|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 14, 2005 22:12:21 GMT -6
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? You accept as "fact" that the testimony even belongs in a court of law. I do not. These "experts" haven't demonstrated, and can never demonstrate with authority, the clairvoyance required to deduce someone else incapable of knowing the rectitude of premeditated homicide. If Yates were a man on death row, pursued by worshipful, letter-writing acolytes who post messages within a certain, Canadian forum, you would be in high dudgeon, all over his claims and supporters like a bad rash. Andrea Yates killed children -- just like David Westerfield, Alejandro Avila, Marcus Wesson and Scott Peterson. She's every bit as guilty as they are. She had mental problems? Boo hoo. Which murderer doesn't? If you have violent impulses, you fight them. If you are told to take meds, you take them. If you hear voices, you talk back. If you don't know how, you better learn.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 14, 2005 22:21:24 GMT -6
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! Now isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. No one hurls as much personal invective and ad hominem attacks against the good, honest people here as do you, Blakely. The intensity of your tantrums is only matched by the randomness of your targets.
|
|
|
Post by blakely on Nov 14, 2005 22:24:47 GMT -6
Her doctor that was treating her said that she was not suffering from psychosis two days prior. The one who tapered her off her anti-psychotic medication making it possible for her psychosis to reappear? The one facing a civil law suit? Four docs and one psychologist who examined her the day of or shortly thereafter testified she was psychotic and did not know right from wrong, was incapable of knowing what she did was wrong, or believed that her acts were right. I've said this a number of times. You can pretend that you can't read it but it was the evidence at trial. 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? Not being a psychotic woman I wouldn't know. I do know that reviewing her history, the statements she gave, and hearing her, she sounds crazy as a loon. 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. Yes, I have read it. I have heard it. I have heard transcripts of the other interviews. She sounds crazy as a loon. So, I agree with the 5 docs. You agree with the guy who lied in court.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2005 22:31:35 GMT -6
No, I make my statements based upon the evidence and her own words. Dr.Dietz, or any psychologist for that matter, cannot tell me what to believe and not to. I believe Andrea Yates knew what she was doing and was not suffering true psychosis at the time of the murders. She was just too darn rational in her actions to be insane.
|
|
|
Post by blakely on Nov 14, 2005 22:35:36 GMT -6
No, I make my statements based upon the evidence and her own words. Dr.Dietz, or any psychologist for that matter, cannot tell me what to believe and not to. I believe Andrea Yates knew what she was doing and was not suffering true psychosis at the time of the murders. She was just too darn rational in her actions to be insane. As previously and repeatedly demonstrated in the thread you had yanked, you believe a lot of things that simply are not true.
|
|
|
Post by blakely on Nov 14, 2005 22:38:22 GMT -6
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! Now isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. No one hurls as much personal invective and ad hominem attacks against the good, honest people here as do you, Blakely. The intensity of your tantrums is only matched by the randomness of your targets. I never have the need to make up stuff in order to be right. Too bad you can't say the same. In fact, you have created an entire fantasy world where you make up all the rules and laws. Thank God no one lives in it but you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2005 22:40:30 GMT -6
No, I make my statements based upon the evidence and her own words. Dr.Dietz, or any psychologist for that matter, cannot tell me what to believe and not to. I believe Andrea Yates knew what she was doing and was not suffering true psychosis at the time of the murders. She was just too darn rational in her actions to be insane. As previously and repeatedly demonstrated in the thread you had yanked, you believe a lot of things that simply are not true. And you believe in a child killer. Sleep well.
|
|
|
Post by MrCoffee on Nov 14, 2005 23:37:40 GMT -6
Now isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. No one hurls as much personal invective and ad hominem attacks against the good, honest people here as do you, Blakely. The intensity of your tantrums is only matched by the randomness of your targets. I never have the need to make up stuff in order to be right. Too bad you can't say the same. In fact, you have created an entire fantasy world where you make up all the rules and laws. Thank God no one lives in it but you. I agree with Gurney MrCoffee
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2005 23:40:09 GMT -6
I never have the need to make up stuff in order to be right. Too bad you can't say the same. In fact, you have created an entire fantasy world where you make up all the rules and laws. Thank God no one lives in it but you. I agree with Gurney MrCoffee I agree with Guerney!!! Jason
|
|
|
Post by blakely on Nov 15, 2005 0:09:42 GMT -6
As previously and repeatedly demonstrated in the thread you had yanked, you believe a lot of things that simply are not true. And you believe in a child killer. Sleep well. I will. Thanks! lol!
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Nov 15, 2005 2:06:03 GMT -6
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. Previously you have argued that morality has nothing to do with any issue, are your sand shifting Joe? As for society providing a reason? Society is perfectly happy to acknowledge that some folk who kill secondary to serious delusional disorders cannot be held to account to the same level as the rest of us. Their actions are tragic, but if you really do care, I suggest you lobby for extra funding for community support and monitoring schemes and not the knee jerk ill informed ramblings you have come up with so far. Your perspective on this issue is extremely limited, you dont appear to recognise that some have dimished capacity. If your precious DP is ever to succedd, it has to be seen to be fair and applied only to those who exercised a degree of choice and not those who could not.
|
|
|
Post by cynthiak on Nov 15, 2005 3:10:59 GMT -6
To be so "Pro Andrea" you sure do make medication comments to alot of people. And you sure lack compassion for those that need them except for yourself. I am sure you feel plenty sorry for yourself. That is not true. I lack compassion for those that need them and refuse to take them.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Nov 15, 2005 3:23:55 GMT -6
No, I make my statements based upon the evidence and her own words. Dr.Dietz, or any psychologist for that matter, cannot tell me what to believe and not to. I believe Andrea Yates knew what she was doing and was not suffering true psychosis at the time of the murders. She was just too darn rational in her actions to be insane. Whilst nobody can tell you what to believe, you have to be aware that all you have presented is just that, - your belief, not backed by any acceptable psychiatric data, so in that sense I respectfully suggest you are hardly someone to be reckoned with as what you put forward hardly meets the criteria.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Nov 15, 2005 3:27:51 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. qwell why dont you enlighten me then, is it still the case that in the US the newer a typical antipsychotics are not funded because they cost more? I dont live there but I believe spearmintgirl does and the rest of that post of hers did suggest a grasp of the subject at hand.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Nov 15, 2005 3:32:20 GMT -6
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. A psychiatrist could explain it to you if you'd be humble enough to listen and learn, but we know your response to that suggestion dont we? You remind me of patients who just cannot take advice either Joe, in their case they are mentally ill, what is your excuse?
|
|
|
Post by blakely on Nov 15, 2005 7:00:39 GMT -6
And you sure lack compassion for those that need them except for yourself. I am sure you feel plenty sorry for yourself. That is not true. I lack compassion for those that need them and refuse to take them. You and others keep stating/implying that Yates refused to take her medications. That is a lie. And no, you do not have compassion for those with serious mental illness.
|
|
|
Post by blakely on Nov 15, 2005 7:10:08 GMT -6
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. qwell why dont you enlighten me then, is it still the case that in the US the newer a typical antipsychotics are not funded because they cost more? I dont live there but I believe spearmintgirl does and the rest of that post of hers did suggest a grasp of the subject at hand. I believe I read recently that Spearmintgirl lives in Germany. I have no idea when her friend made that statement nor any idea if it were true and neither do you. I doubt one person could speak for the entire insurance and medical fields in a country the size of the US. As with many drugs, what may be new and not in widespread use, may be common place a few years later. Medication has to be a hell of a lot cheaper than hopitalization. Nevertheless, this was all said in reference to Yates. I see the fools at ccadp saying that they wouldn't giver her those mysteriously unnamed drugs. Who says? How do they know what was prescribed to her? Furthermore, the Yates were not poor. The guy was a engineer for NASA.
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Nov 15, 2005 7:40:25 GMT -6
That's just it exactly. I believe that she was mentally ill. But the jury believed, as do I, that she DID know that what she did was wrong, and that she did intend to commit murder and did commit murder. She knew right from wrong because she waited until her husband and her mother were not around watching her like they usually did. If she did not know that she was wrong to kill her kids, she would not have called the police immediately after completing her task. She would have sat down and watched television and ate lunch, taken a nap, or called for a faith healer, or at the very least an ambulance or doctor - not the police. 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 RickZ on Nov 15, 2005 7:45:14 GMT -6
You and others keep stating/implying that Yates refused to take her medications. That is a lie. And no, you do not have compassion for those with serious mental illness. I disagree with you on this case, Blakely. The issue everyone seems to be dancing around, without ever really addressing, is: Do the mentally ill have the right to procreate just because they can? Even against the medical advice of mental health professionals? If Andrea's depression was severe after her fourth child, and apparently more so after her fifth, is not someone responsible for the irresponsibility of her getting pregnant that last time? And if Andrea is to be held blameless in her murdering her five children because of said mental illness, then what of her husband? He was the one who had a hand, so to speak, in his wife's fifth pregnancy, and ignored medical advice, even to the point of leaving his depressed wife home alone with their five children as he went back to work. These murders did not happen in a void; there were plenty of warning signs. Who would you hold responsible for the heinous murders of the five little Yates children if not Andrea herself? Those little children were murdered, and someone should be held accountable for those crimes in whatever way the law allows.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Nov 15, 2005 7:52:13 GMT -6
qwell why dont you enlighten me then, is it still the case that in the US the newer a typical antipsychotics are not funded because they cost more? I dont live there but I believe spearmintgirl does and the rest of that post of hers did suggest a grasp of the subject at hand. I believe I read recently that Spearmintgirl lives in Germany. I have no idea when her friend made that statement nor any idea if it were true and neither do you. I doubt one person could speak for the entire insurance and medical fields in a country the size of the US. As with many drugs, what may be new and not in widespread use, may be common place a few years later. Medication has to be a hell of a lot cheaper than hopitalization. Nevertheless, this was all said in reference to Yates. I see the fools at ccadp saying that they wouldn't giver her those mysteriously unnamed drugs. Who says? How do they know what was prescribed to her? Furthermore, the Yates were not poor. The guy was a engineer for NASA. I dont honestly know the exact detail firsthand, I thought you suggested or said or somebody did, that she was compliant with and taking the medication that had been prescribed, so if that is correct then Joseph is more wrong than I originally thought. As for the newer medications, considering they are developed largely in the uSA, it does seem strange that they are available easily here in the UK, but need to filter slowly down in a few years to patients in the US? Medication is a helluva lot cheaper than hospital, and infinitely cheaper than a disater like happened in the Yates case.
|
|
|
Post by blakely on Nov 15, 2005 7:55:30 GMT -6
And the courts believed the jury, and as substantiated by one juror, was unfairly influenced by the false testimony of Dietz, the use of the false testimony to impeach one of the defense witnesses, and the use of the false testimony to argue guilt to the jury. So, you can not rely on the jury verdict as proof that she DID know what she did was wrong. You believe that she did know, I, and others, believe that she did not. While I generally agree jurors are the ones who hear all the evidence and we do not and that their verdicts shd be given deference, this verdict was tainted. That's just it exactly. I believe that she was mentally ill. But the jury believed, as do I, that she DID know that what she did was wrong, and that she did intend to commit murder and did commit murder. She knew right from wrong because she waited until her husband and her mother were not around watching her like they usually did. If she did not know that she was wrong to kill her kids, she would not have called the police immediately after completing her task. She would have sat down and watched television and ate lunch, taken a nap, or called for a faith healer, or at the very least an ambulance or doctor - not the police.
|
|
|
Post by blakely on Nov 15, 2005 8:00:39 GMT -6
You and others keep stating/implying that Yates refused to take her medications. That is a lie. And no, you do not have compassion for those with serious mental illness. I disagree with you on this case, Blakely. The issue everyone seems to be dancing around, without ever really addressing, is: Do the mentally ill have the right to procreate just because they can? Even against the medical advice of mental health professionals? If Andrea's depression was severe after her fourth child, and apparently more so after her fifth, is not someone responsible for the irresponsibility of her getting pregnant that last time? And if Andrea is to be held blameless in her murdering her five children because of said mental illness, then what of her husband? He was the one who had a hand, so to speak, in his wife's fifth pregnancy, and ignored medical advice, even to the point of leaving his depressed wife home alone with their five children as he went back to work. These murders did not happen in a void; there were plenty of warning signs. Who would you hold responsible for the heinous murders of the five little Yates children if not Andrea herself? Those little children were murdered, and someone should be held accountable for those crimes in whatever way the law allows. And how does what you posted refute the fact that she took her medications and to say otherwise is a lie? Rick, you want your pound of flesh, go get it. I can't stop you. However, she did not receive a fair trial and there has been continuous misstatements of fact as to this case on this forum.
|
|
|
Post by blakely on Nov 15, 2005 8:06:06 GMT -6
I believe I read recently that Spearmintgirl lives in Germany. I have no idea when her friend made that statement nor any idea if it were true and neither do you. I doubt one person could speak for the entire insurance and medical fields in a country the size of the US. As with many drugs, what may be new and not in widespread use, may be common place a few years later. Medication has to be a hell of a lot cheaper than hopitalization. Nevertheless, this was all said in reference to Yates. I see the fools at ccadp saying that they wouldn't giver her those mysteriously unnamed drugs. Who says? How do they know what was prescribed to her? Furthermore, the Yates were not poor. The guy was a engineer for NASA. I dont honestly know the exact detail firsthand, I thought you suggested or said or somebody did, that she was compliant with and taking the medication that had been prescribed, so if that is correct then Joseph is more wrong than I originally thought. As for the newer medications, considering they are developed largely in the uSA, it does seem strange that they are available easily here in the UK, but need to filter slowly down in a few years to patients in the US? Medication is a helluva lot cheaper than hospital, and infinitely cheaper than a disater like happened in the Yates case. In the court opinion it stated that she was on haldol and other antidepressants. She was tapered off the haldol shortly before she drowned her kids. As to spearmints anecdotal tcomments, again, we have no facts and I feel uncomfortable arguing that issue, forming conclusions and extrapolating them to Yates and neither shd you or anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Nov 15, 2005 8:12:33 GMT -6
And how does what you posted refute the fact that she took her medications and to say otherwise is a lie? Rick, you want your pound of flesh, go get it. I can't stop you. However, she did not receive a fair trial and there has been continuous misstatements of fact as to this case on this forum. I'm saying I disagree with you on the case, not whether she took her medication or not. The fact pattern I see is that 5 little children were deliberately drowned in a bathtub. Andrea did the dirty deeds. All I ask is who is responsible for those murders? If not Andrea, who? If not her husband, who? I agree that the little children are dead, but their deaths were not accidental, but deliberate murder. I just don't think any murder should be "got away with." Especially as the murders were a direct result of a fifth, medically ill-advised, pregnancy.
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Nov 15, 2005 8:31:53 GMT -6
Okay, and I told you the reasons I believe that she knew that what she did was wrong. Why do you think she called the police if she thought everything was fine and she had done nothing wrong? I think the next jury will decide the same thing, without Park Dietz's testimony. And the courts believed the jury, and as substantiated by one juror, was unfairly influenced by the false testimony of Dietz, the use of the false testimony to impeach one of the defense witnesses, and the use of the false testimony to argue guilt to the jury. So, you can not rely on the jury verdict as proof that she DID know what she did was wrong. You believe that she did know, I, and others, believe that she did not. While I generally agree jurors are the ones who hear all the evidence and we do not and that their verdicts shd be given deference, this verdict was tainted. That's just it exactly. I believe that she was mentally ill. But the jury believed, as do I, that she DID know that what she did was wrong, and that she did intend to commit murder and did commit murder. She knew right from wrong because she waited until her husband and her mother were not around watching her like they usually did. If she did not know that she was wrong to kill her kids, she would not have called the police immediately after completing her task. She would have sat down and watched television and ate lunch, taken a nap, or called for a faith healer, or at the very least an ambulance or doctor - not the police.
|
|
|
Post by blakely on Nov 15, 2005 8:36:21 GMT -6
And how does what you posted refute the fact that she took her medications and to say otherwise is a lie? Rick, you want your pound of flesh, go get it. I can't stop you. However, she did not receive a fair trial and there has been continuous misstatements of fact as to this case on this forum. I'm saying I disagree with you on the case, not whether she took her medication or not. The fact pattern I see is that 5 little children were deliberately drowned in a bathtub. Andrea did the dirty deeds. All I ask is who is responsible for those murders? If not Andrea, who? If not her husband, who? I agree that the little children are dead, but their deaths were not accidental, but deliberate murder. I just don't think any murder should be "got away with." Especially as the murders were a direct result of a fifth, medically ill-advised, pregnancy. Well rick, I still can't help you there. The law does not require that someone must be guilty. And to say she got away with anything is a bit of a stretch. Looking at those photo albums and from all accounts, the woman loved her kids. She was not like that Darla woman using her kids as props and prancing around after their deaths. Yates became extremely ill and according to those who believe she is guilty, just murdered them for the hell of it. Sorry, I just don't buy it. I believe the woman is acutely ill. And as a result of mental illness, her life is hell. Under the affect of that illness, she killed her kids. Her life is worse than hell. Do I pity her? Hell yes. And, for the record, yes her doc told her and her husband that having another child may precipitate another psychotic break. She had one more child and that was in November 2000. In the court opinion, they say the death of her father was the precipitating factor in her having another psychotic breakdown not the birth of her last child.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Nov 15, 2005 8:39:52 GMT -6
I dont honestly know the exact detail firsthand, I thought you suggested or said or somebody did, that she was compliant with and taking the medication that had been prescribed, so if that is correct then Joseph is more wrong than I originally thought. As for the newer medications, considering they are developed largely in the uSA, it does seem strange that they are available easily here in the UK, but need to filter slowly down in a few years to patients in the US? Medication is a helluva lot cheaper than hospital, and infinitely cheaper than a disater like happened in the Yates case. In the court opinion it stated that she was on haldol and other antidepressants. She was tapered off the haldol shortly before she drowned her kids. As to spearmints anecdotal tcomments, again, we have no facts and I feel uncomfortable arguing that issue, forming conclusions and extrapolating them to Yates and neither shd you or anyone else. But whilst I repeated what I recall spearmintgirl saying, I did not present what I wrote as proved fact, and stated my source.
|
|
|
Post by kat2 on Nov 15, 2005 8:53:34 GMT -6
Thank you Jamie for welcoming me, I appreciate it! Joseph, back on page one when I was discussing whether or not you had compassion for people with mental illness or cancer, it was discussing the illness only, nothing to do with killing someone. What I am picking up is that you have zero compassion for people with mental illness at all and just wish that they would take their meds and shut the *f---* up right? Well, life is not black and white. You cannot FORCE someone to take medication. You just can't. When someone with schizophrenia gets put on medication and the voices go away, they think "hey, this is great. I am all better now. There are no more voices, so I can stop my medication". Now, this person had a good psychiatrist, they would tell them that this is not true, and to remain healthy you need to stay on your medication for life. But, obviously, Andrea Yates did NOT have a good physician as he was discontinuing her Haldol which in my opinion was an idiotic thing to do given her history. But, this doctor did what he did, and if anything he deserves to shoulder an awful lot of the blame here. If he had been a caring and intelligent physician, he would have paid more attention to her symptoms and prevented this tragedy.
|
|
|
Post by blakely on Nov 15, 2005 9:13:01 GMT -6
Well, since I am not Yates and I am not psychotic I, like you, can only guess. I believe she talked about the need to be punished and that she could only protect her kids from Satan by killing them. She called the police because she felt she needed to be punished because she was a terrible mother. She believed she did the right thing in killing them because Satan was going to harm them. The prosecution may have a problem in that they put all their eggs in the Dietz basket. Without him, they have no expert that examined her on or near the time of the drownings. Frankly, I think a plea bargain is likely. I'm not sure why they can't sentence her to consecutive life terms and allow her to serve it in any lockdown mental health facility. Okay, and I told you the reasons I believe that she knew that what she did was wrong. Why do you think she called the police if she thought everything was fine and she had done nothing wrong? I think the next jury will decide the same thing, without Park Dietz's testimony. And the courts believed the jury, and as substantiated by one juror, was unfairly influenced by the false testimony of Dietz, the use of the false testimony to impeach one of the defense witnesses, and the use of the false testimony to argue guilt to the jury. So, you can not rely on the jury verdict as proof that she DID know what she did was wrong. You believe that she did know, I, and others, believe that she did not. While I generally agree jurors are the ones who hear all the evidence and we do not and that their verdicts shd be given deference, this verdict was tainted.
|
|
|
Post by blakely on Nov 15, 2005 9:16:27 GMT -6
In the court opinion it stated that she was on haldol and other antidepressants. She was tapered off the haldol shortly before she drowned her kids. As to spearmints anecdotal tcomments, again, we have no facts and I feel uncomfortable arguing that issue, forming conclusions and extrapolating them to Yates and neither shd you or anyone else. But whilst I repeated what I recall spearmintgirl saying, I did not present what I wrote as proved fact, and stated my source. No, you used it to take another cheapshot at the US.
|
|