should killer mom get kids?

[timesjoke]

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - The woman who killed her minister husband with a shotgun is seeking custody of her three daughters, or at least frequent visits.

 

A petition filed in Carroll County Chancery Court argues that Mary Winkler's continued separation from the girls - ages 2, 8 and 10 - is "unconscionable and detrimental" to the children.

 

Winkler, 33, shot the Rev. Matthew Winkler in their parsonage of Fourth Street Church of Christ in Selmer on March 22, 2006, after what she described as an abusive marriage.

 

She was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, but served only five months in jail, followed by two months in a mental health treatment facility.

 

Her former in-laws, Dan and Diane Winkler, are seeking to terminate her parental rights and adopt the girls.

 

Mary Wilker's petition to the court says she has not had parenting time with the children in a year. She "would show that she does not represent a threat of substantial harm to the children and therefore they should be returned to her immediately in order to serve their best interest," the filing says.

 

Dan and Diane Winkler also filed a motion to try to prevent Mary Winkler from appearing on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" on Wednesday, but Chancellor Ron Harmon denied it after hearing arguments from the parties Tuesday.

 

Her in-laws had argued that "it is in the best interest of the children to live normal lives and it is not in their interest for their private lives and problems to be aired in the newspaper and on television. No good can come of it."

 

So killing the father of these children is not considered substantial harm to them?

 

Should this mother have her children after she murdered their father?

 

 

And is five months (including time she was in jail for the trial, she only served 67 days after she was found guilty) a resonable punnishment for shooting her husband in the back with a shotgun?

[Feckless Wench]

Was she scared of the guy, was abuse proved? What form did the abuse take...physical? Mental? Has she ever been violent towards anyone else? I think it all has to be taken into consideration. Fear can make people act completely out of character.

[Guest sheik-yerbouti]

So killing the father of these children is not considered substantial harm to them?

 

Should this mother have her children after she murdered their father?

 

 

And is five months (including time she was in jail for the trial, she only served 67 days after she was found guilty) a resonable punnishment for shooting her husband in the back with a shotgun?

 

Its all too easy for the villain to defame the dead victim. I'd like t see evidence of the alledged abuse. Doctor's reports, hospital visits etc. In the absence of which, I know which way I'd be viewing this.

 

It pisses me off when people like this get silly sentences.

 

Even if I was the victim of a violent partner, I would much prefer to get out of there in the middle of the night leaving a dear John on the chimney piece. Being beaten up is no mitigation for murder

[snafu]

Was she scared of the guy, was abuse proved? What form did the abuse take...physical? Mental? Has she ever been violent towards anyone else? I think it all has to be taken into consideration. Fear can make people act completely out of character.

 

She was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, so the jury must've felt she had cause.

[timesjoke]

She claimed that her husband forced her to wear high heels and have "unnatural" sex but there was no evidence of abuse to back up anything she said.

 

Every scrap of evidence pointed at murder 1 (she shot her husband in the back with a shotgun) but she spent just days in jail, I just can't understand how the courts keep treating women so softly for things men would get the electric chair for.

 

Hell, men get more time for failure to pay childsupport then this woman got for murder.

[RegisteredAndEducated]

She definately does not deserve to have those kids. She sounds like a manipulative and detremental person. perfect jury... Probably all women and libs.

[Guest sheik-yerbouti]

She claimed that her husband forced her to wear high heels and have "unnatural" sex but there was no evidence of abuse to back up anything she said.

 

Every scrap of evidence pointed at murder 1 (she shot her husband in the back with a shotgun) .

 

This reminds me of something that happened in the UK several years ago. A woman murdered her husband, claiming that he demanded unnatural sex.

 

The guy was found dead, stabbed in the back. He was stabbed and died on the stairs at their home. Not the sort of place I'd be wanting to have sex, never mind demanding it.

 

She got off with it. Later, after the trial, it came out the same woman had murdered her daughter several years before and serve a silly little sentence in jail. She'd buried the dead child deep in a farmer's field.

 

Women do seem to get more lenient sentences than men for comparable crime.

[ImWithStupid]

Anyone who kills anyone, other then a stranger in self defense, should loose all rights to have custody of their kids. Forever.

[Jhony5]

She claimed that her husband forced her to wear high heels and have "unnatural" sex but there was no evidence of abuse to back up anything she said.

 

Every scrap of evidence pointed at murder 1 (she shot her husband in the back with a shotgun) but she spent just days in jail, I just can't understand how the courts keep treating women so softly for things men would get the electric chair for.

 

Hell, men get more time for failure to pay childsupport then this woman got for murder.

 

Sad that there are so many women in prison for 20 to life that were victims of bonified physical and sexual abuse, for murdering their abuser, that shouldn't have spent one day in jail.

 

TJ is right on this. Mary Winkler's "abuse" was pure conjecture and utterly unproven.

 

Giving her any access to her kids would be a very dangerous risk. I think its been shown that her coping skills are somewhat inept.

[atlantic]

I saw a documentary on this woman, and I came away from it feeling that she was manipulative and was stealing money and had to cover it up.

[snafu]

This is all conjecture. the fact is a jury who heard all the facts came to the conclusion that she had just cause. If I had no other alternative and feared for my life or another life, I would do the same. Well maybe not in the back but.....

[atlantic]

This is all conjecture. the fact is a jury who heard all the facts came to the conclusion that she had just cause. If I had no other alternative and feared for my life or another life, I would do the same. Well maybe not in the back but.....

A jury once decided OJ was innocent, and we all know that's bull .

[RegisteredAndEducated]

I still say she's a danger to everyone around her. If she gets those kids, they'll either be dead in a couple of years or they'll be murders themselves.

[timesjoke]

This is all conjecture. the fact is a jury who heard all the facts came to the conclusion that she had just cause. If I had no other alternative and feared for my life or another life, I would do the same. Well maybe not in the back but.....

 

 

The lack of evidence to support her claim of abuse is not conjecture, it is established fact.

 

 

 

If your holding a loaded shotgun, you have many options available to you that does not include shooting a sleeping man in the back. That is murder in cold blood.

 

I would agree to doing what it takes if your in danger, but she could have easily gotten away without killing her husband.

 

 

My biggest problem is her being able to soil her husbands reputation and for all intents and purposes get away with murder without even one shread of evidence to support her claims.

 

Now it looks like she will be awarded custody of these girls to further prove that a father's life is meaningless compared to a woman's ability to cry on the stand.

[snafu]

The lack of evidence to support her claim of abuse is not conjecture, it is established fact.

 

No that's what I'm saying. There had to be evidence or she wouldn't have gotten off. We are coming to a conclusion without all the facts. That's conjecture.

 

 

If your holding a loaded shotgun, you have many options available to you that does not include shooting a sleeping man in the back. That is murder in cold blood.

 

I would agree to doing what it takes if your in danger, but she could have easily gotten away without killing her husband.

 

That's your opinion and I attend to agree with you. I guess if it were you or I on the jury she might be sitting behind bars or it might have gotten thrown out.

 

My biggest problem is her being able to soil her husbands reputation and for all intents and purposes get away with murder without even one shred of evidence to support her claims.

 

Wrong again. There's got to be some evidence for the jury to sway to the verdict they came up with.

 

Now it looks like she will be awarded custody of these girls to further prove that a father's life is meaningless compared to a woman's ability to cry on the stand.

 

And that's what the courts determined what was proper.

 

 

If it were as easy as claiming abuse every spousal murderers could be dismissed.

The fact is she shot him. That's indisputable. Then it would be up to the defense council to prove that it was provoked and she had no alternative.

 

Do I think she got away with murder? Hell yes. I'm just saying we weren't in the jury. Reasonable doubt doesn't mean if there is no evidence to collaborate abuse then it must be true.

[snafu]

Duplicate post. I can't find the delete button.

[timesjoke]

No that's what I'm saying. There had to be evidence or she wouldn't have gotten off. We are coming to a conclusion without all the facts. That's conjecture.

 

The facts are available if you want to look at them.

 

She claimed her husband asked her to wear sexy stockings and high heel shoes, play sex games, and have unnatural sex. There was not one shread of exidence to support her claim, that is fact, all she had was her word.

 

 

 

 

Wrong again. There's got to be some evidence for the jury to sway to the verdict they came up with.

 

The only evidence was a crying female, nothing else.

 

 

And that's what the courts determined what was proper.

 

And they were wrong, but juries are always sympathetic to women.

 

If it were as easy as claiming abuse every spousal murderers could be dismissed.

 

Many are and even if they are found guilty, they get very small penalties.

 

On average, women get much lower penalties then men for the same crimes but that is multiplied by crimes of women against their male mates. Look at cases like the Bobbit attack where the woman cut off his manhood and got almost no punnishment. He was asleep and there was no immediate danger to her and even if there was danger, she would have cut his throat, not his manhood so obviously it was not fear that motivated this woman.

 

What would happen to a man if he cut off a woman's breast?

 

The fact is she shot him. That's indisputable. Then it would be up to the defense council to prove that it was provoked and she had no alternative.

 

But there was no proof, just unsupported claims she was abused.

 

 

 

Do I think she got away with murder? Hell yes. I'm just saying we weren't in the jury. Reasonable doubt doesn't mean if there is no evidence to collaborate abuse then it must be true.

 

A courtroom is supposed to be more then claims, it is supposed to be about proof and facts. If crying is enough to outweigh facts, then where is our legal system going.

 

 

Fact, this man was asleep with his back turned tword her at the time she shot him in the back with a shotgun, there is no excuse for cold blooded murder like that, hell, she could blow off his legs and be sure he could never hurt her but his death was her only desire.

 

That is murder 1.