Glenn's E-Newsletter/Week in Review, August 5, 2008

Mary Winkler--who shot her husband in the back and then refused to aid him or call 911 as he slowly bled to death for 20 minutes--walked away a free woman last year after serving a farcically brief "sentence" for her crimes.

Mary Winkler’s claims of abuse were largely uncorroborated during the trial. According to the testimony from Matthew Winkler's oldest daughter, Patricia, the dead father--who as he lay dying looked at his wife and asked "why?"--was a good man and did not abuse her mother.

Mary Winkler has been in a custody battle with Matthew Winkler's parents, who have been raising the three girls since the murder. The Winklers sought to terminate Mary Winkler's parental rights and adopt the girls, a position I've supported.

Mary Winkler was granted supervised visits with her daughters last year. Now, sadly, she has gained back custody of the three girls, which is clearly not in the girls' best interests.

Last year Dan Winkler said, "These young ladies have not expressed any desire to be with their mother or her family,” but he and wife Diane have now ceded custody, knowing that continuing their legal battle to protect the girls would in the end be unsuccessful. A judge has approved the custody transfer. 

I laid out the case against custody for Winkler last year in my co-authored column No child custody for husband-killer Mary Winkler (World Net Daily, 9/14/07):

In describing her crime to Oprah, Mary 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.” Her description of the killing was so devoid of personal responsibility that even a sympathetic Oprah didn’t accept it.

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.” It was up to feminist Court TV commentator Lisa Bloom, Gloria Allred’s daughter, to explain 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.  Bloom added:

“We [at Court TV] all thought it was a first degree murder case."

In order to win permanent custody, Dan and Diane Winkler must show that Mary Winkler poses a “substantial threat of harm to her children,” and that ending her parental rights is in the best interests of her children. In family court, claims of abuse in custody cases are often decided merely by the preponderance of the evidence standard—if the judge believes that there’s a 51% chance one side is telling the truth, they win. Yet Mary was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter, not by preponderance, nor even by the clear and convincing evidence standard, but instead by the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt--the highest standard in our legal system. That alone is sufficient evidence that Winkler poses a “substantial threat of harm.”

Mary says she’s a different and better person now, and that she’s learned important things. She told Oprah:

“I communicate better. I speak up when there’s something I don’t like.”

The last time Mary Winkler faced something she "didn’t like” and sought to “communicate,” she did it with a shotgun. Is this a fit parent for three young girls?

On a related note, many of you have written to me about the new English law proposal which will make it easier for allegedly abused women who plan the murders of their husbands to defend themselves legally. I discussed the proposals and the general issue of domestic violence on the BBC last week. According to the Daily Mail:

Women who kill abusive partners in cold blood could escape a murder conviction if they prove they feared more violence.  Under a major government review, they will be punished for the lesser offence of manslaughter, sparing them a mandatory life sentence.  They must establish only that they were responding to a 'slow burn' of abuse...

Women's groups had long campaigned for changes to the law to protect victims of domestic violence who hit back in desperation.

But the proposed new partial defence for killers who feel 'seriously wronged' by 'words and conduct' took experts completely by surprise.

Robert Whelan of the Civitas think-tank accused Ministers of introducing 'gang law' into the legal system.

He said: 'To take someone's life because they say something that offends you is the law of gang culture.

'Are we really going to introduce into our criminal justice system that it is a defence to say, "I was insulted"?'

Some of the other stories I've been covering this week include:

'Being Single Sucks and So Do Men'

Rockefeller Kidnapping Case--What Else Bears Mention

Actress Keira Knightly Takes Stand Against Digital Enhancement

New Jersey Judges Told: Issue the Restraining Order or Else

Feminists Are Right about Beer Ad

Another Way to Get Money out of Men--If They Break Up with You, Sue

Teen Boy Dives off of Bridge to Save Woman's Life

Doug Slain: 'We're losing teacher-student bonding in the name of fighting sexual abuse'

A Surprising 'Idiot Spouse' TV Ad

Law Journal: Fathers' Rights Movement Has Spurred Dads to Fight for Family Leave

'Why do men act like such kids when they're told something they don't want to hear?'

To comment on what I've written or to join the lively discussion on my website, simply click on the "comments" link below each blog post on my website.

Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks
www.GlennSacks.com 

This entry was posted on Monday, August 4th, 2008 at 11:10 pm and is filed under E-Newsletters. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.