Just In - Yates Guilty - All Counts

Great Debates
81

…and Mr. Yates was concerned enough (apparently) to get his mother to come by and assist his wife. As I understand it (and if I’m wrong, correct me), Andrea was alone with the kids for a little more than an hour.

Sorry, but I don’t consider leaving her with the kids for an hour (when he did not know his wife was psychotic) a crucifying offense.

Mandelstam accused me earlier of “overidentifying” with Mr. Yates (not the case), but you know, I can’t help but notice a tendency of women to “overidentify” with Andrea Yates (at least insofar as they consider her a put-upon wife married to an ogre of a husband, and overburdened with child-rearing duties).

Show of hands: how many posters in this thread are female?

And is Mr. Yates being made a scapegoat for insentive-clod husbands everywhere? If not, why does most of the venom toward him seem to come from women? (Witness the pit thread on this topic.)

82

spoke - I asked before and you’ve failed to answer ‘would you have thought it was ok for him to leave the kids alone for that hour?’

And, I also said before - I don’t care that it was only an hour. I knew before that it was ‘only’ an hour. She was not capable, suitable, safe, etc to be left in charge of children. He apparently knew this, since he made it a point to minimize the amount of time.

The fact that he ‘thought’ an hour would be ok, and it wasn’t, doesn’t matter to me. He had reason to know better. He’d seen her deteriorate under exactly the same conditions before (ie right after the birth of a child), he noted that she was exhibiting the same symptoms as the last time (when she tried suicide twice), - as evidenced by the most recent hospitalization. And, of course, he knew she was not on the medication that got her out of it before.

Please answer the question ‘would it be ok for him to leave the kids alone for an hour’. If your answer is ‘yea, it’d be fine’ then we have nothing left to debate. If your answer is ‘no, it’d be negligent’, then I suggest to you that I’ve demonstrated that Andera Yates was not any better than ‘no one at all’ (and since Russel had arranged some one else be there too, it seems that he agrees with me).

Once again - it isn’t necessary for Russel to believe that she’d have harmed the kids. It’s obvious that he knew that she could certainly have harmed herself, which would have left the kids alone and potentially in danger. There is the problem. The anomosity I feel towards him is that his wife, who was severly ill, and not capable of making appropriate choices for herself, let alone for her kids, will spend the rest of her life in her own hell. And the kids have been killed. And all of this could have been prevented had the one single adult who wasn’t demonstratably mentally ill taken the minimum level of care necessary to insure their safety.

He knew she was in trouble (the hospitalization). In prior similar circumstances, she attempted suicide. The ony thing that brought her out was Haldol. And he knew she wasn’t on it.

83

Red herring.

He did not leave the kids alone. He left them with a woman who was (by all accounts) a loving, doting mother, but who happened to be depressed (as far as he understood).

He (apparently) (and I don’t know all the details) arranged for his mother to come by. You seem to assume (there’s that word again) that this was because he knew the children weren’t safe with Andrea. Maybe it was just because he was concerned about his depressed wife and wanted to help lighten her load.

Sorry, but it is not criminally negligent in my book to leave kids with a depressed woman for an hour.

Put away your rope.

84

spoke-, I’d determined not to take part further in this debate, first because others are already making the points that I would, and second because something about your response has suggested to me that you have some stake in this issue that I don’t feel comfortable tussling with.

Still, I’ve repeatedly asked you, and I feel I must ask you again, to justify your use of hyperbolic rhetoric: e.g. "Put away your rope".

What we have here is a strong disagreement about what a reasonable person would conclude about Andrea Yates’s ability to safely take on demanding childcare responsibilities by herself. Depending on how you see this question, Mr. Yates is either the innocent victim of a tragedy, an unwitting contributor to the tragedy, or someone whose negligence was sufficient to justify his being charged with a crime.

Those who are arguing the latter in this thread are doing so in a reasonable spirit: they’re arguing that Yates’s involvement should be investigated further, that he should be charged, tried and, if found guilty, sentenced. It is very unlikely that any charge that could be brought against him for criminal negligence would carry anything like the life sentence that Andrea Yates has already been given.

So where exactly is the rope and the crucifix here? This isn’t a lynch mob, or a “public crucifixion.”

I suggest that you stick to what’s actually being debated and drop the pose of martyrdom which is inappropriate given what’s being discussed here.

Since I’ve returned to the fray let me add that Andrea Yates was not “(by all accounts) a loving, doting mother.” She was, by many accounts, a very sick woman under a suicide watch.
It’s arguable, as a point of law, that Mr. Yates is guilty of nothing more than bad judgment. But your refusal even to acknowledge that boggles the mind.

85

the other intersting thing that spoke keeps on doing and thinks (erroneously) that we don’t notice is to change words

for example “leave in charge of kids” magically becomes “be near children”

“Suicidal, delusional, psychotic” becomes in their world, “depressed”.

IT’s an interesting thing, debating on a written forum. IN person, of course, it’s difficult to track down and identify such switchs. Here, at my leisure, I get to go back and note, again, that while I’m suggesting that leaving a suicidal, psychotic, seriously mentally ill woman in charge of kids for any length of time is mind bogglingly wrong, in spokeland that becomes ‘letting a depressed person be around their kids’.

I agree w/you Mandlestam there seems to be a level going on here that makes it pointless to argue.

I say Mt. Rushmore, spoke refers to a pebble.

86

The guy is disturbing. He is either completely checked out on the whole experience, an honest to god sociopath, a cyborg or a saint.

87

Why do I use the phrase “Put away you rope?” Because I sense a lynch mob mentality that borders on hysteria. The shrillness of the attacks on this man have been astonishing. (Or have you not seen the calls for castration on this very board?)

I still suspect there are sexual politics involved, even if only subconsciously. (I note that no one has replied to my request for a show of hands on gender. Are there any men in this thread condemning Russell Yates?)

And talk about changing the facts to fit your argument: wring, read this slowly because I want you to catch every word: the. man. did. not. know. his. wife. was. psychotic.

88

you may have seen castration references in the pit where hyperbole is the watchword, but I don’t recall them here and certainly not by the people to whom you’re currently addressing your comments. So, please save the hyperbole for those who deserve it.

He. claims. to . not. have. known. his . wife. was. psychotic. However. he. definately. knew.that.she.was.seriously.mentally.ill.

etc etc etc. It is not now, nor has it ever been, my argument that he ‘knew’ she was pyschotic (tho I believe it is absolutely reasonable to assume so). it is however, my argument that two years ago, when his wife was extremely ill w/PPP (that’s post partum psychosis - kinda like ‘psychotic’, ya know?), that he KNEW :

  1. Subsequent pregnancies would bring about a relapse and most likely an increase in the same symptoms.
  2. That she was suicidal at that point
  3. Haldol brought her out.

Flash forward 2 years. They actually did #1 (ie have another child) therefore he could reasonably predict (and note that since he took her to the hospital, he noticed a return of the symptoms), that a return of the symptoms had occured. Since she was suicidal before under those conditions it’s unreasonable to believe that he couldn’t expect she’d be suicidal again. And, he absolutely knew that she wasn’t on Haldol.

When you’re told what to expect, actually see the expected signs, and know that the method to stop the signs is not being used, then you cannot reasonably claim to have ‘no idea’ a tragedy could happen.

89

spoke-: “I still suspect there are sexual politics involved, even if only subconsciously. (I note that no one has replied to my request for a show of hands on gender. …”

Sorry, spoke-. I forgot to reply to your request. My sex is solidly female–as to my gender, the jury’s been out on that one for a long time…

In other words, I don’t see myself as conventionally “feminine” or “masculine.” Call me androgynous, if you like. Kinda like Marilyn Manson, but a lot less scary looking :wink:

Are there sexual politics involved in this discussion and the wider issue? Who doubts it? Have you checked the other Yates thread, where Doghouse Reilly has been attempting to argue that what happened to Andrea illustrates how women are held less morally accountable than men. :confused:

However, since my position is not that Andrea Yates should be entirely exonerated because of her husband’s complicity (rather, I think that, on the merits of her mental condition alone, she deserves the insanity defense and should be treated like a very mentally ill person); and as my position on Russell is that an indictment for criminal negligence may well be justified (based on what I see as being his irresponsible care of his own children); and as these positions are predicated on the facts as they have been reported, I challenge you to find one iota of evidence that I am actuated because of some kneejerk anti-male response.

I suspect that our paths haven’t crossed prior to this thread, spoke-, but I have often had occasion to explain my position on equality between the sexes. I strongly feel that the sexual double standards hurt men and women both; I do not see women as the victims of men; rather I see men and women both as victimized by divisive sexual stereotypes.

Do I think Yates was a lousy husband or a domineering man? I guess so. But it’s entirely irrelevant to my position.

Do I think he was a negligent parent? Yes. And it’s on those grounds, and those grounds alone, that I believe that there should be a formal inquiry into the possibility of criminal negligence on his part.

90

Mandelstam, your posts for the most part have been reasonable. And of course, reasonable people can disagree.

It is one thing to say (as you seem to be saying now) that an inquiry should be held to determine the facts. In that much, at least, we are in accord. (Go read my posts. You won’t find where I said that there should be no investigation.)

Russell Yates says he does not know his wife was psychotic. This is one point which bears investigation. If he is being truthful, then I don’t think he should be charged with anything, because I don’t think it should be a criminal act to leave your kids alone with a depressed person (even a severely depressed person) for an hour or so, particularly where that person has demonstrated by past conduct that they are a loving caregiver.

On the other hand, if a psychiatrist comes forward and says “Wait a minute; I specifically told Russell Yates that his wife was delusional and/or dangerous,” or if a neighbor comes forward and says “Wait a minute; I specifically told Russell that Andrea was hearing voices,” then we would have a different kettle of fish. Then I would agree that he was negligent. Until such evidence emerges, I take him at his word, that he just thought his wife was depressed.

If he just thought she was depressed, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect him to anticipate that Andrea would drown his five children. Simple as that. It is not a risk to be reasonably expected.

To illustrate my point:

Imagine that Andrea really was depressed, but not psychotic. Russell goes off to work, and leaves the kids with her. While he is gone, a meteorite lands on the house and kills his children.

Now in that situation, no one would say, “Well gosh, Russell, you knew that it wasn’t safe to leave the kids with a depressed woman. And sure enough, they got killed by a meteorite, which proves that it wasn’t safe. Therefore, you are responsible for their deaths.”

In my scenario, the children did not come to harm because Andea Yates was depressed. They came to harm becase a meteorite crashed into the house.

Back in the real world, the children did not come to harm because Andrea Yates was depressed. They came to harm because she was psychotic. This was a risk of which Russell Yates was unaware.

(Again, assuming no one had informed him beforehand that she was psychotic.)

And to my way of thinking (and based on personal experience), unless you are aware that someone is psychotic, the psychotic break is every bit as unpredictable as a meteor strike.

I have no objection to an investigation to determine what Russell Yates knew about his wife’s condition. What I do object to is the quick and shrill condemnation of this man which I have seen on this board and elsewhere, based on a limited understanding of the facts (or just plain false assumptions) and no personal experience in dealing with victims of psychosis.

91

spoke - again- ‘depressed’ is not the same as ‘suicidal’ is not the same as ‘psychotic’. It is my position that to leave your kids alone (even for an hour) with some one you know (or have reason to know) is suicidal, is criminally neglectful.

You keep on substituting the word ‘depressed’ for the other words I’ve carefully chosen.

She was under suicide watch at the hospital, released (wrongfully IMHO) while under that watch. According to Doc in this thread, suicide watch means that there was a distinct concern, and this fact would have been given to Russel.

In addition under **exactly the same set of circumstances ** 2 years prior, Andrea had suicide attempts. She only pulled through with the help of Haldol. Which, of course, she didn’t have this time. Russel knew all of this. In fact, he’d been warned 2 years ago that another child would likely bring on the same symptoms.

That’s the evidence for holding him responsible. Evidence for not holding him responsible consists of him stating “I didn’t know she was that sick”. I find it less than compelling.

92

You’re missing my point:

Andrea didn’t commit suicide.

You see, the risk of which you contend Russell should have been aware is not the one which played out. Instead, the kids were hit by a metaphorical meteorite.

Besides which, even if he knew she was suicidal (which, by the way, has not been established) that doesn’t particularly make her a threat to the kids. In her earlier suicide attempts, did she try to kill herself while alone with the children? Or did she make sure the kids were OK and out of her presence before trying to take her own life? You don’t know, do you? But Russell Yates does.

93

spoke your point is that ‘Russel couldn’t have known that she’d kill the kids’

as I’ve pointed out numerous times, it isn’t necessary to ‘know’ she’d kill the kids in order to see some culpability on Russells’ part.

There was a high risk of her commiting suicide. You seem to acknowledge this in this most recent post. He certainly had more than sufficient data to know there was a distinct risk of suicide. He left her in charge of the kids anyhow. Bad thing happened. so, it wasn’t the ‘bad thing’ that he could have predicted, a bad thing still happened.

If she’d committed suicide, the kids would have been left by themselves. (Remember my insisitence that you acknowledge that leaving them alone was negligent??? ) therefore, given her suicide risk level, his leaving the children in her care and her care alone was negligent. No, she didn’t commit suicide, but Russells’ negligent behavior was committed by leaving her in charge of the kids in the first place.

Time frame then:

  1. Russells’ negligent behavior in leaving kids w/suicidal caregiver.

  2. Bad thing happened.

w/o #1 (Russ’ negligent behavior) #2, bad thing wouldn’t have happened.

94

We’re going to have to agree to disagree, I suppose.

The risk that played out is not one which he could have anticipated. Therefore, there is no more causal connection present than there would be if the kids had been struck by the meteorite in my thought exercise.

And that is so even assuming that Andrea Yates was in fact suicidal, and that Russell Yates knew it. I do not “acknowledge” this to be the case, as you infer, but am only assuming it for the sake of argument.

(You’re missing my point on that risk too, by the way. Even if she were suicidal, there’s no reason to assume that she would kill herself while in charge of the kids. If she had been the doting mother her relatives portray, then it would be fair to assume that she would not kill herself while alone with the kids for fear of harming them psychologically or for fear of leaving them on their own. Suicidal people can be quite rational about the manner and timing of their suicides, you know.)

95

I’ve had about enough of this. YATES IS NOT A MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL! He’s not a psychiatrist. He’s not a psychologist.

If it was so damned obvious that a psychotic person was a danger to be in care of her own children, then the folks who diagnosed her as psychotic are the ones who should’ve, RIGHT THEN AND THERE, petitioned a court to have her institutionalized.

The rest of y’all, IMHO, are afraid to demonize a woman who kills and thus want to blame the man for it.

Flame me. I don’t care. I just had to get this off my chest.

96

I don’t want to demonize either Andrea Yates or Russell Yates.

Andrea Yates didn’t choose to be psychotic. She has a defect in her brain. Simple as that.

Russell Yates, in my view, could not have known his wife would go off like this.

The whole thing is a tragedy, and in my estimation, many of us are a little too intent on finding someone to blame and punish for it.

97

Assuming that the person will be rational about their suicide is not a particularly reasonable act. You think (apparently) that because the legitimately potential risk didn’t happen, that absolves him. I disagree.

For example, in order for a legal charge of negligence to be brought, it’s not necessary for the kids to have been seriously harmed at all. In fact, IIRC, folks have been charged w/negligence by leaving their kids alone, even if nothing bad actually happened. So, even if nothing bad had happened, he was negligent, IMHO.

yes, we will have to disagree.

98

Monty, I hope you’re feeling better now that you’ve vented.

As wring says, no one is being demonized in this thread.

Andrea Yates is being treated by all parties, including spoke-, as too psychotic to have been responsible for her own acts on the fateful day. Therefore, there’s no point in “demonizing” her, unless one is in the business of reviving medieval notions about the insane (which arguably the Texas jury did when they denied her the insanity defense, though that is a different debate entirely and one that no one right now is arguing).

Rather, at present the debate is entirely about Mr. Yates. What should a reasonable person have done under the circumstances? Did Mr. Yates meet that criterion and, if not, was his negligence sufficient to justify criminal proceedings?

For me there is no doubt that a criminal investigation should be launched. Some of the things discussed in this thread (e.g. what exactly doctors told RY) can only be discovered through an investigation.

Whether Russell Yates would be found criminally negligent or not depends on what’s found, on the Texas laws regarding such matters, on how the case is argued, and on the jury’s decision. Short of a crystal ball, no one can predict these things. So everyone here recognizes that we’re arguing based on imperfect knowledge of the facts, and with no Texas lawyer available to give us the skinny on technical matters.

All of that said, wring and I both are more or less in agreement that, by all appearances, there was substantial negligence on Mr. Yates’s part. Criminal or not neither of us can say for sure.

I’d add that there’s already been a consensus of sorts (on this thread) that the doctors also screwed up; so it might well be the case that in any court of law their negligence would trump or even neutralize that of Mr. Yates. There again, we simply can’t know without in-depth investigation and reporting of these facts.

I have no problem with someone’s taking the line that the doctors’ negligence will trump or neutralize Yates’s own (and there’s a glimmering of that in your post Monty). Were a trial against RY to occur, that’s undoubtedly a tack his lawyers would take.

I also have no problem with an investigation being made, simultaneously, into the doctors/hospital and their negligence. (Perhaps these investigations are already underway; I don’t pretend to keep abreast of Texas news.)

I do feel I must object, though, to the insinuation that wring, stoid and I are “afraid to demonize” AY (whereas in truth, we’re simply too modern and too reasonable too demonize AY), or that our wish to “blame” the father of these children in anyway suggests that we wish to exonerate the mother who actually drowned them.

To believe RY’s negligence was considerable and even criminal, is not to believe that AY is innocent of killing the children. This has been said so many times in this thread that I’m hard-pressed to see how you missed it.

99

Spoke, if it matters, I’m a man. My concern with Russel’s possible liability has nothing to do with his having a Y chromosome.

Again, Russel knew that Andrea was suicidal. A suicide watch is like a EKG monitor, only patients who have given the doctors reason for concern get one. Visiting Andrea, Russel saw the suicide watch. Seeing the suicide watch, he knew the doctors considered her suicidal.

Quit telling me to put away the rope. I’m not holding one. I think there is legitmate cause to try Russel Yates on charges of negligence. I don’t want him railroaded through some sham trial, let alone lynched. I admit that many of the questions I have can only be answered by lawyers. Then have a trial and let lawyers answer them.

100

Yep. Much better. However, I did manage to tar everyone with the same brush. Drat, didn’t mean to do that.

On the other hand, the dude would be likely to win the next write-in vote for “more evil than the devil” should it be held today, judging by what I hear on my campus, in my apartment building, and in other places; therefore, he, at least, is being demonized. And nobody’s offering the “saving grace” of it being a mental condition (other than stupidity) for his supposed crime.

I figured that the jury’s job was to ascertain, based on the evidence presented, if she really wasn’t responsible for her actions on that day. Apparently, said jury determined she was responsible for her actions, although still suffering from a mental condition.

I agree with you here. The problem, as I see it and from what I’ve heard in the places mentioned above, is that folks just love to blame someone for a crime–even if no crime had been committed. The killing of the children may have been a tragedy but not a crime or it may have been a crime. The jury determined that (a) it was a crime, and (b) someone was guilty of that crime. But so many people refuse to accept that women, and even those who are mothers, can kill children, they look to another individual to assign the guilt of the crime.

Obviously, the easiest target is the husband.

Wouldn’t a better question be: Was this part of the original investigation? Assuredly the woman’s doctors were interviewed durng that investigation.

Agreed.

See above about my “tarring with same brush.” I still feel that society in general (a) doesn’t want to accept that mothers kill children, and (b) if a mother does so, then it’s not her fault.