Why A)? I don't even get the connection between the Worrenikis or whoever, and then the fact that the 2 photos of the girls could have been used for family pictures that proved that Andrea is not some sadisitic child-murderer.
B) What is the point on profiling a case when you can only speculate the end result?
On to the case. How is it that Susan Smith was, at first, only given 30 years at the minimum for the cold-hearted, greedy murder of little Michael and Alex? Yet Andrea Yates, an obviously sick woman, was given life w/ no chance of parole for the murders of Noah, John, Paul, Luke and Mary? Andrea did it out of love; Susan did it to get back at David and get with Tom. I don't think that there are any exceptions to the murdering of kids, it's all horrible, however I think there should be different sentancing. The fact that Belinda Hill rejected Andrea's insane plea blows my mind and it's obvious that Belinda Hill did not research Andrea's history.
The jury that day not only took away any chance of Andrea getting better, yet they took away Rusty's only remaining family, and Andrea's family's dreams.
If only doctors had realized how serious Andrea's sicknesses really were, those five children would be alive and well today, Andrea would be in treatment, and June 20, 2001 would not be a day that Americans remembered. THe day that five children were tragically taken away-not only by their mother's hands, but by the Texas doctors.