Yesterday we reported on the appellate victory of the original Texas child killer, Andrea Yates:
Dr. Dietz made a misstatement about an episode of Law & Order. It’s that mistake that has led to an appellate victory for Yates in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
I haven’t heard anyone actually involved with the case claim that Dietz perjured himself. It seems to have been an honest mistake, and it’s one that seems fairly easy to make. It’s quite possible Dietz did in fact consult on an episode idea for Law & Order, just as he said, but that the episode was never produced. I don’t know what was going on his mind.
It’s obvious that Dietz got quite sloppy with his work here, and that he certainly should exercise more care with what he says under oath, but I don’t think he lied on the stand. Yet, yesterday on an ABC News radio broadcast, I heard the reporter — not some pundit or person connected to the case, but the front man — say that the appeal was successful because “Park Dietz lied” about the L&O episode. That’s completely unacceptable for two reasons. First, it’s probably untrue and nobody has even alleged Dietz acted maliciously. Second, if Dietz did lie, then he gave perjured testimony. By saying that Dietz lied, the media basically convicts him of a crime. The media doesn’t do this with accused killers (”Robert Blake killed his wife, now is up on trial”, for instance), and shouldn’t do it to Dr. Dietz either.
Nathan Novak at 5:37 pm
LOL. HE LIED.
Comment by UK Watchers — July 14, 2006 @ 8:52 pm
How kind of you. DIETZ IS A LIAR. His job is lying to protect Big Pharma. Have the guts to say so.
Comment by UK Watchers — July 14, 2006 @ 8:53 pm
I am a Behavioural Science student. Almost everyone interested in forensic psychology has some mixed feelings or at least an interest in Dr. Dietz. And as a typical psych student with a heavy leaning towards forensics, I must say that he has stirred questions in my mind. He does take a stance, but it is for accuracy in general and defense of the law, and never of lies and convenient truth. In the Yates case he has stated plainly that he does not agree with the law but that the law said that she is guilty. She was psychotic- but aware that her actions were wrong. If you disagree with her sentence then you disagree with Texas law, not with Dr. Dietz! As for a TV episode he thought he remembered I honestly think it was a mistake as Dr. Dietz and his firm would only suffer from such a mistake. I also agree with Dr. Dietz that in this case she was guilty according to law but insane and that the law needs refinement. Rather than condemnation, Dr. Dietz deserves our support for his illumination of the discrepancies in the insanity defense.
Comment by JJ — February 7, 2007 @ 9:02 am