« It's About Time: UK Govt. Cracks Down On Fathers4Justice | Main | More On Andrea Dworkin »

April 13, 2005

Fathers' Rights Activist Blames Court For Man Who Murdered Baby

This post appeared on a fathers' rights mailing list. If you doubt that fathers' rights activists don't hold men responsible when they murder their ex-wives and children, look no further than this. Lionel Richards is the head of OzyDads, an Australian fathers' rights group. He's not fringe, and neither is his group.

The Associated Press printed a story about a father who abducted his 9-month old son, and then murdered him and himself. This guy was angry that his ex-girlfriend demanded he pay child support and wouldn't rekindle the relationship. So, he killed their son and himself. Rather than hold the man responsible for murdering his son, this is what Lionel Richards had to say:

What drives a man to this degree of desperation ?? The helplessness to do anything about the threat "YOU'LL NEVER SEE YOUR CHILD AGAIN"

Tragedies like this might well be avoided with a level playing field and a rebuttable presumption of EQUAL TIME SHARED PARENTING instead of the presumption of Sole Mother Custody.

Bring on the promised reforms to this misandrist child abusing Family Law industry.

Best wishes, Lionel Richards www.OzyDads.net

Oh, dads who murder their children in retaliation for having to pay child support or dads who murder their children when they don't get custody aren't at fault in this fathers' rights line of thinking. The System and the mother are always to blame. Father's rights activists don't hold men responsible for their behavior. "The System" and the evil bitch drove them to it. Give these angry dads the rebuttable presumption for joint custody they demand... or else. If the kids end up dead, it's because their demands have not been met.

Here's the AP story.

The Age
20 March 2005

Man shoots himself and baby
By Roger Alford

A man who abducted his 9-month-old son from his estranged partner, shot and killed the baby and then himself as police closed in, authorities said.

Police tracked Randall King, 46, through three counties last night and used spikes to puncture his vehicle's tires nearly 160 kilometres from the baby's home in Evarts, eastern Kentucky.

Police found the bodies of King and his son, Landon, inside the car after it crashed. The baby had been shot three times.

Kentucky State Police Trooper Scott Hopkins said police tried to stop the vehicle before it crashed but were unsuccessful. Five police cars followed the vehicle in a chase that never exceeded 95kph police said. After the deflation devices were used, the car travelled about another mile before running off the road.

Hopkins said investigators believe King shot the baby and himself before the crash.

The baby's mother, Eva Daniels, was shopping for Easter baskets when her baby was abducted from her home, said her brother John Howard.

King broke into the home armed with a shotgun and a handgun and asked the teenage baby sitter where Daniels was. King then took the baby and fled, Howard said.

Laura Taylor, a family friend, said King was angry Daniels had asked him to begin paying child support and refused to rekindle their relationship.

Investigators are still trying to determine the motive, but Trooper Walt Meachum said King had apparently been drinking before taking the baby.

- AP

Posted on April 13, 2005 at 08:29 AM | Permalink

Comments

Recently, the Buffalo News reported the case of a father who brutally abused and murdered his three-year-old son. He had SOLE custody. So much for abuse and murder coming out of custodial "frustration."

Posted by: silverside at Apr 13, 2005 8:43:06 AM

One swallow doesn't make a summer Silverside.

Posted by: Steve at Apr 13, 2005 9:32:09 AM

Trish! You--you--sexist manhater!!!!

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Apr 13, 2005 9:35:23 AM

Yeah if you shoot your own kid, that doesn't really demonstrate that you should have been given more access to it does it?

Posted by: Cruella at Apr 13, 2005 9:39:54 AM

Sheelzebub: "Trish! You--you--sexist manhater!!!!"

Bah hah. ;) Let those guys try to dance their way around one of their own leaders blaming the courts and women for a man who killed his infant son and then himself. Or they'll say Lionel Richards is part of the fringe. Nuh uh. He and OzyDads are mainstream, garden-variety fathers' rights.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Apr 13, 2005 9:40:59 AM

I rather like this story from today's New York Times. This is a HERO DAD to me, not the snively FR dads who deny the existence of sexual abuse or violence, or make excuses for it. Concerns the father of a learning disabled girl who was sexually abused by several students (on video no less!) while at school. The school administrators (male and female, as disgusting as that is) wanted to sweep the incident under the rug and keep it out of the hands of the police, but the dad persisted, and called anyway. (The article makes no mention of the girl's mother, which is a little strange.)This is the kind of dad I admire. Stands up to and defies abusers, rapists, and their enablers, instead of supporting them with the silence they demand.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/13/national/13ohio.html?th&emc=th

Posted by: silverside at Apr 13, 2005 9:52:05 AM

A pack of nuts, the whole bunch of them...

Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 13, 2005 9:52:35 AM

"One swallow doesn't make a summer Silverside."

Don't worry, we have plenty of other birds like that one to build our case on...like what about that Jerica Rhodes...

Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 13, 2005 9:54:22 AM

"(The article makes no mention of the girl's mother, which is a little strange.)"

No...it's quite common today for the media to try to keep the child's mother out of the story...

It's more evidence of male jealousy at the mother/child bond...nothing more...

Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 13, 2005 9:56:42 AM

I've got TONS of stories about women doing the exact same thing and saying the exact same thing in defense of one-another here in the US, nevermind the UK or the land down under. I've heard women murderers repeatedly championed here using precisely the same logic. Lionel is not championing a murdering dad so much as he is exploring the causes.

Isn't that what you've said men should do? Explore the causes and factors between men so as to curb their impulses?

Court TV regularly airs on-going trials of women who murder their spouse and children, or murder because they were dead-beats who didn't like losing custody of their kids. Today you can watch the live trial of Va. vs Piper Roundtree. So please Trish...give it a rest already.

Posted by: Masculiste at Apr 13, 2005 10:01:50 AM

Well, there's exploring real reasons for someone's actions. Then there's indulgence in pseudo-reasoning, which is blaming other people for your actions and refusing personal responsibility.

Frankly, these guys' actions don't come out of nowhere. If you look, there is usually a history of family violence if not outright criminal behavior against people outside the family. But it's SOOOO much more convenient for a killer to blame his wife (just as batterers tell their victims that it's all the victim's fault, e.g. if only she hadn't "made him" mad by getting dinner on the table late or what have you.) Or failing that, blaming the courts or "the system." This is just another exercise in evading and avoiding the real responsibility for your actions that batterers have developed into a near art form.

Oh and yes, Christopher Rhodes, who had sole custody, and who allegedly stabbed his daughter 16 times. I can't wait to see who he blames at trial. Somehow it must be the girl's mother's fault, even though she had been blocked from seeing the girl for several years. Or it's the court's fault, even though they gave him custody. "Wait, they shouldn't have given me custody, so it's their fault. Er uh, that's not it. They should have given me custody and a stress-free life too, so I wouldn't get, er, angry, you know."

Posted by: silverside at Apr 13, 2005 10:16:53 AM

Silverside: Frankly, these guys' actions don't come out of nowhere. If you look, there is usually a history of family violence if not outright criminal behavior against people outside the family. But it's SOOOO much more convenient for a killer to blame his wife (just as batterers tell their victims that it's all the victim's fault, e.g. if only she hadn't "made him" mad by getting dinner on the table late or what have you.) Or failing that, blaming the courts or "the system." This is just another exercise in evading and avoiding the real responsibility for your actions that batterers have developed into a near art form.

Oh and yes, Christopher Rhodes, who had sole custody, and who allegedly stabbed his daughter 16 times. I can't wait to see who he blames at trial. Somehow it must be the girl's mother's fault, even though she had been blocked from seeing the girl for several years. Or it's the court's fault, even though they gave him custody. "Wait, they shouldn't have given me custody, so it's their fault. Er uh, that's not it. They should have given me custody and a stress-free life too, so I wouldn't get, er, angry, you know."

Silverside, remember the last time you posted in my comments about Christopher Rhodes? He was abusive. Here's the article you posted:

From the Middletown [NY] Times Herald Record:

Mom says family kept Jerica away

By Howard Altman
Times Herald-Record
haltman@th-record.com

Syracuse – Lisa Mason is getting ready for a trip to see her daughter for the first time in five years. She is crying because when she sees little Jerica Rhodes after the three-hour drive from her home in Syracuse, she'll be looking at her daughter in a
coffin.

Thursday morning, 7-year-old Jerica was found stabbed to death in the boys' bathroom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus School in Highland Falls, where she was a first-grader. Thursday night, Jerica's father – 27-year-old Christopher Rhodes – was charged with second-degree murder.

"My baby was beautiful," Mason says yesterday, barely audible through moans of grief. "She was smart. So smart."

As she cries, Mason says that the horror of Jerica's death is compounded by her long estrangement from her daughter. She blames the separation on the Rhodes family, who are influential in both Highland Falls, where Chris' father, Linwood Rhodes Jr., was once police chief, and the City of Newburgh, where Linwood was a detective.

"The family kept me away from her for so many years," Mason says.

LISA MASON says she met Chris when they were growing up in Highland Falls, a bucolic little village hard by the Hudson River, home to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. It was the beginning of a long and tempestuous relationship.

By the time they were 15, the relationship had turned sexual, says Mason, now 26. But it was never good.

"Me and Chris were unstable," she admits.

When they lived in the City of Newburgh in the mid- to late 1990s, Mason said, Chris Rhodes would frequently choke and hit her.

"He was very aggressive – to show me my place," she says.

The abuse started even before she became pregnant with Jerica, Mason says.

The couple's on-again, off-again relationship continued, with Mason eventually moving into an apartment with Rhodes in Highland Falls. Mason claims Rhodes continued his violence against her until Highland Falls police arrived one final time at their home.

Mason claims that Rhodes took Jerica's birth certificate, ripped it up and flushed it down the toilet.

"He did not want proof that I was the mother and that Jerica was born in Bridgeport, Conn.," she says. Mason says police did not arrest Rhodes. Instead, she says, they took Jerica.

Police Chief Pete Miller did not return a detailed phone call seeking comment on Mason's claims. Linwood Rhodes Jr., Chris Rhodes' father, angrily dismissed Mason's charges. At a news conference, he said it was Mason who who cut off contact, not the
family.

Mason says she surrendered custody of Jerica voluntarily, thinking that it would be only temporary. Mason again breaks into tears.

"He used his influence with the police," she says, bitterly. "His father was the chief of something. He always used his father's name."

OVER THE YEARS, Mason says, she would send cards, letters and gifts to her daughter at the Rhodes family home in Highland Falls, where Jerica lived after the family gained custody. Mason says she made an effort to reach out every Dec. 10, Jerica's birthday. But the cards and letters and packages were returned, unopened.

"They wouldn't let me see her," she says. "They wouldn't let me even send her gifts."

The last time she saw Jerica was in 2000, when she arranged a meeting with Chris' brother, Trevor Rhodes. Mason says she wanted to introduce Jerica to her
sister, India.

"We met at a mini-park in Highland Falls, but it turned out to be a big fight when Chris found out and showed up. Then his parents showed up," she says. Mason says her last memory of Jerica is seeing Chris' parents drag her away.

The phone calls started coming in Thursday morning from friends, informing her that Jerica had been killed. Late that night, state police asked her to go to the barracks in Marcy, near Utica, for questioning. She was told that Chris was being charged with
second-degree murder.

"I just wanted to know why? Why? If she was being so well taken care of, how did the family allow this to happen?" she asks.

As she prepares for the long drive to Highland Falls, Lisa Mason can no longer contain herself. "Chris was very violent and abusive. He hurt me a lot. I ran. He told me if I left him, I would never see my daughter again. I guess he kept his promise."

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Apr 13, 2005 10:37:41 AM

Masculiste is probably right about coverage on Court TV, (I'll have to take his word for it, I haven't had TV in years) the media in general seems to be fascinated with killer women/moms. I guess it's unusual enough to garner alot of attention.

We don't hear so much about men/dads who kill (unless it's really spectacular and very public). Personally, I think that's at least partly because it is at least expected if not outright accepted, partly, I think comprehensive coverage of each case would make it difficult to find the time to cover anything else. Also, aggressive media coverage of each killer mom helps to make it seem like there are more of them, that women regularly kill and are at LEAST as dangerous as men. Hey, anything to bolster the image of women as monsters that these guys like to promote and make it easier to shift the blame away from men.

Posted by: katthemad at Apr 13, 2005 10:43:27 AM

Michael: "Lionel is not championing a murdering dad so much as he is exploring the causes.

Isn't that what you've said men should do? Explore the causes and factors between men so as to curb their impulses?"

How can you say that a man who murders his infant and himself someone who needs to "curb his impulses"? That doesn't place responsibility for the murder/suicide where it belongs - on his shoulders. No, the court system and his ex-girlfriend demanding child support did not cause him to murder his infant and himself, as Lionel Richards claims. When he said, in effect, "support a rebuttable presumption of EQUAL TIME SHARED PARENTING, or else," he's saying that more dads will kill themselves and their children if their demands aren't met. It's that old "the courts and the "evil ex" drove him to suicide" bullshit that the guys bring up so often. They don't often bring up how they think the courts and the "evil ex" drive men to murder their children because it's politically stupid, but that hasn't stopped them from talking about it backchannel. This mailing list post is just one example of a prominent fathers' rights activist blaming a man who murders his own children on "the system" and an "evil ex." It's a veiled threat - if you don't abide by their demands, expect to see more men murder their children. I would hope that you wouldn't support something as heinous as that.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Apr 13, 2005 10:53:26 AM

"Masculiste is probably right about coverage on Court TV, (I'll have to take his word for it, I haven't had TV in years) the media in general seems to be fascinated with killer women/moms. I guess it's unusual enough to garner alot of attention.

It's not an over-facination, it's an all-too-common occurance. The media and court stations are merely covering 'daily news' as it occurs. The problem is...you're 'excusing' it.

Posted by: Masculiste at Apr 13, 2005 10:53:37 AM

Didn't Valerie Solanis, noted feminist icon shoot at and attempt to murder Andy Warhol? And what about NOW and other feminist groups defending Andrea Yates? She murdered 5 children. Oh that's right, Russell Yates, a "patriarch", was to blame. How about all those feminists who cheered on the mercedes murderer, Clara Harris, remember her? She killed her husband for cheating on her by driving over him in his mercedes while his daughter was in the car? Joe Farah wrote "If I were on that jury, I would find Clara Harris not guilty. After she was sprung, I'd give her a medal. She did the world a favor. She may have acted emotionally. She may be sorry for what she has done. But, frankly, she did the right thing. That creep deserved what he got."

Silverside - "Recently, the Buffalo News reported the case of a father who brutally abused and murdered his three-year-old son. He had SOLE custody. So much for abuse and murder coming out of custodial "frustration.""

Gosh, I can play that game too. Here's a link to stories of over a hundred female murderers, http://www.sonic.net/~msnyder/femvio/ . So much for murder coming out of "depression".

Posted by: at Apr 13, 2005 10:58:13 AM

Lowell Jaks of the Alliance for Non-Custodial Parents Rights, another major FR group, said something similar about these men who murder their children and ex's. Here's a quote:

"One divorced father committed suicide on the steps of San Diego's courthouse, another set his car afire outside Alaska's child-support office. Others, in an all-too-common scenario, killed their ex-wives, their children, then themselves.

Men who snap in such violent ways have few defenders. Yet fathers' rights groups, joined by a few academic experts, see a common denominator in these recent bursts of rage, and ask whether America's family court system could be partly at fault by deepening the despair of many divorced men.

"None of these guys are poster children," said Lowell Jaks, president of the Alliance for Non-Custodial Parents Rights. "But when you cause this much pain to so many men, there are going to be repercussions. A certain percentage are going to crack."

Sorry, but I don't support fathers' rights activists because this line of thinking is much too common amongst them, especially amongst the leaders of the groups. It's reprehensible. They excuse murders because they hold "the system" and their ex's responsible. Not good.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Apr 13, 2005 10:59:06 AM

Katthemad: "Masculiste is probably right about coverage on Court TV, (I'll have to take his word for it, I haven't had TV in years) the media in general seems to be fascinated with killer women/moms. I guess it's unusual enough to garner alot of attention."

I wrote about that not long ago. Marcus Wesson and Adair Garcia are not getting the news coverage and public outrage that Andrea Yates and Susan Smith received. Garcia murdered his children not long after Yates did, and hardly a peep was made. Garcia was recently convicted of murder, and is eligible for the death penalty. There has been no nationwide public outcry or news coverage over what he did or what Wesson did.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Apr 13, 2005 11:05:49 AM

As we have gone over here many times before, Andrea Yates got little support from anybody, much less feminists. On the other hand, people were so quick to condemn her that they neatly sidestepped the fact tht the woman was schizophrenic and psychotic. Up in Buffalo, a woman with a history of schizophrenia was recently committed for killing her baby. However, at least up here in Yankee land, we have some primitive inkling of what mental illness is, and how it does tend to compromise one's ability to assume responsibility for one's actions. Funny how hearing voices can do that to ya.

And yes, the same consideration should be granted to men. That's why NYS passed a rather controversial law called Kendra's Law. It was passed after a man with a substantial history of mental illness pushed a woman in front of a subway train and killed her. No feminists were leaping down his throat. Generally, we have some recognition that there is a difference between someone who deliberately murders someone, especially an intimate out of abuse/control issues, and a schizo out in lala land. Kendra's law, by the way, allows families and other authorities greater leeway in forcing persons with mental illness, especially those who may present a threat to themselves or others, into treatment.

For better or for worse, by the time you eliminate the women killers with serious/persistent mental illness, or those killing in self-defense, you don't have many left. And I think every single one who remains has probably been on Court TV. For those in the "remainder" crowd, , I really have no interest in making up excuses re how mean their boyfriend was or how the "system" made them do it. Let the boys have those excuses. They apparently need them.

Posted by: silverside at Apr 13, 2005 11:27:16 AM

The point is...we don't DENY that it exists. And what Jaks is saying doesn't do that either. He's not defending the murderer, he's simply examing a cause-to-an-effect.

The common-denominator theory examines all types of phenomena in the psychiatric or psychological arena, in the same manner as Jaks does here. He's not saying 'excuse the murder,' he's saying 'examine the conditions surrounding the murder and maybe we can get to the root of what incites this kind of behavior.

This is information we share with each other as men or as members of a particular organization. We don't go to the courts and assign these guys lawyers from sponsoring organizations like NOW, funded by the federal government and try to get these guys off. And we don't go to the media and plead with the public, "Let the killer off...he was just depressed."

We examine within our own particular group, our rage at an unjust system. We acknowledge our culpability between ourselves along the way, learn from those who've made much greater mistakes than we out of anger or despair, and we (the vast majority of us)move on to do very well. That's all men's advocacy and rights groups do. Inform men.

What you're doing is 'covertly' pretending to be members, hiding silently or who knows, maybe inciting inflammatory rhetoric? Listening in on conversations back-n-forth from members who are just average guys who are pissed off, have a right to be, and are 'airing their rage to other members. That's allot like tapping into a private telephone conversation isn't it?

As for men not getting MORE attention in the media for such crimes...what news? Men committing crime isn't news anymore.

Men do it. Men know it. Men (as in the example above) do the best we can to stop it. We arrest for it, and prosecute it. It's not a perfect system but tell me, what's better?

Now you women, that's a different story. Fairness from the sex that brought you PPD as a murder defense? What a joke! You don't even TRY to be intraspective. And if you didn't insist on ignoring it, excusing it, or deflecting it at every opportunity, you wouldn't have to be reminded of it by men or the media itself.

A sex that lives in a glass house, shouldn't throw stones.

Posted by: Masculiste at Apr 13, 2005 11:58:19 AM

These aren't just angry guys who are pissed off. Their rhetoric is much more inflammatory than that. Yes, they are defending murderers. I can't believe that you would excuse inflammatory rhetoric such as that made by Jaks and Richards as just a reaction by "average guys." It isn't. It's inciteful, inflammatory, and it harms good fathers who want to do the right thing for their children.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Apr 13, 2005 12:17:17 PM

What a lot of disinformation. Name me one female murder defendant who had NOW or the federal government pay for her attorney.

Looking at factors in someone's past that may have contributed to a crime is one thing. But these guys, as is typical of abusers, go one step further. They refuse personal responsibility for their actions. They blame others. Oh yea, I feel "stress" all the time regarding my custody situation. Haven't gunned down the ex yet, have I? In addition, these are the same guys who have manifested this kind of behavior all along. A impeding separation or divorce simply accelerates their anxiety about controlling "their" woman or children. So homicide is the outcome. That's your basic analysis in a nutshell. But instead of dealing with the underlying obsession with control, you look to institutions or blaming the woman. Why not look at why the need to control is so paramount in these personalities?

And who was talking about depressed? I was talking about psychosis and schizoprenia. Big difference.

Oh, and by the way, I love history lessons. That you have to go back over 35 years for an example of a woman who shot someone (but didn't kill him)is really rich. For those of you who don't know your 1960s history, here it is. On June 3rd, 1968, Valerie Solanis, a rejected Superstar and sole founder of the SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) stormed Andy Warhol's Factory and shot Warhol in the chest. Warhol narrowly escaped death and was rushed immediately to the hospital, where he spent two months in recovery. Solanis was institutionalized in a mental hospital and later sent to prison for three years. A movie, I Shot Andy Warhol, was later made about the incident in 1996. For the most part, even those who disliked Warhol's treatment of Solanis thought she was totally delusional. For the record, Flo Kennedy, a well-known woman lawyer of the time, defended Solanis. Kennedy was known as a feminist (oh the horror!) Ti-Grace Atkinson, another well-known feminist of the time, was sympathetic. But read your history facts. NY NOW as a whole backed away from the case entirely. Most definively did NOT take a stand supporting Solanis. So enough of the historical revisionism. And come up with something within, say, the last five years please if you want to document your point.

Posted by: silverside at Apr 13, 2005 12:34:36 PM

Masculiste;

Too many people are already aware that men commit crimes at roughly ten times the rate of women. You're not going to get anyone to buy your assertion that women are just as dangerous by ignoring that fact.

Posted by: katthemad at Apr 13, 2005 1:04:58 PM

"Masculiste;

Too many people are already aware that men commit crimes at roughly ten times the rate of women. You're not going to get anyone to buy your assertion that women are just as dangerous by ignoring that fact."


No...but I think he believes if he says it enough, people will believe him...

Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 13, 2005 1:16:38 PM

"What a lot of disinformation. Name me one female murder defendant who had NOW or the federal government pay for her attorney."


But even if they did pay for it, so what...

BOTH men and women are entitled to be provided a lawyer if they cannot afford one...that's in the Miranda warning as a matter of fact, when you get arrested and they read you your rights..."if you cannot pay for an attorney one will be provided for you"...

That's for everybody...

Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 13, 2005 1:21:00 PM

I actually knew Valerie Solanis and I would say that yes, she was mentally ill...

It was apparent after talking with her for any length of time.

That being said, Warhol did take advantage of her ripping off a script or a slogan or something from her...I forget which...

But frankly, I was always a little suspicious that she missed hitting him in a vital area on purpose, as she could have killed him easily, she was close enough...


Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 13, 2005 1:26:16 PM

I wrote a paper about Andy Warhol for an art class when I was in college. Yup, he strung her along about a script she had written. I think she was under the impression that he was going to produce it. She was trying to get into the art scene at the time, and had no luck. Also, SCUM was not a feminist group. Solanis wrote The SCUM Manifesto and she was its only "member."

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Apr 13, 2005 1:29:37 PM

Fairness from the sex that brought you PPD as a murder defense?

Masculiste, Yates had post partum psychosis. Not depression. She had a long, documented history of mental illness which got progressively worse with each child she had. Yet people refused to see that she was a potential danger to herself and others--despite her suicide attempts, delusions, and catatonia. This is a far cry from someone who has a long, documented history of assault and harrassment against family members, friends, and strangers.

Also, "[we] women" didn't let Andrea Yates off the hook--we did realize that PPP is serious stuff. We did realize that these murders could have been easily prevented had anyone taken Yates' symptoms seriously.

We don't go to the courts and assign these guys lawyers from sponsoring organizations like NOW, funded by the federal government and try to get these guys off. And we don't go to the media and plead with the public, "Let the killer off...he was just depressed."

Actually, you just did when you said it was the fault of the system, and that was why this guy killed his infant child. And if you had half a clue, you'd realize that NOW did not fund Yate's defense, or anyone else's defense in killing their children.

The local--not national--NOW chapter gave the Yates family support--moral support. This included moral support to Rusty Yates. The local chapter was considering helping to start a fund, and gave quite a lot of support to Rusty Yates; in the end, they didn't start or contribute to the fund. Neither the local chapter nor the national chapter gave any money to the Yates defense fund; the local chapter simply referred people who wanted to contribute money to the defense fund (set up by Yate's lawyers).

Now NOW chapter, either local or national, paid for Yate's attorneys.

NOW's statement about the case didn't blame her actions on her husband or the courts. They didn't justify this by saying she didn't get her way, and unless more women got presumptive custody, more people would die. They did say that it was high time that people took mental illness like post partum psychosis seriously--had it been taken seriously before, five lives would have been spared.

NOW did not want Yates to get the death penalty, and spoke out against that possibility. NOW is against the death penalty, and this would extend to people like Adair Garcia.

I suggest you get your facts straight. While you're at it, put the rocks down and Windex that glass house of yours.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Apr 13, 2005 1:40:44 PM

I imagine we could all agree on the stance that murder is wrong, whether it's murder of a child or an adult. We could probably all also agree on the fact that drugs, alcohol, and mental illness play roles in disinhibition and crime. Re: Yates: I think there may have been notable poor judgment involved for both the husband and wife who chose to continue having children under the cirucumstances. The outcome of that, plus inadequate psychiatric care, led to that tragic end.

But, obviously, if fathers' rights activists use cases of mentally ill women who murder children to support any claim regarding divorce and child custody (neither of which are relevant to the Yates case), it's a baseless argument.

Posted by: blogbabe at Apr 13, 2005 1:56:33 PM

"Yet fathers' rights groups, joined by a few academic experts, see a common denominator in these recent bursts of rage...."None of these guys are poster children," said Lowell Jaks, president of the Alliance for Non-Custodial Parents Rights. "But when you cause this much pain to so many men, there are going to be repercussions. A certain percentage are going to crack."

Where did he give an ultimatum Trish? In YOUR mind again? Is that more of YOUR inference and projection? Just read the damn words and stop trying to put things in that don't apply. I've spoke with Richards on several occassions and excusing murder is not what we do. I AM a an active fathers rightster. Are you calling me a liar, or do I just not count?

Right now, as we speak, doctors and advocates are saying the EXACT SAME THING about Piper Roundtree but I don't hear ANYBODY saying anything about that because, I guess only stupid people watch TV huh?!
This one killed her ex-husband of 19 years execution style, who was the custodial parent of their children and who she was in arrears for child-support to the tune of thousands. Let's see...ex-wife + child support in arrears + lost custody + consideration for the mental anguish of the previous = ??? And she is a lawyer.

Stop pretending that there isn't an actual case of the opposite going on right now.

"Also, "[we] women" didn't let Andrea Yates off the hook--we did realize that PPP is serious stuff. We did realize that these murders could have been easily prevented had anyone taken Yates' symptoms seriously"

Well there you goddamn go. What works for a woman doesn't work for a man.

"Too many people are already aware that men commit crimes at roughly ten times the rate of women. You're not going to get anyone to buy your assertion that women are just as dangerous by ignoring that fact."

Again with the pointless stats. Men don't ignore OR excuse what other men do. Women do...as your all doing RIGHT THIS MINUTE.

"And who was talking about depressed? I was talking about psychosis and schizoprenia. Big difference..."

Is it? Doesn't undiagnosed depression mushroom into all sorts of psychosis if left untreated?

"Yup, he strung her along about a script she had written. I think she was under the impression that he was going to produce it. She was trying to get into the art scene at the time, and had no luck."

So what? Does her mental illness (that MAYBE he just didn't want any part of) or his stringing her along justify what she did?

You are ALL doing the exact same thing that you claim others are doing. You are pulling anything out of thin air that you can to deflect the fact that you, as a sex, are absolutely no better than the sex that you attack.

But what you DO have is a corner on the 'excuse' market. And that's a corner you can keep.

Posted by: Masculiste at Apr 13, 2005 2:24:01 PM

"We are asking questions that need to be asked: Why was Andrea Yates released from the hospital in a severely depressed state?"

You have the gall to use this statement by NOW as an example?

Posted by: Masculiste at Apr 13, 2005 2:29:20 PM

Do you not listen? I gave an example of man who got off for mental illness. I have never heard a feminist object to a homicidal man being committed instead of jailed when it was clear that he was suffering from a clear and documented mental illness. Not a little "depression." On the contrary, it's the FR guys who are suddenly beligerently stupid about mental illness --when the killer is allegedly a woman. She's suddenly guilty and "responsible" for her actions, even if she doesn't know what day it is or is sucking her thumb in the corner. And get a clue. Depression doesn't just leap into psychosis if left untreated. For heaven's sake, make an effort to educate yourself about mental illness.

I am not in the habit of sucking up to female killers. I do defend persons who have histories of mental illness or other mitigating factors that would prevent them from taking full responsibility for their actions (under 18, very low IQ, etc.) and/or self-defense. But your people are sure in the habit of defending male killers who by all appearances are in full possession of their faculties. Men do routinely give men a pass for what they do. It's even institutionalized in certain cultures as honor killings and the like. There is no female equivalent of honor killing. Even battered women who kill in self-defense are usually imprisoned.

Why was Andrea released? Piss poor medical and psychiatric care seems to be a good start at an answer.

Valerie seemed to be pretty mentally ill as well. In fact, I believe she died in California some years ago -- homeless and definitely mentally ill. I didn't see anybody excusing her here. They were simply discussing the history of the case. Reminiscing about the ancient cultural history of the left, as it were. Gee, NYMOM. You knew her? You'll have to tell me all about it in a juicy email sometime. I love true crime stuff.

Posted by: silverside at Apr 13, 2005 2:51:47 PM

Masculiste, you obviously haven't read one word of what I wrote. I suggest you cool off and revisit the topic when you're over your hysteria.

Silverside, Yates' conviction was overturned because the expert witness for the state, Dr. Park Dietz, presented false testimony (not knowingly) when he said Yates may have been influenced by an episode of the "Law & Order" television program. No such episode ever aired. (Deitz probably thought the episode did air, as he was a consultant to the show, so I'm not going to buy that he lied on the stand. He was very mistaken, however.)

Yates is still in prison. And I'm okay with her being somewhere, be it a psych prison or a hospital. What got me riled up about the case is the fact that everyone around her sat around whistling show tunes while she went off the rails. I mean, Jeez, not one person thought that maybe it was a bad idea to have someone who was half-freaking catatonic and with a few suicide attempts under her belt to home school four kids, and care for a new infant? She didn't need some help with the housework, she needed to stay on the Haldol and stay in the hospital for a while. She should not have been in charge of five kids, not in that condition. (And had the roles been reversed, she would have been charged as an accessory for not getting the kids to safety. Note how her husband wasn't charged.)

This was not PPD--it wasn't post-partum depression, it was post-partum psychosis. PPP is very, very different from PPD.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Apr 13, 2005 3:17:17 PM

First of all Andrea Yates (brought up by Trish, was it?) is old news. But since you want to keep re-hashing it...

"Not a little "depression." On the contrary, it's the FR guys who are suddenly beligerently stupid about mental illness..."

Uh...who went over to who's site for a little INsight into what FR's are talking about? What you're all drawing from and inferring upon, are member communications informing and learning about it. LEARNING ABOUT IT is not the act of the 'beligerently' stupid.

You listen in for a quick soundbite, then come back HERE claiming you've got your finger on the pulse of what fathers rights is all about?
It's like, Oh no, don't come straight out and tell them who you are, and have an upfront debate, no no, let's play little espionage games.

Show some balls and ASK them and they'll tell you what I have repeatedly...
Jaks asks the very same questions as NOW asked in the Andrea Yates case. The VERY SAME QUESTIONS! That's all, cause and effect. And that is as valid a question as the Yates case was.

"--when the killer is allegedly a woman. She's suddenly guilty and "responsible" for her actions, even if she doesn't know what day it is or is sucking her thumb in the corner."

EXCUSE ME?! Are you saying that ANDREA YATES came off like a babbling, drooling idiot when she was on trial? Because THAT case aired on Court TV and I followed it. Andrea Yates was very lucid and conducted herself very well. She gave no OUTWARD signs of mental illness.

And shouldn't it have been the advocates that YOU RECENTLY CITED who should have taken a closer look at her? Didn't she have a doctors? Didn't her family realize she was so ill that she could have been dangerous? What the cause was for why no one picked up on this?

Oh, that's right, it was initially diagnosed as PPD and then developed into PPP. Or is it your contention that she was or should have been always identified as visibly and distinquishably psychotic?

So depression CAN develope into psychosis if not properly diagnosed and treated. Which goes to your..."And get a clue. Depression doesn't just leap into psychosis if left untreated. For heaven's sake, make an effort to educate yourself about mental illness."
...how about a side-order of histrionics to go with that crow-burger?

Again did I EVER say that depression LEAPS into psychosis? No, I never in ANY way suggested a timeframe.

And don't condascend Sheelz, you're not equipted for it.

Posted by: Masculiste at Apr 13, 2005 4:07:00 PM

And shouldn't it have been the advocates that YOU RECENTLY CITED who should have taken a closer look at her? Didn't she have a doctors? Didn't her family realize she was so ill that she could have been dangerous? What the cause was for why no one picked up on this?

That's what the NOW statement was talking about, but you'd have to read that with a rational mind to see it.

Oh, that's right, it was initially diagnosed as PPD and then developed into PPP. Or is it your contention that she was or should have been always identified as visibly and distinquishably psychotic?

She got worse with each pregnancy. They were told at one point to stop having kids, that her condition woud only get worse, but they were a very quiverful family. She was not well when this advice was given, and her husband wasn't having it. I don't think he was being malicious in this case; I think he had no idea just how bad it could get. And I think the doctors were negligent.

EXCUSE ME?! Are you saying that ANDREA YATES came off like a babbling, drooling idiot when she was on trial? Because THAT case aired on Court TV and I followed it. Andrea Yates was very lucid and conducted herself very well. She gave no OUTWARD signs of mental illness.

That could have been because she was back on her meds--meds her doctor saw fit to take her off of before.

So depression CAN develope [sic] into psychosis if not properly diagnosed and treated.

Wrong. PPD is rather different from depression. PPD is fueled by pregnancy/hormonal changes, and yes, when you have five kids in a row with untreated PPD and preexisting mental health issues, it can bloom into PPP. Depression--the kind anyone can get--does not progress into psychosis if untreated. Untreated depression sucks, the person can be unbearable to live with, and they may try to harm themselves. Untreated depression does not progress into psychosis.

Brushing off the murder of a nine-month old infant because the father didn't get joint custody is a far cry from someone asking why the killer, who had a documented history of psychosis, was not getting proper treatment. But that's the thing--Randall King did not have a history of psychosis. He was an abusive ex with who threatened a lot of people. He was arrested last year. He was drunk, went to Eva Daniels' house, and rammed his truck into her front porch when she refused to talk to him. That wasn't the first time he was arrested for being abusive or drunk.

This was someone who deserved presumptive custody? Please.

And don't condascend [sic] Sheelz, you're not equipted [sic] for it.

Oh, I wouldn't dream of it, M.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Apr 13, 2005 5:03:12 PM

"Brushing off the murder of a nine-month old infant because the father didn't get joint custody..."
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY is brushing off this murder. Jaks is asking the same cause-and-effect question that NOW asked on behalf of Yates, and doctors are trying to explore on behalf of Piper Roundtree (you know...the ACTUAL on-going case that's being aired as it progresses...the one your all conveniently ignoring?)

I'm a damn sight more schooled and experienced in pscychology and mental illness than you can POSSIBLY imagine.
To wit, depression is fueled by any number of factors including outside stimuli, or chemical imbalances at work in the brain that have nothing to do with drugs or alchohol and work in much the same manner as do hormonal changes.

"But that's the thing--Randall King did not have a history of psychosis."

We don't know what King has because no one has bothered to question his mental faculties in spite of his behavior.

And Yates didn't neccessarily indicate psychoosis either. She was diagnosed with a history Post Partum DEPRESSION(PPD!), NOT psychosis, depression, so please don't try to translate THIS type of depression into psychosis because it's post-partum. It wasn't until AFTER the murders that PPD graduated to PPP. AGAIN, I WATCHED the trial LIVE!

"He was an abusive ex with who threatened a lot of people. He was arrested last year. He was drunk, went to Eva Daniels' house, and rammed his truck into her front porch when she refused to talk to him. That wasn't the first time he was arrested for being abusive or drunk."

Now THAT'S the sign of psychotic, alchohol fueled behavior. And that is a sign of mental instability. It's certainly MUCH more of an indicator to psychosis than Yates behavior was prior to the murders. So what's your point?

The ONLY difference here is that NOW challenged the mental health community. But tell me, did anyone ever file suit or levy charges against those doctors for a misdiagnosis or faulty treatment in ANY way? No.

Neither Jaks nor Richards espouses excusing or ignoring the murder of a child because of what the courts do. What they did was call into question the one common denominator in these cases...courts and their insensitivity. As did NOW with Yates.

Posted by: Masculiste at Apr 13, 2005 5:51:21 PM

"Brushing off the murder of a nine-month old infant because the father didn't get joint custody..."
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY is brushing off this murder. Jaks is asking the same cause-and-effect question that NOW asked on behalf of Yates, and doctors are trying to explore on behalf of Piper Roundtree (you know...the ACTUAL on-going case that's being aired as it progresses...the one your all conveniently ignoring?)

I'm a damn sight more schooled and experienced in pscychology and mental illness than you can POSSIBLY imagine.
To wit, depression is fueled by any number of factors including outside stimuli, or chemical imbalances at work in the brain that have nothing to do with drugs or alchohol and work in much the same manner as do hormonal changes.

"But that's the thing--Randall King did not have a history of psychosis."

We don't know what King has because no one has bothered to question his mental faculties in spite of his behavior.

And Yates didn't neccessarily indicate psychoosis either. She was diagnosed with a history Post Partum DEPRESSION(PPD!), NOT psychosis, depression, so please don't try to translate THIS type of depression into psychosis because it's post-partum. It wasn't until AFTER the murders that PPD graduated to PPP. AGAIN, I WATCHED the trial LIVE!

"He was an abusive ex with who threatened a lot of people. He was arrested last year. He was drunk, went to Eva Daniels' house, and rammed his truck into her front porch when she refused to talk to him. That wasn't the first time he was arrested for being abusive or drunk."

Now THAT'S the sign of psychotic, alchohol fueled behavior. And that is a sign of mental instability. It's certainly MUCH more of an indicator to psychosis than Yates behavior was prior to the murders. So what's your point?

The ONLY difference here is that NOW challenged the mental health community. But tell me, did anyone ever file suit or levy charges against those doctors for a misdiagnosis or faulty treatment in ANY way? No.

Neither Jaks nor Richards espouses excusing or ignoring the murder of a child because of what the courts do. What they did was call into question the one common denominator in these cases...courts and their insensitivity. As did NOW with Yates.

Posted by: Masculiste at Apr 13, 2005 5:51:45 PM

Wrong again Trish. Lionel may be very vocal, but he's not mainstream. (Sorry Lionel) He's right there at the extremist end, just like you. Lionel and I didn't get along for quite some time. I can definately understand why you would be offended by some of the things he posts. It's exactly the way the men feel when women like yourself post extremist things about men. I personally don't understand why either gender feels the need to keep up this war.

Posted by: teri at Apr 14, 2005 5:11:56 AM

This, "It's a veiled threat - if you don't abide by their demands, expect to see more men murder their children.", is slander. I know that is NOT what Lionel meant when he posted that. Trish, I think it's true... you DO want the gender war to continue.

Posted by: teri at Apr 14, 2005 5:16:08 AM

of course she wants the gender issue to continue - without it none of her arguments have merit

Gotta love these Hate sites - makes it easy for me to pull comments out and let Legislators know that it isn't the father's who are the radicals but people like those here who preach hatred. It just makes my job as a lobbyist easier.

Posted by: Dan at Apr 14, 2005 7:22:32 AM

"What a lot of disinformation. Name me one female murder defendant who had NOW or the federal government pay for her attorney."


NOW did contribute to the Andrea Yates defense fund, and I already named her.

"Looking at factors in someone's past that may have contributed to a crime is one thing. But these guys, as is typical of abusers, go one step further. They refuse personal responsibility for their actions. They blame others."

That sounds very typical of feminists. "Oh, I'm a poor single mom" "Oh I couldn't help killing my children" "Oh I am sooo victimized by unwanted sexual comments"

"Oh yea, I feel "stress" all the time regarding my custody situation. Haven't gunned down the ex yet, have I?"

Funny how you keep thinking he excused the murder. He didn't.

"In addition, these are the same guys who have manifested this kind of behavior all along."

Which guys? How well do you know their history?

"A impeding separation or divorce simply accelerates their anxiety about controlling "their" woman or children. So homicide is the outcome. That's your basic analysis in a nutshell."

Basic analysis by a nutso is more like it.

"But instead of dealing with the underlying obsession with control, you look to institutions or blaming the woman. Why not look at why the need to control is so paramount in these personalities?"

You're right, the need to control enough of his own life not to be a work slave or have his children stolen from him is paramount here. But he should have that much control, everyone should.

"And who was talking about depressed? I was talking about psychosis and schizoprenia. Big difference.

Oh, and by the way, I love history lessons. That you have to go back over 35 years for an example of a woman who shot someone (but didn't kill him)is really rich."

The more you write the dumber you reveal yourself to be. There are two other examples in my post, one from 3 years ago and one from last year.

"For those of you who don't know your 1960s history, here it is. On June 3rd, 1968, Valerie Solanis, a rejected Superstar and sole founder of the SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) stormed Andy Warhol's Factory and shot Warhol in the chest. Warhol narrowly escaped death and was rushed immediately to the hospital, where he spent two months in recovery. Solanis was institutionalized in a mental hospital and later sent to prison for three years. A movie, I Shot Andy Warhol, was later made about the incident in 1996. For the most part, even those who disliked Warhol's treatment of Solanis thought she was totally delusional. For the record, Flo Kennedy, a well-known woman lawyer of the time, defended Solanis. Kennedy was known as a feminist (oh the horror!) Ti-Grace Atkinson, another well-known feminist of the time, was sympathetic. But read your history facts. NY NOW as a whole backed away from the case entirely. Most definively did NOT take a stand supporting Solanis."

And yet you can find the SCUM manifesto linked to by feminists all over the web, who consider Solanis a hero.

"So enough of the historical revisionism. And come up with something within, say, the last five years please if you want to document your point."

Learn to read.

Posted by: at Apr 14, 2005 8:26:24 AM

I'm a damn sight more schooled and experienced in pscychology[sic] and mental illness than you can POSSIBLY imagine.
To wit, depression is fueled by any number of factors including outside stimuli, or chemical imbalances at work in the brain that have nothing to do with drugs or alchohol
[sic] and work in much the same manner as do hormonal changes.

No kidding. Problem is, you're not as knowledgeable as you claim to be. Postpartum depression is a very different illness from clinical depression.

We don't know what King has because no one has bothered to question his mental faculties in spite of his behavior. . . . Now [King's prior behavior is] the sign of psychotic, alchohol [sic] fueled behavior. And that is a sign of mental instability. It's certainly MUCH more of an indicator to psychosis than Yates [sic] behavior was prior to the murders. So what's your point?

Unlike Yates, King has no documented history of psychosis. And you obviously aren't schooled in the difference between psychosis, depression, and a personality disorder. Being abusive and harassing someone doesn't make someone psychotic--plenty of sociopaths do just that. King had a full grip on reality. He did not hear voices, he was not hospitalized multiple times for delusions, catatonia, refusing to eat, suicide attempts, or other such behaviors. He did not demonstrate any symptoms of psychotic behavior. Sure he had mental health issues--impulsivity, aggression, etc., but that doesn't make him psychotic. Not in the clinical sense. You'd know that if you were as "schooled" in the field as you claim to be.

But really, M, what's your point? I had already said that if Richards or Jaks had asked why no one saw the red flags of King's mental instability, why he wasn't being treated, etc., I'd have no argument with them.

But that's not what they said. And you keep ignoring that. They chalk these murders off to "injustice," and say that these folks wouldn't do such things if only they had 50/50 presumptive joint custody. Someone who makes threats, assaults people, and rams a truck into a front porch in a fit of pique is not someone fit to raise a child. Richards and Jaks didn't question why these men's mental problems weren't being treated. They didn't ask why there wasn't more effective intervention. Nope, the upshot of their statements were that someone with a history of aggression is justified in killing a baby because he didn't get automatic joint custody.

And Yates didn't neccessarily [sic] indicate psychoosis [sic]either. She was diagnosed with a history Post Partum DEPRESSION(PPD!), NOT psychosis, depression, so please don't try to translate THIS type of depression into psychosis because it's post-partum. It wasn't until AFTER the murders that PPD graduated to PPP. AGAIN, I WATCHED the trial LIVE!

You obviously watch and listen as attentively as you read, then, as she was diagnosed with both PPD and psychosis. As I said before (and if you were at all schooled in this subject), PPD can progress into PPP if you keep having children close together. (Unlike clinical depression, a different illness/diagnosis.) PPP is often mixed up with PPD, and people still do it, even now. Even you, trying to say she was using depression as an excuse. Except it wasn't just "depression" and her doctors didn't diagnose her as only having PPD.

The ONLY difference here is that NOW challenged the mental health community. But tell me, did anyone ever file suit or levy charges against those doctors for a misdiagnosis or faulty treatment in ANY way? No.

Uh, Rusty Yates and his in-laws wanted Andrea's doctor charged with negligence, but the prosecutors refused. He took her back to her doctor two days before the murder because her condition was getting worse. The doctor would not put her back on antipsychotics, and would not hospitalize her, despite her numerous suicide attempts, catatonia, self-mutilation, and hospitalizations prior to this. (So much for Yates not showing signs of psychotic behavior.) NOW's statement pointing out that mental health and PPP should be taken more seriously nothing to do with the Yates'/Kennedy's family decisions over whether or not to file a complaint or suit.

Oh, and anonymous--NOW did not give money to Yates' defense fund. Nor did they fund the defense for Clara Harris. I suggest you take your own advice and learn to read--start with the news.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Apr 14, 2005 10:23:24 AM

Now you're just arguing like a child.

"Postpartum depression is a very different illness from clinical depression." Well no shit. And dysthymia is different from bi-polar disorders, and Jung is different from Freud.(or however his name is spelled)Incompetent is incompetent.

"Being abusive and harassing someone doesn't make someone psychotic..." No but having a history of it is a damn good indicator that he doesn't have all his eggs in one basket. Have you never heard of 'dual diagnosis?' Besides, you stated that he ran a truck through her porch because she wouldn't talk to him. Aftyer an act like that ANY judge can order PFA with a codicile that requires mental health treatment.
Again, nobody knows WHAT was going on mentally with King. All anybody knows was that he was upset with what was going on in court.

"Uh, Rusty Yates and his in-laws wanted Andrea's doctor charged with negligence, but the prosecutors refused." But that doesn't tell you anything does it? Nope, it probably doesn't.

"He took her back to her doctor two days before the murder because her condition was getting worse. The doctor would not put her back on antipsychotics, and would not hospitalize her, despite her numerous suicide attempts, catatonia, self-mutilation, and hospitalizations prior to this. (So much for Yates not showing signs of psychotic behavior.)"- I say again, DID ANYONE FILE SUIT in Civil Court? Did Yates go to another doctor for a second opinion? Did Rusty move to have her deemed incompetent because she was clearly psychotic and couldn't be trusted out on her own to care for herself or her children?

No. Her own doctor thought she was competent enough and that her PPD did not warrant further medication or hospitalization.

Anytime...ANYTIME an individual displays that they are a danger to THEMSELVES or a danger to others, an order of incompetency can be aquired. There doesn't even have to be a history of it. But in Andrea's case, if what you say is true, her history would have guaranteed it.

Did you follow the trial? Did you listen to the testimony or SEE Andrea on the stand testifying? Who paid for her lawyer? Because it DAMN sure wasn't Rusty who clearly couldn't afford a private hospital or a second doctors opinion for his wife, or a lawyer to have her committed, or even day care to ease the pressure of not being able to adequately care for the home or the kids.

You keep using the word psychotic...but there are a vast number of varying spectrums of mental disorders that don't rise to level of being regarded as pscyhotic.

My cousin suffered from Organic Brain Syndrome. Do you know what that is or how serious it is?
I took care of him until his suicide. I was appointed his physical guardian until He hanged himself and I found his body. He was deemed as permanently disabled due to a work-related head injury, he was prescrided Navane as a anti-psychotic drug along with Dilantin and Effexor for depression. He also took Respiratol with Trazadone to manage his sleep patterns.

But he was NEVER diagnosed as psychotic. And he was never as lucid after his accident, as Yates was when she testified at trial.

It was 1-2-3 to have him appointed a guardian ad-litem PNC Trust Division, and for me to be appointed his physical guardian.

"PPD can progress into PPP if you keep having children close together. (Unlike clinical depression, a different illness/diagnosis.)"-Again, no shit...tell me something new like, "what's the percentage of women who's PPD progressed into PPP as opposed to the rest of the population of women that have had several children close together...and why aren't you and yours contacting the surgeon general to warn women about the potential dangers?

"PPP is often mixed up with PPD, and people still do it, even now. Even you, trying to say she was using depression as an excuse. Except it wasn't just "depression" and her doctors didn't diagnose her as only having PPD."-Rusty Yates, her doctors, and her family could have EASILY done the same for Andrea and had her deemed incompetent 'toot sweet' if she was even a fraction as psychotic as you now like to arm-chair diagnose her.

Posted by: Masculiste at Apr 14, 2005 11:50:29 AM

"This, "It's a veiled threat - if you don't abide by their demands, expect to see more men murder their children.", is slander. I know that is NOT what Lionel meant when he posted that. Trish, I think it's true... you DO want the gender war to continue."

Yes, and of course you're an expert on Trish since you've been posting on her site oh...five whole days already if that...

Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 14, 2005 12:04:51 PM

"Now you're just arguing like a child."

AND you're just arguing like a chimp Masculiste...actually a child chimp to be exact...so it's the worse of both worlds...you don't know what you're doing in either one...

Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 14, 2005 12:06:53 PM

"I'm a damn sight more schooled and experienced in pscychology and mental illness than you can POSSIBLY imagine."


Sigh...I'm just leaving this one alone although IF I wanted to I could make many many comments...but out of respect for Trish's site I'll turn aside.


Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 14, 2005 12:19:49 PM

Man, you're ugly inside AND out. See previous thread.

Posted by: Masculiste at Apr 14, 2005 1:13:21 PM

See what I'm talking about...

AND you wonder why I act the way I do with you and other mens and fathers rights advocates...

Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 14, 2005 1:23:08 PM

Funny how you keep ignoring the point, M.

You'd like to insist that King was psychotic or mentally unbalanced, but that's not what Jaks' or Richards' contentions were. Their contentions were that the denial of presumptive joint custody drove men like him to murder. That's so much bull. Being "upset at what's going on in court" isn't the same as being delusional.

You also keep contradicting yourself.

No but having a history of it is a damn good indicator that he doesn't have all his eggs in one basket. Have you never heard of 'dual diagnosis?' Besides, you stated that he ran a truck through her porch because she wouldn't talk to him. Aftyer an act like that ANY judge can order PFA with a codicile that requires mental health treatment.

I say again, DID ANYONE FILE SUIT in Civil Court? Did Yates go to another doctor for a second opinion? Did Rusty move to have her deemed incompetent because she was clearly psychotic and couldn't be trusted out on her own to care for herself or her children?

No. Her own doctor thought she was competent enough and that her PPD did not warrant further medication or hospitalization.

Who paid for her lawyer? Because it DAMN sure wasn't Rusty who clearly couldn't afford a private hospital or a second doctors opinion for his wife, or a lawyer to have her committed, or even day care to ease the pressure of not being able to adequately care for the home or the kids.

So, let me get this straight. . .Rusty Yates didn't jump through all these hoops, therefore his wife wasn't psychotic and was responsible for her actions. King could have had a PFA ordered on him, but it didn't happen and . . . he's not responsible for his actions. Not that Richards' statement touched on his mental state in any way, other than he was 'upset' over the court issue. A fact that you continue to avoid.

As to who was paying for her legal fees. . .her lawyers set up a defense fund. And what's your point? Are you saying that because Rusty couldn't afford to jump through the necessary hoops, she wasn't really psychotic, or what? You aren't being very clear--first you ask why he didn't take these steps, then you proceed to answer your own question. And the standards you apply to Yates you conveniently forget when you talk about King.

Again, nobody knows WHAT was going on mentally with King.

Right--he wasn't committed multiple times, hadn't attempted suicide multiple times, didn't mutilate himself, and didn't hear voices. He just bullied and threatened people. Not the sign of a well-adjusted person, but not the signs of psychosis, either. And before you start saying that Yates wasn't psychotic, I suggest you actually review the case you claim to know so well. She was diagnosed--by her own doctors--as PPD with psychosis.

And again, Richards' and Jaks' statements don't touch on the lack of outreach or care WRT mental health in these cases--just that these cases are due to "unfair treatment." Which, BTW, is a slap in the face to anyone who feels they've been screwed by the courts.

But doctors did know what was going on with Yates, and for you to liken her to King--or NOW's statement to Richards'--is ludicrous.

Yates had been to several doctors. Her most recent doctor, the one who took her off Haldol and refused to hospitalize her when she was obviously sliding again, didn't bother reading her file, which had been sent up by a previous doctor. Her diagnosis--PPD with psychosis--still stood. Her doctor took her off the Haldol because he was leery of the side effects, not because she magically stopped being psychotic.

Did you follow the trial? Did you listen to the testimony or SEE Andrea on the stand testifying?

M, people with psychosis who are on the right meds are actually quite lucid. She wasn't medicated when she killed her kids.

Rusty Yates, her doctors, and her family could have EASILY done the same for Andrea and had her deemed incompetent 'toot sweet' if she was even a fraction as psychotic as you now like to arm-chair diagnose her.

Actually, Yates was committed toute suite but released due to insurance coverage. Something you would know if you had actually followed the case closely.

You keep using the word psychotic...but there are a vast number of varying spectrums of mental disorders that don't rise to level of being regarded as pscyhotic.

Irrelevant. Yates was diagnosed--by her own doctors-as psychotic. Learn the actual facts of the case before you start spouting off about it.


Posted by: Sheelzebub at Apr 14, 2005 2:34:41 PM

"You'd like to insist that King was psychotic or mentally unbalanced,"-I'm saying NOBODY knows for sure one way or the other WHAT he was, that's still to be determined. Please read it again.

"So, let me get this straight. . .Rusty Yates didn't jump through all these hoops, therefore his wife wasn't psychotic and was responsible for her actions"-Her doctor didn't think she was psychotic. Are you a doctor?

"other than he was 'upset' over the court issue. A fact that you continue to avoid."-Again, what's to avoid? Nobody checked out anything OTHER than that. But don't worry, they have him under observation and I gaurantee you they're discussing that one right now. Read it once more and try again...

"her lawyers set up a defense fund..."-The point is, WHERE DID HER LAWYERS COME FROM?

"And again, Richards' and Jaks' statements don't touch on the lack of outreach or care WRT mental health in these cases"-Would you like some cheese with that whine? No, they touched on what Jaks, Richards and I think is a just as pertinent a causal factor. The courts and what led up to this incident. That is a valid question any journalist or historian or even a doctor would ask.

"But doctors did know what was going on with Yates..."-Yes, they did. And again I ask, did anybody in any way find them negligent?

"...Her most recent doctor, the one who took her off Haldol and refused to hospitalize her when she was obviously sliding again, didn't bother reading her file, which had been sent up by a previous doctor. Her diagnosis--PPD with psychosis--still stood. Her doctor took her off the Haldol because he was leery of the side effects, not because she magically stopped being psychotic."-Do you even read your OWN writing? She had doctors who were aware of her condition (PPD with psychosis) and they did nothing.

"Actually, Yates was committed toute suite but released due to insurance coverage..."-Was she 302 committed? That's a 10 day (may vary from state-to-state) TEMPORARY committal.

What you're describing is a private hospital. And you need a court order from an orphan's court judge to commit a person against their will, to a private hospital the same as a state hospital. But you don't need a court order to sign yourself into a private hospital which is not the same as 'commital' because it's voluntary. So which was it?

Also if a person IS 302 committed to a private hospital, and can no longer afford the care required (for WHATEVER reason) the state will step in and relocate them to a more appropriate setting. Sometimes on the psych. floor of a general hospital under beds open up.

If she was STATE committed (before an 'orphans court' judge) under these circumstances, the state doctors would have done an observation and evaluation. While she was there, and they would have designated her husband (most likely) legal guardian for the 10 days that she was there.

Now the state has an active file. They NEVER knowingly bump a person with a history of suicidal thoughts or attempts, out the door because of inadequate insurance. They don't have to...Andrea would have federal benefits entitled to her, and state advocates would have put forth the necessary request forms on her behalf. To wit...the feds would have paid the state for her continued hospitilization.

At the end of that initial 10 day period, which usually involves appropriate medication changes and treatment assessment, they gather their information and go before an orphan's court judge again.

If a person still represents a danger to themselves, the court will order that person to be held over for an indeterminate time no matter WHAT the family says. The state will then become the gaurdian of that person if the family becomes adversarial towards the state. The judge will ALWAYS go with the doctor's recommendation.

And in this case, the doctors recommended that she be released and that she represented no harm to anyone or herself. So I guess you and NOW are saying that all these doctors dropped the ball right?

Are you telling me that was the case? Because if it was, Rusty Yates would have the grand slam of all lawsuits sitting in his lap. I mean, his (should have been diagnosed as) psychotic wife just murdered his children.

But that wasn't the case. Post Partum Psychosis became an issue AFTER her trial began because it was the ONLY VIABLE DEFENSE. She was NEVER diagnosed as psychotic UNTIL THE TRIAL COMMENCED.

And then it was NOW pushing the issue of PPP as a defense to these types of murders...not because the damn hospitals, doctors or the state was negligent. She was on trial for her life and they were pulling out all the stops.

King hasn't been and definately will not be as fortunate!

Badda-Bing, Badda-BOOM!


Posted by: Masculiste at Apr 14, 2005 4:43:54 PM

And in this case, the doctors recommended that she be released and that she represented no harm to anyone or herself. So I guess you and NOW are saying that all these doctors dropped the ball right?

You're ducking the issue. You said that NOW's statement was no different from Richards' statement. That's simply not true, and you refuse to even acknowledge what I've pointed out--that King, unlike Yates, did not have a documented history of psychosis. He did not have an official diagnosis. Contrary to your assertion, Yates was diagnosed as psychotic. It was in her medical records. King had no such diagnosis.

Also, for upteenth time, Richards and Jaks weren't talking about King's mental health issues, the lack of treatment/outreach, or anything like that. They were asserting that presumptive joint custody would have prevented this--despite the fact that King had a history of abusive behavior and was not fit to parent that kid. Had the Yates' divorced and Rusty got custody, no one would have batted an eye and insisted on presumptive joint custody--including me.

Are you telling me that was the case? Because if it was, Rusty Yates would have the grand slam of all lawsuits sitting in his lap. I mean, his (should have been diagnosed as) psychotic wife just murdered his children.

Um, he was considering a lawsuit, and his wife was diagnosed as psychotic. This diagnosis was before the trial and before the murders. Whether he decided to go through with it or not, I don't know--and not suing the doctor doesn't mean she wasn't psychotic. It also doesn't mean that NOW was excusing her behavior by pointing out issues with our mental health care system.

But that wasn't the case. Post Partum Psychosis became an issue AFTER her trial began because it was the ONLY VIABLE DEFENSE. She was NEVER diagnosed as psychotic UNTIL THE TRIAL COMMENCED.

Wrong, M. This is simply not true. If you had half a clue about the case, you'd know this. For what has to be the tenth time, Yates was diagnosed as psychotic before she killed her kids.

And please, don't go on and on about how you watched the whole thing on Court TV--her medical records specifically show that she was diagnosed as psychotic.

And then it was NOW pushing the issue of PPP as a defense to these types of murders...not because the damn hospitals, doctors or the state was negligent. She was on trial for her life and they were pulling out all the stops.

NOW wasn't pushing the issue of PPP as a defense (though it's nice you've finally gotten the difference between PPP and PPD). NOW talked about PPP and the lack of care for mental health problems. They never once said that Andrea Yates should walk free because she had PPP. NOW also didn't "pull out all the stops". Her lawyers did that.

The point is, WHERE DID HER LAWYERS COME FROM?

Gosh, M, it must be a feminist conspiracy! Probably from the feminist vault of lawyers we all keep handy in our attics. They came to the case the same way any lawyer comes to a high-profile case. Jeez--do you think there is such a dearth of lawyers out there?

You are showing some serious signs of paranoia.

You obviously don't know as much about the case as you think you do. Read up on it and get back to me.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Apr 14, 2005 5:09:01 PM

I'm sick of arguing you. You must just be plain stupid today (the paranoid crack)
Read the damn on-line bookyourself at: http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/andrea_yates/index.html?sect=11

She was noted as having psychotic episodes...she was NOT diagnosed as a psychotic. Her diagnosis was for PPD.

What was the verdict? What did the court/jury find? How long did those verdicts take to come down?

The only way she could beat the death penalty was to argue her case the way she did. Ultimately, it was the only thing that kept her alive.

And no (for the 100th time) Neither Jaks, nor Richards addressed King's mental faculties yet because his mental faculties are up for review right now. I have written what Jaks and Richards DID address enough and I will not go there again.

I agree with Jaks and Richards on the issue that they raised. Enough already!

Posted by: Masculiste at Apr 14, 2005 5:25:13 PM

Oh and 'my bad' again. I wasn't so much familiar with King as I was with Andrea Yates when her name was brought up.

King killed himself (so he was successful at doing what Andrea only fantasized about) But HIS suicide success, was meaningless compaired to Andrea's failure and subsequent testimony at trial.

Posted by: Masculiste at Apr 14, 2005 8:55:05 PM

I'm sick of arguing you. You must just be plain stupid today (the paranoid crack)

Goodness, yes, M. Why, the questions about where the lawyers came from and how they were paid for was just so rational on your part.

She was noted as having psychotic episodes...she was NOT diagnosed as a psychotic. Her diagnosis was for PPD.

Wrong, though I suppose it comforts you to plug your ears and repeat this falsehood over and over.

Again, her original diagnosis--before the murders--was postpartum depression with psychosis.

I suggest you do some reading. You can start with this, which clearly states her prior diagnosis:

According to the motion filed by lawyer Wendell Odom in state District Judge Belinda Hill's court, Yates has suffered a "prolonged history of mental disease and defect, which includes two prior hospitalizations, at least two attempts of suicide and prior diagnosis of major depression and postpartum depression with psychosis."

Or you can read this story from the Washington Post:

Defense attorneys plan to present Yates's previous diagnosis of postpartum depression with psychosis. . .

Or this story:

The lawyers argued Yates suffers from a prolonged history of mental illness, including two prior hospitalizations, at least two attempts of suicide and prior diagnosis of "major depression and postpartum depression with psychosis."

This diagnosis was made in 1999, after her fourth son was born:

a 1999 psychiatric evaluation by physicians in Texas resulted in a diagnosis of postpartum depression with psychosis. Postpartum (following birth) depressions are not uncommon, but for most women they are transitory and pass without major incident. However, some become full-blown depressions with psychoses, which are mental derangements characterized by defective or lost contact with reality.

The medical report indicated that she had been hospitalized after attempting overdose with prescription medication, and later was under observation after her husband had to forceably remove a knife which she was holding to her own neck.

If you are going to make assertions about the case, actually read up on the case. Sheesh.

And no (for the 100th time) Neither Jaks, nor Richards addressed King's mental faculties yet because his mental faculties are up for review right now.

Thing is, they didn't address that issue. They didn't even wait to see what the outcome of any investigation was. NOW didn't say that Andrea Yates killed her kids because she was frustrated with an unjust court system--they addressed the issues raised over a case involving someone with a long-documented history of severe mental illness, and a diagnosis of PPD with psychosis. A diagnosis that was made in 1999, after her fourth child was born. There's a huge difference.

I have written what Jaks and Richards DID address enough and I will not go there again. I agree with Jaks and Richards on the issue that they raised. Enough already!

That's your perogative. I don't agree with your opinion, and given your ignorance on the subject at hand I'll take your assertions with a bowlful of salt.


Posted by: Sheelzebub at Apr 15, 2005 9:50:42 AM

"If you cause this much pain to this many men of course there will be repercussions."

It's impossible not to see that as a threat. Unless, of course, you're on that side.

Posted by: ginmar at Apr 15, 2005 10:26:06 AM

"...a 1999 psychiatric evaluation by physicians in Texas resulted in a diagnosis of postpartum DEPRESSION with psychosis (psychotic episodes...perfectly normal people can exhibit psychosis due to any number of external factors). Postpartum (following birth) depressions are not uncommon, but for most women they are transitory and pass without major incident. However, some become full-blown depressions with psychoses, which are mental derangements characterized by defective or lost contact with reality."
-What did she say? What were her words? She said that she KNEW that murdering her kids was wrong. You can also read what she told authorities as far as how she did it, and how long she planned it etc. etc. She had reasoning faculties at the time of the killings and she demonstrated that through her interviews with the police and her testimony.

"The medical report indicated that she had been hospitalized after attempting overdose with prescription medication, and later was under observation after her husband had to forceably remove a knife which she was holding to her own neck."
-That's your suicide attempts? It never occured to you that she might have been acting, like it MAY have to her doctors when she was taken off haldol and not recommended for committal by the state? People don't feign suicide?

"If you are going to make assertions about the case, actually read up on the case. Sheesh."
-And if you're going to read about the case, read it in it's entirety from reputable sources who understand the law as well as well as mental illness. I've given you a source that chronicals the story from beginning to end. Read it or ignore it at your leisure.

I've been working and volunteering in this field for 15 years right along with my primary trade. It's what I'm doing now, advocating for the improved social services of the mentally impaired.
She was NEVER committed, she was hospitalized. There is a HUGE difference.

If I walk out my door right now and start talking to the devil while I'm holding a knife to my own throat, my blog would be down for...oh, about the next 3 years or so. Because I would be committed (302 Involuntary Committal Proceedings) so fast my feet would barely touch the ground.

Any board certified psychiatrist/psychologist knows full well that the state could have intervened at any time prior to the killings if there was sufficient and convincing evidence of mania or even the most minimal threat of danger. Just because a person talks crazy or acts crazy, doesn't make them crazy.

And if there was any truth to your assertions that the mental health care field 'dropped the ball' as NOW suggested, they would be supporting Rusty Yates at suing the pants off those doctors on the grounds of criminal and civil negligence. Again, that is not the case. And because she's in a psychiatric prison and (again, if what you say is true) Rusty Yates would win.

We ALL come from dysfunctional families with mental health issues. Yes, women get depressed having children all the time. They even have psychotic mood swings. Hell that happens on a monthly basis. But the legal community didn't buy into PPD with psychotic episodes, and neither did the psychiatric community.

As far as King goes, Richards released a statement this morning that says what I've said all along. Because King is dead, I'm sure we'll all take a closer look at mental illness and it's connection to the courts. But King IS dead. No one, not the court system OR the mental health care community, nor anyone here gives a thought to the emotional pain he was going through because generally a father in pain over losing his kids isn't worth the time of day...

Posted by: Masculiste at Apr 15, 2005 11:36:03 AM

Jeez, M, tote your strawman around much?

First you insist that Yates wasn't diagnosed as psychotic. I show you three sources (unbiased and neutral, BTW) that demonstrate precisely that (along with her documented history of psychosis) and you decide to go off on tangents about how she must not have been because she wasn't committed (since the system works perfectly all of the time), that she was probably faking suicide, and citing the prosecution's arguments as proof somehow that she couldn't have been psychotic--even though she had been diagnosed that way in 1999. A diagnosis that still stood at the time of the murders, the prosecutor's contentions nonwithstanding.

But that wasn't the point--you originally insisted that she wasn't diagnosed as PPD with psychosis. I've shown you in several neutral sources that she was. The source you gave me cited Time Magazine as a source--and Time Magazine also reported that she had been diagnosed as PPD with psychosis prior to the murders.

Whether or not Rusty Yates sues or not isn't the point. Not everyone sues, not everyone has the energy or inclination to sue. And that doesn't negate the fact that Yates was diagnosed as PPD with psychosis in 1999, long before the murders--contrary to your repeated falsehoods that she had no such diagnosis.

You've been ducking the issue throughout this thread, throwing up strawmen and red herrings everywhere to distract from the facts and your own logical fallacies. You compare someone with an official diagnosis and long history of psychosis to King, and equate very different statements about each case. It's telling that you compare the statements of NOW (which focused on mental health/outreach) to Richards' statement, which blamed King's murder/suicide on the lack of presumptive joint custody--as if someone who was so inclined to kill his own child should have had presumptive custody to begin with. NOW didn't blame Yates' murder on court decisions they didn't like, they didn't threaten repercussions over women not getting their way.

Take a few deep breaths and revisit this when you're calmer, M.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Apr 15, 2005 1:44:00 PM

(looooong sigh)You can roll this ancient history around all you want but today you demonstrated massive ignorance so I'll just leave you with this parallel case:
Va v Piper Roundtree: Long Distance Murder.
Status: After today's closing arguments and a 45 minute deliberation...Guilty of 1st degree murder facing life w/out the possibility of parole. Sentencing went on immediately after the verdict was read....
http://michaelcapanzzi.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2005/4/12/574660.html

Sorry Trish, I still can't figure out how to link in your comments box.

Posted by: Masculiste at Apr 15, 2005 2:38:20 PM

Right. I demonstrate massive ignorance by knowing what I'm talking about.

And when NOW issues a statement justifying Roundtree's crime to custody issues, and saying that we can expect more of this if we don't get our way, let me know.

Until then, I suggest you put away your red herring collection and focus on the facts.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Apr 15, 2005 3:15:07 PM

"If I walk out my door right now and start talking to the devil while I'm holding a knife to my own throat, my blog would be down for...oh, about the next 3 years or so. Because I would be committed (302 Involuntary Committal Proceedings) so fast my feet would barely touch the ground."

Well obviously, I mean look at the size of you...you used to be in the Marines and said you work as a bouncer on weekends...of course they are going to try to keep a guy like you locked up as opposed to a woman who looked like a limp dishrag, soaking wet maybe 105 lb...no one probably realize how dangerous she really was...

But she definitely was sick...what is your argument that she wasn't???

Most people who do things like this are sick...

Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 15, 2005 3:38:57 PM

That dish rag killed her five children. Size has nothing to do with it.

Anybody who commits murder, acts within five basic dynamics...

1. Pre-planned, cold, emotionless...
2. Suddenly, in an emotional rage...
3. Defensely, fight or flight...
4. In a state of sustained dementia...
5. Under the influence of a controlled substance...
(...or a combination of the above)

At the actual time of a killing all (5) dynamics are heightened moments where the actor can be regarded as in a state of psychosis to one degree or another.

Whichever you think applies to Andrea Yates or Piper Roundtree or even Jeffrey Dahmer (all (5) can apply to the legal arena or psychiatric arena) Neither Dahmer's nor Roundtree's nor Andrea's defense were successful in establishing that they were not responsible for their actions.

Andrea's level of deficiency did not rise to the level of a legal defense. There was no evidence that at the time of the murders, that she did NOT know what she was doing, or that it was wrong. And everything else is just smoke and mirrors. The jury didn't buy the defense's assertion, nor did the MH/MR community as it applied to the Andrea Yates case. End of story.

And for the FINAL time, neither Richards nor myself EVER excused the horrible crime King committed.

Posted by: Masculiste at Apr 15, 2005 5:04:39 PM

Andrea's level of deficiency did not rise to the level of a legal defense. There was no evidence that at the time of the murders, that she did NOT know what she was doing, or that it was wrong. And everything else is just smoke and mirrors. The jury didn't buy the defense's assertion, nor did the MH/MR community as it applied to the Andrea Yates case. End of story.

Wrong.

As has been pointed out to you multiple times, her diagnosis was made well before the murders. Being lucid during the trial--when she was medicated for several months--does not mean she was lucid or in her right mind when she killed her kids. I'm sure King was quite lucid as well. He didn't have the long history of psychosis that Yates had.

And whether or not the defense "worked," she was diagnosed as psychotic in 1999; a diagnosis that still stood when she killed her kids.

You are still avoiding the original point--NOW's statement didn't excuse Yate's actions, nor did they shift blame on the system. They simply used the case to bring attention to the woeful state of mental health care and ignorance about PPP. That's a far cry from saying something like "If you cause this much pain to this many men of course there will be repercussions."

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Apr 15, 2005 6:05:17 PM

CNN reported: "The Yates case created national debate over the legal standards for mental illness and whether postpartum depression is properly recognized. Women's advocacy groups had harshly criticized PROSECUTORS in the Yates case for seeking the death penalty.

During her trial, the defense called an expert on postpartum depression in an attempt to show that Yates posed no danger to society.

Russell Yates accused the COURT SYSTEM of victimizing his wife AFTER the medical community had mistreated her by not recognizing how sick she was and not giving her proper treatment."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/06/children.drowned/index.html

We know that the appeals court did NOT entertain issues involving 19 or so other mistakes the defense claimed prosecution made. Mistakes that would have HAD to include the issue of whether her condition constituted legal insanity. Evidently, the appeals saw no need to re-visit that issue. It was Dietz's testimony about a supposed TV show ALONE that did it, and whether it influenced the jury improperly. Now we'll just have to wait and see where the rest of it goes.

Oh BTW, if her LEAD (meaning head of a team) attorney is giving interviews, who is continuing to pay for her defense? The state isn't exactly known for assigning free legal TEAMS.

Posted by: Masculiste at Apr 15, 2005 6:57:41 PM

Masculiste, you are very invested in believing this obviously, for what reason I do not know, but I think everybody agreed that Andrea Yates was mentally ill...it was just a question of whether or not at the TIME OF THE MURDER she was capable of understanding right from wrong...

But no one argued that she was NOT mentally ill...

Anyway if you want to blame some people for murders of children, I think the Mens/Fathers Rights Advocacy groups have to shoulder some responsiblility here...putting out all that baloney you do all the time, makes men think they are saving children by keeping them away from their natural mothers...who in MOST cases is the BEST caretaker for them...

So you guys 'juice' immature men up with a lot of nonsense...

Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 15, 2005 10:53:28 PM

"So you guys 'juice' immature men up with a lot of nonsense..."

Even that million dad march you tried to organize in Washington,. which was a total failure btw, was a lot of nerve...Trying to act like a bunch of white men trying to avoid paying child support were MORE concerned about black children then their own mothers are...

Please...

Posted by: NYMOM at Apr 15, 2005 10:57:07 PM

Masculiste: "First of all Andrea Yates (brought up by Trish, was it?) is old news."

I didn't bring her up. An anonymous commenter did. And I agree she's old news, and not comparable to Randall King.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Apr 16, 2005 5:58:01 AM

Sheelz: "Depression--the kind anyone can get--does not progress into psychosis if untreated. Untreated depression sucks, the person can be unbearable to live with, and they may try to harm themselves. Untreated depression does not progress into psychosis."

I'm no mental health expert, but I believe garden-variety depression is a neurosis, not a psychosis. It doesn't progress into psychosis.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Apr 16, 2005 6:01:53 AM

To add to the link Sheelz had already provided, Randall King had a history of abuse. The infant murder/suicide did not happen in a vacuum:

"He had made threats," said Laura Taylor, a family friend. "He had threatened everybody."

Taylor said King had apparently become angry after the baby's mother, Eva Daniels, asked King to begin paying child support.

Taylor said King allegedly had physically abused Daniels on previous occasions."

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Apr 16, 2005 6:11:01 AM

Sheelz: "You'd like to insist that King was psychotic or mentally unbalanced, but that's not what Jaks' or Richards' contentions were. Their contentions were that the denial of presumptive joint custody drove men like him to murder. That's so much bull. Being "upset at what's going on in court" isn't the same as being delusional."

True. There was no indication that King was psychotic or mentally unbalanced, but that isn't the issue here. Yes, Richards was "exploring the causes," as you said Michael, and his gave his explanation: "Tragedies like this might well be avoided with a level playing field and a rebuttable presumption of EQUAL TIME SHARED PARENTING instead of the presumption of Sole Mother Custody." He acts as if presumptive "shared parenting" would prevent tragedies like this. He blamed "the system" for the tragedy, and did not hold King accountable for his actions. Fathers' rights activists are well known for claiming that "the system" drives men to suicide, but they don't often voice this other claim of theirs; that men commit murder because they are angry that "the system" doesn't give them what they want. That absolves these men of responsibility for their actions, and that is exactly what Richards had Jaks had done. Yates isn't a good comparison because she was diagnosed with PPP at the time she killed her children. NOW and feminists did not excuse her actions by citing PPP, nor did NOW set up a defense fund for Yates, as Sheelz has repeated here several times. NOW sought to bring more attention to PPP because of the Yates case, but it did not use PPP to excuse her behavior, unlike Richards who blamed men not getting "shared parenting" for a man murdering his infant and himself. Jaks also blamed "the system" for men committing family murders.

Sheelz: "And again, Richards' and Jaks' statements don't touch on the lack of outreach or care WRT mental health in these cases--just that these cases are due to "unfair treatment." Which, BTW, is a slap in the face to anyone who feels they've been screwed by the courts."

But doctors did know what was going on with Yates, and for you to liken her to King--or NOW's statement to Richards'--is ludicrous.

Correct. Richards never once touched on any of those issues - only "unfair treatment" (not giving dads presumptive joint custody), which takes responsibility off of King for the infant murder/suicide.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Apr 16, 2005 6:44:03 AM

Doesn't anybody really read anymore, or do you only read the parts that bolster your claims?
Even Court TV analysts brought up the same issues at the end of Piper Roundtree's trial. Issues involving the family courts, how she lost custody of her kids and resented child support, was in arrears, and whether or not supposed psychological turmoil of it all drove her to murder her ex. (with the children at home and in bed I might add)

If you'd have watched even some of that trial instead of "The Net" (pretty good flick) you would have seen that, and we could discuss these same issues around an actual trial. They showed it the entire week.

But for some reason you all wanted to ignore that trial and arm-chair quarterback a trial that even now that the conviction was overturned, isn't going back to trial on the issue of a PPD as a legal defense, but rather if an expert witness' incorrect testimony improperly influenced the jury.

If she had been in a state of dementia at the time, maybe I could agree with your analysis, but she wasn't. She knew what she was doing, PPD or no. And I've never said that she didn't experience PPD with psychosis(the claim of psychotic episodes...not the same as patently psychotic)

What I said, and what the jury agreed on was whether she knew what she was doing at the time was wrong. And the facts and her own testimony found that she did.
"Women's advocacy groups had harshly criticized PROSECUTORS in the Yates case for seeking the death penalty."-The only thing that kept the court from recommending capital punishment WAS her mental instability.

But mental instability does not itself mean a psychotic in a constant state of dementia.

It is interesting to note that during the trial, experts on her behalf testified that Andrea's PPD was under control and she did not pose a danger to society, and yet after successfully overturning Andrea's conviction they haven't petitioned the court for Andrea's immediate release because they think that for now, she's right where she needs to be. I'd say that's very telling.

"Correct. Richards never once touched on any of those issues - only "unfair treatment"-What's to touch on Trish? It wasn't like Richard's nor Jaks gave a press release. But if the guy had lived, they would have psychiatrically evaluated him to see if he was fit to stand trial and then the same line of inquiry that applied to Yates, Rountree, Dahmer, Bundy, etc. would have applied to him. And most likely would've failed.

Richard's didn't excuse King any more than I did. He posed the most logical question under the circumstances. Yates wasn't involved in an on-going divorce where she lost or risked losing her kids. But if she had, THAT would've been as much a topic as her supposed mental incapacities...just as it was mentioned in the VA.v. Roundtree case.

Posted by: Masculiste at Apr 16, 2005 9:12:47 AM

"As we have gone over here many times before, Andrea Yates got little support from anybody, much less feminists. "

Is a public demonstration of 500 NOW members in support of Andrea your deminition of "little support"?

Is NOW your definition of "much less feminists"?

Just wondering how you can say that?


Posted by: Bob at Apr 16, 2005 11:06:32 AM

I would like to write to Piper Roundtree. DOES ANYONE KNOW WHERE I COULD WRITE TO HER AT?

Posted by: Carol at Jun 5, 2005 1:33:41 AM

It's Piper Rountree and she's in a woman's prison. I'm sure if you google her you can find out for yourself....

I know I'm late to this thread, but this story just makes me sick. And all others that concern the fathers rights groups. Agh.

Posted by: a nut at Jun 6, 2005 10:31:15 AM

your link doesn't work. And has anyone followed up on this case. Did they figure out what drove this guy over the edge?

Posted by: at Oct 2, 2005 10:42:57 PM

I thought mens/fathers rights advocates here should see the real victims of their nonsense.

Jerica Rhodes' mother sent me this picture.

This man should NEVER have had custody of this childd to begin with, she should have been with her mother and her siblings. This child was virtually kidnapped by this man, with the approval of the courts, and kept from seeing her mother for SEVEN YEARS...

It's outrageous that the court officials responible for this haven't been disciplined yet.

If they had any common decency, they would have resigned last week as soon as Christopher Rhodes was found guilty.

http://www.womenasmothers.blogspot.com/

Posted by: NYMOM at Dec 3, 2005 6:11:00 PM

NYMOM, did you see that they finally found the bodies of those New Hampshire kids, 2 1/2 years after their custodial father murdered them in a "custody dispute" with the mother. (That's how the media consistently labels it. A "dispute." Not an abuser custodial father who must maintain total vicious control and dominance over other persons. And that when the wife "challenges" him, he kills the kids out of spite and hatred.). Well, finally that mother can give her babies a proper burial....

Posted by: silverside at Dec 3, 2005 7:48:46 PM