Andrea Yates should be put to death, her husband should be charged as well.

[Lethalfind]

Medical Examiner: Yates Children Died Slow Deaths

 

 

POSTED: 2:53 pm EDT June 28, 2006

 

HOUSTON -- Seven-year-old Noah Yates struggled so hard while his mother was drowning him in the bathtub that his small fists remained stiff and over his head even several hours later, the medical examiner testified Wednesday.

 

 

Testifying on the third day of Andrea Yates' murder trial, Dr. Luis A. Sanchez said Noah, the oldest of Yates' five children drowned that day in 2001, had extensive rigor mortis because of intense movements indicating a struggle just before death.

 

 

 

Noah also had deep bruises consistent with someone holding him down, as did 6-month-old Mary and 5-year-old John, Sanchez testified.

 

Sanchez also said that based on their brain weights, which were significantly heavier than normal for children their ages, they had been held under water for minutes rather than seconds. The 9 inches of water was murky from the youngsters' bodily secretions, Sanchez said.

 

"It was a slow death; it was not quick," Sanchez, the Harris County medical examiner, told jurors.

 

Yates, who turns 42 on Sunday, again has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. The defense says she suffered from severe postpartum psychosis and did not know that drowning the youngsters was wrong.

 

Yates is being tried only in the deaths of Mary, John and Noah, a common practice in cases of multiple slayings. Ruling in favor of the defense, state District Judge Belinda Hill did not allow prosecutors to show autopsy photos of 2-year-old Luke or 3-year-old Paul or present evidence about their injuries.

 

Prosecutors have said they will rest their case after Sanchez testifies. He is the 12th witness for the state, which is retrying Yates after an appeals court overturned her 2002 conviction last year because of erroneous testimony.

 

Prosecutors said that during the trial's rebuttal phase, after the defense presents its case, they will call Dr. Park Dietz, the psychiatrist whose testimony inadvertently caused Yates' conviction to be overturned.

 

Dietz, also a consultant to the "Law & Order" television series, told jurors in Yates' first trial that one episode depicting a woman who drowned her kids in a bathtub and was acquitted by reason of insanity aired before the Yates children died.

 

No such episode existed, attorneys learned after Yates was convicted but before jurors sentenced her to life in prison.

 

If convicted, Yates will be sentenced to life in prison because prosecutors are not seeking the death penalty. After the first jury rejected death, prosecutors could not seek execution again because they did not find any new evidence.

 

http://www.local6.com/news/9440686/detail.html

 

This man went off and left his wife who had been exhibiting clear signs she was in trouble, he might as well left the kids to play in traffic. He should be charged along with his ex wife.

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

I understand putting Andrea in a 6' hole... but why her husband? I mean hind sight is 20/20. Just because someone "exibits symptoms" is hardly reason to go off and have them committed or quit your job so you can be around them 24/7.

[Lethalfind]

I understand putting Andrea in a 6' hole... but why her husband? I mean hind sight is 20/20. Just because someone "exibits symptoms" is hardly reason to go off and have them committed or quit your job so you can be around them 24/7.

 

Child endangerment, pure and simple...

 

This is from a law in Iowa but its pretty typical.

 

"726.6 Child endangerment.

1. A person who is the parent, guardian, or person having custody or control over a child or a minor under the age of eighteen with a mental or physical disability, or a person who is a member of the household in which a child or such a minor resides, commits child endangerment when the person does any of the following: "

 

"a. Knowingly acts in a manner that creates a substantial risk to a child or minor's physical, mental or emotional health or safety.

f. Abandons the child or minor to fend for the child or minor's self, knowing that the child or minor is unable to do so. "

When my daughter was a baby, my parents saw no problem with driving about town with her either laying on the back seat completely unrestrained or holding her on their lap in the front seat of a car that had air bags on both the passenger side and the drivers side. Needless to say I NEVER gave them the opportunity. Just to make a point with them I spoke with the police about this issue and they told me that not only could my parents be brought up charges of child endangerment if they did this but I too could be brought up on charges if I left my child in their care knowing this was how they felt.

 

As a parent this man had a responsibilty to make sure these children were taken care of, just because his wife was their Mother, does not justify him leaving the children with a woman who was clearly unstable. If you read into the case you will see that he and his wife were bible thumpers and had some VERY strange and extreme beliefs, I think they were both out of touch with reality. At the time this case happened, law enforcement said they could charge him with child endangerment but they didn't because they felt sorry for him...thats total bullshit, their sorrow should have been saved for the innocent children these fruit cakes brought into this world and then she slaughtered.

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

Child endangerment, pure and simple...

 

This is from a law in Iowa but its pretty typical.

 

"726.6 Child endangerment.

1. A person who is the parent, guardian, or person having custody or control over a child or a minor under the age of eighteen with a mental or physical disability, or a person who is a member of the household in which a child or such a minor resides, commits child endangerment when the person does any of the following: "

 

a. Knowingly acts in a manner that creates a substantial risk to a child or minor's physical, mental or emotional health or safety.

I understand what "endangerment" means and even this Iowa law says that a person must knowingly put a child in danger. Again I ask....

 

Do you think that "Showing symptoms of insanity" qualifies for actual knowledge of endangerment? and if so, What should he have done differently?

[Lethalfind]

I understand what "endangerment" means and even this Iowa law says that a person must knowingly put a child in danger. Again I ask....

 

Do you think that "Showing symptoms of insanity" qualifies for actual knowledge of endangerment? and if so, What should he have done differently?

 

Read the case, she not only had made a sincere attempt at taking her own life, she kept on making verbal threats with plan. He knew there was a threat. His wife had been in and out of intitutions like I go in and out of Wal-mart. He should have gotten the children care outside the home with someone who was not making suicidal threats. He was even aware she had stopped taking her medication. He was aware that after the birth of their second to last child she had post partum depression and had been told the children could be in danger, they were warned to NOT have any more children for these reasons, that she was already overwhelmed as evidenced by the suicidal threats and stays in a mental hospital. What more evidence does a person need?

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

Read the case, she not only had made a sincere attempt at taking her own life, she kept on making verbal threats with plan. He knew there was a threat. His wife had been in and out of intitutions like I go in and out of Wal-mart. He should have gotten the children care outside the home with someone who was not making suicidal threats. He was even aware she had stopped taking her medication. He was aware that after the birth of their second to last child she had post partum depression and had been told the children could be in danger, they were warned to NOT have any more children for these reasons, that she was already overwhelmed as evidenced by the suicidal threats and stays in a mental hospital. What more evidence does a person need?

I will re-read it... If you are correct in these statements then I am convinced, he should also pay!

[Lethalfind]

I will re-read it... If you are correct in these statements then I am convinced, he should also pay!

 

I had heard a little about the story but recently I read more in depth about it and I was literally taken aback. How can you live with a person and NOT know they are this out of touch?

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

I had heard a little about the story but recently I read more in depth about it and I was literally taken aback. How can you live with a person and NOT know they are this out of touch?

Good point.

[atlantic]

You know I've read alot of articles on this story, and seen some documentaries about The Yates' life together, I'd say they are both fucking (CRAZY), and bullets to the head should go to both her and her husband; he is just as guilty as her, another fanatical misguided so-called religious do-gooder my ass.

[skategreen]

When my daughter was a baby, my parents saw no problem with driving about town with her either laying on the back seat completely unrestrained or holding her on their lap in the front seat of a car that had air bags on both the passenger side and the drivers side. Needless to say I NEVER gave them the opportunity.

 

This brought back something I hadn't thought of in years....

 

I remember when I first had my daughter and I went down and visited Mum... we were going out and about and I was loading the car seat in Mum's car. She put up a bit of a fuss, "oh Hell we don't need that, we're just going to..."

 

I talked to her about it ... and she came back with, "I raised you 4 girls and we never had car seats..." She was pissed and exasperated. I recall mentally glancing at the double scar on my forehead from two separate sets of stitches which had followed dashboard collisions. ... thinking, "no Mum, somehow we survived".

 

With that and subsequent discussions on such things, and taking into the fact that she often drank like a fish...I made the decision to never leave my daughter with her.

 

Over the years she'd come out with complaints about it now and then. I always sidestepped the whole thing and just didn't let it happen. You can't reason with an alcoholic. You can't get around the blind spots and you can't trust them.

 

Funny... to sit here and remember that crap. I'm glad I stuck to my guns.

 

 

The husband in the above case should be held responsible for his negligence. But as America continues to write the book on how to shift responsiblity and always be the Victim... he gets off - he now just has to live with it.

[Lethalfind]

This brought back something I hadn't thought of in years....

 

I remember when I first had my daughter and I went down and visited Mum... we were going out and about and I was loading the car seat in Mum's car. She put up a bit of a fuss, "oh Hell we don't need that, we're just going to..."

 

I talked to her about it ... and she came back with, "I raised you 4 girls and we never had car seats..." She was pissed and exasperated. I recall mentally glancing at the double scar on my forehead from two separate sets of stitches which had followed dashboard collisions. ... thinking, "no Mum, somehow we survived".

 

With that and subsequent discussions on such things, and taking into the fact that she often drank like a fish...I made the decision to never leave my daughter with her.

 

Over the years she'd come out with complaints about it now and then. I always sidestepped the whole thing and just didn't let it happen. You can't reason with an alcoholic. You can't get around the blind spots and you can't trust them.

 

Funny... to sit here and remember that crap. I'm glad I stuck to my guns.

 

 

The husband in the above case should be held responsible for his negligence. But as America continues to write the book on how to shift responsiblity and always be the Victim... he gets off - he now just has to live with it.

 

My parents didn't have that excuse, they didn't drink. They were just biligerant on this point. I tried to point out too them that back in the 50's and 60's cars didn't have air bags, I even told them what air bags do to infants in the front seat, they acted like I was running about screaming "the sky is falling".

[atlantic]

This brought back something I hadn't thought of in years....

 

I remember when I first had my daughter and I went down and visited Mum... we were going out and about and I was loading the car seat in Mum's car. She put up a bit of a fuss, "oh Hell we don't need that, we're just going to..."

 

I talked to her about it ... and she came back with, "I raised you 4 girls and we never had car seats..." She was pissed and exasperated. I recall mentally glancing at the double scar on my forehead from two separate sets of stitches which had followed dashboard collisions. ... thinking, "no Mum, somehow we survived".

 

With that and subsequent discussions on such things, and taking into the fact that she often drank like a fish...I made the decision to never leave my daughter with her.

 

Over the years she'd come out with complaints about it now and then. I always sidestepped the whole thing and just didn't let it happen. You can't reason with an alcoholic. You can't get around the blind spots and you can't trust them.

 

Funny... to sit here and remember that crap. I'm glad I stuck to my guns.

 

 

The husband in the above case should be held responsible for his negligence. But as America continues to write the book on how to shift responsiblity and always be the Victim... he gets off - he now just has to live with it.

Good for you for standing strong. Also, he won't just live with it; I'm afraid he'll go on to fuck up (whether it be just emotional scars or whatever) some other woman and her kids; or maybe she'll kill him instead. Andrea begged him to change some things, but he refused, even forced her to have more children.

[Lethalfind]

Good for you for standing strong. Also, he won't just live with it; I'm afraid he'll go on to fuck up (whether it be just emotional scars or whatever) some other woman and her kids; or maybe she'll kill him instead. Andrea begged him to change some things, but he refused, even forced her to have more children.

 

What I found so interesting is in the beginning he stood by her so steadfastly but now where is he? He divorced her and has remarried. Thats his Christian commitment for you.

[RenJen]

Yes, obviously he was aware that she hasnt been running on all cylinders. If she was that fucked up(to the point where she doesnt know killing your children is wrong)he should have noticed. Its his responsibility to keep those kids safe. If i was married to someone for a long time, and suddenly they went crazy, i think i would notice. He is guilty of child endagerment.

Im sure he could never imagine that she would do what she did, but he did know that she was unstable(and unstable people snap).

This really makes me sick to my stomach. Me and a friend of mine were just talking about this last night. It seems like everyday you are hearing about some sicko in the news torturing and killing thier kids.

Its a fucked up world we live in.....