English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

This b.i.tch is a physcho.
But prosecution witness Dr. Michael Welner, a forensic psychiatrist, testified that Yates killed the youngsters because she felt overwhelmed and inadequate as a mother, not to save their souls. He said that it was not until a day after the killings that she talked about Satan and saving her children from hell.

Welner also said Yates showed that she knew her actions were wrong by waiting until her husband left for work to kill them, covering the bodies with a sheet and calling 911 soon after the crime.
What is this world comming to??
If you kill 5 kids come on u r insare now this days?

2006-07-26 11:49:21 · 8 answers · asked by Shadow 4 in News & Events Current Events

8 answers

Society has been brainwashed to think a mother has to be insane to kill her own children. Mothers are nurturers and caring,incapable of killing unless they are insane, but that's not true in fact.Some mothers kill to get away from the burden of caring for the children,some kill to get rid of them ,they are not crazy ,they are not insane,they are heartless diabolic, premeditated, cold blooded killers.That use religion as an excuse ie God told me to do it,to take away the life that child they gave birth to. The prerequisite for insanity plea is did she know right from wrong at the time she murdered her children. And yes she admitted to that .So why isn't she either on death row or headed that way instead of going to a hospital . She is a murderer cut and dried.I am ashamed of the jury that came to this ridicules verdict

2006-07-26 12:03:18 · answer #1 · answered by Yakuza 7 · 2 0

She was tried in the state of Texas. There are different laws in different states. The insanity plea from what little I understand has to contain a foundation that allows it to be presented in a court of law.

There are a lot of people that are mentally ill in prisons.

Don't forget the "Simpson" case in California as far as getting away with murder. The case presented was sound and O.J. should have been found guilty. The jurors were suppose to be his peers but in reality were not. (my opinion) I mean if you think about it, what state of mind is a person in that murders? You can't be a normal functioning human being because killing someone because you hear voices or are depressed or because they make you angry is not 'normal'.

Remember the case where the mother of two young boys took them to a lake, belted them into their car seats, then turned the car on and drowned them? She went to prison for murder. How sane is it to kill your children? Mothers are suppose to protect their children with their own life.

To receive the verdict of insanity I would have to believe the jurors were presented with the option and the laws governing it in Texas. When you are on a jury you hear and see what others don't; I have been a juror. Then when the judge gives you the instructions you follow them to the letter. So the judge had to tell the jury to find her 'insane' if they follow the given instructions.

Then you need to understand they had to have documents in the courts showing her medical history and expert witnesses that testified. It's not as simple as one might think to just have a person found guilty of a crime in these days and times; twenty years ago, yes. But there has been so much research done and we now have dna and it is more scientific than one might think.

2006-07-26 19:22:25 · answer #2 · answered by ru4pc 2 · 0 0

omgosh

she should have her tubes tied
and like be

OMG

thats insane
next thing u know
ill be able to kill like 6+95865417985 people and get away with it
whts the jury system coming to these days

2006-07-26 18:52:58 · answer #3 · answered by Hannah=brokenteeth 3 · 0 0

I agree. I heard that on the radio this afternoon in my car and I baout went off the road I could not beleive it.
so she is to be set free now?

2006-07-26 18:52:59 · answer #4 · answered by Proudchristiannavymom 4 · 0 0

Total bullsh*t... if it had been a man that would never have been the verdict. The cu*t deserves to die horribly like those poor kids did.

2006-07-26 19:05:23 · answer #5 · answered by heidielizabeth69 7 · 0 0

i know the second i heard that story about her drowning her kids i thought she deserved the death penalty but going to a funny farm for a child murdering kleptomaniac, jeez

2006-07-26 18:54:32 · answer #6 · answered by Nate The Great 2 · 0 0

I THINK THAT IT IS BULLSHIT THAT THEY FOUND HER NOT GUILTY EVEN IF IT IS BY REASON OF INSANITY. SHE ISNT CRAZY SHE JUST DUPED EVERYONEIONTO THINKING SHE IS!!!!! THE ***** KILLED HER KIDS AND SHE SHOULD FRY FOR IT. SORRY ABOUT CAPS BUT I FEEL REAL STRONG ABOUT THIS SUBJECT

2006-07-26 18:54:50 · answer #7 · answered by tiffany b 2 · 0 0

ok thank

2006-07-26 19:01:14 · answer #8 · answered by idontkno 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers