Linda_K
|
posted on January 6, 2005 10:28:37 AM new
This is such a waste of taxpayer dollars, imo. Does anyone really believe she will be found innocent in a new trial?
I just don't see where a new trial is going to change the outcome of her previous conviction....the killing of her 5 young children. [She was only charged and convicted of killing three.]
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050106/D87EMU980.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
|
fenix03
|
posted on January 6, 2005 11:55:26 AM new
Maybe this time she'll actually get the death sentence that she so truly deserves.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on January 6, 2005 12:09:54 PM new
I agree - what a waste. Why was she only tried on the 3 killings and not all 5? She knew enough to call the police after she killed them all so I don't see how she could plead insanity. I'm surprised her stupid husband hasn't been charged with something. He was the other half that allowed her to keep getting pregnant in spite of her post partum depression, yet I've never seen him shed a tear. Now he's single with no attachments. Seems weird to me.
|
fenix03
|
posted on January 6, 2005 12:22:15 PM new
Yates' lawyers had argued at a hearing last month before a three-judge panel of the First Court of Appeals in Houston that psychiatrist Park Dietz was wrong when he mentioned an episode of the TV show "Law & Order" involving a woman found innocent by reason of insanity for drowning her children.
After jurors found Yates guilty, attorneys in the case and jurors learned no such episode existed.
"We conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that Dr. Dietz's false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury," the court ruled. "We further conclude that Dr. Dietz's false testimony affected the substantial rights of appellant."
So are they saying that the outcome would have been different if the psychiatrist had gotten the method correct and said incinerated as opposed to drowning?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
|
Linda_K
|
posted on January 6, 2005 12:29:10 PM new
And, fenix, the issue occurred during the trial and, as I understand it, the judge already had admonished the jury to disregard that piece of testimony BEFORE they went into deliberations.
KD - It's not unusual for prosecutors to only go for conviction on some of the victims rather than all in multiple murders. That way should something go wrong at the trial and the accused is set free the prosecutors can then try the accused for the deaths of the remaining victims, in this case the other children.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
|
classicrock000
|
posted on January 6, 2005 12:31:37 PM new
"yet I've never seen him shed a tear. Now he's single with no attachments. Seems weird to me."
ahhhhh Kraft-hes single with NO attachments and you wonder why you've never seen him shed a tear??..hello??
|
Linda_K
|
posted on January 6, 2005 12:36:37 PM new
Okay...I take that back.  It was not the judge to the jurors. And it was AFTER the trial and in the penalty phase. It was the attorneys to the jury. But, in any event...the jurors already had that info before deciding on her fate.
The error came to light during the sentencing phase of the trial. State District Judge Belinda Hill refused a defense request for a mistrial **but allowed the attorneys to stipulate to jurors, before they decided on Yates' punishment, that the program did not exist**.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
|
Linda_K
|
posted on January 6, 2005 12:38:35 PM new
LOL classic. 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on January 6, 2005 01:00:08 PM new
Thanks Linda. That makes sense (about only being convicted on 3 killings).
Exactly Classic. But even while this was going on, I never saw him get emotional - not even about his 5 dead children. Makes me wonder if he knew she was unstable enough to do something like this all along.
|
classicrock000
|
posted on January 6, 2005 05:43:22 PM new
yes Kraft-good point-never saw Scott Peterson shed a tear over the death of his wife either,in fact he didnt even look upset lol.
|
Gtootie
|
posted on January 6, 2005 08:32:06 PM new
I heard on some show tonight that the death penalty is out. Even if the prosecutors lose their appeal and she gets a new trial or she is prosecuted on the other two children. I didn't understand why, but all the attorneys agreed on it. So, the only options are life in the mental unit of a prison or life in a mental facility. So, why go to all the expense of a new trial?
As for the husband, I think he is more to blame than her. He knew she was unstable and he did nothing to prevent her from getting pregnant again or to protect his children.
Be kind. Everyone is fighting their own secret battles.
...Author Unknown
|
