Can't She Just Walk Out of There?
For sure if there was untruthful testimony during a trial, testimony that wasn't discovered as being untruthful until after the verdict, than this is not a good thing.
Though I would emphasize to yon readers that the disparity in the testimony of Dr. Park Dietz WAS discovered before the jury entered the penalty phase and WAS pointed out to the jury very plainly.
Dr. Dietz, vaunted psychologist who also testified for prosecutors in the Jeffery Dahmer case and other famous cases, got his episodes of "Law and Order" a little confused.
Here's the summary in that situation as The Wise I sees it. Dr. Dietz is a consultant for the Law and Order TV series. Possibly he had consulted on an episode that had not yet aired for public consumption. But he remembered the plot, which was about a woman who murdered three of her children and got off on reason of insanity.
Important to note here is that Dietz was a PROSECUTION witness. The prosecutors wouldn't have put him on the stand if he wasn't part of their plan to cast doubt's on Yates' insanity.
So Dietz, who had been thoroughly vetted and interviewed by the prosecutors before his testimoney we must assume, asserted that as a result of viewing that episode of Law and Order, Yates might have considered that she too could murder her children and get off on insanity.
=======
Yates' Victims. Another baby, not shown, too was drowned.
=========
The problem is that particular episode had not aired. Indeed, it's unclear if such an episode had ever been made. At this time, it's unclear just what Dietz was thinking when he talked about that episode and I see allegations that such a Law and Order Episode had NEVER aired. The prosecutors, during the appeal, argued that there HAD been episodes on similar shows that had that story line.
Well, that's not good enough, frankly.
Whatever the reason Dr. Dietz got confused, his argument that as a result of this episode, it's possible, that Andrea Yates figured she could get rid of her children and be declared insane. This argument being, I suppose, justification that Yates knew the difference between right and wrong by shrewdly calculating that the rules of the show would apply to her as well.
The jury found Yates guilty of capital murder but was declared insane during the penalty phase.
It's pretty much evident that the jury didn't buy Dietz' lame example of the Law and Order episode, even if it had been true. They did find Yates insane and by Texas law had to spend her life in jail for the criminally insane.
What's a bit intriguing now is the question: would that jury have found her guilty if they knew about the error on Dietz' part?
The prosecutor argues that they would have and I'd have to agree. Because hey, she WAS guilty of killing her children. The jury did find her to be insane during the penalty phase so the defense won this. Prosecutors were allegedly going after the death penalty on Yates but as I recall, they were lukewarm about it.
It was a horrendous crime and most normal minds cannot grasp it to be the actions of a sane person.
My question, why can't Yates just walk out of there?
Though I suppose since she's not legally insane due to the appeal, she is STILL a murderer and should be in jail until her trial.
The prosecutor vows to appeal and they seem to think they'll win. The Wise I is not so sure. Witnesses should not lie on the stand and frankly this Dietz guy, I don't care his vaunted reputation.
He screwed up pure and simple.
No comments:
Post a Comment