Darren Mack's Mary Winkler Defense
October 25th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Background: In June 2006, Darren Mack (pictured), a wealthy Nevada father who was involved in a divorce, stabbed his estranged wife to death and then executed a well-planned murder attempt on a Nevada judge. Mack shot and wounded the judge but failed to kill him. According to the Reno Gazette-Journal, when police searched Mack's residence they found he "had bombmaking materials in his bedroom" as well as "several boxes of firearm ammunition." At the time of Mack’s murder spree, I wrote:
“I condemn without qualification the crimes allegedly committed by Darren Mack in Nevada last week. Mack was angered by his divorce and custody case. Some on the not insubstantial lunatic fringe of the fathers' rights movement see Mack as some sort of freedom fighter. Most of the commentary by other fathers' rights advocates seem to be of the ‘he couldn't take it anymore and snapped’ variety.
“I don't buy it. Though everyone is focusing on Mack's attempted murder of a judge, everyone seems to forget that he first stabbed and killed his ex-wife. After murdering her, he shot the judge through the judge's third-floor office window with a sniper rifle from over 100 yards away. That's not ‘snapping’--that's premeditated murder. Mack is not a good man trapped in a bad system. He is a bad guy. Because of men like him the system had to create protections for women, and unscrupulous women have misused those protections to victimize countless innocent men. Men like Mack aren't the byproducts of the system's problems--they are the problem.”
My remarks caused some controversy within the fathers' right movement--to learn more, click here.
From the description of the opening arguments in Darren Mack's trial from the Associated Press (Lawyer: Reno man killed wife in self-defense, spun into delusions, 10/24/07), it appears that Mack's defense team is employing what I'll call the "Mary Winkler Defense."
(Mary Winkler shot her husband in the back and then refused to aid him or call 911 as he slowly bled to death for 20 minutes. She claimed--with little corroborating evidence--that she was a battered wife who suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome because of her husband's violence towards her. She was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and walked away a free woman in September after serving a farcically brief 'sentence' for her crimes. To learn more about this injustice, see my co-authored column No child custody for husband-killer Mary Winkler (World Net Daily, 9/14/07), or click here.)
Darren Mack's defense is very Winkleresque:
1) Both Mary Winkler and Darren Mack are trying to escape punishment for their crimes by trashing their victims (Matthew Winkler/Charla Mack). Yet in both cases we have no evidence that either victim did anything wrong. Mary Winkler claimed--with no corroboration--that she decided to "confront" Matthew after he tried to harm their baby. Mack says he stabbed Charla after Charla pointed a gun at him. In both cases the defense's claim is possible, and in neither case is it likely.
2) Both Mary Winkler and Darren Mack want to convince us that their murdered spouses had histories of violence when little evidence of such history exists. Winkler claimed her husband had battered and abused her for a decade, but produced little substantiation of her claims. In the Mack case, according to the Associated Press, "The defense would point to several instances in which Charla Mack, who he said was trained in Tae Kwan Do, physically attacked her husband...Mack had begun to carry a knife with him after a psychic and family member warned him 'you can't turn your back on Charla, she will stab you with a knife,' [co-counsel Scott] Freeman said."
3) Each give highly implausible descriptions of how they committed their crimes but somehow weren't at fault. Winkler says 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.”
In the Mack case, according to the Associated Press:
"One the day of her death, Charla Mack attacked her husband from behind after dropping off her daughter, he said. In the scuffle, a pistol fell from Darren Mack's pocket. Charla Mack picked it up, and pointed it at her husband as the two wrestled on the ground. The pistol misfired, Freeman said, and Mack instinctively pulled out a knife he also was carrying.
"'Darren plunges the knife into her neck once,' Freeman told the jury. 'Charla's violence has stopped.'"
Then, according to the AP:
"That's when Mack drew up the list on the notepad, and began to spiral into delusion, the defense said. A longtime marksman, Mack drove to a parking garage across from the courthouse and shot the judge. 'He was basically on autopilot,' [Mack's lawyer David] Chesnoff said."
4) In both cases, the defendants portray their victims as being some sort of sexual deviants. In the Winkler trial, one of the main instances of "abuse" she said she suffered was that Matthew allegedly made her wear an unusual pair of white high heels. In Mack's case, according to the AP:
"[Charla Mack] had 'an unusual sexual appetite' that involved swingers clubs, various partners and drug use, he said."
In conclusion, a word of advice to Darren Mack--the Winkler-style defense only works for women. It shouldn't have worked for Winkler, but it did. It shouldn't work for you, and it won't.
"));
19 queries. 0.350 seconds.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Ugh. This is a gross individual.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:10 am
The Winkler case is by no means an isolated case. Women get away with maiming and murdering their husbands and boyfriends on a regular basis … and men don’t.
What would be the reaction to a man “carving up” his wife’s vagina because he claimed she was abusive? Does the name Bobbitt ring a bell?
There would be an outrage heard around the world if we let a man get away with such a heinous act, yet in this “God Forsaken” country the Bobbitt case was fuel for night show comedians.
I wouldn’t be surprised by any outcome in this case. Anything is possible in the corrupt cesspools we call the American Courts.
Kevin Merck
October 25th, 2007 at 10:52 am
It is highly doubtful that anyone on the jury is going to buy Mack's defense. I have seen clips of the defense's opening statement and I have honestly heard more plausible conspiracy theories than what the defense is peddling.
That said, the only reason Mack's defense is not going to work is because of his gender. While it likely will be considered implausibility, the basis of that will stem only from him being male. Even if he were a ten-year-old boy the defense would not work. So though I have no real sympathy for Mack, I do think it is unfair that the only real reason his defense will not be accepted is because he is male.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Oh well, I wonder how womens' groups will spin a man using the same bullshit defense they embraced from a woman
October 25th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
"In conclusion, a word of advice to Darren Mack--the Winkler-style defense only works for women. It shouldn't have worked for Winkler, but it did. It shouldn't work for you, and it won't."
At least since he's male, he won't get away with what he has done, he really doesn't deserve to. If only the jury could have used their common senses for Winkler.
October 25th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
He had more of a right, if something like that can be said, than Winkler. Pity the court system won't feel that way.
October 25th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Violence is only "bad" when its unjust violence directed at innocent bystanders. Every person has a right to life, liberty, and property. These rights are evident by our very state of being, and where present before man created society and his laws. These rights are bestowed upon us by a higher power (god if you’re religious or nature if you’re atheist/agnostic). When someone takes your life it’s called murder; when someone takes your liberty it’s called slavery; when someone takes your property its called theft.
Every person is entitled to protect their life, liberty, and property by force –including deadly force if necessary–. We see this every day and don’t blink an eye. If a murderer tries to kill someone then either private citizens or men with guns (police) come to stop him using violence up to deadly force if necessary. If someone tries to rape another person (infringing on their right to liberty) or forcefully take their property (carjacking or home armed robbery) violence including deadly force is used to stop them.
This is just as true of governments as of people. I don’t hear anyone arguing that the revolutionary war was an unjust war, and that American revolutionary soldiers were murderers. But none the less the Revolutionary war was fought and soldiers killed because the British government was unjustly taking the property of colonists. Darren Mack was also having his property unjustly ceased by the government; in order to be given to his soon to be ex-wife. It was theft, and he had a right to protect his property from being unjustly ceased by a judge. A judge may I add who used threats of slavery and violence (carried out by government backed police) to enforce his decision.
Daren Mack isn’t a “bad person”. Daren Mack is a legitimate insurgent; notice that I didn’t use the word ‘freedom fighter’ which is a loaded word or ‘terrorist’ which is someone who –unjustly– uses violence instill fear and pursue a political agenda. The only thing that differentiates the actions of Darren Mack from the actions of the U.S. government and local police is that Darren Mack didn’t have an F-14 to strap his bomb to or an Armored Vehicle to use before setting up his shot.
Also to all those claiming that the Judges action’s were just because he was following the law: please sit down until you regain the capability for independent thought. Saying a government created law is moral because the government says so is the most idiotic thing I’ve ever heard. These are the same people that would support slavery if they were living in the 1800’s or segregation if we were living in the 1950’s. After all both practices were mandated by government law, and according to their logic moral laws by the sole virtue of being laws.
October 25th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
"Saying a government created law is moral because the government says so is the most idiotic thing I’ve ever heard."
Hear hear.
Saying a government created law is moral and/or fair because the government made it a law is the second-most idiotic thing I’ve ever heard.
October 25th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
If my neighbor believes that I scratched his car, and he sues me for a hundred bucks-- I can get a jury trial.
But if my wife leaves me, or wants me to be gone, then she and a bureaucrat in a black robe can
• put me out of my own home, and make me homeless
• put 100% of the financial child support onto me
• tax me at 3x the rate of when I was married
• take most of my assets acquired over a lifetime
• force me into bankruptcy
• reduce my contact with my child to a few hours per month ( done only in the presence of a government endorsed monitor, who works for a private ‘contingent fee’---contingent upon keeping the ‘game’ going)
This is all done without any evidence of wrong-doing, without a jury of my peers, without the application of community standards, without DUE PROCESS.
In Mr. Mack’s case, a business which was built over 3 generations was pilfered by a greedy wife and an unaccountable bureaucrat. A guy who was a multimillionaire was plunged into bankruptcy regardless of his own significant labors and the economic soundness of his business.
There’s no mystery about why this happened…the only thing strange is that this isn’t happening more often.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Mike Hunter for President!
One of the results I was hoping to see arise from Mr. Mack's nightmare would have been a revealing look by the press at a crooked judge and the cases he presided over and maybe a slight turn by the courts in how couples are treated in divorce court.
But what we got was nothing!
The bloated, money hungry, family eating monster called The Divorce Industry, stoked by extreme feminists, money pumping lawyers and Ken Doll government representatives, lives strong.
Mr. Mack did -what most people who have been rungout buy the system feel in their heart.
I know - I am not surprised.
October 26th, 2007 at 9:08 am
You know what? I would almost have had an ounce of respect for him if he'd actually tried to be the "revolutionary hero" that some of the MRA bloggers tried to make him out to be. The slave throwing off the yoke of his oppressors. It still wouldn't have excused what he'd done, but it would at least show some balls, some sense that he had a twisted set of principles driving him.
But this is just pathetic.
October 26th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Glenn,
Did you know that Dean "Abuse Excuse" Tong was part of Darren Mack's defense team?
Check out Tong on Richard Gardner too, from Mens News Daiy:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/t/t-misc/tong052803.htm
October 26th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Foo, how is he not showing balls in your view? Should he lie down and "take it like a man"?
October 26th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
@Mike Hunter,
Are you saying that Darren Mack had a right to kill his wife?
October 26th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
The only reason we ever heard about this case is because a judge was shot. This happens ever-single-day in this country and it’s not always the wife who gets murdered. Sometimes the father is murdered, and sometimes one of the parents kills the children before taking their own life.
This is taking place because of an “out of control” Family Court system riddled with outright thieves and treasonous racketeers.
Just reforming the problem is not enough. These people must be meticulously rooted out and held accountable for their actions with the full force of the law. No expense should be spared, in making “absolutely certain”, that the last thing anyone in government will ever consider again, will be to kidnap our children, or trample our Constitutional Rights as United States Citizens.
Kevin Merck
October 27th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
This is from a fathers rights group, from someone calling himself "faultroy"
From: "faultroy"
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 19:42:08 -0000
Subject: Re: (no subject)
While I most certainly respect and appreciate Dean Tong's comments, and I would like him to be correct, I just want to mention that in my opinion we need more men that do these kinds of horrendous acts. When men go "postal," under these circumstances, lawyers, judges and politicians take notice and act accordingly.
There are two ways to effectuate change--passively and aggressively. In the world today, change is usually initiated by blood as evidenced in the atrocities by Serbians and of course the current rage--Darfur.
Hsd the people of Darfur not spoken out and asked for help, they would still be continued to be slaughtered in the numbers that they had been. The entire world has taken up their cause.And so it will be with men killing their wives, the lawyers and judges. It may not be pretty or politically correct, but it will be damn effective.
...I think it was last year, in Northern Illinois, a female judge's husband and mother was killed...a few days later, they found a vehicle outside of Milwaukee in which a man committed suicide. He wrote a note indicating that he killed the husband and Mother, and he did so out of frustration in not finding the female judge at home.
According to authorities he did so because he lost a case in which he sued the hospital and a business I believe, because of a severe deformation of his face--he had none--and of course the judge ruled against him on some ridiculous technicality. They had the judge on the radio and his attorney and they both said: "Well they couldn't
understand this man's rage since he had his day in court!" And the female judge could not see how her ruling in any way pushed this guy over the edge. And all I could say as I am looking at the radio is "Yeah, but the guy had no fucking face!!!!" I told this to a couple of people at work, and for a couple of days, everyone laughed about my line: "He had no fucking face!" (It became something of a bizzare company mantra for a while like the slogan: Where's the
Beef!") And, from one perspective it was rather funny (myline that is, not the circumstances) the reality is that these attorneys, judges and prosecuters are so far removed and emotionally distanced from the events, they could not for the life of them understand what this kind of a ruling has and did do the the psychology of this man.
And of course this is the incredible sadness of it all--two totally innocent victims, and of course the bitch that made the ruling gets of free and clear and lives).
.Let us not forget that the six million Jews killed in Germany during World War II and the fourteen million Ukrainians killed by Stalin were all killed under the guise of "due process". By this I mean that the German and Russion Courts all signed off on these atrocities. They were all perfectly legal at the time.The same can be said of the killing of the Kurds under Saddam Hussein's regime. They were all done in accordance to law.
While I agree and respect Mr. Tong's sentiments, we must never forget that laws are and made to protect the status quo. Rattling the cage and showing we won't accept the status quo is the first step in initiating change.
My motto is: "We can do it either the easy way or the hard way. I would prefer to do it the easy way, but if I have to I will do it the hard way."--that should be the way of all men. Pray for Peace, prepare for War.
October 28th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Did you know that Dean Tong, who apparently assisted Darren Mack, lists disbarred fathers' rights attorney Barbara Johnson as a reference? This is especially interesting in light of Johnson's quote to the press, I believe in 2002:
"They'll disbar me, which is fine. I'll write my judicial murder mysteries," Johnson said. "I'm going to kill off a judge in the prologue of every one. It'll be like a Where's Waldo murder mystery, and I'll use real names for the judges."
October 30th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
However deplorable this man's criminal actions are, we will inevitably be seeing more and more of this as men's legitimate options grow fewer and fewer, and their frustration grows.
October 30th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Glenn, you seem to have tried and convicted Darren Mack without considering his defence. You may be correct, but it's not your place to do so, despite the brownie points you might hope to earn from your feminist detractors by being seen occasionally to criticize men unequivocally.
If what Darren Mack said is true then his actions against his ex-wife may be legitimate and moral self defence. What he then tried to do to the judge has little relevance to what may have happened with his wife. Possibly, Darren Mack is telling the truth about the deterioration in his state of mind after killing his wife. Possibly not.
One difference between Darren Mack's actions towards his ex-wife and many of the murders that women commit against men is that he did not attack her in the back while she was sleeping. The fact that he stabbed her in the neck whilst standing in front of her allows for the possibility that she was threatening him with a gun. It's up to a jury to become aware of all the evidence and to make a decision, not for anyone to pre-judge the case.
Further, regardless of how one weighs up the moral priorities involved in such matters, the "freedom fighter" argument deserves serious consideration. Laws seeking to protect women or otherwise to advance their interests at the expense of fairness towards men will paradoxically place more women at risk of violent reaction. Policies and laws that damage goodwill between separated couples will result in more hostility between partners and a corresponding increase in the number of extreme reactions. Routine denial by feminist interest groups of men's concerns, and routine deafness by government and Courts towards men's issues, will exacerbate social violence. Anti-terrorist measures largely serve to protect government against free speech and activism alike, and will result in greater build-up of many individuals' hopelessness and frustration that will instead be directed at fellow citizens.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:29 am
[...] first tried what I called the Mary Winkler defense, making the unlikely claim that he slashed his wife's throat in self-defense. How Mack [...]
February 12th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
[...] first tried what I called the Mary Winkler defense, making the unlikely claim that he slashed his wife's throat in self-defense. It [...]