Wife who killed pastor husband may serve 60 days

[Hudson Boy]

Doesn't ask for divorce, kills husband and father of their children, and gets off with serving seven months. If the shoe was on the other foot, and a man did this, he's be convicted of murder and in the slammer for a lot longer than seven months.

Wife who killed pastor husband may serve 60 days
June 8, 2007

Story Highlights

• Mary Winkler's time served since arrest counts toward sentence
• She was convicted in April of manslaughter
• Winkler shot her husband in the back, took children to Alabama beach
• She testified that popular Church of Christ preacher was an abusive husband

SELMER, Tennessee (AP) -- A woman who killed her preacher husband with a shotgun blast to the back as he lay in bed was sentenced Friday to three years in prison, but she may end up serving only 60 days in a mental hospital.

Mary Winkler must serve 210 days, or about seven months, of her sentence before she can be released on probation, but she gets credit for the five months she has already spent in jail, Judge Weber McCraw said.

That leaves only two months, and McCraw said up to 60 days of the sentence could be served in a facility where she could receive mental health treatment. That means Winkler may not serve any significant time in prison.

Winkler, 33, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter in April and could have received up to six years for killing her husband, Matthew, in the parsonage where the family lived in March 2006.

At her trial she testified she was physically and emotionally abused by her husband, but at her sentencing hearing Friday she said, "I think of Matthew every day, and I'll always miss him and love him."

She pleaded to the judge for leniency, and asked to be reunited with her three daughters, who are now in the custody of Matthew Winkler's parents. The judge denied Winkler's request for full probation or judicial diversion, which would have eventually cleared her record of the conviction.

Prosecutors had sought a murder conviction against Mary Winkler, who they alleged had been trying to keep her husband from learning about a check-kiting scheme. They claimed she had become caught up in a swindle known as the "Nigerian scam," which promises riches to victims who send money to cover the processing expenses.

Winkler, however, testified during her trial that her husband hit and kicked her, forced her to look at pornography and demanded sex she considered unnatural. Jurors were shown a pair of tall, platform shoes and a black wig Winkler said she was pressured to wear during sex.

Matthew Winkler's family said at the sentencing hearing that Mary Winkler's allegations amounted to a second attack on her husband, a popular 31-year-old preacher at the Fourth Street Church of Christ in Selmer.

"The monster that you have painted for the world to see? I don't think that monster existed," said Matthew Winkler's mother, Diane Winkler.

When Mary Winkler took the stand, she turned to her husband's family and told them she was "so sorry this has happened." She said she understood they were angry with her and that she prayed every night for them to have peace.

Mary Winkler was arrested a day after shooting her husband. She was found 340 miles away on the Alabama coast, driving the family minivan with her daughters inside.

Diane Winkler testified that the girls, ages 9, 7 and 2, were having nightmares about people with guns breaking into their house.

"You've never told your girls you're sorry. Don't you think you at least owe them that?" she asked.

Mary Winkler's sister, Tabitha Freeman, asked the judge to give her a chance to be reunited with her children, and called her "the best example of a good person I can think of."

"She just needs them. She's not complete without them," Freeman said.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/08/wi....ap/index.html

[Sandi22]

I come from a family of Winklers, and perhaps she could have been a bit more than justified. Not condoning murder, but things aren't always as they seem.

[Hudson Boy]

Originally Posted by Sandi22

I come from a family of Winklers, and perhaps she could have been a bit more than justified. Not condoning murder, but things aren't always as they seem.

There aren't too many "justified" cases of shooting a sleeping person in the back with a shotgun.

[Sandi22]

I didn't say there were, but some people are not made of strong enough stuff to withstand the rigors of an abusive relationship, much less the trials of everyday life, and until we know just what was going on with her for certain, we aren't the ones to judge her, even though we do. We have the right to our thoughts, but we need to try to understand just what was happening in her own self, not just to think what she did was wrong, however, we may never know why she did what she did, and, we certainly don't know her personal weaknesses, and it seems she had many.

I pity all involved. I pity her, her family, and her husbands family as well. I can also grasp what may have been her motivation, as well as her breaking point. I don't condone her actions, but can see how it happened. To me she seemed such a lost soul.

[Jimmy Cantiello]

Originally Posted by Hudson Boy

There aren't too many "justified" cases of shooting a sleeping person in the back with a shotgun.

Apparently you've never slept beside a snorer.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Hudson Boy

There aren't too many "justified" cases of shooting a sleeping person in the back with a shotgun.

Says you. It's more common than you might think, and usually preceded by a history of violence toward the defendant by the victim.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

First off, they didn't even try her for murder, so right there, the prosecution felt that the homicide had some justification. The woman must have exhibited signs of abuse or they would have gone for murder.

Yeah, 7 months seems short, but unless you've known someone who lived through the torture of being abused by someone you love, you cannot understand what that woman went through. Her "sentence" in this world is far from over. She's never going to be right in the head again.

I know a woman who went through something very similar to this and the only reason she's alive today is that when her husband came at her and their son with his pistol, she managed to hit his arm just right as he took aim at their son and his shot hit one of his own arteries. Anyone that knows this woman is thankful that she killed that SOB, but she has never been well ever since and likely never will be. BTW, her son is the sweetest kid (now a young man) you've ever met. I'm glad he's still walking and not 6 feet under.

I'd much rather read this story about a woman who finally stood up to the abuser than the stories, all too prevalent today, of abusers who ultimately kill their whole family and then themselves. I hope the kids come out OK. Their parents' lives have been wasted.

[Gary Sisco]

Me, too. I have no use whatsoever for woman beaters. There's an awful lot of terrorism goes on behind closed doors. I'd have shot him, too. I'd have given her time served and that would have been that. Maybe a couple of weekends' community service at a battered women's shelter.

[patricia]

Although we don't know what went on inside Mary Winkler's home, Brian Vallee wrote a harrowing account of ongoing spousal abuse in his book about Jane Stafford, Life With Billy, a battered wife here in the Maritimes.
What shocked me was that there were family members and friends who knew the abuse was ongoing and they did nothing to help Jane Stafford.
She killed her abuser with a shotgun as he sat, passed out drunk in his truck in their driveway.
She was convicted of murder and served several years in jail.
But, on reading about her life with this monster, particularly his abuse not only of her, but of their son, I was amazed she hadn't killed him sooner.
Unfortunately, Jane Stafford died from what was reported as a self-inflicted gunshot, though there are still questions about that.

[tippy]

I don't think being strong enough includes taking another person's abuse until death because the only way to stop that abuser would mean his/her death. It takes a tremendous amount of courage to stand up to an abuser. It's possible that most times though the person is so worn with being in a state of perpetual anxiety and fear and also an awareness of what this doing to one's children that it becomes almost strictly a matter of survival to kill an obsessively angry mf. An abuser's victims know best what that abuser is capable of - more than police or unbelieving neighbors or casual passersby on the internet. It is hard for people living more (fortunately) ordinary lives to imagine that someone you know is capable of killing you, but once you discover that capability, you have to act or forever be imprisoned. There are some really sick people out there. The daily news confirms that point.

[Gary Sisco]

The family knowledge is quite a common thing in domestic abuse, Pat, at least as it exists, here.

A former womanfriend of mine started up the first haven for battered women in her locale, which was in her house, to start. Once a woman had fled her home, and her son had sided with the abusive father. My friend and the woman went to her former home, in company with a county sheriff, so she could retrieve her necessary stuff. Her son met the three of them by coming down the staircase with a shotgun in his hands. The cop split, left the two women there to deal with the situation. She managed to get her stuff and the two fell back on my friend's car and split. The cop was parked about a quarter mile down the road. I guess waiting to hear the shotgun off. Who knows. Cops are extremely reluctant to get involved in such cases because the emotions are so extreme it raises the danger level by several magnitudes.

These days they are required by law in Vermont to respond in person to any 911 call, even if it's called mistakenly, and they do (every phone call to 911 immediately shows the address, physical location, and name of person on their computers). One time when I was at the barn, Bronwyn mistakenly dialed 911 instead of 933 (a local exchange). She explained the mistake to the dispatcher but it didn't matter. Meantime, I'm at work but it's getting close to the end of the afternoon chore session. Next thing Bronwyn knows there's a state trooper in her bedroom wanting to know what's going on. She tells him she mistakenly dialed but that everything is okay but also that it's really important for him to be outside the house when I arrive. He says he has a legal right to be in the house in the circumstances. She explains to him that I'm not going to care much if that's so or not and it will be better for everyone if he meets me outside than in. So, he was outside, and, yes, we did have an encounter. When I saw the car and the cop in the driveway, I'm like, What the fuck, now. But his body language was relaxed and he clearly wasn't there to get cop on me, so I responded accordingly. Meantime, he'd let the dogs out, who were madly charging about. I'm out there going, "Trooper! Get in the house!" and so forth. Cop doesn't know I'm talking to the dog, who's name is Trooper, so by then, he's even more mystified. We finally got it all straightened out.

[tippy]

wow - that's a trip. It could even be that by removing himself from the scene made a violent escalation less likely but still...that was a gamble. sheesh

[Gary Sisco]

People too often forget that in the US no individual cop is required by any authority or law to protect any individual citizen. Courts have held this to be the case many times. Not to say that they don't, but they aren't required to. Their job is to apprehend, charge, and take in custody people suspected of a given crime.

That particular cop was clearly a coward, however. And in fact, he's no longer a cop because of scandal involving his personal use of department funds.

[Hudson Boy]

I'd like to know what her husband's criminal history was, since the court took her lack having any prior record into account when she was sentenced to 210 days in prison.

I'd guess that he had no criminal history whatsoever, and she that she never called the police even once for the physical and emotional abuse he allegedly gave her.
I really don’t see how shooting this man in the back while he was sleeping, with no evidence that he ever did anything wrong, other than her word, can be excused.

Good defense lawyer, a gullible court, bad jury, stupid culture? Or maybe we’d just like to think that she’s telling the truth based on other people’s experiences - because she certainly had no physical or recorded evidence to justify this slaughter, unless you consider the wig and high heels that her husband supposedly had her wear for sex a reasonable excuse for murder.

[tippy]

I don't know why you get yourself upset over this - it's not like she was tried in a woman friendly place that there MUST be quite a bit more to this story than has been released to people like you. Kvetching over an event for which you have no facts seems like a waste of time but I suppose we've all done it.

[Hudson Boy]

Originally Posted by tippy

I don't know why you get yourself upset over this - it's not like she was tried in a woman friendly place that there MUST be quite a bit more to this story than has been released to people like you. Kvetching over an event for which you have no facts seems like a waste of time but I suppose we've all done it.

The only reason I posted the story was because every time a story is posted about a man who kills his wife, or girlfriend, this whole board is up in arms and ready to shoot him - but if it's a story about a woman who killed her husband or boyfriend, she "must" have had good reason.

I would be the last person to say that a man must have had "good reason" to kill his wife or girlfriend. Murder is murder.

If she'd had so much as a black eye or bloody nose when she was arrested, I'd probably have given her the benefit of the doubt. If there is any evidence that she was abused, I'd change my opinion. It doen't look like there is.

[tippy]

There's a reason that jury let her off. I too am morbidly curious to know what it is.

[Gary Sisco]

Cat has real issues about women, clearly. I'd not let a daughter of mine date him.

[Gary Sisco]

There is such a thing as justifiable homicide. Self-defense is one kind.

I've always appreciated the imagination that was shown by one of Willie Nelson's many girlfriends. He came home from a bender of carousing once too often, and when he passed out, she sewed him inside the bedsheets and wailed the shit out of him with a broomstick.

[Noj]

I'm shocked adults sustain relationships clear into violence, much less take them all the way to murder. If I felt the need to punch her, I'd just stop talking to her. Kill her? Man, kill the relationship first. Then again, I've never been "in love." Still again, inflicting physical harm goes against everything I've heard "love" is supposed to be. How do people get trapped where there are no fences?

[Gary Sisco]

A friend of mine, more than ten years dead, now, once did a woman out in Nevada wrong and she decided to Lee Morgan his ass at a gig. Another woman friend of ours talked her out of it by pointing out that there'd have been no end he'd have more liked than to have become legend by being shot down by a wronged woman at a gig. Better, she said, to pie the motherfucker. Which is what she ended up doing. He was a very handsome, and vain, man. She pied him smacko, really well. Totally got his face, hair, tailored western shirt, and, worst off all, his guitar. Nothing like coconut creme in your pickups.

If you even mentioned the story in his presence, for many years, he'd get really pissed off about it.

[tippy]

Ha ha. We should start a new trend. I'm gonna start carrying around a pie at all times so when I'm feeling homicidal, blammo! The strangers on the train and sidewalks might not appreciate it but then I would be a funny news story - the pie swiper.

[Gary Sisco]

Noj -- Yeah, sure, but because you wouldn't use violence, your take isn't in the picture by definition. There are millions of guys who use violence as not only an intimidation but a form of control. And the more they get to feeling the woman is out of their control, the more violent they get. That's why the murdering part almost always come *after* the woman has left and moved out, and more often still, after she's taken up with another guy. There's a real pattern to the behavior, which starts with verbal and ends with violence.

It's a form of terror.

And many women, for whatever reasons, become so terrified, they don't leave *because* the guys go berserker still when there's any talk or indication of leaving. After a time, the "hostage" mentality sets in, where the women start believing that it's their fault, like the guy says. This is a real form of pyschological behavior that's quite common. Much more common in this society than most people want to talk about.

I had to use some judicious verbal terror to run a young idiot off from my place this past winter, who was stalking and terrorizing a woman friend of ours who was working here and staying with us.

She ended up leaving the state to get away from him.

[Gary Sisco]

There's a New York Yippie, Aaron The Pieman, who can give you pointers, Tippy. He's been pieing since the 60s.

[tippy]

I know a woman who was a hostage maker too. It does work both ways. Naturally it would be a greater temptation for those who can control physically to abuse others through threats (and more) of violence. It's like my mom was a good cryer so that was her temptation into evil to manipulate people through making them feel guilty through tears. Typically a woman's way to control a situation. People on this board - myself included - try to control others through making them feel shameful for disagreeing with them - an approval-seeking behavior. The last 2 behaviors are not a jailable offense - nor should they be because if you can be controlled through tears and through needing approval you are already in your own prison and controlled in a way that society would like you to be anyway.

It's just like Jimmy said, 95% of humans are trolls.

man I'm ready for a sammich.

[Gary Sisco]

I just leave if I'm not digging it.

But I've never had to worry about the other beating the shit out of me to stop me, either.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

Originally Posted by Hudson Boy

I'd like to know what her husband's criminal history was, since the court took her lack having any prior record into account when she was sentenced to 210 days in prison.

The guy my friend had to shoot had a perfect record. Boy scout. Of course, he was also in the military which might have had something to do with his mental problems.

Originally Posted by Hudson Boy

I'd guess that he had no criminal history whatsoever, and she that she never called the police even once for the physical and emotional abuse he allegedly gave her. I really don’t see how shooting this man in the back while he was sleeping, with no evidence that he ever did anything wrong, other than her word, can be excused.

Do you know anyone who's ever sat on a grand jury? If you do, ask them about it. If there was any chance at all that they could have gotten this woman for murder, she would have been indicted for murder, not manslaughter. This isn't a woman accused of popping a drug dealer on a street corner. She killed a minister. She killed a minister as he slept. I bet most juries would have some sympathy for a minister. I still say there is way more to this story than you're reading in the media.

Originally Posted by Hudson Boy

Good defense lawyer, a gullible court, bad jury, stupid culture? Or maybe we’d just like to think that she’s telling the truth based on other people’s experiences - because she certainly had no physical or recorded evidence to justify this slaughter, unless you consider the wig and high heels that her husband supposedly had her wear for sex a reasonable excuse for murder.

The woman I know didn't have any "evidence" of her previous abuse either. However, she put up with some serious abuse in the months prior. It still amazes what some people put up with and for how long they put up with it for "love".

[Hudson Boy]

Originally Posted by Kevin Bresnahan

The guy my friend had to shoot had a perfect record. Boy scout. Of course, he was also in the military which might have had something to do with his mental problems.

Do you know anyone who's ever sat on a grand jury? If you do, ask them about it. If there was any chance at all that they could have gotten this woman for murder, she would have been indicted for murder, not manslaughter. This isn't a woman accused of popping a drug dealer on a street corner. She killed a minister. She killed a minister as he slept. I bet most juries would have some sympathy for a minister. I still say there is way more to this story than you're reading in the media.



The woman I know didn't have any "evidence" of her previous abuse either. However, she put up with some serious abuse in the months prior. It still amazes what some people put up with and for how long they put up with it for "love".

If there is more to the story, fine. Even if they said that there were details that couldn't be made public, I'd understand more - but no such statement has been made, to the best of my knowledge.

I not only know people that have sat on a grand jury, I've done it myself. I've also been on regular jury duty. The grand jury can only indict people, and often the accused does not even show up. Based on my experience as a juror in New York City, I do not believe that the jury system, as it exists today, is always the best way to handle a criminal trial. People are literally getting away with murder.

[cookie]

Keep in mind that this was a minister's wife and she was likely very religious too (If it were my old man wanting gogo boots a wig and a b.j. I'd likely say, "Let's get it ON!" but I can see how that would be upsetting to a very conservative Christian woman). Conservative Christians also don't believe in divorce so I can see somebody in her position just taking it and taking it and taking it until she exploded. She would also have been likely to hide the abuse because their livelihood depends on the appearance of piety. The philosophy of "submitting to the husband" probably also comes into play here. She may well have thought God would turn him around and this is probably a case of her just snapping.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Hudson Boy

There aren't too many "justified" cases of shooting a sleeping person in the back with a shotgun.

So....she should have waited until her abuser was awake before she shot him?


I sure hope you don't train snipers for the military, HB.