Winkler Gets Kids Back; UK Law to Allow 'Women Who Kill in Cold Blood to Escape Murder Charge'
August 4th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
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
"));
19 queries. 0.688 seconds.
August 5th, 2008 at 12:44 am
For the past 14 years Amerika's mainstream domestic violence industry has been training judges, prosecutors, police and lawyers to excuse women's violence against men, and to ignore men's victimization at the hands of female batterers. I suspect we are going to see a lot more violence against men (by violent battering women), given how Amerika's corrupt, evil domestic violence laws strongly encourage that.
http://tinyurl.com/6ge6lr
August 5th, 2008 at 2:20 am
Value of a Father in America today.......2 months in psyco ward and 12 days in jail.
Kids are screwed. Lets pray they are never rude to her.
August 5th, 2008 at 2:22 am
P.S. Cant blame those liberal Californians for this one. Happened right here in Tennessee. :(
August 5th, 2008 at 4:39 am
That is a cute photo of the former family.
Do you suppose Winkler will keep it on the mantelpiece in her new home?
Maybe she learned Photoshop during her extended prison stay and can just cut the man she killed out of the picture?
August 5th, 2008 at 6:48 am
i don't believe her any more than i believe oj. her kids are probably safe. she got what she wanted and can now live the good life............independent and all.
August 5th, 2008 at 7:18 am
If we are going to address child abuse in a responsible manner, whether a killer is a male or a female, once you have taken another person's life, you should not be able to have children in your care. Even if it was self-defense (as "alleged"), she didn't report it to the authorities in a timely manner. This left her children open to witnessing repeated domestic abuse. That alone is a mark and a memory which can never be erased or forgotten by the children.
I still remember the videos and how blase this woman was about the severity of her actions when it first came out. She was cold and calculating, not caring and nurturing.
If you can't work in a school or daycare facility due to a felony record which includs bodily harm to another (regardless of circumstances), WHY should you be able to continue parenting?
These children were rescued from a terrible situation by their grandparents and raised by them for 2 years in a stable, nurturing environment. Why in heaven's name are they returning them to this woman? If she were a MALE, it wouldn't even be considered, much less condoned.
My guess is she is receiving benefits (or WILL be) for psych counseling and other services from a local agency who will "oversee" her progress. Money, money, money, and these children are the commodity (victims).
I can't help but wonder (and worry) about these children. I wonder what THEY think about going home to deadly Mommie Dearest, especially without a father to protect THEM from HER now. I can only imagine their inner fears, since only they know the real truth of the matter.
August 5th, 2008 at 8:19 am
My bet is that the kids will try and make a break for it and go back to live with their grandparents. The fact that they showed no interest in being raised by their father's killer yet were still forced to seems like the worst part.
August 5th, 2008 at 8:20 am
woman good man bad
This case can't make that any more vivid for you.
August 5th, 2008 at 8:21 am
What a horrible decision to place the Winkler children in the mother's care. This decision is indicative of how the American judicial system favors mothers over fathers. And it clearly demonstrates the need for judicial reform. It seems equality does not exist in matters concerning custody.
Judges almost always favor the mothers, even when they are cold-hearted killers. I feel so sorry for the children, as they must be terrified living with their father's murderer.
As a father being who's being alienated from my young son, I long for the day when fathers are treated with dignity and equality! Fathers are just as important as mothers.
August 5th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Wow. I cannot believe this murderer got custody. She should never have custody. In fact, she should still be in jail.
The fact that the oldest child does not have any memories of her father being abusive towards her mother speaks volumes.
I wonder...if she ends up harming her children in any way, can we hold the judge accountable?
August 5th, 2008 at 10:04 am
I just can’t believe this, I have no warrants or restraining orders against me and I still can’t see my children not even for visits, and I’m supposed to have partial custody of them. There is a huge wall around Washington that protects them from everything, nothing get’s in and nothing get’s out.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Lydia Lovric Says:
August 5th, 2008 at 9:09 am
I wonder...if she ends up harming her children in any way, can we hold the judge accountable?
___________________________________________________________________
One of the many problems with our court system is that you can't sue a judge for malpractice.
A judge can make a totally asinine decision, and you have to pay for an expensive appeal, if you can afford it. Judges are overly protected and they know it.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Judicial discretion is garbage. We need the rule of law equally applied to all. Do you respect this judge, or our courts? Judicial accountability is required.. Do you trust a lawyer when they wear a black robe?
August 5th, 2008 at 10:56 am
It is no surprise to me that she got custody. Moms can do no wrong in the eyes of family court judges. Even a murder conviction isn't enough of a red flag to keep the children out of a mother's "care". That's the most frustrating thing about biases (prejudices): they are based in deep-seated emotions, beliefs and stereptypes, not in logic, reason and evidence.
August 5th, 2008 at 11:17 am
It's a constant struggle to stay positive when you hear situations such as this continues to happen-Winklers. And it's not the first or will be the last. Women have been batterers for as long as men have. It's been the disgusting change in attitude that it's different when it's a woman, that it's not abuse, women cannot be as deadly as men. We have to continue to oppose and be pro-active about this ridiculous myth. My husband and I are in a situtation. The local authorities won't charge the biological mother of my step-daughters who doesn't have custody (my husband has full custody) with international kidnapping among other federal felonies she has committed. And that's exactly what she's done-She has, with the help of her parents, kidnapped my husband's two daughters to Ireland! This comes after 10 years of parental alienation and aggressive attacks on my husband both in front of the girls and in court. Luckily, my husband has a good attorney and won most of the battles during those 10 previous years (accusations of unfounded abuse, you name it) but the bias against men in court was a HUGE hurdle the entire time. The biological mother is only being charged with child custody-interference for internationally kidnapping two children! The maximum amount of time she could receive in jail would be 5 years. And based on this county's record, she won't get time in jail. The local authorities wouldn't even issue an AMBER Alert when she kidnapped them! She kidnapped them 4 years ago, we have spent every last penny we owned and could borrow to find our girls with very little help (if you can call it that) from the local authorities. We were told, "Well, they are safe. They are with their mother." !!!!!! For over a year, the local authorities wouldn't even turn the case over to the FBI even when the mother's car was found in Canada. Since we've found our girls, we've discovered they have been systematically brain-washed against my husband and I and their step-brothers and extended family. Other abuse is certainly evident as well. NOW, had it been my husband who took off with our girls, Boy! the whole world would be looking for him. He would be hung out to dry. And to make matters worse, Ireland sets the bad example to the rest of the world that a man with full custody of his children cannot get his children back. They are minors. And in the Irish court system, they do not allow the mere mention of parental alienation or brainwashing-the barristers could not even bring up any issues relating to these! The bias against men is even worse in Ireland. To hear the Irish judge say that he "recognized the U.S. legal custody document" which states my husband has full custody, we had to listen to him say that the girls would remain with their biological mother in Ireland and would not be returned to my husband and our family in the United States. The judge decided that this was in the best interest of my husband's daughters. So what that the biological mother committed an international kidnapping and entered Ireland illegally? And the biological mother admitted all this in court. My husband's life has been destroyed with the kidnapping of his two girls and we have to live with the Irish court's outrageous decision. And Emma and Katie...are they safe? They were taken from a dad who they had a close relationship with, two step-brothers, their step-mother, their grandparents, their extended family, their beloved pets, their best friends, their favorite teachers, their friends from girl scouts and sports, their neighborhood and home, and their country...No, they are not okay. And to live every day knowing they are in harm's way, is indescribable. There are so many men in situations such as my husband, here in the United States. But they are not so fortunate to have the financial means to get the help they need to defend themselves or to see their children. My heart goes out to them and I pray for them. My husband isn't a saint. He made some bad choices after the devastation of losing his girls. but he has taken responsiblility for them. Losing your precious children can make you make some stupid decisions and they'll follow him forever. But we've seen the the same bias towards women in dealing with these issues. My husband got labeled. The biological mother who kidnapped Emma and Katie...she really hasn't done anything wrong is the message we get from the local authorities. Why haven't they prosecuted her to the fullest degree like they would to a man? My ending note: My husband and I? We are lucky. The biological mother attacked me and her lunatic father shot a gun at us several times a few months before the mother kidnapped Emma and Katie. We lived. Mr. Winkler did not.
August 5th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Celeste Peterson Says:
August 5th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Celeste, Thanks for sharing your story. I'm sorry for your sad story but it is so nice to hear a woman speak the truth about parental alienation and the prejudicial U.S. family courts.
Again thanks for sharing and I pray you and your husband get back your two girls.
August 5th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Mrs. Peterson, how much publicity have you been able to generate on your case? Considering the recent Amber Alert with regard to the "Rockefeller" case, there might be enough "parental abduction" hype to carry some attention towards your cause.
August 5th, 2008 at 11:36 am
This is fuel folks. The next time someone has the nerve to whine that "men can get away with anything. its women that are the real victims." pull this out and then ask them how Mary Winkler was able to MURDER her husband in cold blood, run off with the children, and then tell a sob story about abuse to the world and get away scott AND get custody of the kids.
I really hope those kids grandparents kept pictures and remember stories about him because that is the only way they will get any truth about him as they get older.
August 5th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Meanwhile, in the UK, according to today's Daily Mail:
A woman whose web of lies culminated in her hiding her dead baby's body in the boot of her car was today given a suspended prison sentence.
Claire Jones' deception included concealing her pregnancy by another man from her partner, claiming to have cancer, giving birth in a toilet and concealing the baby's body, Cardiff Crown Court heard....
Today she collapsed in the dock as Judge John Curran sentenced her to 48 weeks in prison, suspended for two years."
Yes, who wouldn't break down when handed such a grueling sentence for such an innocent misdemeanor. Another victim of patriarchal injustice.
August 5th, 2008 at 11:53 am
This is an outrage. As several said above, if it had been a man that shot his wife, he would not have been released from jail so fast, first of all and then secondly would not have been given custody. This woman is probably the feminists' poster child. She obviously worked the system to her advantage.
What message does this send to all woman that are stupid enough to believe the feminists' lies? Don't like your man? Shoot him! You'll still get your kids...we'll help you. Do what's best for you..."best for the kids"...get rid of that man.
The husband is not here to defend himself. His wife silenced him. She could have gotten help, if he was truly abusing her. Instead she put herself in the place of judge, jury, and executioner.
What will she tell her kids when they ask, "where's daddy?". "gone"?? "But I saw you shoot him, Mommy...why did you do that?". "Because he was hurting me" "mommy, will you shoot me if I get angry???"
Unbelievable the message this is sending to all parents everywhere...don't like your kids father/mother? Kill them...then go for custody..it's accepted now.
August 5th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
We should be thankful that he was killed. Now she won't be able to steal his children and collect child support for the duration. In many cases the ex and the courts kill the man psychologically first, and then make him pay for the next 20 years in addition. This case just saved him from suicide.
It's too bad that she has had to go through so much psycholigical pain. The courts are obviously making it too difficult to kill husbands..
August 5th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I can't believe a judge would actually okay this. What judge in their right mind would allow this? Can someone request a psychological test on a judge?
August 5th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
If I lose a job and can't find another one fast enough to pay my child support, I loose my license, go to jail. I guess that makes me a felon and I'll have to serve more time than her. Hello!!! There's something wrong here.
August 5th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
There is one accient chinese proverb that the western men did not know,the proverb says "what is weak or soft always win what is hard"eg water and rock in the river,wind and tree etc. The same applies to western society the men will be screwed unless they stand up to all these nonsense.Some men in their own house are house boys been cowed by their wives and children,every body insults them wife ,children ,but in order to be the quote good father they die in silence.Well if the uk introduce legal killing well men should defend their lives,what i am seeing in the west is a low intensive civil war between the male and female ,and the female wants to win by tricks and cunny.If you live with somebody and you are abused leave ,get out .I FEEL SORRY FO MEN IN THE WEST THEY ARE THE MOST OPPRESED MEN IN THE WORLD AND ALSO THE MOST OPPRESED INDIVIDUALS IN THE WORLD TODAY.WHAT THEY SUFFER IS SILENT OPPRESSION,RANGING FROM DENIAL OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH THEIR KIDS AFTER DIVORCE,BEEN PUT OUT OF THEIR HOUSE BY THEIR WOMAN,BEEN KILLED BY THEIR WOMEN WHEN THEY FEEL LIKE,BEEN CHARGE OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT IF THEY LOOK AT THEIR WOMEN THAT ARE ALREADY DRESSING NAKARD.THEIR SALARY TAKEN IN THE NAME OF CHILD SUPPORT.IF MEN AND WOMEN ARE EQUAL ,WHY CAN TWO EQUAL ALDULTS TAKE CARE OF THEIR CHILDREN EQUALLY. WELL MEN OF THE WEST YOU DIGGED YOUR OWN GRAVE IT IS UP TO YOU TO CHANGE IT ,WHAT YOU HAVE NOW IS NOT WORKING IT IS AFFECTING EVERY BODY NEGATIVELY-CHILDREN ETC.AS FOR THE BRISTISH MEN SORRY ,YOU CAN BE KILLED ANY TIME --IF I AM A WOMAN IN BRITAIN AND HAVE A HUSBAND IF I AM CHEATING AND HE FINDS OUT I WILL KILL AND CLAIM ABUSE OF SLOW BURNING.ALL THSES LAW IN A VERY CORRUPT SOCIETY WILLWIPE OUT THE MEN. THE WESTERN WOMEN WANTS TO COW THEIR MALE COUNTER PART --IT IS UP TO YOU MALES .THANKS
MILO.
August 5th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
I agree Milo. We have dug our own grave.
But why are we on our own? Fifty years ago when women started challenging society stating it wasn't fair that they could only be housewives or elementary teachers, THOUSANDS of compassionate caring men helped out.
Now, that the tables are turned and it is men who are the underclass, you're saying we can expect no help from women.
Seen from this vantage point (and your acknowledgement that feminists laws hurt fathers, mothers, and children) maybe women should never have gotten the right to vote.
Fortunately for MRA's many women don't feel like you. The fatherhood movement is made up of almost 50% female membership. These are sisters, aunts, mothers, and second wives of non-custodial fathers who see the injustice men suffer though.
Thank god all women aren't like you that after getting a leg up from men, they're pulling the ladder up after them and saying "haha fooled you"!
August 5th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
HI,
I am not condoning murder or giving children back to someone who has killed another human being, but there are circumstances within this situation worth considering which can really only be fully understood if you ahve lived within an abusive situation:
1- What are the chances of a minister being convicted of abuse?
2- How long would that take, and would th spouse (and children) survive the length o f time that would take physically and emotionally?
3- ABUSE IS A FAMILY PATTERN. Those kids were with HIS parentsm who were thier abusive father's role monels.
The form of cyniical judgement and mass criticism of women on this website is NO different than the very phonomenon your so publicly demonize.
IT'S ABOUT WHAT IS TRULY BEST FOR THE CHILDREN THAT MATTERS. It will take years for the courts and the rest of the adults making the decisions to truly honor that.
IN THE MEANTIME, we need to get along and put the KIDS first.
An abusive situation is good for NO one. Period, and it is finally getting some press after hundreds of years of hiding in the shadows of humanity..and abusiveness is not mutually exclusive to gender.
Every situation is different even if there are similartites. Generalization and sensationalism just divide peopple further...but that is how the newsmakers, inluding our host, make their living.
There is a fine line between sharing news and manipulationg and inciting the public against a few...which inother form of abuse....remember Salem?
The media, including out host, are accountable for thier actions. Weall are, whether that becomes a reality now or later.
It's time to stop bickering and start working together. The next generation and thosse to follow are depending on us.
Abuse cannot be tolerated in any form or we are creating another generation of abusers and victims.
It is time to stp the madness...in enery sense of the word.
Anger can have the positive effect of inspiring change, but creating more to divide and distract from the REAL issue...providing the bet possible life for our children...is harmful.
Time for everyone to grow up and take responsibility for our actions, choices, and the results. When there are children, egos must take a back seat.
August 5th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Re: the previous post from SP..... Although I understand the spirit of yuour post, I would say that the chances of a minister being convicted of abuse are actually pretty high these days. We only have to look at recent stories from the Catholic chruch as examples. Though we cannot know what the real circumstances were in the Winkler household, we cannot assume that he was abusive just because she says he was. She could have come up with that "reason" for shooting him in the back as an excuse to try to avoid prison time.
As far as your other comnets, I generally agree with them. But it's because the courts DON'T put the kids first, and instead use gender stereotypes as an easy substitute to make easy decisions -- the efect of which trivializes ande marginalizes fathers -- that the Men's Rights movement came into existence. In my own case I DID put my kids first, but it didn't matter to the court. What mattered was the gender of the parents, and that was the thing that mattered.
August 5th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
So your telling me it's ok for woman to get away with murder and it's fair that men get longer jail time for doing less? COME ON NOW! Let's be real.
August 5th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
I've seen how the domestic violence industry portrays men as abusive to their wives or significant others. Their dv "Duluth Wheel of Power" is gender biased right from the start.
Now let's go further by comparing domestic violence against the children. The vast majority of dv perpetrated against children is committed by mothers. IF the child kills the mother in cold blood, do they get a free "get out of jail card?"
Now what about father's who are victimized by the court system? The gestapo police? They do not prosecute perjury in family law matters. Is it considered a victimless crime because it happens to fathers?
I thought that a criminal could not profit from their crime. Who get's the father's social security benefits for his children in the Winkler case? Unbelievable. Our judicial system is in disarray. There is no justice, just a woman's point of view "Just Us."
August 5th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Sad Dad,
NO, I specifically did NOT say that. That is your interpretation.
The DRAMA around all of this is clouding the real issues, which are what is best for the kids, regardless of gender.
Abuse is NOT Ok no matter who perpetrated it.
Reactionary behavior and manipulation by ANYONE is harmful and is misuse of power.
We are human, this is not a perfct world, and the only thing that will change it is if we all get out of our egos, get clear, leave the past behind and focus on what is best for our kids NOW.
There is descrimiation the other way too.
In court, all that matters is who looks good (whether they are lying or not often matters not) whose attorney can manipulate the circumstances to thier advnatage best, and satisfying the court's latest "formula" for familial bliss and how fast is can be met to get the case off thier desk.
There is no one answer. Each situation is different. The courts do not have the capacity to honor that fully and never will.
Putting ego aside is step #1...and it seems to be the hardest becuase that requires us to step out of victimhood, us-them roles and take full responsibility for ourselves, our choices, and the outcomes of those choices.
I think our culture is just beginning to grow out of a "spiritual-emotional adolescence" in a culture that has offered us the ability to be so comfortable in so many ways we have not HAD to be fully responsible for ourselves, much less the next generation.
Being human isn't always easy, but it is fascinating...especially when we can get over ourselves, get out of our heads, and stop blaming everyone else for what we've helped create.
Father's right, Mother's rights...it's all devisive. It's time to llove our kids enough to move on to higher ground.
August 5th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Winkler did serve more than 12 days in jail--about five months while awaiting trial--however that small amount of time for the crime committed was a joke.
I live in the area where this occurred and, while a reporter for a local paper, covered 3 other cases involving women shooting husbands--one exactly like the Winkler case, wherein the woman shot the man with a .45 pistol while he slept. She got 16 years, as did another woman who stuck a .38 in her husband's ear as he stood at the sink eating spaghetti out of a bowl and blew his brains out; she did tell him "I love you" before pulling the trigger, however.
The third shot her husband in the stomach at point-blank range with a .12 gauge shotgun and she received a one-year sentence. I was amazed by that conviction, because the woman was a mass of bruises and injuries when arrested and there was a long history of abuse on the part of the man.
In any case, all this makes me glad I'm divorced and plan to stay that way.
August 5th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
The DRAMA around all of this is clouding the real issues, which are what is best for the kids, regardless of gender.
And forcing these girls to live with a woman they fear and have nightmares when they are forced to visit is "what's best for the kids, regardless of gender"?
Sorry, that old con job is bankrupt. Women now have a license to kill anyone they want anytime they want. It's hard to see how that is "best for the kids, regardless of gender", but easy to see how that is "best for the women, regardless of how it affects anyone else."
Anyone who justifies the destruction of adults because it is "what's best for the kids" is a monster of the first magnitude.
Hey, I know a kid who needs a liver transplant - yours. I'm sure you would agree that it is just fine to harvest your organs any time we please because "it is best for the kids, regardless of gender."
August 5th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
What a damned shame!!!
August 5th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Aol has a post but like many of their votes it is slanted one of them has a i am unsure vote added to keep people from voting no. Take a look at their aol.com page and vote your opinion on this one.
August 5th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
It is reall clear that this is a place to vent, incite, and bash, not for productive, progressive conversation to heal an issue that truly has as much potential to to harm as good.
Hope we can all get out of the anger and move on some day.
Best to all of you,
I'm back to caring for my kids...
...Btw...I am a man.
August 5th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I have been following this case for some time now, and I have to wonder what kind of idiot judge would hand down a measly sentence that is so not even a slap on the hand for murder. It is outrageous and then on top of that cake is the icing, she gets the kids back from their grandparents. Outrageous!! Sick society this is that does not punish women for the same crime that would lead to life long incarceration if done by a man. It makes a person want to throw up just looking at her in the media playing the "poor abused wife, lets let her off with nothing'' card. Poor abused wife my foot. Insane, yes, abused, not by a long shot. UGH! Those kids have to live with the knowledge that their mother committed murder so she wouldn't have to confess to check kiting. Good God, what if the kids should do something wrong and they don't want her to find out because she could easily dispose of them just as callously as she did their father. This woman makes me ill and the fact that she got away with it makes my blood boil with rage at the insanity of the system that allowed this.
August 5th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
SP: Father's right, Mother's rights...it's all devisive. It's time to llove our kids enough to move on to higher ground.
Can someone love their children and support fathers' rights?
In a non-binding referendum 85% of voters support a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting.
Maybe fathers' rights is only divisive for just a few people, who wish to protect the status quo to the detriment of our children.
August 5th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Why any man in America would get married and have children is beyond my comprehension. Why not just shoot yourself in the head instead?
August 5th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
_____________________________________________________________
SP Says:
August 5th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
It is reall clear that this is a place to vent, incite, and bash, not for productive, progressive conversation to heal an issue that truly has as much potential to to harm as good.
Hope we can all get out of the anger and move on some day.
Best to all of you,
I'm back to caring for my kids......Btw...I am a man."
__________________________________________________________
Easy for some to say...."I'm back to caring for my kids." BRAGGERT
What about those that are DISCRIMINATED AGAINST based on their gender, because of this discrimination their child is alienated from them?
The same bias that you see here in this story, or teachers abusing their students, women get a free pass. Maybe not in your town, but it is evident in mine.
Your statement about doing as much harm as good, the same can be said for the status quo.
It's fathertime
August 5th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
I wonder if SP's kids were taken from him (if it is really a him) and he had to spend tens of thousands of dollars and years to prove that not only he is a good parent, but that he is hugely a better choice of parent, if he would feel the same way. I really doubt he would say that the entire process only has the "Childs Best Interest" at heart. If it were in the child's best interest then shared parenting would be presumed and would be enacted temporarily while divorce cases were proceeding, not automatically giving the woman custody (and child support) until something short of a miracle were to happen and it might be changed by the end of the case.
August 5th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
I can't remember all the details of this case, but are the parents of the murdered husband suing the murdering ex-daughter-in-law in civil court for wrongfull death? Maybe they can get up enough money from that to return to court to fight for those poor kids.
August 5th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
"if it is really a him"
I don't think it is. The phrasing and concepts sound far too feminized. I have heard few men in my life talk or write like that.
Of course, I'm 9 feet tall and an absolutely stunning shade of chartreuse. Words on a screen do not reality make.
August 5th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
So when's her next speaking engagement? The position she's in could be a potential gold mine.
August 6th, 2008 at 12:16 am
SP - your back is what we are discussing. The guy who died had his back to his wife and kids and she shot him. You might want to wear a bullet proof vest from now on. 12 days in jail is all your wife would get for taking you out. You don't have a problem with that? And I really don't believe you're a man either.
I wonder if VAWA supplied a free attorney for the woman?
August 6th, 2008 at 1:17 am
BTW, I am a man who did get full custody of my daughter after a very lengthy and costly court farce (she was found in multiple contempts, had a psych testify that she shouldn't have custody after evaluating both of us, stacks of police reports, etc, etc). I now have to hear from my 3 year old (she is very advanced for her age, was talking sentences at like 14 months) when she comes home from visitation "daddy, mommy says when she is in charge again I won't get to see gramsy (my mom) any more" or one of my other favorites "mommy said the judge won't let me bring "fill in toy name here" with me from mommy's to show you", or one time in tears "mommy said she is going to get me a new daddy". There are a whole string of items like that. She even convinced my daughter that all the flowers my fiancé and my daughter planted in our yard were planted by her "when she lived here with daddy". This was after my daughter was all excited trying to show them to her when she came for her visitation one day. I think from some of the above it is clear to see that it was in my daughters best interest to give custody to the sane parent. I only hope she doesn't need much therapy after her visitations with her mother as she gets older. I would only hope that if she decides to blow me away some day when I answer the door that my parents and my fiancé would get custody and not her (my lawyer actually had that happen to a client of theirs on Christmas day when going to pick up his kid).
August 6th, 2008 at 1:17 am
I think the Winkler case says all there need to be said about what's wrong with Family law nationwide. It's totally broken and a form of judicial 'Marshall Law" needs to be enacted till the problem is corrected.
August 6th, 2008 at 1:41 am
We need one unified front for men's issues on this subject. It seems like there are way too many smaller organizations out there. One strong not for profit and then we need to throw absolutely tons of money at it to get it to where the NRA is today for gun issues and get on tv and in the press and lobbying politicians, we need ads running on tv telling people where the candidates stand on these issues (all the way down to the judge level). We need to counter all the bad education all the men hating groups has been giving to the police and the court systems. First and foremost we need men and the women that love them that haven't gone through this to see what could happen to good fathers out there. Before I was involved in this whole mess of the family court system I had no idea it was this bad. I think most men that have never experienced it are uneducated on the subject and chivalry would dictate them to say "I think there should be stronger laws for women because of all the wife-beaters out there", when in reality I think they don't realize that a very large percentage of those accused are completely innocent. When I forward stuff like this to my friends (male and female) now adays they are shocked especially knowing what I went through they look at things a lot differently now. My fiancé is a lawyer (go figure) and use to be a strong advocate of womens rights when I met her, but she sees what I went through (she was with me through the last year or so of the court stuff) and how the system is biased and has come around to see there needs to be change (we still get into heated arguments now and then since all on my data is usually just about men getting wronged, but it isn't as bad as it use to be, she's a lawyer, she doesn't like to be proved wrong).
August 6th, 2008 at 3:25 am
Scott,
Piece of free advice - People who don't fixate on men's issues or women's issues (like your fiance) will be able to move to help those in need, rather than help those that belong to a particular class. When one fixates on a class suffering, you end up trivializing the pain of others, the anger of your fiance is an exact mirror of what you feel. So try and be the way you would like her to be about your issues (forget men's issues).
The only front men need to hold is not jumping at each other's throats in order to be chivalrous and jump to conclusions before getting facts in any matter. If men do that, it should be enough.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:10 am
Pankaj,
There is no anger on her part, you missed my point, she just use to feel strongly the other way and now she can see what is really going on in family law (not her area of practice). We have some interesting debates here and there (she's a lawyer, they get paid to argue). She was like most of the uninformed public out there that doesn't realize how biased the system is until they are thrust into it (she helped write some of the later motions in my case, she gets it now). I agree with you to a point that It would be nice if there needent be anyone biased on either side (in a perfect world aren't judges supposed to be unbiased?), but as long as most police stations have little pamphlets telling women that if they don't get their way or their husband/boyfriend disagrees with them some of the time that it is most likely domestic violence ("domestic violence may not be physical") and they should immediately file a restraining order and bring charges, we need those that are going to be extreme on the other side looking out for men. (I have yet to see one brochure in police stations/courtroom waiting areas entitled "Falsely accused of domestic violence, we are here to help you with free legal aid, government money and protection from the laws that should apply to everyone" ). I think the uninformed public should be made aware of the laws out there that basically suggest to men that they should stay away from women at all costs or live (or die) by the wrath of a woman scorned and the legal system that is there to make sure she gets her way regardless of who it might hurt or regardless if any of it is the truth or not. We now have a society that feels it is better to jail or murder or strip a man of his kids because we wouldn't want to call a woman a lier so as to not stifle that one in 100 or 1000 or whatever it is that actually needs the system to be on her side. If and when the legal system can rid themselves of all these sexually biased laws, I blame these radical womens rights groups for every woman that actually needs help and can't get it because of the boy that cried wolf syndrom.
I am not really sure how your plan of not doing anything is going to help exactly, please enlighten me. "Forget men's issues" ???? Why are you on this site exactly?? As for jumping to conclusions before getting all the facts, are you talking of the Winkler case? Please enlighten us of the facts (with proof) that we are missing.
August 6th, 2008 at 11:20 am
To SP: there was absolutely no proof that the Pastor abused his wife, outside of her word. Her own daughter testified against her. Ms. Winkler's histrionics and narcissistic sociopathic behavior, along with a very women friendly jury, got her off. Had it been a man, he would on death row. I need not tell a mouth breathing slack jawed wingnut like you that the law is typically predisposed in a woman's favor. Ms. Winkler's claim of abuse was that her husband had her wear slutty clothes and high heels before they had sex. Well, sounds like fun to me and to most women, not abuse. Before you open your hole and spew bile please do some research and get your facts straight. Obviously, SP, you are a woman.
August 6th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Compare and contrast the Mary Winkler case to that of Maria Lauterbach, a woman who it has been alleged has a history of lying and may have made a false accusation of rape (a form of abuse).
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/10/missing.marine/
Why is Mary Winkler supposed to be a batered woman "justified" in killing her spouse over the most frivilous of abuse excuses "he made me wear high heels"? Why is the killer of Maria Lauterbach not treated the same way as Mary Winkler, or looking at it another way, why is Mary Winkler not treated like Maria Lauterbach's killer???
The glarring misandry in Amerika stinks to high heaven.
A poster on the Stand Your Ground website has sent a letter to a local Midwest area paper regarding the Maria Lauterbach case, and also posted this at SYG (worrying about his own safety in the Midwest):
http://standyourground.com/forums/index.php?topic=16347.0
"Add in the recent letters from the local DV shelters claiming all the usual BS about how men are abusive, women only hit to defend themselves and the rest and you get a perfect climate for threats from people. Also in this areas Marie Lauterbach has been raised to the level of a martyr and saint by the local media..."
August 6th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
This case prove beyond a shadow of a doubt men are nothing more than a piece of meat for the sausage machine of misandry.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
These following comments would likely, I'm guessing, be appreciated by very few except the frequent blogger "menscollegeactivist." I'd like to reproduce the most succinct point I'm about to make in every blog category but afraid that this point will be lost.
Much of the blogging generated by the stories Glenn Sacks writes about here in this web-site is very good in not only that no such concentrated discussion existed before Glenn's site but also in that many who write in are informed to the moment. Prior to this web-site I'm aware of a few civil gender and men's issue sites. Attention to the sickening plight of the legacy of feminism was limited somewhat to men's group associations and those of us lucky enough to find those of kindred intellect and observation - random chance.
But here is my main point - much of the stories that we read and comment on are reactions to what passes for the ordinary in our culture today. What passes as the ordinary today has had its genesis from mainly "women's" studies programming. That so much propaganda has gone on for so long without as much as any type of rigorous examination is truly astounding. Huge amounts of publicly generated money has been sunk into a belief system where most of its central tenents has never been verified as factual and falls apart in a MRA web-site from comments by ordinary people.
Then bring in the chivalrous and mostly male politicians who believe that they are serving all of womankind and the rest of society by promoting into policy and law claims made by a minority group whose belief system is virtually built on a house of cards and not even subject to scrutiny.
How can a feminist advocasy movement claim to demand equality for women to men when these advocates know so little about the state and condition of men? The findings of all of this advocasy has not yet been properly verified nor produced equality between the sexes. And we go along with it as though what gets spoken about in numerous and sheltered women studies environments were true. This unexamined advocasy has resulted in a blind faith (non)reality where the common man is shouldering a demise that he never asked for. Challenge the findings of and cut off the funding to the base of this hydra. This is part of the root of the problems being written about here.
The good news is that many a contributor to these blog discussions are providing the challenge.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Oh, look somebody else likes the idea of just killing the guy this time with a shot right in the middle of his forehead while he was at the park with his kids. I think they charged her with SECOND? degree murder probably drop that to manslaughter 12 days in jail and her kids by christmas. What do you guys think?
http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080804/NEWS01/808040383
August 6th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
The marriages between men and woman have become degrading, unequal, and unfair to men.
August 6th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
SP, we can agree to disagree, but i believe you are condoning murder. All hysteria aside, she killed her husband while he was sleeping, so he wouldn't find out about hjer check writing scheme.
All men with finacially irresponsible wifes should really pay attention to whats going on here.
August 6th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Jorge,
"The marriages between men and woman have become degrading, unequal, and unfair to men."
That's because in a lot of cases men have lost their masculinity, instead they are listening to society tell us we should all be sensitive to our wives needs and forget about our own.
August 6th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
menscollegeactivist:
Well first off I still want to know why people believe in joint accounts?
August 7th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
SP:
1- What are the chances of a minister being convicted of abuse?
2- How long would that take, and would th spouse (and children) survive the length o f time that would take physically and emotionally?
3- ABUSE IS A FAMILY PATTERN. Those kids were with HIS parentsm who were thier abusive father's role monels.
1. It is certainly possible that he was abusing her. But low and behold we'll never know because the only side of the story people will ever get it hers.
2. I'm not sure what you're asking here but it seems like you're asking how long could the spouse and children could put up with such abuse. Please clarify.
3. You're right but the problem is the only reason abuse is even in this mix is because Mary, the only person who can talk about what happened, said so.
HI,
I am not condoning murder or giving children back to someone who has killed another human being, but there are circumstances within this situation worth considering which can really only be fully understood if you ahve lived within an abusive situation:
Yeah but unless someone knows the art of resurrection we will never fully understand what happened.
The form of cyniical judgement and mass criticism of women on this website is NO different than the very phonomenon your so publicly demonize.
True. But since the people here are by no means the only ones that do it that mean you will write everyone that does it?
IT'S ABOUT WHAT IS TRULY BEST FOR THE CHILDREN THAT MATTERS. It will take years for the courts and the rest of the adults making the decisions to truly honor that.
IN THE MEANTIME, we need to get along and put the KIDS first.
An abusive situation is good for NO one. Period, and it is finally getting some press after hundreds of years of hiding in the shadows of humanity..and abusiveness is not mutually exclusive to gender.
Every situation is different even if there are similartites. Generalization and sensationalism just divide peopple further...but that is how the newsmakers, inluding our host, make their living.
There is a fine line between sharing news and manipulationg and inciting the public against a few...which inother form of abuse....remember Salem?
The media, including out host, are accountable for thier actions. Weall are, whether that becomes a reality now or later.
It's time to stop bickering and start working together. The next generation and thosse to follow are depending on us.
Abuse cannot be tolerated in any form or we are creating another generation of abusers and victims.
It is time to stp the madness...in enery sense of the word.
Anger can have the positive effect of inspiring change, but creating more to divide and distract from the REAL issue...providing the bet possible life for our children...is harmful.
Time for everyone to grow up and take responsibility for our actions, choices, and the results. When there are children, egos must take a back seat.
True.
You are speaking some good sense there but two things.
1. You are assuming that the abuse is true. It may very well be true but answer me this: What do most people say when a man kills a woman in a fit of anger and then tries to claim that she made him do it? But for some odd reason we have a case in which a woman killed her husband in cold blood and then told everyone she was abused (complete with a sob story on Oprah). And I notice that not a lot of effort was put into investigating her abuse claims.
2. This woman shot him in the back when he was sleep. Its not like they were fighting and the gun went off or he was about to attack her and she got him before he got her (I would condone her killing him under those two scenarios).
Oh and one more:
3. If the safety of the kids is so important then why isn't anyone else talking about the fact that those children were swept away in the night by the person that killed their dad in cold blood (and didn't she still have the weapon when she fled)? And not only that but this same woman has just been awarded custody. But no one is talking about that and I dare you to find me a single feminist source that talks about this case in any other way than, "He was abusive so she was justified in killing him." And I double dare you to find a feminist source that has talked about it since the start of her "trial".
James:
I wonder if VAWA supplied a free attorney for the woman?
James she was on Oprah so I would not be surprise if she paid for it. But either way I'll bet Mary didn't pay a bit out of pocket.
SP:
It is reall clear that this is a place to vent, incite, and bash, not for productive, progressive conversation to heal an issue that truly has as much potential to to harm as good.
Hope we can all get out of the anger and move on some day.
Best to all of you,
Yes there is venting, incitation, and bashing but if you think that is all that happens here then either you need to read some more of this site you can save us all a lot of trouble and leave. I would prefer you read some more of the site.
I hope we can too.
I'm back to caring for my kids...
...Btw...I am a man.
You sound like a woman that would think that just because she hasn't been raped that women who are only have themselves to blame. I'm not a feminists and even I know that bull. Don't tell you're one of those people that thinks just because has custody that every man that doesn't only has himself to blame.
But of course don't listen to me. Just ask the men here who drained their fortunes to get at least visitation (custody is very rare) just to have a vindictive woman do everything in her power to make sure he never sees his kids again. And I'm pretty sure there are a few women here who are married to men in that position, giving them a front row seat to the pain and anguish he feels.
August 28th, 2008 at 8:10 am
Hello my friend, your site is very good! http://efrdkndehy.com
November 2nd, 2008 at 12:15 am
Thank you for your website :)
I made with photoshop backgrounds for myspace,youtube and ect..
my backgrounds:http://tinyurl.com/5b8ksl
have a great day and thank you again!
March 15th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
I don't normally comment on blogs but your post was a real call to action. Thank you for a great read, I will be sure to bookmark your site and check in now and again. Cheers, Amy xXx.
April 15th, 2009 at 8:48 am
Hey, cool tips. Perhaps I'll buy a bottle of beer to the person from that chat who told me to go to your blog :)