Five "Superficial Facts"

Psychotherapist Michael J. Hurd did an excellent job distilling the recent retrial of Andrea Yates -- mother and murderer of five -- down to its essence. In a short commentary which appeared in the Boston Globe, he begins by noting Rusty Yates's reaction to the recent verdict of "not guilty, by reason of insanity":

Her ex-husband, with whom she's still friends, applauded the new jury's decision. He thanked them for "rising above the superficial facts" because she was obviously psychotic rather than a true killer. Hmmm... Five dead kids, maliciously tortured and killed by their mother. These are superficial facts? This man clearly has issues. [bold added]

And if Hurd hit that nail on the head, a recent article in the Houston Chronicle describes in lurid detail how this came about in the court system, through an unholy synergy of five years of relentless left-wing propaganda and the misuse of legal technicalities by lawyers for whom protecting the innocent is plainly not the priority.

This Houstonian fully agrees with prosecutor Joe Owmby's description of how local news media willfully biased the entire pool of potential jurors for the retrial.

"We've had five years of editorial opinions, especially in the local paper [The Chronicle --ed], editorial opinions about Andrea Yates, most of it weighing heavily in favor of her," Owmby said. "I think the last thing I read from a Texas law professor was 'Why don't we just let her go?' So we've had that kind of opinion out there for five years, informed or not, (and) I think it must have had an effect in a similar way on the jury. I'm not talking about jurors not following their instructions, but they are human beings and they have been living with this for the last five years, as have we all." [bold added]

Frankly, this description borders on understatement. It has been clear since the end of the first trial that if there were any way imaginable for this multiple child murderer to have the judicial equivalent of a recount, it would happen and all the stops would be pulled to make sure she could walk.

And here's how a murderer -- nobody disputes that she drowned all five of her children -- is allowed to walk on a technicality and with the aid of a hand-picked panel of useful idiots.

... Because the first jury had sentenced her to life, prosecutors could not ask for death in the second trial. That made a significant difference in the selection process. As a general rule, death-qualified juries are considered more conservative and prosecution-oriented.

...

"This was a totally different jury pool, totally different selection process and totally different jury as a result, much more like a jury you normally get at the courthouse," [defense attorney Wendell] Odom said.

When the second trial started in late June, just over five years had passed since the death of Yates' children. The retrial was still front-page news around the country, but the media frenzy was past. Odom sensed that the atmosphere of the trial was significantly different and, in his view, had a less vengeful tone. [bold added]

"Vengeful" is the politically correct term for "just".

Michael Hurd is on the money when he describes the implications of this verdict, which follows no less than three other cases of mothers being let off the hook for murdering their own children in Texas alone.

Let's be blunt here. It takes work to drown all five of your kids. You must watch them gasp for breath, struggle for life -- and still decide to let them die. If Andrea Yates can be released from responsibility for killing her children in a clearly insane, yet also systematic and premeditated way, then you or I can be released from any wrongdoing we commit in a period of "depression." Could this be the true motive behind a jury forgiving the unforgivable?

A world where everything becomes tolerable and excusable is the real definition of insanity, if you ask me.

The Chron, hoping we'll forget all about the five victims of this home murder spree, had the audacity to headline its story "Playing field leveled for defense". A "level playing field" ?!?! The only "field" that has been "leveled" is the one these kids should be playing on -- by each one now being six feet under without possibility of appeal. Good job, Chronicle. Way to go, Messrs. Odom and Parnham. And good thinking, jurors. I guess Andrea Yates did get a "jury of her peers".

-- CAV