Mary Winkler got her kids back

[rph3664]

http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7117312&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

Had the genders been reversed, it would have been LWOP and it should have happened in this case too.

[Mojave]

I agree. If she were anything other than a mousy church lady, she'd still be in jail.

[rph3664]

There are people (including some over on Insession Trials) who totally believed that Matthew abused her, but when 9-year-old Patricia said she had never seen Daddy being mean to Mommy, that's when I knew he wasn't abusive.

A 9-year-old is old enough to know what's going on, and the kids will tell the truth about what the home life is really like. As for the alleged sexual abuse, I've never heard of a relationship that was sexually abusive that wasn't abusive outside the bedroom as well.

There WAS abuse in that marriage, and the abuser was Mary.

mho

:read:

[WarmNCozy]

OMG, I don't believe it!:flamemad:

[snoop sister]

Terrific news. I am so grateful to all Mary's advocates who never gave up. Blessings on the road ahead! :rose:

[taylor63]

http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7117312&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

Had the genders been reversed, it would have been LWOP and it should have happened in this case too.

I am very saddened, but really not very surprised by this. I kind of expected at some point this would happen. I hope I am wrong,but I would not be surprised if Mary tries to keep the children away from their grandparents. I just wonder if the girls had any say at all in what happened.

[snoop sister]

It's been a day since I heard the news and I am still overjoyed.

[grneyes]

While I do think there can be an abusive situation without the kids knowing it, I'm not real sure how much I buy that story in this instance. Too much seems off kilter to me.

[rph3664]

I am very saddened, but really not very surprised by this. I kind of expected at some point this would happen. I hope I am wrong,but I would not be surprised if Mary tries to keep the children away from their grandparents. I just wonder if the girls had any say at all in what happened.

The youngest wouldn't have, but the oldest two would have been able to tell people what things were really like in the home.

And Patricia did indeed deny that Daddy was abusive to Mommy.

:(

[CindyB]

Has anyone heard "how" she got the kids back?? Have Mary or the Grandparents ever given any details of how/why they came to this agreement??

[rph3664]

Thing is, IMHO this murder was over $17,000 in kited checks. Had she not shot him, she would probably have been sentenced to community service and restitution, and chances are the marriage would have survived.

[snoop sister]

Thing is, IMHO this murder was over $17,000 in kited checks. Had she not shot him, she would probably have been sentenced to community service and restitution, and chances are the marriage would have survived.
Wow. This was about a lot more than the Nigerian bank scam victimization. This was about a made in hell marriage to an abusive pastor and how that marriage killed one member and nearly destroyed the other. No matter what, having the marriage survive is a very poor outcome to wish for. Both Mary and Matthew wound up victims. Fortunately for the kids, their mother survived.

[rph3664]

Wow. This was about a lot more than the Nigerian bank scam victimization. This was about a made in hell marriage to an abusive pastor and how that marriage killed one member and nearly destroyed the other. No matter what, having the marriage survive is a very poor outcome to wish for. Both Mary and Matthew wound up victims. Fortunately for the kids, their mother survived.

Either you are a troll, or you are that person who posted on the Insession board under many names, "Resty" being one of them.

[SaraSidle]

Either you are a troll, or you are that person who posted on the Insession board under many names, "Resty" being one of them.

Actually Snoop Sister is not a troll. She posted here a while back for a long time and then some trolls who called other posters names closed the MW forum here down for a while. oh yeah most of those trolls did not like Mary at all...............

[snoop sister]

Actually Snoop Sister is not a troll. She posted here a while back for a long time and then some trolls who called other posters names closed the MW forum here down for a while. oh yeah most of those trolls did not like Mary at all...............
Thanks Sara. Wonder why someone would immediately leap to thinking an opposing opinion was the work of a troll? Oh well, guess that's their problem. I'm just glad Mary and the girls are together.

[SaraSidle]

Thanks Sara. Wonder why someone would immediately leap to thinking an opposing opinion was the work of a troll? Oh well, guess that's their problem. I'm just glad Mary and the girls are together.

I was wondering the same thing snoop. pretty fast judgement. IMO

[rph3664]

Actually Snoop Sister is not a troll. She posted here a while back for a long time and then some trolls who called other posters names closed the MW forum here down for a while. oh yeah most of those trolls did not like Mary at all...............

I haven't posted here much, so I didn't know.

It's okay to have dissenting opinions; it's just that when one person disagrees so vehemently with the majority, one wonders if it's a troll.

Snoop, you are entitled to your opinion.

[snoop sister]

I haven't posted here much, so I didn't know.

It's okay to have dissenting opinions; it's just that when one person disagrees so vehemently with the majority, one wonders if it's a troll.

Snoop, you are entitled to your opinion.
Thanks, I have studied this case for a long time. My opinion is based on quite a few hours of research. The majority is not always right and the surface answer might not be correct.

[deacon]

Not only did she get away with cold blooded murder, she has the kids back. What a farce.

[SaraSidle]

Not only did she get away with cold blooded murder, she has the kids back. What a farce.

Or she could have been the victim of "the battered wife syndrome" and she and her family are now getting help finally and hopefrully healthy. IMO

[deacon]

Or she could have been the victim of "the battered wife syndrome" and she and her family are now getting help finally and hopefrully healthy. IMO

Or not. I happen to believe not. She got in over her head with the check scheme and this was her "way out" of the problems she percieved she was going to have with her husband. It isn't like that doesn't happen all the time. In spite of popular opinion, women kill and can be cold hearted killers just as much as men can.

[SaraSidle]

Or not. I happen to believe not. She got in over her head with the check scheme and this was her "way out" of the problems she percieved she was going to have with her husband. It isn't like that doesn't happen all the time. In spite of popular opinion, women kill and can be cold hearted killers just as much as men can.

While I know woman can kill even their own children I have worked with battered women by being on call at night and helping with doing therapy during the day and I can usually know when one is battered and in my opinion she was. IMO

[snoop sister]

Or she could have been the victim of "the battered wife syndrome" and she and her family are now getting help finally and hopefrully healthy. IMO
I truly believe this is the case. I hope that she and the girls are surrounded by a community of folks who believe in second chances.

[odette]

Published: Aug 4, 2008

Mary Winkler Gets Her Kids Back After Killing Husband

Mary Winkler served just 12 days of her 3 year sentence despite being convicted of voluntary manslaughter in the shooting of her husband and less than two years later has been awarded the custody of her three daughters.

Most of Winkler's sentence was reduced to probation so after a dozen days in jail and two months in a mental hospital, she was released, allowing her to attempt to regain custody of her children.

• Continued
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212162211.shtml

[odette]

August 6, 2008

Reactions to Mary Winkler getting custody of kids are mixed

JACKSON — There have been mixed reactions to reports that Mary Winkler has taken custody of her three daughters after being convicted of voluntary manslaughter in the 2006 shooting death of her minister husband Matthew Winkler.

• Continued
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080806/NEWS01/80806028/1006/news01

[snoop sister]

Published: Aug 4, 2008

Mary Winkler Gets Her Kids Back After Killing Husband

Mary Winkler served just 12 days of her 3 year sentence despite being convicted of voluntary manslaughter in the shooting of her husband and less than two years later has been awarded the custody of her three daughters.

Most of Winkler's sentence was reduced to probation so after a dozen days in jail and two months in a mental hospital, she was released, allowing her to attempt to regain custody of her children.

• Continued
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212162211.shtml

It has been interesting to watch the media in this case and very instructive. I had no idea how many details they get wrong. I have become a much more wary consumer of the "news". There were so many reports that turned out to be actually wrong or slanted in the direction the writer wanted us to go. This article is an example. Actually, Mary served way more than 12 days. It is true that, after sentencing, she spent 12 more days in jail, but that is because she was given credit for TIME ALREADY SERVED. I don't remember how long that was, off-hand. It was from the time of her arrest. Following the 12 days in jail after the sentencing hearing Mary served the remainder of the time she was sentenced in a mental health facility. She is now on probation and will be for two more years.

[deacon]

While I know woman can kill even their own children I have worked with battered women by being on call at night and helping with doing therapy during the day and I can usually know when one is battered and in my opinion she was. IMO

As you say, that is your opinion. Not fact. The only evidence I can remember is her testimony on the witness stand. A murder will say what ever they can to get a lighter sentence. It worked. She did what she set out to do.

[odette]

It has been interesting to watch the media in this case and very instructive. I had no idea how many details they get wrong. I have become a much more wary consumer of the "news". There were so many reports that turned out to be actually wrong or slanted in the direction the writer wanted us to go. This article is an example. Actually, Mary served way more than 12 days. It is true that, after sentencing, she spent 12 more days in jail, but that is because she was given credit for TIME ALREADY SERVED. I don't remember how long that was, off-hand. It was from the time of her arrest. Following the 12 days in jail after the sentencing hearing Mary served the remainder of the time she was sentenced in a mental health facility. She is now on probation and will be for two more years.

This article goes into more detail about the amount of time MW spent in jail.

Sunday, June 10, 2007

Mary Winkler Sentenced to 3 Years for Killing Husband, May End Up Serving Only 60 Days

SELMER, Tenn. —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 with time served could be released on probation in a little more than two months.

Mary Winkler must serve at least 210 days of her sentence but gets credit for the 143 days she has already spent in jail, Judge Weber McCraw said.

That leaves 67 days, 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 might spend only another week in jail.

• Continued
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,279390,00.html

[deacon]

I truly believe this is the case. I hope that she and the girls are surrounded by a community of folks who believe in second chances.

Honestly, if Matt would have shot her in the back with a 12 guage would you believe in second chances? I seriously doubt it.

[snoop sister]

Honestly, if Matt would have shot her in the back with a 12 guage would you believe in second chances? I seriously doubt it.
I always believe in second chances. Honestly. And, as a deacon I would think that redemption would be a part of your theology, too. (At least up to 70X7.)

I think it is important to understand the why's of what happened. So that the second chances can be improved. Hopefully Mary has gained some insight.

[snoop sister]

Published: Aug 4, 2008

Mary Winkler Gets Her Kids Back After Killing Husband

Mary Winkler served just 12 days of her 3 year sentence despite being convicted of voluntary manslaughter in the shooting of her husband and less than two years later has been awarded the custody of her three daughters.

Most of Winkler's sentence was reduced to probation so after a dozen days in jail and two months in a mental hospital, she was released, allowing her to attempt to regain custody of her children.

• Continued
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212162211.shtml

Another big inaccuracy in this article is that Mary was AWARDED custody. I have no doubt that this would have occured IF the custody case had finally gone to trial but the fact is there was an out of court agreement worked out and the grandparents gave up the custody. There has not been a court order yet.

[SaraSidle]

Another big inaccuracy in this article is that Mary was AWARDED custody. I have no doubt that this would have occured IF the custody case had finally gone to trial but the fact is there was an out of court agreement worked out and the grandparents gave up the custody. There has not been a court order yet.

I totally agree with you on the custody snoop. She would have gained custody either way. And yes deacon? That is quite the nic for someone who is so unforgiving and close minded.The trial did not cover everything. Men rarely suffer from battered wife syndrome so I doubt he would have received the same outcome but if he had been battered I say go for it.
Do you know anything about his issues with anger and violence he showed at home? I guess not. IMO

[cookiewench]

It's hard to imagine how anyone could be so elated about this situation when they don't know anything about it.

We don't know if the girls are looking forward to staying with their mother, or not.

We don't know if they're upset about leaving their friends, neighborhood, school, or not.

We don't know if they'll miss their grandparents or will be going back on weekends to visit them.

We know nothing about Mary's mental and emotional condition at this time. We don't know if Mary or the girls are still in therapy or now.

We know nothing about Mary's mindset and motives, nor do we know the grandparents mindset and motives.

And since Mary's still within the arms of the Church Of Christ, we don't know if she's involved with, or will become involved with, another man who believes the same C of C doctrine that she believes.

All these unknowns make it hard to see what all the excitement is about.

[sharlock]

Presumably the authorities that allowed her to be released and had had her in a mental institution for a period beleived that she was not a threat and that she was capable of looking after her children as they must have been aware the grandparents had decided not to try and take custody. That too is a bit of a tell tale imo that the family perhaps even recognises that there was mitigating circumstances and the children should be with their mother.

[cookiewench]

Presumably the authorities that allowed her to be released and had had her in a mental institution for a period beleived that she was not a threat and that she was capable of looking after her children as they must have been aware the grandparents had decided not to try and take custody.


Not really.

Mary was sentenced to a particular amount of time, which she was permitted to serve out in a mental health facility.

There were no stipulations on that, as far as I know. She was released when her time was up, and no one was asked if they believed she was "safe" or "cured" before she was released.

The records of her stay would not be part of the public record.

[SaraSidle]

Not really.

Mary was sentenced to a particular amount of time, which she was permitted to serve out in a mental health facility.

There were no stipulations on that, as far as I know. She was released when her time was up, and no one was asked if they believed she was "safe" or "cured" before she was released.

The records of her stay would not be part of the public record.

I agree that records would not be public record. Mental Health facilities almost always have therapists and psychiatrists to work with the patients and document their progress and state of mind. I am sure with a case this public Mary would not be released if the staff felt she was not ready or could harm herself and anyone else. IMO

[cookiewench]

I am sure with a case this public Mary would not be released if the staff felt she was not ready or could harm herself and anyone else. IMO


Nope.

She was sentenced for a very specific period of time. There were no stipulations at all on her being released, other than that the stipulated period of time was up.

She was allowed to finish her sentence in the mental health facility as a courtesy to her. It wouldn't matter what her therapists thought or felt about her condition. They could not have kept her for one more day than the sentence.

Prisoners who have been deemed to be dangerous are let out of prison every day - because they have served their sentence. Not sayin' that any of the therapists may or may not have felt this way about Mary - just that it wouldn't have made any difference.

[SaraSidle]

Nope.

She was sentenced for a very specific period of time. There were no stipulations at all on her being released, other than that the stipulated period of time was up.

She was allowed to finish her sentence in the mental health facility as a courtesy to her. It wouldn't matter what her therapists thought or felt about her condition. They could not have kept her for one more day than the sentence.

Prisoners who have been deemed to be dangerous are let out of prison every day - because they have served their sentence. Not sayin' that any of the therapists may or may not have felt this way about Mary - just that it wouldn't have made any difference.


I feel pretty confident that professionals at the mental health facility would
want to make sure everything was good in such a public case just to protect themselves and avoid any liability. IMO. not the same as prison you know

[cookiewench]

I feel pretty confident that professionals at the mental health facility would
want to make sure everything was good in such a public case just to protect themselves and avoid any liability. IMO. not the same as prison you know



Oh my goodness. They'd have no liability - just like a prison warden has no liability when a parole board gives someone parole. They were just the holders of a person for a specific number of days, as per the judge. Period. There was no court-ordered therapy, nor did the judge ask the facility to report on Mary's conditon to anyone.

There's no clearer way to explain it that I've already done. A therapist or psychiatrist can't "make sure" a person is okay by a certain date, nor can they hold someone for longer than their term.

Mary wasn't adjudged to be criminally insane. She wasn't adjudged to be mentally incompetent. She was just another person with a bit of time to serve, and her attornies requested that she serve it in that facility.

No one has or had any legal liability for Mary's future actions except for Mary.

[SaraSidle]

Oh my goodness. They'd have no liability - just like a prison warden has no liability when a parole board gives someone parole. They were just the holders of a person for a specific number of days, as per the judge. Period. There was no court-ordered therapy, nor did the judge ask the facility to report on Mary's conditon to anyone.

There's no clearer way to explain it that I've already done. A therapist or psychiatrist can't "make sure" a person is okay by a certain date, nor can they hold someone for longer than their term.

Mary wasn't adjudged to be criminally insane. She wasn't adjudged to be mentally incompetent. She was just another person with a bit of time to serve, and her attornies requested that she serve it in that facility.

No one has or had any legal liability for Mary's future actions except for Mary.

Obviously we will have to agree to disagree because I do not believe one word of your post. IMO

[cookiewench]

Obviously we will have to agree to disagree because I do not believe one word of your post. IMO

There's nothing to agree or disagree about.

Didn't you read (or watch) the sentencing? Mary was sentenced to a particular amount of time, her legal team asked that she spend it in the facility, and the judge approved that. Period. There are transcripts. It's not my opinion; it's the facts.

The judge put NO stipulation on the stay there and asked for NO report on Mary before she could be released. It was X number of days.


You've chosen not to "believe" it, I guess - because you don't like the person who posted it. Your friends who you DO chose to believe can tell you the same thing, or give you a link to the sentencing hearing.


It's also a fact that a facility would only be liable for letting someone go IF they had already been judged to be criminally insane or dangerous BEFORE they had been put in the facility.

Your friends will tell you that Mary was not ORDERED to the facility, nor was she ever judged to be criminally insane, and even THEN, there would only be public outcry about it, not legal liability. She REQUESTED to spend the remainder of her sentence in the facility. She was NOT ordered to have any special therapy/group therapy/medication/evaluation of her condition before she could be released.

[SaraSidle]

There's nothing to agree or disagree about.

Didn't you read (or watch) the sentencing? Mary was sentenced to a particular amount of time, her legal team asked that she spend it in the facility, and the judge approved that. Period. There are transcripts. It's not my opinion; it's the facts.

The judge put NO stipulation on the stay there and asked for NO report on Mary before she could be released. It was X number of days.


You've chosen not to "believe" it, I guess - because you don't like the person who posted it. Your friends who you DO chose to believe can tell you the same thing, or give you a link to the sentencing hearing.


It's also a fact that a facility would only be liable for letting someone go IF they had already been judged to be criminally insane or dangerous BEFORE they had been put in the facility.

Your friends will tell you that Mary was not ORDERED to the facility, nor was she ever judged to be criminally insane, and even THEN, there would only be public outcry about it, not legal liability. She REQUESTED to spend the remainder of her sentence in the facility. She was NOT ordered to have any special therapy/group therapy/medication/evaluation of her condition before she could be released.


Cookie I am not clear about who you mean when you say my friends. Most of the time I am quite sure I can think for myself or gain information from research. And please believe there is no one I dislike at CL. Even you!!!
But I do have experience with mental health to draw on and I use it quite a bit. IMO

[cookiewench]

Cookie I am not clear about who you mean when you say my friends. Most of the time I am quite sure I can think for myself or gain information from research. And please believe there is no one I dislike at CL. Even you!!!
But I do have experience with mental health to draw on and I use it quite a bit. IMO


Yet you call me a liar when I state exactly what happened at the sentencing?

It has nothing to do with the mental health field - it has to do with the legal field.

NO reports were ordered to be sent to the judge before Mary could be released.....NO therapy or medication was ordered by the court......NO stipulations at all were put on Mary's being released on the exact date that the judge said she would be released.

Mary was allowed to go to the mental health facility as a courtesy and at her own/her attorney's request.

If you look at it even from an everyday common sense issue - why would Mary request to go there if the facility could decide to take it upon themselves to decide to keep her? If that had been at all possible, her attorneys would have had her serve out those few months in the prison, where she would be released at that time no matter what.

The ONLY time that a person can be held is IF the reason they were ccommitted in the first place is because they have been deemed to be dangerously mentally ill by a judge, and Mary was never deemed that. She was sentenced to prison, not the mental health facility. She did not plead an insanity defense, nor was she sentenced with any stipulations as to her mental health/treatment.

[grneyes]

A therapist or psychiatrist can't "make sure" a person is okay by a certain date, nor can they hold someone for longer than their term.

Unfortunately, this is true. If they tried to hold them longer they would have one heck of a law suit on their hands and they would lose. Once the sentence is done (whether jail or hospital) they are legally free. This is assuming the full sentence is done. If they are released early and are on probation, things are different.

It's like that up here too. After Karla was released they tried to put all kinds of restrictions on her and the courts knocked them down and she got to have a kid and go to the Caribbean. Pretty messed up if you ask me.

[SaraSidle]

Yet you call me a liar when I state exactly what happened at the sentencing?

It has nothing to do with the mental health field - it has to do with the legal field.

NO reports were ordered to be sent to the judge before Mary could be released.....NO therapy or medication was ordered by the court......NO stipulations at all were put on Mary's being released on the exact date that the judge said she would be released.

Mary was allowed to go to the mental health facility as a courtesy and at her own/her attorney's request.

If you look at it even from an everyday common sense issue - why would Mary request to go there if the facility could decide to take it upon themselves to decide to keep her? If that had been at all possible, her attorneys would have had her serve out those few months in the prison, where she would be released at that time no matter what.

The ONLY time that a person can be held is IF the reason they were ccommitted in the first place is because they have been deemed to be dangerously mentally ill by a judge, and Mary was never deemed that. She was sentenced to prison, not the mental health facility. She did not plead an insanity defense, nor was she sentenced with any stipulations as to her mental health/treatment.

First I never called you a liar or said you were wrong about what happened at the sentencing or said you were wrong about anything.
Second We are all expressing our opinions here and none of us were there so none of us really are in the know.
Third I think you can be readmitted at least 48-72 hour if you are considered a danger to yourself or others. I will try to find out where that is.
Last why do you keep referring as my friends telling me what to believe?

[cookiewench]

First I never called you a liar or said you were wrong about what happened at the sentencing or said you were wrong about anything.
Second We are all expressing our opinions here and none of us were there so none of us really are in the know.
Third I think you can be readmitted at least 48-72 hour if you are considered a danger to yourself or others. I will try to find out where that is.
Last why do you keep referring as my friends telling me what to believe?


I believe that anyone would feel that they were being called a liar if someone said, "I don't believe one word of your post".

I post my opinion quite often, but on this issue I was not posting opinion - I was posting about what actually happened in court, and what the sentence was.

Of course, anyone (be it Mary, you, or me) could be admitted for observation if we were deemed to be a danger to ourselves or others......by a judge.

The guidelines for committing a person under those circumstances are very strict: they apply to the person's immediate behavior and/or threats - a person can NOT be deemed dangerous because of a crime they committed which they have now served out their term for.

If Mary had walked out the door on the day of her release and started screaming suicidal or homical threats in the streets - sure, she could have been readmitted - but someone (probably local LE) would have to apply to the courts - most likely to a different judge - and it would have NOTHING to do with her prior court case.

But Mary could not have been kept for one day longer than her sentence was for.

Since she was never involuntarily committed in the first place and never deemed to be a danger/threat (psychiatrically) in the first place, there would be NO report due to the court before she was released.

Do you remember that she was not court-ordered to have any therapy or treatment at all? She was simply allowed to stay in the facility. We can only HOPE that she voluntarily took treatment, but she didn't HAVE TO.

[SaraSidle]

I believe that anyone would feel that they were being called a liar if someone said, "I don't believe one word of your post".

I post my opinion quite often, but on this issue I was not posting opinion - I was posting about what actually happened in court, and what the sentence was.

Of course, anyone (be it Mary, you, or me) could be admitted for observation if we were deemed to be a danger to ourselves or others......by a judge.

The guidelines for committing a person under those circumstances are very strict: they apply to the person's immediate behavior and/or threats - a person can NOT be deemed dangerous because of a crime they committed which they have now served out their term for.

If Mary had walked out the door on the day of her release and started screaming suicidal or homical threats in the streets - sure, she could have been readmitted - but someone (probably local LE) would have to apply to the courts - most likely to a different judge - and it would have NOTHING to do with her prior court case.

But Mary could not have been kept for one day longer than her sentence was for.

Since she was never involuntarily committed in the first place and never deemed to be a danger/threat (psychiatrically) in the first place, there would be NO report due to the court before she was released.

Do you remember that she was not court-ordered to have any therapy or treatment at all? She was simply allowed to stay in the facility. We can only HOPE that she voluntarily took treatment, but she didn't HAVE TO.

I am not calling you a liar. I do not do name-calling. I am sure you saw what happened in the court and my job kept me from seein what when on with the Judge and sentencing. I have no idea what when on their and you do. but as far as what went on in the mental health facility I am sure you are incorrect IMO

[deacon]

I always believe in second chances. Honestly. And, as a deacon I would think that redemption would be a part of your theology, too. (At least up to 70X7.)

I think it is important to understand the why's of what happened. So that the second chances can be improved. Hopefully Mary has gained some insight.Redemption? Yes. Forgiveness? yes. One problem I have is that some, I guess you are one, believe that frogiveness does away with the price one must pay for a crime. This can not be further from the truth.

II Samuel. Read how God dealt with King David AFTER he had admitted he was wrong and had been forgiven for his sin. (You brought this up so don't go saying I am "preaching".)

[deacon]

I totally agree with you on the custody snoop. She would have gained custody either way. And yes deacon? That is quite the nic for someone who is so unforgiving and close minded.The trial did not cover everything. Men rarely suffer from battered wife syndrome so I doubt he would have received the same outcome but if he had been battered I say go for it.
Do you know anything about his issues with anger and violence he showed at home? I guess not. IMO

Do you have some insight into his home life? I would say probably not. Let's see, if someone is faced with anger from a spouse the correct thing is to kill them? Don't think so.

Unforgiving? Close minded? I think not. You need to understand that when one breaks the law one must pay the price. Gee, isn't that what the Bible says? I refer you also to II Samuel to read what happened to King David. He was forgiven but there was still a price to pay.

[cookiewench]

but as far as what went on in the mental health facility I am sure you are incorrect IMO


I'll go over this one more time:

Mary was given a sentence, credit for time served, and had to do a few more months.

Her attorney asked the judge if she could spend those few months in a mental health facility, and the request was granted.

That's it.

No therapy was ordered. No diagnosis was ordered. No report to the court was ordered.

We don't know if Mary even talked to a therapist while she was there. It would have been up to her if she wanted to.

She was just allowed to stay there as if it were a hotel. Her attorney most likely requested it because the facility was much nicer than the prison and had better food.

[deacon]

I'll go over this one more time:

Mary was given a sentence, credit for time served, and had to do a few more months.

Her attorney asked the judge if she could spend those few months in a mental health facility, and the request was granted.

That's it.

No therapy was ordered. No diagnosis was ordered. No report to the court was ordered.

We don't know if Mary even talked to a therapist while she was there. It would have been up to her if she wanted to.

She was just allowed to stay there as if it were a hotel. Her attorney most likely requested it because the facility was much nicer than the prison and had better food.

Gee, I understood that the first time you posted it.:shrug:

[Lili007]

Wow. This was about a lot more than the Nigerian bank scam victimization. This was about a made in hell marriage to an abusive pastor and how that marriage killed one member and nearly destroyed the other. No matter what, having the marriage survive is a very poor outcome to wish for. Both Mary and Matthew wound up victims. Fortunately for the kids, their mother survived.


IMO, your post personalizes "the marriage" and depersonalizes Mary as the killer of one person and the "near destruction" of the other.

"The marriage" didn't shoot Matthew dead, Mary did that. If she nearly destroyed her own life in the process, it is as a consequence of taking another life, while not in immediate self-defense or defense of another. As a reminder, Matthew was lying in bed with his back to Mary when she shot him, and left him still alive when she could have at least rung for help from the car after she drove off.

When you state that "having the marriage survive is a poor outcome to wish for"... it sounds to me like you're equating "the marriage" with Matthew. Come to think of it, of course, without the husband, there is no marriage.

"Fortunately for the kids, their mother survived". So "the marriage" didn't kill Mary. I wonder whether that had anything to do with the fact that she was holding the gun at the time.

There's only one thing I agree with you on: it's about the kids. They've been through stuff that would send grown people crazy, with their mother shooting their father next to where they were sleeping and seeing him hurt and hearing his moans as their mother hurried them out the door... That is not something you "get over" - not with time, not with therapy, not with anything, IMO.

So if the girls want to be with their mother, I wish them a happy, safe, secure and normal life and hope there will be all sorts of joys to come into their lives, bright futures and lots of love.

JMO

[Lili007]

I truly believe this is the case. I hope that she and the girls are surrounded by a community of folks who believe in second chances.

So... where is Matthew's second chance?

[Lili007]

I always believe in second chances. Honestly. And, as a deacon I would think that redemption would be a part of your theology, too. (At least up to 70X7.)

I think it is important to understand the why's of what happened. So that the second chances can be improved. Hopefully Mary has gained some insight.

Do you apply that belief to Mattew Winkler as well?

If Mary "gained some insight", it certainly came at the ultimate price. She didn't even pay for it - her husband did.

JMO

[Lili007]

It's hard to imagine how anyone could be so elated about this situation when they don't know anything about it.

We don't know if the girls are looking forward to staying with their mother, or not.

We don't know if they're upset about leaving their friends, neighborhood, school, or not.

We don't know if they'll miss their grandparents or will be going back on weekends to visit them.

We know nothing about Mary's mental and emotional condition at this time. We don't know if Mary or the girls are still in therapy or now.

We know nothing about Mary's mindset and motives, nor do we know the grandparents mindset and motives.

And since Mary's still within the arms of the Church Of Christ, we don't know if she's involved with, or will become involved with, another man who believes the same C of C doctrine that she believes.

All these unknowns make it hard to see what all the excitement is about.

ITA! When it happened, Mary's judgement was anything but clear, IMO, but she took the gun and ammunition along in the van when she ran off with the girls.

After she was caught, her words to the effect that she was taking the girls to the beach to play with them as long as she could (words to that effect) sent cold chills down my spine. They still do.

JMO

[cookiewench]

I always believe in second chances. Honestly.

Do you believe in second chances for all killers, or just for Mary?

Strangely, I've heard some of her supporters say, since her verdict and sentencing, things like, "Well, Matthew is dead and that's in the past and can't be changed, so Mary deserves to move on with her life and find happiness. What's done is done, blah blah".

Some of them actually expect that Winklers to feel this way, also.

I wonder if they would feel that way if it were their son, husband, brother who had been killed.

[deacon]

Do you believe in second chances for all killers, or just for Mary?

Strangely, I've heard some of her supporters say, since her verdict and sentencing, things like, "Well, Matthew is dead and that's in the past and can't be changed, so Mary deserves to move on with her life and find happiness. What's done is done, blah blah".

Some of them actually expect that Winklers to feel this way, also.

I wonder if they would feel that way if it were their son, husband, brother who had been killed.

Add daughter, wife, mother to the list.:beer:

[SaraSidle]

The forgiving Deacon. Too funny. Matthew got his second chance when he would not stop being abusive in my opinion.

[cookiewench]

The forgiving Deacon. Too funny. Matthew got his second chance when he would not stop being abusive in my opinion.

Oh. Is that how it works in your thinking?

You ask a person to "stop" something and if they don't, there are no second chances.

If that's the case, I'd bet that many of us here could have left at least 3-4 dead bodies behind while going through life - including, in some cases, their parents.

Where I come from, women are believed to be just as much adults, and just as much responsible for their lives as men are.

They are not children, and most of them are a lot more capable of packing and leaving than they are of murder.

In this same worldview, do women also only get one chance to change their behavior before they get shotgunned in the back while sleeping?

[cookiewench]

The forgiving Deacon. Too funny. Matthew got his second chance when he would not stop being abusive in my opinion.

Let me get this clear:

A person with an internet ID of "deacon" is "too funny" if they don't forgive murder.

But it was not "too funny" that Mary was not expected to forgive whatever failings and problems that Matthew had.

The preacher's wife should not be expected to be forgiving of her own husband and the father of her children, but a stranger on the internet is expected to forgive Mary.

Okay

[deacon]

The forgiving Deacon. Too funny. Matthew got his second chance when he would not stop being abusive in my opinion.

We only have his killer's word that there was abuse. Oh, I would forgive her, but she still needs to pay the legal price for what she did. You obviously do not know what forgiveness is. You think it is a free pass to do anything you want with out consequences. That is not what it is. It is not holding hate in your heart for what someone has done.

[deacon]

Let me get this clear:

A person with an internet ID of "deacon" is "too funny" if they don't forgive murder.

But it was not "too funny" that Mary was not expected to forgive whatever failings and problems that Matthew had.

The preacher's wife should not be expected to be forgiving of her own husband and the father of her children, but a stranger on the internet is expected to forgive Mary.

Okay

They don't understand what forgiveness is. They have a warped understanding of the word's true meaning.
edited to say: They surely don't understand what a deacon is either. Most think it is someone in charge and that is NOT what it is meant to be. A deacon is a servant, not a master.

[SaraSidle]

Yes deacon. a deacon is a servant. a servant of God and do not forget that.

Cookie what exactly would you like to see happen here. Matthew is deceased and buried. Mary is free and with her children. It is over.
I am not going to change my mind and you are not going to change your mind. what should we do????

[deacon]

Yes deacon. a deacon is a servant. a servant of God and do not forget that.

Cookie what exactly would you like to see happen here. Matthew is deceased and buried. Mary is free and with her children. It is over.
I am not going to change my mind and you are not going to change your mind. what should we do????

Do you think I have? Don't think so. If you look, I spell it deacon, not Deacon. That is not by mistake. It is there to remind me of just what I am. Now, go and find out what forgiveness really is.

[SaraSidle]

Do you think I have? Don't think so. If you look, I spell it deacon, not Deacon. That is not by mistake. It is there to remind me of just what I am. Now, go and find out what forgiveness really is.

Obviously you did not read my post and notice how I spelled your nic. IMO

that is not by mistake. and I really do not think you can tell me what forgiveness is. In fact I do not think you have anything to offer me. IMO

[cookiewench]

Cookie what exactly would you like to see happen here.

What I would like to see is people with a sense of fairness when it comes to crime and punishment in this country. If a "preacher's wife" does the same thing that a man does - the man ends up on death row and the preacher's wife gets pats on the back.

What I would like to see is a justice system where you can't just murder someone and then claim abuse after the fact - with absolutely nothing to prove it except a shoe.

What I would like to see is for women to be held as accountable for their acts as men are. Especially when it comes to child abuse, a woman should be just as accountable if she stands there and lets it happen as she would be if she did it herself.

I'd also like to see people looking at the facts, not listening to defense attorney spin. That is what those guys look for - people who will fall for their strategy. It was obvious to me, and to many others, that Mary's defense was choreographed by those attornies. She changed her entire story as well as her demeanor once she had been schooled by them. That head-hanging bit was ridiculous and the most staged thing I'd ever seen. The shoe was just as absurd, and the prosecutors should have challenged it and asked where it had come from.

That type of attorney is just a P.T. Barnum looking for another sucker. They don't care about justice, they don't care about the victim, and they sure don't care about their client getting a "fair trial".

It's all a game to them: get criminals off the hook in high-profile cases, and they know they'll get rich & famous, and make a bundle of money in the futute.

Let me know when Farese et al offer free services to someone who's crime is NOT high profile and which WON'T give them a chance to see their faces on TV and their names in the news.

It's not going to happen.............

[cookiewench]

that is not by mistake. and I really do not think you can tell me what forgiveness is. In fact I do not think you have anything to offer me. IMO


Why won't you tell the people why you believe that a stranger on the internet should offer forgiveness to Mary for murder, but Mary shouldn't have extended forgiveness to Matthew for whatever misdeeds he did?

[SaraSidle]

What I would like to see is people with a sense of fairness when it comes to crime and punishment in this country. If a "preacher's wife" does the same thing that a man does - the man ends up on death row and the preacher's wife gets pats on the back.

What I would like to see is a justice system where you can't just murder someone and then claim abuse after the fact - with absolutely nothing to prove it except a shoe.

What I would like to see is for women to be held as accountable for their acts as men are. Especially when it comes to child abuse, a woman should be just as accountable if she stands there and lets it happen as she would be if she did it herself.

I'd also like to see people looking at the facts, not listening to defense attorney spin. That is what those guys look for - people who will fall for their strategy. It was obvious to me, and to many others, that Mary's defense was choreographed by those attornies. She changed her entire story as well as her demeanor once she had been schooled by them. That head-hanging bit was ridiculous and the most staged thing I'd ever seen. The shoe was just as absurd, and the prosecutors should have challenged it and asked where it had come from.

That type of attorney is just a P.T. Barnum looking for another sucker. They don't care about justice, they don't care about the victim, and they sure don't care about their client getting a "fair trial".

It's all a game to them: get criminals off the hook in high-profile cases, and they know they'll get rich & famous, and make a bundle of money in the futute.

Let me know when Farese et al offer free services to someone who's crime is NOT high profile and which WON'T give them a chance to see their faces on TV and their names in the news.

It's not going to happen.............


I am so glad to hear you believe that the legal system is not going to change anytime soon. I think it wll be easier to accept the situation in time for you. IMO

[SaraSidle]

Why won't you tell the people why you believe that a stranger on the internet should offer forgiveness to Mary for murder, but Mary shouldn't have extended forgiveness to Matthew for whatever misdeeds he did?

I am not going to tell the people anything. I just express my opinion. The people can listen to Barack or McCain. I do not really care what a stranger says or does on a board as long as no one is hurt. And I do not know the relatonship Mary has with her higher power and it is none of my business. IMO

[cookiewench]

I am not going to tell the people anything. I just express my opinion. The people can listen to Barack or McCain. I do not really care what a stranger says or does on a board as long as no one is hurt. And I do not know the relatonship Mary has with her higher power and it is none of my business. IMO


But I didn't ask you about any higher power.

I asked you why you were bashing a poster on the internet for not forgiving Mary, but never have bashed Mary for not forgiving Matthew.

[SaraSidle]

Cookie I do not bash. It is not my style. I am trying to figure out where you are going on this thread. I merely made a comment about a poster making a comment that did not really connect with his nic IMO.

I can tell you are just as angry as you were 10 months ago. I sure do not know what you are going to do about that. I wish I could help you. IMO

[cookiewench]

Cookie I do not bash. It is not my style. I am trying to figure out where you are going on this thread. I merely made a comment about a poster making a comment that did not really connect with his nic IMO.

I can tell you are just as angry as you were 10 months ago. I sure do not know what you are going to do about that. I wish I could help you. IMO

You claim that I am angry, when you are the one who made a snarky comment to a poster who hadn't even addressed you? The poster has just expressed an opinion, and you took it from there. Adding an "lol" to your post does not disguise your anger.

I've always wonder just exactly what it was that you were angry about or at - but seeing your post to someone who's nic is "deacon", and then looking at the things you've said about Matthew, I now can make a good guess that it's male religious figures who you have a grudge about.

[SaraSidle]

I am sorry if I was snarky and that you are upset. IMO

[Lili007]

The forgiving Deacon. Too funny. Matthew got his second chance when he would not stop being abusive in my opinion.

"Matthew got his second chance when he would not stop being abusive in my opinion."

Say that again? :confused: ... Did Matthew's "second chance" consist of being killed by his wife??

JMO

[deacon]

Obviously you did not read my post and notice how I spelled your nic. IMO

that is not by mistake. and I really do not think you can tell me what forgiveness is. In fact I do not think you have anything to offer me. IMO

Yes I know, you have all knowledge and need nothing from anyont else.

[deacon]

I am sorry if I was snarky and that you are upset. IMO

Actually it wasn't "snarky" it was a personal attack. You attacked me, not my opinion. Doesn't suprise me any. When some people are backed into a corner the only thing left is a personal attack.

[grneyes]

So... where is Matthew's second chance?

Well, if he truly was abusive as Mary stated then I'm sure he had his 2nd (3rd, 4th, etc...) chance every single time he said "I'm sorry baby I didn't mean it. It will never happen again." After all, that's how abusers always start out until one day they decide that no, they aren't sorry and will continue to abuse.

[cookiewench]

Well, if he truly was abusive as Mary stated then I'm sure he had his 2nd (3rd, 4th, etc...) chance every single time he said "I'm sorry baby I didn't mean it. It will never happen again." After all, that's how abusers always start out until one day they decide that no, they aren't sorry and will continue to abuse.


How many chances did Mary have to leave him? She chose to stay and kill him instead. She didn't want to face the world on her own and be poor. She liked to spend money.

Your post doesn't sound (to me) like you're talking about the Winkler case, though. According to Mary, Matthew had "smacked" her two years before that and had torn up a bookcase/desk two years before that.

After that, he mostly just was grouchy/yelled and wanted her to wear ugly shoes.

[deacon]

How many chances did Mary have to leave him? She chose to stay and kill him instead. She didn't want to face the world on her own and be poor. She liked to spend money.

Your post doesn't sound (to me) like you're talking about the Winkler case, though. According to Mary, Matthew had "smacked" her two years before that and had torn up a bookcase/desk two years before that.

After that, he mostly just was grouchy/yelled and wanted her to wear ugly shoes.

Again, according to Mary. We only have her "word" for it. The word of a woman who was caught up in a scam and was ashamed. So ashamed she killed her husband so she wouldn't have to face the truth. Funny how all of that got forgotten when she shot him and how, now, it isn't even talked about. She spent a VERY short time in jail and now she walks free and no one speaks about it still. He plan all along. There is much more evidence to back that up than there is to back up the "abuse" story.

[cookiewench]

Again, according to Mary. We only have her "word" for it. The word of a woman who was caught up in a scam and was ashamed. So ashamed she killed her husband so she wouldn't have to face the truth. Funny how all of that got forgotten when she shot him and how, now, it isn't even talked about. She spent a VERY short time in jail and now she walks free and no one speaks about it still. He plan all along. There is much more evidence to back that up than there is to back up the "abuse" story.

And now she's still involved in (and apparently being at least partially finanacially supported by) the same church that many of the posters here claimed was at the root of her acceptance of "abuse", her fears about leaving, and her feeling that she had "nowhere to turn and no one she could talk to".

I wish we still had the threads about how bad it would be if the kids stayed with the grandparents, because they'd be raised in that church/cult and their counselors would be from the church/cult.

And now.......there is a strange silence about Mary's religious sect, and no claims that the girls are going to be similarly brainwashed by being raised within it.

How very odd.

[grneyes]

How many chances did Mary have to leave him? She chose to stay and kill him instead. She didn't want to face the world on her own and be poor. She liked to spend money.

I'm sure she had plenty of chances to leave, just like most abused women have a chance to leave but don't do it.

Your post doesn't sound (to me) like you're talking about the Winkler case, though. According to Mary, Matthew had "smacked" her two years before that and had torn up a bookcase/desk two years before that.
Actually I was referring to abused women in general (including Mary) so don't read more into it than was meant.

After that, he mostly just was grouchy/yelled and wanted her to wear ugly shoes.

So we are supposed to believe she got to walk on killing someone because he made her wear ugly shoes? The court system isn't perfect but they aren't that stupid. (Also, I've never said I agree with their decision.)


Again, according to Mary. We only have her "word" for it. The word of a woman who was caught up in a scam and was ashamed. So ashamed she killed her husband so she wouldn't have to face the truth. Funny how all of that got forgotten when she shot him and how, now, it isn't even talked about. She spent a VERY short time in jail and now she walks free and no one speaks about it still. He plan all along. There is much more evidence to back that up than there is to back up the "abuse" story.

I agree with that. I don't know for a fact if Mary was abused or not but, if she was, I can understand her not leaving and I can understand being pushed to the point of killing him.

I've seen many abused women but very few that actually got out of the situation. In most cases they are too scared to leave because of what they might do to them if they do leave.

[SaraSidle]

I'm sure she had plenty of chances to leave, just like most abused women have a chance to leave but don't do it.


Actually I was referring to abused women in general (including Mary) so don't read more into it than was meant.



So we are supposed to believe she got to walk on killing someone because he made her wear ugly shoes? The court system isn't perfect but they aren't that stupid. (Also, I've never said I agree with their decision.)


grneyes you have a good deal of insight of domestic violence and battered
wife syndrome. I am sure Mary would not have the children now if anyone thought she would hurt them. deacon you are on ignore because I am too mean to you. hopefully this will make you feel better. IMO

I agree with that. I don't know for a fact if Mary was abused or not but, if she was, I can understand her not leaving and I can understand being pushed to the point of killing him.

I've seen many abused women but very few that actually got out of the situation. In most cases they are too scared to leave because of what they might do to them if they do leave.

grneyes you have a good deal of insight of domestic violence and battered
wife syndrome. I am sure Mary would not have the children now if anyone thought she would hurt them. deacon you are on ignore because I am too mean to you. hopefully this will make you feel better. IMO

[cookiewench]

So we are supposed to believe she got to walk on killing someone because he made her wear ugly shoes? The court system isn't perfect but they aren't that stupid.

Yes: I think the "ugly shoes" had a lot to do with it. In some other area of the country those shoes would have been laughable to even bring into court, but apparently that area of Tennessee has a whole different "Bible Belt" mindset that the rest of the country.

And our court system isn't stupid, but jurors can be. Or, they can (at least) be very gullible when they are small town folks being manipulated by slick lawyers.

Just look at OJ and tell me again that stupid results don't occur from obvious crimes, by biased jurors.

[cookiewench]

I'm sure she had plenty of chances to leave, just like most abused women have a chance to leave but don't do it.



Thank you for saying out loud that women like Mary do indeed have "a chance to leave but don't do it".

That chance to leave makes them culpable when they murder, because it's not as if it were self-defense.

The fact that a person has a chance to leave and doesn't just shows that the abusee has as many emotional problems as the abuser - and has had them since before she met the abuser.

A person with self esteem and self awareness doesn't get "destroyed" because of being called a few names or being hit a few times.

They leave.

[deacon]

And now she's still involved in (and apparently being at least partially finanacially supported by) the same church that many of the posters here claimed was at the root of her acceptance of "abuse", her fears about leaving, and her feeling that she had "nowhere to turn and no one she could talk to".

I wish we still had the threads about how bad it would be if the kids stayed with the grandparents, because they'd be raised in that church/cult and their counselors would be from the church/cult.

And now.......there is a strange silence about Mary's religious sect, and no claims that the girls are going to be similarly brainwashed by being raised within it.

How very odd.

Oh, I remember those posts. Very well

[Kayleighjo]

I followed this case, and the issues surrounding it.

I guess the first thing that comes to mind is that most of what a batterer does is in private, leaving the woman he's battering with little to offer as proof other than her words.

It seems a common theme for people to say of battered women "why doesn't she leave?" but how come no one asks "why doesn't he stop hitting her?". It's the kind of mentality that makes domestic violence one for the most commonly committed crimes in the US, and one of the most common causes of miscarriage of pergnancies.

Most of the time women don't leave because they are afraid too. They have good reason - statistics tell us that 80% of women who are killed as the result of an abusive relationship are killed after they actually do leave the man that is abusing them.

I don't take away from anyone choosing to believe that the proof wasn't there, but I take alot if issue with the carefree attitude surrounding blaming a woman for being beaten. It's just plain ignorance.

[deacon]

grneyes you have a good deal of insight of domestic violence and battered
wife syndrome. I am sure Mary would not have the children now if anyone thought she would hurt them. deacon you are on ignore because I am too mean to you. hopefully this will make you feel better. IMO

I'm on ignore because you are too mean? Goes along with the logic I see you post. What ever. You have your opinion, I have mine. Me being on iggy has no affect. Been there before.:D

[cookiewench]

It seems a common theme for people to say of battered women "why doesn't she leave?" but how come no one asks "why doesn't he stop hitting her?".

Most of the time women don't leave because they are afraid too. They have good reason - statistics tell us that 80% of women who are killed as the result of an abusive relationship are killed after they actually do leave the man that is abusing them.


People do indeed ask "why doesn't he stop hitting her?". He would have to stop hitting her if she left, though, wouldn't he?


Some people use those statistic you quoted as an excuse for why a woman stays with an abuser, although they don't combine those statistics with the ones showing that women leave abusive men every day, and no one gets killed.

A woman can't just use those statistics to say that, "well, if he was going to kill me, there's an 80% chance he'd do it after I left him, so I have to either stay, or kill him first".

It's not just fear. If a stranger on the street came up and started hitting you, you'd be afraid, but you'd run.

Women stay for many reasons: money, security, sex, "love", the power they feel when the abuser is contrite and apologetic.

The thing about the "abuse excuse" is that it's so one-sided and sexist.

I once knew a couple.......she would hit him all the time and broke a chair over his back and would throw things at him, etc. He never hit her back because he had been raised to believe that "a man never hits a woman".

Could he have killed her and gotten away with it by using "the abuse excuse"?

[Kayleighjo]

People do indeed ask "why doesn't he stop hitting her?". He would have to stop hitting her if she left, though, wouldn't he?


Some people use those statistic you quoted as an excuse for why a woman stays with an abuser, although they don't combine those statistics with the ones showing that women leave abusive men every day, and no one gets killed.

A woman can't just use those statistics to say that, "well, if he was going to kill me, there's an 80% chance he'd do it after I left him, so I have to either stay, or kill him first".

It's not just fear. If a stranger on the street came up and started hitting you, you'd be afraid, but you'd run.

Women stay for many reasons: money, security, sex, "love", the power they feel when the abuser is contrite and apologetic.

The thing about the "abuse excuse" is that it's so one-sided and sexist.

I once knew a couple.......she would hit him all the time and broke a chair over his back and would throw things at him, etc. He never hit her back because he had been raised to believe that "a man never hits a woman".

Could he have killed her and gotten away with it by using "the abuse excuse"?

Excuse? That's really all it is to you?

The man in the scenario you used ... could he have gotten away with it? Doubtful. Should he be able to? Yes.

You say the question is asked, but look at your follow up. You still blame her and excuse him by saying he would have to stop hitting her if she left.

Money is a real issue for many women that have kids and are in an abusive marriage. Many of these women don't have financial resources to support themselves and their kids if they left. The general response to that is to say they could go to a shelter. In Minneapolis tons of women can't even get into a shelter because they're already full. The ones that do get in have maybe 48 to 72 hours tops to stay and then they're on the street.

Do you have the statistics handy for how many women successfully leave abusers?

[rph3664]

Again, according to Mary. We only have her "word" for it. The word of a woman who was caught up in a scam and was ashamed. So ashamed she killed her husband so she wouldn't have to face the truth. Funny how all of that got forgotten when she shot him and how, now, it isn't even talked about. She spent a VERY short time in jail and now she walks free and no one speaks about it still. He plan all along. There is much more evidence to back that up than there is to back up the "abuse" story.

:beer:

When Patricia said she had never seen Daddy being mean to Mommy, that's what did it for me.

[Happy]

This is wonderful news. Now the healing can begin. I think the Winklers gave up because they don't want the information about the FUND revealed. So I say, Mary let them have the money and you take the girls, money is what they are all about anyway. They never thought Mary would hurt the kids otherwise they wouldn't have given up on the custody battle.

[SaraSidle]

Excuse? That's really all it is to you?

The man in the scenario you used ... could he have gotten away with it? Doubtful. Should he be able to? Yes.

You say the question is asked, but look at your follow up. You still blame her and excuse him by saying he would have to stop hitting her if she left.

Money is a real issue for many women that have kids and are in an abusive marriage. Many of these women don't have financial resources to support themselves and their kids if they left. The general response to that is to say they could go to a shelter. In Minneapolis tons of women can't even get into a shelter because they're already full. The ones that do get in have maybe 48 to 72 hours tops to stay and then they're on the street.

Do you have the statistics handy for how many women successfully leave abusers?

Kayleighjo Welcome to the CL. very good posts IMO

[cookiewench]

The man in the scenario you used ... could he have gotten away with it? Doubtful. Should he be able to? Yes.

You say the question is asked, but look at your follow up. You still blame her and excuse him by saying he would have to stop hitting her if she left.

Money is a real issue for many women that have kids and are in an abusive marriage. Many of these women don't have financial resources to support themselves and their kids if they left.

Do you have the statistics handy for how many women successfully leave abusers?


I have so many questions:

Why should the man I knew have been able to use "the abuse excuse" if he'd killed her? Why shouldn't he have just packed and left? The only ones who truly can't leave an abusive situation are children. The man I knew did eventually leave his wife: she harrassed him for a while, and then moved on to someone else. That's what abusers usually do.

And WHY is money a real issue for women who don't have financial resources to support themselves and their children?

Rather than teaching the next generation that women "can't" leave an abuser, why aren't we teaching them to not let themselves get financial dependent on anyone - least of all, an abuser?

Why aren't we teaching them not to have children with a man until they know him very, very well? Why aren't we teaching them to always be prepared to support any children she has, in case something happens along the way?

Why the victim mentality? Why put forth the myth that women are helpless in the face of a man? Women are only helpless when they put themselves in that position.

And.....if you put yourself in that type of position, it is YOUR responsibility to get yourself and your children out of it without committing murder.

Many abused women go from one abuser to another? Why do you think that is? Does it never have anything to do with the WOMAN?

As for your request for statistics - I, personally, don't need to look any up. Just about every woman I know has been abused in a relationship at one point in her life - and left, and lived, and prospered.

[cookiewench]

You still blame her and excuse him by saying he would have to stop hitting her if she left.



No - I made a typing error. I should have written that SHE wouldn't have been able to hit HIM any more if he'd left.

And I blame both of them. He had children that then had to be (ahem) "raised" by this crazy screwball, even though he knew she was a crazy screwball when he married her.

I blame people when they bring children into a mess like that.

No one would try to claim that the man in my scenario didn't leave right away because he was "afraid", though. At least everyone admitted that these scenarios are extremely complex, and involved a lot more (or less) than "fear".

If it were simply "fear", so many women who'd successfully gotten away from abusers wouldn't go back to them - as they do.

Men aren't trained to believe that they "can't" get away from abuse or that they should be "afraid" to get away with it. Men are taught to believe in themselves - while our girls are still being raising to believe that they will always be helpless children, and that there's no pathology within themselves if they stay with an abuser and use the "fear" excuse to do so.

[SaraSidle]

No - I made a typing error. I should have written that SHE wouldn't have been able to hit HIM any more if he'd left.

And I blame both of them. He had children that then had to be (ahem) "raised" by this crazy screwball, even though he knew she was a crazy screwball when he married her.

I blame people when they bring children into a mess like that.

No one would try to claim that the man in my scenario didn't leave right away because he was "afraid", though. At least everyone admitted that these scenarios are extremely complex, and involved a lot more (or less) than "fear".

If it were simply "fear", so many women who'd successfully gotten away from abusers wouldn't go back to them - as they do.

Men aren't trained to believe that they "can't" get away from abuse or that they should be "afraid" to get away with it. Men are taught to believe in themselves - while our girls are still being raising to believe that they will always be helpless children, and that there's no pathology within themselves if they stay with an abuser and use the "fear" excuse to do so.
I am not sure I understand the bolded Cookie. If girls are taught to be helpless children why would they need a "fear Excuse" when it comes to an abusive husband?:shrug:

[cookiewench]

[/B]
I am not sure I understand the bolded Cookie. If girls are taught to be helpless children why would they need a "fear Excuse" when it comes to an abusive husband?:shrug:

Aren't helpless children afraid of the adults that abuse them?

Some people have never been able to see women as complete adults.

[SaraSidle]

Aren't helpless children afraid of the adults that abuse them?

Some people have never been able to see women as complete adults.

So then if woman are raised to be afraid then they must be afraid to leave or they will be found and go through worse. Got it. IMO

[taylor63]

Well, if he truly was abusive as Mary stated then I'm sure he had his 2nd (3rd, 4th, etc...) chance every single time he said "I'm sorry baby I didn't mean it. It will never happen again." After all, that's how abusers always start out until one day they decide that no, they aren't sorry and will continue to abuse.

What is she was the one who was the real abuser? Too bad for Matthew I guess, Mary assassinated him while he slept in his own bed,and now his name and repuation have been assassinated by her in front of the entire world as well.

There is always some excuse for this woman by the people who constantly defend her. I have never seen anything like this in my life where there is so much damning evidence against a defendant in a murder trial, and yet people continue to defend her like she was the real victim when in reality the exact opposite was the truth.


God forbid if her *ugly* were ever to come out again one day in the near future, and she hurt or even killed one or all of her girls. I bet her supporters will probably make excuses for her once again, and accuse the child or children she murders of being abusive towards her like their father supposedly was,or once again blame Matthew and his family for it.

[grneyes]

What is she was the one who was the real abuser? Too bad for Matthew I guess, Mary assassinated him while he slept in his own bed,and now his name and repuation have been assassinated by her in front of the entire world as well.

There is always some excuse for this woman by the people who constantly defend her. I have never seen anything like this in my life where there is so much damning evidence against a defendant in a murder trial, and yet people continue to defend her like she was the real victim when in reality the exact opposite was the truth.


God forbid if her *ugly* were ever to come out again one day in the near future, and she hurt or even killed one or all of her girls. I bet her supporters will probably make excuses for her once again, and accuse the child or children she murders of being abusive towards her like their father supposedly was,or once again blame Matthew and his family for it.

Actually I didn't defend her. I said IF she was abused. I also stated that I don't agree with the sentence she was given.

[SaraSidle]

Actually I didn't defend her. I said IF she was abused. I also stated that I don't agree with the sentence she was given.

I think the posters that are unhappy Mary is not in prison and is back with her kids are really not reading the whole post and just going off. They sure do sound angry. I am just glad it is over myself. IMo

[cookiewench]

So then if woman are raised to be afraid then they must be afraid to leave or they will be found and go through worse. Got it. IMO

Yes. That is what will happen if we raise our daughters with the mindthink of this board.

They will believe that women "can't" leave and are "afraid" to leave, rather than believing that they can look inside themselves to see how they ended up with an abuser in the first place, and then leaving him.

According to the mindthink of (most of) this board, they'll believe that domestic abuse is something that people are ashamed to talk about (which is not true, but is what is postulated on this board), and they'll believe that it's perfectly reasonable and understanable if a woman kills instead of leaving.

[cookiewench]

I am just glad it is over myself. IMo

Do you mind if I ask you why you think it is over?

As I said in my first post, we don't know anything about what's going on.

We don't know how the girls feel about this in their hearts, we don't know Mary's mental/emotional condition, we don't know anything.

How you could think that it could ever be "over" for a child who's parent has been murdered, is beyond me. They'll carry that with them for their entire lives.

[SaraSidle]

Do you mind if I ask you why you think it is over?

As I said in my first post, we don't know anything about what's going on.

We don't know how the girls feel about this in their hearts, we don't know Mary's mental/emotional condition, we don't know anything.

How you could think that it could ever be "over" for a child who's parent has been murdered, is beyond me. They'll carry that with them for their entire lives.

I am sure with the notoriety of the case the present and future is being paid attention to by the legal and mental health system. the family will work through it. family's have worked through worse. IMO

[SaraSidle]

Yes. That is what will happen if we raise our daughters with the mindthink of this board.

They will believe that women "can't" leave and are "afraid" to leave, rather than believing that they can look inside themselves to see how they ended up with an abuser in the first place, and then leaving him.

According to the mindthink of (most of) this board, they'll believe that domestic abuse is something that people are ashamed to talk about (which is not true, but is what is postulated on this board), and they'll believe that it's perfectly reasonable and understanable if a woman kills instead of leaving.

does this mean you are kind of on a mission to train the posters here how to raise their daughters? After you are done changing thoughts here is this a kind of work you will be doing with the public or organizations in your area?
Do you feel any guilt if someone listens to you and leaves their abusive husband and he hunts her down and kills her and maybe the kids? Because this does happen. IMO

[cookiewench]

does this mean you are kind of on a mission to train the posters here how to raise their daughters? After you are done changing thoughts here is this a kind of work you will be doing with the public or organizations in your area?
Do you feel any guilt if someone listens to you and leaves their abusive husband and he hunts her down and kills her and maybe the kids? Because this does happen. IMO

I doubt if very many people lurk here, but you could say that it's a "mission" for me to spread the word to those who haven't gotten it yet (and I also doubt there are many of them left) that women are not infants. Women are accountable for their own lives, just like men are. How it turns out depends on you: you character, standards, ethics, drives. If you find yourself with three children and in an abusive relationship you feel you can't get out of - look to yourself, not your abuser. Abusers are a dime a dozen, and are basically all the same. How you react to it is what makes you what you are.

And of course I wouldn't feel guilty if a woman left an abuser because of my words and was killed. Leaving is the rational thing to do: staying is not.

Did you not know that children who witness spousal abuse and are the subjects of abuse from their parents, are more than likely to end up abusers themselves?

Leave an abuser. Always. If he tracks you down and harrasses and threatens you, THEN you can shoot him and deserve some support from the courts and the public.

[grneyes]

I doubt if very many people lurk here, but you could say that it's a "mission" for me to spread the word to those who haven't gotten it yet (and I also doubt there are many of them left) that women are not infants. Women are accountable for their own lives, just like men are. How it turns out depends on you: you character, standards, ethics, drives. If you find yourself with three children and in an abusive relationship you feel you can't get out of - look to yourself, not your abuser. Abusers are a dime a dozen, and are basically all the same. How you react to it is what makes you what you are.

And of course I wouldn't feel guilty if a woman left an abuser because of my words and was killed. Leaving is the rational thing to do: staying is not.

Did you not know that children who witness spousal abuse and are the subjects of abuse from their parents, are more than likely to end up abusers themselves?

Leave an abuser. Always. If he tracks you down and harrasses and threatens you, THEN you can shoot him and deserve some support from the courts and the public.

So it's okay to shoot them if you don't live with them? Is what you are saying? Telling them to leave first, and shoot last is basically making it premeditated.

Oh, and most women do not talk about their abuse because they are embarrassed that it even happens. For the ones that do want to talk, not many people (I'm talking non-professional people) actually want to hear it because they don't want to believe things like that really happen or think it should be buried under the rug because you shouldn't disgrace your family by talking about it.

There are a lot more women (and men) being abused than people realize. It's also sometimes harder to get out of it than people who haven't been abused can understand. In many instances you are "taught" that this is normal and acceptable or that you deserve it. Especially if they were abused as children. Anyone that has been severely abused will understand this.

Some of us do get out though.

I do agree that abusers are all the same. They don't always leave physical marks but the marks they do leave, last forever.

[cookiewench]

So it's okay to shoot them if you don't live with them? Is what you are saying? Telling them to leave first, and shoot last is basically making it premeditated.

Oh, and most women do not talk about their abuse because they are embarrassed that it even happens. For the ones that do want to talk, not many people (I'm talking non-professional people) actually want to hear it because they don't want to believe things like that really happen or think it should be buried under the rug because you shouldn't disgrace your family by talking about it.

There are a lot more women (and men) being abused than people realize. It's also sometimes harder to get out of it than people who haven't been abused can understand. In many instances you are "taught" that this is normal and acceptable or that you deserve it. Especially if they were abused as children. Anyone that has been severely abused will understand this.

Some of us do get out though.

I do agree that abusers are all the same. They don't always leave physical marks but the marks they do leave, last forever.


I never said any such thing as you are claiming I said. I said that the woman should leave, and THEN if the man threatens or harrasses (stalks) her, at least she'd deserve some support from the public (or at least the benefit of the doubt). If Mary had left Matthew, gotten a restraining order, etc. - and then he came after her and abused her, she'd have had more of a case than the one she had - at least in any other courtroom.

And I don't know what world you live in, but it's not the same one I live in. In the world I live in, people listen to each other (especially women), and don't want to "sweep abuse under the rug". In fact - in the world I live in, there are TV advertisements, billboards, and resources listed in the Yellow Pages - all about help for abuse.

Interesting that you say that women are "taught" that abuse is normal. Of course, watching her mother be abused and then stay with the abuser would be one way that a girl would be "taught" that it's "normal". Leaving the abuser (and pressing charges against him) would be the only way for the child to be "taught" that it's NOT normal.

BTW: As I said, every woman I know has gone through some abuse at some point in her life, so in my world there aren't "more women (and men) abused than most people realize.

You included men in your "more abused than people realize":

Do these men stay out of "fear" - even when the man is huge and the woman is tiny? Looks to me like you've just admitted that "fear" is one of the LEAST reasons people stay with an abuser.

[cookiewench]

BTW: How could anyone suggest that Mary suffered from "Battered Women's Syndrome", when nothing about her lifestyle fit the description.

The first thing the batterer has to do in order to put the woman in the frame of mind to have "the syndrome" would be to isolate her.

For all of the claims that Mary was isolated from her own family - she actually wasn't. She may not have visited them as much in the few years leading up to the murder, but she was not "disallowed" to visit them, or to talk to them on the phone.

Mary had a car, a cell phone, and a job. She had a social group within the church, and people she could have talked to.

She wasn't trapped in the house without the means to change her life, or to see how "normal" people lived. Matthew didn't stick her in a house out in the country with no neighbors and no car.

She lived just like anyone else: went to Walmart, ordered pizza, blabbed on her cell phone, did the family banking and shopping.

There's not the tiniest shred of evidence that she was ever "isolated".

[grneyes]

I live in a world that knows what it's like to see a women get the h#ll beat out of her, call the cops who say to the man "well don't do it again" and then they leave. Then she gets beaten again and so bad she couldn't go to work for 3 days.

I live in a world where as a child I woke up many a night and saw a shot gun pointed at myself and my mom and then see her be beaten black and blue because he couldn't find the shells to kill us. I also live in a world where I have survived physical, mental, and sexual abuse.

Have you lived in that kind of world? If you haven't then you can't understand. If you have, then you know exactly what would make you want to kill someone in that type of situation.

I was one of the lucky ones. I got out of this type of life without anyone being killed, but there was a time it damned sure crossed my mind.

Again I state, I do not know if Mary was truly abused or not. I am only saying I know what it is like to live in an abusive situation and that I can understand the mental frame of mind someone could have in those circumstances.

[cookiewench]

I live in a world that knows what it's like to see a women get the h#ll beat out of her, call the cops who say to the man "well don't do it again" and then they leave. Then she gets beaten again and so bad she couldn't go to work for 3 days.

I live in a world where as a child I woke up many a night and saw a shot gun pointed at myself and my mom and then see her be beaten black and blue because he couldn't find the shells to kill us. I also live in a world where I have survived physical, mental, and sexual abuse.

Have you lived in that kind of world? If you haven't then you can't understand. If you have, then you know exactly what would make you want to kill someone in that type of situation.

I was one of the lucky ones. I got out of this type of life without anyone being killed, but there was a time it damned sure crossed my mind.

Again I state, I do not know if Mary was truly abused or not. I am only saying I know what it is like to live in an abusive situation and that I can understand the mental frame of mind someone could have in those circumstances.

Do you live in the U.S.A.? In this country, we have nationwide laws stating that the police MUST remove and arrest the man if a woman calls 911 and says she's been hit or threatened. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it - they HAVE TO do it - and it's been that way for at least 20 years.

I'm sorry that you had to be raised with all that violence, but my stance is that your mother had a responsibility to get you away from it.

I believe (and the laws state) that anyone who stands by and lets their child be abused by another person is just as culpable as the abuser.

We (meaning, women) should not have children unless we're able to insure that we'll do anything that's necessary to protect them from physical and emotional danger.

Anyone who claims that women shouldn't be fully responsible for what happens to their children is, IMO, is also claiming that women never really grow into full adulthood and aren't equal to a man when it comes to will, reason, logic, ethics, and self-sufficiency.


And if a woman keeps blaming the abuser for the situation rather than to look inside herself and try to repair her own problems (the problems that allowed her to get in that position in the first place), if she DOES get out of the abusive situation, she'll more than like end up with another abuser.........and another and another.

[grneyes]

Do you live in the U.S.A.? In this country, we have nationwide laws stating that the police MUST remove and arrest the man if a woman calls 911 and says she's been hit or threatened. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it - they HAVE TO do it - and it's been that way for at least 20 years.

I'm sorry that you had to be raised with all that violence, but my stance is that your mother had a responsibility to get you away from it.I believe (and the laws state) that anyone who stands by and lets their child be abused by another person is just as culpable as the abuser.

We (meaning, women) should not have children unless we're able to insure that we'll do anything that's necessary to protect them from physical and emotional danger.

Anyone who claims that women shouldn't be fully responsible for what happens to their children is, IMO, is also claiming that women never really grow into full adulthood and aren't equal to a man when it comes to will, reason, logic, ethics, and self-sufficiency.


And if a woman keeps blaming the abuser for the situation rather than to look inside herself and try to repair her own problems (the problems that allowed her to get in that position in the first place), if she DOES get out of the abusive situation, she'll more than like end up with another abuser.........and another and another.

This was much longer than 20 years ago and my mom did finally get out, but she barely got out alive and yes I did live in the US then.

[deacon]

I live in a world that knows what it's like to see a women get the h#ll beat out of her, call the cops who say to the man "well don't do it again" and then they leave. Then she gets beaten again and so bad she couldn't go to work for 3 days.

I live in a world where as a child I woke up many a night and saw a shot gun pointed at myself and my mom and then see her be beaten black and blue because he couldn't find the shells to kill us. I also live in a world where I have survived physical, mental, and sexual abuse.

Have you lived in that kind of world? If you haven't then you can't understand. If you have, then you know exactly what would make you want to kill someone in that type of situation.

I was one of the lucky ones. I got out of this type of life without anyone being killed, but there was a time it damned sure crossed my mind.

Again I state, I do not know if Mary was truly abused or not. I am only saying I know what it is like to live in an abusive situation and that I can understand the mental frame of mind someone could have in those circumstances.

No, but someone very close to me, and I mean VERY close to me does. If that had been taken care of right after it happened this person would not wake up with nightmares several times a month. The difference between her family and mine is that my father would have believed my sister and would have taken care of the situation. First with LE and if that didn't work, he would have protected his daughter. If Mary would have left him and he had come after her and she would have blown his head off, then it is self defense. When you shoot him in the back while he is asleep with NO EVIDENCE of abuse, that is murder. We keep leaving out the Fraud part too. Why do people leave that out?:shrug:

[grneyes]

No, but someone very close to me, and I mean VERY close to me does. If that had been taken care of right after it happened this person would not wake up with nightmares several times a month. The difference between her family and mine is that my father would have believed my sister and would have taken care of the situation. First with LE and if that didn't work, he would have protected his daughter. If Mary would have left him and he had come after her and she would have blown his head off, then it is self defense. When you shoot him in the back while he is asleep with NO EVIDENCE of abuse, that is murder. We keep leaving out the Fraud part too. Why do people leave that out?:shrug:

I'm really sorry that this person had that happen to them. It's a horrible thing to go through.

[deacon]

I'm really sorry that this person had that happen to them. It's a horrible thing to go through.

You should have been there the night it all came flooding back. You see, most here have one idea of where I am coming from and don't know all of the story

[Kayleighjo]

[QUOTE=cookiewench;9117159]Do you live in the U.S.A.? In this country, we have nationwide laws stating that the police MUST remove and arrest the man if a woman calls 911 and says she's been hit or threatened. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it - they HAVE TO do it - and it's been that way for at least 20 years.
QUOTE]

The laws in this country have not been that way for the past 20 years. The laws regarding domestic violence have always varied by state. In the state of Minnesota it was not until 1995 that a law was enacted stating that police must arrest the man if a woman has been beaten.

You claim you have no need to look for statistics on how many women successfully leave an abuser because you apparently know so many. How wonderful for those women that you know that were successful, but for every woman that's successful there is one who isn't. Between 2 and 4 million women in the US are battered each year, and every single day a woman dies as a result of a violent relationship. Many try leaving and many end up dying.

[Kayleighjo]

And if a woman keeps blaming the abuser for the situation rather than to look inside herself and try to repair her own problems (the problems that allowed her to get in that position in the first place), if she DOES get out of the abusive situation, she'll more than like end up with another abuser.........and another and another.

I've not once seen you place any blame on the man who is abusing. Everything is the fault and responsibility of the woman who is being hit. For God's sake, he's got a responsibility too! No matter what you think about the woman who is staying or how she got herself into that situation, I'd at least think you'd still have something to say about the man who is abusing ... but you don't. He's a criminal ... he deserves to be locked up ... he needs just as much help as the woman he's hitting ... he needs just as much to have to "look inside" himself and try to repair the problems that made him think it's okay to beat up on someone in the first place.

You ignore that. Awesome.

[cookiewench]

I've not once seen you place any blame on the man who is abusing. Everything is the fault and responsibility of the woman who is being hit. For God's sake, he's got a responsibility too! No matter what you think about the woman who is staying or how she got herself into that situation, I'd at least think you'd still have something to say about the man who is abusing ... but you don't. He's a criminal ... he deserves to be locked up ... he needs just as much help as the woman he's hitting ... he needs just as much to have to "look inside" himself and try to repair the problems that made him think it's okay to beat up on someone in the first place.

You ignore that. Awesome.


Hit me once, shame on you - hit me twice, shame on me.

If he deserves to be locked up and deserves help - good for him - get him locked up and let him seek help - but it is NOT some woman's problem to either put up with it or help him to heal. That is one of the ways that abuse turns into long-term - because the woman thinks she is supposed to change the man, and she in turn becomes his enabler.

If there weren't women who these abuser guys could get to stay with them, they'd have to beat up each other.

If this so-called "man" hasn't felt like a POS and gone to get himself some help after the first time he hurt a woman, then he needs to be left alone to hit rock bottom on his own.

[cookiewench]

[B] Many try leaving and many end up dying.


And your point is.............what? That this is a good reason for not leaving?

Is that what you would tell an abused woman? "But....but....many women who leave abusers end up dying! Maybe you should just stay and let him kill you little by little.".

[cookiewench]

[B]How wonderful for those women that you know that were successful, but for every woman that's successful there is one who isn't. Between 2 and 4 million women in the US are battered each year, and every single day a woman dies as a result of a violent relationship. Many try leaving and many end up dying.


Abusers just love people like you. You help them to spread the idea that they are so powerful that a woman should be afraid to either stand up to them or leave them (rather than showing them as the weak, dependent idiots that they are).

Why don't you look up the statistic of the women who are killed every year while living with these nutcases, vs. the women who are killed every year after they leave them?

I believe you'll find that many, many more are killed in their own homes every year than after leaving the situation. And the longer you stay, the more dangerous it becomes.

[Kayleighjo]

And your point is.............what? That this is a good reason for not leaving?

Is that what you would tell an abused woman? "But....but....many women who leave abusers end up dying! Maybe you should just stay and let him kill you little by little.".

My point is ... it's not as easy as the fairytale you've spun in your mind.

[cookiewench]

My point is ... it's not as easy as the fairytale you've spun in your mind.

Please stop putting words in my mouth.

I never once said or implied that it was "easy".

It's something that must be done.

Are you suggesting that people should put up with the worst things in the world because the alternative isn't "easy"?

[deacon]

My point is ... it's not as easy as the fairytale you've spun in your mind.

Life, in and of itself, is not easy. For anyone

[Kayleighjo]

Please stop putting words in my mouth.

I never once said or implied that it was "easy".

It's something that must be done.

Are you suggesting that people should put up with the worst things in the world because the alternative isn't "easy"?

And please stop assuming that there's a black and white answer to the issue of domestic violence.

I'm not suggesting anything, I'm outright stating that your views on these women are nonsense, and that by all indications you seem to suggest that she's getting what she deserves if she hasn't left. I'm only pointing out that leaving isn't always easy and that gives no excuse to essentially absolve a man of all responsibility while laying everything on her.

You preach about what we should be teaching women, I'm preaching back about what we should be teaching men too.

I was such a woman, but I don't fall into your categorization. I was married to my ex-husband for six years prior to conceiving kids with him. He was successful and wealthy, and I quit my job to be a stay at home mother after we discussed the options and decided that was a course that both of us wished to choose. It was two years after our first child was born that he first ever began abusing me, and that was eight years into our marriage. In that entire eight years he had hardly ever raised his voice to me let alone put his hands on me. I don't know if fatherhood ended up proving to much, but he began drinking and becoming abusive. I didn't choose to stay, but when I tried to take my kids to a shelter I could only stay for one night. I still didn't choose to stay, but I didn't have alot of options so I created a plan. I took my kids back home and got myself a job. I saved every penny and ever cent of the "allowance" that my husband decided to give me each week. I saved up enough money and left with my kids while he was on a business trip. He found me in the aftermath, and I'm lucky to be alive.

We battered women aren't all the same. I knew him (or so I thought) as well as you could know someone before marrying them and having children. I was with him for two years before marrying him, six more years before having kids ... there had never been a hint of abuse. I did what I had to do in order to leave and create a better life for my kids. I wasn't a weak minded individual, and I sure didn't stay because of power or sex. But it still happened to me and I still almost didn't make it out alive.

[cookiewench]

And please stop assuming that there's a black and white answer to the issue of domestic violence.

I'm not suggesting anything, I'm outright stating that your views on these women are nonsense, and that by all indications you seem to suggest that she's getting what she deserves if she hasn't left. I'm only pointing out that leaving isn't always easy and that gives no excuse to essentially absolve a man of all responsibility while laying everything on her.

You preach about what we should be teaching women, I'm preaching back about what we should be teaching men too.

I was such a woman, but I don't fall into your categorization. I was married to my ex-husband for six years prior to conceiving kids with him. He was successful and wealthy, and I quit my job to be a stay at home mother after we discussed the options and decided that was a course that both of us wished to choose. It was two years after our first child was born that he first ever began abusing me, and that was eight years into our marriage. In that entire eight years he had hardly ever raised his voice to me let alone put his hands on me. I don't know if fatherhood ended up proving to much, but he began drinking and becoming abusive. I didn't choose to stay, but when I tried to take my kids to a shelter I could only stay for one night. I still didn't choose to stay, but I didn't have alot of options so I created a plan. I took my kids back home and got myself a job. I saved every penny and ever cent of the "allowance" that my husband decided to give me each week. I saved up enough money and left with my kids while he was on a business trip. He found me in the aftermath, and I'm lucky to be alive.

We battered women aren't all the same. I knew him (or so I thought) as well as you could know someone before marrying them and having children. I was with him for two years before marrying him, six more years before having kids ... there had never been a hint of abuse. I did what I had to do in order to leave and create a better life for my kids. I wasn't a weak minded individual, and I sure didn't stay because of power or sex. But it still happened to me and I still almost didn't make it out alive.

If your arguments are so valid, why do you need to constantly misquote and misconstrue mine? I never said, or even implied that it was either "black and white", or easy. I know that from my own personal experience.

What you did is exactly what I would have done in that situation.

But women do stay with and have children with an let themselves become financially dependent on men well after they've been abused - and that happens every day, and unless we teach our daughters to run at the first incident rather than trying to understand and analyze the abuser (and get further dependent on him), the cycle will continue.

In other words........the cycle will continue as long as women continue to think of themselves as perpetual victims and take control of their lives (like you did).

And you don't get strong and take control of your life by getting involved in Nigerian scams (and shooting a sleeping person in the back). Self esteem and character come from doing the right thing - even when it's the hardest thing.

[Reckless]

...why do you need to constantly misquote and misconstrue mine?
Uh, so they make sense.

[cookiewench]

Uh, so they make sense.

Kindly explain what you are talking about.

If someone's post doesn't make sense to you, you "fix" their ideas and change them so that they make sense to you?

That's logical.............not.

[Kayleighjo]

If your arguments are so valid, why do you need to constantly misquote and misconstrue mine? I never said, or even implied that it was either "black and white", or easy. I know that from my own personal experience.

What you did is exactly what I would have done in that situation.

But women do stay with and have children with an let themselves become financially dependent on men well after they've been abused - and that happens every day, and unless we teach our daughters to run at the first incident rather than trying to understand and analyze the abuser (and get further dependent on him), the cycle will continue.

In other words........the cycle will continue as long as women continue to think of themselves as perpetual victims and take control of their lives (like you did).

And you don't get strong and take control of your life by getting involved in Nigerian scams (and shooting a sleeping person in the back). Self esteem and character come from doing the right thing - even when it's the hardest thing.

I'm not misquoting or miscontruing ... those are all the things that your posts appear to indicate. Sorry if you don't like the way someone interpets your remarks, but I can't do anything about how you present yourself.

[cookiewench]

but I can't do anything about how you present yourself.


Sure you can.

You can stop projecting your own issues into my posts, and then you wouldn't need to twist them into simplistic "you see everything in black & white" accusations.

You apparently don't want to do that, though.

Maybe when the day comes that you stop thinking of yourself as a victim, you'll see what I'm talking about.

If not................oh, well.

[Kayleighjo]

Sure you can.

You can stop projecting your own issues into my posts, and then you wouldn't need to twist them into simplistic "you see everything in black & white" accusations.

You apparently don't want to do that, though.

Maybe when the day comes that you stop thinking of yourself as a victim, you'll see what I'm talking about.

If not................oh, well.

Or maybe when the day comes that you stop defending abusive men and blaming their victims you'll see what I'm talking about.

Though I can see where you might find reality a little easier to cope with if you spend all your time in denial - hiding in a puff of black and white does tend to soften the blows.

But, if you can't face reality ................. oh, well.

[cookiewench]

Or maybe when the day comes that you stop defending abusive men and blaming their victims you'll see what I'm talking about.

Though I can see where you might find reality a little easier to cope with if you spend all your time in denial - hiding in a puff of black and white does tend to soften the blows.

But, if you can't face reality ................. oh, well.

Except that you have a little problem here: you won't be able to find any post or sentence of mine in which I even hint at defending abusive men.

I believe that they should be left, and then forgotten. They are zeroes.....nothing even worth thinking about.

The reality is that most people can't get through life without being abused in some way or another by someone or another.

You can blame your parents for your problems (if they were abusive or neglectful) and think of yourself as their lifelong victim - or, you can deal with what happened to you and become a better, more self-aware person because of it.

Same thing with an abusive relationship. You may choose to give a man that power over you for the rest of your life by thinking of yourself as his victim even after it's long over. Good for you. I just don't happen to think it's very productive.

Nor do I think it's productive to try to scare women into staying with abusers because they "might be" killed if they leave. They "might be" killed if they STAY.

[Kayleighjo]

Except that you have a little problem here: you won't be able to find any post or sentence of mine in which I even hint at defending abusive men.

I believe that they should be left, and then forgotten. They are zeroes.....nothing even worth thinking about.

The reality is that most people can't get through life without being abused in some way or another by someone or another.

You can blame your parents for your problems (if they were abusive or neglectful) and think of yourself as their lifelong victim - or, you can deal with what happened to you and become a better, more self-aware person because of it.

Same thing with an abusive relationship. You may choose to give a man that power over you for the rest of your life by thinking of yourself as his victim even after it's long over. Good for you. I just don't happen to think it's very productive.

Nor do I think it's productive to try to scare women into staying with abusers because they "might be" killed if they leave. They "might be" killed if they STAY.

Talk about misconstruing ... where did I suggest that anyone should try to scare someone into staying because they might be killed if they leave? It would be more productive if you practiced what you preach.

My point was that the fear behind leaving is very real, and it's stupid to pretend that walking out the door always ends it. It's stupid not to prepare a woman for the ordeals she may face when she goes.

You suggest that I consider myself a victim and that's silly. I did what I had to do and left and created a better life for myself and for my kids. I don't look back ... but I do sympathize with women who remain victimized or can't find resources to leave. If that gives me a victim mentality in your eyes so be it.

[SaraSidle]

Talk about misconstruing ... where did I suggest that anyone should try to scare someone into staying because they might be killed if they leave? It would be more productive if you practiced what you preach.

My point was that the fear behind leaving is very real, and it's stupid to pretend that walking out the door always ends it. It's stupid not to prepare a woman for the ordeals she may face when she goes.

You suggest that I consider myself a victim and that's silly. I did what I had to do and left and created a better life for myself and for my kids. I don't look back ... but I do sympathize with women who remain victimized or can't find resources to leave. If that gives me a victim mentality in your eyes so be it.

Great post Kayleighjo!:seeya:

[cookiewench]

where did I suggest that anyone should try to scare someone into staying because they might be killed if they leave?

.. but I do sympathize with women who remain victimized or can't find resources to leave.

I don't see any post of yours where you state that the woman should run......fast: just one about how they "should be" afraid of leaving, because they might be killed (maybe forgetting that many more women are killed by abusers in their own home every year than there are women who've been stalked and killed after leaving).

Do you have sympathy for women who DO have resources and yet don't leave? Women like Mary, who had a job, new vehicle, credit cards, family, a degree, a church group she could turn to?

[Kayleighjo]

I don't see any post of yours where you state that the woman should run......fast: just one about how they "should be" afraid of leaving, because they might be killed (maybe forgetting that many more women are killed by abusers in their own home every year than there are women who've been stalked and killed after leaving).

Do you have sympathy for women who DO have resources and yet don't leave? Women like Mary, who had a job, new vehicle, credit cards, family, a degree, a church group she could turn to?

You're clearly choosing to ignore that the statistics prove you wrong - of all women killed at the hands of their abusers, 80% of them are killed after they leave, the other 20% while they are still in the relationship.

Did Mary really have a church group she could turn to or would they have protected her husband? Not so much sympathy for a woman with the resources who don't leave, though there are cases that are different. You may note, by the way, that I never said I condoned her actions or that I even was convinced that she was abused ... I've been speaking in general regarding domestic violence cases.

[cookiewench]

You're clearly choosing to ignore that the statistics prove you wrong - of all women killed at the hands of their abusers, 80% of them are killed after they leave, the other 20% while they are still in the relationship.

Did Mary really have a church group she could turn to or would they have protected her husband? Not so much sympathy for a woman with the resources who don't leave, though there are cases that are different. You may note, by the way, that I never said I condoned her actions or that I even was convinced that she was abused ... I've been speaking in general regarding domestic violence cases.


You said that:

"Between 2 and 4 million women in the US are battered each year, and every single day a woman dies as a result of a violent relationship. Many try leaving and many end up dying."

Are you saying that out of that figure, 3 million women are stalked and killed after they leave a relationship, and only 8,000 are killed in their own home?

And of course Mary had a church group to which she could turn. After she committed murder, they helped her, visited her, arranged for a job, gave her money, cheap housing, vehicle, etc.

What do you think...........that a member of the CofC has to murder before they get any support from their group?

[cookiewench]

In fact, women are more likely to be a victim of homicide in the first few months after they leave a marriage than they are while they are married.

This has very little to do with domestic violence: women separate from their husbands for any number of reasons. A man who has never been physically abusive may track his wife down and kill her out of jealousy/rage after she leaves him. Other factors could be that women often move to a lower-income, higher-crime area when they separate, or that they live a move high-risk life, or that they are now seen to be living alone.

I'll never understand the "excuse" that leaving a batterer is more dangerous than staying and getting battered for the rest of your life. I've known about 30 women (including myself) who left a marriage or other relationship and not one of them has been murdered (although they have been bothered by the ex). By your statistics, 24 of them would have to be dead by now. If you know 10 women who've left an abuser, that would mean that 8 of them should be dead.

Your statistics state that women who are murdered by men are more often murdered after they break up with the man - NOT that 80% of the women who leave abusive men are going to be murdered by them.

http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/factoid/factoid.html

[cookiewench]

Well, I'm about worn out with this argument, so you can jump for joy at my departure.


It makes me tired just thinking about all the "a woman can't leave an abuser because he'll kill her......she can't leave him because she doesn't have resources, is powerless, is scared.......blah blah".

I guess it's easier to believe that women are powerless by nature's design rather than by their own choice to become, and remain, powerless.

Better to just hang out and feel sorry for yourself, until you finally explode and kill someone.

Anything other than looking inside yourself and asking yourself how you got in that position in the first place, and how to change yourself so that you don't get into a similar one again.


Bye..................

[Pirate]

Lets focus on the Children. At this point, mary can deal with her own demons, I pray she continues to get help. The Children deserve the support and attention of EVERYONE, mary supporters and dectractors.

[rosejustrose]

Lets focus on the Children. At this point, mary can deal with her own demons, I pray she continues to get help. The Children deserve the support and attention of EVERYONE, mary supporters and dectractors.


ITA! The children and their welfare is what matters at this point in time. What happened happened. It's over and done. We all have our own opinions on what went down between Mary and Matthew but it just doesn't matter anymore, the courts have ruled. Now is the time to focus on the children. JMVHO.

[SaraSidle]

I would like to thank grneyes and Kayleigh for sharing their pain with us. I think it was very brave of both of them . Not something I could have done.:rose::rose:

[Kayleighjo]

I would like to thank grneyes and Kayleigh for sharing their pain with us. I think it was very brave of both of them . Not something I could have done.:rose::rose:

Thank you so much for these kind words ... I really appreciate it very much.

[grneyes]

I would like to thank grneyes and Kayleigh for sharing their pain with us. I think it was very brave of both of them . Not something I could have done.:rose::rose:

Thank you Sara. http://bestsmileys.com/hugging/4.gif

[Kayleighjo]

You said that:

"Between 2 and 4 million women in the US are battered each year, and every single day a woman dies as a result of a violent relationship. Many try leaving and many end up dying."

Are you saying that out of that figure, 3 million women are stalked and killed after they leave a relationship, and only 8,000 are killed in their own home?



Uh, no I'm not saying that. That is the estimated number of women battered per year. In that number, there are some who survive and some who do not. Of those who do not survive, 80% is the percentage that were killed after they tried to leave.

[deacon]

Uh, no I'm not saying that. That is the estimated number of women battered per year. In that number, there are some who survive and some who do not. Of those who do not survive, 80% is the percentage that were killed after they tried to leave.

Would you have a link to back that statement up?

[cookiewench]

Would you have a link to back that statement up?


There is some info in the link I posted yesterday.

Women are more likely to be murdered in the first few months after leaving a marriage or relationship, but there is no linkup between that and prior abuse.

Some people are just trying to put out there that it's "safer" to stay with a batterer than to leave him.

Does that makes sense to you?

[SaraSidle]

Everyone is different. Otherwise we would be bored with each other.;)

[deacon]

There is some info in the link I posted yesterday.

Women are more likely to be murdered in the first few months after leaving a marriage or relationship, but there is no linkup between that and prior abuse.

Some people are just trying to put out there that it's "safer" to stay with a batterer than to leave him.

Does that makes sense to you?


Yep, that is my question. People tend to post what they think as fact and the number simply do not add up. The numbers that were posted as fact would lead one to think it is safer to stay than it is to leave. I simply do not believe that as fact and was asking for a link.

I have a friend who works in a center for abused women here in my home town and they have battered women that stay there for quite some time. Not just one night as I have heard posted. Also, they are not women from this town. When a woman from this town comes in for help they put her in a center in another town. Makes it harder for the abusive, useless "spouse" to find her. Now, this is a small southern town and if we have that here, surely larger towns do also.

[cookiewench]

Hi deacon.

Also, there are other variables that sometimes people don't want to talk about.

But all you have to do is watch "Cops" (ugh) to see that a lot of the time, the woman who calls them about abuse - she's often as drunk as the man is.

There are also the women (and we've probably all know at least one of them) who are urged by their friends/family to leave the violent guy and offered a free place to live - but they stay, not because they're afraid to live but because they are getting something else out of the relationship that they do want.

I would love to see women stop blaming the big bad guys for everything and stop sharing their sob stories (and I have a few whoppers of my own I could share) and start taking control of their lives and responsbility for their situation.

We owe that to our children.

[LadyFisher]

Hi, ladies! Many of you I post with on other cases and have great respect for your opinions....I can see on this one we might not agree.....what did this preacher do that was so bad Mary felt the need to kill him.....I saw her in the Oprah interview, and quite honestly she did not convey much to me that would indicate she was an abused woman.....I had to scratch my head.....I actually was in an abusive relationship when I was a very, very, young woman....the man actually beat me, was verbally abusive...it was a bad situation, I hightailed it out of there...and my dad and brother came to my rescue....they threatened him....told him if he didn't leave me alone...they would take care of him....that took care of that....was Mary beaten? Was she verbally abused? What was so bad about her husband, really? I never got to keep up with the entire trial, but I just did not see the shoes and wig she displayed in court as abusive....strange, yes, but where was the abuse? :shrug:

[Reckless]

Hi deacon.

Also, there are other variables that sometimes people don't want to talk about.

But all you have to do is watch "Cops" (ugh) to see that a lot of the time, the woman who calls them about abuse - she's often as drunk as the man is.

There are also the women (and we've probably all know at least one of them) who are urged by their friends/family to leave the violent guy and offered a free place to live - but they stay, not because they're afraid to live but because they are getting something else out of the relationship that they do want.

I would love to see women stop blaming the big bad guys for everything and stop sharing their sob stories (and I have a few whoppers of my own I could share) and start taking control of their lives and responsbility for their situation.

We owe that to our children.It isn't as black & white as you try to make it. Most abused women have no self esteem and they feel they deserve it or they believe they can't make it on their own. They are also scared to death. Sadly, many are killed. Some know it is bad and figure a way out of the situation. Quite often after husbands beat the crap outta their wives, they apologize over and over to the point making up is pretty darn nice. Remember too, the abuse most likely didn't start out bad - it escalates over time.

LOL! Yeah, if you saw it on "Cops" it must be gospel.

[rph3664]

[QUOTE=cookiewench;9117242]If there weren't women who these abuser guys could get to stay with them, they'd have to beat up each other.[QUOTE]

Domestic violence in the gay community is something very few people know or think about, and is way more common than most of us would ever suspect. There was a fatal case of it in my city some years back involving a lesbian couple; the bigger one would get drunk and beat up the smaller one, and eventually killed her. And these people have challenges regarding shelters and so forth that the rest of us can't imagine.

:rose:

As for women beating each other up, many years ago I worked with a woman who came to work on Monday wearing heavy makeup and long sleeves in 100-degree weather to hide some very nasty bruises. She told everyone that her husband had beaten her up, which was quite believable, but we found out later that she was at a biker bar and got into a fight with another woman. :eek:

This was a woman whose son was "sick" almost every Monday. No, he wasn't sick; she was still hung over.

[cookiewench]

It isn't as black & white as you try to make it. Most abused women have no self esteem and they feel they deserve it or they believe they can't make it on their own. They are also scared to death. Sadly, many are killed. Some know it is bad and figure a way out of the situation. Quite often after husbands beat the crap outta their wives, they apologize over and over to the point making up is pretty darn nice. Remember too, the abuse most likely didn't start out bad - it escalates over time.

LOL! Yeah, if you saw it on "Cops" it must be gospel.


What you are saying is very close to what I've been saying all along:

If a woman stays after the first incidence of abuse, she obviously has her own problems that she should look into and work on doing something about. Instead, the women think they should stay and work on the man, and try to change him.

You're also agreeing with me on the fact that many women stay because they like the making up and the apologies they get, and the power they feel from that.

Are you claiming that "Cops" is a fake show, and that when the police show up at a domestic violence scene, the woman isn't often just as drunk as the man is?

Maybe you should talk to someone on your local police force, and they can tell you that this is, indeed, often the case.

[Kayleighjo]

Yep, that is my question. People tend to post what they think as fact and the number simply do not add up. The numbers that were posted as fact would lead one to think it is safer to stay than it is to leave. I simply do not believe that as fact and was asking for a link.

I have a friend who works in a center for abused women here in my home town and they have battered women that stay there for quite some time. Not just one night as I have heard posted. Also, they are not women from this town. When a woman from this town comes in for help they put her in a center in another town. Makes it harder for the abusive, useless "spouse" to find her. Now, this is a small southern town and if we have that here, surely larger towns do also.

The Department of Justice is where you can find that number.

I work in several battered women's shelters in the Minneapolis area, I work closey with law enforcement, and I am a victim's advocate that goes to court with these women who have been abused.

You really think that just because you have that in a small southern town must surely mean it's the same in a larger town? A city like Minneapolis is more highly populated and has much higher numbers of victims of violence than a small southern town. The state of Minnesota doesn't make DV a priority and has severely cut the budgets that help fund shelters and programs for these women. As a result, the number of women being abused hasn't gone down but the number of shelters available to them has.

[Kayleighjo]

Hi deacon.

Also, there are other variables that sometimes people don't want to talk about.

But all you have to do is watch "Cops" (ugh) to see that a lot of the time, the woman who calls them about abuse - she's often as drunk as the man is.

There are also the women (and we've probably all know at least one of them) who are urged by their friends/family to leave the violent guy and offered a free place to live - but they stay, not because they're afraid to live but because they are getting something else out of the relationship that they do want.

I would love to see women stop blaming the big bad guys for everything and stop sharing their sob stories (and I have a few whoppers of my own I could share) and start taking control of their lives and responsbility for their situation.

We owe that to our children.

Chicks like you make me laugh ... right after I'm done puking. How unfortunate for you that you have such a limited thought process.

[Kayleighjo]

There is some info in the link I posted yesterday.

Women are more likely to be murdered in the first few months after leaving a marriage or relationship, but there is no linkup between that and prior abuse.

Some people are just trying to put out there that it's "safer" to stay with a batterer than to leave him.

Does that makes sense to you?

Do you actually believe your own bull? It doesn't matter how many times someone tries to tell you, you don't get it. As I said before, I don't see that anyone has said it's safer to stay, only that the fear they feel about leaving is very, very real.

I guess life is alot easier when you lump everything together into one same category like you're so fond of doing.

[SaraSidle]

Do you actually believe your own bull? It doesn't matter how many times someone tries to tell you, you don't get it. As I said before, I don't see that anyone has said it's safer to stay, only that the fear they feel about leaving is very, very real.

I guess life is alot easier when you lump everything together into one same category like you're so fond of doing.

I could not have said it better myself Kayleighjo. IMO

[cookiewench]

Chicks like you make me laugh ... right after I'm done puking. How unfortunate for you that you have such a limited thought process.


What you really don't like is having someone point out that women should be responsible for their own lives, and the lives of the children they've chosen to bring into this world.

You need to put the situation into black & white terms, where for every abusive man there's a helpless, frightened victim who can't do anything for herself.

Since you need to see women as all good, all the time - you refuse to see the shades of gray. There are women who refuse to be independent and who do get into mutual get drunk/fight/call the cops lifestyles because they are dysfunctional.

If you really had studied the statistics you claim to know so well, you'd know that many women go back to the abuser even after they've been "saved" and are free and clear of him, or who go from one abuser to the other.

There can't be an abuser without a victim, and instead of concentrating on the man, the women need to concentrate on themselves and on becoming fully functioning without any man at all.


But people like you are either laughing - or puking. No in between. No thinking, no analysis. Everything's either laugh or puke.

Go from blaming your parents for all the unhappiness in your life to blaming an abusive spouse that YOU picked out and chose to stay with - and then, when you get old, you can't blame your kids for not taking good enough care of you, and your life will have come full circle.

[cookiewench]

I work in several battered women's shelters in the Minneapolis area, I work closey with law enforcement, and I am a victim's advocate that goes to court with these women who have been abused.



If this were the truth, then I wouldn't have to be telling you what I'm telling you - you'd already know.

You'd know that many women try to drop the charges before they get to court, or when that fails, they just don't show up in court.

You'd know that many women run right back to the guy after being saved from his abuse. All he has to do is call and apologize, and they run right back.

You'd also know that many of the women run from one abuser right into the arms of another abuser, because that's their lifestyle.

You'd know that there were drugs, drinking, and dysfunction on BOTH sides in many of the DV cases.

You'd know that many of the women were dysfunctional (and/or negligent mothers) before they even hooked up with their first abuser.

You'd know that in order to have a woman change the situation, she has to do more than just get away from (or kill) her abuser. She has to change her entire mindset and worldview, and find some independence, power, and self respect.

And now you won't have much else of a response other than to say that I make you sick, make you puke, or make you laugh.

That's because you can't refute what I'm actually saying, because what I say is true.

[deacon]

The Department of Justice is where you can find that number.

I work in several battered women's shelters in the Minneapolis area, I work closey with law enforcement, and I am a victim's advocate that goes to court with these women who have been abused.

You really think that just because you have that in a small southern town must surely mean it's the same in a larger town? A city like Minneapolis is more highly populated and has much higher numbers of victims of violence than a small southern town. The state of Minnesota doesn't make DV a priority and has severely cut the budgets that help fund shelters and programs for these women. As a result, the number of women being abused hasn't gone down but the number of shelters available to them has.

And you folks think that "small southern towns" are behind times. Give me a break, people in your area need to speak up and get things changed. That would do more good than complaining about the situation on an internet site.

[deacon]

What you really don't like is having someone point out that women should be responsible for their own lives, and the lives of the children they've chosen to bring into this world.

You need to put the situation into black & white terms, where for every abusive man there's a helpless, frightened victim who can't do anything for herself.

Since you need to see women as all good, all the time - you refuse to see the shades of gray. There are women who refuse to be independent and who do get into mutual get drunk/fight/call the cops lifestyles because they are dysfunctional.

If you really had studied the statistics you claim to know so well, you'd know that many women go back to the abuser even after they've been "saved" and are free and clear of him, or who go from one abuser to the other.

There can't be an abuser without a victim, and instead of concentrating on the man, the women need to concentrate on themselves and on becoming fully functioning without any man at all.


But people like you are either laughing - or puking. No in between. No thinking, no analysis. Everything's either laugh or puke.

Go from blaming your parents for all the unhappiness in your life to blaming an abusive spouse that YOU picked out and chose to stay with - and then, when you get old, you can't blame your kids for not taking good enough care of you, and your life will have come full circle.


:beer:

[ANGELDUMPLIN]

Why isn't this woman in prison where she belongs? She murdered her husband no matter how you slice that cake. She should never have custody of those kids either. I hope when they get older they will hate her for murdering their father. The law is too screwy.

[SaraSidle]

Why isn't this woman in prison where she belongs? She murdered her husband no matter how you slice that cake. She should never have custody of those kids either. I hope when they get older they will hate her for murdering their father. The law is too screwy.

Angel what a sweet thought with such a sweet nic. You hope her children hate her???? Whatever happened to love and forgiveness? IMO

[deacon]

Angel what a sweet thought with such a sweet nic. You hope her children hate her???? Whatever happened to love and forgiveness? IMO

I guess "love and forgiveness" come out of the barrel of a shotgun. Suppose?

[cookiewench]

I guess "love and forgiveness" come out of the barrel of a shotgun. Suppose?


No one ever seems to ask where the love and forgiveness was in Mary.

Mary is other-worldly: the same things that are expected of others are not to be expected from her.

Mary is to do what she wants, and it's up to the rest of the world to forgive her and forget Matthew.

At least...........that's the way some people think.

[deacon]

No one ever seems to ask where the love and forgiveness was in Mary.

Mary is other-worldly: the same things that are expected of others are not to be expected from her.

Mary is to do what she wants, and it's up to the rest of the world to forgive her and forget Matthew.

At least...........that's the way some people think.

I have noticed. I followed this since the beginning and that has been the scheme of things since then. She is "other-worldly" alright. Some of her behavior before the trial speaks to that too.

Dual standard, that is all that it is.

[Kayleighjo]

If this were the truth, then I wouldn't have to be telling you what I'm telling you - you'd already know.

You'd know that many women try to drop the charges before they get to court, or when that fails, they just don't show up in court.

You'd know that many women run right back to the guy after being saved from his abuse. All he has to do is call and apologize, and they run right back.

You'd also know that many of the women run from one abuser right into the arms of another abuser, because that's their lifestyle.

You'd know that there were drugs, drinking, and dysfunction on BOTH sides in many of the DV cases.

You'd know that many of the women were dysfunctional (and/or negligent mothers) before they even hooked up with their first abuser.

You'd know that in order to have a woman change the situation, she has to do more than just get away from (or kill) her abuser. She has to change her entire mindset and worldview, and find some independence, power, and self respect.

And now you won't have much else of a response other than to say that I make you sick, make you puke, or make you laugh.

That's because you can't refute what I'm actually saying, because what I say is true.

I won't argue with you about my profession since it's clear that you only believe what you want to anyway.

But since that is my profession I can tell you for that for every woman that fits the descriptions you listed above there is one who doesn't and that's your problem - you assume that everyone is the same, that they all fall into the same category ... and they don't.

I've seen almost everything that someone can see in 10 years of working in this field. I've been working at a shelter and had to drive a woman who was beaten black and blue right back to the home and into the arms of the man who beat her because that was what she chose.

I was a victim's advocate to a woman who decided to take charge and leave him and press charges in court. She showed up for court and so did he ... he shot her out front.

I've seen a man come into a shelter with black eyes and broken bones ... his wife had been beating him up and because he bring himself to hit her he had just let her abuse him.

It's obvious that you take great pleasure and satisfaction in blaming women and lumping them all into the same category ... you thrive on it for whatever reason ... and despite what you claim I doubt you've ever been a victim of domestic violence ... or if you were you're obviously still brainwashed.

[Kayleighjo]

Why isn't this woman in prison where she belongs? She murdered her husband no matter how you slice that cake. She should never have custody of those kids either. I hope when they get older they will hate her for murdering their father. The law is too screwy.

I definitely don't hope her children will hate her because I don't think that hate is a healthy thing for anyone to carry around. I'd encourage them to make their own choices in what they feel happened, and move forward in the ways that they feel will benefit them the most. Not for Mary, only for their own personal well being.

I recall the Simpson children, after the whole O.J. Simpson murder fiasco and everyone thought those kids were doomed, that their lives would be screwy and that they should hate their father. I don't know how they processed, or what they did to perservere but by all accounts they are thriving adults right now. That is what I hope for Mary and Matthew's children.

[cookiewench]

I won't argue with you about my profession since it's clear that you only believe what you want to anyway.

But since that is my profession I can tell you for that for every woman that fits the descriptions you listed above there is one who doesn't and that's your problem - you assume that everyone is the same, that they all fall into the same category ... and they don't.

I've seen almost everything that someone can see in 10 years of working in this field. I've been working at a shelter and had to drive a woman who was beaten black and blue right back to the home and into the arms of the man who beat her because that was what she chose.

I was a victim's advocate to a woman who decided to take charge and leave him and press charges in court. She showed up for court and so did he ... he shot her out front.

I've seen a man come into a shelter with black eyes and broken bones ... his wife had been beating him up and because he bring himself to hit her he had just let her abuse him.

It's obvious that you take great pleasure and satisfaction in blaming women and lumping them all into the same category ... you thrive on it for whatever reason ... and despite what you claim I doubt you've ever been a victim of domestic violence ... or if you were you're obviously still brainwashed.

So many transparencies and inconsistencies here.

You bash away at everything I post, while simultaneously agreeing with and backing up everything I post.

And while claiming to be a victim's advocate, you bash a victim and call her a liar and/or brainwashed! That's your brand of advocacy?

This is too, too much.......all this seething hostility from an alleged advocate.

[Kayleighjo]

So many transparencies and inconsistencies here.

You bash away at everything I post, while simultaneously agreeing with and backing up everything I post.

And while claiming to be a victim's advocate, you bash a victim and call her a liar and/or brainwashed! That's your brand of advocacy?

This is too, too much.......all this seething hostility from an alleged advocate.

Or more than likely just your displeasure with being called out.

Bash a victim ... you mean you? But according to you no woman who has been abused is a victim ... according to you deeming themselves a victim is a bunch of nonsense that has no place in a woman's life ... talk about a contradiction; you say abused women aren't victims but when it suits you then suddenly you've been a victim. Tsk tsk.

[SaraSidle]

So many transparencies and inconsistencies here.

You bash away at everything I post, while simultaneously agreeing with and backing up everything I post.

And while claiming to be a victim's advocate, you bash a victim and call her a liar and/or brainwashed! That's your brand of advocacy?

This is too, too much.......all this seething hostility from an alleged advocate.

I must have missed it. What victim did Kayleighjo bash and/or called a liar and/or brainwashed????

Also I sense no seething hostility in Kayleighjos posts. I wonder if you are projecting that onto yourself? IMO

[deacon]

So many transparencies and inconsistencies here.

You bash away at everything I post, while simultaneously agreeing with and backing up everything I post.

And while claiming to be a victim's advocate, you bash a victim and call her a liar and/or brainwashed! That's your brand of advocacy?

This is too, too much.......all this seething hostility from an alleged advocate.


All this and we still do not know for sure whether the person in this case was abused. We may have opinions but we still have no facts to back it up. Court, after all, is about facts not opinions.

[cookiewench]

Or more than likely just your displeasure with being called out.

Bash a victim ... you mean you? But according to you no woman who has been abused is a victim ... according to you deeming themselves a victim is a bunch of nonsense that has no place in a woman's life ... talk about a contradiction; you say abused women aren't victims but when it suits you then suddenly you've been a victim. Tsk tsk.

Your confusion is growing.

First, you re-state everything that I've already posted, all the while continuing to bash what I've posted. It's kinda like you're bashing yourself.

Then you claim that I called myself a victim but you're denying that I could be a victim while also claiming that I said that no woman can be a victim................none of which is what I posted.

If you had a valid stance, you wouldn't need to make up statements from me while also verifying what I DID post.

Your "Tsk tsk" is very telling. Any woman who doesn't accept and bow down to the droppings from on high of Lady Bountiful gets a "tsk tsk".

Some advocate......................

[cookiewench]

I must have missed it. What victim did Kayleighjo bash and/or called a liar and/or brainwashed????

Also I sense no seething hostility in Kayleighjos posts. I wonder if you are projecting that onto yourself? IMO

Are you not reading her posts? She called me either a liar, or brainwashed.

Perhaps you need to catch up.

I thought you've posted that you don't bash?

You do. All the time.

[cookiewench]

All this and we still do not know for sure whether the person in this case was abused. We may have opinions but we still have no facts to back it up. Court, after all, is about facts not opinions.

True.

And then we have the posters who freak out at me when I say that many women run back to their abusers even when they're not being threated if they don't (therefore refuting the "the only reason women don't leave abusers is because they're afraid to leave) - but then they post their own eyewitness reports of women voluntarily running back to abusers after being saved from them.

Confusion reigns, and it's all in a hopeless attempt to justify what Mary Winkler did.

[cookiewench]

I recall the Simpson children, after the whole O.J. Simpson murder fiasco and everyone thought those kids were doomed, that their lives would be screwy and that they should hate their father. I don't know how they processed, or what they did to perservere but by all accounts they are thriving adults right now. That is what I hope for Mary and Matthew's children.


You're so desperate to justify Mary Winkler that you'll use O.J. SIMPSON as an example of a model murderer parent?

[Kayleighjo]

You're so desperate to justify Mary Winkler that you'll use O.J. SIMPSON as an example of a model murderer parent?

You're so twisted it's laughable. First, point out to me where I justified Mary Winkler ... you can't because I didn't. In fact I stated that I didn't know whether or not she was abused and I certainly never condoned her actions.

And where did I point out that O.J. Simpson is an example of a model murderer parent? In fact, I pointed out that his children were models. They were in a horrifying position in which evidence seemed to show that their father brutally hacked their mother and instead of harboring hate and letting their unfortunate situation control and ruin their lives they took a different route and are thriving.

You're so hell bent on trying to prove your meaningless points that you don't even acknowledge what is really being said.

[Kayleighjo]

Your confusion is growing.

First, you re-state everything that I've already posted, all the while continuing to bash what I've posted. It's kinda like you're bashing yourself.

Then you claim that I called myself a victim but you're denying that I could be a victim while also claiming that I said that no woman can be a victim................none of which is what I posted.

If you had a valid stance, you wouldn't need to make up statements from me while also verifying what I DID post.

Your "Tsk tsk" is very telling. Any woman who doesn't accept and bow down to the droppings from on high of Lady Bountiful gets a "tsk tsk".

Some advocate......................

What you're not getting is this ... I DO agree with alot of things that you say ... there are women who stay for reasons that have nothing to do with fear ... there are women who do all of the things you have posted ... I don't think ANYONE can disagree with that. What I don't agree with is the idea you portray that ALL women stay for those reasons or that the fear of the aftermath of leaving isn't a very real thing to fear when it is.

You're outraged by what you deem as me bashing a victim (you) but you're a freaking hyprocrite in the highest form ... you bashed me and told me to stop playing victim ... even after you stated that what I did in my situation is exactly the same as what you would have done ... that makes no sense. At all. You think women should run and take responsibility and move on with productive lives, and I did just that and you still aren't satisfied - you bash me because I still sympathize with women that are being abused.

You want to be right all of the time and not acknowledge when you're wrong, and you are in fact wrong ... you make false accusations in things that you say about me, such as that I absolve Mary Winkler and justify her, but get all bent out of shape if you think someone is twisting something that you've said.

[SaraSidle]

Are you not reading her posts? She called me either a liar, or brainwashed.

Perhaps you need to catch up.

I thought you've posted that you don't bash?

You do. All the time.

You are pretty funny Cookie and very predictable if I might add in a good way. I have been keeping up and reading all posts. I do not bash and certainly not all the time. I do not see where Kayleighjo or I have bashed you or call your names. I also do not see where Kayleighjo or I have freaked out as you say in one of your posts. Maybe you take things personally for some reason and that makes you angry. Cookie is such a nice nic. Remember when you had a chocolate chip cookie as your avatar? It always made me hungry. IMO

[grneyes]

You are pretty funny Cookie and very predictable if I might add in a good way. I have been keeping up and reading all posts. I do not bash and certainly not all the time. I do not see where Kayleighjo or I have bashed you or call your names. I also do not see where Kayleighjo or I have freaked out as you say in one of your posts. Maybe you take things personally for some reason and that makes you angry. Cookie is such a nice nic. Remember when you had a chocolate chip cookie as your avatar? It always made me hungry. IMO

Maybe Cookie should take her own advice and stop playing the victim?


Looking at only one side of a situation makes for a very flat world.....

[cookiewench]

You are pretty funny Cookie and very predictable if I might add in a good way. I have been keeping up and reading all posts. I do not bash and certainly not all the time. I do not see where Kayleighjo or I have bashed you or call your names. I also do not see where Kayleighjo or I have freaked out as you say in one of your posts. Maybe you take things personally for some reason and that makes you angry. Cookie is such a nice nic. Remember when you had a chocolate chip cookie as your avatar? It always made me hungry. IMO


If you're actually reading the posts, why did you claim that kayleigh didn't call me either a liar, or brainwashed?

In your world, that's not bashing? Ooooookay.

[cookiewench]

Maybe Cookie should take her own advice and stop playing the victim?


Looking at only one side of a situation makes for a very flat world.....

You are very mistaken. I have been posting about Mary Winkler, and about my views on how women should handle abuse.

It is the other posters who've turned it into something about *me*.

Perhaps you should read this thread again.

Of course, if you're going to throw out accusations, perhaps it's also up to you to back them up by showing some posts where I've talked about myself.........at all.

Anyone who reads here has already seen that I've said very little about myself personally.

But then - you already know that, but were grasping at something to make a snipe at me about.

[cookiewench]

You're outraged by what you deem as me bashing a victim (you) but you're a freaking hyprocrite in the highest form ...

First you said that I claimed to be a victim (which isn't true), then you claimed that I'm either a liar, or "still brainwashed".

Is that what you do to the women you "advocate" for? First, you tell them what their own situation, history, and experiences are - and then you call them a liar or brainwashed?

You apparently called in sick during a crucial period of your training classes.

[cookiewench]

Hi Folks,
If you are entertained by trying to have a conversation with the wench by all means carry on. In my experience she seems to be deliberately oppositional. She is presenting the same tired stuff and engaging in the same antics she did months ago and acting like it is all brand new. After a little while more of this, if it all goes the way it did before, she will sort of deconstruct. That vicious meltdown pretty much closed down the board because it got very foul. Just thought you should know.....

As for me, I'm glad Mary and the girls are reunited and together in time for the school year to start!


The above is typical of the kind of personal sniping and bashing that one receives here if one dares to think of Mary Winkler as a heinous murderer, or who doesn't buy into the fantasy "she couldn't leave because she was afraid, and all women who stay with abusers do so because they are afraid of being tracked down and killed if they leave".

Anyone who doesn't go along with the party line gets the entire thread turned into something about *them* rather than about the topic.

Same ole same ole.

[grneyes]

Are you not reading her posts? She called me either a liar, or brainwashed.

Perhaps you need to catch up.

I thought you've posted that you don't bash?

You do. All the time.

Well right there you are saying you are being called a liar and/or brainwashed. Implying you are a victim of bashing. So yes, you are trying to make yourself out to be a victim. Maybe you should read your own posts a bit better.

Also, I don't need to grasp at anything to give you something to snipe about because you can obviously do that without my help at all. *lol*

[cookiewench]

All this hostility directed at me because I had the gall to point out the elephant in the room:

What happened to all the CofC bashing, the projections that the girls were going to be brainwashed into the patriarchal cult way of thinking, the links to misogynistic sermons by Cofc pastors?

All that hatred and blame cast on the CofC dissipated once it was established that MARY WINKLER is stil very much involved in the CofC.


They have to take it out on someone, so it might as well be me. I don't care.

[cookiewench]

Well right there you are saying you are being called a liar and/or brainwashed. Implying you are a victim of bashing. So yes, you are trying to make yourself out to be a victim. Maybe you should read your own posts a bit better.

Also, I don't need to grasp at anything to give you something to snipe about because you can obviously do that without my help at all. *lol*

Wrong-o. I pointed out to you that you haven't been reading the posts when you claimed that no one had called me either a liar, or brainwashed.

That's just the facts.

I never claimed to be a "victim" of anyone or anything. I don't play into that mentality.

All this because you can't admit that you didn't read the posts and made a false accusation about me?

There's no end to what people will do to justify their mistakes rather than to simply admit that they didn't know what they were talking about when they made a claim.

How does it feel to be part of an attack gang who's sole purpose is to quash another poster's opinions?

Makes ya feel real big & brave, huh?

[Kayleighjo]

The above is typical of the kind of personal sniping and bashing that one receives here if one dares to think of Mary Winkler as a heinous murderer, or who doesn't buy into the fantasy "she couldn't leave because she was afraid, and all women who stay with abusers do so because they are afraid of being tracked down and killed if they leave".

Anyone who doesn't go along with the party line gets the entire thread turned into something about *them* rather than about the topic.

Same ole same ole.

There you are saying the same old nonsense ... when it's been pointed out now at least three times that no one said that all women who stay do so because they are afraid of being tracked down and killed. Too tough for you to admit that you're wrong huh? That's an ugly personality trait, but it takes all kinds.

Still care to point out to me where I justified Mary Winkler or said that O.J. Simpson is a model parent? I'm guessing not since I said neither.

[Kayleighjo]

[QUOTE=cookiewench;9117987]
I never claimed to be a "victim" of anyone or anything. I don't play into that mentality.

All this because you can't admit that you didn't read the posts and made a false accusation about me?

QUOTE]
Pot ... kettle ... black = wench.

You did claim to be a victim ... you said I was bashing a victim that was you.

Can't admit? You still can't point out to me where i justified Mary Winkler or said that O.J. Simpson is a model parent ... because I said neither ... and yet you don't retract that.

[SaraSidle]

All this hostility directed at me because I had the gall to point out the elephant in the room:

What happened to all the CofC bashing, the projections that the girls were going to be brainwashed into the patriarchal cult way of thinking, the links to misogynistic sermons by Cofc pastors?

All that hatred and blame cast on the CofC dissipated once it was established that MARY WINKLER is stil very much involved in the CofC.


They have to take it out on someone, so it might as well be me. I don't care.

Well Cookie I just bolded where you have called yourself a victim twice. You are not a victim. You have an opinion. The part where you are insisting that anyone else that posts here that does not agree with you are wrong.
No one is wrong or right. All opinions here and no need to be angry or emotional about it. We are all adults. I just want everyone to share views. IMO

[WarmNCozy]

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff305/CozyNWarm/Funny/cn0105.gif

[cookiewench]

Well Cookie I just bolded where you have called yourself a victim twice.

It would be impossible for you to bold anything where I have called myself a victim either once OR twice, because I have never stated in any way that I am a victim of anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many here claims to be experts and advocates, and yet they haven't even taken the introductory courses on these issues.

Having hostility directed at you on an internet board (which is the experience I have had here) does not make you a victim. It merely makes you the target of hostility. A person would have to be affected in some way in order for them to be a victim.

Since you apparently haven't studies either victimology or the psychology of violence, I will post here a simple dictionary definition of "victim" for you:


victim (n.) One who is harmed by or made to suffer from an act, circumstance, agency, or condition.



I am not harmed by the snipes I receive, nor do I suffer from them. To do so would be to choose to be a victim.

Some women who are drawn to the issue of domestic violence and to "helping victims" can only deal with the helpless and vulnerable. They need to be needed, and it makes them feel superior to the women they are helping. When they encounter a strong woman who refuses to think of herself as a victim (and who also wants other women to stop thinking of themselves as victims) they become hostile........................................... ...............................

......as can be seen here.

[cookiewench]

There you are saying the same old nonsense ... when it's been pointed out now at least three times that no one said that all women who stay do so because they are afraid of being tracked down and killed.

In case you've forgotten (as you apparently have), the hostility towards me started when I claimed that there are many reasons other than fear of leaving that keep women in abusive situations.

But then, the thread is right here, if you really cared to know that rather than to deflect.

[cookiewench]

[B]

You did claim to be a victim ... you said I was bashing a victim that was you.




Wrong again.

You are the one who claimed that I stated that I was a "victim", and then you proceeded to bash me by saying that I was either lying about it, or "still brainwashed", when I'd never claimed to be a victim in the first place.

It was YOU who decided to label me as a "victim", which I can understand - as, your worldview involves women living their lives as perpetual "victims".

[SaraSidle]

Cookie I am sorry that points of view that are different then yours makes you so riled up. I bet if we all sat down at one table and talked it would be very different. You can tell by looks and tone of voice in person that you are not being attacked. Feeling attacked is a bad thing. We know your opinion of Mary Winkler's story and you are aware of how we feel so let's put this anger aside. Let's try to be nice to each other. If anyone has to voice an opinion please keep emotions in check. thank you

[cookiewench]

Cookie I am sorry that points of view that are different then yours makes you so riled up. I bet if we all sat down at one table and talked it would be very different. You can tell by looks and tone of voice in person that you are not being attacked. Feeling attacked is a bad thing. We know your opinion of Mary Winkler's story and you are aware of how we feel so let's put this anger aside. Let's try to be nice to each other. If anyone has to voice an opinion please keep emotions in check. thank you

So.......I just took all that time to explain to you the difference between being the target of an attack and "feeling attacked".

Again: I don't "feel" attacked. I don't "feel" anything about my activity on this board. I "was" attacked - by you and your buds.

It was an ATTEMPT to make me a victim, but it does not make me a victim.

You dissemble and obfuscate what you've already posted.

You want to be two completely opposite ends here: you want to bash and snipe and attack at will, but still be considered as a reasonable, non-bashing person.

I have no emotional investment in any poster on any internet board. It is you who projects anger with your name-calling and accusations.

Instead of giving me unwanted advice, why don't you just pick one personality and stick to it.

Since you haven't bothered to notice, perhaps you'll take the time to reread this thread and see that I've only been interested in discussing DV and Mary Winkler, and that it is the likes of YOU who keep insisting on making this thread about ME.

This is a true crime forum. It is not about the posters, but about the topic, which it would be nice to get back to - if you could learn how to debate without getting personal.

[cookiewench]

Why isn't this woman in prison where she belongs? She murdered her husband no matter how you slice that cake. She should never have custody of those kids either. I hope when they get older they will hate her for murdering their father. The law is too screwy.

Did you watch Mary's interview on Oprah?

She couldn't even remember what her lawyers had told about her (and told her what to say) in court, and presented an entirely different scenario.

[cookiewench]

.............and any woman who allows her children to live with abuse, watch abuse, or be abused is every bit a party to abuse than the physical abuser is.

No sob stories about being "afraid" can absolve the woman from neglecting her primary responsibilty in life, which is to protect and nurture those that she brought into this world.

[WarmNCozy]

And time will tell about this woman! Her true colors will come out!

I feel really badly that a battle is going on here! We are entitled to our opinions, but when it gets personal, and nasty and bitter and attacking between opposing sides, it's time to just stop it!

I like all of you in this discussion and respect where you are coming from! And I'd really like peace and no more back and forth attacks that are no longer opinions, but have turned into nasty and a waste of energy ! I know you all like each other!

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff305/CozyNWarm/Friends/30574b2d3fb1e354430a2300b6f78226.gif

[Kayleighjo]

So.......I just took all that time to explain to you the difference between being the target of an attack and "feeling attacked".

Again: I don't "feel" attacked. I don't "feel" anything about my activity on this board. I "was" attacked - by you and your buds.

It was an ATTEMPT to make me a victim, but it does not make me a victim.

You dissemble and obfuscate what you've already posted.

You want to be two completely opposite ends here: you want to bash and snipe and attack at will, but still be considered as a reasonable, non-bashing person.

I have no emotional investment in any poster on any internet board. It is you who projects anger with your name-calling and accusations.

Instead of giving me unwanted advice, why don't you just pick one personality and stick to it.

Since you haven't bothered to notice, perhaps you'll take the time to reread this thread and see that I've only been interested in discussing DV and Mary Winkler, and that it is the likes of YOU who keep insisting on making this thread about ME.

This is a true crime forum. It is not about the posters, but about the topic, which it would be nice to get back to - if you could learn how to debate without getting personal.

Apparently time to bring it back full circle. Let's go to your post #168, this is what you said: "And while claiming to be a victim's advocate, you bash a victim and call her a liar and/or brainwashed!" Shortly thereafter you told someone that I had accused you of being a liar and/or brainwashed. So if you weren't speaking of yourself in that post #168 then who were you speaking of?

I'm sorry that it's so bothersome for you to be wrong, or to be called out on how wrong you are but facts are facts and that's what you posted. As you're so fond of telling others, it's all here on the thread, go back and re-read it.

BTW, I'm STILL waiting for you to be able to point out where I justified Mary or said that O.J. Simpson is a model parent.

[cookiewench]

Apparently time to bring it back full circle. Let's go to your post #168, this is what you said: "And while claiming to be a victim's advocate, you bash a victim and call her a liar and/or brainwashed!" Shortly thereafter you told someone that I had accused you of being a liar and/or brainwashed. So if you weren't speaking of yourself in that post #168 then who were you speaking of?

I'm sorry that it's so bothersome for you to be wrong, or to be called out on how wrong you are but facts are facts and that's what you posted. As you're so fond of telling others, it's all here on the thread, go back and re-read it.

BTW, I'm STILL waiting for you to be able to point out where I justified Mary or said that O.J. Simpson is a model parent.

*Sigh* - no; you've only brought it half-circle. You CLAIMED that I had called myself a victim, therefore you BELIEVED that I claimed to be a "victim", even though I know that I'd never label myself as a "victim" of anything.

You decided ON YOUR OWN that I was an alleged victim when you posted this:

"and despite what you claim I doubt you've ever been a victim of domestic violence ... or if you were you're obviously still brainwashed."

You (mistakenly) believed that I had claimed to be a "victim" when you bashed me and called me either a liar, or brainwashed.

That's when I knew for sure that you had no education or training on the issue at hand.

You believe that if I "am" a current victim, then it was appropriate for you til lash out at me and call me "brainwashed" - therefore negating any claims you can make to have compassion for any victims of domestic violence.

When you go to court with these women you allegedly advocate for and you find them once again defending their abusers, do you lash out at THEM and call them either "liars or brainwashed", or do you just save that for internet posters who you believe have claimed to be abused?

As for the Simpson thing - read your own post. You say that although they were raised by him, they are "thriving" (once again showing your lack of education on the issue). If OJ's kids are "thriving" now, it's in spite of being raised by him, not because of him.

[cookiewench]

So if you weren't speaking of yourself in that post #168 then who were you speaking of?



I was speaking of the poster you THOUGHT was me when you said that you don't believe my "claims" of being a victim, and that if I was, indeed, a victim, I was "still brainwashed".

You showed your hand. It was plain to see what you REALLY think about those women you claim to have so much sympathy and understanding for.

[cookiewench]

And this bears repeating:

kayleigh said to me:

"and despite what you claim I doubt you've ever been a victim of domestic violence ... or if you were you're obviously still brainwashed."

Now - isn't that ironic?

Despite my stance on the issue, I have never once, on any board (or in real life) challenged any woman's claim of experiencing abuse.

Yet - THE VERY ONES WHO CLAIM THAT WOMEN DON'T REPORT ABUSE BECAUSE THEY THINK THAT "NO ONE WILL BELIEVE THEM" ARE THE VERY ONES WHO WILL CALL A WOMAN A LIAR ABOUT ABUSE - THEREFORE PERPETRATING WHAT THEY CLAIM TO BE ADVOCATING AGAINST!

And if they DO believe it, they'll call the woman "brainwashed" if she doesn't play along with their agenda.

[Kayleighjo]

*Sigh* - no; you've only brought it half-circle. You CLAIMED that I had called myself a victim, therefore you BELIEVED that I claimed to be a "victim", even though I know that I'd never label myself as a "victim" of anything.

You decided ON YOUR OWN that I was an alleged victim when you posted this:

"and despite what you claim I doubt you've ever been a victim of domestic violence ... or if you were you're obviously still brainwashed."

You (mistakenly) believed that I had claimed to be a "victim" when you bashed me and called me either a liar, or brainwashed.

That's when I knew for sure that you had no education or training on the issue at hand.

You believe that if I "am" a current victim, then it was appropriate for you til lash out at me and call me "brainwashed" - therefore negating any claims you can make to have compassion for any victims of domestic violence.

When you go to court with these women you allegedly advocate for and you find them once again defending their abusers, do you lash out at THEM and call them either "liars or brainwashed", or do you just save that for internet posters who you believe have claimed to be abused?

As for the Simpson thing - read your own post. You say that although they were raised by him, they are "thriving" (once again showing your lack of education on the issue). If OJ's kids are "thriving" now, it's in spite of being raised by him, not because of him.

I went back to the Simpson thing and read my own post which states:

"I recall the Simpson children, after the whole O.J. Simpson murder fiasco and everyone thought those kids were doomed, that their lives would be screwy and that they should hate their father. I don't know how they processed, or what they did to perservere but by all accounts they are thriving adults right now. That is what I hope for Mary and Matthew's children."

Now point out to me where in that post I said that the way O.J. raised them has anything to do with it. You can't because there is no place where I said any such thing, or even indicated such a thing. In fact, it's clear that I said that "I don't know what they did to perservere". This completely points out how willing you really are to try to twist while spending the other have of your time being pissed that you think that others twist what you have to say. No one has to twist anything you say because it's screwy enough on it's own. And I'm STILL waiting for you to point out to me where I justified Mary's actions.

Waiting, waiting ... though why I don't know since it's clear you're never willing to admit when you are wrong.

The women that I go to court with sometimes do defend their abusers, and I don't lash out at them because even when they are defending their abusers they never do what you have done, which is to bash all other women who are victims of DV and talk about how it's their own fault. And if a woman did do that then yep, I'd set them straight.

What you do is the lowest of low, and brings to light the ugly character traits that you have in you.

[Kayleighjo]

I was speaking of the poster you THOUGHT was me when you said that you don't believe my "claims" of being a victim, and that if I was, indeed, a victim, I was "still brainwashed".

You showed your hand. It was plain to see what you REALLY think about those women you claim to have so much sympathy and understanding for.

This getting funny. Now it's that you were speaking of someone else - a poster I thought was you. LOL, that's a good one. I stand firm because all you have to do is go back and read the posts - they speak for themselves no matter how much you try to make them something different.

[deacon]

And time will tell about this woman! Her true colors will come out!

I feel really badly that a battle is going on here! We are entitled to our opinions, but when it gets personal, and nasty and bitter and attacking between opposing sides, it's time to just stop it!

I like all of you in this discussion and respect where you are coming from! And I'd really like peace and no more back and forth attacks that are no longer opinions, but have turned into nasty and a waste of energy ! I know you all like each other!

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff305/CozyNWarm/Friends/30574b2d3fb1e354430a2300b6f78226.gif

I agree, her true colors will come out. I really think they have already it is just some do not believe what they see.

[cookiewench]

This getting funny. Now it's that you were speaking of someone else - a poster I thought was you. LOL, that's a good one. I stand firm because all you have to do is go back and read the posts - they speak for themselves no matter how much you try to make them something different.

Good idea. Go back and read the posts.

Out of nowhere you said, "as for your claims to being a victim, I don't believe you or if it's true you are still brainwashed", blah blah - although I'd never said I was a victim of anything.

You believed I was a victim, and you called me either a liar or brainwashed.

I was never speaking of someone else. You were speaking to someone (me) your erroneously thought had claimed to be a victim. I played along with you and said, "you talk to a victim like that???"

So stand firm. You've already been hoisted on your own petard.

[cookiewench]

The women that I go to court with sometimes do defend their abusers, and I don't lash out at them because even when they are defending their abusers they never do what you have done, which is to bash all other women who are victims of DV and talk about how it's their own fault. And if a woman did do that then yep, I'd set them straight.



I love this one.

I've posted that women should be responsible for themselves....should stop thinking of themselves as a "victim" and take control of their lives and responsibility for their children's lives.

That is what I have posted.

And you say that if a woman you went to court with said these things that you would, indeed, "lash out" at her.

I thought you said you were an adjunct between the women's shelters and the courts.

Is part of your job "straightening out" any woman who thinks the way I do? Interesting. Since "victimhood" is learned behavior, where did you learn that you are to reinforce it? I'd appreciate being directed to the textbooks you've used.

What if this woman's psychiartrist had taught her to think this way? Would you bash him/her, too and "straighten them out"?

[cookiewench]

IOW: Women who defend their abusers don't make you mad enough to "lash out", but women who've decided that women in general don't need to spend their lives as victims or think of themselves as victims do make you angry enough to "straighten them out" on the subject.

As I never used the word "fault", you can't claim that your imaginary woman in court would use that word. She would simply have to expound the same thoughts that I have about abuse - and you'd "straighten her out".

Hence, we have once again seen that my thesis is correct: there are women out there who claim to be pro-woman and who work in the genre because they can only "like" weak and vulnerable and dysfunctional women who make them feel like superior creatures.

[cookiewench]

Now point out to me where in that post I said that the way O.J. raised them has anything to do with it.

Perhaps I misunderstood your post because the topic at hand was children being raised by a murderer, and you brought up Simpson's children as an example of children who've "thrived" after being raised by one.

You also stated that "everyone thought they should hate their father". I was involved in many discussions at that time, and I never heard anyone say that OJ's children "should" hate him.

I hadn't heard that Simpson's children are thriving. The last I heard about Sydney was when the 911 call was released of her crying and saying that her father said he didn't love her, and she wanted to know if that was "abuse".

I think I did hear later that she was in college, but nothing about her "thriving". As far as I knew, they had spent as much time growing up with their mother's family as they did with their father.

At any rate: to take one example of a spouse-murderers children allegedly "thriving", assume that they haven't gone through pure mental hell and spent many nights wondering if there father wasn't going to kill THEM next - and then use this as some kind of soothing-mechanism for what Mary's children have been through and will go through - is mind-boggling.

[Kayleighjo]

Perhaps I misunderstood your post because the topic at hand was children being raised by a murderer, and you brought up Simpson's children as an example of children who've "thrived" after being raised by one.

You also stated that "everyone thought they should hate their father". I was involved in many discussions at that time, and I never heard anyone say that OJ's children "should" hate him.

I hadn't heard that Simpson's children are thriving. The last I heard about Sydney was when the 911 call was released of her crying and saying that her father said he didn't love her, and she wanted to know if that was "abuse".

I think I did hear later that she was in college, but nothing about her "thriving". As far as I knew, they had spent as much time growing up with their mother's family as they did with their father.

At any rate: to take one example of a spouse-murderers children allegedly "thriving", assume that they haven't gone through pure mental hell and spent many nights wondering if there father wasn't going to kill THEM next - and then use this as some kind of soothing-mechanism for what Mary's children have been through and will go through - is mind-boggling.

I don't assume that those kids didn't go through pure mental hell; the point is that I can't figure our why anyone would wish hate in these kids hearts to carry with them for the rest of their lives. No one can do anything to bring back their dad, and all anyone should want for them is to get any mental help they need and do their best to move on to live healthy and productive lives - whether they choose to inlcude their mother in those lives or not.

The Simpson kids didn't spend as much time growing up with their mom's family; I believe they spent parts of some summer vacations with them but according to Denise Brown (Nicole's sister) they don't have a whole lot of contact with the kids.

Outside of the 911 call or how she feels about her father, the report on Sydney was that she was an excellent student with tons of friends and involvement with sports team. She's now in college and apparently doing quite well. The son, Justin, has openly stated as an adult that he loves his father and those who know him claim he excels academically, socially, and athletically. Sounds like thriving to me.

[Kayleighjo]

I love this one.

I've posted that women should be responsible for themselves....should stop thinking of themselves as a "victim" and take control of their lives and responsibility for their children's lives.

That is what I have posted.

And you say that if a woman you went to court with said these things that you would, indeed, "lash out" at her.

I thought you said you were an adjunct between the women's shelters and the courts.

Is part of your job "straightening out" any woman who thinks the way I do? Interesting. Since "victimhood" is learned behavior, where did you learn that you are to reinforce it? I'd appreciate being directed to the textbooks you've used.

What if this woman's psychiartrist had taught her to think this way? Would you bash him/her, too and "straighten them out"?

Twisting again I see. I said that a woman who bashed other victims of dv and claims that it is all their fault is a woman I would set straight.

And no, you have not only said the things that you chose to include in this particular post - again, as you are so fond of saying, go back and read your own posts. I think you spend so much time trying to justify your hate for women who have been abused that you lose sight of what you've even said.

I've read some of your extremely ugly posts that are on your track record from past postings - they show exactly who and what you are and no amount of twisting on your end covers up your ugliness.

P.S. STILL waiting for you to point out where I have justified Mary's actions as you claim I have on more than one occassion.

[cookiewench]

Twisting again I see. I said that a woman who bashed other victims of dv and claims that it is all their fault is a woman I would set straight.

And no, you have not only said the things that you chose to include in this particular post - again, as you are so fond of saying, go back and read your own posts. I think you spend so much time trying to justify your hate for women who have been abused that you lose sight of what you've even said.



Uh, oh: you said you would lash out at these women if they did what I have done. Then you claimed that I said something about it's being the woman's "fault" if she is abused, which, of course, I never said.

Then I asked you for a reference to the textbook where you were taught to do this type of "advocating".

All I ask for is one tiny reference from your texts, because I'm wondering if I need to update my education.

I have never heard, read, or been taught such a thing as "straightening out" a woman who believes "Hit me once - shame on you. His me twice - shame on me".

Of course, if our daughters were raised in this way of thinking and left men after the first instance of abuse (rather than staying, having children, and letting themselves become financially dependent on an abuser), you'd be out of a job, I guess.

To my knowledge, it would be bad form indeed for an advocate to talk the way you would to a woman who feels this way. It would be very unhelpful to even talk to an abuser this way, let alone a woman who's recovering from abuse (as your alleged woman in court would be).

You've admitting that you're researching my posts. Why don't you post the one where I claim to be a victim (as you said when you lashed out at me and called me either a liar or brainwashed)?

Can't find it, can you?

Didn't think so. I threw away thoughts of myself as a "victim" long before there was an internet.

BTW: What do you think of the CofC? Have your views on it changed now that Mary will be raising her kids in that culture?

[cookiewench]

P.S. STILL waiting for you to point out where I have justified Mary's actions as you claim I have on more than one occassion.


I guess you missed my post: I already explained that I must have misunderstood your post on that subject, and have explained what I was thinking when I read it.

[cookiewench]

I don't assume that those kids didn't go through pure mental hell; the point is that I can't figure our why anyone would wish hate in these kids hearts to carry with them for the rest of their lives.

The son, Justin, has openly stated as an adult that he loves his father and those who know him claim he excels academically, socially, and athletically. Sounds like thriving to me.

Did someone on this board wish for hate in Mary's kid's hearts to carry with them for the rest of their lives? I missed that.

As for Justin: he says that he "loves" the person who butchered his mother while she was going about her business, and while he was upstairs asleep in his bed.

Do you think there might be a little bit of denial (or lack of true information) going on there?

Certainly there is a time in one's life to cast off the bitterness from such an experience, but I don't know if "loving" the person who slashed your mother to death would be considered as an ideal.

If one of your victims who you stand up in court with had her throat slashed by her abuser, would you stand up in court with him when he applied to raise her children?

Just askin'.

[Kayleighjo]

I guess you missed my post: I already explained that I must have misunderstood your post on that subject, and have explained what I was thinking when I read it.

I didn't miss that post, that was in regard to your misunderstanding regarding my post on O.J. Simpson's children. I'm talking about the fact that you have claimed that I have justified Mary Winkler's actions.

The kicker is that you and I agree on more than you allow yourself to see. I don't think her actions justify self defense, I think they were murder. All I wanted to point out at the beginning when I jumped in is that most of what a batterer does is in private, and there's no real way to know for sure whether Mary was abused or not. But I never said her actions were justified - I agree with your post 100% when you were referring to it not being self defense when she shot him while sleeping.

[SaraSidle]

Cookie did you really write "hit me once shame on you-hit me twice and shame on me"? that is so old and single minded I cannot believe it is still around. IMO

[Kayleighjo]

Did someone on this board wish for hate in Mary's kid's hearts to carry with them for the rest of their lives? I missed that.

As for Justin: he says that he "loves" the person who butchered his mother while she was going about her business, and while he was upstairs asleep in his bed.

Do you think there might be a little bit of denial (or lack of true information) going on there?

Certainly there is a time in one's life to cast off the bitterness from such an experience, but I don't know if "loving" the person who slashed your mother to death would be considered as an ideal.

If one of your victims who you stand up in court with had her throat slashed by her abuser, would you stand up in court with him when he applied to raise her children?

Just askin'.

Whether denial, lack of true information or a real belief that his dad didn't do it he claims to love him. I think he was maybe 8 when his mom was murdered, that's still a young age and I suppose it's possible for him to not have been able to cope with losing both of his parents so maybe he began denial then. If that's the case, there may be a time in his life when that breaks and he has a whole host of demons to deal with but for right now he appears to be doing quite well.

I'd agree that loving the person that slashed your mother wouldn't be ideal, so I guess it's a matter of whether it's denial or a true belief that daddy didn't do it. Surprisingly there are quite a few people out there who don't think he did.

Your last question that you are "just askin" leads me to believe that you've somehow concluded that I agree with the idea of giving custody to a parent that has murdered the other.

[cookiewench]

[QUOTE=Kayleighjo;9118193]

The kicker is that you and I agree on more than you allow yourself to see.QUOTE]

Yet you thought it right and proper to personally attack me for my opinions that DIDN'T agree with yours............to the point where you even admitted that you'd launch the same attack on an abuse victim in court if she had the same beliefs that I have.

You also stated that I'd claimed to be a victim and that this made me either a liar, or brainwashed. Of course, I've never claimed to be a victim (in spite of what you thought you remembered me posting), but the fact remains that this is what you believed to be an appropriate response to an alleged abuse victim:

"You're either a liar..........or still brainwashed".

Isn't this EXACTLY what you and so many others have posted here about WHY women don't report abuse - because they'll be disbelieved?

And yet you claim to be working FOR women.

I don't know what state you live in, where advocates are either encourage or allowed by the shelters and/or the courts to "lash out" at women who've come to believe that woman don't have to be victims if they choose not to.

[cookiewench]

Cookie did you really write "hit me once shame on you-hit me twice and shame on me"? that is so old and single minded I cannot believe it is still around. IMO


Really? The Bible is also old and single minded, as is The Golden Rule. Do you have a hard time believing they are still around?


Do you disagree that there would be little need for women's shelters and DV programs if little girls were taught to think this way about men?

[Kayleighjo]

[QUOTE=Kayleighjo;9118193]

The kicker is that you and I agree on more than you allow yourself to see.QUOTE]

Yet you thought it right and proper to personally attack me for my opinions that DIDN'T agree with yours............to the point where you even admitted that you'd launch the same attack on an abuse victim in court if she had the same beliefs that I have.

You also stated that I'd claimed to be a victim and that this made me either a liar, or brainwashed. Of course, I've never claimed to be a victim (in spite of what you thought you remembered me posting), but the fact remains that this is what you believed to be an appropriate response to an alleged abuse victim:

"You're either a liar..........or still brainwashed".

Isn't this EXACTLY what you and so many others have posted here about WHY women don't report abuse - because they'll be disbelieved?

And yet you claim to be working FOR women.

I don't know what state you live in, where advocates are either encourage or allowed by the shelters and/or the courts to "lash out" at women who've come to believe that woman don't have to be victims if they choose not to.

And YOU find it acceptable to bash me or other people for OUR opinions that YOU don't agree with? That's bullsh*t in its greatest form.

I said that I'd set a woman straight that BASHES other victims and claims that the abuse is all their fault which is exactly what you have said - especially with your "hit me twice shame on me" statements. You outright bashed me and said I was playing the victim game amongst other things, even after you had just gotten done telling me that what I had done was exactly what you would have done in my situation. So a woman (and I use that term VERY loosely with you) like you would need to be set straight.

As I said before, I highly doubt you've ever been in abusive relationship - and if you were you're obviously still brainwashed - into believeing it was all your and every other woman's own fault.

[cookiewench]

Do you not know the difference between an internet discussion board and your job of being a victim's advocate in court?

You said that you'd lash out at one of your CLIENTS if they postulated the same beliefs that I do. You'd "staighten her out" for saying the things I've posted - like, that women need to keep themselves from being financially dependent on an abuser in the first place.

You define my saying that women don't have to choose to be victims as "bashing". What I've said is no different from what the family of an abusive alcoholic would be told if the went to AlAnon: "You don't have to be the victim of this person. Just because they have a problem doesn't mean that you have to have a problem. You don't have to let this other person's problems destroy your life. Instead of trying to "fix" this person, you need to set guidelines for what YOU will accept. If this person can't accept those guidelines, YOU need to get them out of your life and take control of it."

You keep claiming that I've used words like "fault" and "deserve", when you know that I haven't.

I've said: "Hit me once - shame on you. Hit me twice - shame on me".

And you can't deny that a whole lot of women would be alive today if they felt the same way.

BTW: Why would it matter whether or not you believe I was ever in an abusive relationship? You may have noticed that I've spent no time trying to convince you that I have been. That is not part of my identity or self-image, and it matters not to the discussion at hand.

If women who've been abused are more knowledgeable on the dynamics of it and have a more valid viewpoint, why do they get referred to psychiatrists/counselors who are trained in the dynamics but haven't experienced it? Should abused women only turn to other abused women for help in their situation and ways of looking at it?

[deacon]

I didn't miss that post, that was in regard to your misunderstanding regarding my post on O.J. Simpson's children. I'm talking about the fact that you have claimed that I have justified Mary Winkler's actions.

The kicker is that you and I agree on more than you allow yourself to see. I don't think her actions justify self defense, I think they were murder. All I wanted to point out at the beginning when I jumped in is that most of what a batterer does is in private, and there's no real way to know for sure whether Mary was abused or not. But I never said her actions were justified - I agree with your post 100% when you were referring to it not being self defense when she shot him while sleeping.

There is a very good way for us to know if it were real or not. It is called a police report. If she was abused, she should have reported it. If a stranger came up to her on the street and hit her I would think she would report it. If her husband hit her then she did not know him or would not have married him so, he in effect is a stranger. No one would knowingly marry an abuser would she? I can't, for the life of me, reason why one would.

[Kayleighjo]

There is a very good way for us to know if it were real or not. It is called a police report. If she was abused, she should have reported it. If a stranger came up to her on the street and hit her I would think she would report it. If her husband hit her then she did not know him or would not have married him so, he in effect is a stranger. No one would knowingly marry an abuser would she? I can't, for the life of me, reason why one would.

For whatever the reasons, lack of police reports don't mean a lack of abuse.

[deacon]

For whatever the reasons, lack of police reports don't mean a lack of abuse.


So, a woman shouldn't report a husband that abuses her? Why should she/does she not report it? Remember, we are talking about ONE CASE here, not in general. I am intersted because I can not figure out why a woman would not report the type of abuse she aledges. It shouldn't happen, and we need to see that it stops but if they don't report it how is LE to know it is happening? When they do report it and LE steps in why stop the process? It makes no sense. If he hurt you once, he will hurt you again.

There has to be a stopping point and sitting back and doing nothing will solve nothing. I suggest there was no report because it didn't happen. I have as much proof of that as anyone has that it did.

[Kayleighjo]

So, a woman shouldn't report a husband that abuses her? Why should she/does she not report it? Remember, we are talking about ONE CASE here, not in general. I am intersted because I can not figure out why a woman would not report the type of abuse she aledges. It shouldn't happen, and we need to see that it stops but if they don't report it how is LE to know it is happening? When they do report it and LE steps in why stop the process? It makes no sense. If he hurt you once, he will hurt you again.

There has to be a stopping point and sitting back and doing nothing will solve nothing. I suggest there was no report because it didn't happen. I have as much proof of that as anyone has that it did.

I don't think I said that she shouldn't report it, I'm only saying that many don't. Yes, you have as much proof as anyone that it didn't happen but lack of evidence doesn't mean that it didn't happen. That goes the same with many things.

Regardless, abuse or not ... wasn't an excuse for shooting him while he slept.

[deacon]

I don't think I said that she shouldn't report it, I'm only saying that many don't. Yes, you have as much proof as anyone that it didn't happen but lack of evidence doesn't mean that it didn't happen. That goes the same with many things.

Regardless, abuse or not ... wasn't an excuse for shooting him while he slept.


I realize many don't. I was asking why don't they report it? There has to e a reason(s).

And the "evidence" presented does not mean that it did. However, many people seem to want to disregard that a life was taken and a family is missing a son/brother/uncle because of her actions. Many try to justify this killing because of what was not proven in any way.

You know, if she would have reported this abuse and the police had done what they should and he had said it wouldn't happen again and she would have believed that and it started again, I could justify her shooting him, in the back if he were either in the process of abusing her or was threatening abuse again. I could justify that, but none of that happened.

It all falls back on the fact that if he would have shot her, he would still be in jail for the rest of his life. Not out and getting his children back.

[grneyes]

I realize many don't. I was asking why don't they report it? There has to e a reason(s).


There are many reasons why they don't. Some valid, some not. It might be fear, embarrassment, feeling it's their fault, thinking he might change, not wanting to split up their family, and the list goes on and on......

[cookiewench]

When they do report it and LE steps in why stop the process?


A woman can't stop the process these days. The laws have changed, because women were not only clogging up the court system with charges made and dropped (over and over again), but because some women were killed after dropping the charges.

If a woman now calls 911 about abuse, LE must, by law, remove the abuser at once. Charges once made cannot be dropped, and if the woman doesn't show up in court, she'll be charged with contempt.

[SaraSidle]

Really? The Bible is also old and single minded, as is The Golden Rule. Do you have a hard time believing they are still around?


Do you disagree that there would be little need for women's shelters and DV programs if little girls were taught to think this way about men?

Cookie that is not the answer and you know it. It would be a help. I was raised that no one can take a hand to me or I would report them. On the other hand I was also raped 3 times and it was swept under the rug. hhhhhhhhmmmm

[cookiewench]

Cookie that is not the answer and you know it. It would be a help. I was raised that no one can take a hand to me or I would report them. On the other hand I was also raped 3 times and it was swept under the rug. hhhhhhhhmmmm

I'm afraid that I don't understand what you're saying.

Statistically, many of the women who end up in shelters have gone back to abusers time and time again, and they go back because of "love", money, sex, because that man is her comfort zone, or because that man supplies the product for their shared drug habit.

Some women only leave because the abuser has been sent to prison for some other crime and they need a place to stay. Some have been evicted by their abuser (and yes - it does happen that abusers throw away rather than chase after their abusee). Some leave the abuser because they've been told that they will lose their children to the state if they stay in that situation. In fact - not all of the women in shelters are there seeking shelter from abuse: some are simply homeless.



Are you saying that if the women left the men who abused them and stayed away for good, we'd need all those shelters?

[SaraSidle]

Women do not have to stay in a shelter just because they left their abusive husband. they can find their own place,stay with friends or family,change their identity. there are options. IMO

[cookiewench]

Women do not have to stay in a shelter just because they left their abusive husband. they can find their own place,stay with friends or family,change their identity. there are options. IMO

Agreed - I think.

The women who quiety leave and abuser and make a decent life for themselves are the ones we don't hear about. They don't make the news.

But I still say that a woman who finds herself having had three children with an abuser (after he started the abuse), has let herself become totally financially dependent on that abuser, and who has never sought to better herself through working and education - needs to look at herself, not her abuser.

If she doesn't look within herself for the reasons she got to this position in the first place, she could easily get into another situation just like it, and condemn her children to a lifetime of dysfunction and poverty.

[deacon]

There are many reasons why they don't. Some valid, some not. It might be fear, embarrassment, feeling it's their fault, thinking he might change, not wanting to split up their family, and the list goes on and on......

Those sound more like excuses for a low self esteem more than reasons. A person with low self esteem will tend to blame themselves for things or tend to think they could not find another "love".

[Kayleighjo]

Agreed - I think.

The women who quiety leave and abuser and make a decent life for themselves are the ones we don't hear about. They don't make the news.

But I still say that a woman who finds herself having had three children with an abuser (after he started the abuse), has let herself become totally financially dependent on that abuser, and who has never sought to better herself through working and education - needs to look at herself, not her abuser.

If she doesn't look within herself for the reasons she got to this position in the first place, she could easily get into another situation just like it, and condemn her children to a lifetime of dysfunction and poverty.

OK, before I begin I'd like to offer an apology to you - publicly. I took alot of time last night to go over all of our exchanges and I see where it went wrong - on both of our sides. I cannot do anything to change the way that you feel, but I can apologize for the areas where I went wrong.

Moving on, as I stated before I agree with alot of what you say. I do work in battered women's shelters and as an advocate and I see all of things that you are bringing up. I also see alot of the opposite ... women like me whose abuse didn't begin until long after marriage and what happens with alot of these cases are that these men seem functional and stable but find that down the line they can't handle children, or have run into financial issues and are losing a job or facing pay cuts and then the trigger gets pulled and these woman who stayed at home to raise their kids (and yes I believe it's acceptable to be a stay at home mom - in my eyes it's a full time job on it's own if you're a parent that actually cares) suddenly find themselves in positions that are very difficult to get out of. For me, I had no turn because my parents didn't support my leaving him because of his wealth and that my family got all of the perks from that. I still to this day have no further ties with my family because they wouldn't help me even after they saw the black eyes and whatnot.

I guess I'm struggling to understand why an abuser shouldn't be looked at. I get where it's not the responsibility of the woman to look at him, but shouldn't somebody else be looking? Just the same as the belief that we teach our daughters not to stay with these men and to be independent don't you think someone ought to be teaching these men that their hands don't belong on a woman - or on any human being for that matter? Should a violent man escape responsibility because a woman didn't leave? I don't get why everything falls on her shoulders.

[deacon]

OK, before I begin I'd like to offer an apology to you - publicly. I took alot of time last night to go over all of our exchanges and I see where it went wrong - on both of our sides. I cannot do anything to change the way that you feel, but I can apologize for the areas where I went wrong.

Moving on, as I stated before I agree with alot of what you say. I do work in battered women's shelters and as an advocate and I see all of things that you are bringing up. I also see alot of the opposite ... women like me whose abuse didn't begin until long after marriage and what happens with alot of these cases are that these men seem functional and stable but find that down the line they can't handle children, or have run into financial issues and are losing a job or facing pay cuts and then the trigger gets pulled and these woman who stayed at home to raise their kids (and yes I believe it's acceptable to be a stay at home mom - in my eyes it's a full time job on it's own if you're a parent that actually cares) suddenly find themselves in positions that are very difficult to get out of. For me, I had no turn because my parents didn't support my leaving him because of his wealth and that my family got all of the perks from that. I still to this day have no further ties with my family because they wouldn't help me even after they saw the black eyes and whatnot.

I guess I'm struggling to understand why an abuser shouldn't be looked at. I get where it's not the responsibility of the woman to look at him, but shouldn't somebody else be looking? Just the same as the belief that we teach our daughters not to stay with these men and to be independent don't you think someone ought to be teaching these men that their hands don't belong on a woman - or on any human being for that matter? Should a violent man escape responsibility because a woman didn't leave? I don't get why everything falls on her shoulders.

The last paragraph is a very good point. As the father of a 23 year old man let me tell you, we have had that discussion and will have it again. He was engaged last year and my son and the young lady heard the same talk. If he ever lays his hands on you I will take him out. And I meant it. I don't have any use for that and he has seen that modeled before him since birth. He has also been told the results of not doing as I do. My father had that same discussion with me when I was young. Our family does not put up with abuse of any kind.

[grneyes]

Those sound more like excuses for a low self esteem more than reasons. A person with low self esteem will tend to blame themselves for things or tend to think they could not find another "love".

I don't think it's an excuse for low self esteem but it can sure be a cause of it. Abused women do feel unworthy as do many children that grow up being abused. How would you feel if you were constantly getting the h#ll beat of of you and being told you are worthless?

[deacon]

I don't think it's an excuse for low self esteem but it can sure be a cause of it. Abused women do feel unworthy as do many children that grow up being abused. How would you feel if you were constantly getting the h#ll beat of of you and being told you are worthless?

Not what I meant. I mean that low self esteem woud be a reason they didn't leave. The feeling that they can not find another "man" to take the place of the one they have now. They seem to think that no other man would be interested in them.

If I was getting beat up all the time, I would leave. Simple. There is no excuse for staying. Take my wife, if I started that she has a .357 and she would use it. Not that I would ever think about it if she didn't but throw that fact in and I certainly wouldn't think about it. She can put 6 in a nine inch pie plate in about 10 seconds at 20 yards. Don't mess with that lady.:D

[Notknowingall]

The last paragraph is a very good point. As the father of a 23 year old man let me tell you, we have had that discussion and will have it again. He was engaged last year and my son and the young lady heard the same talk. If he ever lays his hands on you I will take him out. And I meant it. I don't have any use for that and he has seen that modeled before him since birth. He has also been told the results of not doing as I do. My father had that same discussion with me when I was young. Our family does not put up with abuse of any kind.

Excellent statement there deacon. I have instiiled into my boys' heads too that they DO NOT put their hands on a woman and if they do they will have ME to fear.

[cookiewench]

OK, before I begin I'd like to offer an apology to you - publicly. I took alot of time last night to go over all of our exchanges and I see where it went wrong - on both of our sides. I cannot do anything to change the way that you feel, but I can apologize for the areas where I went wrong.

Moving on, as I stated before I agree with alot of what you say. I do work in battered women's shelters and as an advocate and I see all of things that you are bringing up. I also see alot of the opposite ... women like me whose abuse didn't begin until long after marriage and what happens with alot of these cases are that these men seem functional and stable but find that down the line they can't handle children, or have run into financial issues and are losing a job or facing pay cuts and then the trigger gets pulled and these woman who stayed at home to raise their kids (and yes I believe it's acceptable to be a stay at home mom - in my eyes it's a full time job on it's own if you're a parent that actually cares) suddenly find themselves in positions that are very difficult to get out of. For me, I had no turn because my parents didn't support my leaving him because of his wealth and that my family got all of the perks from that. I still to this day have no further ties with my family because they wouldn't help me even after they saw the black eyes and whatnot.

I guess I'm struggling to understand why an abuser shouldn't be looked at. I get where it's not the responsibility of the woman to look at him, but shouldn't somebody else be looking? Just the same as the belief that we teach our daughters not to stay with these men and to be independent don't you think someone ought to be teaching these men that their hands don't belong on a woman - or on any human being for that matter? Should a violent man escape responsibility because a woman didn't leave? I don't get why everything falls on her shoulders.

Hey; no harm, no foul! I'm pleased that we have some common ground.

Of course I agree with you that someone should be teaching these men from childhood on up that they should keep their hands off of a woman (or any human being). The problem is that most men who are abused were abused themselves by dysfunctional adults.

I think they should be jailed for any abuse they commit as adult, but then their partner/family should leave them to hit rock bottom on their own, just as needs to be done with an alcoholic.

If the woman allows the abuser to still "rent space in her head" after she leaves him she is, in effect, still allowing herself to be victimized by him. All the analysis in the world of "why" he did what he did will not change him, nor will it change the woman's future. She needs to concentrate on her own "whys" so she doesn't go back to him or hook up with another abuser.

[cookiewench]

I don't think it's an excuse for low self esteem but it can sure be a cause of it. Abused women do feel unworthy as do many children that grow up being abused. How would you feel if you were constantly getting the h#ll beat of of you and being told you are worthless?

One of the points I've been trying to make in this long discussion is that women who are abused often have extreme low self-esteem before they met the abuser.

That low self-esteem/depression is what enables them to stay after the first incident of abuse. Depression and self-hatred feed off of each other, and they look for things to feed and reinforce them.

And often, a woman thinks so little of herself and her accomplishments in life that she believes that if she can "save" this abusing man and reform him, they'll be "somebody" and will have succeeded in at least one thing in life.

[Kayleighjo]

Hey; no harm, no foul! I'm pleased that we have some common ground.

Of course I agree with you that someone should be teaching these men from childhood on up that they should keep their hands off of a woman (or any human being). The problem is that most men who are abused were abused themselves by dysfunctional adults.

I think they should be jailed for any abuse they commit as adult, but then their partner/family should leave them to hit rock bottom on their own, just as needs to be done with an alcoholic.

If the woman allows the abuser to still "rent space in her head" after she leaves him she is, in effect, still allowing herself to be victimized by him. All the analysis in the world of "why" he did what he did will not change him, nor will it change the woman's future. She needs to concentrate on her own "whys" so she doesn't go back to him or hook up with another abuser.

:beer:

That's the biggest challenge when it comes to trying to help these women; the effects that linger in the aftermath that make them second guess themselves and I stuggled with that one myself. Even after I was successful in leaving, I gave up alot of emotional time in my head to the man and that was every bit as detrimental as if I had stayed and allowed the physical abuse to continue.

I've got a teenage daughter who I constantly have to make sure is staying on the right path with a strong sense of self and self worth as I realize that so much of our entire society focuses on taking young girls and turning them into accessories for men. I go into the "Juniors" department at a store and see that it caters to revealing and "sexy" clothes for these young girls to dress up in and it makes me crazy. Love your own self! Want to be healthy and look pretty for your own self! Be whatever it is that you want to be but don't cater to the idea that you've got to be sexy for the opposite sex.

[cookiewench]

:beer:

That's the biggest challenge when it comes to trying to help these women; the effects that linger in the aftermath that make them second guess themselves and I stuggled with that one myself. Even after I was successful in leaving, I gave up alot of emotional time in my head to the man and that was every bit as detrimental as if I had stayed and allowed the physical abuse to continue.


I know! When I left my abuser (and yes -I put up with some serious abuse, although I don't think of myself as a "victim"), at first I felt like a failure, because it had been my goal to "turn this man around", but all he had done was get worse, because he had someone who was willing to try to "understand" him. Ugh.

It didn't take me long to realize how twisted my thinking had been.

His next girlfriend was not as dysfunctional as I had been, and had him arrested the first time he pulled his carp on her. Good for her.

There - I've disclosed something about myself.

[grneyes]

Those sound more like excuses for a low self esteem more than reasons. A person with low self esteem will tend to blame themselves for things or tend to think they could not find another "love".

Not what I meant. I mean that low self esteem woud be a reason they didn't leave. The feeling that they can not find another "man" to take the place of the one they have now. They seem to think that no other man would be interested in them.

If I was getting beat up all the time, I would leave. Simple. There is no excuse for staying. Take my wife, if I started that she has a .357 and she would use it. Not that I would ever think about it if she didn't but throw that fact in and I certainly wouldn't think about it. She can put 6 in a nine inch pie plate in about 10 seconds at 20 yards. Don't mess with that lady.:D

*LOL* Gotta love a woman like that! :beer:

[Kayleighjo]

I know! When I left my abuser (and yes -I put up with some serious abuse, although I don't think of myself as a "victim"), at first I felt like a failure, because it had been my goal to "turn this man around", but all he had done was get worse, because he had someone who was willing to try to "understand" him. Ugh.

It didn't take me long to realize how twisted my thinking had been.

His next girlfriend was not as dysfunctional as I had been, and had him arrested the first time he pulled his carp on her. Good for her.

There - I've disclosed something about myself.

Wow, thank you for sharing that personal information.

I know exactly what you're talking about! We always seem to think that if we just love someone enough then we can change them. I really wondered for a long time what was so wrong with me that this successful and wealthy man who was so respected in our community thought so little of me. I really thought it was something I had done and that if I just tried harder and was a better person that maybe he would love me more. When I look back now I can't even believe that I thought that a person like him was worth a moment of my time.

I really want to take a moment again to make a public apology here. I did call you a liar and/or brainwashed. That was shameful behavior and I sincerely regret those remarks.

[cookiewench]

Wow, thank you for sharing that personal information.

I know exactly what you're talking about! We always seem to think that if we just love someone enough then we can change them. I really wondered for a long time what was so wrong with me that this successful and wealthy man who was so respected in our community thought so little of me. I really thought it was something I had done and that if I just tried harder and was a better person that maybe he would love me more. When I look back now I can't even believe that I thought that a person like him was worth a moment of my time.

I really want to take a moment again to make a public apology here. I did call you a liar and/or brainwashed. That was shameful behavior and I sincerely regret those remarks.


Exactly! I think your case is a bit unique, as most abusers start as soon as they know they've got the woman "hooked" on them (although they can be real sweethearts while they're in the courting process). Yours didn't start til much later, and it may have been triggered by his own midlife crisis.

You can almost pity these men, because each incident of abuse must reinforce their own self-loathing and poor ego. They KNOW what they're doing is wrong.

They need to be pitied from a distance, though: a huge distance.


I have to add that I never once thought about hurting or killing him, though. I intermittently went to counseling, because I knew in my heart that it was myself I needed to save - not him.

And please don't worry about apologizing. Discussion get heated and we all get frustrated when we think our message isn't getting across.

[deacon]

Excellent statement there deacon. I have instiiled into my boys' heads too that they DO NOT put their hands on a woman and if they do they will have ME to fear.

When I told her that we were sitting in my living room and she looked at my son kinda weird. My son looked at her and smiled and said, "He isn't kidding, I know that." He respects me because he is about twice my size.

[SaraSidle]

wow Is it nice posting here or what. Thank you Cookie for sharing that and I am so glad you got counseling. And as hard as it is we need to help woman accept the fact that men cannot change and will not and it is the man's problem not theirs so they need to get out. THat is how everyone should be raised. I have never laid on hand on anyone because that is the way I was raised and told that if anyone laid a hand on me I would call the police. It is the self esteem that makes everything worse. DV can start with money problems or affairs but when it gets abusive the man has to hit someone to make himself feel good and the woman who gets hit feels like she is not good enough. Cookie you are so right that this needs to change as a very early age.. IMO

[deacon]

*LOL* Gotta love a woman like that! :beer:

I know I do. She is my strength. NOTHING and I mean nothing but God will come between us, and God hasn't tried. He done good with this one.

She just will not take any garbage. I wouldn't want to give her any even if she wasn't that way. But just the same, I don't like weak women. She has to have a mind of her own.

BTW Noticed in another post "upstream" she doen't need to dress "sexy" to be sexy. I love her for who she is not what she looks like. Glad I didn't have a daughter. I would go crazy shopping with her. "No, you are not going to dress like that."

[Kayleighjo]

Exactly! I think your case is a bit unique, as most abusers start as soon as they know they've got the woman "hooked" on them (although they can be real sweethearts while they're in the courting process). Yours didn't start til much later, and it may have been triggered by his own midlife crisis.

You can almost pity these men, because each incident of abuse must reinforce their own self-loathing and poor ego. They KNOW what they're doing is wrong.

They need to be pitied from a distance, though: a huge distance.


I have to add that I never once thought about hurting or killing him, though. I intermittently went to counseling, because I knew in my heart that it was myself I needed to save - not him.

And please don't worry about apologizing. Discussion get heated and we all get frustrated when we think our message isn't getting across.

Sweethearts they definitely can be.

I also never thought of hurting or killing him either, though on more than one occassion I did wish he would just die. Oddly, I got my wish years later when he was killed in an auto accident after drinking himself silly and getting behind the wheel. But that's how I know that I could never hurt someone - even after all of the abuse and the fact that he continued to stalk me after I moved out and on with my life I felt a tremendous sense of guilt over the fact that I had wished him dead and then he was.

I'm honestly not sure that I'd even be capable of pulling a trigger in the middle of real and true self defense. I deny no one that option if their lives are being threatened and the only way not to die is to kill or injure that person first, I just don't know that I'd have it in me to do it. I guess I couldn't say for sure without being in that situation.

Here are the guys that just get me though - ever dealt with one who has somehow truly managed to convince himself that what he's doing isn't wrong? There was this guy here in Minnesota that killed his wife when she told him she was leaving him. In an interview he said "hey man, wasn't anything else I could do. I been hittin' her for years now trying to keep the b*tch in line and she wouldn't listen so I figured you know, now was the time to make her understand that I was serious because ain't no woman like that gonna do any better than me." I was like WTF when I read that!

Do you mind me asking how long it took you to feel "normal" again after leaving the abuse?

[Kayleighjo]

BTW Noticed in another post "upstream" she doen't need to dress "sexy" to be sexy. I love her for who she is not what she looks like. Glad I didn't have a daughter. I would go crazy shopping with her. "No, you are not going to dress like that."

Oh tell me about it! Having a teenage daughter in this day and age is about the most trying thing ever! You go into a clothing store and all you see are these barely there little tops, skirts so short if they even leaned over slightly you'd get an eyeful and shorts so short the butt cheeks hang out. My God!