Mary Winkler's Appearance on Oprah
September 24th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
As many of you know, Mary Winkler recently appeared on Oprah. To watch the show in its entirety, click here.
Oprah was annoyingly sympathetic to Winkler, and seemed to buy her abused wife shtick. My opinion of her claims is as follows:
1) Winkler provided no substantive evidence for her claims--no medical reports, no police reports, no 911 calls, nothing.
2) The defense did put a few people on the stand who testified as to various indirect indications that Winkler might have been abused. A couple of these were of some value. For example, a doctor said Winkler visited her one time with what he described as a "minor injury" to her face, which Winkler said at the time came when a kids' softball hit her. She now claims this was an example of Matthew's abuse of her. The doctor said the injury was consistent with either one.
Also, Winkler's father testified as to seeing injuries on Mary previously, which Mary denied were related to abuse. Of course, even if these were true examples of abuse--and it's far from clear that they are--it doesn't mean that Matthew was the aggressor. Research shows that a large percentage of domestic violence is mutual abuse--Mary's alleged injuries could've been the end result of her attacks on Matthew. We'll never know whether Matthew was abusive or not, but we do know that one member of that household was violent--Mary Winkler. Anybody capable of shooting a sleeping man in the back and allowing him to bleed to death is certainly capable of initiating domestic violence in the home.
3) Some of the other witnesses were meaningless, including one neighbor who said that Matthew threatened to shoot his dog because it kept coming to Matthew's house and barking at night and waking him up. I guess my wife and I are abusers, too--at our previous house our neighbors' dog would bark outside our window at 3 AM, and after several complaints we banged on my neighbor's door and screamed at him, and, if we didn't threaten to shoot the damn thing, we should've.
4) One of the few times on Oprah where Oprah did voice skepticism was when Mary described the morning of the crime. Winkler told Oprah she was angry at her husband and “just wanted to talk to him," and then she “heard a boom.” A more complete description of the incident would have been that she wanted to talk to him, waited until he fell asleep, retrieved the shotgun, pumped it, aimed it at his back, pulled the trigger, and then “heard a boom.”
5) Ironically, the truth-teller on the show was feminist Court TV commentator Lisa Bloom, Gloria Allred’s daughter. Bloom said, "At Court TV a collective gasp went up at this verdict. We all thought it was a first degree murder case....Didn't she make the decision to allow him to fall asleep? Didn't she make the decision to go into that closet and get that gun? Didn't she make the decision to aim it at Matthew and pull the trigger?"
Bloom also asserted that "there wasn't much corroboration [of the abuse] at the trial."
6) Perhaps the most absurd aspect of both the trial and Oprah was the way Mary highlighted the white platform shoes which she claimed Matthew “made her” wear, and which she said were deeply humiliating to her. During the trial, Mary held up the shoe and bowed her head down in mock pain and shame. Oprah bought it, telling her audience that on her show “everybody gasped when they saw the shoe.” Bloom explained to Oprah that in any "big city" people would have “laughed at” Mary’s claims that the shoes were part of the “abuse” she suffered.
"));
19 queries. 0.333 seconds.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Even if she was abused, how is that even a valid excuse? I certainly sympathize with men and women who are in abusive relationships and have trouble leaving,, but its just insane to suggest that killing someone is an acceptable in response to anything other than a fatal, imminent, threat.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
It seems to me that the desperate grabs for evidence of abuse and the ridiculousness of what she came up with all point pretty convincingly at the likelihood that he was no abuser at all.
Monty Python would have been proud of this whole thing - it reminds me of the sketch in Holy Grail where they're trying to decide if the crone was a witch. Her "witchery" isn't relevant, the point of the sketch is the idiocy of the reasoning. Likewise, Matthew's "abusiveness", or lack thereof, isn't actually relevant, and the reasoning similarly is transparently idiotic being primarily for the entertainment and distraction of the unthinking mob.
The Winkler trial wasn't about determining Matthew to be abusive, it was about finding an excuse to spring Mary with a line of "reasoning" that could not be sensibly challenged because it was itself nonsensical. Having proven so successful, the same illogic will continue to be argued in pursuit of the custody of her children. Personally, I have a hard time imagining how one might cause greater psychological harm to a child than to knowingly put him or her in the care of the parent who deliberately killed the other, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if they do it.
September 24th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
To be fair, Oprah is in Chicago, isn't she? That's not exactly small-town USA. Or is "big city" a euphemism for NYC I'm unaware of?
September 24th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
There's another Monty Python sketch with definite parallels. In Life of Brian, the crowd chasing him pick up a shoe Brian drops and insanely venerate the "holy shoe". The hilarity of the scene is punctuated with that supreme bona fide nutcase, Spike Milligan left alone in the middle of the screen with the shoe when the crowd are distracted by another irrelevancy. He shrugs his shoulders and walks off stage left.
He might as well have been carrying a white platform heel.
The lunatics have taken over the asylum.
September 24th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
1) Regarding the lack of evidence:
Not every 911 call is recorded and kept. I don't say this to defend her, but to state that it is a significant, real problem.
(I'd append a few links. but Glenn's span filter hates them)
September 24th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Chris,
Come on now - whilst I don't doubt you're correct, that has no relevance here. She didn't ever complain to the Police about Mathew. In fact, she didn't complain or confide in anyone at all. Even her family haven't tried to suggest that she said anything about the 'abuse' to them (until, of course, she needed a handy "get out of jail" card).
I'm very sympathetic to abuse sufferers - I'm one of them, having received injuries at the hands of an ex. However, I don't believe Mary Winkler's stories have any substance to them whatsoever, and I believe she only got away with the reduced charges because the Jury was stuffed with women (only one man - very representative).
September 24th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
My mom made me wear uncomfortable penny-loafers to church a few times. Can I shoot her?
September 24th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Only wimmin' get away with cold blooded murder, and spend less than six months in jail.
Show me ONE man, just one, similarly situated.
September 24th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
talking on Oprah = innocents, and since Oprah is only for women
September 24th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
If anyone has a tape of Winker's appearance on Oprah, can you check and see what shoes she was wearing? If she was wearing any kind of high heel, she is being a phony and the audience should have spotted that. Oprah has gone so far as to comment on shoes her guests are wearing, so my feeling is they would have shown her shoes.
I searched for the show online and could only find clips.
September 24th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
If Oprah is in Chicago, that is why Mary chose to go on her show. Chicago family courts almost always side with females. There is a small amount of men who even get custody of thier children. Alot of times the men only see thier children if thier ex allows it. They are in my opinion man haters.
September 24th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Oprah is a feminist. Ergo dead men are guilty if women say so. Secondarily, Oprah was in the mass news media where facts routinely have little relevance with 'news'.
Mike
September 25th, 2007 at 8:43 am
I can't believe this woman. All of her claims of abuse are just hear-say and no substancial facts at all. After watching her interview it is even more evident that she is a loonatic. Poor Mathew, she has murdered him and is now smearing his name and cannot defned him self. This woman should be locked in prison and never see her kids again.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:07 am
*at checkout counter, with a book called 'Mary Winkler was abused' in his hands*
Me: *shakes head* I ain't buying it.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:01 am
This is discusting, and is a good example of why many men in this country have lost faith in American women in general.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:58 am
"My mom made me wear uncomfortable penny-loafers to church a few times. Can I shoot her?" Not to make light of the situation but Sungjun's comment was funny as hell. It illustrates how ridiculous Mary's claims were.....
September 25th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
There is no excuse for what Winkler did but I do understand why she did it. Nevertheless, her children lost one parents so I think the court is doing the right thing and allowing the children to have a relationship with her. I hope they are supervising it until they feel the children are in no danger from her. Just because she killed her abuser doesn't mean she will harm the kids.
September 25th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Mary WInkler has the support of her community in all this:
http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=7097266&nav=menu374_1
"Mary Winkler's supporters such as Kathy Thompson are helping her make a new home for herself.
"She's asked for forgiveness," Thompson said. "It's our duty. The Bible tells us, if we don't forgive others God won't forgive us. So we're just trying to pick up pieces and go on."
Winkler said the community has reached out to her, giving her everything from a five -bedroom home to live in for $150 to a car she's traded in for a sports utility vehicle."
This is stomach-churning.
September 25th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Okrah is such a ditz for buying winkler`s story,and so were the members of her audience,gasping at winkler having to wear those awful white shoes.lol. Her going on the show in the first place was nothing but an act of desperation,and the shoes were most likely merely a "prop" around which to fabricate an elaborate "abuse" story.
September 25th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
I happened to see the Oprah show. I like to think I have very good "gut" instincts. I've seen other women in similar circumstances tell their story after which I felt they may have been justified in what they were driven to do. I found none of Mary Winkler's story credible. She was so unconnvicing that there was not one thing she said that sounded believable to me and I cannot believe anyone could have bought it. Not to mention there was no evidence to back her claims. Unfortunately, I left the room when they showed the "shoes" but can't believe in this day and age, in a big city or small town that anyone could be swayed by something so ridiculous - and I'm a woman. I couldn't tell if Oprah "bought" her story, afterall, she is always telling her guests that she doesn't "judge". However, some of her audience seemed sympathetic to Mary to which I can only think that they must be idiots. I don't know the reason she killed her husband but I don't believe for a second that it was in self-defense.
September 25th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Come on people youre missing the point.I dont care if he was a violent,drunken,philandering a-hole that beat her on a regular basis.what a "normal" person does is sneak out with your kids when he goes to sleep,or maybe call the cops when he does beat u,file a protection order,go to a shelter or a friends,etc etc.I mean there are many options and the ONLY excuse 4 what she did would have to have been a fight 4 your life situation.im sorry if hes sleepin?.
It was cold blooded murder!should we let pedophiles go free because THEY were molested as children or maybe abused???what about bank robbers,female ones,can they just claim abuse and be set free???And i say female ones because a man wouldnt be given any preferential treatment and would probably be ridiculed 4 claiming abuse.
It just shouldnt make ANY difference even if he was abusive.It was murder,plain and simple.
I
kk
September 26th, 2007 at 9:10 am
Mary Winkler got away with cold blooded murder by claiming she was mortified at wearing high heels- insanity abounds!
Any judge that would ever allow this woman to be alone with her children is a moron.
There's only two different conclusions in this case.
1. Winkler, a grown woman, was actually mortified to death at the thought of wearing high heels for her husband. Which would make her a very disturbed, psychotic individual that should NEVER be left alone with her children.
OR:
2. She's an excellent liar and cold-blooded killer (which is my belief) and should NEVER be left alone with her children.
Either way- she should NEVER be left alone with her children, and should still be behind bars for murdering their father.
September 27th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
...so when will Scott Peterson be making his appearance on Oprah?
September 27th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
please Oprah don't talk to men you kill for any reason, even if they get off, I don't thnk OJ been on her show, has he..
August 6th, 2008 at 3:03 am
I hate Oprah, and her lousy show. Oprah is an apologist for murderers, and is scum, truly. And she should lose her show. And Mary Winkler should be executed in the electric chair...
Best outcome..