Wife who killed preacher could go free today

[NaturalHigh]

After spending a total of seven months in custody, the Tennessee woman who fatally shot her preacher husband in the back will be released as early as today.

Mary Winkler, a 33-year-old mother of three girls, is expected to be freed from a mental health facility today or Wednesday, lawyer Steve Farese told CNN.

Farese said his client will not talk to the news media because she continues to wage a legal battle to win custody of her girls and faces a $2 million civil suit filed by the parents of of her slain husband, Matthew Winkler.

CNN...

Gee, it must be rough to serve seven months after killing your husband.

[Beelzebud]

1. Oh I'm sure she's totally cured.

*sigh*

[NaturalHigh]

3. No doubt.

It's terrible that our oppressive society inconvenienced her for seven months by locking her in a padded room. :sarcasm:

[Randomthought]

5. Murder is wrong

but so is abuse. After years in an abusive relationship you don't know what you might do.

[NaturalHigh]

7. No proof of abuse in this case.

Kids didn't corroborate, no police reports. I realize that's the standard excuse when a woman kills her husband, but there is certainly no evidence of it in this case.

[johnaries]

39. You don't know anything about spousal abuse, do you!

Well, I have known many abused spouses. Often there is no evidence.

You don't know what abusers do to their victims psychologically. I have seen it in several friends. I wanted to shoot the abusers myself.

I believe she was abused. More importantly, the Jury believed she was abused.

[NaturalHigh]

42. You're free to believe that.

I personally do not. You're right in saying that what the jury believed is what mattered in this case. We'll see what the civil court thinks.

[johnaries]

50. As I said, I've known several women who were victims.

She shows all the symptoms. She was abused, count on it. I am confident the Civil Court will find the same way.

[NaturalHigh]

51. I've known several victims as well...

and I disagree with you concerning Mary Winkler. It is my opinion that she was not abused in any way, and there's not been one shred of evidence to suggest anything to the contrary. We have only her word that she was abused. Her husband (the victim in this case, shot in the back while sleeping) isn't around to tell us his side of the story.

As for the civil court, we'll just have to wait and see.

[LanternWaste]

104. Is there a specific and relevant reason you don't believe the jury's verdict?

Is there a specific and relevant reason you don't believe the jury's verdict?

:shrug:

[NaturalHigh]

107. I'm basing my opinion on everything that I've read about the case.

You're free to do the same.

[LanternWaste]

115. Lighten up, Francis...

I'm free to do the same?

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And... Thank you!

I'll make a point not to ask you any completely neutral questions unless I want an unrelated and obvious answer to something else.

Lighten up, Francis...

[NaturalHigh]

118. I don't know anyone named Francis, but STRIPES was a great movie.

I must have watched it a dozen times when I was a kid. "No questions, please. We just want to go home and have some really serious sex" still ranks as one of the best single lines ever.

Back to your post, I thought I did answer your question. Based on everything I've read, I think the jury screwed up. You are free to base your opinion on what you read, just as is anyone else. Sorry if that offended you, or if you thought I was being snarky (I confess to being a little fuzzy on just what snarky means, but it doesn't sound good).

[Madspirit]

43. "excuse"...wow...another on my Ignore...n/t

[NaturalHigh]

45. I thought you already put me on "Ignore" a few weeks ago.

Bye.

[lumberjack_jeff]

67. Welcome to the club. n/t

[NaturalHigh]

77. Were you threatened with the dreaded ignore too?

"Welcome to my ignore list" sounds so frightening. I should probably have nightmares about it or something.

[Duppers]

54. that's NOT what folks in the town say

I've a great aunt who lives in Selmer and she says most of the town is on Mary Winkler's side. At first I thought the woman was just insane and stupid, but after listening and reading, I changed my mind. She WAS abused. There were bruises and there was porn sites on the computer; circumstantial yes, but it confirms some of her statements.

All and all, she fits the profile of an abused woman who was irrational. Also, it's the frikin' chauvinistic south, where many women feel they cannot 'escape' their men.

But you're a male and probably a good person, so you're less likely to believe such things can happen.

[NaturalHigh]

70. I believe such things can happen.

In this case, I don't think there was any abuse. I think Mrs. Winkler made up the abuse as an excuse to murder her husband. Women who are abused and kill their husbands usually don't flee the state.

As for porn sites, if looking at porn is spousal abuse, I know plenty of men (and women) who would be guilty. I realize that some (irrational) women (and maybe even some men) consider looking at any form of pornography to be abuse, but the law doesn't see it that way.

[Duppers]

76. OMG! I should have known you'd twist my words.

Look, you were questioning her credibility and I offered the info on the porn sites ONLY as an example/proof that SOME of her statements were true. I SAID NOTHING ABOUT PORN BEING RELATED TO ABUSE.

JEEEEESH! DOESN'T THAT FUCKING HIGH HORSE OF YOURS TIRE YOU OUT???!!!!!!!

Oh, I forgot, since I don't have a penis, I can't have a brain either, so just dismiss anything I've said. :sarcasm:


:banghead:



On edit: just forget what I said about you being a nice person too. You know so little about this case, yet you have such strong opinions, as if you KNOW exactly Mary Winkler's motivation and her circumstances. Such thinking is a dangerous.

Her poor in-laws will not be awarded a dime. I'll bet hard cash on that too.

And it's very strange for me to defend a woman I have so little respect for; compassion yes, respect no.

BYE.

[NaturalHigh]

78. Oh please don't take back what you said about me being a nice person.

Also, I don't ride horses anymore, high or otherwise. If the porn wasn't a big deal, why even bring it up? Just because the preacher looked at porn does not in any way corroborate abuse. I'm sure you already knew that, but it probably felt good to say "this preacher was looking at porn!"

[Duppers]

85. do you not read?

Again, quoting my post above: "I SAID NOTHING ABOUT PORN BEING RELATED TO ABUSE."

Brought up ONLY as proof that the woman did not lie about everything, as you had implied.

[NaturalHigh]

88. Actually, I read rather well.

I don't think I ever said that Mrs. Winkler lied about him looking at porn sites. To be honest, I had forgotten about that, since I consider it to be completely irrelevant to this case.

[AlCzervik]

2. I bet her lawyer has a waiting list of clients now.

[Warpy]

4. It would be nice to know the rest of the story

For instance, how much of her story of being emotionally abused did her kids corroborate?

Was there physical abuse also?

Just what went on in that rectory?

Don't be so quick to judge. We don't know the whole story here.

[NaturalHigh]

6. The only kid that they questioned said there was no abuse.

This woman killed her husband because of a financial scheme, which she was stupid enough to get involved in, went bad, and she didn't want to tell him. Nobody has corroborated any abuse.

[Stinky The Clown]

8. I'm with you, Warpy.

I do NOT know the full story. I had a knee-jerk feeling that she was innocent because of ongoing abuse. But I also know that was a reaction to the fact her husband was a 'christian' preacher.

I'd love to know the whole story.

[NaturalHigh]

11. Yes, all those Christian preachers are so bad...

:sarcasm: in case it's needed.

[Stinky The Clown]

17. That's why I put the word ....

'christian' in quotes and used lower case ........ in case its needed.

[NaturalHigh]

19. Your point was very clear.

No explanation needed.

[H2O Man]

9. I think that

enough is known to justify people thinking she has gotten away with murder with little consequence.

[depakid]

14. Don't expect any such thing

from the moralizers. They need their pound of flesh- evidence be damned.

[NaturalHigh]

22. What evidence?

You mean the evidence that she killed her husband while he was sleeping and then hauled ass? Oh, you mean the evidence of abuse? Wait, that's right, there wasn't any.

[LanternWaste]

106. Are you referring to the jury?

Are you referring to the jury?

:shrug:

[spoony]

94. You can't know the rest of the story...know why?

Because the person she's making all the accusations about is DEAD BY HER HAND.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

10. What A Travesty Of Justice. I Hope Her Days Are Filled With Hell.

I feel so much for his family, that this piece of shit will be back on the streets so soon after taking their son. No justice in this case whatsoever, and it's mind boggling that someone can commit such an act and only spend 7 months in prison. Obviously her gender played a significant role and it shouldn't have. She should be in prison for life.

May you be haunted miserably the rest of your days, Mary.

[NaturalHigh]

12. Agreed, and I hope she never gets her kids back.

Of course, it's more likely that she'll write a best-seller about the horrors that she endured and be invited to talk shows as an expert about domestic abuse.

[Duppers]

56. have you even listened to any of this woman's testimony???

She's a scared child who's unable to think in the ways you've described.

Believe me, I had a hardassed attitude about her at first too.

[NaturalHigh]

74. A scared child?

I'm pretty sure she's made it past her childhood.

[Duppers]

89. I get it

you just like to banter.

"Scared child" as in an emotional/mental state. But you knew that.

I've got other things to do now, so go play with someone else for awhile, ok?

[NaturalHigh]

90. Glad you "get it".

See ya.

[depakid]

16. May those thoughts come back to you

and yours.

[NaturalHigh]

18. Yes, let's hope for the best for a woman who murdered her husband.

Let's hope for this woman to spend her life under tangerine trees and marmalade skies. After all, what's one little killing as long as you claim abuse (with no proof)?

[depakid]

20. Who said anything about that?

<-------

[NaturalHigh]

23. Oh, excuse me...

I thought that you were standing up for a murderer and then condemning anyone who wished ill upon her. Maybe I missed something.

[depakid]

26. Wishing ill is what it is

especially for folks who choose to get on high horses and haven't listened to the evidence in the case.

[NaturalHigh]

28. Based on the evidence that I've read...

I certainly wouldn't wish anything good for her. If there's any justice, the only words her kids will ever say to her are "Mommy, why did you kill Daddy?" If there's any justice, her former in-laws will win their wrongful death suit against her, and she'll have her meager earnings garnished for the rest of her life.

[depakid]

29. I reckon you haven't read the pleadings- nor did you sit on the jury

or see the various reports that the judge got in the case.

All I see here is base emotion- without reason.

[NaturalHigh]

32. *Sigh* You got me. You "reckon" right.

No, I wasn't on the jury. No, I wasn't the judge. No, I wasn't in the courtroom.

Here's the catch - I didn't have to be in the courtroom to think that she's gotten away with murder. I have the right to form that opinion based on everything I've read about the case, just as you have the right to think that she is innocent based on everything you've read.

As for an emotional response, it's true that I don't like murderers. If a husband had killed his wife, I would be just as adamant that he should rot in prison.

[depakid]

35. It's not a zero sum game

And you're right- you didn't have to be in the court room to think (or feel) how you do.

That's OK- we all have these sorts of thoughts and feelings- I know I do too- which is why the men and women who came before us set up processes, some of which are embodied in The Bill of Rights.

And, no NaturalHigh- I don't condone murder LOL- nor do I have any truck at all for people who get away with what society considers "lesser crimes."

I do respect the process though, as it's been passed down to all of us- like (I wish) it might still be passed along to all our children.

[NaturalHigh]

41. I respect the process too.

I'm not suggesting she be tried again, violating her right against double jeopardy. I do hope, however, that her in-laws prevail in their civil suit against her and take everything that she owns. I also hope that she is treated as a pariah by all around her for the rest of life, and that she will always be known as a murderer rather than become some sort of feminist folk hero. I realize that's not likely.

[depakid]

53. No, you don't

You simply let the corporate media dictate your feelings.

And so, how does it feel? Will it feel better once you get your pound of flesh?

[NaturalHigh]

64. I won't get "my" pound of flesh.

I have no legal standing to ask for sanctions of any kind. I'm just offering my opinion on the case.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

21. What A Stupid Thing To Say. But Then, I'm Sure You Knew That.

[depakid]

27. There's a book out there

You might like to read.

Al Gore wrote it- and a part of it deftly describes what's going on here.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

34. Are You Ok?

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[Dr. Strange]

47. Yeah!

I wonder if OPERATIONMINDCRIME and NaturalHigh would feel that way if they went out and killed someone? Pretty easy to be judgmental when you haven't killed some kids' dad!

Judgmental pricks!

[lumberjack_jeff]

69. "I don't remember shooting my husband in the back with a shotgun"...

... "Can I have my kids back now?"

[NaturalHigh]

75. You summed up the whole case in one sentence.

[Sukie1941]

13. Judge Not........

Mary Winkler has already been judged.

[NaturalHigh]

15. Yes, she has...

and she got away with murder, in my opinion. A man who killed his wife under the same circumstances would (rightfully) be rotting in prison for the rest of his life. Of course, when she uttered those magic words (he abused me), the whole playing field changed.

[Seedersandleechers]

37. Like OJ?

[Critters2]

38. Touche' !! nt

[NaturalHigh]

44. You got me.

And yes, I think OJ should be rotting in a dark hole for what he did.

[valerief]

24. I vaguely remember the case. I wonder if it was actually self defense. nt

[AlCzervik]

30. she claims--her words not mine that her husband made her "dress up" and

that he humiliated her sexually, she also claimed that he was sexually abusing one her children.

[NaturalHigh]

49. Of course, no proof has been offered of sexual abuse...

and the children didn't corroborate abuse of any kind.

As for "dress Up" games (which consisted, I believe, of high-heeled boots in this case), I don't really consider that abuse. B-)

[Madspirit]

52. If you knew ANYTHING at all about psychology and the nature of abuse

You would know that kids often don't corroborate and are often so scared of the abuser they will actually run TO the abuser, defend the abuser, etc. That's psych. 101. Google it. Crack a book. Go to a battered women's site or an abused chidren's site. This is so common a five year old should know it.
They let her off for some reason.
Lee

[LisaL]

57. Oh give me a break.

Why would these children be scared of their father after he was dead?

[LanternWaste]

111. I was. I can't explain why, though.

I was. I can't explain why it took years to get over it, though.

And to muddle up the illustration even further-- it was never physical abuse, simply emotional abuse over a period of years which conditioned me to believe all kind of weird things. Both before and after his death.

Guess I must be a weirdo or something...

[NaturalHigh]

65. I thought you were putting me on your ignore list.

I know plenty about abuse, and I abhor it when it happens. It's simply my opinion that there was no abuse in this case.

[LisaL]

60. A stripper shoe.

[Duppers]

59. better get your "facts" straight. nt.

x(

And you don't even know what I'm talking about.

[SmokingJacket]

25. Wonder how long she'd get if she was a tattooed-up lady

who lived in a trailer.

[PufPuf23]

31. who lived in a trailer

The Mary Winkler case has everything to do with the Church of Christ. The fast passed trial, publicity, and verdict reflect the influence of the CoC; the CoC(or coC)did not want to become an issue. Marital rape is accetable within some of the "believers" within or associated with this church, even the women victims.

[NaturalHigh]

33. So now, not only is the husband (victim) on trial...

but his entire church also. How exactly do you know that the Church of Christ condones marital rape? Could you post some evidence to go along with your slander?

[Critters2]

40. I was wondering the same

I have a good friend who's a woman in the CoC, and I'd be very surprised to hear her say she condones marital rape, let alone that she's a willing victim.

[PufPuf23]

48. So now, not only is the husband (victim) on trial...

I apologized if I hit any buttons and did not mean to slander nor intend to be offensive. The Church of Christ has relaively radical beliefs though congregations can vary considerably.

I believe Mary Winkler had many other better choices (g woman's shelter and divorce)and was treated as though she did not had a broad array of choices (g walk away from situation)by the court even though she in fact did. This happened because many in the proceedings were either coC or accepeting of coC as it was a part of their local communities. I cannot fathom a situation where is should be permissible to shoot your spouse in the back while they sleep and leave them to die.

I know of one specific instance of a marriage of 25 years duration in NE rural AL where marital rape in a barren marriage has been the norm within the coC first hand from one of the --the raped -- participants -- who in fact is conflicted and "trapped" herself, not having ever lived apart from the sub-culture. This same woman in her 50s has counseled other woman in the Church on this aspect of life. I had a near daily phone and email friendship with this woman for nearly two years until one day she confessed her "sins" (of talking to me intimately, a male) to her husband.

I could explain this is far more detail but won't; assume the weakness of the andedotal.

I realize one experience with a specific coC situation of long duration in the relative geographic area of the Winkler case does not make me an expert.

I think the coC was not on trial and should not have been on trial for the actions of Mary Winkler. I do think that the coC did not want exceptional attention to itself because of this unfortunate situation. I did not have any desire to start a conteroversy or be offensive.

[Duppers]

61. I believe you

I've lived in the near-rural south and I know their attitudes. Abuse is hidden all the time.

PufPuf, you're a good person.

[madinmaryland]

36. Wow! She's cured!!1!! Must have had the same

treatment as Ted Haggard, that cured him of gayness.

:crazy:

[NaturalHigh]

46. It's amazing how modern medicine works.

Don't ask me to explain it.

[LisaL]

58. The woman was not found to be not guilty by reason of insanity.

I don't even understand why she was put into a mental health facility and not prison in a first place.

[treestar]

55. The jury found her guilty of voluntary manslaughter

Most of this follows from that fact.

If you don't agree with a jury verdict, I can only implore you not to whine about jury service or try to get out of it.

[NaturalHigh]

63. Actually, I've never been called.

If I were, I would serve gladly. I consider it a duty that citizens are obligated to fulfill.

[lumberjack_jeff]

93. Here's the jury foreman's take on the verdict.

Elzo Berry was one of two men on the jury that convicted the minister's wife of voluntary manslaughter. Their options were first degree murder, second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, reckless homicide or criminally negligent homicide, in the order of severity.
<snip>
Berry said that the first-degree murder charge was not an option that the jury considered.

"There just was not proof that she deliberately pulled that trigger. She remembered a lot of things before and after, and whether she remembered to that, we don't know, but there was no proof," he said. "They didn't prove that she was in her right mind in the block of time there where she did it. They couldn't prove it."

Berry said the hours of testimony from Mary Winkler and the revelations of physical and sexual abuse was not relevant to his decision. "It didn't help me. I was one of two guys and 10 women. And you know the balance there," he said. Berry said the verdict might have been much different had it been a predominantly male jury.

http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=6406133

[lastliberalintexas]

96. Imagine that, a jury that actually held the government to its burden

May some on this thread be so lucky as to get a jury which looks upon governmental claims with skepticism if they are ever in such a situation.



And before anyone starts claiming I'm such man hating bitch whatever, please note that I have long posted on DU about the importance of withholding judgment of a criminal defendant, innocence until PROVEN guilty and the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. In fact, I took plenty of shit for standing up for the Duke lacrosse players prior to the government satisfying its burden.

It would just be nice if people remembered that Mary Winkler was not required to prove jack at her trial, the *government* was. And before we as a society deprive someone of life, liberty etc., I personally would prefer that a jury actually hold the government to its burden rather than rush to convict.

[lumberjack_jeff]

99. The government proved that she shot her sleeping husband in the back.

Once those facts are established, it's hard to rationalize seven months as being an appropriate sentence, It's even harder to rationalize returning her children to her.

This case was fundamentally different than the Duke lacrosse players or OJ in those cases the facts of the crime were in dispute. The burden of proof in this case was different. The government had already proven the important parts, and was trying to prove that the case lacked mitigating circumstances. Proving the absence of something is impossible, but the fact that the children who were allegedly abused by (now-dead) dad wouldn't corroborate the story seems to me to be a pretty compelling bit.

The jury foreman feels that the 6:1 composition of women in the jury affected the punishment.

[lastliberalintexas]

103. Not in the law

An act without context is meaningless. Shooting someone, even in the back, may or may not be a criminal act. Knowing those objective facts alone does not tell you whether it was an accidental discharge of some sort, whether the person who fired the gun had the mental capacity to be charged with criminal conduct, what type of mens rea was present so as to justify which degree of criminal culpability, etc. That one fact, that she shot him in the back, does not exist in a vacuum as much as some would like to pretend otherwise.

[lumberjack_jeff]

112. It might not be criminal if it were accidental, I suppose.

Is that what you are suggesting?

This trip down hypothetical lane isn't germane to this case. The government was obliged to not only prove that she did it, which they did, but also to prove that he didn't deserve it, which they couldn't.

[NaturalHigh]

100. You're right - the government apparently didn't meet its burden.

At least the jury didn't think so, and that's what counts. That doesn't mean that we have to believe her story either, though.

You brought up the Duke case, and I will remind you that even though the state has admitted withholding evidence that Crystal Mangum lied, there are plenty of people on DU who still think the Duke lacrosse players are guilty of something. A court verdict, or even a complete exoneration (Duke case) doesn't necessarily end speculation in the court of public opinion. Remember OJ?

Also, this case is a long way from being over. There is still the civil trial, in which the parents of the murder victim are suing Mrs. Winkler for the wrongful death of their son. There is also the custody battle for the children. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot more about Mrs. Winkler comes out before this is all over. The standard for having character evidence admitted is a lot lower in civil court than in criminal court.

[lastliberalintexas]

109. See, that's all speculation

Your posts imply that you have so much knowledge of this case, and yet all I've really seen is speculation from you that Mary Winkler is a bad, bad person.

If something does come out at a later date, then it is still the prosecutors who failed Mr. Winkler, since it was their job to produce such evidence at her criminal trial. But unless you know of something Mr. Winkler's family, the prosecutors and the jury don't know, then you're just playing a guessing game.

[NaturalHigh]

113. You are correct - it is speculation and my opinion.

It's worth nothing in a court of law, and I acknowledge that.

"it is still the prosecutors who failed Mr. Winkler...

Again, I agree with you. That doesn't change the fact that a lot of people, myself included, think that she is guilty of first-degree murder. The makeup of the jury (two men and ten women), likely had a significant part in the verdict and sentencing. If a man had shot his wife in the back while she was sleeping and admitted to it, you can bet that same jury would not have let him off with seven months.

[cgrindley]

62. Misandrist travesty of justice

Yet another killer goes free merely because of the gender of the victim.

[n2doc]

66. It's a good thing she didn't joyride in a private jet or she would have gotten 10 years

n/t

[Annces]

68. I am glad she got off

I am sure her life is ruined anyway. She is no OJ. She was not a predator. She was probably nuts when she did it. Society really screws women when it comes to patriarchal mentality.

[NaturalHigh]

71. "Her life is ruined anyway"...

Of course, she still has a life. That's more than we can say for the husband that she murdered. This has nothing to do with a patriarchal society. It's about a woman who murdered her husband to avoid tell him about a financial scheme that went bad.

Shouting "I blame the patriarchy!" may win points in the feminist group, but it can't really cover up the facts in this case.

[lumberjack_jeff]

72. No, this is the other side of the patriarchy coin.

She's free because of the patriarchy. She's free because as a woman, she can't really be responsible and accountable for her actions.

She shot an unarmed person in the back then told a tale of abuse of which there is no corroborating evidence. Leonard Peltier would be much better off if he were female.

We have no more reason to believe that she was nuts when she did it than we do to assume that Scott Peterson was.

[Annces]

79. All I can say is you must be clueless

about what women endure in marriages. And it is overwhelmingly women who are abused, dominated.

[Beelzebud]

80. There are better ways out than murder...

My sister was in an abusing relationship. You know what she did?

Filed for divorce.

[lumberjack_jeff]

83. What an innovative solution. n/t

[lastliberalintexas]

92. I'm sure you know that doesn't always end up so well for the woman

In fact, the abused spouse filing for divorce usually doesn't end up so well for the kids, either. Although Chris Benoit is probably the most recent, high profile case in which a man killed his wife and child rather than lose control over them, you can find plenty of other cases as well. In SE Texas, we have fairly recently had 3! cases in which the abused woman filed for divorce or otherwise tried to leave the man. In one, the husband killed her and I think 2 of their 3 children, in the others, the man "only" killed the wife.


I do not know enough to pass judgment on the case at bar (though it really doesn't sound like the OP or many other posters do either). What I do know is that there are many posters on this thread completely ignoring and discounting the fact that the most dangerous time for an abused woman is when she tries to leave the abuser.


And as for the claim by some that men always are convicted, I'll add to the mention of OJ with another high profile male who skated- von Bulow.

[lumberjack_jeff]

95. In this case the alternative - homicide - didn't end so well for anyone either. n/t

[lastliberalintexas]

97. What a well thought out response

Thanks for the engaging discourse.

[lumberjack_jeff]

102. Then perhaps you could restate your opinion.

You seemed to be saying that sometimes divorce isn't an option, because he'll just come get you. Better to shoot him in his sleep.

"Seemed" may be a little charitable.

[lastliberalintexas]

108. Just as it "seemed" that you and the other poster

thought it should be a walk in the park for the woman to leave the abuser, right? You just go down to the courthouse, file the divorce petition and *snap* he's out of your life. Yeppers, it's just that easy. Though I'm sure that you didn't mean to imply that anymore than I meant to imply that murder was an acceptable option.

I was actually pointing out that these situations are usually far more complicated and complex than most on this thread are accounting. It isn't easy at all for the woman to leave the abuser, no murder should not be an option, but yes, I can try to understand just how desperate and hopeless some of them may feel. The system usually fails them, the abuser walks through restraining orders time and again, and the DAs are not so keen on prosecuting these cases. The "marital bed" concept is still considered sacrosanct to many.

When a woman kills her abuser she is doing so because she fully believes that is her only way out of that situation. Just as when an impoversihed inner city youth starts dealing drugs out of desperation for employment.

I guess I don't understand the lack of compassion and empathy on this thread. The jury saw more evidence than any of us and they apparently believed the abuse allegations, so I'm just surprised to see so many here who are so adamantly opposed to this verdict. It's almost as though Mr. Winkler's family were posting in this thread.

[NaturalHigh]

110. "It isn't easy at all for the woman to leave the abuser"...

As I don't believe there was any abuse in this case, that's irrelevant to me. However, just to avoid another drawn-out discussion on the subject, no, I am not privy to any information the jury did not have. I am basing my opinion on everything that I've read about the case.

[lumberjack_jeff]

114. It's true. I lack empathy for killers.

and their gender makes less difference to me than it does to most.

[NaturalHigh]

116. Gender is the ONLY thing that mattered in this case.

Does anyone really believe that a man would have gotten away with what Mrs. Winkler did?

[NaturalHigh]

98. Well, to be fair, it worked out okay for Mrs. Winkler.

Seven months in a mental hospital, and she's free to go on with her life. Her husband is dead, of course, but hey, isn't it a woman's right to shoot her husband in the back if she doesn't want him to find out how she screwed up the family finances?

:sarcasm: (in case there was any doubt)

[lastliberalintexas]

101. Have you been privy to evidence the jury was not?

I'd rather suspect it the other way around, that the jury heard quite a bit of testimony and read documents you have not ever seen.

The government apparently failed to meet its burden to prove to this jury that the woman killed her husband without excuse. (excuse being used in the legal sense here) What would you have this country do, lock her up despite due process?


And I'll have to look for the Benoit threads. I wonder if you were so outraged then when the man did the killing? Did you post and rant so much over that situation, where the man also killed an innocent child? Was it somehow less outrageous because he also killed himself?

I'd like to say this without sounding snarky, but I'm sure it will seem that way anyway. You really should start volunteering at a women's and children's shelter, it just might open your eyes.

[NaturalHigh]

105. No, I don't want her locked up despite due process.

I don't want her to be retried any more than I want OJ Simpson to be retried. To do so would violate the constitutional rights that our justice system is obligated to uphold, and I would never want that. They jury has delivered its verdict, and that ends things as far as the criminal courts are concerned.

I'm certainly privy to no information that the jury didn't hear. All I can say is that from everything I've read about this case, I think she is guilty of first-degree murder. That's my opinion, which obviously differs from yours. We're both entitled.

Benoit case? It was a tragedy, and if he were still alive, I think he should be in prison for the rest of his life. I don't think there's any mitigation that should exonerate a man for killing his wife and child. For years I had admired Chris Benoit for what he had accomplished in pro wrestling despite his size and several serious injuries. If anything, my admiration for his accomplishments made what he did more repulsive to me.

[Mutineer]

117. You weren't on the jury.

The jury brought it. The legal system does still work that way in the US you know (well unless you're at Gitmo).

[NaturalHigh]

119. You're right - I wasn't.

I don't think that prevents me from having an opinion on the case. If it does, then people need to stop talking about OJ and welcome him with open arms. After all, the jury acquitted.

[lumberjack_jeff]

82. I do so enjoy all-encompassing generalities.

Let me ask my wife "what she endures in marriage".

... of course, if she were to shoot me in the back with a shotgun, it'd be proof that it must have been pretty bad.

Her entire defense was built around a stereotype.

[NaturalHigh]

84. I guess you're going with the "he needed killing" defense.

I can't blame you, really. It worked for Mrs. Winkler. She's free to go on with her life after shooting her husband in the back while he slept. Not exactly self-defense, but she got away with it. If there's any justice at all, her former in-laws will see that she never gets her kids back and will hound her in civil court forever.

[slackmaster]

73. I hope the children end up in a safe home

:scared:

[NaturalHigh]

87. Preferably with someone who hasn't already shot a man with a shotgun.

While he was sleeping, no less. How could any judge ever think it's a good idea to let this woman have her kids back?

[wicket]

121. "Preferably with someone who hasn't already shot a man with a shotgun."

Uh oh, guess Dick Cheney is out of the running. :P

[NaturalHigh]

122. I wouldn't send any kid to live with Dick Cheney...

even if he were armed with nothing more than a slingshot.

[Catherine Vincent]

81. Longtime abusers of women should take note.

What this woman did was wrong but apparently a jury believes she should be released after several months.

[slackmaster]

91. She is being treated as a crazy person, not responsible for her actions

It's a bit of a stretch to try to make this some kind of warning for abusers of women.

[TwilightGardener]

86. Shameful that this woman will go free. 7 months in a mental health facility

for taking a life and denying her daughters a father for the rest of their lives. This is a black eye on the justice system.

[lumberjack_jeff]

120. The government proved she did it. They coudn't prove he didn't deserve it.

That's it in a nutshell. Unfair? You bet.