TX Woman on Trial for Stoning Her Children to Death [Archive]

Newswolf

03-30-2004, 05:11 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115655,00.html

"Deanna Laney's (search) oldest sons, 8-year-old Joshua and 6-year-old Luke, were found in their underwear with heavy rocks on their chests. The video also showed a large spot of blood in a baby bed, where Laney severely injured her youngest son, Aaron, 14 months old at the time. "

http://courttv.aol.com/trials/laney/032904_start.html

"The prosecution and defense were in agreement as Laney's highly publicized murder trial opened in this small town midway between Dallas and the Louisiana state line: Laney, who told police that God instructed her to kill her children, was insane on the night of the killings in May 2003.

Although four forensic psychiatrists hired by the prosecution, defense and the presiding judge at the trial concluded that Laney was insane, only a jury can decide if she is not guilty by reason of insanity, Smith County District Attorney Matt Bingham said during his 12-minute opening statement. "

If I have duplicated a thread, please delete.

This is a horrible case.

Peekaboo

03-30-2004, 07:39 PM

I had started a thread on this; didn't see yours, Newswolf, sorry.
We watched the proceedings on this today. It is so sad and horrible.

It seems odd that NONE of her family seemed to notice anything unusual in her behavior AT ALL. What are your thoughts on this??
Anyone know if Pentacostals would be against seeing a psychiatrist for mental problems (depression, etc.) or would they believe prayer is the answer?? I don't know much about that faith, though I know they believe in speaking in tongues, bible study, etc.

Could she have been on a prescription drug without her family knowing??
If she had been seeing a dr without their knowledge, would he legally have to tell LE, or would that information still be private??

Newswolf

03-30-2004, 08:32 PM

Oh no, I'm sorry Peekaboo if I duplicated your thread. Yesterday I kept switching off Court Tv doing the updates, it was so upsetting to hear about. Today I watched a little. Her husband seemed like he was in a place of almost detachment , I thought, which may be that the wall of grief is so immense, he just can't bear to look at it. The TH mentioned he and his wife never looked at each other, and psychologist said the woman seemed to be alone too much and in a family dynamic where something else was going on. I find it hard to believe as well that she was insane and no one noticed anything peculiar. Maybe she was just there, and no one really paid attention to her. I don't know anything about their religion. That video showed a well-kept home with lots of photos of those boys around. Looked like those were placed by loving hands. I feel for the family and for the jurors. I would not want to look at the pros. photos of what she did to them.

Texana

03-30-2004, 09:44 PM

The gag order in this case has been absolutely tight--a real contrast to some other high profile cases. I found only one reference to that there would be evidence (from the defense, of course) that she had had at least four psychotic episodes before this horrible action.

It's possible that being a member of a charismatic church (was it actually a Pentecostal one--the terms are sometimes used interchangeably but there are some differences between them--I will have to go back and reread the news articles--if I can stand to do so) did hide some of her symptoms. I think if she said "I felt the devil was trying to get me last night--I could hear him" I think that could go right under the radar.

They would believe in faith healing, so that would also be a factor. There is a strong emphasis also on "faith" as necessary to the cure--i.e., if you don't have it, you won't be healed. So a mentally ill person might think they have to just keep trying harder.

All speculation, of course.

I can only tell you that I was so sickened by the brief excerpts of the transcripts I read today, I began crying and I literally had to stop.

I truly believe she is mentally ill, however, the fact that she hid from her husband what she was doing AS SHE BEAT that poor baby--(her husband heard the baby cry, came in, and she told him everything was okay so he went back to bed) almost to death and to certain brain injury--then held the other boys down to kill them--

I am torn between knowing that she was not sane, and yet thinking that sadly there is no other place for her where she will be kept safe and medicated and where other humans will be safe--because if she ever goes off her meds, she will clearly be a danger.

It just sickens and saddens me beyond words.

Newswolf

03-30-2004, 09:50 PM

Peekaboo

03-30-2004, 11:16 PM

Newswolf, it was me who duplicated the thread, but it was deleted. No problem!! ;)
I just happened to check ctv today, and the trial was going on. Even my husband (he's not really into this stuff) became intrigued and started watching. We just could not grasp how a loving mother could 'suddenly' snap and do this to her precious children. Something HAD to be wrong, and perhaps she couldn't admit it, or thought it was evil, instead of a physical or psychological problem beyond her control.

I'm wondering what the psychotic episodes involved. Maybe she told her psychiatrists after the fact that something had been going on previously.
I agree that this is not a case one could stay with for too long; the Peterson case is bad enough.

SieSie

03-31-2004, 12:28 AM

(edited by SieSie) We watched the proceedings on this today. It is so sad and horrible.

I just looked on the Court TV site and I couldn't find what time they are showing this trial - it kept coming up that it was the Jayson Williams trial. Which show airs the actual trial? I'm sure it's the Court TV channel, but not sure which of the shows to tune into (or tape). TIA!

Edited to add: Texana, where did you read the transcripts? I missed when the trial started and am hoping to find out when it's on in time to tape it tomorrow. My friend had told me about this story when it happened, but I hadn't heard anything else about it until now - I can't believe I missed the beginning of the trial!
Will the mother testify? Anyone know?

Peekaboo

03-31-2004, 01:28 AM

SieSie

03-31-2004, 01:55 AM

SieSie, I don't know what time they started the trial; we turned it on about 2:30 or 3 p.m. There must be a guide somewhere we can look at??

I found a link to the Tyler (Texas) Morning Telegraph on Court tv message boards; here it is:

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?brd=1994

Someone who said they live in Tyler had posted on the board; they said we will be surprised at what comes out in this trial, but did not elaborate at all.

All the shows on Court TV from 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. are Live Trial Coverage, according to their online schedule at:
http://www.courttv.com/schedule/index.html?tempDate=3&nextWeek=no Maybe it's on all of those shows, just continued with different hosts?? I'll throw in a tape tomorrow for the full 8 hours and see what's on.

Thanks for the link!

txsvicki

03-31-2004, 03:36 AM

I wathced today as her mother in law described how she didn't notice anything wrong that day. She said that the daughter in law has said in church that she was going to "get her house in order", that it was a prompting from God and not at all unusual to speak of. I know that Pentecostals believe in word from God and in prayer for healing. I don't remember ever hearing anything about them denying health care though. My ex husband and his wife became members of a charismatic church. Our son was severely allergic to tomato and when he would visit them, the food always had tomato. They would just pray over him when it made him sick, which made me furious. I think that was more their ignorance, than the church though.

txsvicki

03-31-2004, 03:43 AM

Well put Texana. I think, not positive, they referenced five psychotic episodes today that the defense promised to provide. This was also the first time I heard that one of the boys, I think the oldest, fought back and struggled with her. This is one case I can only handle in small doses.

How come these women we are hearing about lately are killing their kids just as the oldest is beginning to get big enough to be able to defend theirselves and maybe prevent the murder? Could the women be sane enough to know that, to get rid of them before they can really fight back? Maybe having multiple young children, an existing mental disorder, and no medication just causes them to snap.

Texana

03-31-2004, 09:45 AM

I just looked on the Court TV site and I couldn't find what time they are showing this trial - it kept coming up that it was the Jayson Williams trial. Which show airs the actual trial? I'm sure it's the Court TV channel, but not sure which of the shows to tune into (or tape). TIA!

Edited to add: Texana, where did you read the transcripts? I missed when the trial started and am hoping to find out when it's on in time to tape it tomorrow. My friend had told me about this story when it happened, but I hadn't heard anything else about it until now - I can't believe I missed the beginning of the trial!
Will the mother testify? Anyone know?

There were excerpts in the Houston Chronicle (online edition) and you also can find good coverage in the Dallas Morning News online. (www.houstonchronicle.com and www.dallasmorningnews.com)

They have reporters there and are excerpting testimony for their articles. It's pretty graphic, though.

Texana

03-31-2004, 10:08 AM

How come these women we are hearing about lately are killing their kids just as the oldest is beginning to get big enough to be able to defend theirselves and maybe prevent the murder? Could the women be sane enough to know that, to get rid of them before they can really fight back? Maybe having multiple young children, an existing mental disorder, and no medication just causes them to snap.

I think you are on to something Txsvicki, definitely, with the age of the children, although I think there are a couple of cases where the children are older and they just use guns. I think those cases get less notoriety because the children are teenagers and there's not an obvious religion link.

I think one reason these women have such a dramatic difference between their active religious lives--that they are very religious people who then do these completely unfathomable acts--is that the women are fighting, to some extent, the instability inside themselves--For awhile, it works--when they are having a bad time, they simply "do more" in the religious sense--then the delusions take over that part of their mind as well.

Also, charismatics tend to be much more dramatic and emotional so highs or lows, if a person is having great mood swings, wouldn't be noticed necessarily as unusual.

I also think for these women homeschooling is definitely part of the factors contributing--because it puts so much responsibility on the mothers--With homeschooling, you are not only responsible for laundry, nutritious meals, and character development--you are responsible for reading above grade level, outstanding science, etc.--

There is a huge and open pressure in homeschooling to do better than the public schools in terms of academic achievement. It's obviously one reason people DO homeschool. Some people handle it well, some have a much harder time with the demands--especially if you are a very perfectionist person OR you are not a well-organized type A woman--

The mothers also are very isolated in terms of not always getting time to themselves or to be with other mothers (which isn't always supportive, if you have ever been around a competitive group of mothers, you know what I mean--) and that also is a big factor in raising the risk.

I can't understand how Park Dietz (the psych. who testified against Andrea Yates) can say that Dee Laney is insane, though, when she seemed to show the same behaviors Yates did:

1) signs of premeditiation (Laney hid a rock under the baby's crib, Yates planned for days and admitted it)
2) signs of hiding the act from others (Laney told her husband everything was fine after she hit the baby, Yates waited til her husband left the house for work)
3) calling 911 after the act (both women did, it was considered a key piece of evidence for Yates being sane enough to know the act was wrong.

Newswolf

03-31-2004, 11:46 AM

SieSie as far as coverage times, CTV normall updates with live reports at half past the hour, then turns to full coverage late in the day after the Williams case wraps. They also do live coverage during the lunch break in the Williams case.

Ok so on the morning update, we just learned that the mother had an affair. Don't know the time frame or if this had anything to do with the killings. She also identified with Andrea Yates, thought the 2 of them had been chosen to be the final witnesses at ends' days, they would survive . I haven't read any of the newspaper articles yet but those are a couple of items of interest. Thaks for the links Texana, I'll be reading.

Texana

03-31-2004, 11:54 AM

I agree with you Newswolf, small doses of this case only. After I read about the 8 year old struggling, that's when I broke down and had to walk away for the rest of the day.

Another point--both of these women (Yates and Laney) were pretty close to the same age span--35-40--it is a time when a lot of women have hormonal fluctuations beginning, they may have little or big "mid life" crises-- something else in the mix.

What strikes me with both cases is also the amount of physical violence and rage necessary to kill these children. These were not passive killings via overdoses. They required a huge amount of physical force.

Utterly chilling and sickening. I find I really have to know what happened before because I need to know for my own peace of mind there were signs of trouble before she woke up one night and beat her children senseless.

Peekaboo

03-31-2004, 02:55 PM

Utterly chilling and sickening. I find I really have to know what happened before because I need to know for my own peace of mind there were signs of trouble before she woke up one night and beat her children senseless.

I think we all have that question Texana, and we may never know the answer. It would seem that the reality of what they had done would hit after they hurt the first child; but to keep on and go after the rest; then calmly call 911??
It must have been in her mind for some time. That is the part I can't understand; how could someone not realize how wrong this would be??
The family testified that she had a lot of support. Yet, I wonder...did she have any contacts or activities outside of her family or church at ALL?? My SIL is very active in the church, but has plenty of other contacts & friends.
I'm not excusing anything here; just trying to get a grasp on how & why something so horrible could happen.

Texana

03-31-2004, 03:43 PM

Exactly, how much support other than that circle of church/family did she have--and that circle being pretty much the same, so there's no break from one to the other--

She knew her husband would stop her, so the fact that she was "sane" enough to hide it from him--

I just can't get how Dietz can argue that Laney was insane but Yates was sane--Yates was practically catatonic, she wasn't bathing or even taking care of herself physically. If Laney was up and about, acting normal, and planning this all the time (she took the rock and hid it under the crib well ahead of time) then that speaks more for meeting the requirements of being sane, not insane.

Texana

03-31-2004, 03:55 PM

Also, Peekaboo, and I'm not trying to slam homeschoolers (I could paraphrase the old saying as "I have friends who are homeschoolers!") but there is a strong sense also of "going against the mainstream" to do what they think is right. I'm not saying that all homeschoolers leap to breaking the law, just that the personality required to be happy with has a certain sense of being comfortable going against the flow of opinion.

It can for some people be a rebellion against all kinds of authority--government, organized religion, etc.-- I believe Wesson (who killed his daughters and grandchildren) was also homeschooling.

Homeschooling as I see it exacerbates the problem in two ways, one, if you are a nut (like Wesson) it allows you to crawl under the radar of other people's normal observations--and if you are suffering mental or emotional problems, it isolates you even further within that.

The statue for insanity in Texas is pretty clear, if you knew what you did was wrong (morally or legally) at the time, you were sane, no matter what else was going on. So based on that I think Laney will be convicted but probably get life.

Newswolf

03-31-2004, 04:08 PM

Texana

03-31-2004, 06:47 PM

If that's how the statute reads, I agree, because of several factors which include that she plotted the order of the killings, she covered up when her husband walked into the nursery and she called 911. Unless I hear something different during the defense case.

It's called M'Naghten's Rule and it is in about 18 states the test for insanity. I personally think it is pretty good as a rule because there is at least an objective standard for how mentally ill someone is--if they recognize that it's illegal, they have some mental connection with the world of reality left.

SieSie

04-01-2004, 01:00 AM

Texana – thanks for the links, I bookmarked them.

Newswolf – I caught this afternoon’s stuff on CTV and the affair that she had was over 15 years ago, a one-time thing and her husband forgave her. They said there was some kind of "gentlemans agreement" between the pros. and def. that the affair wouldn't be brought up because it wasn't an issue.

txsvicki

04-01-2004, 01:27 AM

Peekaboo

04-01-2004, 01:48 AM

I was listening to court tv today and heard them talking about her having two other breaks from reality or signs of pyschosis. I assumed that they meant that others knew about it. One was smelling sulfur every time she read the Bible and I can not remember what the other was. Does any one know what was said about that?

txvicki, I had to stop watching today, but did find this article in the Tyler Telegraph. I didn't know a lot of this previously.
http://www.tylerpaper.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11219449&BRD=1994&PAG=461&dept_id=226369&rfi=6
They did say she thought the sulfur meant God was telling her that Satan was near. It appears that she studied the Bible extensively, and thought she was getting messages from God.
I seems to me that when she spoke in church, saying God told her to get her 'things in order', that should have alerted someone that something could be wrong, don't you think??

mommyd

04-01-2004, 03:43 PM

My views on this case have seemed to be in the minority here as well as at my husbands site where I have posted about it.

I truely believe she was legally insane when she committed the crimes. 4 forensic psychiatrists have concluded and testified under oath that she was and 2 of them were even the STATE'S witnesses!

There is a big difference between someone being insane and legally insane. Deeanna Laney truely believed she was doing what GOD told her to do and believed that she would go to Hell if she did not follow God's order. I don't believe she wanted to harm or kill her children. That is why she "questioned" what these voices told her. She was a good Mother and she loved those babies.

This is such a sad, sad case. It breaks my heart to think about it. I don't in any way condone what she did but I do believe that according to the LAW, she was insane at the time and therefore, should not go to prision. I do think she needs to be locked away in an institution where she can recieve the treatment she so desperately needs.

d

Peekaboo

04-01-2004, 06:00 PM

I'm not sure what is meant by 'legally' sane?? Also, if she have thought she was carrying out orders from God, why wouldn't she remember the commandment "Thou shall not kill"??
I am really baffled over this one; the more I watch, the more I agree with Nancy Grace.

mommyd

04-01-2004, 07:55 PM

Legally insane means that the person didn't know right from wrong when they did the crime, therefore could not have known that by killing, it was committing a crime.

A person can be insane, like Andrea Yates who was by all accounts psychotic when she committed her crimes, but not be LEGALLY insane. Meaning, Andrea Yates knew that what she was doing was wrong....against the law.

That is why most insanity defenses do not work, because the person knew right from wrong when they committed their crimes, even if they were way out in La-La Land when they did them.

I usually agree with Nancy Grace on almost everything, but not in the case.

Texana

04-01-2004, 09:00 PM

Mommyd, I actually do agree with you in that I think she is insane. I think she has unfortunately been mentally ill for some time but because her particular faith has more tolerance towards things such as visions--messages from God--etc.--which are considered manifestations of the Holy Spirit and would be a sign (to Pentecostals) that the person is actually doing well in their religion--a sort of spiritual blessing/high five thing--it wasn't seen for what it was.

Then again, had she been another person, she might have manifested her symptoms in another way--become depressed, self-medicated with drugs or alcohol, etc.

Unfortunately, in Texas, there is no "guilty but insane" verdict. Anyone who is judged legally insane is sent to a medical facility--very restrictive but not prison--and when they are "cured" they are released.

I have posted this before on other threads, but a few years ago a man had a psychotic break in a hospital in Houston. He managed to knock two or three medical staff members down an airshaft--killing at least one, crippiling another. He was judged legally insane and sent to the medical facility.

In less than five years he was deemed "cured." With a strict dosage of meds, he was no longer violent. He was released in and in less than a year he had shot to death a total stranger in a grocery store--a woman who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This is the problem. With medication, these people are able to function normally--although there may be severe side effects for them and I am not sure any of us would consider it a desirable normal. But they are released into exactly the same support system--(no family or family that couldn't recognize the problem, ensure meds were taken, etc.) as before their violent acts! I think the families more often than not have a huge denial of the depth of their loved ones' problems--Perhaps there is an inherent bias against being able to admit that someone you love can be so mentally ill as to be perhaps incapable of living at home or being "themselves" ever again--

So prison ends up being the only place where we are sure these people are not released back into society on their own again. There should be some kind of guilty but insane verdict where they can be in a restricted facility but not necessarily prison.

I think the M'Naghten's Rule is probably as good as it gets, though, for a way to determine when a person is mentally ill enough to be judged legally insane. After all, severely depressed people are mentally ill...people who sniff anything aerosol as teenagers are definitely mentally and emotionally empaired, maybe to the level of mental illness...I think as a juror I'd welcome having some kind of objective standard to judge the evidence by rather than sitting in a jury room deciding what is or is not insane enough to be "legally" insane.

mommyd

04-01-2004, 09:25 PM

Very well said, Texana. It would be great if there could be some kind of law that requires a person who is found legally insane and then cured, take their meds and be tested to make sure those meds are being taken in order to remain out of prison.

I was made to attend an Assembly of God church as a child, by my parent's of course, and I know a bit about Deanna Laney's religion. I won't say that this religion is fanatical by any means but they do believe that visions or the voice of God talking to you is very much possible if you are a good Christian and worthy. That is one of the reasons that I feel so strongly that Deanna Laney didn't know right from wrong because she felt she was following what God told her to do in order for her to be in Heaven and that the time was at hand.

I have no answers in this case. Like I said before, it is just so sad, for all those involved. :(

d

babylove

04-02-2004, 01:26 PM

I cried reading this story over at CTV. There aren't words to adequately describe the sadness I feel for those children. Not only do I feel awful for what these children went through at the hands of the woman they loved more than anyone, the woman who was supposed to protect them from harm, but for her husband who has to live with the though that he was sent back to bed while his wife was beating his 14 month old baby senseless.

I do think she needs to be locked away in an institution where she can recieve the treatment she so desperately needs.

And what happens when she is deemed 'cured', gets out, and finishes the job she started on her youngest baby? I know thats a major what if, but seriously what if? What if in 10 years, she seems normal again. What if she got out and had 'God speak to her' again, and tell her to finish off her 10 year old that should have died with the others? Will she just go back to the mental institution until she is normal again?

I think there is no doubt that Yates, and this woman were both totally psychotic. I also think Scott Peterson must have been psychotic to be able to kill Laci and Conner. But I also think they all belong in the same place, and it ain't a mental hospital where they can be 'cured' and released back into society.

And what I want to know is, when will these people stop using God told me to do it as an excuse for murder?? When will it stop?! I can say God told me to go kill my husband, shoot him and then call the police and calmly report it, and as long as I made the murder look as though I couldn't tell right form wrong at the time, I know I am getting off! Thats really f'd up. :rolleyes:

Texana

04-02-2004, 10:04 PM

Well, in all honesty, there is one difference between Yates and Laney, and Scott Peterson--when they were not psychotic, they were very good parents and people in general--from all accounts. Whereas by all accounts, ISP was not a loving husband spending all his time with his wife.

While medicated, Laney and Yates are not killers. They do not hear voices or have visions or have delusions. It is a brain malfunction of which we do not have all the answers--although I feel strongly they have to be locked away for the safety of others, I think as long as their medication schedules are enforced (and they should not be allowed outside visitations a la' Hinckley) that is different from someone like Scott who merely calculated the odds of being caught, the odds of being "bankrupt" by child support, and tried to gamble.

Scott has an emotional sickness, Yates and Laney had a mental sickness. There's a difference.

Dee Laney's mental illness was definitely hidden by her religion, as was Andrea Yates'. Married to another person who would have recognized the seriousness of her post-partum depression and let go of his own fantasies for a home-grown tribe, Yates might have never killed. Brought up in another religion Laney might have self-medicated, got a job outside the home, sent her kids to public scohol and been a PTA volunteer.

Within both of their crimes is an element of violence and anger I cannot understand and I think there is probably an element of emotional unhealthiness that triggers the mental illness--or allows it to become violent--or maybe the two are connected.

But the one thing I know about people who have this kind of mental illness is, they can never really be "cured" and so they cannot be released into society, ever. Do they belong next door to the Scott Petersons of the world? Probably not. But they certainly do not belong in an unrestricted, free society.

txsvicki

04-03-2004, 12:32 AM

babylove

04-03-2004, 12:05 PM

She could also be considered cured, get out, then decide she is so normal that she stops taking her meds. She could go psychotic again and harm someone else. These women had things going on mentally and also were responsible for several children, being homemakers, and homeschooling. That would be stressful on anyone, much less a mentally ill person. Laney's symptoms were masked by her church beliefs. I can't prove it, but I believe that some people who say God tells them to do things, it is mostly because they are very active in some church and they also think that they are grandiose, up on a special level with God. Some people think they are in the CIA or that the government is after them.

I agree entirely. She could get out again, stop taking her meds, and kill her remaining son... who says she won't? Put poor crazy Laney in a mental instituition instead of prison, I am all for it, throw Yates in their too while your at it.. as long as they can never roam freely in society and among innocent children, I'm fine with it.

Bottom line is these people should NEVER be treated and released back to normal everyday life. If God tells them to kill their own babies, who can say they won't walk into a daycare and do more of 'Gods will'?

Pepper

04-03-2004, 12:21 PM

I don't care if she is legally insane or sane. I want her locked up for the rest of her days in either prison or a mental institution. I don't want her to ever be judged sane enough to reunite with her remaining child. I would have her sterilized so that she can never again bring a baby into this world.

Her remaining child as well as the rest of society need to be protected from her. She is dangerous. Period! :furious: :furious: :furious:

Newswolf

04-03-2004, 07:07 PM

Jury deliberating 4/3.

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20040403115909990002

"Deanna Laney, sitting several feet away from a poster-sized portrait of her three children, wept uncontrollably as prosecutors portrayed the killings last Mother's Day weekend as deceptively planned and coldly executed."

"It was graphic, it was horrific and it was brutal," prosecutor Matt Bingham told the jury during closing arguments earlier Saturday.
-----

Bingham pounded his fist in his hand as he recounted Joshua's killing: "He got strike after strike after strike on his head to the point that his brains were coming out of his head like liquid."

Defense attorney Tonda Curry began her argument by asking the jury why a deeply religious woman known as a loving, devoted mother who homeschooled her children would kill two of her children and maim another without so much as a tear."

tipper

04-03-2004, 08:58 PM

I think I just heard she was found not guilty.

Texana

04-03-2004, 10:00 PM

Acquitted, for reason of insanity.

I'm amazed, frankly, because by the state standard here--the M'Naghten rule--she definitely knew what she was doing was illegal. If I had been a juror I would have voted to convict. It seemed pretty clear to me that she knew that by the evidence, and that's the law.

It seems awfully unfair to me that she did exactly the same thing as Andrea Yates and Andrea was clearly very, very sick mentally. (She wasn't even caring for herself physically--she was almost catatonic, IMO--talking very little, eating very little, etc., etc.) So Laney will get to be in a mental facility and eventually released while Yates will never get released from prison.

And when Laney's family decides she's "healed" because she feels better or God speaks to one of them--she'll stop taking her meds and who knows what will happen then.

I have to say, though, that I'm not sure I'd feel that much better if she was convicted, because I do think she is mentally ill.

There's no really just ending to this.

Newswolf

04-03-2004, 10:55 PM

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?brd=1994

"A woman who claimed God ordered her to bash in the heads of her sons was acquitted Saturday of all charges after a jury determined she was legally insane during the killings.

A jury found that Deanna Laney did not know right from wrong May 9 when she killed her two older sons, ages 6 and 8, in the front yard and left the youngest, now 2, maimed in his crib. Laney, 39, was found not guilty by reason of insanity of charges of capital murder and serious injury to a child.

Laney broke into tears as the verdict was read. Her husband, Keith Laney, sat emotionless. A few jurors cried and struggled to maintain their composure.

State law allows Laney to be committed to a maximum security state hospital. Medical evaluations will dictate when she will be released."

mommyd

04-03-2004, 11:22 PM

There's no really just ending to this.

I agree with that totally. I'm sad for the entire family for losing these precious babies but I agree with the verdict.

Newswolf

04-04-2004, 10:31 AM

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11239285&BRD=1994&PAG=461&dept_id=226369&rfi=6

"Mrs. Laney, 39, was deeply grateful for the verdict and was very emotional, her attorneys said.

"She is in a living hell because of what she knows she did," lead defense counsel F.R. "Buck" Files Jr. said."

"Files said Mrs. Laney was concerned daily with the health of her son Aaron, who survived the attack, but would not be able to see him as long as she is in Smith County Jail. "

I wonder if her husband will allow her to see the baby. I recall his testimony on this was something like, I am taking this day by day.

Texana

04-05-2004, 11:36 PM

I think Laney's husband might have wanted a different verdict. I think on the one hand he knows his wife was mentally ill...on the other hand, he has to be wondering, "Why didn't she say something to me?"

Think of all that man has lost in less than a year--it is truly a tragedy--

I thought it was interesting that at no time did Laney look towards her husband in the trial--according to the reports--

LP Moderator

04-06-2004, 12:17 PM

Texana

04-06-2004, 04:12 PM

I'm obviously ignorant of how the law works in these cases. If Andrea Yates - who had a long, drawn out history of mental illness is not insane, how is it possible for this woman, who has NO history of mental illness to be insane?

I just read another article on it, I'll try and find the source. The same psychiatrist (Park Dietz) testified for the prosecution in the Yates trial and for the defense in the Laney trial.

He (Dietz) stated (and I personally find this ludicrous) that Yates was more sane because she received her messages from Satan and Laney received hers--supposedly--from God. Yates should have realized that her messages were wrong because they were from the devil, Laney could only think hers were right because it was God who spoke to her.

Also, Dietz felt it took longer for Yates to kill her children and therefore again she was more sane--she had to put them in the filth of the water where each previous child had drowned (no details here for your stomach's sake) whereas Laney was quicker because she used rocks.

I personally found his whole justifications a crock of horse manure. Both women are clearly mentally ill, if anything, Yates was less responsible IMO because she had other adults making decisions for her--her husband, who was very much aware of her mental health status--and her mother in law, who also saw her on a daily or very regular basis--

Dietz even referred to in the Yates trial an episode of Law and Order (where a woman purposely drowns her children and claims insanity) that never actually happened--I really thought that should have been grounds for a mistrial--I think that influenced the Yates jury as well as his own testimony that she was sane.

Again according to the M'Naghten Rule if you know what you are doing is wrong, when you do it, you are sane enough to be legally sane, even if you are pretty looney tooney in all other regards. So if you kill someone and run and hide, or hide their body, or call 911 (as both Yates and Laney did) you are sane. If you just sit there and do nothing, you are truly insane.

The jury seemed to disregard the evidence that Laney knew what she was doing was wrong--but jurors relied heavily on similar evidence
to convict Yates according to their comments afterwards.

Dietz's whole line of reasoning convinces me that you can have a lot of letters after your name and still not know very much. :mad:

LP Moderator

04-06-2004, 05:28 PM

Thanks Texana. The whole thing gives me a headache!!! I think the law in Texas is flawed. I think you can know the difference between right and wrong and still its possible that your mental illness played a "most significant" part in you committing the crime (meaning you wouldn't have done it had you NOT had a mental illness. That's the way it works in other states.

Texana

04-06-2004, 09:51 PM

I agree...It seems pretty obvious that these women wouldn't have killed if it hadn't been for their mental illness, although I'm also not certain they would have killed if it hadn't been for the isolation of their religion. The only problem is that with Texas law also being acquitted for reason of insanity leaves release totally up to the bureaucrats who decide someone is "cured." That seems to coincide with crowding issues at the mental facility.

I don't know if it got much press in the Dallas area, but the guy they just released for blinding his girlfriend with a steak knife (coincidentally after she turned down his offer for marriage) was acquitted for insanity and he's out now, and that was less than five years ago, I think. So now he's "cured" and he's out, and his mother says he's a nice guy, too.

I really did think Andrea Yates deserved to be in a mental health facility, though, because she was so obviously sick. But if she was ever released, I think she would have more children. She had more knowing she was sick before, she would have them again after being released.

LP Moderator

04-07-2004, 12:26 PM

Newswolf

04-07-2004, 04:35 PM

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11254182&BRD=1994&PAG=461&dept_id=226369&rfi=6

"Judge Kent ordered Mrs. Laney be committed to the Vernon State Hospital, a maximum-security facility designated by the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation Monday. She will be transported immediately from the Smith County Jail.

Mrs. Laney will remain at the facility until it is deemed she can be released by law or transferred to a non-secure facility, Judge Kent said.

A hearing set for 3 p.m. on April 23 will be conducted for the court to determine if Mrs. Laney is currently mentally ill and if she meets the criteria to be involuntarily committed to a mental facility.

If she is, she will remain in the hospital for up to 90 days for observation and treatment. "

"Mrs. Laney could be freed if the doctors determine she is no longer mentally ill.

But mental health experts have said her illness is caused by a chemical imbalance in her brain that will plague her for the rest of her life."

Texana

04-07-2004, 05:16 PM

I think there's something like that now, in terms of the panel that judges whether or not they can return to society.

The key seems to be "staying on medication." In the very structured facility setting where an employee brings the pill(s) and makes sure they take it, a lot of these people are pretty much "cured."

But when they get out, they don't continue the medication for one reason or another. They feel better and quit taking it (side effects, whatever) the family members aren't there at all or can't make them take the meds--and they end up violent again.

If there was some way to make sure these people took the medicine, I think they could be released with a pretty good assurance they would be safe.

LP Moderator

04-07-2004, 05:21 PM

Me too Texana. There HAS to be a way to make sure that they do.

tipper

04-08-2004, 12:41 AM

More work needs to be done on a something that can be implanted under the skin so the patient doesn't have to be the one in charge of taking the meds.

Texana

04-08-2004, 10:06 AM

Good idea, Tipper!

MysteryMomma

04-08-2004, 06:48 PM

I always think the husbands of mentally ill women have a huge responsibility in these kinds of cases. I have not read much about her husband, I heard local news people say he is a real private man. And I saw parts of the trial on TV, one of the lawyers said there are reasons why her mental illness went unchecked for a number of years but everyone agrees she has had the illness for at least 3 yrs.......I know no one is perfect and her husband is suffering everyday....but I will never understand how someone plugged into their family enough to have several children, agree to have all the children stay home to be home schooled can not notice his wife is ill and shouldn't be left alone with the kids.....I guess I'm just wishing someone close to her would have gotten her the help and the kids would all be alive today.

Peekaboo

04-08-2004, 07:25 PM

I agree, Mystery mama..I haven't heard yet tho, just why they said she had this illness for years. I heard she smelled sulphur, but that is not in itself an indication; odd that she felt it was the devil nearby, but that was her religious belief.
The only indications that I heard all came from her, not others. I'm not saying she was lying; she had to be sick to do something so vicious. This is all so puzzling, and so very sad. I do hope and pray that if she ever gets out, they are certain she is 'cured', and very closely monitored thereafter.
Someone mentioned the implant to deliver medication; that would be good for the elderly, too. My brother lived alone & was on a lot of meds. He'd often say he couldn't remember for sure if he'd taken some of them.

SieSie

04-09-2004, 03:01 AM

I agree Texana. However, instead of simply putting these people in prisons because we're scared they may one day be released only to reoffend, I think what's needed is some sort of way to guaranty that a big enough panel of doctors, lawyers and judges AGREE that the patient is truly able to re-enter society, so that juries won't be afraid to rule "not guilty by reason of insanity." There are other states where the law reads that they "ARE guilty by reason of insanity," and in those instances, they are hospitalized until they are well enough to go to jail for a specified period of time. I'm not sure I agree with that because its my opinion that prison can turn people who commit crimes due to mental illness into into monsters. However, I do like the "GUILTY by reason of insanity," so that the fact that the person committed the crime in the first place isn't washed away - it goes with them - as it should.

I agree, :laugh: where do I go to vote for that ruling?

I don't think these women who kill their children should just be able to walk away and go back to their husbands and what's left of their families - but I don't think they should be in a prison. I think they need to be held accountable for their actions by spending a significant amount of time (10-20 years?)but in a mental facility instead of prison, where they can not only get the help they needed from whatever it was BEFORE they committed their acts, but also help in the long emotional process it must be to come back from doing something so horrendous to your own children! I can't imagine how they can wake up every morning, knowing what they did and how it wasn't a "voice from God or Satan" - but mental problems that could've been treated effectively with medicines and proper diagnosis. So sad for all.

LP Moderator

04-09-2004, 11:26 AM

Well SieSie, only the lawmakers of your state can create that one. I guess letter writing is the best us "Jane Q. Citizens" can do. Sure does get me fired up though!!

Newswolf

04-18-2004, 04:50 PM

Raney has a hearing coming up this week, April 23, Friday. I was just looking for updates and found a couple of interesting articles on how difficult the trial was for all involved.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11285861&BRD=1994&PAG=461&dept_id=226369&rfi=8

"The hardest thing for him to look at was not the gruesome photographs of the slain children, but a picture of Aaron's Thomas the Tank Engine pajamas, which were about 2 feet long and were about the same size as his son's.

Another part of testimony that was especially troubling for Harrison was testimony that as Joshua, the last son to be attacked, was being led out into the yard, he asked Mrs. Laney, "Where are we going, Mommy?"

He said he could almost hear the trust in the 8-year-old's voice. The children trusted her so much that they laid their heads down on rocks in the yard because their mother told them to.

"That was such a violation of trust it's almost unthinkable," he said.

Harrison said he talked to his priest and his wife about the emotional case to help him cope with what he went through."

And from a reporter's perspective:

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11332029&BRD=1994&PAG=461&dept_id=226369&rfi=8

"If I felt I had to, I could turn away from the trial I could ask my editors to assign another reporter.

But what about those who can't turn away? What about those who have to look at every bit of evidence, including bloody photos and crime scene video, and hear every grim detail, including video of Mrs. Laney telling doctors how she killed her children?

What about the jurors? Do they get counseling if they feel they need it? Who can they turn to? "

mommyd

04-22-2004, 10:03 AM

I agree, :laugh: where do I go to vote for that ruling?

I don't think these women who kill their children should just be able to walk away and go back to their husbands and what's left of their families - but I don't think they should be in a prison. I think they need to be held accountable for their actions by spending a significant amount of time (10-20 years?)but in a mental facility instead of prison, where they can not only get the help they needed from whatever it was BEFORE they committed their acts, but also help in the long emotional process it must be to come back from doing something so horrendous to your own children! I can't imagine how they can wake up every morning, knowing what they did and how it wasn't a "voice from God or Satan" - but mental problems that could've been treated effectively with medicines and proper diagnosis. So sad for all.

I so agree with all that you said here, SieSie! I have said all along that this woman is "not guilty by reason of insanity" and shouldn't go to prison but that doesn't mean that I think she should just go free. I don't think they should let her out any time soon but I do agree that she has a mental illness and she believed she was doing what God commanded of her so that she could be in Heaven with him.

I agree with the GUILTY by reason of insanity term and think the law should be changed to reflect that. I also agree with the implant to supply the mentally ill, their meds.