Yates Murder Case
1
Andrea Yates Murder CaseBy Gavin
Written for Criminal Justice
Copyright 2010
Yates Murder Case
2
Andrea Yates Murder Case On June 20, 2001, Andrea Pia Yates did
the inconceivable, she murdered her five children. Did Andrea Yates
have the mens rea to knowingly murder her children, or was she
insane and without control of her faculties? Mens rea defined by
(law) is with criminal intent; the thoughts and intentions behind a
wrongful act (including knowledge the act is illegal) (Word Web
Pro, 2007). Did Andrea Yates display the thoughts and intent to
satisfy this definition? This is one-half of the components
necessary to charge anyone with murder. The other component is
actus Reus, to complete the criminal act. Andrea Yates was charged
with two counts of Capital Murder pursuant to Tex. Pen. Code Ann.
19.03(a) (8) (Vernon Supp. 2004-2005) (Floyd, 2006). The Grand Jury
indicted Andrea Yates for two Felony Counts of murder on June 20,
2001 (Court TV, 2006). Did Andrea Yates act with reasonableness of
mind, or was she questions Marie Mugavin, MSN, CFPN, under the
influence of hallucinations, epilepsy, or delirium (Mugavin, 2005)?
Or was she actually insane and without control of her faculties?
Was Andrea Yates acutely psychotic when she murdered her children?
Andrea Pia Yates was eventually found to be mentally incompetent on
reverse and remand in the murders of her five children. However,
her actions show mens rea and actus Reus, which show her to be
lucid and in control of her actions.
Copyright 2010
Yates Murder Case
3
Andrea Pia Yates, the youngest of five children, was a high
school valedictorian, a competitive swimmer, and she graduated from
the University Of Texas School Of Nursing with a BSN degree. This
pursuit would indicate someone with a facilitating mindset. Her
mother was raised in Nazi Germany where she met Andreas father
during the British occupation. The familys religion was Catholic
(OMalley, 2004). There is no evidence of instability within this
family, in any event discovered to date. Andrea Pia Kennedy marries
Rusty Yates and soon they have five children (OMalley, 2004). Was
Andreas future
behavior pattern latent? Andreas criminal behavior exhibits
symptoms of conflicts, traumas, and deprivation of one sort or
another. Dr. Stanton Samenow excogitates on this thought with the
following statement. I thought that people who turned to crime were
victims of a psychological disorder, an oppressive social
environment, or both (Samenow, 1984). Dr. Samenow initially
questioned the behavioral reasoning of criminals, attributing
their behavior to some psychological disorder, but his later
research reveals that criminals choose to be criminals (Samenow,
1984). In order to determine Andreas state of mind prior to killing
her children, the legal components must be considered. Andrea Yates
actions did satisfy the criminal intent component; the thoughts and
intentions behind a wrongful act (including knowledge the act is
illegal). Andrea Yates also completed the criminal act. The state
of Texas indicted Andrea Yates on two counts of capital
Copyright 2010
Yates Murder Case
4
murder (Court TV, 2006). The Grand Jury by this indictment
believed that Andrea Yates satisfied the requirements for these
charges. This means that Andrea Yates acted intentionally,
knowingly, and with premeditation murdered her children. When
Andrea Yates was examined by Dr. Michael Welner (Prosecution Expert
Witness) said he found 60 instances wherein Andrea Yates knew
drowning 6-month-old Mary, 2-year-old Luke, 3-year-old Paul,
5-year-old John and 7-year-old Noah was wrong (Court TV, 2006).
Welner also asserted in his Power Point Presentation during Andrea
Yates second trial she had previously thought about hurting the
children (Welner, 2006). This was two years before she actually
committed the crime! Also; Welner in his testimony and presentation
before the jury states, that Andrea Yates thought about killing the
children again two months prior to the actual act, and even went as
far as to fill the tub with water (Welner, 2006). Dr Park Dietz,
expert witness for the
prosecution, said in his interview with Andrea Yates she changed
her mind about hurting the children on a previous occasion because
Rusty Yates and Rustys mother Dora were home with her at that time
and would have stopped her (Dietz, 2001). Dr. Park Dietz also
testified in the first trial that Yates waited for the opportunity
to kill her children. Dietz- So the very first opportunity when you
were home alone with the children was on the twentieth? Yates-yes
(Dietz, 2001). This candid question and answer reveals
premeditation and intent.
Copyright 2010
Yates Murder Case
5
The hour and opportunity arrived wherein Andrea Yates was ready
to activate her plan. Yates made careful deliberate movements; the
planning stages were now over. Andrea Yates behavior was
calculated, and according to psychologist James P. Thompsons
testimony, she wanted nothing to get in her way. Before she drowned
her children, Andrea Yates removed the mat inside the bathtub,
turned on the water and put up the dog -- behavior that indicated
she didn't want anything to get in the way of what she was about to
do, a forensic psychiatrist told jurors (Thompson, 2006). Andrea
Yates filled the tub with water three inches from the top and
systematically drowns her children (OMalley, 2004). After drowning
her children, Andrea Yates arranges four of
her children on her bed close together, covers them with a
sheet, but Yates leaves her oldest son alone face down in the tub.
He had struggled against her in an attempt to survive. Andrea Yates
used her superior strength to forcefully drown him (OMalley, 2004).
After she systematically murders all of her children, Andrea Yates
calls 911, asks for a police officer to come to her residence. The
police arrive and she tells Officer David Knapp that she just
killed her kids (OMalley, 2004). Andrea Yates begins her confession
(s) of murder with this first admission. She will confess in
response to Sergeant Eric Mehls questions when he interviews her at
the Harris County Police Headquarters (OMalley, 2004). Subsequent
interviews by Drs Michael Welner and Park Dietz would also supply
evidence against
Copyright 2010
Yates Murder Case
6
Andrea Yates. These interviews include confession, planning, and
activation of an event long in formulation. However, Andrea would
plead not guilty by reason of insanity during arraignment. From the
beginning, speculation concerning Andrea Yates mental condition was
directed towards insanity. Someone who would do something like this
must be insane was the general consensus. But was Andrea Yates
insane, or cleverly coy and extremely cunning? Several points that
Dr. Dietz discovers in his evaluation show a pattern quite
different than public opinion and general consensus. Dr. Dietzs
evaluation of Andrea Yates would become almost irrelevant because
during the initial murder trial of Andrea Yates, Dr. Dietz would
make an incredible mistake during his so-called expert witness
testimony. According to Ken Hausman: The inaccurate testimony by
Dietz, who was the prosecutions only mental health expert, involved
statements linked to his work as a consultant to the television
show Law & Order. During crossexamination by a defense
attorney, Dietz said that he had consulted on an episode that
concerned a woman with postpartum depression who drowned her
children in a bathtub and was found insane, and it was aired
shortly before the [Yates murders] occurred. (Hausman, 2005) Dr.
Dietzs entire testimony become irrelevant because of an inadvertent
error made while testifying. Does this oversight completely devalue
his other
Copyright 2010
Yates Murder Case
7
legitimate points? Dr. Dietzs testimony introduced subtle but
obvious clues into Andrea Yates reasonings and ill feelings
(resentment) she harbored against her husband. Dr. Dietz introduces
some telling events prior to Andrea Yates becoming ill with
something (undiagnosed) that influenced or changed her mental state
(quasi). At what point did Andrea Yates mental state change? What
were the triggers? Consider the following detailed observations
expressed by Dr. Park Dietz, for relevancy in the overall diagnosis
of Andrea Yates mental state. Some of the Life Events Affecting
Mrs. Yates Before Her 1999 Episode of Illness: 1. Giving up her
career 2. Giving up her possessions 3. Changing her faith 4. Giving
up her identity (according to others) 5. Allowing her husband to
make all decisions 6. Relative social isolation 7. Five pregnancies
(four births and a miscarriage) 8. Living in an RV and a bus 9.
Home schooling her children (Dietz, 2001). Analysis of these nine
points reveal incidents, perhaps acting as triggers, that
eventually contributed to Andrea Yates formulated hatred of her
husband, Rusty Yates. In Andrea Yates mind he is the one
responsible for causing (quasi)
Copyright 2010
Yates Murder Case
8
these life altering incidents. Dr. Park Dietz would testify
during her first trial and present a Power Point Presentation
pertaining to Andrea Yates cognitive functioning and rationale.
Concerning Andrea Yates mental lucidity Dr. Dietz would attest to
the following: Cognitive Functioning: A. Components include level
of consciousness, motor behavior, use of language, memory,
concentration, orientation, attention, ability to think abstractly,
plan, and organize B. Impairment in cognitive functioning may vary
from insignificant to extremely severe Mrs. Yates had No
Significant Cognitive Impairment During the Drownings: 1. She was
able to dress herself that morning 2. She awakened the children to
say goodbye to Rusty, as usual 3. She remembered who each of her
children was 4. She was able to stick to the task of drowning all
five children 5. She was attentive to completing her task before
Dora arrived 6. She remembered to call the police so they would be
there before Dora arrived 7. She was able to call 911 and provide
accurate information 8. She was able to dial her husbands phone
number (Dietz, 2001). Further analysis of these astute details will
point directly to someone lucid of mind, and entirely competent in
every capacity. Andrea Yates lucidity of mind is apparent in the
facts; she could pay attention to each detail and
systematically
Copyright 2010
Yates Murder Case
9
execute them in a complete pattern. This is by plan and not by
rote, and by noting the sequence of events; this is not Andrea
Yates normal daily routine. So why evoke the insanity plea; because
it was expected, and her Defense Attorney (probably) knew she was
guilty. Associate Psychology Editors Richard E. Vates & Lee S.
Weinberg report on the insanity aspect in their article Murderous
Mothers, for USA Today Magazine. Let's look at Yates' claim that
she was legally insane--i.e., according to the Texas Penal Code,
that, "as a result of severe mental disease or defect, [she] did
not know that [her] conduct was wrong" at the time of the killings.
The prosecution and defense agreed that Yates was mentally ill when
she killed her children, but the prosecution argued and the jury
concluded that she was not legally insane--that she did know what
she was doing was wrong (Vatz & Weinberg, 2002). After Dr.
Yates detailed
psychology analysis, can insanity be considered a viable defense
for Andrea Yates? Is not guilty by reason of insanity a valid plea
in this case? There are many reasonable minded men and women who do
not believe, or accept this plea regarding the Andrea Yates case.
Why would her Attorney maneuver her defense in this direction? Dr.
Gary Kesling affirms that a defense to prosecution can be found in
the actors conduct was a result of severe mental disease. He also
asserts defense rationale for pleading not guilty by reason of
insanity. It is often the case that when the person is innocent the
attorney will argue the facts; when the person is guilty the
attorney argues the
Copyright 2010
Yates Murder Case
10
law. The defense attorneys in this case argued the law (Annals
of the American Psychology Association, 2006). The evidence against
Andrea Yates was substantial concerning her guiltiness in this
case. And because of the evidence against her, defense argues the
law, depicting Andrea Yates actions as less than sane. The evidence
against her was damaging, and she was condemned in the eyes of
many, but she was also considered by many to be insane. Now that
the insanity plea has been entered, there must be some logical or
even illogical reason for Andrea Yates actions. Perhaps it is a
post partum disorder, or acute psychosis. To explain the insanity
defense there must be a psychosis or psychiatric problem with
Andrea Yates. Eileen Meier (JD, MPH, BSN, RN) offers this APA
finding on postpartum depression: The American Psychiatric
Association (APA, 2001) states that postpartum depression can be
caused by changes in hormones and can be inherited; that about one
in ten new mothers experience some degree of postpartum depression;
that symptoms can include fatigue, feelings of hopelessness or
depression, disrupted sleep or appetite, lack of interest in the
baby, fear of harming the baby and mood swings (Meier, 2002). Is
Andrea Yates suffering from post partum depression or an acute
psychosis? Will this drive her to kill her children, all of them?
Postpartum Psychosis: In some susceptible women, dramatic hormonal
changes in childbirth and shortly afterward can result in a form of
brief psychotic disorder often referred to as
Copyright 2010
Yates Murder Case
11
postpartum psychosis. Unfortunately, postpartum conditions are
oftenmisidentified and improperly treated. In many cases of a
mother killing her infant or committing suicide, postpartum
psychosis is involved (Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders, 2005).
However, not every woman with post partum symptoms or acute
psychosis kills, or even considers killing their children! It can
be said that some women may exhibit homicidal behavior during an
episode of severe post partum psychosis, but this is the exception
to the rule. Normally there is a window of time regarding this
temporary psychosis. How long does post partum psychosis normally
last among those afflicted by it? Usually by the first year, or
dramatically less (three months) this psychosis diminishes. This
time frame is not new to the law enforcement community. Past
histories knew about this post partum issue and addressed the
problem with the following solution. Psychology Editors Vatz &
Weinberg pose this information on the tough legal questions
encountered with the post partum dilemma. Precedence can be found
for the post partum time element. So, a major issue of the Yates
case is how to review what the legal system does with such cases
and how it might be improved. One alternative is seen in the
British law going back to 1922, which provides that, if a mother
kills her baby prior to its first birthday, the act is seen as so
different from other killings that society will treat the offender
differently. Mothers convicted under this law are treated and
counseled,
Copyright 2010
Yates Murder Case
12
rather than punished. Note that they do not need to show that
they are insane. The law simply assumes that the mother's behavior
is a manifestation of some profound mental or emotional problem
associated with childbirth. However, mothers in Great Britain who
kill children after their first birthday present the same dilemma
as in the Yates case: Either they meet the difficult test of
insanity or they are guilty of murder. In the Yates case, inasmuch
as all but one of the children had passed their first birthdays,
such an infanticide law would not have made any difference in the
outcome. (Vatz, Weinberg, 2002) Is time relevant to post partum
psychosis? Yes, time of incident and age of child is considered by
law enforcement to be determinate. How often does filicide occur in
the general populace, and is there correlation between killing ones
children and spousal revenge? Filicide is rare in the general
society with only 471 in 2001 roughly equal maternal, paternal
according to Dr. Welners testimony (Welner, 2006). Marie E.
Mugavin, MSN, CFNP, notes in her article A Meta-Synthesis of
Filicide
Classification Systems: Psychosocial and Psychodynamic Issues in
Women Who Kill Their Children spousal revenge filicide is listed as
category five, and acutelypsychotic is category two in Resnicks
1969 seminal work: Classification of
Filicide by Motive (Mugavin, 2005). Was this a revenge killing
by Andrea Yatesto make Rusty Yates suffer? Their former Pastor
Michael Woroniecki
Copyright 2010
Yates Murder Case
13
emphatically made this accusatory statement. For whatever it may
be worth, I want to reiterate that Andreas sole motive for her
diabolical actions was revenge, he said. It was deep and it was
intense. She had told me on several occasions of her intense hatred
for Rusty. She pleaded with me for an answer on how to live with
him. She despised him (OMalley, 2004). And, this man was never
called to testify in this case (OMalley, 2004). So, was this a case
of spousal revenge filicide? How does all of this explain the
Andrea Yates case? Was this pre-planned revenge filicide, or did
Andrea Yates have post partum psychosis when she murdered her
children? If one leans towards the post partum psychosis reasoning,
you must remember the youngest was Mary, and she was only six
months old. Yes, Marys age falls into the up to one year category
previously mentioned by Vatz & Weinberg. However, Andrea Yates
had previous thoughts of killing her children and these thoughts
occurred prior to the birth of Mary her youngest. Now the question
that should be postulated; what if Andrea Yates knew exactly what
she was doing all along? Andrea Yates planned to kill these
children all along as an act of revenge against her husband Rusty
Yates. Andrea Yates felt that he is responsible for all of the
problems Dr. Dietz lists in his report and testimony. Andrea Yates
planned this act of revenge and she planned to use the insanity
plea. Is Andrea Yates insane or is she extremely clever? Pleading
insanity in a Texas court of law comes with a degree of legal
difficulty. Andrea
Copyright 2010
Yates Murder Case
14
Yates Defense Attorney enters a plea of not guilty by reason of
insanity for his client, Andrea Yates. Can this argument be
substantiated or supported legally? How does Texas legally define
the use of MNaughten as a defense for insanity? Texas and the
Insanity Defense: Texas uses a form of the M'Naughten test. The
insanity defense is set forth in Texas Penal Code (TPC) Section
8.01 in two parts: (a) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution
that, at the time of the conduct charged, the actor, as a result of
severe mental disease or defect, did not know that his conduct was
wrong; (b) The term "mental disease or defect" does not include an
abnormality manifested by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial
conduct (Meier, 2002). The MNaughten test can be simply defined in
the following description. A person was not responsible for
criminal acts if as a result of a mental disease or defect he did
not understand what he did or that it was wrong, or if he was under
a delusion (but not otherwise insane) which, if true, would have
provided a good defense. The person is unable to distinguish right
from wrong (Gifis, 1984). Did Andrea Yates know right from wrong?
According to Dr. Dietzs testimony and court presentation, Andrea
Yates knew the difference between right and wrong (Dietz, 2001).
Can this defense be applied considering the legal definition, the
findings of law enforcement, and psychiatric
Copyright 2010
Yates Murder Case
15
examinations by leading Forensic Psychiatrists and
Psychologists? In his book,
Straight Talk About Criminals, Dr. Stanton E. Samenow offers
this insight.Some people who are mentally ill also commit crimes.
Having evaluated a number of these individuals, I have found that,
despite their mental illness, they still could distinguish right
from wrong. I have encountered defendants whom others would
consider to be legally insane because they reported delusions,
hallucinations, and experiences of dissociation. Consider the
defendant who asserts that he heard a voice commanding him to
commit a crime and felt compelled to obey it. I asked one such
person, Did the voice ever direct you to do something but you did
not do as it instructed? He replied that he heard the voice command
him to steal, but he chose to ignore it. I also inquired, Did you
ever hear the voice order you not to do something, but you did it
anyway? He observed that the voice told him to stay away from
church, but he disobeyed it and went. (Samenow, 1998) Did Andrea
Yates hear voices instructing her to do something wrong? Andrea Pia
Yates insanity claims were basically prejudiced along some of these
same lines and ideas expressed by Dr. Samenow. Was this part of her
overall plan, to hear voices, talk to Satan? This is an old trick
for those wanting to use the insanity plea in their defense.
Remember she had a lot of time to construct her murderous ideas.
Also bear in mind that she was the class
Copyright 2010
Yates Murder Case
16
valedictorian, and she would be considered somewhat intelligent.
Can someone be executed that is found guilty of murder but then
insane? Is there precedence for this exemption? The broadest
significance of Ford v. Wainwright is its overall ruling that the
execution of insane persons is forbidden by the Eighth Amendment.
Although the amendment specifically prohibits "cruel and unusual"
punishment, it does not define what such punishment is First, an
insane person cannot help think of reasons why he should not be
executed, which means that he or she is deprived of rights to
protect himself or herself. Moreover, executing the insane
frustrates the two main reasons for capital punishment: that it is
a deterrent and that it offers retribution. Executing an insane
person will hardly deter anyone, and if the insane person does not
understand why he or she is being killed, no retribution has been
achieved (West's, 1986) This case is based on someone not knowing
the difference between right and wrong, someone incapable of
understanding their actions. Andrea Yates cannot be classified in
this case or category. Andrea Yates knew the difference between
right and wrong. Technically, Andrea Yates could be executed for
her crimes. But; there are those that oppose such an action. Andrea
Yates was given another trial because of Dr. Dietzs untrue
statements concerning events on the Law & Order show that never
actually
Copyright 2010
Yates Murder Case
17
happened. The counter argument resides in the subsequent
overturning of the murder convictions. Should this conviction have
been overturned? Is Andrea Yates really insane? Some chose to
believe she was mentally ill or insane at the time of the murderous
incident. Is this true, and is there a compelling counter argument
to support this theory? In "Who Is Andrea Yates? A Short Story
About Insanity," Professor Deborah W. Denno opens a startling and
compelling window on the Yates prosecutor's distortion and
manipulation of facts through its star expert witness, Park Dietz.
(2) Though surprisingly unfamiliar with the nature of the mental
illness from which Andrea was apparently suffering (postpartum
depression and psychosis), as Denno relates, Dietz opined with
confidence that Andrea was sane and in control when she killed her
offspring. At least in part because of Dietz's testimony, a jury
convicted Andrea of capital murder (Colb, 2003). Initially she was
found sane and competent to stand trial for the murders of two of
her children. However, this conviction was overturned because of a
witnesss false testimony. Andrea Pia Yates was eventually found to
be mentally incompetent on reverse and remand in the murders of her
five children. However, her actions show mens rea and actus Reus,
which show her to be lucid and in control of her actions. This is
something the defense hopes for, a mistrial or anything that would
reverse the murder conviction, and in this case they got what they
had
Copyright 2010
Yates Murder Case
18
hoped for. Now Andrea Pia Yates is incarcerated in a state
mental facility at the taxpayers expense for a very long time. What
would be the best possible outcome for this terrible event? The
facts speak for themselves; she was guilty of murder in the first
degree. She should have been executed for these atrocious
deeds.
Copyright 2010
References Annals of the American Psychology Association.
(2006). Ask the Expert: The Case of
Andrea Yates. (Original work published 2006)Colb, Sherry F.
(June 22, 2003). THE CONVICTION OF ANDREA YATES: A
NARRATIVE OF DENIADietz, MD. Park (2001). Interview of Andrea
Yates. (Original work published 2001)
http://parkdietzassociates.com/files/Excerpts_from_Interview_of_Andrea_Yat
es_by_Dr._Park_Dietz_2001.pdf Web site: http://www.parkdietz.com
Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders, 2005.
http://www.minddisorders.com/Br-Del/Brief-psychotic-disorder.html
Web site: http://www.minddisorders.com/index.html
Yates Indictment. (2006). (Original work published 2006)
http://www.courttv.com/trials/yates/docs/felony1.html?print=yes&page=
Web site: http://www.courttv.com/ Now
http://www.trutv.com/newname.html Floyd, John T. 2006.
http://www.johntfloyd.com/news/july/27a.htm Web site:
http://www.johntfloyd.com/ Gifis, Steven H. (1984). Law Dictionary
(2nd ed., Vol. 1). Hauppauge, NY: Barron's Educational Series, Inc.
(Original work published 1975). 235. Hausman, Ken (February 4,
2005). Inaccurate Expert Testimony Wins Yates New
Trial (3rd ed., Vol. 40). . (Original work published February 4,
2005) http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/40/3/4. Web
site: http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/
Copyright 2010
Mugavin, Marie E. MSN, CFNP (2005). A Meta-Synthesis of Filicide
Classification
Systems: Psychosocial and Psychodynamic Issues in Women Who Kill
Their Children. (Original work published 2005)
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/508550_print Web site:
www.medscape.com Meier, Eileen. JD, MPH, BSN, RN (May-June 2002).
Andrea Yates: Where Did We Go
Wrong? (Original work published 2002 http://findarticles.com/
Web
site:http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FSZ/is_3_28/ai_n18613836/print
O'Malley, Suzanne. (2004). Are You There Alone? (1st ed., Vol. 1)
New York: Simon & Schuster. (Original work published 2004) 4,
12, 14, 22, 28, 97. Samenow, Stanton E. (1984). Inside the Criminal
Mind (1st ed., Vol. 1). New York: Time Books, Division of Random
House. (Original work published 1984) Preface xiii & xiv
Samenow, Stanton E. (1998). Straight Talk About Criminals (1st ed.,
Vol. 1). Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, Inc. (Original work
published 1998) 135. Thompson, James P. Court TV News. (2006).
Psychiatrist: Andrea Yates' behavior
before drownings demonstrates
self-discipline.http://www.courttv.com/trials/yates/070706_ap.html
Web site: www.courttv.com/ Now: http://www.trutv.com/newname.html
www.courttv.com/ Vatz, Richard E., Weinberg, Lee S. USA Today
(Magazine) November 2002.
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2229006_ITM Web site:
http://goliath.ecnext.com/
Copyright 2010
Web Pro Database. (2007). Web site: http://wordweb.info/.
Welner, & Chairman. (2001). Andrea Yates Filicide
(4)/Infanticide(1). . (Original work published 2001)
www.forensicpanel.com/yates.ppt Website: http://
www.forensicpanel.com/ Welner, Dr. Michael (July 18, 2006). 2007.
http://www.courttv.com/trials/yates/ 071806_psychiatrist_ap.html
Web site: www.courttv.com West's Encyclopedia of American Law 1986.
(1986). Ford v. Wainwright-Further
Readings: Great American Court Cases Vol. 6 (Vol. vol.6). .
(Original work published1986)
http://www.law.jrank.org/pages/12849/Ford-v-Wainwright.html http://
www.jrank.org Copyright 2007-Advameg Inc.
Copyright 2010
