Wife Gets Three Year Sentence for Murdering Her Husband

I really don't know what to say about this.

Maybe Paris Hilton has a legitimate complaint about her sentence.

The Tennessee woman charged with killing her minister husband with a shotgun was sentenced Friday, but may never see another day behind bars.

Mary Winkler was sentenced Friday to three years for the killing of her husband Matthew, but only 210 days of the sentence "in confinement." After subtracting nearly five months of time already served, Winkler may not have to return to prison.

She must however spend "up to 60 days in an appropriate facility that will address her mental health treatment," according to Judge Weber McCraw.

www.usatoday.com

Sounds a damm sight less painful than being married and a hullava lot shorter too!

Hmmmmm got me thinking!!

As for Paris: she should serve every day of her sentence.

Wow, I’m totally shocked here. I have been following this story. I was wondering what she would get. I was figuring she wouldn’t get anything. I don’t know how I knew, I just did. I don’t know why she got off so easy. It wasn’t self defense. Guess, I would had to been there in the court to hear all the evidence, it maybe the jury believed and understood she was abused by him. Abused women sometimes don’t feel like they have any other way. Well it’s between her and God now.

Originally posted by Shar
Abused women sometimes don’t feel like they have any other way.

Yeah, but there are other ways. In fact, there is an entire industry to help abused individual to obtain intervention.

Kill your husband. Claim abuse. Get a couple of years, tops.

Kill your children. Claim abuse. Get sent to a hospital.

We could save a lot of money on the courts and the prison system, if we only let God deal with the perpetrators.

I totally agree with you here. I just don’t understand this myself. I don’t get how someone can kill another person and get no time at all because of age or whatever. Another person 3 years of less another person lifetime. Another person death. It’s ridicules. There should be a SET RULE FOR EVERYONE no matter who you are.

It's not always that easy. Often very powerful members of a community can have vast influence over the population. Especially ministers. They are often held above the normal citizen because of their power in the church. And, many would believe a minister over his wife. I'm not saying that killing anyone is ever right, but I can understand the "why" of it.

I don't think having a set rule for everyone despite the situation is at all a good idea. Similar to the 3 strikes law, every case is different, and we should be evolved enough as a society to take each case on an individual basis. Otherwise, we could do away with our justice system and apply a computer to do the job of a court judge.

Had a look at Wikipedia a moment ago. Far from infallible source, I realise.

link: en.wikipedia.org...


According to the above, there's speculation by 'authorities' that Mary Winkler had been victim of a 'Nigerian' scam and had invested $17,500 in same.

This next will chill you:

According to the statement, she and her husband had been arguing throughout the evening about many things, including family finances. She admitted some of the problems were "her fault." Furthermore, she said, "He had really been on me lately criticizing me for things — the way I walk, I eat, everything. It was just building up to a point. I was tired of it. I guess I got to a point and snapped."

Winkler says she did not remember getting the gun but she did know her husband kept a shotgun in their home. The next thing she heard was a loud boom. Matthew Winkler was shot in the back as he lay in bed. He rolled from the bed onto the floor, and, still alive, he asked his wife, "Why?" to which she responded, "I'm sorry." When she left the home, Matthew Winkler was still alive.

After the shooting, Mary Winkler apparently departed to Orange Beach, Alabama, with her three daughters, where she was later arrested.

When she left the home ..... Matthew Winkler was still alive


Winkler shot her husband dead on 22 March 2006.

She posted bond and was released on 15 August 2006, on the condition she live with friends in Tennessee.

Questions surrounding her post-release behavior became prominent when photos of Winkler with friends at a bar on New Year's Eve surfaced in the media in February 2007.

The New Year's Eve in question would have been 9 months after she shot her husband.





[edit: removed quote tags]

[edit on 14-6-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Well, she was convicted of Manslaughter and not murder. So that certainly explains most of it. The maximum penalty she faced was six years, so the three year sentence isn't exactly "nothing". I agree that she should of been slapped with more, but it's not like she was facing a life sentence. Had she been convicted of murder, a three year sentence would be laughable. But a three year sentence on manslaughter isn't exactly a once in a life time occurrence.

Any of you ever hear of the movie Life with Billy?

en.wikipedia.org...

Not much information there, but it is a true story where a woman shot her husband in the head with his rifle, while he was asleep. She was charged with his murder but found not guilty. When the tales of his abusive history was made clear, it was evident that she had to either kill him or watch herself, along with her children, lose their life to this man.

I'm not saying I agree with this sentence. But before we pass total judgment, we should have all of the details. For all we know, she was the victim of serious physical, verbal, and mental abuse. That alone does not excuse her behaviour, but it could certainly offer an insight to the situation.

Been skimming through a couple of other sites.

Lots of ugly stuff introduced by Mary Winkler's defence, including veiled references to pedophilia involving the Winkler's one year old daughter, porn videos and unnatural sex acts, post-partum depression, bi-polar and the claim that Matthew Winkler had threatened his wife with the gun that killed him.

www.crimelibrary.com...

Video, photos and article here concerning Mary Winkler's visits to bar while awaiting trial
www.wmctv.com...

Been reading some more. Apparently, Matthew Winkler was shot 'from above' from a distance of between 2.5 and 7 feet. He was in bed. Shot in the back. The bullet shattered his spine and tore through internal organs.

He lived long enough to ask, ' Why? '.

Mary Winkler claimed she said she was 'sorry' and that she 'loved' him.

She claimed she wiped blood away from his mouth, took the 3 children and the gun and drove to Alabama.

It seems her in-laws (dead husband's parents) put up the bond money. They also took care of the 3 children while Mary was in jail and for several months while she was on bond and living with friends.

Despite her lawyer's implied possible reasons for the shooting, it seems clear that the money Mary had been withdrawing from the family bank accounts had been at least one strong cause of disharmony in the hours prior to the shooting.

The children are said to be still unaware of their father's cause of death.

Mary Winkler is apparently applying for custody of the children.

It's all extraordinary. Very strange. It would seem from the lack of details, that a decision has been made (by 'authorities'?] to suppress a great deal.

First, Mary Winkler's lawyers implied sexual deviancy on the part of Matthew Winkler. Followed by the release on bond of Mary Winkler. She apparently received considerable support (including financial) and sympathy from many members of her deceased husband's parishoners. She lived for several months with friends, several hours from the scene of the shooting, where she was photographed unawares and described as 'enjoying herself, drinking and laughing' at a bar. She received what appears an incredibly light sentence. Her deceased husband's parents have apparently taken steps to legally prevent her from profiting from sale of her story: her version of events and of her husband.

Whether or not Matthew Winkler was guilty of pedophilia in relation to his youngest daughter and/or sexual deviancy and brutality within his marriage (as has been implied) is unknown. What is certain however is that his reputation has been tarnished and as such, provides Mary Winkler with what many would feel an 'excuse' for shooting him.

On one site, it stated that one of Matthew Winkler's neighbours claimed that he had threatened to shoot the neighbour's dog if it entered the Winkler property again. For many, this will 'prove' that Matthew Winkler had a cruel and violent streak; it supports the other offences alluded to by Mary Winkler's defence team.

Whatever the truth, Mary Winkler is now virtually a free woman with many years of life ahead of her. Matthew Winkler is dead and unable to argue or explain in defence of his reputation -- and his parents have legally prevented any more from becoming known.

More questions than answers with this one.

Originally posted by chissler
Well, she was convicted of Manslaughter and not murder. So that certainly explains most of it. The maximum penalty she faced was six years, so the three year sentence isn't exactly "nothing". I agree that she should of been slapped with more, but it's not like she was facing a life sentence. Had she been convicted of murder, a three year sentence would be laughable. But a three year sentence on manslaughter isn't exactly a once in a life time occurrence.

Any of you ever hear of the movie Life with Billy?

en.wikipedia.org...

Not much information there, but it is a true story where a woman shot her husband in the head with his rifle, while he was asleep. She was charged with his murder but found not guilty. When the tales of his abusive history was made clear, it was evident that she had to either kill him or watch herself, along with her children, lose their life to this man.

I'm not saying I agree with this sentence. But before we pass total judgment, we should have all of the details. For all we know, she was the victim of serious physical, verbal, and mental abuse. That alone does not excuse her behaviour, but it could certainly offer an insight to the situation.

I suspect the 'manslaughter' conviction in particular, allied with the brief incarceration, is what is puzzling and in some instances, outraging some.

A man asleep in his bed. Not throwing his weight around or slapping or threatening anyone.

His wife takes his gun from the wardrobe. She aims at her sleeping husband. She fires. He is mortally wounded but alive. He asks: 'Why?'. His wife claims she said she was 'sorry'. She then takes the three children and the gun and flees the scene --- leaving behind a dying man.

Manslaughter?

Was the verdict of manslaughter reached as result of the killer's lawyers implying that the victim was a pedophile, sexual deviant and physically violent towards his wife?

Had the prosecution challenged and conclusively dismissed as fiction, these suggestions --- would the verdict then have been premeditated murder, as originally charged?

The victim was asleep in bed.

His killer arose, took the weapon and fired into the victim's sleeping back.

How is that not premeditated ?

And HOW is it 'manslaughter' ?

I've looked for more detail of the trial but so far haven't found anything. Clearly, what I've failed to find is where Mary Winkler and her defence managed to persuade the jury that when she stealthily arose from the bed (as she clearly did, for her sleeping husband was not awakened) and when she took the gun from the wardrobe -- that she did not intend to fire.

Otherwise, her actions can only be described as premeditated.

And *if* she did not intend to fire the weapon --- what *was* her intention?

Did she intend to have a discussion -- at gunpoint -- with her sleeping husband?

If so --- why didn't she call out to him or shove him and awaken him?

Why, instead, did she remove the safety and aim the gun at her sleeping spouse's back?

What was she supposed to be doing in those moments --- practising her aim?

Obviously not practising. She pulled the trigger. He died.

Manslaughter would be appropriate *if* Matthew Winkler had been awake and possibly engaged in discussion, argument or other interaction with his wife. *If*, during this, she had grabbed the gun and pointed it at her husband and *if* she had fired the gun inadvertently ... *then* the manslaughter conviction could be understood.

But that's not what occurred. She rose from the bed. Why? She went to the wardrobe. Why? She took the gun. Why? She aimed at her sleeping husband. Why? She shot him in the back.

Compare this with the sentences imposed on those who --- in their own homes and in the process of defending their own and loved ones lives --- have killed armed intruders.

Amongst the questions directed to them at trial are: ' Did you believe your own or family's lives were at risk? '. The defendant must prove to the jury that they did not use 'unreasonable force' to defend themselves against *armed* criminals. They must convince the jury that shooting or stabbing etc. the armed intruders was their only survival option. They must convince that running, hiding, calling the police etc. would not have been adequate to ensure their survival in the circumstances in which they'd been placed. And all this, even if the armed intruders had pistol whipped, raped, beaten or shot them or a member of their family.

Why weren't the same questions directed at Mary Winkler ?

" Was he threatening you and the children ? "

Answer: " No. He was asleep in bed."

" Why didn't you phone the police, if you believed your husband was a threat to you or the children? Why didn't you depart the home with your children while your husband slept, or at the first available opportunity?

Why -- if you believed yourself and your children were in danger from your husband --- didn't you go with your children to a neighbours? To your father's? To your in-laws? To friends? To a motel? To the police station?

Why instead did you shoot your sleeping husband in the back?

Why didn't you summon emergency services to your dying husband?

Why instead did you depart the scene, leaving him to die alone on the floor?

I put it to you, Mary Winkler, that you foolishly squandered money you had secretly withdrawn from your own, your husband's and joint bank accounts and were angry when your husband discovered this and confronted you with it. I put it to you that you resented having to account for your actions.

Is it not true that you planned to shoot your husband that night and waited until he was asleep, after which you silently retrieved the gun from the wardrobe, tip-toed to where he slept, aimed and shot him in cold blood? "

Because that's what she did. She didn't fire at the ceiling or into the floor.

And I haven't found anything to explain why she went to the wardrobe for the gun in the first place.

Yet, she was convicted of manslaughter. Which it literally was. But based on the available information, it's unbelievable she wasn't charged with and found guilty of, murder.

This women, for killing someone who as far as we know posed no harm to her, got the same sentence that I almost got when I was 16 for simply having some bottles filled with gasoline. OMFG.

Now in my dream world, she would've had the death penalty right now, and when I was 16 I wouldn't even have been arrested.

But seriously, I don't get it, how do people keep getting off with such short sentences for murdering another human? What ever happened to that saying "a human life is worth a human life". If you kill without reason another, you must die. :bnghd::bnghd::bnghd:



[edit: removed excessive use of smilies]

[edit on 14-6-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Oh this just peeeesses me right off. Everyone has a ruddy opinion.

Well, guess what? No one knows the facts of the case and so you can all form an ever so fudging righteous opinion based on media hype/wiki.

From the media article, it is claimed the wife had been emotionally and physically abused.

Obviously, the decision reflects the facts. Unfortunately, we don't get to see that...oh but I could find the citation of the entire case and link it for everyone to read but what is the ruddy point? No one ever reads it anyway

I am so sick of it. Sick and fargen tired or reading opinions based on half truths. I am also sick and tired of providing the facts and it is disregarded. So I will not waste my time anymore.

Further more, I am also disgruntled about reading bollocks, after bollocks after bollocks. Very sorry GradyPhilpott in advance, no disrespect intended. Perhaps I am pre menstrual?

There is a fire in my belly and it sits there bubbliing away... my fury stems from the fact that the Criminal Justice System is so heavily weighted against women And that is a fact.

Not one women in Australia has ever been successful in a claim of 'self defence'... see... women aren't capable of it sic

The amount of women who are screwed by the system is pathetic. Oh farout, this biarch is walking without doing the time....And everyone is soooooo shocked and they sit on some high fudging morale ground and form an opinion

Media BS and public opinion.... I urge everyone to use caution and at least seek the facts. Get the citation of the case and read it, then form an opinion.

*end of rant.
























[edit on 13-6-2007 by NJE777]

Everyone gets screwed by the system