Posted on 07/07/2006 6:26:30 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
10) They don't know how to work a fax machine.
Starbranch said she didn't know how to work a fax machine and couldn't confirm that the fax had been sent.
9) They don't remember sending your medical records to your new doctor
Starbranch said she had gone through her office records before coming to court and found no messages from Saeed or any requests for Yates' medical records. Prosecutor Joe Owmby then produced a fax cover sheet sent May 9, 2001, with a handwritten note from Starbranch's assistant to Saeed. "Here are the medical records on Andrea Yates," the cover sheet on the 20-page fax said. "Thanks for your (patience)." ... Not very impressive so far.
Russell Yates contradicted the testimony of a psychiatrist who treated his wife, saying Dr. Eileen Starbranch discouraged but didn't forbid the couple from having more children. He also said Starbranch took Andrea Yates off anti-psychotic medication, a contention the doctor denied.
Yates told jurors that his wife spent 10 days at Devereux before being discharged, with many of the same symptoms still apparent.
6) (new) Dr. takes patient of medication prematurely.
With his wife's condition still concerning him about three weeks later, Russell Yates said he asked that Saeed keep his wife on the anti-psychotic drug Haldol. Saeed recommended that she be weaned from the drug on June 4, he said.
Russell Yates said he and his wife returned on June 18, but the doctor didn't place her back on the anti-psychotic drug and changed her prescription.
Your delusiions are not worth a further comment.
An accomplished and personal woman.
Try "delusions" and go back to your DU home.
Shaking a child to death is despicable.
drowning her children was insanity.
You are only able to make that assessment based on 20/20 hindsight. What real evidence do you know he had available to him before she murdered her children that she was emotionally unstable?
Uh, well, suicide attempt is usually a tip off.
I should have said "insane" rather than "emotionally unstable" since that is what they are actually arguing over to get her aquitted for her crime.
The suicide attempts were two years prior. She had recovered from that psychotic episode. The current treating Dr. had released her from the hospital.
Seems like she fooled both the Dr. and her husband.
She had her act planned out. The husband thought she was doing well enought to be left alone for what - a hour at most? - til the mother-in-law arrived.
If anything failed in this system, it was the treating psychiatrist.
Given her history, would you leave your kids alone with her?
Now that is a very difficult question to answer.
Would I have left her?
Obviously from hindsight and all the claims being made by the shrinks one would tend to want to say NO, DEFINITELY NOT.
Based on what Mr. Yates knew at the time and what he may have been told or not told... I would say I probably would.
Obviously Mr. Yates was trying not to leave her at home. He new she was currently fragile and not herself - we know this because the mother-in-law was on her way and was running late. All prior evidence was that she was a danger to herself and not others. She had been recently released by the last Dr. and was supposedly recovering from her recent depression. She had was highly intelligent and an avid mother... She seemed 'okay' when he left - so probably so.
I personally I doubt the Dr. warnings were anywhere near as strigent or clear cut as they are currently trying to make them seem. Some of these communications were probably only made to Mrs. Yates and not to Mr. Yates.
She planned this crime. She waited hid her intentions and waited til there was a gap in coverage. I don't think she was insane, I think she was evil. There is a big difference.
I don't think she was insane, I think she was evil. There is a big difference.
You believe in "evil" and I believe in "bad wiring." Those two things can't be reconciled.
Can't they now?
Do you think she planned the event?
No idea. There's simply no way to know what was going on inside her head. To her the world may have looked like a road runner cartoon played backwards at high speed.
If you're addressing the idea of legal responsibility, that's one thing. If you're addressing moral responsibility, unfortunately, that's another thing. In many, many cases the instruments of the law have no way of arriving at an absolute truth.
Its not about absolute truth. Or even what the inside of her head looks like.
Did she plan the event?
No idea if she planned it or not.
I think perhaps you do already know the answer.
If she was insane, would she have not attacked at any time - regarless of who was there or not?
Why did she wait til she was alone for a very brief period to commit her act?
Since her husband knew her situation and knocked her up for the 5th time, he is an accomplice to the crime.
Yea if I was her husband I would listen to some whack job telling me not to have children. Just because one psych was right does not excuse the many that are ruining people's lives.
She only had ONE hour to do this.
How would I know the answer? You're applying logic to the actions of a woman with a head like a busted radio. And logic simply doesn't apply. That's one reason why crazy people are terrifying.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.