Talk:Andrea Yates

Ruling overturned

This article says the ruling was overturned? Was she released?--Anon.

No - she will get a new trial before a different jury. She can re-assert the insanity defense. Since the jury at the first trial voted against the death penalty the prosecution cannot go for it at the new trial. Ellsworth 01:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Pedantic--The original diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder in the DSM IV psychology manual is simply the name of the disorder (ex., major depression). The second and following diagnoses add the term "recurring" (ex. major depression, recurring). I think perhaps my clumsy use of punctuation created some confusion to the intention, as I agree with you that the sentence seems confusing. Do you think a comma after "recurring" might make the sentence more clear? 23 Oct 2004

"She was suffering from a severe case of psychotic depression, recurring after having had her last baby." This is unclear. Is a case the same as an incident/episode? If so, perhaps the sentence should read, "She had suffered from psychotic depression, and was experiencing a recurrence after having had her last baby" ThePedanticPrick 22:55, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Who said the Father created an environment which contributed to these events?

The article suggests two sources: Andrea's psychiatrist, Dr. Eileen Starbranch, testified that she urged the couple not to get pregnant again to avert certain future psychotic depression, but the procreative plan taught by the Yates' preacher, Michael Peter Woroniecki, a doctrine to which Rusty Yates subscribed, insisted she should continue to have "as many children as nature allows". I'm guessing it's in the trial docs. Source? Jake b 07:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Postpartum Psychosis

I came to find out while researching Yates as a case study for the disorder that the psychiatric witnesses (both for the defense and prosecution) asserted diagnoses of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder, not a postpartum disorder, this was a diagnosis made during one of her prior hospitalizations. I don't have my source handy, but the main page should reflect that this wasn't the basis of her insanity plea. Certainly the case is important to the discussion of postpartum psychosis, but it isn't considered to be anything close to definitive. Jgrant 22:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If you research a little further, you will find in her medical history that postpartum illness helped precipitated her schizophrenia/schizo-affective disorder, as well as some of the other stress factors in her life, such as her father dying at the onset of another postpartum set in. These episodes were triggered by her pregnancies with greater intensity after each birth. It wasn't a severe problem in the begining, and faded away with a little will power on her behalf (She "blew them off.") But during the latter births the swings were much more severe, until finally Andrea is having to compensate for her mental imbalances on a persistent basis--5 years after having her last child. This is why the doctors say her postpartum illness "precipitated" her schizophrenia. So to say Andrea didn't have postpartum illness because she has schizophrenia is misleading. (Vandalism removed from my entry) Thomas Anderson 19:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well, I am sure you will be all in favour of executing mentally handicapped children as well, right? Brilliant. If you have a heart attack while driving and crash into another vehicle, killing the occupants, but you survive, you should then be charged with driving while impaired? I mean, you killed them and were driving when you should not have been, correct? Illness is illness, mental or physical. She was NOT in control of her actions. If you think that she won't suffer for the rest of her life because of what she did, well, straight up, you're a complete moron. But there is a reason why it is called "Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity" - she's not guilty, and the only reason she was convicted in the first place was because an "expert" lied. --CokeBear 18:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who added the unkind remark after my comment, it certainly wasn't me. You were reacting to vandalism. I'm happy with the insanity verdict and the fact Andrea is now getting better treatment than she was in jail. Thomas Anderson 19:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Innocent

Jury just found her innocent. Saw it on a live feed from ABC News.Casual Karma 17:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It is also on the ABC News Site, if you want proof or something. Casual Karma 17:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Not innocent - they found her not guilty by reason of insanity, meaning she was not in control of her actions and could not tell right from wrong at the time. She still did it, but the circumstances meant that doing it was not something that she was criminally responsible for.--CokeBear 18:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the judge worded it: "Not guilty, by reason of mental insanity" Casual Karma 02:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

but that doesn't mean she's innocent. she did the crime, but she's not found guilty by way of insanity. 71.235.167.82 05:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Interlanguage links

I could not locate where the interwikis on the page are, but they are not related to the Andrea Yates case at all. They should be removed. GilliamJF 22:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Long view?

Can we get a slightly longer view on this person? Obviously, their life is ruined, but I think that a little more factual background would help. Then a strict chronology of the crime. The all the legal proceedings. Also: I think we can keep the "why?" to just a few sentences — nobody is making any credible arguments against the main impression as to "why" this happened so let us keep that brief: primariliy insanity, just like the jury said, and the Woroniecki can be mentioned as contributing (but note hat Woroniecki is not charged with anything, so keep it very brief). And the long, speculative psychological analysis is not helpful. Just the facts, please. -- 75.26.6.152 01:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up

There: the article is now kinda boring and depressing, but at least it sticks to the facts. -- 75.26.6.170 00:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Categories, American Murderers

Please keep in mind that not only is Andrea not a "serial killer," but she is also not a "murderer." She was not convicted of murder. She was ruled insane by a Texas Court, and the killings were psychiatrically described as "altruistic filicides."

A person who is found to have accidentally killed someone in an auto accident is guilty of manslaughter, not murder. A doctor who accidentally kills a patient due to his negligence is not guilty of murder, but malpractice and perhaps criminal negligence. A woman who kills her children while in the throes of a psychotic episode and is found insane is not guilty of ANYTHING--that includes murder.

So please do not categorize Andrea Yates as a murderer when she has not been convicted of the crime. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.84.69.183 (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Well, technically she has been convicted of murder (a judgment that stood for nearly three years). Regardless, I have to say that the vast majority of human beings would disagree with your assertion that A woman who kills her children while in the throes of a psychotic episode and is found insane is not guilty of ANYTHING. I think most reasonable people would agree that there is quite a difference between 'legally responsible' and 'guilty'. Certainly she is guilty of killing her children, which makes her a 'killer' at the very least. I'd certainly imagine that there are very few people out there who don't consider her a murderer, regardless of what twelve Texans (ok, make that twelve more Texans) decided she should be held 'legally responsible' for. What makes 'murder' different from 'manslaughter' or 'criminally negligent homicide' is intent. Whether she was in "the throes of a psychotic episode" or not, Andrea Yates' actions were the sole and direct cause of her children's deaths, and those actions were inarguably intentional. -Grammaticus Repairo 07:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That is your point of view. If she was found to be legally not guilty, then she was found not guilty. (The prior guilty verdict is a nullity, having been reversed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which hardly reverses on "technicalities" and in this case, it's not a technicality; it's fairly severe prosecutorial misconduct.) --Nlu (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my post does represent my point of view. However, I was responding to another user's 'point of view' assertion that "A woman who kills her children while in the throes of a psychotic episode and is found insane is not guilty of ANYTHING".

That's not a point of view. It's a legal, documented fact. Wake up, guy.72.84.76.249 09:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This statement comes across something like "the woman might as well be a saint since she was found not to be responsible for her actions."

No one in the post said she became a saint as a result of her verdict, but you wanting her in a list of murderers when she is not guilty of such is demonizing the unfortunate, sick woman.72.84.76.249 09:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Also please note that although I did not use the term "technicality" in reference to the overturning of her conviction as you implied, I hardly think that "severe prosecutorial misconduct" is a fair assessment of the situation, but that is also my opinion and is really neither here nor there.

My point was that keeping her out of the wikipedia "Murderers" category (particularly the "Murderers of Children" category) just because it was decided that she was not legally culpable for the killings (in a second trial after having already been convicted once) does not seem reasonable to me. She was hardly 'cleared' of wrongdoing, regardless of the end result of her legal battles.

She certainly was cleared of murder, without anyone denying that she killed her kids, and finding resolution in a "second" trial because the first was defective by rule of higher Texas Courts does not diminish that fact. She is now in category Parents that have killed their children which is suitably more appropriate. Anyone who still can't see the difference between the words murderer and killer has either not received enough verbal training to discern the difference or desires to vandalize Wikipedia with assertions that imply she is still guilty of murder when she is not.71.251.184.149 02:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel that keeping her off such lists is not in the best interests of the wiki community in general. In fact, I would expect that most users would be surprised not to find her on a list of child murderers. If someone wants the specifics about a person appearing on the list, including details surrounding their legal situations, they will click on the link to read more. According to the title paragraph of "Category: American murderers", the list already includes people "generally believed by...law enforcement authorities to have been guilty of murder" AS WELL AS some "convicted, but generally believed not guilty, or improperly convicted". With this in mind, it hardly seems unreasonable to me that Yates be included on the list. Unless, of course, wiki has a "Category: Legally insane American killers". But again, that's just my opinion.

Incidentally, thanks for restoring my original post, even if you disagree. Cheers! -Grammaticus Repairo 07:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

I have a question i am taking ap psych course in high school we are on chapter of psychotic illness. I wanted to know if she has depression and that's her illness but then she knew what she did and to be considered legaly insane you have to while commiting a crime have no knowledge about your actions but dpressed people do. i have to write a paper about her for my psych class and i don't know but to me it seems like her defense is just like the "Twinke defense" used. really appreciate input --Missionimpossible 03:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Missionimpossible (talk • contribs) 03:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Dr. Michael Welner

Can someone with editing skill please assess the placement, purpose and POV of the Welner material and sources? It seems like someone who believes Andrea is still guilty inserted it, someone very pro-Welner, (egad, could it be one of his staff?). Even a source from the Park Dietz website was eliminated, making the motives of this edit even more suspect. Some of the text doesn't appear to fit in the places it was inserted and makes the article appear awkward. Maybe it can be moved elsewhere. Thomas Anderson 02:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Category needed

Would someone who knows how to do this, create a category called "Filicidal Parents" or something to that effect and place it in the category section of this article? There are many psychotic women who have killed their children who have not been convicted of murder and are being treated for mental illness. It is grossly POV and factually wrong to classify Andrea Yates as a "child murderer," when she was not convicted of the crime. She certainly killed her children, but that would classify her as a "child killer," which is technically called filicide and is the legally suitable term to describe her actions. 72.84.69.183 18:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

A user has fixed this. Thank you.71.251.184.149 20:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Responsibility section

This section documents the many faceted face of blame in the tragedy with excellent secondary sources. If NPOV is an issue, then either discuss how it can be improved, or improve the way the content is documented so that its presentation is more encyclopedic. Wholesale deletion of a significant measure of content without discussion or specific, valid cause is vandalism.72.64.53.169 08:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Account of Medical Events Leading Up To Crime

I'm not qualified to do so, but believe the section addressing Ms. Yate's medical treatment prior to her final release from inpatient care requires serious editing. The statements regarding the increases and decreases in her prescribed medications are not cited, nor is there any indication that Dr. Saeed's decisions were never implicated in Yates' final decline. Additionally, the article seems from POV to give credence to independent pharmaceutical research done by Rusty Yates. Yates is neither a physchiatrist nor a pharmacologist, and to imply that his work is equal or superior in weight to that of a medical doctor is dangerous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.44.36.212 (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding latest status

I tried looking at all the other available links to find out about -- what exactly her 'treatment' at this facility is. Does anyone know what is going on with her recently? This crime has had many different explanations so it is hard to really stay with my original opinion. Thank you very much for your help! Kelly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.218.144 (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Drug component of filicides reinserted

Although I disagree with the allegations that Andrea's medications were responsible for her suicidal and homicidal ideations (although being removed from the medication haldol most likely was why her psychosis reemerged), these were allegations of the case documented by reliable media, as a result of Rusty Yates' campaign to blame the tragedy on something other than his (my opinion) "blind baby factory agenda." All views documented in the major media, including his, have a place in the debate* on who is responsible for why his children are dead, even if they are easily refuted.

Note*: While Wiki articles are not places for debate, in this particular story, there was a debate documented in the major media over who shared responsibility for the Yates killings : the minister, insurance protocols, hospitals, doctors, Russell etc.

My observation is that Andrea was not on Effexor when she had the delusion in 1994 of a getting a knife and seeing Noah, her first born in 1994 being bloodily stabbed to death. Therefore, the whole idea that a drug and not mental illness was responsible for Andrea's actions to me is ridiculous. I agree with Parnham that Andrea's actions were driven by delusions resulting from an extensive period of mental illness, and not the result of a severe adverse medical event.

I don't have any malice towards -Legitimus for deleting the poorly sourced drug material in this BLP, as these are the wiki rules. The reason for the citation failures is Rusty had removed his website yatescase.org, and I had mistakenly cited the wrong article while simultaneously sourcing several facts some time ago, so I apologize for the mistake and the consequential confusion. Those citations have now been repaired and the drug component information has been reeinserted. 72.64.46.160 (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)