Andrea Yates hubby to remarry--what a low life

I think Rusty said he would always support Andrea...but wasn't sure about the marriage because of the trust issue...that he could never trust her again. It's been a while since I've read anything on the case. :confused3
 
ducklite said:
Would you agree that Andrea Yates' mental capacity to distinguish causal effect and consequence was equivalent to that eight year old, and Susan Smith was more like the gang banger who understood fully and just didn't care?

Anne


no,,,although Andrea Yates was unstable, she probably knew it was an unreversable act..the eight year old thinks like in hollywood the friend would get up again and play...


Susan Smith didn't kill to be tough, she killed to be free, a rational person would have realized that divorce and giving up parental rights was a better option...

both women appeared to kill solely for the sake of getting rid of personal burdens..
 
MICKEY88 said:
perhaps now that the shock has warn off and reality has set in he sees things differently..
Yeah that could be it, and that is what I meant when I said that I was not in his shoes and do not really know his circumstances... But it still seems like a stark contrast from what I saw of him last....
 
MICKEY88 said:
no,,,although Andrea Yates was unstable, she probably knew it was an unreversable act..the eight year old thinks like in hollywood the friend would get up again and play...


Susan Smith didn't kill to be tough, she killed to be free, a rational person would have realized that divorce and giving up parental rights was a better option...

both women appeared to kill solely for the sake of getting rid of personal burdens..

I disagree. I do'nt think Andrea Yates saw her children as burdens. I think that in conjunction with her disease she was overwhelmed. But primarily I believe that she had a disease where she was schizophrenic, and it was impossible for the rational side of her mind to overcome what the irrational side was forcing her body to do. If you've never dealt firsthand with someone in a schizophrenic psychosis, you have no idea just how unable to function with any comprehension of life around them they have. I've seen it upclose and personal with two different close relatives, and it's frightening and disturbing. And they often come out of it and have no recollection of what they've done, any more so than someone under the influence of mind altering drugs.

I see the two cases very differently. Susan Smith coldly calculated how to divest herself of her children because they were a burden.

Andrea Yates was psychotic and failed by the mental health professional responsible for her care, and at the time she murdered her children, she was unable to control what her brain was telling her body to do, and unable to understand the consequences of her actions.

The way they reacted after they killed tells the story. Susan Smith made up a lie about a carjacking to throw the spotlight off herself, and repeatedly lied about it, knowing full well her children were dead and doing whatever it took to not get caught.

Andrea Yates came back into a less psychotic state, called the police, and calmly waited for them. She never lied, and never showed emotion one way or another. The lack of emotion is a classic signature of psychosis.

Anne
 

Sylvester McBean said:
so I guess he should have quit his job and sat home with her on a 24 hour vigilant suicide/triple homocide watch...

No, but it may have saved his children's life if he had heeded the doctor's advice after child #3 and not had any more, since he was aware of her mental issues and he was the "normal" one. Men are capable of using birth control aren't they??????

Sorry, I understand the concept of responsibilty and I am not absolving her from the responsibility of killing her children, but that man holds some repsonsibiilty too. He missed it. And it was his responsibility to see it. And it doesn't matter if a million other people in the world are in denial about their loved one's mental illness. If their loved ones killed someone, I'd feel the same.

If she had had a physical illness, everybody would expect that he should take care of her. The same is true of mental illness.
 
Honestly I see a lot of "Woulda, shoulda, and coulda" here, but until you've been in that person's shoes, Until you've had to be the spouse of a person who is of danger to themselves and possibly others, you've got no right to sit in judgement.

You have only the information that you've heard, what you've seen andread, And undoubtly there's peices left out. You have an incomplete puzzle before you. -YOU- can't put it together. Not everything is Black/white. Not everything is as cut and dry as you'd like it to be.
 
Having seen Rusty Yates many times on talk shows I can say I personally don't care for the man. I heard him say a few years ago that he wanted more children and would probably remarry. Honestly, I am not surprised to hear this.

I don't think he is responsible for the murder of those children but he does have some accountability for not putting them into public school regardless of his personal beliefs. Andrea was NOT capable of caring for those children all day long. It would be a difficult job for any woman, even a healthy one. He is guilty of allowing those children to be home all day knowing he had a mentally ill wife. They never should have had more children and since she was under medical care and ill at the time, I do blame him for her getting pregnant again. He was the "sane" one and should have used precautions or abstained to prevent it.

He might have taken her to doctors and been supportive but he didn't really help his wife get better but putting her through additional pregnancies and increasing her burden.

He is not someone I respect. I do however hope he has learned a few lessons and doesn't have 5 more kids with his new wife and make her home school them if she has post partum depression. JMO
 
AMcaptured said:
Having seen Rusty Yates many times on talk shows I can say I personally don't care for the man. I heard him say a few years ago that he wanted more children and would probably remarry. Honestly, I am not surprised to hear this.

I don't think he is responsible for the murder of those children but he does have some accountability for not putting them into public school regardless of his personal beliefs. Andrea was NOT capable of caring for those children all day long. It would be a difficult job for any woman, even a healthy one. He is guilty of allowing those children to be home all day knowing he had a mentally ill wife. They never should have had more children and since she was under medical care and ill at the time, I do blame him for her getting pregnant again. He was the "sane" one and should have used precautions or abstained to prevent it.

He might have taken her to doctors and been supportive but he didn't really help his wife get better but putting her through additional pregnancies and increasing her burden.

He is not someone I respect. I do however hope he has learned a few lessons and doesn't have 5 more kids with his new wife and make her home school them if she has post partum depression. JMO

Obviously in this case homeschooling was a bad idea.. For myself,my life was easier when my 4 kids were at home than now with them back in Public School
 
ducklite said:
I disagree. I do'nt think Andrea Yates saw her children as burdens. I think that in conjunction with her disease she was overwhelmed. But primarily I believe that she had a disease where she was schizophrenic, and it was impossible for the rational side of her mind to overcome what the irrational side was forcing her body to do. If you've never dealt firsthand with someone in a schizophrenic psychosis, you have no idea just how unable to function with any comprehension of life around them they have. I've seen it upclose and personal with two different close relatives, and it's frightening and disturbing. And they often come out of it and have no recollection of what they've done, any more so than someone under the influence of mind altering drugs.

I see the two cases very differently. Susan Smith coldly calculated how to divest herself of her children because they were a burden.

Andrea Yates was psychotic and failed by the mental health professional responsible for her care, and at the time she murdered her children, she was unable to control what her brain was telling her body to do, and unable to understand the consequences of her actions.

The way they reacted after they killed tells the story. Susan Smith made up a lie about a carjacking to throw the spotlight off herself, and repeatedly lied about it, knowing full well her children were dead and doing whatever it took to not get caught.

Andrea Yates came back into a less psychotic state, called the police, and calmly waited for them. She never lied, and never showed emotion one way or another. The lack of emotion is a classic signature of psychosis.

Anne



ITA!!!
 
sgtdisney said:
So let me see if I understand this. Rusty got Andrea help, taking her to the doctor and trying to get her help. Over and over again. She was under a doctor's care at the time of the murders. What an insensitve jerk. .


He's insensitive because he
a. had more kids with her even though they were advised not to
b. made her homeschool instead of sending them to public school
 
LoraJ said:
He's insensitive because he
a. had more kids with her even though they were advised not to
b. made her homeschool instead of sending them to public school

Doctors advise against a lot of stuff that people ignore. Not that it was a wise decision, but how do we know she didn't want those babies as much as he did. I am sure he didn't know that she would kill those babies when they made them. At least I hope he didn't. People make decisions and choices, that when looked back on were not so good. We don't know what happened in their house from day to day. Maybe she was feeling better and asked to homeschool and have more kids. Maybe not. He made choices, as we all do, unfortunately his had some awful repercussions. Most people want to take that glimmer of hope and run with it.
 
I am not the woman choosing to marry him so most of your accusations are irrelavent to me...

he did not take those children - and push them under the water...
you all make it sound like he did...

did he make a few bad choices in life - maybe choose to be ignorant - yes

but I think we have all made a bad choice or two in life haven't we....
 
Sylvester McBean said:
so I guess he should have quit his job and sat home with her on a 24 hour vigilant suicide/triple homocide watch...
Well, if he couldn't manage that :confused3 maybe he could've done some more simple things: make sure she took her medication, consider hiring her some help for their five small children, listen to the doctor when he said she couldn't handle more children . . .
 
sgtdisney said:
Doctors advise against a lot of stuff that people ignore.
And we all know just enough people who've gone against doctor's orders and succeeded: don't we all know someone who was told she'd never get pregnant, someone who was told he had a year to live, etc., etc., etc. . . . and it turned out to be wrong? We hear just enough of these stories to make desperate people try against the odds.

That still doesn't make these decisions wise. It just means these people "won the jackpot".
 
MICKEY88 said:
wow, what a double standard...I've never once heard anyone blame a woman if the father flips out and kills the kids, the mother is always portrayed as a helpless victim..


how do we know what the husband was aware of , why is he guilty of anything..


knowing that someone is ill, doesn't mean knowing they are capable of homicide...

why shouldn't he move on....that's what women are always told to do...move on with your life and find a decent partner..

Actually, I seen mothers blamed all the time for leaving their kids with abusive boyfirends/husbands. There is no double standard here.

And there is no comparable case where a woman had more kids with a man that had serious mental health problems AS A RESULT OF HAVING KIDS IN THE FIRST PLACE and then left the kids with him all day and made him homeschool.

But, if there was a comparable case --I'm sure people would be blaming the mother.

Personally I don't think he should be held criminally responsible, but the thought of him impregnating another woman does make me ill.
 
MrsPete said:
Well, if he couldn't manage that :confused3 maybe he could've done some more simple things: make sure she took her medication, consider hiring her some help for their five small children, listen to the doctor when he said she couldn't handle more children . . .


there was no medication to take -
the Dr refused to give it to her...
 
Sylvester McBean said:
so if you extrapolate the culpability of the father, let's apply it to susan smith. I guess if he hadn't driven her away in their marriage, she wouldn't have had an affair and drowned her kids. so david smith might have just as well pushed that car into the lake. please. if a man commits a crime and uses a mental illness defense, he's trying to beat the system. if a woman uses it, 'no one saw her cries for help'.
As far as I know, Susan Smith was tried and convicted of her crimes and remains in prison, where she belongs. I don't believe anyone has ever blamed her husband for the death of their children...if anything, I have only heard sympathy for her husband.

To the best of my knowledge, Susan Smith had no documented history of mental illness, as is the case with Andrea Yates. Susan Smith was purely and simply evil, and is paying the price for her crimes. Her sons and husband were the victims of her crimes. You're comparing apples to oranges and it doesn't work.

If you read the summary that Jennymom provided, it gives a pretty clear picture of the level of mental illness that Andrea Yates was suffering from. I am not excusing her. I believe that she should remain locked up for the rest of her life. However, as a spouse, you have an obligation to protect your spouse. You have an obligation to "be the brains" in the marriage if, for some reason, your spouse is unable to do so. Andrea was failed by the system...very true. She was also failed by her husband, because he didn't notice, didn't understand, or wanted to deny that she was as ill as she was. Walk a mile in his shoes...I have. I, and the rest of my extended family, have dealt with alcoholic family members who were so bad that they were a danger to themselves and others, and yes, our family fought and fought to get them admitted to a facility where they would be watched, cared for, and not left to their own devices. It wasn't easy and it took a long time, and there was a lot of angst in between, but it was our responsibility to take care of it, and we did. We recognized that someone who was drunk at 8AM was unable to be responsible for themselves or their behavior, so right or wrong, fair or unfair, we took responsibility for their behavior, got them off the road so they wouldn't try and drive and kill someone, got them admitted to a treatment facility and later to a long-term placement. Did they like it? No. Were they pissed as all hell at us for a long time? Yes. Did we run into some doctors and other medical professionals who were less-than-stellar? Absolutely. And we were smart enough to know that they were. And we were smart enough to know that we needed to look elsewhere for assistance, because those people were not going to help. And you know what, my relative didn't kill an innocent person while driving drunk, they didn't get found laying dead somewhere frozen to death beacuse they collapsed outside in the cold drunk, they didn't get found beaten up somewhere because they were drunk and didn't know what happened to them, because we accepted our responsibility.

Sorry folks, but Rusty missed the boat on this one. He shirked his responsibility to be the one to take care of things. He was told at baby 3 not to have any more. He should have had a vasectomy. Yes, without Andrea's consent or permission. Yes, even though it would have pissed her off. Yes, even though maybe she "seemd" OK. His wife had documented mental illness. He should not have believed her when she said she was capable of handling things. She spent time catatonic, she spent time not eating, she spent time not speaking. That behavior had to be hard to miss. He should not have let her homeschool. He had a responsibility to her as well as those children. He evaded his responsibility.

When someone can't handle something, the people who can handle it must handle it. And it has nothing to do with right, wrong, fair, unfair, whose "job" it is or isn't, how much someone has already had to "deal" with, what you'd "like" it to be as opposed to what it is, or anything else. Someone has to take the bull by the horns, do the right thing and deal with it. What do I think Rusty should have done? Exactly what mine, and many other families, have done. Knocked on every door, made a fuss, called everyone he knew, gotten a second opinion when he thought what the first doctor was doing was wrong, stopped making babies when he was told to, paid attention to the fact that his wife was slowly losing her mind. I know it's not easy...never said it would be.I don't excuse her because she's a woman or anything else. She did a horrible thing and should pay for it, is paying for it, and will contniue to pay for it. But I don't excuse him either. He failed in his responsibility to his family.
 
Disney Doll said:
As far as I know, Susan Smith was tried and convicted of her crimes and remains in prison, where she belongs. I don't believe anyone has ever blamed her husband for the death of their children...if anything, I have only heard sympathy for her husband.

To the best of my knowledge, Susan Smith had no documented history of mental illness, as is the case with Andrea Yates. Susan Smith was purely and simply evil, and is paying the price for her crimes. Her sons and husband were the victims of her crimes. You're comparing apples to oranges and it doesn't work.

If you read the summary that Jennymom provided, it gives a pretty clear picture of the level of mental illness that Andrea Yates was suffering from. I am not excusing her. I believe that she should remain locked up for the rest of her life. However, as a spouse, you have an obligation to protect your spouse. You have an obligation to "be the brains" in the marriage if, for some reason, your spouse is unable to do so. Andrea was failed by the system...very true. She was also failed by her husband, because he didn't notice, didn't understand, or wanted to deny that she was as ill as she was. Walk a mile in his shoes...I have. I, and the rest of my extended family, have dealt with alcoholic family members who were so bad that they were a danger to themselves and others, and yes, our family fought and fought to get them admitted to a facility where they would be watched, cared for, and not left to their own devices. It wasn't easy and it took a long time, and there was a lot of angst in between, but it was our responsibility to take care of it, and we did. We recognized that someone who was drunk at 8AM was unable to be responsible for themselves or their behavior, so right or wrong, fair or unfair, we took respponsibility for their behavior, got them off the road so they wouldn't try and drive and kill someone, got them admitted to a treatment facility and later to a long-term placement. Did they like it? No. Were they pissed as all hell at us for a long time? Yes. But you know what, they also didn't kill an innocent person while driving drunk, they didn't get found laying dead somewhere frozen to death beacuse they collapsed outside in the cold drunk, they didn't get found beaten up somewhere because they were drunk and didn't know what happened to them.

Sorry folks, but Rusty missed the boat on this one. He shirked his responsibility to be the one to take care of things. He was told at baby 3 not to have any more. He should have had a vasectomy. Yes, without Andrea's consent or permission. His wife had documented mental illness. He should not have believed her when she said she was capable of handling things. She spent time catatonic, she spent time not eating, she spent time not speaking. That behavior had to be hard to miss. He should not have let her homeschool. He had a responsibility to her as well as those children. He evaded his responsibility.

When someone can't handle something, the people who can handle it must handle it. And it has nothing to do with right, wrong, fair, unfair, whose "job" it is or isn't or anything else. Someone has to take the bull by the horns, do the right thing and cope.

I think you managed to state my feelings exactly.
 












Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!

Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top