A ‘rare and extraordinary’ murder
William Yesler stabbed his wife, Ann Yesler, to death in their Auckland home in 2005. He was released after only two years in prison. For the first time, the Parole Board has revealed why. Katie Kenny reports.
William Yesler’s offending was ‘‘rare and extraordinary’’, according to the Parole Board as well as to police officers, psychiatrists, and lawyers.
The Auckland couple led a relatively quiet life until Yesler brutally killed his wife, Ann, on January 19, 2005.
The case didn’t even make the news at the time, and was first made public last year as part of The Homicide Report, the first publicly searchable database of New Zealand homicides.
The 63-year-old claimed he had no intention or recollection of killing his wife. He put forward an unusual defence known as automatism, representing a loss of control and lack of intent when committing a criminal offence.
It has been used to acquit people who committed crimes while sleepwalking, in diabetic shock, or during an epileptic fit. For obvious reasons, it’s treated with a great deal of skepticism.
Yesler wasn’t acquitted but he was let off relatively lightly. He was charged with murder but was found guilty of manslaughter, sentenced to four-and-a-half years’ imprisonment but granted parole after two years.
An American by birth, he returned home after his sentence.
For more than a year, Stuff has been fighting for access to the Parole Board’s decision. Now, it’s clear the decision was heavily influenced by strong support from the victim’s family.
‘‘It is, we believe, quite exceptional in such circumstances for the family of the victim to be so supportive of the man who was found guilty of the manslaughter of their family member,’’ it says.
Ann Yesler’s sister visited Yesler in prison, and has previously told Stuff she believed he wasn’t culpable.
Psychiatric reports given to the board suggested Yesler was unlikely to reoffend and posed ‘‘no real risk’’.
‘‘We are quite satisfied on the evidence before us that there is no real risk to the safety of the community,’’ the decision said.
‘‘The killing was an automatic
reaction which had no basis of premeditation, and was ultimately manslaughter in a most unusual category.’’
A ‘psychological blow’
Ann Yesler was born Ann Sandelin in Christchurch in 1945. Her husband was born in New Jersey, in the United States. They met while skiing in Pennsylvania and later moved to New Zealand in part to escape credit card debts.
The couple bought an adult video store where William Yesler worked six days a week. However, their debts continued to pile up. When he killed his wife on the evening of January 21, 2005, he was — the defence argued — in the throes of developing a full-blown depressive disorder.
Despite his profession he was conservative, and when Ann Yesler made a comment about turning to sex work — perhaps jokingly, though it’s unclear — he suffered a ‘‘psychological blow’’ and was unable to control or even recall his actions.
When he came to he had a knife in his hand, sticky with blood, and his wife was dead.
Sir Peter Williams, QC — perhaps New Zealand’s bestknown defence lawyer — represented the accused.
During the trial, experts questioned the legitimacy of the automatism defence (some psychiatrists explain it as a neurological condition, while others aren’t convinced such a degree of dissociation is even possible).
One psychiatrist called by the Crown said the accused displayed narcissistic traits: ‘‘I note that [the accused] remains preoccupied with his own distress — his inability to kill himself and his desire to be killed by others. Rather than expressing sadness, distress, or remorse for [Ann Yesler’s] death.’’
Witnesses described him as easily irritated with a tendency to lash out. Police officers who dealt with him said they thought he was lying and putting on a ‘‘persona’’.
While the jury didn’t accept William Yesler was acting in an automatic state when he killed his wife, they found his level of consciousness was clouded, affecting his ability to appreciate the consequences of his actions.
Justice Graham Lang took a holistic approach. He told Yesler: ‘‘Whilst you may have appreciated, albeit dimly, what you were doing, you had no real insight into the consequences of your actions.’’
‘Exceptional’ reasons
Police officers who dealt with him said they thought he was lying and putting on a ‘‘persona’’.
The Parole Board initially refused to share its decision to release Yesler, citing privacy concerns.
Stuff complained to the Ombudsman, who ruled that the board shouldn’t have withheld the information.
Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier said: ‘‘I consider that there is a heightened public interest in the Parole Board’s accountability in cases such as this, where it uses exceptional reasons for its decision making. I am of the view that the public interest in this case is sufficiently high to require the release of information explaining the reasons for the Parole Board’s decision.’’
Parole conditions meant Yesler had to live at an approved address as well as undertake psychological assessment and any other counselling or programmes recommended by his probation officer.
‘‘We believe that with appropriate ongoing assistance and both familial and community support [Yesler] is likely to live as he has throughout his earlier life in an appropriate and sensible way,’’ the decision said.
Sources said that since Yesler’s return to the United States, he has been employed and hasn’t put a foot wrong. His current social circle doesn’t know about his criminal past.
The Homicide Report covers 1068 men, women, and children who were killed from January 2004 to March 31, 2019. Almost 400 of those cases involved family violence. Half of all women victims were killed by a male partner or ex-partner.