Woman arrested after authorities find the bodies of 7 babies

One thing I think we should emphasize - there's a vast difference between mental illness and legal insanity.

I've read that as many as 1 in 4 adults in the US meet the criteria for a mental illness. I think it's likely that this woman had some sort of mental illness - at the very least, she was an addict, right?

But to be ruled not guilty by reason of insanity requires a much higher bar. She could be mentally ill but still have the necessary awareness of right and wrong to be found guilty.

@Cornflake and Devil- It seems to me like you two are basically saying the same thing about Casey Anthony, on the important parts anyway. I watched that whole trial and was absolutely stunned when they came back with a "not guilty" verdict.

I knew a psychologist who was familiar with the Andrea Yates case. She felt so sorry for Andrea Yates when she came back to earth out of her psychosis and realized what she had done. It was a one hit thing, voices told her to drown all of her children and she did so in a very short amount of unsupervised time. She was so mentally fragile at the time that she was not left alone for long and this was, I believe, during a short time gap from when her husband went to work and her mother in law (?) showed up to keep an eye on her. Totally, utterly, different from Casey Anthony and this six (or seven) time offender who seemed to have used infanticide as a birth control method, in my opinion.

I agree with fruitbat on this one. What this woman did is completely different than a mother who kills all her children in an isolated incident.

Fruitbat said:

@Cornflake and Devil- It seems to me like you two are basically saying the same thing about Casey Anthony, on the important parts anyway. I watched that whole trial and was absolutely stunned when they came back with a "not guilty" verdict.

I knew a psychologist who was familiar with the Andrea Yates case. She felt so sorry for Andrea Yates when she came back to earth out of her psychosis and realized what she had done. It was a one hit thing, voices told her to drown all of her children and she did so in a very short amount of unsupervised time. She was so mentally fragile at the time that she was not left alone for long and this was, I believe, during a short time gap from when her husband went to work and her mother in law (?) showed up to keep an eye on her. Totally, utterly, different from Casey Anthony and this six (or seven) time offender who seemed to have used infanticide as a birth control method, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Yates, for rob, was not, iirc, diagnosed with postpartum depression, but psychosis. I think. I don't remember if she was diagnosed back when she was hospitalized back way before the murders or if her defense team tried to pin the diagnosis on her.

I don't generally disagree, though I do disagree with an insanity verdict in her case. I don't believe she was insane.

Agree Yates and Anthony had nothing in common though.

I do wonder if the infants were all this woman's.

I trust the psychologist I knew who knew Andrea Yates' psychiatrist (they lived near me). I believe she was clinically and legally insane and truly too ill to know what she was doing. She was under intense psychiatrist care at the time of the murders, if I remember right, but unfortunately it was just short of intense enough. Of course just my opinion though, I wasn't there any more than anyone else on here. Also, she called her husband at work immediately afterwards, no effort or wherewithal to attempt a cover up.

Casey Anthony- chilling sociopath, imo. Her child cramped her style, so good-bye child, the end.

This woman, Megan Huntsman- Either timeline given by her is false and her daughters were involved (incest?), or druggie infanticide-as-birth-control, are my best guesses so far.

So three very different cases, imo. However, it doesn't seem to have made any difference in the outcomes for the poor victims.

Fruitbat said:

I trust the psychologist I knew who knew Andrea Yates' psychiatrist (they lived near me). I believe she was clinically and legally insane and truly too ill to know what she was doing. She was under intense psychiatrist care at the time of the murders, if I remember right, but unfortunately it was just short of intense enough. Of course just my opinion though, I wasn't there any more than anyone else on here. Also, she called her husband at work immediately afterwards, no effort or wherewithal to attempt a cover up.

Casey Anthony- chilling sociopath, imo. Her child cramped her style, so good-bye child, the end.

This woman, Megan Huntsman- Either timeline given by her is false and her daughters were involved (incest?), or druggie infanticide-as-birth-control, are my best guesses so far.

So three very different cases, imo. However, it doesn't seem to have made any difference in the outcomes for the poor victims.

Click to expand...

I don't mean to like, debate the case, that's not why I'm responding, but more to explain what I meant, and obviously I was not her psychologist (or psychiatrist), heh.

Clinically insane isn't a thing - it's a legal term. Don't get me wrong, I think the woman was mentally ill, likely psychotic, not getting proper help or treatment, etc. I don't though, think she was insane.

I think she knew what she'd done - it wasn't done especially quickly and she did it in a particular order, iirc, to minimize the likelihood of the children fighting her; she also called the cops, iirc.

I believe she knew it was a wrong thing to do. Park Dietz pointed out and got her to admit (I know the controversy over his testimony but that wasn't related to this) that she believed the voice telling her to kill the kids was the voice of the Devil. Yates was (and may still be, was at the time) a very religious, practicing Christian. If she believed the Devil was giving her an order, I don't see a logical way for her to have not found that order empirically wrong, coming from the Devil. If she knew what she was doing, and knew it to be wrong, also bolstered by calling the cops, she fails both prongs of M'Naghten (as it's often, traditionally employed).

Andrea Yates was found "not guilty by reason of insanity."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/26/us/26cnd-yates.html?_r=1&

ETA: She was first found guilty of murder but it was overturned.

Fruitbat said:

Andrea Yates was found "not guilty by reason of insanity."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/26/us/26cnd-yates.html?_r=1&

ETA: She was first found guilty of murder but it was overturned.

Click to expand...

I know.

Lillith1991 said:

Yea, I'm not buying that as a possibility. Considering how rare it is for someone with a mood disorder to actually kill their children, let alone kill six at least a year apart each. Neither mania or psychosis incited by birth would end with something like this in all but extrememly rare cases. Having known several people with some form of mood disorder, most presenting classic cases, that seems like a stretch to speculate that she could have such a disorder.

Click to expand...

I'm not even in a medical/psychology profession, much less an expert. So I won't argue it. It just has a Postpartum psychosis feel to it to me, and I'll leave it at that.

robjvargas said:

I'm not even in a medical/psychology profession, much less an expert. So I won't argue it. It just has a Postpartum psychosis feel to it to me, and I'll leave it at that.

Click to expand...

I can't remotely see that either. It's rare, it's kind of a one-off, and even supposing it's not, if she was actively psychotic for most of a decade, you'd think someone would have noticed. She'd also have done something else, I'd imagine, and something less organized, than just quietly strangle infants and store them in the garage and go about her day.

cornflake said:

I can't remotely see that either. It's rare, it's kind of a one-off, and even supposing it's not, if she was actively psychotic for most of a decade, you'd think someone would have noticed. She'd also have done something else, I'd imagine, and something less organized, than just quietly strangle infants and store them in the garage and go about her day.

Click to expand...

There's nothing in the descriptions of postpartum disorders that I've seen which demands it be chronic in the sense of always on.

Why can't it recur? Be episodic?

robjvargas said:

There's nothing in the descriptions of postpartum disorders that I've seen which demands it be chronic in the sense of always on.

Why can't it recur? Be episodic?

Click to expand...

They can recur. They can be episodic, in that, say, someone with postpartum depression, or any clinical depression, is not necessarily depressed 24/7. They are, however, chronic until treated or they dissipate and the more serious the condition the greater the need for treatment.

Postpartum psychosis is an extremely rare, extremely serious condition. It's a psychosis. If she was fine, had the kid, felt like strangling it, was fine? That's a garden-variety murderer. This one, if they're all her kids, would fall under mass murderer, family type. She's not alone.

Andrea Yates is an example of postpartum psychosis. She was deeply, obviously, perpetually unwell for months and months on end. She heard voices, cartoons told her to do things, she was paranoid, she was unable to function normally, as she was actively psychotic and all. She was hospitalized repeatedly, I believe. That she managed to care for kids and the house and function at any level in her state was a trick. Had this woman had postpartum psychosis that led to her killing six infants, she either had it perpetually, in which case there's no conceivable way on Earth she was functional and no one noticed (and I don't even mean her family; I mean people at the 7-11 when she would have come in ranting about the invisible bugs on her arms or whatever), or she had it once, somehow magically recovered and it then recurred and stayed. It doesn't go away by itself and then come back just in time to strangle a kid and go away again.

Why is it hard to believe she just killed her kids? The most likely killer of any murdered child is a parent, often the mother.

cornflake said:

They can recur. They can be episodic, in that, say, someone with postpartum depression, or any clinical depression, is not necessarily depressed 24/7. They are, however, chronic until treated or they dissipate and the more serious the condition the greater the need for treatment.

Click to expand...

Postpartum Depression and Postpartum Psychosis are two different conditions, though I suppose they're probably related:

Postpartum psychosis is temporary and treatable with professional help, but it is an emergency and it is essential that you receive immediate help.

Click to expand...

It's very rare, true enough. Even once. But if this wasn't recognized by her family, and she didn't get help...

robjvargas said:

Postpartum Depression and Postpartum Psychosis are two different conditions, though I suppose they're probably related:



It's very rare, true enough. Even once. But if this wasn't recognized by her family, and she didn't get help...

Click to expand...

I know they are; I mentioned upthread. I was just using it as an example, not meaning to conflate them, sorry. They're related in some ways, afaik.

If it wasn't recognized by her family and she didn't get help then she was psychotic for most of a decade which negates the not recognized by her family and brings us back to she was and wasn't doing more than what she did. I can't imagine a lawyer even thinking about trying that as a defense, honestly. He or she would have to search pretty far and wide to find someone who'd testify to it and that person would be shredded by a parade in pretty quick order. Er, presuming they're all hers and it goes to trial, obvs., the latter of which I'd kind of doubt.

@Cornflake- Okay, so "insanity" is a legal term and not one used in psychiatry anymore, and it has a specific legal meaning. And you were saying that even though Andrea Yates got the "not guilty by reason of insanity" verdict in the end, you don't believe she actually met the standard for it, for the reasons you explained? Sorry, I'm not all here today, lol.

Fruitbat said:

@Cornflake- Okay, so "insanity" is a legal term and not one used in psychiatry anymore, and it has a specific legal meaning. And you were saying that even though Andrea Yates got the "not guilty by reason of insanity" verdict in the end, you don't believe she actually met the standard for it, for the reasons you explained? Sorry, I'm not all here today, lol.

Click to expand...

Heh, we all have those days. Yes, that about sums it up.

She was found guilty at trial originally. The verdict was overturned because of the dumb error made by Dietz I alluded to in an earlier post. It didn't have to do with his assessment of her w/re the insanity prongs.

The second time, the jury went for the NGRI. I'm with Dietz.

Yea, I'm still not buying the reoccuring psychosis idea for the woman this thread is about. Possible, but considering I've actaully experienced psychosis for myself. I just don't buy it, and I've had multiple episodes of it as well.

Nope, this woman was either an addict or just evil.

Lillith1991 said:

Yea, I'm still not buying the reoccuring psychosis idea for the woman this thread is about. Possible, but considering I've actaully experienced psychosis for myself. I just don't buy it, and I've had multiple episodes of it as well.

Nope, this woman was either an addict or just evil.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't profess any kind of certainty, either. It just generated sort of "vibe" with me.

This is a serious question, and not meant to negate anyone's experiences...

But are psychosis and *post-partum* psychosis the same? As I understand it (I'm not a mental health professional or doctor or anything), post-partum depression or post-partum psychosis are caused in part by the hormone fluctuations from having given birth. Which is why they're usually temporary conditions. Someone who already has psychosis or depression might be more prone to them, but not necessarily... (I have depression. I did NOT have post-partum depression. In fact, my depression wasn't as bad during the first month or two of my daughters' lives as it is the rest of the time.)

And if they aren't quite the same, might it be somewhat logical to believe that the actions of someone suffering post-partum might be slightly different from someone who has the illness due to other causes?

I can't find the story now, but recently (maybe from a link on this board, I don't remember) I read a story about a girl who experienced severe post-partum...either depression or psychosis. Damn short-term memory. Anyway, she went out to the street and begged strangers to take her baby so she wouldn't give into the consuming, obsessive thoughts she had of harming the child. When no one took the baby, she killed it. Knowing she was doing something wrong, knowing she didn't *want* to hurt the child, she was unable to keep resisting the compulsions.

I'm not saying that's the case with the Utah woman, but it does seem that women experiencing post-partum depression or psychosis might act in ways that don't necessarily match up with other types of depression or psychosis. And one person with depression or psychosis might not act in the same way as someone else, for that matter...

Lillith1991 said:

Nope, this woman was either an addict or just evil.

Click to expand...

I'm tending towards evil.

In one news story I read she was supposedly drunk in public a LOT and she admitted she gave birth at home and killed the babies there.

That's plain evil.

I can see a young girl panicking due to an unplanned pregnancy and dumping the child.

I can't see a grown women with access to birth control knowingly killing a newborn SEVEN TIMES. Addict or not, drunk or not, she knew what she was doing.

Evil.

Hope they lock her up forever. I'm sure, however, that her lawyer will argue diminished capacity and she'll get out on probation. Probably just in time to birth a few more babies before her system shuts down.

Yeah, I'm feeling cynical today.

KimJo said:

I can't find the story now, but recently (maybe from a link on this board, I don't remember) I read a story about a girl who experienced severe post-partum...either depression or psychosis. Damn short-term memory. Anyway, she went out to the street and begged strangers to take her baby so she wouldn't give into the consuming, obsessive thoughts she had of harming the child. When no one took the baby, she killed it. Knowing she was doing something wrong, knowing she didn't *want* to hurt the child, she was unable to keep resisting the compulsions.

I'm not saying that's the case with the Utah woman, but it does seem that women experiencing post-partum depression or psychosis might act in ways that don't necessarily match up with other types of depression or psychosis. And one person with depression or psychosis might not act in the same way as someone else, for that matter...

Click to expand...

If someone had obsessive thoughts about killing their baby shortly after giving birth, would they really go on to have six more? That seems, at least, most generously, extremely irresponsible.

robjvargas said:

Yeah, I don't profess any kind of certainty, either. It just generated sort of "vibe" with me.

Click to expand...

That just seems so, I don't know, bordering on misogynistic, or chauvanistic, that take on this.

The woman killed 6 babies. I'm not convinced she didn't kill the seventh.

And saying it could be mental illness is misogynistic?

I'd love that explanation.

robjvargas said:

The woman killed 6 babies. I'm not convinced she didn't kill the seventh.

Click to expand...

Post mortem can determine that. If the child never drew breath, then it will show. That's why there's no seventh murder charge, most likely.

There are too many legal alternatives to murder - starting with adoption agencies, or "baby Moses" drop off sites like fire houses and hospitals for suffocation to be the solution of choice. Rationally, I can't think of a reason other than mental illness for this behavior pattern. It seems like someone with no attachment to the infants wouldn't have kept them. Keeping the remains seems like a morbid form of enshrinement, given the limited details.

Cyia said:

Post mortem can determine that. If the child never drew breath, then it will show. That's why there's no seventh murder charge, most likely.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. Now I think back on it, they did say evidence was that the seventh baby was stillborn.