I know that this is probably going to be a hot-button. And I'm sure my opinion will not be a popular one, but I am so glad they found her guilty. I truly believe that this woman has mental problems, to what degree I don't know. But she knew what she was doing wasn't right. She waited until she was alone. She chased her 7-year old down. And in her confession she talks about him running from her but, "I got him". She covered the younger children up with a sheet. To me this is a conscious effort to hide what she was doing from the other children so that they couldn't escape and get help. I just don't believe that this woman didn't know what she was doing. She knew, yes she was sick. Yes she needed help, but she knew. Next step...the husband. He knew she was sick, they still had children. He is liable as well, IMO.

By Karen55 on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 09:08 pm:

I won't be popular either, cuz I agree with you. And her mother was aware of her situation too. I agree with the guilty verdict, and I also think her husband should bear some responsibility for this too.

By Catherin on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 09:24 pm:

I agree with you both

By Kim on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 11:24 pm:

I disagree from the standpoint of having admitted myself to a psych ward and meeting some of the people there. She was taken off of her Haldol 16 days prior to this incident. My friend Daniel is schitzophrenic and if he is not on this medication he literally hears people and maybe sees theings that are not there! I also witnessed others and had long conversations about being on or off the meds. There was a 21 year old man there with two babies and he kept trying to kill himself because he heard voices, even on meds, telling him to hurt his kids. He so desperately did not want to do this that he continued to try and kill himself and vowed that he would say what he had to just to get out so he could try again. think about that. REALLY think about it.

I saw someone today that said it would take two weeks for the meds to wear off and it was 2 days after that. Why was she taken off of her meds in the first place? I put most of the blame for this on the husband. He KNEW she was ill and continued anyway. Why did he let her go off of her meds?

Just because she said she chased them down and got them doesn't mean anything. the mind is a VERY fragile thing! She tucked them in for a reason, they weren't lying helter skelter through the house. I am not saying she is innocent. But I do think she needs severe psychiatric care. And I think her husband should share the blame also.

By Teresam on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 12:47 am:

I am with you, Kim, on the fact the the husband is culpable in the situation. I know that the defense attorney and Yates' sympathizers say he did everything to help. I read a statement from him that he would leave her alone with the kids for an hour in the morning before her mother would arrive to help and her mother would leave an hour before her husband came home.

He may have been aware of the illness but I think there is still a ton of obliviousness in him.

The whole story is so sad..those poor little babies.

By Melsa on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 01:55 am:

This is exactly why we need to stop turing our heads and start dealing with DEPRESSION on EVERY level. EDUCATE, EDUCATE, INFORM, INFORM, INFORM HELP THOSE WHO NEED IT! IT isn't just the person who has mental problems who suffers....
The family members suffer as well and when no one knows what to do to help what happens? Most likely goes over looked, mis-diagnosed, mistreated. Everyone throws thier hands up.
How can we bring about change?
EDUCATION,AWARENESS,HELP,SUPPORT = PREVENTION
The husband is to blame as much as the Doctor is.

By Ginnyk on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 06:02 am:

I am frustrated by the jury's ruling but I can understand how they came to it. Texas does not have a "guilty but insane" verdict - only guilty, not guilty, or not guilty by reason of insanity. I sympathize greatly with those jurors - it was clear she did it, and to some extent she "knew" what she was doing, and their choice was either to let her go or find her guilty. Despite the fact that if they had found her not guilty by reason of insanity the Court could have held a hearing and ordered her detention for some indefinite period of time in a mental institution, the jury didn't know this. So as far as they knew they had the choice of either letting her go or finding her guilty. The next phase of this trial is the jury's deliberations between the death penalty and life without parole. I very much hope the jury takes more than 3-1/2 hours for this deliberation.

I will bet anyone here $1 that some time within the next year or two the husband sues the doctor for the doctor's decision to cut back on her medications.

By Ginnyk on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 06:08 am:

Oh, and Kim, I agree with you. I don't believe Andrea Yates "knew" what she was doing in the sense that she knew it was wrong. She knew, obviously, that the rest of the world would think it was wrong, but from what I have read she believed that no matter what the rest of the world thought, she was doing this to save her children from hell. As you point out, this is typical of schizophrenics.

Those poor children. And the family members and friends who tried to help will be bearing a tremendous load of guilt and anger for the rest of their lives.

As for the husband - well, I do wish he had been charged as an accessory, but that probably wasn't possible under Texas or common law. Sadly, it is next to impossible to charge someone for not doing something - and he basically didn't do anything, especially not try to help her in any real way. And I'll bet when he came home from work every day he did nothing to help her with the children or the house.

By Colette on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 07:36 am:

My heart breaks for the whole tragedy. The fear those children must have felt makes me sick to my stomach, I do not believe Andrea Yates was sane and I do believe she thought she was somehow saving her children. If she somehow regains some part of her sanity I do not know how she will live with what she has done.

As far as the husband goes, I think he should be right there beside her and share in whatever punishment they give her.

By Loving2 on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 01:26 pm:

I am frustrated just as Ginny is, and heartbroken. I think this verdict is a real setback in understanding the disease and in education about it (as Melsa talked about). In my opinion she knew that 'others' would think what she was doing was wrong (like Ginny said), but she still believed it was right. Don't we all sometimes do things for our children because we believe it's right, even if a majority of others don't agree? She did it because she wanted to protect her children, keep them safe from evil--as screwed up as that thinking is, she did it from love. Her statement "I wonder if only killing one of them would have fulfilled the prophecy?" is very telling of her thought process.

By Jann on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 01:58 pm:

Loving2, I think she was ill, but I don't think that it is an excuse. I used to do volunteer work as a court appointed child advocate. We would interview the families when instances of abuse were reported and the children removed from the home. The HARDEST times we had were when the parents were "doing things to their children because they believed it was right when the majority didn't agree". These parents loved their children also. And when asked "why did you do such and such to your child?" they would respond "because I told them not to go play in the street" Perfectly normal request from a parent, keeping that child safe. You would ask the child what happened and they would say "I got punished cause I went in the street" Child knew that they were doing something wrong and there were consequences.
The problem was that the punishment might be putting the child's feet in scalding water so they can't go out into the street to play. Or tying that child up so tightly in electrical cord to prevent them from going outside that it caused 2" gashes in their skin.
These people had screwed up thinking, they were doing it for love and they were also convicted of child endangerment, lost custody of their children because they couldn't be rehabilitated because they thought they were right in protecting their children.

By Kim on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 03:54 pm:

Jann, you have to admit, there is a BIG difference between parents who don't know how to properly parent and a person dealing with psychosis and being taken off of her medications!

By Jann on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 04:02 pm:

Kim, yes, I do. I was trying to address Loving2's comments "Don't we all sometimes do things for our children because we believe it's right, even if a majority of others don't agree? She did it because she wanted to protect her children, keep them safe from evil--as screwed up as that thinking is, she did it from love."
There are lots of people who LOVE their children that are hurtful to them, AND it has been argued that these people are mentally ill cause "what sane person would stick their children's feet in scalding water to prevent them from playing in the street".
Would she have hurt her children if she hadn't been psychotic, I don't know. The point is she did.

By Brenda on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 04:05 pm:

I don't agree at all. She was completely sane and KNEW what she was doing. She wouldn't have planned it for 3 months if she was insane. As for her husband, he is just as guilty as she is. I don't think she should get a life sentence, I think they should find a bathtub & drown her just the way she did her children.

By Jann on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 04:09 pm:

Another interesting thing to consider is her sentencing.
This is a great article that talk about it.
If you were her attorneys would you pull her off her meds?
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/topstory/1293192

By Jujubee9752 on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 05:44 pm:

Well it seems we all agree on one point. The husband is just as guilty.

Kim,
I think you made my point for me. The man that you described in the psych ward. You said that he "so desperately did not want to do this that he continued to try and kill himself and vowed that he would say what he had to just to get out so he could try again".
He would have done anything, to the extent that he would harm himself before his children. I have read about alot of these cases lately. And in all of the ones that I have read, the parent would go to any extreme to keep from harming her child. She did not.

I am not saying that there are no other cases out there. What I believe is that the temporary insanity plea is used way to often. It is to horrible for us to even try to comprehend that someone could be evil enough to do these things. And so we say they had to be insane. I think that there are times when a person is purely EVIL. And because we can't fathom that, we say they must be insane. To me this is not one of those cases. I, too, believe that she was sick. I just don't believe that she didn't know what she was doing.

By Jujubee9752 on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 05:50 pm:

Jann I just read the article you posted, very interesting. But at least she'll get some care.
I really don't see her getting the death penalty. And really I pray that she doesn't. I...I don't know what I pray. I just pray that God will touch her, and heal and help her.

By Annie2 on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 06:44 pm:

I think that she is mentally ill, but is guilty of murdering her five babies. A mentally ill person who needs medication to maintian daily life needs to be monitored to make sure meds are taken, if not problems will occur. Her history shows she needs help. If she is not able to make choices for her well-being herself, then she should have a legal guardian to make sure she does. Her husband in my opinion. I think he let the ball drop, I think he failed his wife and family.

Also, if a self-proclaimed alcoholic falls off the wagon and kills someone while drunk, he's guilty. We don't tolerate it, even though alcoholism is a disease, made by someone's poor judgement, etc. If these babies were drowned my a vagrant, teenage male, schizophrenic, who didn't, by choice, take his meds...we would all be outraged.

It is a sad, sad story. Whatever side of the debate table we sit. A tradegy. As they say, hindsight is always 20/20.

By Jann on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 06:53 pm:

Annie2, using your example, if my husband was an alcholic that I encouraged, begged, pleaded with to get treatment, but didn't physically take into treatment myself or I took into treatment and was told by the doctors that he was better, and he killed someone while drunk driving, am I equally liable?

By Annie2 on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 08:34 pm:

Jann, if your husband was an alcholic and you encouraged, begged, pleaded with him to get treatment , but he didn't. Then the next day you made him a pitcher of Margaritis, convinced him to drink it. He got behind the wheel of the car, kills someone, etc. Yes, I think you would be held accountable.

As the Yates case, the husband KNEW she should not have more babies, she suffered PPD, mental illness, etc. He gets her pregnant again. Should he be held accoubtable?

By Jann on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 09:05 pm:

Annie, did he rape her too? Did he take her pills away from her?

By Jujubee9752 on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 09:24 pm:

........This message deleted, because it may have been misinterpreted..................................

By Annie2 on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 09:40 pm:

It's fun to debate, Jann.

Okay, maybe he did rape her, maybe he did take her pills; then maybe again he didn't, maybe she begged to have another child,...we will never know the entire story, with emotions, control, sickness, etc. But, if MY spouse was obviously mentally unstable, recently off tremendously strong meds for psychosis, with five kids all day, everyday...I would make arrangements for him to get some alone time, some rest and support for her and the kids. And I would not leave for work until the backup was there, etc. for his safety and the safety of my babies.

By Ginnyk on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 10:30 pm:

Did he rape her? Probably not. Did he take an unstable woman and manipulatively convince her that he was the person to make the decisions and that if she was a good wife she'd do as he said to fulfill his vision - probably. He did have his family living in a school bus until either the 4th or 5th pregnancy, and then moved them into a house so there would be more room for home schooling. He did know that she had severe PPD after the fourth child and was hospitalized, at least once and I believe twice, and then "discussed" with her whether they should have a 5th child before she became pregnant again. He did know she was severely depressed, on medications, and went off to work every day leaving her home to homeschool the five children.
Whatever his beliefs, motives, or goals, this sorry excuse for a man chose not to send his children to school but rather to leave them to be homeschooled by a severely mentally ill wife who was, according to people who knew her, falling apart, unable to keep house, and barely able to take even minimal care of the five children - let alone home school them. I am very, very sorry about the children, and I certainly do not believe Andrea Yates should be set free - I do think she should be placed in a mental institution and I strongly doubt she will ever be stable enough to be able to lead any kind of independent life.
But this man knew his wife was sick, knew how very sick she was, and apparently did nothing to help her and only added to her burdens. Did he help her to get help - maybe. Maybe he took her to a psychiatrist, or maybe the mental health system caught up with her and him when she was hospitalized. But whether he took her to a psychiatrist or not, he is apparently smart enough to know that he was leaving his children and wife in a potentially harmful situation, and chose to do so.

I think this was a manipulative man with his own vision of how *his* life, *his* wife and *his* children should be, with no real concern for his wife's needs or illness, and very little concern about the harm that could come to his children by leaving them home alone all day with a seriously ill mother. Did he think she would hurt or kill them, probably not. Did he have any doubts that she could properly home school them and do all the other things a mother and wife has to do - probably not, even in the face of her hospitalizations and what was and was not happening at home. Or did he even notice?

I said it before - I will be very surprised if he doesn't sue the doctor who said her meds should be cut, or someone else, for being the cause of her killing the children. And he'll play the poor bereaved father and faithful, supportive husband to the hilt. He'll probably go on talk shows and may even get speaking engagements. And I'll bet within six months he is courting and trying to marry another woman he thinks he can talk into having a lot of children and homeschooling them.

I have nothing against home-schooling, by the way. But it is a lot of work and takes a well organized person and personality to carry it off. I don't think it should be an option for a family where the mother is demonstrably mentally ill, and I wonder where the child welfare and school authorities were while this was going on.

Every time I think about Mr. Yates I feel sick to my stomach.

By Kim on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 11:22 pm:

...sounds like someone I know...*sigh*

By Catherin on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 12:11 am:

I have so much to say on this post but I never seem to be able to find the time to sit down and actually do it.

I do have to say though that I am so glad we have this debate board and can talk about something like this in a mature manner.

Jujubee I saw your message I am so sorry you felt it had to be deleted I didn't think it was out of line at all. The way I read it you were asking for clarification on something someone said am I right?

By Ginnyk on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 01:18 am:

Jujubee, if Catherin thinks your message was asking for clarification, maybe you can rework it to omit what you thought might give offense. And, by the way, roses to you for taking the care to re-read and second think yourself and take the trouble to delete rather than give offense.

We are a classy bunch, by and large, aren't we?

By Jujubee9752 on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 08:29 am:

Ok, then here it is:

Jann, I was wondering what your position is on this topic?

I erased it because I was afraid the way I worded it, and being right in the middle of Jann and Annie's conversation . Well, to me it just sounded snappy Thanks Catherin, and Ginny, yes we are! ****Smiles******

By Catherin on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 10:37 am:

Your welcome Juju

By Truestori on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 11:07 am:

She is psychotic! What murderer isn't?
I feel sorry for the children. They have two very sick parents.

By Jann on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 11:14 am:

Annie 2, I so totally agree that it's fun to debate! I was just playing devil's advocate and keeping the debate going.

By Kim on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 11:15 am:

Yes, the young man in the hospital wouold rather hurt himself, but we don't know what delusions his psychosis was making him see and we don't know what delusions her psychosis was making her see. I talked to my paranoid schizophrenic friend Daniel for a long time last night on the phone. He is on Haldol (sp). If he is not on the right dose of meds he will STILL have hallucination. As I said before, the mind is a VERY fragile thing. We are all looking in as rational people who have never been in this woman's shoes. I really think she thought she HAD to do it to save them! Yes, she is guilty. Yes, she is insane. She didn't even try to hide the fact of what she had done. What would a criminal psychologist think of that? If she was sane and knew what she had done was wrong or bad, she would have tried to hide them or the fact that she did it!

Which brings me to:


Now Susan Smith, as I said a few weeks ago, heck yes she was sane and guilty! She jumped out of the car! Did she run for help? No, she made up a huge lie. Totally different case.

I would hate to be on the jury in a case like this! I think it would be very hard!

By Jann on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 11:26 am:

Ginny, do we REALLY know how she felt about living in the bus? We don't know what their economic situation was that prompted that. Do we really know if he was as manipulative and as controlling as the MEDIA says or is the media twisting it that way so that we can have a villian becuase the crime is so horrible to imagine because it's easy and safer to blame him rather than dealing with the horrors of the crime because no one wants to think a mother, the one person who is supposed to love her children unconditionally, could do something so horrible.
Do we REALLY know the reasons why he changed doctors? Perhaps he didn't feel the treatment was working quickly enough, perhaps he was told she was getting better. We don't know, we have doctors who are also covering their behinds too.

My point is that none of us know more than what the media has told us.

By Jann on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 11:30 am:

Juju, I think she killed her children and was found guilty under the law and now should be punished. I am not sure about the death penalty, but she is going to be an very expensive inmate.

By Ginnyk on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 11:41 am:

We don't "know", in that we weren't there. (My dear father used to quote an old vaudeville comic line, when someone would say something happened - Was you there, Charlie?) And yes, all we have is the media. But we do have the media reports of trial testimony, which seems fairly consistent, and that is what I am going by. Because I am single and have no kids or other dependants, I am able to spend more time surfing the net that most, and one of the things I do is surf for specific major city newspapers, their news reports and certain columnists, which is where I am getting my information.
And, frankly, with him knowing how sick she was (remember, she was hospitalized at least once and I believe twice after the birth of their fourth child), how could he possibly believe she was capable of making rational decisions.

Part of what frustrates me is that it is all falling on Andrea Yates. Yes, she did it. But I think there is a lot of blame to go around.

(I may be alone in this, but I personally am bothered when people present views that they do not hold as "devils advocates". At least on serious topics. My lawyer son does this in personal discussions, and it drives me crazy.)

By Jann on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 12:16 pm:

Ginny, I took debate in high school and had to argue many positions I didn't believe in. If I am wrong that this isn't a debate board, but an opinion board, I will quit offering up points for debate.

By Ginnyk on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 01:51 pm:

Jann, it is a place to debate/discuss issues, but not, I think, in a formal debate structure. For me, I don't present or debate on behalf of positions I don't believe in.

I was, of course, expressing my personal feelings, and realize that I may be alone in those feelings.

By Kim on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 03:46 pm:

So, then we agree to disagree, right? GREAT!

By Brenda on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 06:28 pm:

Stop making excuses for this B****!!!!! She's a murderer. PLAIN & SIMPLE!!!!!!!

By Sandie on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 08:42 pm:

I agree Brenda, she is a MURDERER and her husband is too; his childrens death over his head too!

By Kim on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 11:37 pm:

No one is making excuses for her. We are just trying to point out that it isn't as simple as people would like it to be. And if you knew someone with mental health problems and how different it can affect different people I don't know if you would be so quick to judge. I am a very naturally maternal person. But my gut instinct in this case is not at all the same as it was with the Susan Smith case. I believe that maybe had she been taken care of properly it might not have happened at all.

By Brenda on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 08:19 am:

People ARE aking excuses for her!! Actually, I DO know a woman with mental health problems. I am very close to her & her family. If she were to kill her kids the way Andrea Yates did, I would say the EXACT same thing about her!!!! I have 2 kids & can't imagine my life without them. I think both Andrea Yates & Susan Smith should have to be fixed, so they can never do this to their child again!! If she needed to be taken care of, why wasn't she put away?

By Kim on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 12:20 pm:

Well, that's why we are all so angry with her husband!

By Brenda on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 02:43 pm:

Why isn't anyone mad at her? SHE DID THE KILLING!!!!!!! Stop feeling sorry for her, she killed her kids!!!!! People need to stop blaming mental illness on everything. If someone kills someone else, all they have to do is plea temporary insanity & they get off with little or no punishment!!!!

By Kim on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 03:55 pm:

I think you ae totally misunderstanding my opinion. I'll have to think about a better way of expresing what I am trying to say!

By Jujubee9752 on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 04:12 pm:

After less than an hour of deliberations, a jury spared Andrea Yates from the death penalty Friday and sentenced the mentally ill housewife to life in prison for drowning her children in the bathtub.
Just something else to "chew" on.

Brenda,
I don't think anyone here is actually saying that she isn't guilty. We just all feel differently about why this happened. I agree that she is quilty. And that too many people get out of trouble with the temporary insanity plea. But I also think that the husband should be charged too. Would you leave your children with your husband if he had the background that she had? I know that I wouldn't, I'd have hired a babysitter in a minute. Yes, I am mad at her. I think what she did was terrible, and most of all unbelievable. But I also think that she needs some type of treatment. I'm not putting this very well. I guess what I am trying to say is this. I support some of what you say. And, to the best of my knowledge, noone here is defending here. They're only trying to make sense out of this horrible tragedy.

By Jann on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 04:17 pm:

I am intrigued that everyone is so bothered by the 3 hour of deliberation and 1 hour for sentencing? Haven't all of ya'll come to a decision based on newspaper reports/transcripts in the same amount of time?

By Jujubee9752 on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 04:29 pm:

Actually, I'm not bothered. I'm sorry, but to me this case wasn't extremely hard. Ginny explained earlier that in Texas you can only find 3 ways: guilty, not guilty, or not guilty by reason of insanity. She clearly couldn't claim not guilty, and I truly believe that she knew what she was doing. So the only thing left was guilty. And as for the sentencing. Well, I do think that she has some problems, and I didn't see her getting the death penalty. So really, I guess what I'm saying is...I'm not surprised at all that it didn't take that long.

By Loving2 on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 04:32 pm:

Sure Jann, but we aren't the ones entrusted with her fate. What's bothersome about 3 hours of deliberation is that it implies no thought was given to insanity.

And Sorry Brenda, but I do make excuses for Andrea. Insanity is an excuse & I believe she is insane. Sometimes people, like Andrea in my opinion, have no control over their actions. I don't think she should have been convicted of murder. We're all entitled to have our own views and opinions....and we're entilted to express them as well. The state I live in, Colorado, recognizes PPP as a defense, so do many other states and most develooped countries. I find it extremely sad that America in general is so lacking in understanding of mental illnesses.

By Jann on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 04:33 pm:

Juju, I guess I got confused by your comment after less than one hour of deliberation "the something else to chew on".
I know others have made comments about how quickly the jury came to verdict.

By Brenda on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 04:56 pm:

I will keep my mouth closed to the opinion stated above. I will end up saying something directly to her that I don't mean to say. I am a mother that loves her children very much & can't listen to someone make excuses for a woman that can take the life of her own kids. All I can say is, since she got life in prison for committing this crime, I HOPE SHE GETS HERS WHILE SHE'S IN THERE!!!!!!!!!

By Jujubee9752 on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 05:07 pm:

I probably didn't put that in the best spot, Jann. I was trying to add to the conversation. You know, give a little more "food for thought". I know that alot of the women didn't feel that the jury deliberated long before finding her guilty.

By Loving2 on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 05:10 pm:

I'm a mother that loves her children very much too Brenda, most moms do, and the thought of what Andrea put her children through is horrible. There's nothing personal to you or anyone in my opinions here. I respect your opinion and even understand it to a certain extent. It's a hard subject to even think about.

I do believe the jury made the only decision they could based on Texas laws and guidelines. I don't agree with those laws and guidelines though.

By Colette on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 06:03 pm:

Personally I think she should be in a psych hospital. She was not just depressed, it wasn't the "baby blues", she was psychotic. You do not leave a psychotic person with your children. You do not even expose your children to a psychotic person. I do not understand how so many people dropped the ball on this. I hope she gets the help she obviously needs.

By Jann on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 07:14 pm:

Collette, I don't think alot of people realize that she will be receiving the exact same treatment and medication in prison as she would be in a psych hospital. The only difference is now, she can't be cured and then possibly released earlier than 40 years.

By Cybermommyx4 on Friday, March 15, 2002 - 10:50 pm:

I think, in this case, the death penalty would have been a kind of relief for her. Once her meds are balanced and she "comes back to the real world" and realizes the enormity of what she has done, and has to live with it.....HOW CAN SHE LIVE WITH IT??!!! I wonder if she even wants to live? I haven't really watched that much of the case, because it makes me sick to my stomach to even think about what those poor babies went through.....but, no matter what circumstances led her to do such a thing, how on earth will she be able to live with herself?! Maybe that is a worse punishment than death....

By Jann on Saturday, March 16, 2002 - 02:51 am:

I just have to wonder if she has been so out of it all this time, how did she had the wherewithall to write that letter about her children asking for forgiveness that she gave her attorney this week.

By Kim on Saturday, March 16, 2002 - 11:33 am:

so, psychotic people cannot write letters?

By Kim on Saturday, March 16, 2002 - 11:37 am:

Jann, don't start thinking I am picking on you....I stood up for you before if you remember! Just throwing it out there for all to think on and didn't want you to take it personally...

By Jann on Saturday, March 16, 2002 - 12:22 pm:

I don't think that Kim! LOL I just think it is interesting that she was unable to contribute to her defense, but now that testimony is over, she is lucid enough to write letters.

By Kim on Saturday, March 16, 2002 - 01:43 pm:

She might be back on meds! That would make a HUGE difference!

By Jujubee9752 on Saturday, March 16, 2002 - 08:00 pm:

Kim,
Jann posted this link earlier in the conversation, it's a very interesting article.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/topstory/1293192

By Feona on Saturday, March 16, 2002 - 08:59 pm:

Just for information I found this definition of insanity in an online legal dictionary:

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d029.htm

Regarding Post Partum depression this CNN article
http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/28/postpartum.defense/

says:

"...Postpartum depression is recognized as a legal defense in at least 29 countries, including Great Britain, Canada, Italy and Australia. ..."