• The 2006 Weblog Awards

      Design by

Andrea Yates, Continued

I hope not to appear obsessed with this, but this piece crossed my eyes earlier today and I couldn’t comprehend what I was reading, this particular quote from the Boston Globe (emphasis mine):

Prosecutors agreed that Yates was sick but said she was sane enough to know killing the children was wrong.

“We are extremely disappointed with the verdict,” lead prosecutor Joe Owmby told reporters.

Yates was being tried for the murder of only three of her children, but Owmby said he would recommend to District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal that he not seek a trial for the other two.

Why is that? Why would they stop? What about the justice for the other children and/or the potential for them to seek a sentence that would put her in prison for life, versus the opportunity to walk free (even if it is years later)? What would prevent them from seeking this trial? In many cases they choose to divide up the charges, choosing to pursue only some with the idea that they could follow up with further trials as needed. Do the prosecutors believe her sentence is adequate or do they feel they have no hope in winning?

I have to let it go or it will consume me. I need to go hug my kids now.

Plains Feeder linked with Andrea Yates says...