This obsession with Rusty Yates is an obvious attempt to avoid discussing how an insane Andrea Yates killed her children. A fair number of people on this discussion board simply don't want that discussed. The conclusion that they don't want it discussed because Ms Yates is a woman is too obvious to ignore. And when these same people spend 150 words on what a tyrant Rusty Yates was and spend 0-10 words on the deeds of Andrea Yates, their motives are also fairly easy to discern.

As I wrote earlier, I have no problem with the verdict. Ms Yates received a fair trial that was heard by a jury that was, by all accounts, reasonable and just. If they think she was not guilty by reason of insanity, that's enough for me and I think it ought to be enough for everyone else. I also think it is foolish to worry about hordes of murderous mothers using this defense to escape culpability for their acts. Juries are too sensible to fall for such a thing.

But there is more going on here. A few of the men seemingly want her chucked into a dark Texas prison, or worse. It's hard to imagine she would last long in such a place and that hardly serves the cause of justice. Even more of the women want to brush off her deeds and focus instead on a more comfortable target: The Evil Man. It's silly, as well as intellectually and morally indefensible. If Rusty Yates made a terrible call by leaving his children alone with his insane wife -- and it seems pretty clear he did make a terrible call -- that is not the same as legal or moral complicity in the deaths of those children. There is a gigantic difference between someone who foolishly leaves their children in the hands of a crazy woman and the crazy woman who systematically murders five children, one by one. Anyone who can't see that glaring and critical difference is so blinded by gender bigotry that they cannot be taken seriously by any reasonable person.

MIZBINKLEY wrote: I think the "obsession with the husband" stems from the fact that he was aware of right and wrong, whereas Andrea Yates (as decided by jury) was not.

For this reason, one can make the case that Rusty Yates was culpable in the death of his children, whereas Andrea Yates was not.

REPLY: If Mr Yates had been at the scene of the crime assisting his wife in the death of their children or if he had knowingly and willfully induced her to commit those acts -- in a Charles Manson fashion -- you'd have a point. But there is no evidence for either scenario. Mr Yates knew right from wrong enough not to kill his children. He might have known something was wrong with his wife, but he obviously never thought she would murder their children. If he HAD suspected such a thing, there'd be a case for some form of negligence. But, again, there is simply no evidence that he suspected his wife was as crazed as she was.

The fact is, there are hundreds of thousands, millions perhaps, of families in this country that ascribe to unconventional Christian beliefs and maintain unusual families. Virtually none of these situations result in the deaths of five children. Therefore, the notion, advanced by some here, that this tragedy was caused by Rusty Yates is obviously preposterous. The tragedy was caused because his wife was -- and is -- insane. She has not had close contact with her ex-husband for some time, but she is still insane. It ought to be clear to everyone that Ms Yates' problems are more extensive than an insensitive husband.

To hold someone responsible for a crime he or she clearly did not commit is, well, crazy, and Rusty Yates clearly did not kill his children. Nor did he urge his wife to kill their children. I'm beginning to think some of the commentators in here could mount an insanity defense of their own.

KALIOPE wrote: Again, what Andrea was thinking is only relevant in that it bore no semblance to reality, but what was Rusty thinking?

REPLY: Only Rusty Yates knows that. Since there is no reason to believe he wanted his wife to kill their children, it is safe to assume he wasn't thinking she would such a thing. And that's the point. Rusty Yates didn't kill his children. He didn't plan the killing of his children. He didn't urge his wife to kill their children. Mr Yates was unable to prevent his wife from killing their children. That's what we know. To pretend we know more than that is dishonest and presumptuous.

It is also important to note that the court did not find Mr Yates in any way responsible for the deaths of his children or the mental state of his wife.

Clearly, the verdict handed down isn't satisfactory to a large number of people, if the commentators on this board are in any way indicative of wider opinion. Some think Ms Yates deserves prison or worse, even though a fair jury found her not guilty by reason of insanity. A larger group think that since Ms Yates isn't legally responsible for the deaths, her ex-husband should be -- even though the case against him is, well, non-existent.

Then there are the apparently smaller number of people who ARE satisfied with the verdict and think the deaths of those five children were caused by the insanity of one pitiable woman. That's where I am. Not many of us, it seems.