Mary Winkler got her kids back

[rph3664]

http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/myfox/pa...Y&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

[WarmNCozy]

OMG, I don't believe it!

[snoop sister]

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

[taylor63]

Originally Posted by rph3664

http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/myfox/pa...Y&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]

Originally Posted by taylor63

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by snoop sister

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]

Originally Posted by rph3664

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]

Originally Posted by SaraSidle

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]

Originally Posted by snoop sister

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]

Originally Posted by SaraSidle

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]

Originally Posted by rph3664

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]

Originally Posted by deacon

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]

Originally Posted by SaraSidle

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]

Originally Posted by deacon

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]

Originally Posted by SaraSidle

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/or...12162211.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....28/1006/news01

[snoop sister]

Originally Posted by 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/or...12162211.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]

Originally Posted by SaraSidle

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]

Originally Posted by snoop sister

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]

Originally Posted by snoop sister

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]

Originally Posted by deacon

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]

Originally Posted by 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/or...12162211.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]

Originally Posted by snoop sister

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by cookiewench

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]

Originally Posted by SaraSidle

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]

Originally Posted by cookiewench

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]

Originally Posted by SaraSidle

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]

Originally Posted by cookiewench

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