I did read this op-ed from Sunday by Michael Welner, the highly-paid prosecution expert in the Andrea Yates retrial, and I remember thinking “wow, what a pompous ass”, but for whatever the reason I never got around to blogging about it. As it happens, there are two letters to the editor today, one each from Yates defense attorneys George Parnham and Wendell Odom, and they say everything I could have said and a lot more. I’m reprinting them beneath the fold for future reference, and I highly recommend you read them.
One more thing you should read as well is this Rick Casey column from September 30, which seems to anticipate and in my mind fairly well short-circuits some of Welner’s arguments:
Welner’s testimony seems to have backfired with the second jury, which found Yates not guilty by reason of insanity.
“Although Dr. Welner’s qualifications were impressive, his presentation in court was not good,” said juror Bobby Chism. “He came across as very aloof and self-serving.”
[…]
“Most of us really felt that he did more harm than good to the prosecution’s case,” [juror Michael] Olson said, adding, “Several of us concluded that his analysis of ‘the ultimate opinion’ was built backwards: He started with the answer and then built his conclusion going back.”
Keep those quotes in particular in mind as you read Parnham and Odom’s responses below.
He must not ‘get’ it
REGARDING the Dec. 3 Outlook article “A tragedy of secrets / What the Yates jury never knew / Panel never allowed to see important pieces of expert’s research,” by Dr. Michael Welner: It is understandable that Welner would be upset at Andrea Yates’ jury, the judge, the district attorneys, other experts and the defense counsel as a result of the verdict in the case.
The verdict came because the jury understood the reality of mental illness, postpartum psychosis and the effectuation of its harsh and horrific results on the lives of the Yates children – Noah, John, Paul, Luke and Mary – as well as their mother, Andrea Yates.
By its verdict, the jury rejected both Welner’s and Dr. Park Dietz’s opinions. The jury “got it” but, obviously, Welner does not.
Nowhere in his article did Welner – a psychiatrist – address the severe mental illness of Andrea Yates.
Surely there exists within Welner’s Forensic Panel an expert who can evaluate the mindset and thought processes of a person who suffered an undeniable psychotic illness that caused her to drown her children. Welner cited numerous reasons why Yates “knew” what she did was “wrong.”
But, he ignored the most basic of psychiatric truisms when he failed to acknowledge that in the unreal world of the psychotic mind, the capacity “to know” does not coincide with the definition of “to know.”
Yates surely believed she was an unfit mother, that she caused her children to “stumble,” and she believed that their souls would be saved if she took their lives while they were still innocent and not yet irreparably tainted by Satan’s influence. She surely “knew” that the criminal justice system would be involved: She called 911 and confessed. She was aware that she would be executed for what she did. But in her psychotic world, she did what in her mind was best for her children.
No expert witness disagreed with these statements, and Welner never addressed them, thus doing a tremendous disservice to mental health issues and to the profession of which he is a part that daily deals with the issues of mental illness.
His pontification of his perception of a judicial affront to his “professional” evaluation ignored the overwhelming evidence that disagrees with his position.
GEORGE J. PARNHAM attorney for Andrea Yates, Houston
Seemed self-serving
AFTER reading Michael Welner’s Dec. 3 Outlook article “What the Yates jury never knew,” I feel the need to set the record straight.
Although Welner chastised the judge and the attorneys for a “runaway acquittal” and hiding the truth, what he appears to be doing is continuing a campaign to justify his much-maligned methods, opinions and testimony in the Yates case. During his two days of testimony Dr. Welner did not fare very well.
His motives and opinions were subject to scrutiny like every other expert witness that takes the stand.
It did not help his credibility that there appeared to be hidden fees in his $250,000-plus bill to the county or that he was most anxious to testify for the defense in the first trial and testified for the state in the second. Because this was a high-profile case, it is likely that his performance is being reviewed in both legal and academic arenas and perhaps he feels the need to defend his professional reputation.
Both the state and the defense had massive amounts of information and access to all the reports and information prepared by all the experts, including the information Welner complained was hidden from the jury. He was correct to say that the jury did not hear all 14 hours of his taped interviews, read his voluminous report, did not see 34 of 90 slides he prepared and his testimony was required to comply with the rules of evidence. All the other experts who testified in the trial had the same restraints.
At the end of the day, all the facts were presented in one form or another to the jury. Because the jury rejected his opinions and agreed with a number of highly qualified and respected defense experts does not mean there was a “runaway acquittal.”
To come to the conclusion that the Yates trial and the jury’s verdict was a travesty of justice simply because the jury didn’t hear everything Welner wanted them to hear is both self-serving and disingenuous.
WENDELL A. ODOM JR. attorney for Andrea Yates, Houston
Apparently someone is not done with this issue. Taking it to court again reminds me of what I hear about treatment in a mental hospital: you’re cured when the benefactor’s money runs out.