it was spearmintgirl who mentioned that in the US you still use the old antipsychotics for patients because the newer a-typicals cost more. How short sighted is that? The older medications have dreadful side effects, not to mention their toxicity, and one would need to be "different" to willingly take them. Simply saying stuff the side effects does not cut it when dealing with people and serves only to show your callous disregard for and hostility for others and the short sightedness of same, because your attitude comes back to bite you and others when patients are not compliant nor invested in properly. Your supposed interest in the welfare of victims is far from established in mty view because you have yet to open your mind to a whole world of useful information out there instead of retreating into your black and white mental view of a reality you cannot grasp or deal with.
|
|
|
Post by blakely on Nov 14, 2005 17:23:14 GMT -6
I think it was spearmintgirl who mentioned that in the US you still use the old antipsychotics for patients because the newer a-typicals cost more. How short sighted is that? Not quite as shortsighted as you taking an anecdotal story based on hearsay, of which we have no knowledge whether it was true or when it was said or if it was true if it still applies.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 14, 2005 20:48:51 GMT -6
What everyone knows for sure is that this woman premeditated the murders of her five children, with malice. What went through her mind was the deliberate slaughter of her kids. Absolute gibberish Joe. The only thing you are establishing here is your own ignorance of the nature of mental illness. If a patient does not have insight into their illness and many dont, they will not see a reason to take their medication. It's society that provides the reason, Felix. Take your meds -- or else. Simple enough for a child to understand. The very people you claim to understand the most, Felix, are the ones here who object to your amoral tolerance for violence committed by those with mental problems.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 14, 2005 20:53:14 GMT -6
I just don't understnd how people can't wrap their head around mental illness and mroe specifically the Yates, Lanney and Scholsser cases. I am out of breath (so to speak) of trying to explain this. The other absurdity is that people think that these mothers are cunning enough to beat all the systems single handedly mind you and are sitting back enjoying the good life and laughing it up. Whatever tether was holding these women together broke and hiedous murders happened. They were still ill after the killings. Medicine, if it works and when it works, will bring them to a horrible reality of what they did they are even more damaged then before. They would kill themselves before they killed another person. They aren't socipaths. To those who don't believe the chit that can happen to the brain think about yourself and/or a loved one going through this and what sort of help you and your would get? If they system is set up the way you want it then you are just as f*cked and well that is your doing. Denying things that you don't think exist doesn't make it so. Someone who murders 5 children in cold blood isn't a sociopath? Give me a break. I don't know what planet someone has to be on to believe a murderer's remorse over slaughtering her own children actually means something.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 14, 2005 20:57:26 GMT -6
kat2- It is a breathe of fresh air to read your first losts here. JosephPhillip doesn't believe in mental illness easy as that. I have been through posts about this before with him and others and they don't even think that a brain tumor or Alzeheimers is any reason to act different. When mental illness comes to their family theya re in for a HUGE awakwening or NOT some have posted that it wouldn't happen to them and that they would be super human and know exactly what do before anything bad happened. Look forward to reading more from you. Jamie Whether or not mental illness exists isn't germane to moral culpability for a crime. Moral restraint has to be proved to be vitiated by mental problems, and not a single person in this forum has been able to provide this proof. Nor am I convinced mercenary psychiatrists even believe moral restraint exists in anybody, let alone the mentally "ill."
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 14, 2005 21:08:06 GMT -6
What everyone knows for sure is that this woman premeditated the murders of her five children, with malice. What went through her mind was the deliberate slaughter of her kids. We don't live in JoeWorld, therefore, you don't get to speak for everyone. She couldn't premeditate the murders if she lacked the requisite criminal intent. Five mental health experts testified that she did not know right from wrong or that she thought what she did was right. The court of appeal found that there was a reasonable likelihood that Dietz’s false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury. A juror contacted the trial court afterwards and stated but for the fact of Diet's falsehood, she wd not have found the defendant guilt Yes, five mental health "experts" can never be wrong about human motivation and thought processes, can they? Do they testify out of their concern for the defendant, or for cash, Blakely? Any crackhead can speculate about what Andrea Yates was thinking when she freely elected to brutally and savagely extinguish the lives of five innocent people. Someone with a bias against personal responsibility is going to make up any manner of reasons why someone shouldn't be assumed to have any, whether or not they are paid to do so. You have a hard-on for a murderer, Blakely. You make it more obvious with every post.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 14, 2005 21:11:57 GMT -6
As strange as this may sound though, she was of no danger to anyone but her children. Her hallucinations told her she must kill her children. If the voices had not told her to do that, she would have never harmed her children. The hallucinations are very strong things. Yeah, right. Funny how no one can actually prove she hallucinated, or that she was completely under the control of her "hallucinations." We're supposed to place blind trust in faith in the testimony of biased, amoral psychiatrists, not in good people who sit on juries.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 14, 2005 21:13:28 GMT -6
Wow. Really? You don't have any compassion for a mentally ill person I take? How about someone with cancer, or some other horrible disease, do you have compassion for them? Because mental illness is no different. She has no control over her mind, just like someone with cancer has no control over that. I have absolutely no compassion for cancer patients who murder. Furthermore, you shame and disgrace all those with mental problems who fight their demons, who take their medications, and recognize the need not to go around killing innocent people.
|
|
|
Post by blakely on Nov 14, 2005 21:18:26 GMT -6
I just don't understnd how people can't wrap their head around mental illness and mroe specifically the Yates, Lanney and Scholsser cases. I am out of breath (so to speak) of trying to explain this. The other absurdity is that people think that these mothers are cunning enough to beat all the systems single handedly mind you and are sitting back enjoying the good life and laughing it up. Whatever tether was holding these women together broke and hiedous murders happened. They were still ill after the killings. Medicine, if it works and when it works, will bring them to a horrible reality of what they did they are even more damaged then before. They would kill themselves before they killed another person. They aren't socipaths. To those who don't believe the chit that can happen to the brain think about yourself and/or a loved one going through this and what sort of help you and your would get? If they system is set up the way you want it then you are just as f*cked and well that is your doing. Denying things that you don't think exist doesn't make it so. Someone who murders 5 children in cold blood isn't a sociopath? Give me a break. I don't know what planet someone has to be on to believe a murderer's remorse over slaughtering her own children actually means something. On the planet earth, in the United States of America, in the State of Texas, if you do not know right from wrong, are incapable of knowing what you did was wrong, or believe that your acts are right, you lack the requisite mental intent for murder.
|
|
|
Post by cynthiak on Nov 14, 2005 21:19:25 GMT -6
Wow. Really? You don't have any compassion for a mentally ill person I take? How about someone with cancer, or some other horrible disease, do you have compassion for them? Because mental illness is no different. She has no control over her mind, just like someone with cancer has no control over that. I have absolutely no compassion for cancer patients who murder. Furthermore, you shame and disgrace all those with mental problems who fight their demons, who take their medications, and recognize the need not to go around killing innocent people.
|
|
|
Post by MrCoffee on Nov 14, 2005 21:22:52 GMT -6
I have absolutely no compassion for cancer patients who murder. Furthermore, you shame and disgrace all those with mental problems who fight their demons, who take their medications, and recognize the need not to go around killing innocent people. I wouldn't so much quote it as "fighting their demons" Joeseph. It has more to do with hard WORK trying to get something fixed that's broken. Still, it's the thought that counts. And as I have stated elsewhere, it is a disgrace to lump everybody who has a psychiatric disability as being "unable to tell right from wrong". The justice system seems to know better, as many an offender with a "mental illness" did indeed make it to the death chamber. I have to give credit to the jurisdictions that have all this figured out. MrCoffee
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 14, 2005 21:42:02 GMT -6
I have absolutely no compassion for cancer patients who murder. Furthermore, you shame and disgrace all those with mental problems who fight their demons, who take their medications, and recognize the need not to go around killing innocent people. I wouldn't so much quote it as "fighting their demons" Joeseph. It has more to do with hard WORK trying to get something fixed that's broken. Still, it's the thought that counts. And as I have stated elsewhere, it is a disgrace to lump everybody who has a psychiatric disability as being "unable to tell right from wrong". The justice system seems to know better, as many an offender with a "mental illness" did indeed make it to the death chamber. I have to give credit to the jurisdictions that have all this figured out. MrCoffee Fair enough, MrCoffee. You're right. There are too many people with mental troubles who don't kill, including those with really serious problems. Something innate keeps these folks from committing murder. A jury is charged with finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Is there really reasonable doubt in the case of Andrea Yates? The whole issue is whether or not she knew right from wrong. She didn't cut her children from her womb while gestating them. She didn't destroy them upon birth. Presumably she knew right from wrong while she was medicated, and should have known what might happen after going off her meds. The question I ask isn't whether Ms. Yates actually knew right from wrong when it counted. The question I ask, instead, is whether society has a right to expect anyone with mental problems to know that murder is wrong. I feel society legitimately has that expectation, if only because so many mentally ill people don't murder. I need absolute, unequivocal proof that someone's moral restraint can suddenly vanish before a murder, and return afterwards. I don't see that proof anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by blakely on Nov 14, 2005 21:43:01 GMT -6
We don't live in JoeWorld, therefore, you don't get to speak for everyone. She couldn't premeditate the murders if she lacked the requisite criminal intent. Five mental health experts testified that she did not know right from wrong or that she thought what she did was right. The court of appeal found that there was a reasonable likelihood that Dietz’s false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury. A juror contacted the trial court afterwards and stated but for the fact of Diet's falsehood, she wd not have found the defendant guilt Yes, five mental health "experts" can never be wrong about human motivation and thought processes, can they? Do they testify out of their concern for the defendant, or for cash, Blakely? I believe the likelihood of them being wrong and you being right is zero to none. All testified bc they were supeoned. Not all were paid to testify as expert witnesses. Some testified because they treated her during her illness and at the jail. How many times do I have to repeat the facts of the case? How many times are you people going to make up stuff and try to pass it off as the facts of the case? Any crackhead can speculate about what Andrea Yates was thinking when she freely elected to brutally and savagely extinguish the lives of five innocent people. Someone with a bias against personal responsibility is going to make up any manner of reasons why someone shouldn't be assumed to have any, whether or not they are paid to do so. Not being a crackhead, I wouldn't know. Are you projecting? You have a hard-on for a murderer, Blakely. You make it more obvious with every post. And even before Yates came up you made it obvious that you have real control issues in your life. But, guess what? I dont give a *crap*. lol!
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 14, 2005 21:53:48 GMT -6
if you do not know right from wrong, are incapable of knowing what you did was wrong, or believe that your acts are right, you lack the requisite mental intent for murder. Even if complete moral incapacitation is possible, such incapacity has to be proved. The legal assumption is that a restraint against murder isn't vitiated by some phantom menace, but only by election. If this were only my opinion, 12 jurors would not have found Andrea Yates guilty of capital murder. You object to her not getting a fair trial the first time. What difference does it make whether or not if it was fair if the murderer is guilty? If the mistake in a trial doesn't relate to guilt or innocence, who cares? Only defense weasels and murdererphiles.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2005 21:54:38 GMT -6
Her doctor that was treating her said that she was not suffering from psychosis two days prior. How does a psychotic woman know that she must commit the crime of murder 5x in 40 minutes so that her MIL does not stop her and then have the sense to call 911 and her husband at work?
Have you even read her confession statements? You are disputing her own statements where she says she KNEW murder was wrong. How many psychotics know that acting out their delusions is wrong? They wouldn't, but Andrea did because she was still able to have RATIONAL thoughts and the ability to premeditate the murder of her 5 children for almost or at 2 years.
|
|
|
Post by blakely on Nov 14, 2005 22:04:15 GMT -6
if you do not know right from wrong, are incapable of knowing what you did was wrong, or believe that your acts are right, you lack the requisite mental intent for murder. Even if complete moral incapacitation is possible, such incapacity has to be proved. The legal assumption is that a restraint against murder isn't vitiated by some phantom menace, but only by election. If this were only my opinion, 12 jurors would not have found Andrea Yates guilty of capital murder. You object to her not getting a fair trial the first time. What difference does it make whether or not if it was fair if the murderer is guilty? If the mistake in a trial doesn't relate to guilt or innocence, who cares? Only defense weasels and murdererphiles. You can keep misrepresenting the facts until you're blue in the face, joe. It is not going to change things. The courts of appeal overturned it because the prosecution introduced, used, and argue false testimony. The courts of appeal held that there was a reasonable likelihood that the jury was influence by the false testimony. I am aware of one juror saying he was not influenced by it and another juror saying she was.
|
|