Mind of a Serial Killer - Andrea Yates: The Mother Who Went Too Far Pt. 2

Episode Date: June 25, 2026

On June 20, 2001, Andrea Yates drowned her five young children in the bathtub of her Houston home, convinced she was saving their souls from eternal damnation. A devout mother battling postpartum psychosis and major depression, she had fallen under the influence of extremist preacher Michael Woroniecki, whose teachings persuaded her that only death could protect her children from the demons she believed were hunting them. This episode examines the intersection of severe mental illness, religious manipulation, and a justice system forced to grapple with one of the most harrowing cases in American history.Join Crime House+ to binge a special limited series on Murder: True Crime Stories for America’s 250th: The Crimes That Built America. These are the cases that created the FBI, gave us Miranda rights, sparked criminal profiling, and gave us America’s Most Wanted. Join at crimehouseplus.com or if you’re listening on Apple Podcasts, tap “Try Free” at the top of this show’s page. You’ll also get both parts to every Serial Killers & Murderous Minds case released at once ad-free.🎧 Need More to Binge? Listen to other Crime House Originals Clues, Crimes Of…, Murder True Crime Stories, Crime House 24/7, and more wherever you get your podcasts!Follow me on SocialInstagram: @CrimehouseTikTok: @CrimehouseFacebook: @crimehousestudiosYouTube: @crimehousestudios

Hi listeners, exciting news. Crime House Plus and Murder True Crime Stories are celebrating America's 250th by dropping a four-part limited series on the Crimes That Built America. These are the crimes and cases that gave us Miranda rights, sparked criminal profiling, and a murder that built America's missing children movement. Follow Murder True Crime Stories for a new episode every Monday leading up to July 4th. Or you can listen to all of them right now with Crime House Plus. To join, go to Crimehouseplus.com, or if you're listening on Apple Podcasts, tap, try free at the top of this show's page. These days, we talk a lot about our truths. We speak our truth, live by it, and stand by it. Usually when someone refers to their truth, they're talking about their emotions, perceptions, or opinions. It's a way of expressing our side of the story.

But for some people, personal truth can become completely separate from objective reality or the actual truth, and when that happens, there's no telling what one person's truth may drive them to do. In the case of Andrea Yates, her truth was driven by complete fear and utter delusion. And when Andrea decided to act on her beliefs, it resulted in one of the most tragic crimes in the nations. history. The human mind is powerful. It shapes how we think, feel, love, and hate, but sometimes it drives people to commit the unthinkable. This is serial killers and murderous minds, a crime house original. I'm Vanessa Richardson. And I'm forensic psychologist Dr. Tristan Ingalls. Every Monday and Thursday, we uncover the darkest minds in history, analyzing what makes a killer.

Crimehouse exists because of listeners like you. Want even more? join Crimehouse Plus and get both parts of every story dropped on the same Monday, completely ad-free. No waiting three days for part two, plus crime house bonus episodes every month. Before we get started, be advised, this episode contains descriptions of child murder, so please listen with care. Today, we conclude our deep dive on Andrea Yates, a devout Christian and stay-at-home mother whose one wish was for her family to make it to heaven one day. In Andrea's mind, the only thing holding them back from that dream was the literal demons surrounding them.

As Andrea's mental health deteriorated over the years, she became convinced there was nowhere safe to run. And in the end, she decided the only way to protect her family was to remove them from this earth herself. As Vanessa goes through the story, I'll be talking about things like how some offenders use violence as a solution to their own fear. what happens in the brain when someone is met with sudden tragic news and how contentious public perception can influence a trial. And as always, we'll be asking the question, what makes a killer? By April of 2001, 36-year-old Andrea Yates was living in Houston, Texas,

with her husband Rusty and their five children, who were between six months and seven years old. Andrea and Rusty had everything they'd ever wanted. lots of kids, a man of the house who provided, and a woman who cared for the children and did all the housework. But despite achieving their faith-based ideals, Andrea and Rusty's lives had been extremely fraught. Andrea had been hospitalized three times over three years for severe mental health crises. Her doctors believed she was suffering from major depressive disorder as well as postpartum psychosis. At Rusty's request, Dr. Mohamed Saeed had recently represcribed her

the antipsychotic known as Haldol, because Andrea had described having vivid and violent intrusive thoughts, and she believed Satan possessed her. Andrea hadn't had much success with psychiatric medication in the past, neither antidepressants nor antipsychotics, mainly because she and Rusty's fringe Christian beliefs prohibited the use of any medications, so she never took her medications as prescribed. Still, Dr. Saeed wanted to try a newer antipsychotic. and hopes it would be more effective and therefore make Andrea more willing to take it. But Rusty had convinced him to prescribe howled all instead. The risk of taking an antipsychotic that might not actually be suitable for her is significant

because with severe psychosis, medication choice and medication adherence actually matter. If a patient is taking a medication that's not effective for them or not taking it consistently or are stopping it abruptly, symptoms may contain. continue worsening while everyone believes that treatment is still continuing. But what stands out to me here is that I don't know if Dr. Saeed was getting the full picture. Was he told that Andrea was taking them as prescribed and they still did not work? Or was he told that they were ineffective because she repeatedly stopped taking them shortly after her discharge? Those are two very different situations. And that changes his clinical picture as well. And this is important for clinicians because not everyone is a fully reliable historian, even loved ones who genuinely believe that they're helping. Sometimes the information we get is incomplete, minimized, filtered, or shaped by what they're most comfortable with. That doesn't mean that it's malicious intent. But if the clinician's not getting the full story, treatment decisions like this one become much harder. I also think Dr. Saeed may have been in a

difficult position clinically because if Andrea and Rusty were resistant to newer medications and Heldall was the only option they were actually willing to accept and willing to continue, then he may have viewed any treatment as better than no treatment at all. I really can't speak for his clinical decision in that moment because, one, I'm not him and two, I'm not a psychiatrist. But I do wonder whether Andrea's providers had enough accurate historical information to fully appreciate how unstable the overall picture had actually become over time. So in general, what are the risks involved with a patient regularly changing their medication regimen, especially as it involves antipsychotics and antidepressants? So again, to be clear, I'm not a psychiatrist. I don't prescribe medication. But that said, I have worked

very closely with psychiatrists in formulating treatment plans for individuals like Andrea. And medication changes and adjustments are very common. Finding the right medication, the right dose or combination takes time, and especially with severe depression or psychosis, and especially in treatment-resistant individuals. Psychiatrists routinely adjust treatment based on symptom response. their side effects, their safety, and their adherence concerns. The bigger concern, I think, is when medications are repeatedly stopped abruptly like she has been doing or taking inconsistently or changed before clinicians can even accurately assess whether the medication was helping to begin with.

That can become very destabilizing, particularly with antipsychotics and antidepressants. And that is something that Andrea was consistently doing. With severe psychiatric illness, consistency matters because clinicians need enough time, like I said, and stability to evaluate what is working, what is not, whatever side effects are emerging, and whether symptoms are actually improving. And if the regimen is consistently interrupted or someone is misusing the medication or combining them with illicit substances or alcohol, then the clinical picture becomes much harder to interpret and the relapse risk can increase significantly.

but also that causes a provider to want to make medication changes that they otherwise may not have made to begin with. Well, in the weeks that followed, Andrea's medication regimen would change even more. It started when Rusty noticed how withdrawn she seemed. Even though she no longer spoke about visions of satanic possession, he was concerned about her emotional state. When Rusty raised these concerns with Dr. Saeed,

he explained that emotional flatness could be a simple, of the Haldol. In fact, Dr. Saeed felt optimistic that Andrea was no longer showing signs of psychosis. So he decided to take Andrea off Haldol and keep her on high doses of antidepressants instead. Dr. Saeed gradually tapered Andrea off of Haldol until he felt certain she was stable. However, he had no idea that Andrea's distorted thoughts hadn't stopped at all. She just stopped telling people about them. For years, Andrea had relied heavily on the teachings of the Christian extremist Michael Warnacki. Michael had a small following of people who believed he was a, quote, Ambassador of Christ. In order to ensure their spots in heaven one day, Michael's followers

closely obeyed his doctrine. Over the years, Andrea had become extremely paranoid about her children getting into heaven one day, so she made a point to read every single one of Michael's newsletters and listened to each cassette recording he mailed to her. And around the same time Andrea went off her antipsychotics, Michael's messages became extremely dire. Both Michael and his wife, Rachel, who was also close with Andrea, had convinced her that she was unrighteous. In fact, Michael was the reason Andrea believed

that Satan was controlling her. Once Michael knew that Andrea was convinced of this, he told her something else. He said the children of us, unrighteous mothers were also unrighteous. According to Michael, demons hunted for such children. However, there was one way for their souls to be saved if they died before the age of 12. Michael's teachings are built around fear, guilt, and control, which is not unlike most

high-control leaders. He wants to position himself as the person with the answers, because then he can amass a larger following and gain more control that way. And that messaging works on people like Andrea because it gives emotionally overwhelmed people a way to explain their suffering. Andrea was already vulnerable. She was severely depressed, psychotic, sleep deprived, isolated, frightened for her children's lives, and invested in being a righteous mother. And Michael's teachings gave structure and meaning to those fears. Now the doctrine has escalated in a concerning way.

this is also how high control or fear-based ideological systems work. The person's anxiety is intensified, then the doctrine presents itself as the only solution. After a while, the individual may stop trusting their own judgment and rely more heavily on the person defining that reality for them, in this case, Michael. And Andrea was particularly vulnerable to this because her thinking had already become rigid and fear-driven like we've been talking about. By this point, she appears to have been filtering his teachings through psychosis and her guilt and distorted reality testing. So the teachings may not have felt symbolic or metaphorical to her. They likely felt literally true and morally or spiritually urgent, especially now when she's not presently on any antipsychotic medication. And it's unclear if she's even taking her antidepressant consistently.

Do you think it's possible that Andrea intentionally hid the signs of her psychosis at the time. Like maybe she knew how seriously people would react if she told them she believed demons were coming after her children. Absolutely. I think this is very likely. Andrea had already experienced multiple psychiatric hospitalizations, so she knew what happened when her symptoms became visible or when she disclosed certain thoughts. Unfortunately, that can create a strong incentive for her to minimize, conceal, or selectively disclose what she's really experiencing. And this is a reality that providers have to become very skilled at assessing because people do not always directly tell you the level of danger they're in. So for example, someone with active suicidal intent may hide it

if they believe disclosure will lead to hospitalization or intervention. That is why clinicians will also assess behavior patterns, warning signs, changes in functioning, collateral information, and inconsistencies in presentation. And in Andrea's case, the content of the psychosis is extremely important. She had just been told that her greatest fear was true, that she was unrighteous and that her children, therefore, might also be unrighteous and that their salvation was now at risk. So if Andrea truly believed that, then there may have been an intense urgency attached to staying close to her children. So I think there could have been strong motivation for Andrea to conceal the severity of her symptoms. It's a myth that everyone with severe psychosis has lost all awareness of how others will perceive them. By June 2001, Andrea's fears had reached a boiling point. Rusty's mother, Dora, was still in town,

and she'd booked a hotel room and spent the days at the Yates' house helping Andrea out while Rusty was at work. But even though the family knew Andrea needed support, they had no idea how dire her mental state had become. But on the morning of June 20th, the horrific truth came to light. That morning, as Rusty got ready for work, he noticed that. that Andrea seemed agitated. She was pacing around the house and barely speaking to him. He made sure to give his wife her antidepressants, but since Dora hadn't arrived yet, he still felt uneasy leaving Andrea alone. However, the kids were fed and getting ready for their homeschooling session, and Rusty had an important meeting that morning, so he told himself

it was fine. He hugged each of his children, then headed out for the day. And another content morning before we get into this further, what we're about to describe is incredibly disturbing and deals with the death of children. We're only providing necessary details to provide the full picture, but please again listen with care. Shortly before 9 a.m., once Rusty drove off, Andrea went upstairs. She moved with mechanical precision as she entered the bathroom and filled the bathtub with water. Then she brought her three-year-old son Paul into the bathroom. Without saying a word, Andrea placed Paul into the tub and drowned him. Once she was sure Paul was no longer alive, she carried him into the master bedroom, laid him on the bed, and covered him with a sheet.

I want to pause for a second and just check it with the listeners here and with you, Vanessa, because this part of the case is extremely upsetting. And I think it's important to remember that explaining Andrea's psychology is not the same thing as excusing what happened. Understanding how severe psychosis can distort someone's perception of reality does not erase the horror or the loss involved in this case, and that description was rather horrifying to picture. So I hope you're all doing okay with this. It's going to get a little bit more graphic. But by this point, Andrea's reality testing appears to have become so impaired that she likely believed that she was protecting her children from something worse than death.

She had become consumed by fears about sin and Satan and righteousness and eternal damnation. So within her distorted reality, death seemed to have represented salvation or protection. And this is one of the reasons that postpartum psychosis is considered such a psychiatric emergency. In rare but severe cases, the parents' protective instincts do not disappear, even though, of course, an argument could be made that they certainly did. but they become catastrophically distorted by delusion and impaired by reality testing, and it's truly just very tragic. Andrea just seems completely detached from reality at this point. What do you think the likely reason is for her agitated state that morning

and her mechanical movements after that? Is it fair to say that she's now in an unstoppable state? So obviously it's hard to say for sure without asking Andrea herself. So this is purely speculation and of course educational only. And even asking Andrea, I don't know that she even has the insight to really say. But that agitation beforehand suggests to me that Andrea's nervous system, again, was in a state of extreme activation. There's a pattern of that happening with her.

And that tells me that she's highly anxious and in threat response mode. But it also sounds like she has been consistently supervised and that likely increased her anxiety even more because that has been prohibiting her. Then, once Rusty leaves, the shift into very mechanical, rigid behavior is also clinically significant because that movement can sometimes occur in severe psychiatric crises. It suggests the person may not be processing the situation emotionally the way that we would normally expect. Instead, the behavior becomes rigid, automatic, and disconnected. And in some severe mood or psychotic states, especially with catatonic or associated features which she's been documented to have had in the past, people can appear almost

robotic or emotionally absent while carrying out certain actions. And the brain and nervous system aren't processing reality, emotion, and behavior in an integrated way in situations like that. In Andrea's mind, she had just saved her son from eternal damnation, and now she had to do the same for the rest of her children. After killing Paul, Andrea killed her two-year-old son, Luke. Then she called her five-year-old son John upstairs next. He refused. This wasn't their usual bath time, but Andrea wouldn't take no for an answer. In the end, he met the same tragic fate as his brothers. Then Andrea killed her six-month-old baby daughter, Mary. However, Andrea did not move Mary to the bed like the others. She was still in the bath.

tub when Andrea called in her final child, seven-year-old Noah. When Noah entered the bathroom, he looked down at his baby sister and asked what happened to her. Andrea didn't respond. Instead, she grabbed Noah and forced him into the tub. Once he had died, Andrea left him in the tub, then brought Mary into the bedroom, and laid her down on the bed alongside her other siblings. Andrea was still moving robotically, like someone else was in control, and at 9.48 a.m., she dialed 911. Soon, the entire nation would be gripped with one of the most horrifying tragedies ever seen. On June 20, 2001, 36-year-old Andrea Yates drowned each of her five children at home. She believed demons were coming after them, and that ending their lives on

Earth was the only way to ensure their salvation. In the immediate aftermath of the murders, Andrea maintained her robotic composure, and she called 911. She told the dispatcher she needed the police to come to her house, but she wouldn't tell them why. The dispatcher tried to get any information out of her. Still, Andrea only repeated herself. Until finally, they said an officer was on the way. Andrea's behavior immediately afterward tells us a lot about the psychological state she appears to be in at this point. And that's significant because delusions are not just unusual beliefs. In severe psychosis, they can become fixed realities that completely reshape how someone interprets morality, danger, consequences, and responsibility. They're no longer evaluating

the situation through ordinary reality testing. They're operating from a belief that feels unquestionably true to them, even if it isn't. So if Andrea genuinely believed that her children, were spiritually doomed, that demons were coming for them, and that death was the only way to save them, then those delusions could make these horrific actions feel necessary or even protective within her distorted reality. And I think that is what appears to be happening here. Her presentation suggests someone whose actions still feel psychologically immorally justified inside the delusional framework that she's operating in. In your opinion, how did the combination of Andrea's religious beliefs and her mental illness factor into her specific form of delusion.

So delusions often pull from a person's existing fears, beliefs, culture, and emotional vulnerabilities. So Andrea's fears about purity, righteousness, or not getting into heaven, and failing as a mother, became reinforced by her first breakup. Then Michael's teachings, Rusty's beliefs, and then you added on isolation, guilt, and her depression, They likely stopped being beliefs at that point. The two appeared to have interacted in a very dangerous way, and her beliefs became distorted then at that point by untreated psychosis. Andrea's mental state was not only highly dangerous, it was highly unusual.

As she waited for the police to arrive, she remained in that mechanical state. And next, she called Rusty. He was surprised to hear from her because she knew he had an important meeting in just 30 minutes. But when he clocked Andrea's cold tone of voice, Rusty immediately knew something was wrong. Andrea wasted no time. She told him the kids were hurt. She didn't provide any further details, but she didn't have to. Rusty immediately hung up the phone and called his mother, Dora. He urged her to get to the house as soon as possible. Then Rusty darted out of his office and raced home. The police would arrive before him or Dora at 9.5.

Just four minutes after Andrea called 911, Officer David Knapp arrived at the house with no idea what to expect. Andrea was standing at the front door when he got there. Her hair was damp and she seemed out of breath. He asked her what the problem was. Andrea looked him in the eyes and with no emotion, she told him she'd just killed her children. Then she pointed to the upstairs bedroom.

As Officer Knapp entered the house, he noticed unfinished breakfast dishes were still out and toys were laying about on the floor. As he climbed the stairs, he scanned rows of family photos. Then Officer Knapp stepped into the master bedroom. On the bed, underneath the sheets, he saw the outline of four small bodies. Officer Knapp carefully pulled back the sheets. One by one, he checked for signs of life, but there weren't any. He immediately called for backup.

A few minutes later, his colleague, Officer Frank Stumpo, arrived, and it was Stumpo who entered the bathroom to find Noah's body still in the tub. Pretty soon, Rusty arrived home. By that time, news vans were lined up and down the street, and the house was covered in yellow tape. Crime scene analysts swarmed the property, taking photos and collecting evidence. Meanwhile, Andrea was sitting at the kitchen table still as a statue.

Rusty could barely see her through the doorway. He tried to go inside, but an officer stopped him. Then they broke the gut-wrenching news. Rusty fell to his knees and screamed, before grabbing a plastic chair and hurling it across the yard. Then he broke into uncontrollable sobs. He'd spent nearly a decade making sure his children were healthy and safe, and now the person who was supposed to be his partner in ensuring their well-being

had killed them. Rusty just received arguably the most tragic news that one could receive. Early on, people may move in and out of shock, numbness, disbelief, rage, guilt, confusion, intrusive memories, all of those. The mind tends to process traumatic grief like that in fragments because it's easier. And with Rusty, there are multiple layers of trauma happening all at once here. He's lost all. five of his children in the most unimaginable way, and the person responsible was his wife. He's likely replaying every decision leading up to that morning, wondering what did he miss, what should he have done differently, and whether this could have been prevented.

That kind of hindsight guilt is extremely common after traumatic loss or any loss, even when the person did not directly cause what happened. I also think it is important to acknowledge that although Rusty may, have underestimated the severity of Andrea's illness or supported medication discontinuation in the past, maybe even reinforced some of the belief systems surrounding her, that does not mean he wanted this outcome or believed that Andrea was capable of it. One of the tragedies in severe mental illness is that families can gradually normalize warning signs over time. They are living inside the situation every day, trying to maintain life demands and doing what they can to hold on

to any sense of normalcy they can. And there are aspects of this environment that many clinicians would likely view as concerning, myself included, like we talked about throughout this. But recognizing those dynamics is different from placing blame on Rusty for Andrea's actions. And as for healing for rusty, this is not the kind of loss someone simply gets over. Realistically, this is the kind of trauma that permanently can change a person. But over time, I think healing is about learning how to carry the grief in ways that allow for optimal functioning in a very new normal. And that often involves trauma therapy, grief support, social connection, and rebuilding safety, whatever that might be, because that's a very subjective experience.

And part of that's going to mean learning how to trust someone else again, because this is a huge betrayal. It was absolutely the worst moment of Rusty's life. He could barely believe it was real. Officers escorted him to the backyard where he could have privacy. As he stared at Andrea through the back door, he shouted at her through the glass, asking how she could have done this. Eventually, Dora arrived.

the two sat in silence as the authorities filed in and out of the home. Inside, investigators asked Andrea simple questions like where to find the house keys. Each time, she responded in a flat, detached tone. She continued to show no emotion as she was finally taken into custody and made an official confession. Soon, she was charged with two counts of capital murder for just three of the children, one for intentionally and knowingly causing the deaths of Noah, and John, and a second for killing Mary. If convicted, she was facing the death penalty. A few days later, Rusty visited her for the first time. When he entered the facility, he hoped he'd be met with some

recognizable version of his wife, but Andrea's demeanor hadn't changed, and Rusty felt he no longer understood who she was. However, Rusty did begin to understand what or who had caused Andrea to do this, Michael Warnocky. the man Rusty had invited into their lives. Andrea's lawyers claimed that Michael's radical teachings had driven her to kill their children because she thought it was the only way to save them. Rusty had never intended any of this,

but now all he could do was try to preserve his children's memories. In the days that followed, he spoke to the press outside his home where people had left candles, flowers, and stuffed animals on the front lawn. He told reporters about how much his kids had loved playing sports and making arts and crafts. And in one final interview, Rusty said Andrea was no longer herself. Then he looked directly into the camera and told her he loved her.

It's unclear whether Rusty communicated with Michael during this time, or if Michael attended the kid's funeral on June 27, 2001, one week after they died. However, the authorities prohibited Andrea from attending the funeral. Instead, she spent her time gearing up for the trial that would soon be making headlines nationwide, and so was the media. Pretty soon, two competing narratives surrounding the crimes began to take shape. In one version, Andrea Yates was a mother who had acted with chilling intent. She'd filled a bathtub and executed her children one by one, even when her oldest tried to run.

To many, Andrea's actions suggested a high level of awareness and, control. However, many others believed that despite how devastating Andrea's actions were, her mind had fractured under the weight of her mental illness, and that her perception of reality had become completely distorted. I think cases like this divide people because of the uncomfortable realities they force us to face. For example, the acts themselves are horrifying. People naturally look at the sequence of events, and if there is a level of organization involved, they often question and how someone could commit such an act without understanding it was wrong. That's because most people instinctively associate planning, repetition, or goal-directed behavior with intent and awareness.

But severe psychosis does not always look disorganized. Someone can still complete purposeful actions while their perception of reality is profoundly distorted. But that reality is uncomfortable for some because it's unsettling and it's unpredictable. And at the same time, people also react emotionally to what the case represents. For some, recognizing the role of severe mental illness feels too close to excusing the deaths of innocent children. And others focus on the case factors, like you mentioned, her extensive psychiatric history, her psychosis, the delusions, hospitalization, medication issues, warning signs. And they see the failures there. And honestly, all reactions are understandable and they're all very deeply human.

In general, what is it that motivates people to place others in clearly defined categories like that? We don't like uncertainty. We need terrible things to happen for identifiable reasons because that gives us a sense that we can control for them or at least feel safer from them. Categorizing helps it because it creates a sense of predictability and psychological safety. But real human psychology just doesn't work like that. The first thing to note, the vast majority of severely mentally ill individuals never become violent. But the reality is, someone can be mentally ill and still responsible for harmful actions. A mother can love their children and still take their lives in violent ways. And I think this case challenged a lot of people's assumptions about mental illness or motherhood, morality and responsibility all at once.

And that's deeply uncomfortable for many people to sit with. People on both sides felt strongly about their views, and soon these two narratives would shape the legal battle ahead. Even Andrea's lawyers struggled to understand her mental state. During trial preparations, they noticed that her pupils appeared large and dark. She always seemed to be staring at something that wasn't there. One of her lawyers noted that in all his years practicing law, he had never seen someone so profoundly troubled. Ultimately, Andrea's attorneys worked to build an insanity defense. The question was, after such an atrocity, would the jury believe it?

In the aftermath of Andrea Yates, killing her five children, Noah, John, Paul, Luke, and Mary, the nation was divided. As the story dominated headlines, many felt that Andrea was a cold-blooded, heartless killer, while others believed she'd fallen victim to a severe mental health crisis. So when Andrea's trial started in early 2002, about seven months after the children's deaths, the main question centered around whether she'd understood what she was doing when she killed them. The defense argued that Andrea had been completely disconnected from reality at the time. They called a forensic psychiatrist to the stand who emphasized Andrea's belief that she was possessed by Satan, However, the prosecution countered with the fact that Andrea herself had confessed to the precise and deliberate manner of her actions,

and they pointed to her history of violent thoughts as evidence of premeditation, although the defense's experts argued that psychotic individuals can exhibit organized, sequential behavior while still being disconnected from reality. The prosecutors had a counter to that, too. They called an expert witness, forensic psychiatrist Dr. Patrick Dietz, He testified that Andrea had likely been influenced by an episode of the TV show Law and Order in which a woman kills her children and is found not guilty by reason of insanity. The implication was that Andrea knew what she was doing and that she'd planned to game the justice system. And even though there was no evidence she'd actually seen that episode of Law and Order,

the defense didn't effectively challenge the testimony, so it stood. Let's talk about the insanity defense for a moment. Different jurisdictions use different legal standards, but generally the core question is whether there was a qualifying mental disease or defect and whether that condition impaired the person's ability to appreciate the nature, wrongfulness, or consequences of their action at the time of the offense. In Andrea's case, I do not think the defense would have had difficulty establishing the existence of a severe mental illness. By this point, there had been multiple psychiatric hospitalizations, suicide attempts, documented psychosis, severe decompensation, medication noncompliance, and repeated deterioration when she was off antipsychotic medication. I think their individual assessment with her would corroborate the record as well. The more difficult legal question is whether Andrea appreciated the wrongfulness of what she was doing at the time of the murders. And that is where these cases become incredibly complex. Some, evidence could be interpreted as suggesting awareness and intentionality. For example, the morning of

the offense, Andrea appeared agitated, pacing, barely speaking, and waiting until Rusty left before acting. A jury could absolutely view those sequence of events, like drawing the bath immediately after he left, carrying out the axe, and then calling police afterward as evidence of planning and awareness. But the defense would likely argue something very different. The likely example would be Andrea's reality testing had become so profoundly distorted by psychosis that although she understood she was physically killing her children, she may not have appreciated the moral wrongfulness of the acts because as a result of her delusions, she genuinely believed she was doing the right thing and was saving them. There is a distinction between legal wrongfulness and moral wrongfulness. And severe psychosis

can create that kind of distortion. Someone can still engage in organized or organized or goal-directed behavior while operating under severe delusional beliefs. So legally, this becomes about whether Andrea knew whether her psychosis prevented her from rationally appreciating the true wrongfulness of those acts at the time. That would be the part they would need to convince the trier of fact on. And I think they would have a very good chance at that, given her history, her behavior in the months, the weeks, the days, and hours leading up to the offense, and her behavior after the event up until the present.

And lastly, as a forensic psychologist who does conduct these evaluations, I would never testify to information that had no evidentiary relevance to the case. If there was no evidence that Andrea had actually seen a television episode or external material the prosecution wanted to reference, I would not consider that clinically or forensically or forensically reliable support for an opinion at all. doing so could have catastrophic results legally and professionally. Have you ever been called to testify in a situation like this one? Yes, I have, and typically I'm called to testify in cases I personally evaluated,

and more often than not, those cases do involve criminal responsibility or insanity, as they call it, since they tend to go to trial the most. And honestly, the experience is adversarial no matter who you are. whether you are a fact witness or an expert witness, the opposing side is going to challenge your credibility, your methods, your conclusions, your wording, and even your qualifications. If my opinion is that the defendant was sane at the time of the commission of the crime or the alleged crime, then it is usually the defense cross-examining me aggressively and trying to undermine confidence in my testimony. If my opinion is that the defendant met criteria for insanity, then it is often the prosecution doing that. instead. That is part of the role. And my job is not to advocate for one side. My job is to provide an opinion grounded in the evidence, the clinical findings, records, collateral information, and the legal standard in that jurisdiction, regardless of which side benefits from it. I stick to the facts. I answer only the questions I've been asked, and I leave emotion out of it, no matter

how adversarial it can feel. Well, in this case, the prosecution strategy seemed to work, because in March 2002, after weeks of testimony, the jury found Andrea Yates guilty of capital murder for the deaths of Noah, John, and Mary. She was sentenced to life in prison, but the jury decided against the death penalty. For many, that felt like the end of the story. The system had done its job, but there was one problem, because soon a key piece of testimony came under scrutiny. After Andrea's sentencing, a journalist who'd previously written for Law and Order said that the episode that had played such a critical role in the case didn't actually exist. It was a bombshell revelation, and it was enough to warrant a retrial in 2006. This time, the court examined Andrea's state of mind at the time of the murders more carefully,

not just her own mental health, but other outside factors, like the influence of Michael Warnocky. Michael's teachings and the extreme impact they had were under the microscope, not only on Andrea, but many of his followers. Meanwhile, just outside the courtroom, Michael and his wife Rachel spoke to the press, rejecting the idea that their teachings had played a role in the children's deaths, and ultimately no charges were ever brought against him. Realistically, Andrea is the person who physically committed the murders. But psychologically, I do think it is reasonable to examine whether Michael's teachings influence the content and structure of her delusions. And by this point, Andrea appears profoundly psychotic and highly suggestible within that religious framework.

Michael's messaging repeatedly reinforced themes of unrighteousness, maternal failure, and spiritual danger surrounding children or her children. And like we discussed earlier, those exact themes became intertwined. with her psychosis later. That does not mean Michael caused Andrea's psychosis, though. Severe mental illness was already present, but belief systems can absolutely shape how delusions are interpreted and expressed, especially in someone who's already detached from reality. And I think it's important to distinguish psychological influence from legal accountability. Based on what we know, Andrea listened to Michael's teachings and appears to have interpreted them through a severely psychotic lens,

meaning she interpreted his teachings in a distorted way. Now, if there was direct evidence that Michael explicitly instructed Andrea or anyone else to kill their children before a certain age to ensure they made it into heaven, then the legal conversation changes significantly. But based on what we currently have,

that does not appear to be the case. What the evidence does show is that he stated, children who died before a certain age were spared damnation. He did not suggest, instruct, or incite anyone to take the lives of their children to accomplish this. So legally, there's nothing criminally here for them to charge him for. Psychologically, though, again, the teachings, I feel contributed to an environment that reinforced fear, guilt, rigidity, and treatment resistance in someone who is already extremely vulnerable. Andrea appears to have internalized the idea. that she alone was responsible for protecting her children spiritually, while at the same time believing she herself was morally failing. That's a lot for someone to experience while delusional. And his teachings also appear to have lacked clear ethical boundaries around how vulnerable followers might interpret them. But unfortunately, he did not have a legal duty to provide those boundaries. He was a religious preacher. So therefore, he's generally free to practice and preach his

religious beliefs as anyone is under the First Amendment, even if others find it extremely harmful. If someone could be held legally responsible anytime a severely psychotic individual distorted their words into a delusional belief system, liability would become almost limitless. Writers, religious figures, teachers, entertainers, and public figures could all potentially be blamed for how their words were interpreted by someone who is detached from reality. Even though Michael didn't face a trial of his own, his newsletters and tape recordings were reviewed heavily during Andrea's retrial. All of his beliefs from his views on so-called unrighteous mothers and their children to the risk of eternal damnation were scrutinized. And on July 26, 2006, the jury returned with their verdict.

This time, Andrea was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Andrea remained completely still as the verdict was read. Then she was transported to a state psychiatric facility. Under Texas law, she was entitled to annual reviews that could result in her release. But she has denied each opportunity. Andrea remains in the facility to this day. Eventually, Rusty filed for divorce. He remarried a year after it was finalized.

Over time, he came to terms with the fact that Andrea's actions were the result of severe mental illness. He also admitted that Michael's teachings may have worsened Andrea's pre-existing delusions. During Andrea's retrial, he said he wished he'd never introduced her to Michael. In the time since, some of Michael's other former followers have spoken out and provided even more chilling detail into his ideologies and brainwashing. Most notably, one of Michael's nephews, Moses Storm. In the 26th documentary, The Cult Behind the, The Cult Behind the film, the killer, the Andrea Yates story, Moses explained that Michael took his mother under his wing when she was fresh out of high school and had become pregnant out of wedlock. In the years to

follow, Moses and his siblings grew up in what he described as Michael's cult. Moses and other former followers revealed many of the tactics Michael used to manipulate people, like his claims of encountering Jesus after suffering an intense blow while playing football. Michael said that Ever since that day, Jesus spoke his word directly through him. Michael framed himself as an authority in Christianity, and he tuned into people's fears and insecurities to make them feel chosen. Then, once he knew they were wrapped around his finger, he convinced them that the devil was controlling the world.

This was how he convinced people not to trust medical or academic institutions, because, according to him, Satan used them to gain influence. And that wasn't all. Apparently, Michael not only told his followers he could save them, but that there wasn't room in heaven for all of his followers, which meant only the most devout would make it. By fear-mongering, Michael slowly pitted his followers against each other. If one couple started homeschooling their children, then everyone else did, too. And if one family bought a bus to live on, others followed suit. It was literally a race to the pearly gates, and whoever didn't know,

make it would be eternally damned. That teaching of urgency is important psychologically to understand. urgency narrows thinking and overwhelms someone psychologically. It's why it's effective in sales and also certain financial scams. But in fear-based systems like this, and in particular Michael's case, he's created the perception that there is imminent threat and that failure to act could result in eternal punishment. That can be very influential to psychologically vulnerable people. And when you combine that with teachings suggesting there is a limited window for salvation, the old sales of, but if you act now mentality, the pressure intensifies even more. In someone with intact reality testing, those teachings may still be emotionally harmful or coercive. But in someone experiencing severe psychosis, the beliefs can become literal or even more urgent, especially when the message is delivered with a sense of urgency as well.

Despite people's efforts to reveal the truth about Michael, nothing can ever change the fact that his doctrine, paired with Andrea's mental illness, created a perfect storm, one that claimed her five innocent children as victims. Today, their loved ones only have their memories left to cherish, including Rusty's heartfelt remembrances, which he shared at their funeral. During his eulogy, Rusty described how thoughtful and kind Noah had always been, how much he loved butterflies and rainbows, and how he'd memorized the names of each U.S. president. He spoke about John's love of trucks and roughhousing with his siblings, Paul's sweet, cuddly nature, Luke's sense of exploration, and the way Mary, his only daughter, loved tickle fights and kisses. At the end of his remarks, Rusty placed each child,

child's baby blanket into their casket. Thanks so much for listening. We'll be back next time for a deep dive into the mind of another murderer. Serial Killers and Murderous Minds is a Crimehouse original powered by Pave Studios. Here at Crimehouse, we want to thank each and every one of you for your support. If you like what you heard today, reach out on all social media at Crimehouse. Don't forget to rate, review, and follow Serial Killers and murderous minds wherever you get your podcasts. Your feedback truly makes a difference.

And to enhance your listening experience, join Crimehouse Plus and get both parts of every story dropped on the same Monday, completely ad-free. No waiting three days for part two, plus crimehouse bonus episodes every month. To join, go to Crimehouseplus.com, or if you listen on Apple Podcasts, tap try free at the top of the serial killers and murderous minds page. Serial Killers and Murderous Minds is hosted by me, Vanessa Richardson, and Forensic Psychologist Dr. Tristan Engels, and is a crimehouse original powered by Pave Studios. This episode was brought to life by the Serial Killers and Murderous Minds team. Max Cutler, Ron Shapiro, Alex Benadon, Lori Marinelli, Natalie, Natalie Pertzowski, Sarah Camp,

Alyssa Fox, Ines Renique, Sarah Batchelor, Kaylee Pine, and Carrie Murphy. Thank you for listening.