"Yates' lawyers had argued at a hearing last month before a three-judge panel of the First Court of Appeals in Houston that psychiatrist Park Dietz was wrong when he said he consulted on an episode of the TV show 'Law and Order' involving a woman found innocent by reason of insanity for drowning her children."Okay. First, how did we get to the point in the justice system that we are debating whether or not someone appeared on a television show to determine if the accused is guilty of the crime committed? Second, was this the ONLY testimony or evidence the prosecution presented in the case against this woman? Third, what yahoo in the DA's office thought this would be a good idea? And finally. What about the kids? You know, the VICTIMS. The children who are now dead.
It seems pretty clear that this woman - the mother of the dead children - committed the act of murder. Why she was charged and convicted for only 3 of the 5 acts is further beyond me, but she did do it.
Now, her defense attorneys want the conviction overturned on a technicality? One that had little bearing on the facts of the crime. Not a technicality like: "it wasn't her hands holding her own children under the water in the bathtub of their own house" kind of technicality. That may have some weight. How does that serve justice?
No comments:
Post a Comment