Friday, June 08, 2007

What--210 Whole Days in Jail just for Murder?

I just saw on the news that Mary Winkler, who was accused of killing her husband, Matthew, was given a sentence by the judge of only 210 days, 60 of which can be spent in a mental facility:

Selmer, Tennessee (WVLT) Knoxville native Mary Winkler will go to jail in connection with the killing of her minister husband.

A judge sentenced Winkler to three years of split confinement in connection with the shotgun slaying of her husband in March of 2006.

Of that, she’s been ordered to serve 210 days in jail.

Up to 60 days can be served in a mental health care facility.

The judge ruled she will get credit for time served, and Winkler will begin serving her sentence immediately.

She was taken into custody at the conclusion of the hearing.

The judge denied Winkler's defense attorney's request that she be granted judicial diversion on her conviction of voluntary manslaughter

Attorney Leslie Ballin told the judge during testimony today that, "If (Mary's) not divertable, who is?"

Uhh, how about someone who didn't kill her husband in cold blood? Unbelievably, in the news story I watched--her old Knoxville neighbors were being interviewed and all shown were "supportive" of Mary--one woman even wanted her let out on probation and a man stated that he didn't question the legal system in such cases. Well, I sure do. There is a poll over at Volunteer TV asking readers if 210 days is an appropriate length of time for Ms. Winkler to spend in jail--and for reader thoughts--go over and let them know what you think, I sure will.

Update: Trudy W. Schuett has some thoughts on the Winkler case over at Dean's World.

I also have a question for any of my readers out there who are lawyers or criminologists. Since Mary Winkler's charge was lessened to voluntary manslaughter, does this get registered in the homicide statistics as a female on male homicide or is it dropped from the stats altogether?


Blogger Don Surber said...

Good post. This double standard on spousal abuse needs to be addressed.

6:52 PM, June 08, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not only no, but hell no.

6:52 PM, June 08, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A man who shot his wife wouldn't get this kind of love-tap sentence, no matter what kind of abuse he claimed.

6:53 PM, June 08, 2007  
Blogger Crimso said...

Was there ever any evidence (other than her claims) that she was abused? If not, how can a jury take her word for it? Doesn't she have every reason in the world to lie about it? Simply unbelievable.

6:58 PM, June 08, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What if the circumstances were reversed? What if the husband had shot the wife - claiming abuse? What kind of hoops would he have to jump through to try and convince the world this was the only way to handle the problem?

Can you imagine the outrage - the headlines - the calls for the judge to resign! So, it's okay for a woman to kill her husband with the "poor little me" defense. That's the message the judge has sent. Even with all the numerous groups out there willing to help abused wives get away from their husbands and protect them... it's okay for her to decide he needs to die. What a complete crock.

Let's just make murder legal for women then we don't have to go through the farce of a trial. This wasn't even self-defense (which I could understand)... he was asleep. Guys, you're SOL.

7:01 PM, June 08, 2007  
Blogger Helen said...


Even Winkler's 9 year old daughter testified that she did not see any abuse and that her father was a good man:

I guess women are the new nobility, anything they say is believed and they can, literally get away with murder. It is sick.

7:04 PM, June 08, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How many people did Libby kill?

7:06 PM, June 08, 2007  
Blogger Crimso said...

I was actually considering showing my wife how to operate my shotgun, but not now. I'm not joking nor am I implying I'm afraid my wife would shoot me. I simply will not afford anyone the opportunity to murder me and get away with it, regardless of who it is.

7:10 PM, June 08, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Any man considering marriage, no matter how much in love he is today, should spend a week sitting in the back row in divorce court first.

Libby had more than one wife?

7:15 PM, June 08, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But don't you people understand? Women are kinder, gentler cold-blooded killers.

I mean really, someone should bake her a cake after her ordeal

7:24 PM, June 08, 2007  
Blogger SGT Ted said...

The comments made by the people that are supporting her make me think of people buffaloed by a highly charismatic sociopath

7:26 PM, June 08, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's even more amazing is how supportive the people of her community have been of Mary Winkler. Her current boss calls her a trusted employee and she's been living with a family that opened their home to take her in. Either there's more to this story (and the people in that town know it) or they are incredibly naive and trusting people.

7:31 PM, June 08, 2007  
Blogger GeorgeH said...

I just can't get exercised over the killing of a spouse.

Unless she had a psychotic break, in which case she is genuinely insane, he had to know what was coming, or be too stupid to live.

I mean, you married the person, you lived with them, so either you were either suicidal or you were stupid.
Stupidity has always been a capital crime.

7:34 PM, June 08, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My husband sent me this email......

"Mary Winkler only got 3 years in jail. My sister's divorce hassles lasted longer. Have mentioned again I love how you walk, cook, ...... And you can forget about the wig and high heals."

7:37 PM, June 08, 2007  
Blogger Danny said...

I wonder how so many stupid people get to become Judges in Criminal Courts?

7:41 PM, June 08, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

She wasn't convicted of murder, she was convicted of voluntary manslaughter.

The question that's most interesting that no one seems to bring up is why is it that when one parent violently kills or assaults the other that CPS doesn't get involved? The paternal grandparents are fighting her for custody. It should be the state.

There are cases in North Carolina in which the husband is convicted of murder of the mother and those with custody of the children are court-ordered to take the children to prison to visit the father.

What is the deal with that?

8:03 PM, June 08, 2007  
Blogger Crimso said...

Oh, I don't necessarily have a problem with the sentence she got. I just think she was convicted of the wrong crime. I didn't sit through the trial, but from the coverage I've seen (and I'm more or less local) I don't understand why she wasn't convicted of murder.

8:09 PM, June 08, 2007  
Blogger DADvocate said...

The feminists have done an excellent job of indoctrinating people that it is OK for wives to kill husbands (and their children). But, let a man leer at his own wife or raise his voice and he's a monster.

Guys, watch "The Burning Bed" while repeating to yourselves, "That could be me, that could be me." Once your dead there's no one to refute your wife's claims of abuse, etc.

8:17 PM, June 08, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stone said:

Women are kinder, gentler cold-blooded killers.

Put that on a t-shirt!

8:37 PM, June 08, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When I read your post and got the news it was like a punch in the stomach. I can only hope that there will be enough outrage about this injustice that it serves as a time where the tide turns toward reasonable sentencing and requiring proof in court.

I just typed "requiring proof in court." God help us.


8:37 PM, June 08, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I suspect there was more to this than what has been made public.
I think it was in the best interest of Mr. Winkler's parents to let this case rest as is. Give Mary Winkler back her children when this time she has to serve comes to an end.

8:55 PM, June 08, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah, one of the useful idiots (or trolls) has arrived. Never takes long after an instalanched post.

9:04 PM, June 08, 2007  
Blogger Crimso said...

"I suspect there was more to this than what has been made public"

And I'm sure there is not. If there were, her defense team would have used it in court, rather than hoping that a small town jury would be horrified enough at the sight of the boots and wig to assume that she wasn't lying about being abused. Again, I have seen no proof other than her testimony to support her allegations of abuse. She had every reason in the world to lie, and the jury should have had every reason in the world to assume she was lying.

9:06 PM, June 08, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, the sent Paris back to the slammer. Hope springs eternal...

9:19 PM, June 08, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wouldn't assume that people in that area are so naive. This was once the domain of the late Sheriff Buford Pusser and there are still some mighty tough people about. So don't get all superior.

9:33 PM, June 08, 2007  
Blogger Crimso said...

If that comment was directed at me, Red Paul, understand that I live in a small town in southern Middle Tennessee. I know whereof I speak, and it's certainly not from a standpoint of superiority, but rather familiarity (and not the sort that breeds contempt).

9:38 PM, June 08, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


any chance the Instahubby can weigh in on this one?

Can he get more info on it, or at least comment that on the basis of any privileged info he might be party to, that the result seems reasonable?

9:45 PM, June 08, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One other thing...

@ SGT Ted

"The comments made by the people that are supporting her make me think of people buffaloed by a highly charismatic sociopath"

I don't know about that. If you hadn't had your military training and you knew someone like this was going to be out in just a few months and you knew your comments would be widely reported, wouldn't you be tempted to, shall we say, 'er on the side of caution?'

9:56 PM, June 08, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There might be some small emotional difficulties in giving children back to the custody of the mother that they saw murder their father.

Could be.


10:00 PM, June 08, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thought this story might be of interest:

Girl gets 2 ½ years for killing father

Previous Discussion was here:

10:11 PM, June 08, 2007  
Blogger Synova said...

I tend to the opinion that if one finds it necessary to kill someone that the reason has to be worth doing the time.

That said, I find it interesting that everyone seems to be convinced that this lady woke up one morning and decided to shoot a loving man.

I'm also inclined to get on the case of anyone who gets all anti-Christian and goes on about how abusive the whole faith is, but it's true that abusive people exist within it. Without knowing the facts of any testimony given it seems horribly possible to me that a controlling individual would chose a vocation of being able to control, not just his immediate family, but his church congregation. Is the denomination one that emphasizes the authority of the pastor? (I've known people who had to ask permission for any number of normal life decisions.)

Cults, after all, aren't about wacked doctrine nearly as much as they are about control.

Leave the church and you're quite effectively shunned and emotionally punished for it. Leave the pastor, and he's *ruined*. He knows it too. His whole career, his vocation and calling from God is *over*. So if she ever acted like she was unhappy or considering leaving... what did he do?

As hard as it is for any abused woman to leave her abuser, if her *entire* support network is his domain, how much harder would it be to leave?

I doubt, greatly, that the fine citizens of her hick little town are feminist fire-brands wanting any excuse to blame men. But they might be a little bit in tune with the reality of what options were available to her in her pastor's wife reality. Maybe they feel guilty for contributing to it.

That said... if she had to kill him, she should expect to do the time required.

10:18 PM, June 08, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The AP story included the fact that prosecutors alleged that Mary Winkler was kiting checks because she got caught in some scam, and bank managers were catching up to her. They said she may have killed her husband because he was about to find out she'd lost all their money in a scam.

If this is true, the fact that she was willing to murder the father of her own three small children for a reason which is logical, but wildly insufficient, suggests a true antisocial, someone with no real awareness of other people, no serious restraints on the damage she's willing to do to others in pursuit of even the smallest of her own goals. Brrr. Shame about the children, with such a mother.

That the system worked as it did doesn't surprise me much, and I don't think it suggests outrageous sexism per se (although that does exist). Texas, for example, will execute next week a woman (Cathy Henderson) for killing a baby boy while babysitting. Why will Cathy Henderson be executed while Mary Winkler essentially goes free? They're both women, after all.

I think arguably the greater problem here is that the system is not well set up to deal with true antisocials, who can lie outrageously but perfectly convincingly, because they don't experience the normal human emotions of shame and guilt. Juries and judges are probably competent at weighing the testimony of normal human beings, who experience guilt and anxiety when they lie. The evidence seems to suggest that Cathy Henderson is a "normal" person: she freaked when she killed the little boy, and experienced horror, anxiety, guilty, and so forth. The jury was able to read those emotions and infer her guilt. So she got convicted.

Mary Winkler, by contrast, may be inhuman. She may not have exhibited a trace of anxiety, horror, guilt, et cetera because she didn't feel those things. She's as inhuman as a Terminator robot. Since the jury couldn't read those emotions in her, she didn't feel like a guilty murderess -- and so they acquitted her.

There's no cure for this problem, inasmuch as few of us deal with robotic antisocials in our daily life, and I hear even for experts (Dr. Helen could say better) it's very hard to accurately weigh the statements of true antisocials. It's one case where our untrained, instinctual judgment tends to be very wrong. Since the justice system is founded on our untrained, instinctual judgment (as jurymen) of the truthfulness of the statements of witnesses and defendants, it often just can't cope with these kinds of criminals.

10:23 PM, June 08, 2007  
Blogger Nathan Hall said...

The story from Kansas is indeed interesting, but it is very different from the case at issue here. It concerns a daughter who killed her abusive father out of plausible fear that he would kill an older sister. I think the crucial difference is that in that case the evidence that the victim was a vicious brute appears to be conclusive. While the girl may have had better options than killing him, I find it hard, after reading the story, not to conclude that he deserved what he got.

10:26 PM, June 08, 2007  
Blogger Crimso said...

"That said... if she had to kill him, she should expect to do the time required."

Or at the very least, offer some actual proof that it was in any way justified. Check out the Tennessean's comment board associated with this story. I find it absolutely amazing the number of people who just assume she was abused. It's as though she's innocent until proven guilty, but he's guilty until proven innocent (with the added disadvantage of not being able to defend himself). And it sounds an awful lot like the reason this is so is because she's a woman. I don't think it can be stressed enough: she had everything to gain by lying, and it would seem the jury ignored this.

10:30 PM, June 08, 2007  
Blogger Jim Lee said...

Hey boys & girls, the husband was the "highly charismatic sociopath".

Don't you think the people in such a small town know the real truth about what happened; especially the ones on the jury that heard all the testimony?

She should be released right now and reunited with her children.

10:30 PM, June 08, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I read in one account that the psychologist testified relating to Winkler's failure to to express remorse that she "is remorseful in her dreams."

I wondered about the dreams her daughter who actually saw her father lying in his own blood has.

10:34 PM, June 08, 2007  
Blogger Crimso said...

"Don't you think the people in such a small town know the real truth about what happened; especially the ones on the jury that heard all the testimony?"

Is it really asking too much that all of these people who supposedly knew what was going on actually, you know, testify under oath to that effect? Would a defense attorney really not put such people on the stand, or is the simple fact that such people don't exist (because she's lying)?

Don't get me wrong. Maybe he was the abusive psychopath. But do we really want a criminal justice system wherein all the accused has to do is tell a simple lie about the victim and thereby (effectively) get away with murder? Are you suggesting that she shouldn't have to prove these allegations, that making them is enough?

10:39 PM, June 08, 2007  
Blogger Crimso said...

And you do make a good point about the jury hearing all of the testimony. I'd just like for someone to explain where in the testimony anything remotely approximating proof of her allegations was given. Maybe it was, but I have yet to see it. Police reports? ER visits? Neighbors who saw or heard the abuse?

10:42 PM, June 08, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What comes around goes around. I don't know the truth in this matter but if she did kill her husband in cold blood she'll get get her own in time whether in this life or the next. They always do.

10:59 PM, June 08, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Women are kinder, gentler cold-blooded killers.

"Put that on a t-shirt!"

Just as soon as I'm finished tattooing it on my chest.

11:03 PM, June 08, 2007  
Blogger Synova said...

Is there some, more extensive, coverage of the testimony?

1:30 AM, June 09, 2007  
Blogger Mercurior said...

but dont you realise, that woman who kill men are doing the world a service, getting rid of all those patriarchal abusers.

sarcasm off

6:31 AM, June 09, 2007  
Blogger Helen said...


Here are a collection of articles that offer some coverage at the crime library:

6:45 AM, June 09, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Was this sentence handed down by a judge? If so what is known about his/her record on the bench? Is there any history of liberal activism?

It seems Mr. Winkler may have embodied all aspects of the far left's ultimate boogeyman: white, male, minister, Christian (quite possibly conservative), a father and accused of being controlling (which, on the left, easily translates to 'abusive'). So, in liberal thought, Mary got 6 dirty birds with one shotgun blast. They may want to give her a medal.

Actually, I don't know that Mr. Winkler was white, but I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

If the judge is liberal, it could be that in the sentencing, we're witnessing a new type of hate-crime: Perpetrators of crime against liberal boogey-icons go (almost) scot free.
Old Bob

7:35 AM, June 09, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, I forgot, there's one more: a gun owner too...make that seven dirty birds.
Old Bob

7:40 AM, June 09, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Coming out of a 20-year marriage in which my husband was the nice guy who did favors for anyone and ruled the home with extreme pscyhological abuse, I want to say two things: she was experiencing an ongoing lost sense of reality, because the abuser employs "crazy-making" tactics to constantly keeps you off balance; and the prospect of standing up to him or getting help and having to continue to live in the world he creates for you is impossible to comprehend surviving. She was pushed across the line by his physical abuse of her youngest daughter (had held his hand over her mouth or something like that). It is a fact that abusers escalate their tactics over time.

Mine was a long, slow burn. I had finally gotten to the point where I wished he would just beat me so I had a "reason" to leave. When he turned on our eldest son who stood up for me, I was out. Even then, people in my family thought I left too soon, saying he had "only" been violent once. No, I didn't kill him, but I can understand the desperation and break from reality.

I'm not saying she shouldn't serve more time for manslaughter, and I'm no defender of militant feminism. I just think her story of psychological abuse rang true with the judge and jury.

7:54 AM, June 09, 2007  
Blogger Unknown said...

anon 10:59

"They always do."

Um, no they don't. While it's nice to hope she "will get hers" later in life, right now is all I care about since her getting hers can't be counted on. 'Next life' is just further wishing. She got away with murder.

anon 7:54

Since when is "ringing true" sufficient evidence to support her actions? How about some -- evidence?

Women utilize the same "crazy-making" tactics. That justifies a guy whacking his wife?
If your answer is no, why not for him?

7:58 AM, June 09, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course men can experience similar abuse from their wives. I didn't say it was only men that do it.

I said I thought she deserved more jail time. The jury considered the evidence and reached a manslaughter conviction. The sentencing came after more testimony. So yes, the judge believed her and obviously other testimony showed that she is not a danger to society. I just don't think it's a pc-motivated case.

8:10 AM, June 09, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Old Bob: Interesting scenario. Thanks for commenting.

It's tempting to lay one's own political-opinion prism on a news story. Helen's commenters are interesting because many rightly ask for more info, and then are willing to reconsider their initial reaction as more info comes out.

8:58 AM, June 09, 2007  
Blogger Helen said...

anonymous 8:10:

When a man gets off for killing his wife because she was possibly abusive, then I will believe that this was not a PC-motivated case.

9:00 AM, June 09, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon at 7:54 said "she was experiencing an ongoing lost sense of reality, because the abuser employs "crazy-making" tactics to constantly keeps you off balance; and the prospect of standing up to him or getting help and having to continue to live in the world he creates for you is impossible to comprehend surviving. She was pushed across the line by his physical abuse of her youngest daughter (had held his hand over her mouth or something like that.)"

Anon, it reads that you went through some difficult and criminal abuse. That sucks, I hope the bastard that perpetrated that is rotting in jail.

Do you have inside information about the Winkler case? Did you witness what you related as facts? Because nobody but Ms. Winkler made any assertions of abuse in the trial, there were no witnesses.

It could be that Ms. Winkler, advised by her attorney, is ripping off the story of many people who are indeed abused to get away with murder. I understand that your experience resonates with the claims made in her case. Please understand that she may be lying, that NO evidence was presented to substantiate her claim. Can you imagine Mr. Winkler as your innocent brother? If his wife cheated justice by using your story of abuse to accomplish that end?

Abusive people deserve jail time. But in America, we are still supposed to rule on the basis of evidence, not allegation.


9:04 AM, June 09, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon, 7:54, "Coming out of a 20-year marriage ..."
Thanks for your thoughts. I hope things are improved for you now, and especially for your kids.

In the news article on the 16-year killing her father, the line that stuck out for me was th mother's total passivity:
- Towards her husband: "I should have done more to stop it," she said of her husband's violence.
- Towards her daughter: The mother didn't do anything, either, to stop her little girl as she waited with a gun at the backdoor.

And the 16-year-old had THREE older sisters, none of whom were minors. The 18-year-old could legally just leave. She could probably have taken the 16-year-old with her, filed a restraining order against the father (heck, against both parents), and petitioned to be the legal guardian of the 16-year-old. Heck, either of the other two older sisters could have also tried this strategy.

But a restraining order is a meaningless piece of paper.


Back to Mary Winkler:
- I don't know enough yet regarding abuse and socio-pathology (nor care to find out, at least not with my own search time). Either or both of them could be the socio-path(s). Either or both of them could be the victim. The one article doesn't tell me enough.

- I do think 210 Days for Manslaughter sounds on the short side. Mainly because, if she's is the victum, that is too short for mental health treatment. So maybe the sentencing guidelines need another look.
Could someone post a link to the sentencing guidelines table, or the relevant few lines of text? Need the definitions for "manslaughter", maybe even the varies degrees of manslaughter.
Oh, I just noticed it the adjective: It's VOLUNTARY Manslaughter.

Do the guidelines for Voluntary Nanslaughter add any caveats or suggestions about Mandatory mental health treatment?

For the Winkler case, fewer comments on murder/killing and more on the specific Voluntary Manslaughter would be especially interesting.

9:13 AM, June 09, 2007  
Blogger Helen said...

anonymous 9:13:

"Under U.S. law, Voluntary Manslaughter carries a maximum sentence of 10 years, but in Tennessee, the law is only three to six years. There is also a chance of parole after serving 30% of the sentence."

I guess the judge had discretion and gave her the shortest sentence possible. In addtion, I don't think there is any mental health law pertaning to mandatory mental health treatement in TN.

9:27 AM, June 09, 2007  
Blogger DADvocate said...

Oligonicella - good call on anon. 7:54's comments.

What 7:54 missed in her comments, including her later one, is that the man ends up being blamed no matter who kills who. If the woman is an emotional terrorist (aka a description of my ex), the man drove her to it. If the man is an emotional terrorist, he's just a controlling bastard who got what was coming.

As I stated earlier, militant feminists and their mindless sympathizers have done an excellent job of brainwashing enough of the public that murdering women almost always seen as victims themselves. That's why people like past governors Brereton Jones (KY) and Richard Celeste (OH) grant clemency to women convicted of murder who claim abuse.

The feminists glorify these actions and the "victims/heroines." They write books, make movies, etc. explaining why it is OK that these women killed and why they should be free. Of course, the man is dead and can't defend himself.

If Mary Winkler had been convicted of murder, I wonder how much time, if any, she would have served. Women convicted of murder get off easy. They couldn't even get a murder conviction for Winkler. Why should be be surprised?

old bob is right and soon a sculptor will be commissioned to create a statue to glorify Mary.

9:31 AM, June 09, 2007  
Blogger Chris said...

Oh come on Helen......he had it coming to him. I mean...did you see the awful white heels he made her wear to dress up sexy for him? I heard that he also LEERED at her too!(tongue firmly planted in cheek)

I agree that an abused person has a right to a reasonable level of self defense, but from what I saw in the news coverage of the trial, I didn't think the defense proved "abuse" (they alleged it a lot). Sure the relationship was twisted, per Mrs. Winkler, but I didn't hear anything that Mr. Winkler deserved to die for.

I hate to play juror or judge from afar, but 210 SEEMS inappropriate to me.

9:46 AM, June 09, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good morning Dr. H. In answer to your criminology question:

"Since Mary Winkler's charge was lessened to voluntary manslaughter, does this get registered in the homicide statistics as a female on male homicide or is it dropped from the stats altogether?"

The answer is that it is counted as a murder/nonnegligent homicide for the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports. That source tabulates murder stats from the results of police investigations and not based on court adjucations.

Here is the FBI's official answer (from their UCR page): "The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines murder and nonnegligent manslaughter as the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another. The classification of this offense is based solely on police investigation as opposed to the determination of a court, medical examiner, coroner, jury, or other judicial body."

11:02 AM, June 09, 2007  
Blogger Helen said...


Thanks for the quick response.

So what if a police investigation is wrong? That what looks like an accident is later found to be murder. I wonder if that data makes it into the final crime report.

11:11 AM, June 09, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From the link in the update:
"Amy Dugas, who killed her husband in Maine and was allowed to serve her probation in Tennessee, has subsequently been arrested for assault no fewer than three times."

So this is my concern: Prevention.

I'm loath to second guess a jury, since someday perhaps I'll be on a jury.
Prosecutors and Judges are public servants. They're actions do deserve monitoring and, on occasion, public outcry.

Ignoring the punishment angle for a moment, has the system adequately attempted to prevent recurrance? We want maximal liberty, but liberty can be taken away once a person has committed a criminal act.

- In the Winkler case, a mandatory mental health assessment from the state seems warranted. For the prosecutor, perhaps he should have taken a plea bargain that included a guarantee of mental health exams. For the judge, if mandated mental health is not allowed by current sentencing guidelines, perhaps he should have imposed it anyway: They're "guidelines", not mandates. Or he should now consider publicly advocate changes to the guidelines.
(I can't tell if Winker's judge is a he or she? Some commenters will probably consider the judge's gender relevant. I don't; just the results of his/her decisions.)

In the 16-year-old killing her father, should the passive mother been proscuted for Assisted Homicide, aiding and abetting the murder? The attempt to prosecute her could then result in mandatory mental health treatment, from a plea bargain or a court judgment.

If I assume each of these women (abused wife, passive mother) is a victim, then she's an Enabler. There is a risk she'll end up in another abusive relationship. If involved in a criminal incident, should mandated court-supervised treatment be an option in the legal system to ensure Enablers receiver treatment?

And if one or more of the women is a socio-path, then sometimes the mandated mental health treatment mau recognize that and have a means to keep her away from the public longer.
Perhaps the Grandparents in the Winkler case can ask for mandatory mental health treatment in their Civil Case against Mary.

Anon 7:54

P.S. Prior to today, it'd never occured to me there was such a thing as Voluntary Manslaughter. I thought of "Involuntary Manslaughter" as one word; now I know there's two types. That bit of knowledge may be the big education for the public in the Winkler case. Similarly, the OJ Simpson case taught many about Civil Suits versus the State.

Thanks Helen for the article's Update.

11:37 AM, June 09, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is not really a new phenomon.
In the early 60's I was a police officer in Anchorage Alaska. There were a large number of wives mudering husbands. We called it "Spenard Divorce". Spenard is a residential suburb of Anchorage. On one occaision, my partner and I were on a coffee break at 2am in an all night restaurant.We were sitting at the counter when we heard 5 gunshots from the dining room. We rushed in and found a woman sitting across from her dead husband slumped on the table. She was smiling,had her hands up with a small caliber pistol on the table in front of her. She got 2 yrs for manslaughter. The prosecutor simply did not want to go with the 1st degree murder charge we booked her on.

11:59 AM, June 09, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. H:

Regarding your question--I could guess, but rather than waste your time, let me get an accurate answer for you and post it here later.

Note: One correction on my 1102 post, replace nonegligent homicide with nonneligent manslaughter.

12:09 PM, June 09, 2007  
Blogger Helen said...

Glenn Beebe,

Thanks for your input. According to the Urban dictionary, a Spenard Divorce is defined as "when one kills one's spouse." In your experience, was it always the woman killing the man in these cases? Did the prosecutor ever go lightly on a man who did so?


Just asking, no obligation to follow up.

12:17 PM, June 09, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was just going to post about the "Spenard Divorce."

It really is a standard comment in Alaska, I didn't realize I would have to explain it so often down here in the civilized lower 48. :)


12:43 PM, June 09, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just another case along with many sex abuse cases that alludes to the fact that there are two systems of justice one for men and one for women. It's amazing that the judge used the words "alleged abuse" and then used this as a mitigating circumstance. Well now women have an interesting conundrum. Women that want a divorce have the difficult task of deciding whether to spend all that money on a divorce lawyer, losing half the assets of the family, maybe fighting for custody , and dealing with the old man for the rest of her life OR kill him and keep everything for about 6 months in jail!

1:21 PM, June 09, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So now women, who practically invented psychological manipulation and abuse, can get away with murder by claiming that their now deceased spouse "psychologically" abused them.

If psychological abuse is a mitigating factor in murder, my dad would have killed my mom years before the stress of living with her killed him.

1:22 PM, June 09, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mary Winkler will have been out having lattes for ten years by the time those border guards that shot the drug smuggler in the ass get out of prison!

1:31 PM, June 09, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know that a lot is being said about the patriarchal church culture in the CoC. My husband grew up in this group, and most of his extended family is still in it so we have a LOT of exposure to old school CoC.

Part of the theology in the more traditional churches (and this is grossly simplifying) is that your sins are atoned for by Christ's sacrifice at the point of your baptism. After that, what you do is on you; there's a sort of scale at the end of days that determines your eternal destination. So over time, the tendency has become to justify your bad behavior and shovel it over onto someone else's eternity scale.

A lot of this is human nature, maybe tied to self-preservation? I don't know. I can say that this behavior isn't formally taught in the pulpit by the CoC, but the theology of self-justification has tended to make even otherwise genuinely pious people more prone to excuse-making instead of genuine remorse.

Frankly, this is why I think that it's important for psychologists and others who counsel the religious to have a good understanding of that religion. Just saying that the CoC church culture is "paternalistic" and women are "submissive" isn't necessarily giving a full picture of what's going on with her in the religious context.

2:14 PM, June 09, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm still not all clear on the whole terminology thing. "Voluntary manslaughter" seems to mean you killed somebody and you meant to do it. Isn't that the same as murder?

Oh, well - legalese.

3:58 PM, June 09, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. H,

Can you comment on Momzilla @ 2:14's thoughts about the religious aspect of this case? I live in an area with similar religious groups and, based on my observations, I think Momzilla makes a good point. It's a complicated issue.

4:20 PM, June 09, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've heard that she may now only serve an actual 60 days.

Keep in mind that if her husband had found out about her losing all their money on gambling and Nigerian schemes, and her check-kiting activities, and had then punched her in the head in a moment of rage, he may well have gotten more than 60 days in jail.

The disparity is glaring.

The other point: Almost every woman who kills her husband alleges (or tries to allege) abuse. It's a no-brainer, because the "accused" is no longer around to tell his side of the story. Sometimes there IS NO objective evidence of abuse (no police reports, no neighbor or family testimony - nothing) and the jury still gives the woman the benefit of the doubt.

I have very little confidence in the intelligence of juries, and that was even before OJ.

6:48 PM, June 09, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TO: Dr. Helen, Any Attorneys Present, et al.
RE: ERA Impact

I'm wondering if there could be cause to have some of these 'murderess' [tongue firmlyin cheek] rulings overturned if the ERA was implemented.


[Woman, n., the unfair sex. -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary]

7:06 PM, June 09, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I'm wondering if there could be cause to have some of these 'murderess' [tongue firmlyin cheek] rulings overturned if the ERA was implemented."


Umm ... No.

The ERA already exists (aside from a few exceptions that favor women - like selective service and a draft if there ever is one again).

It's called the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

By the way, even NOW is no longer all that hot on an ERA. NOW is pushing for a different type of "equality" amendment that would consider "disparities against women that arise from formal equality". Meaning a constitutional amendment that would force affirmative action for women etc. to "make things equal".

7:17 PM, June 09, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here it is, right from the horse's mouth:

The "Constitutional Equality Amendment" from NOW. You have to read this crap to believe it:

7:20 PM, June 09, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you read through the CEA, you start getting the idea: Equality would be unequal for women, so we have to have constitutionally based inequality, slanted towards women, to make things equal.

Equality is unfair to women, equality is inequality.

In other news, black is white, up is down, and you will get electroshock therapy if you don't repeat those phrases 20 times a day.

7:25 PM, June 09, 2007  
Blogger Unknown said...

Orwell would be so proud.

8:55 PM, June 09, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not to worry. The Muslims will be along soon to straighten this mess out. Can't understand why so many guys go to such lengths to oppose them when they're our best hope for liberation.

Scary thing is that our society is starting to look like a mirror image of theirs. There it's honor killings; here it's spousal abuse. There it's Mad Mullahs and Jihadis; here it's academia nuts and feminists...only the names and the genders have changed.
Old Bob

10:26 PM, June 09, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

answer to your stat question: (im a crim major)

murder and nonneglegent manslauter are grouped together for the UCR (uniform crime report)..which is currently still shares the title for most important US crime statistical data with the NCVS (national criminal victimazation survey)

the UCR is slowly being replaced by the incident based reporting system but not all statesz comply with that system yet...

so for now...yes its basicically the same for statistical purposes b/c non negligent manslater is gourped the same as murder on the UCR

10:47 PM, June 09, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I tried to leave a comment on the linked site, but after I did all the right stuff for it, the "Submit" button wouldn't take my comment.

Anyway, I can't believe the woman got off that easily.

11:18 PM, June 09, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm sorry for off topic, but can the "crim major", presumably a college student, at least use a spellchecker?

12:44 AM, June 10, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Second-guess a jury ? Oh, you bet I will. I hung a jury once, by refusing to be brow-beaten into what I saw as a wrongful conviction. I have no doubt they can be brow-beaten into acquital by the force of a strong personality as well.

To the person who alleged something to the effect that "she could be a sociopath, he could be a sociopath, they counld both be sociopath," I assert you have no evidence: She shot him, not the other way around.

Talk about blaming the victim. . .

Without significant evidence she had no choice, this is really disgusting. Another sociopath gets off lightly.

9:28 AM, June 10, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why do we know her name? Her reputation might be sullied. Don't women victims deserve to be anonymous? Why is there no shield law?


10:32 AM, June 10, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

" Attorney Leslie Ballin told the judge during testimony today that, "If (Mary's) not divertable, who is?"

Is this the Prosecuting attorney?

Then even the prosecutors thought sorry for her, and wanted her to have the minimum sentence.

I'm surprised this didn't end up in a Plea Bargain, to "guilty by reason of insanity", so she'd get maximal psychiatric help.

The sentencing even puts a CAP on the mental health days, to 60 days, instead of a minimum number.

6:37 AM, June 11, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since there are many calls for evidence above, thought I'd summarize some from the links. I don't know for sure what was presented in court versus shown to the jury. Both sides of attorneys seemed to be willing to keep lots of content out of the public domain.

Evidence summary:
"... preacher's wife told authorities she shot her husband after a LONG BUILDUP of domestic problems, according to an audiotape that prosecutors played Friday at her murder trial.
Mary Winkler, 33, can be heard crying ..."

"...she admitted shooting her husband [On the tape]...and that it had something to do with his CONSTANT CRITICISM...."

...[defense attorney] Farese said Mary Winkler ...did EVERYTHING her husband told her. He said she was abused verbally, emotionally and physically."

Agent Stabler said Winkler told him she had NOT been physically abused. {In the initial interview(s), she was still afraid to own up to the long-term abuse.}

But asked if she talked about a "life-threatening experience" with her husband several years earlier, Stabler said she did.

The morning he did what he did to Breanna, she was going to get his attention — with the VERY THINGS he had always THREATENED HER with," Farese said. He said Matthew Winkler had threatened his wife with a gun many times.

Winkler's family said she killed her husband because she was abused.

"Physical, mental, verbal," said Clark Freeman, Winkler's father. "I don't know how she took it. She's a stronger individual than I am."

Freeman says the abuse became more apparent the last three years of Winkler and Matt's marriage.

"I saw bad bruises. The heaviest of makeup covering facial bruises," Freeman said. "So one day, I confronted her. I said, 'Mary Carol, you are coming off as a very abused wife, very battered.'"

But Freeman says she denied the accusations.
"[She] would hang her head and say, 'No, daddy, everything's all right. Everything's all right.'"

Friends say Winkler didn't talk about the abuse, but her growing fear of her husband was obvious.

"One Sunday, Mary came into the church and I looked at her and she had a black eye," said Winkler's friend Rudie Thomsen.

"What went on behind their closed doors is going to have to be told," said Winkler's attorney Leslie Ballin. "Some of what we've got from the state of Tennessee touches on sexual abuse."

Primary source links:

Links followed from primary sources:,,-6555530,00.html

7:07 AM, June 11, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No problem Dr. H--it is useful for me to know.

In answer to your follow-up question: "So what if a police investigation is wrong? That what looks like an accident is later found to be murder. I wonder if that data makes it into the final crime report," if necessary, the investigating agency adds the correction to the next report submitted. Police can reclassify an offense from a previous year that affects UCR data, and they just include the information on their current report.

Here is the FBI's response:

"If a death that is initially determined to be accidental is later found to be a homicide, it will be submitted on that current years' Uniform Crime Reporting data submission by law nforcement. Since accidental deaths or suicides are not counted in the UCR Program, no number will actually change. If the death occurred in 2004, but it was found that it was actually a homicide in 2005, the 2005 data would reflect the homicide, and no report would need to be amended."

An interesting nuance when examining UCR murder data.

7:12 AM, June 11, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the wife stands up to the abuser, sometimes he/they get help. Sometimes things get better.

Sometimes they get worst. Maybe they get better for the wife, but the abuser has just moved on to the daughters.

Maybe Winkler used knowledge of others' abuse to create her own story.
Maybe it is her story.

Here's another look at her story below.


The first of our marriage, I just took it like a mouse, didn't think anything different. My mom just took it from my dad - that stupid scenario.''

Winkler said she got a job at the post office and that experience taught her to stand up for herself. "That's the problem. I have nerve now, and I have self-esteem. My ugly came out."
[She was getting enough confidence to stand up to him: To make him discuss their finances like adults, instead of whatever desperate (and stupid) actions she was taking to try pay the bills rather than tell him there were problems.]

...He said Winkler told him her marriage improved after that incident [being threatened with a gun],
but it had begun to deteriorate over the past year.

Winkler's sisters, Tabatha Freeman, 25, and Amanda Miller, 24: she seemed caught in a difficult situation and that they weren't sure how to respond.
"We didn't know if IT COULD GET WORSE if we were to confront [it]," Miller said.

He said Winkler told him her marriage improved after that incident, but it had begun to deteriorate over the past year.

The defense told jurors she killed her husband accidentally while trying to protect their child from him.
Mary Winkler, 33, only intended to hold her husband at gunpoint to force him to talk about his personal problems after a situation involving their 1-year-old daughter, Breanna, defense attorney Steve Farese said. The defense did not describe the situation.

The couple has three daughters — Patricia, 8; Mary Alice, 6, and Breanna, 1 …


Having painted the above terrible picture, I do think Mary's sentence was TOO SHORT. She needs some serious counseling to fully recover from these years. Otherwise, how can the public be comfortable that she won't end up in another enabling relationship?

So to what degree to we trust that this incident will result in her voluntary seeking of treatment
the State should have a role in certifying that she's received enough treatment?

7:15 AM, June 11, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Links followed from primary sources (continued):

7:19 AM, June 11, 2007  
Blogger Helen said...

Slam Dunk,

Thanks for the info.

To all,

Many of you are writing in with Mary and her family's explanations about what happened. The Nigerian scam she was involved in etc. and the bank confronting her have not been mentioned, and where is Matthew's family? Did they corroborate this abuse story? I wonder what Matthew might have had to say? Too bad we will never hear his side of the story.

7:31 AM, June 11, 2007  
Blogger Unknown said...

anon 7:07

Since you took the time, so shall I to respond.

Points 1-3 are heresay, not evidence.
Point 4 refutes above, which you then attempt to discredit through supposition. I could just as easily say in the initial interviews she hadn't thought through her abuse contentions.
Points 5-7 are heresay.
Point 8 is stronger, but heresay.
Point 9 is heresay.
Point 10 would be evidence, I think.
Point 11 refutes point 10, but is a typical response of an abused spouse.
Point 12 is heresay.
Point 13 might be evidence, but has no corroberation.
Point 14 is just an attorney's statement.

So, points 10 and 13 might be evidence, but is that enough to warrant cold blooded murder ("He had been shot in the middle of his back as he lay sleeping in his bed by his own .12 gauge shotgun.")?

anon 7:15 -- Please explain how one shoots a sleeping man in the back "while trying to protect their child from him". That part confuses me.

9:33 AM, June 11, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"cold blooded" is hearsay.

But hearsay is allowed in blog comments to attempt to reach an opinion.

As I see it, oligoncella kinda reinforces my point:
- We the public don't know what happened BEHIND THE JUDGES DOOR, between the arguments of prosecuting and defense attorneys, for what evidence was allowed in Open Court versus what both sides agreed to keep mum about.

Please note that I am NOT defending Mary. For her specific case, the public may well have to wait for more court information from the child custody legal fight. Or we may never get more info.

If you think her sentencing was inadequate, for future cases, do you just want more Punishment (days in jail) or more Psychiatric involvement (dury trial, post-trial, somewheres in the processes)?
- If she's a victim, I see multiple years of occasional therapy to offset multiple years of abuse. But there's no State mandate on Mary for treatment of that length; just hope that her family will make her get counseling.

- If she's a manipulative "cold blooded murderer", how could the State make this determination and, sometime in the process, be able to keep her locked up?
The State's first chance was at the trial: Murder direct or Murder downgraded to Innocent by Reason of Insanity. The latter would then lock her up until State psych people are sure she is safe to let out.
Since the State only got a Voluntary Manslaughter conviction, is there a weakness in the Sentencing Guidelines (need to allow imposing more mental health treatment) or just with this particular Judge (lacks education on the risks of manipulated stories. Possibly Old Bob's scenario as a contributing factor).

I believe I read the trial was only 4 hours. Purely my speculation, but I'm guessing a lot of potential evidence was bargained away by both sides behind the judges door.

9:59 AM, June 11, 2007  
Blogger Unknown said...

I only made a point by point. I then asked a question. Shooting someone in the back while sleeping is kinda hard to pull away from the cold blooded description, but fine; how would you describe it?

Heresay may be the stuff of blog discussion, but the lede of that list was "Evidence summary:".

Anyone can make guesses as to what went on behind closed doors. My guess is it was no more than the plea bargaining. But, I will up front admit it's only a guess.

My post was to contend the list of 'evidence' presented and to highlight that what there was does not excuse shooting someone in their sleep.

11:38 AM, June 11, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"cold blooded" is hearsay."

Well, shooting someone in the back while they are in the bedroom satisfies my definitional requirements for cold blooded. Disabling the phone so that the person dies is cold blooded icing on a cake served cold.


12:25 PM, June 11, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Shooting someone in the back while sleeping..."

Opening statement:
A preacher's wife was trying to protect her young daughter from her abusive husband when she pointed a shotgun and *accidentally* shot him, her attorney said in opening statements Thursday.

Farese said Mary Winkler did not know how to load or fire a shotgun, and that she was afraid he would grab it from her.

"The gun discharged," Farese said. "Was it an accident? She'll tell the truth as to what happened."

[I can't find the line now. Somewhere in the links, her version has a momentary memory lapse. That is why I'm surprised she didn't get higher level offense: Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity. Therefore locked up until psych folks say she's okay.]

Matthew's father, Dan Winkler, took the witness stand Thursday and said he talked to Mary Winkler after she had been arrested in Alabama. "I told her I wished I could take the handcuffs off and I could give her a big bear hug."

Early articles say "The trial could last up to two weeks."

But I believe I read it lasted for ONLY 4 hours of testimony. Both sides minimized the public evidence.

1:56 PM, June 11, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So you're a previously abused Man; survivor of spousal abuse. You made it pass Jury Selection. You're on the jury, a male version of: "The jury — including a woman who said she had been a victim of domestic abuse "

You hear 4 hours of Court Testimony.

You get sequestered.
Speculation, the first vote splits among these:
- Guilty, Murder in 1st Degree (cold blooded, throw the switch already)
- Not Guilty be Reason of Insanity
- Guilty, Involuntary Manslaughter
- Not Guilty (let he poor woman go free, home to her children, sob sob)

Trey and Olingonocella are probably going to result in a Hung Jury, Mistrial.

The jury deliberate for 8 Hours, twice as long as the actual trial for Presentation of Evidence.

Maybe during those hours, the votes gradually consolidated to the middlee offense: Voluntary Manslaugter.
Then the judge gave Mary the light sentence.

IF YOU HAD BEEN ON THE JURY, and could ONLY use the evidence in the very limited 4 hours of testimony, could you have convinced 11 others to full Guilty Murder 1st Degree, with NO REASONABLE DOUBT.
(E.g. convince them the check thing was Cold Blooded, rather than an emotional reaction to her overall situation.)

If you don't like the outcome of teh Winkler case, WHAT DO YOU WANT DIFFERENT ABOUT THE PROCESS so a Mary-like person gets more time in future (or is pre-meditated dissuasion from trying this defense)?
Similarly, WHAT DO YOU WANT DIFFERENT ABOUT THE ACTIONS By Prosecutor and By Judge; the public servants involved.

Please feel free to double check the 4 and 8 hours, and find the quote about Mary's testimony. I really don't want to revisit the details any more than I've already looked.

Can a legal person tell us what Guilty choices the jurists were allowed to consider? Thx in advance.

2:14 PM, June 11, 2007  
Blogger Serket said...

The Judge was Weber McCraw of the 25th District and his term expires this year.

3:00 PM, June 11, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This 'abused wife' theory was introduced in the 1980's- before that anyone who would have used that excuse to murder would have been laughed out of court. This whole concept needs to be laughed out of court every time it comes up. Why? Because 'abuse' today is purely subjective and I am not going to live in a society that makes up what is right and wrong based on what they 'feel' at the time.

Today, 'abuse' is virtually anything & then the concept of murdering someone over it is insane.

I heard women talking about this case, siding with the woman & heard women commenting on the Andrea Yates case as well, stating, "it was the husband's fault for leaving her at home with her children." I just slowly and quietly backed away, the same way I would with any psychotic person.
We know who else we're never going to leave kids with and who else to never co-habitat with!

The message here is LOUD and CLEAR:
ATTENTION WOMEN: You can murder anyone at anytime with little or no consequences. You have been officially deemed GOD. For no other apparent reason other than because you are in possesion of an extra hole, this gives you the birth right to decide if other people deserve to live.

Guys: When you meet a woman either on line or in person, ask them how they feel about this case. If they tell you that it was justified, this will be a perfect litmus test to determine if she is a PSYCHO. Tell her, "look at the time- got to go," then RUN!!!!

Sometimes it seems like I am the only sane person left on Earth.

3:20 PM, June 11, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon 2:14: I don't know that the definition of the process is the problem. The problem is that the process wasn't followed. In my examining the reports available, it is evident to me that the prosecution was simply not serious. They didn't care. They just wanted it over with so they could move on to the next thing. I really think the prosecution would have been willing to plead down to just assault, except that they made a political calculation that they couldn't stand quite that much heat.

If you have a misbehaving prosecutor, the only thing you can do is try to get that person replaced. As we have seen with Nifong, that's not always easy even when the prosecutor is clearly a wackjob.

3:33 PM, June 11, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 2:14, what an interesting question. And if I had the evidence on the jury that I have now, I would certainly hold out for murder. Hung jury. It is perfectly acceptable to get stubborn about the truth and what is right, but it would be uncool and immoral to try to use Jedi mind tricks to manipulate the other 11.

I wonder if the prosecutor blew it. The jury can only work with what the prosecutor presents.

Interesting question, and I appreciate that you got me right on what I would likely do. Thanks. Would have done the same if it was a man killing a woman.


9:37 PM, June 11, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

carl pham Excellent comment. I especially liked this part:

I think arguably the greater problem here is that the system is not well set up to deal with true antisocials, who can lie outrageously but perfectly convincingly, because they don't experience the normal human emotions of shame and guilt. Juries and judges are probably competent at weighing the testimony of normal human beings, who experience guilt and anxiety when they lie. The evidence seems to suggest that Cathy Henderson is a "normal" person: she freaked when she killed the little boy, and experienced horror, anxiety, guilty, and so forth. The jury was able to read those emotions and infer her guilt. So she got convicted.

Mary Winkler, by contrast, may be inhuman. She may not have exhibited a trace of anxiety, horror, guilt, et cetera because she didn't feel those things.

2:49 PM, June 12, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I think arguably the greater problem here is that the system is not well set up to deal with true antisocials, who can lie outrageously but perfectly convincingly, because they don't experience the normal human emotions of shame and guilt. Juries and judges are probably competent at weighing the testimony of normal human beings, who experience guilt and anxiety when they lie."

That perfectly descibes the typical female of today- completely ubaccountable, always plays the victim no matter what. For example, when have you EVER heard a woman say, "I destroyed my marriage because I was such a bitch." Never have, never will, but, of course, as we all know, 9 times out of ten that's the REAL reason- ask any marriage counselour (candidly).

I agree, the legal system is not set up to deal with the up is down and right is wrong psychosis of the human female personality.

4:46 PM, June 12, 2007  
Blogger TMink said...

Ya know, I do some marriage counseling, and candidly, I see more marriages hurt by the husband than by the wife.

Now my sample is not very large as this is not my typical work, but candidly, more often the men are doing most of the work. It certainly varies, and it might be because wives are more likely to seek therapy to save the marriage than the man who would just bail. But that is anecdotal.

So this psychologist may have to give up his card to the men's club, but that is the truth.


10:23 PM, June 12, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim Lee. Your good at conjecture. How about facts. If the local people were so aware of the "real" story they shouldn't be on the jury! I suppose you have some inside info to impugn a dead man's character. Probably you wouldn't be afraid to share that with the parents and children of Mathew Winkler. If the people really New the real unbridled truth don't you really think they would be up there on the witness stand doing anything they could to help poor little mary winkler. But then again it's much easier and much more self satisfying to trumpet the current moral outrage du jour and villify a dead man than ask the tough questions.

10:24 AM, June 13, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

First of all "abuse" or whatever is NOT murder nor can or should it justify murder so all the whiny little tarts who are oh so afraid of the big bad man can plain shut up. Men intimidate men all the time from the playground all the way into the business world and even if we are disabled we don't get to pull the poor defenseless me crap. If man 1 punches man 2 in a bar and man 2 *kills* man 1 man 2 is going to jail for murder. Women you wanted "equality" remember? Remember all that mindless drivel and kumbaya singing about how empowered you were? How you were just as good and can do anything that a man can do? Great. Here is something new and it's called r-e-s-p-o-n-s-i-b-i-l-i-t-y. Say it, know it, practice it. I am getting so sick of the feminist dogma preaching openly contradictory notions. On the one hand women should be totally equal because they are just as good (read: better) than men and therefore there should be no bars to their success or differences in how they are treated. On the other hand, women are helpless children who need armies of courts, social workers, and legions of jack booted thugs to protect them, get them promoted, get them jobs, get them subsidized, and keep them housed because of course they are poor defenseless children who can't possibly take care of themselves without sucking on the government teat. Well ladies which is it? Are you helpless brainless twits who can't possibly be expected to take care of yourselves and therefore should by all rights be kept at home barefoot, pregnant, and ignorant or are you empowered morally superior amazons who can have it all so you don't need us men? (except of course for alimony, palimony, child support, and changing the oil of course)?

You want to know why Islam *will* take over Europe and probably the U.S. someday? I had a conversation with a devote Muslim with regards to the role of females in society. Naturally I brought up the fact that under Sharia, women are basically chattel slaves who have no power. His answer was "You try to tell us you have a better way - but what do you offer? All you do is switch the male and female and your life is better? Your families are better off? You have no fathers! Your women enslave you! They can even kill you and you let them go! Is it better for a wife to simply pick up a phone and say "He hit me", destroy a mans life, offer no proof, and be rewarded for it with the children, the house, all the possessions, and money forever? This is your better way?"

He has a point and this case proves it. That is the way we do it here and women can murder men in cold blood for any reason just by saying the three little words every guy wants to hear "He hit me". Ladies, years from now when the backlash of this washes over the world (and it will - how many societies where women rule do you know of that have lasted the centuries) it isn't going to be pleasant. Stories about violence against women got these laws past but eventually men who have been the victims are going to look right back and say "so what". Many of these men are going to be the cops you expect will collect your child support for you, your alimony for you, keep your husband away so you can move your boyfriend in, etc. Yes life in utopia thanks to feminism - it's so much better with the woman on top (pun intended).

4:00 PM, June 28, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"a jury of 10 women and two men chose to convict her of voluntary manslaughter—a crime of passion "produced by adequate provocation sufficient to lead a reasonable person to act in an irrational manner," under Tennessee law."

taken from crime library

10 women and 2 men, that isn't a biased jury at all....

3:27 AM, August 01, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"She said her husband criticized her for "the way I walk, what I eat, everything. It was just building up to this point. I was just tired of it. I guess I just got to a point and snapped.""

taken from crime library

so because he verbally abused her? her life wasn't under threat, she had no reason to fear for it. there is a big different between "you are a fat pig" and "i'm going to kill you". Stupid woman, stupid judge, stupid jury. I hope she recieves some vigilante justice before she gets a chance to reunite with her children.

3:35 AM, August 01, 2007  
Blogger Unknown said...

According to Belfort Bax, women received a large amount of impunity under 19th Century law. Under the publication, "The Legal Subjection of Men", Bax documented the legal impunity that was conferred upon women under 19th Century law.

Here is an excerpt from "The Legal Subjection of Men":


Exactly as in the case of bigamy, the law on murder
and homicide are nominally the same for men as for 29

women. But if a wife by poisoning or violence, kills
her husband, the administrators of the law show in
practice what can be done by twisting a text. The
matter will again be referred to under the Criminal
Law, but provisionally the rules may be reduced to form
somewhat as follows:--
(1) The least excuse is sufficient to reduce the
crime from murder to manslaughter.
(2) All the wife's statements against her husband
are assumed to be true until they are proved to be
(3) The proof of the actual deed of crime must be
much more conclusive than in the case of a man.
(4) If the verdict be [by] a mere chance one of murder,
a sympathetic judge announces he will forward to
the proper quarter the sympathetic jury's recom-
mendation to mercy. This recommendation is acted
on by the Home Secretary as a matter of course in
the case of a woman.
(5) If the verdict is, as it usually is, one of man-
slaughter, a shamefully inadequate or possibly a
merely nominal sentence is imposed.

(a) Poisoning.

This peculiarly treacherous crime is a legitimate mode
of self-defence if practised by a wife on her husband.

(b) Violence.

A wife is still "weak woman" when armed with a
poker, a metal pot, a vitriol bottle, a petroleum can, or a
revolver. If these lethal substances killed her husband
it must have been by accident. In any case he had
taken her "for better or worse," and had to put up with
the consequences. Why did he cross her temper?
Besides, even if she were ill-tempered, why did he not
make a better selection when marrying? The elimina- 30

tion of thoughtless males is rather useful on the whole
to the progress of the race.
The decisions to which this line of argument, con-
scious or sub-conscious, leads judges and juries,
shamefully neglectful of their public trust, may be seen
from the appended cases, selected haphazard from a
newspaper file.

(c) Poisoning a Husband.

Mrs. Maybrick was tried at Liverpool Assizes for
poisoning her husband. She read a written statement
by herself (Mr. Justice Stephens ordered that she be
not permitted to communicate with her lawyers before
writing it) to the effect that she administered the poison
to her husband at his own request. The judge and
jury accepted her statement that she administered the
poison, but disbelieved her statement that it was at his
own request, and, wonderful to relate, she was convicted
of murder, but the Home Secretary commuted her
sentence; and after undergoing a few years' imprison
ment she is now at large.

(d) Setting a Husband on Fire.

Mary O'Reardon, August 1st, 1894, poured oil over
her husband, and deliberately set him on fire with a
lighted paper. Sentenced at the Central Criminal Court
to six years' penal servitude.
The offence was plainly wilful murder. The man had
shortly before attempted to commit suicide--being
driven to the attempt by her ill-usage.

(e) Setting a Husband on Fire.

Catherine Chilton (Durham Assizes, Nov. 24th, 1894)
threw a lighted lamp at her husband. Sentenced to
twelve months' hard labour for manslaughter. The
judge described it as a wanton and wicked act, and
said it was a mercy for the prisoner that the jury had
reduced the original charge to one of manslaughter. 31

(f) Stabbing a Husband.

Annie Hibberd, August, 1894, stabbed her husband
twice, remarking, "Revenge is sweet.'' Found guilty
of manslaughter at the Central Criminal Court, and
sentenced to six years' penal servitude.

(g) Driving a Waggon over a Husband.

Jane Payne, August 18th, 1894, thrust her husband
off a waggon, and then deliberately backed the horses,
driving the wheels over him twice. Both legs fractured.
He died a few hours afterwards. Found guilty of man-

(h) Setting a Husband and Child on Fire.

Jane Ann Trelawney Baker ([age] 32) pleaded guilty to
manslaughter of her husband and child by throwing a
lighted lamp at the former. She was sentenced to three
days' imprisonment, which meant her immediate release,
and on leaving the dock remarked, amid the sympathy
of the Court, that she was a childless widow, alone in
the world ! ! !--Central Criminal Court, December 14th,

(i) Killing a Husband by Throwing a Knife at Him.

At the Central Criminal Court, October 24th, 1894, a
married woman surrendered to answer an indictment
charging her with the manslaughter of her husband.
The defence was that the prisoner did not fling the knife
with the intention of killing her husband. She threw
the knife in a moment of great mental irritation, and it
unfortunately struck the deceased. The jury could not
agree to a verdict and were discharged. The case was
put back until the following week for counsel in the
meantime to consider if it were necessary to proceed
further with the case. Mr. Justice Wright, in allowing
the prisoner out on a recognizance, told her that she
need not attend unless she received notice to do so. The 32

judge, it should be added, who throughout the trial
appeared favourable to the prisoner, disallowed various
questions of the prosecution as to the previous relations
with the husband, and cut short the medical evidence,
saying that he did not like to see the time of the Court
wasted with cases such as these, or words to that effect.
Of course not! Mere husband killing, alter all--what
is that? In the opposite case, that of killing a wife by
the husband, how often have judges been careful to
point out to the jury that any unlawful assault, if death
happened to result from it, was, in the eyes of the law,
wilful murder!"

Other semi-related excerpts from "The Legal Subjection of Men":


Again, a pious archæology animates the judges when
the woman is to be benefited. Notwithstanding the
revolutionary changes in the law, another old-world
privilege of the "woman under the rod" is reserved for
the dominating female of to-day. If her husband is
present when she is committing a crime, a married
woman is presumed by an intelligent administration of
justice to have acted under his coercion. This is some-
times amusing, when, as often happens, the woman is

the instigator of the crime. 11

This precious privilege is nominally confined to cases
of minor importance, and in special is supposed not to
affect murder. In practice it affects all crimes, and is
no dead letter, as illustrative cases can show."

" (e) Impunity for Violence and Assault.

If a man under any provocation, no matter how
galling--insolence or violence--strikes a woman, he is
sent to hard labour, divorced, and his property con-
fiscated, or his earnings hypothecated--and all this
through the prompt instrumentality of the police-court.
A woman may assault, stab, set fire to her husband, and
he has no remedy, except to summon her to the police-
court, where, if she be fined, he is compelled to pay the
fine, and as likely as not is laughed at. If her crime be
revoltingly atrocious, she is perhaps sent to prison--for
one-twentieth part of the time awarded to a male
offender for a like offence. On her being released, her
husband, unless he be a rich man, is bound to take her
back, and, rich or poor, support her. The prompt and
inexpensive police-court divorce is not for him.
A humane police magistrate actually had to stoop to
make terms with a cruel and murderous criminal. A
wife strikes a felon blow at her husband, renders him
insensible, and he has to be removed to the hospital.
His face is badly scarred, six stitches having to be put
into the wounds. The magistrate, wishing to prevent
murder, binds her over to come up for judgment, if
called upon, on condition that she kindly consents to
sign a separation deed, permitting her unfortunate hus- 20

hand slave to live apart from her. The slave of course
has to support her all the same. ( Morning Advertiser,
2nd June, 1896. Thames Police Court.)"

" (f) Impunity for Adultery.

The latest charter of women's privileges--the Act
of 1895--enables a woman to commit adultery with
Impunity--provided she can allege her husband neg-
lected her. As "neglect" usually means that she
drove him to the public-house or to his club by over-
bearing violence and insolence, the present law means
that if a woman has a fancy for adultery, all she need do
is to pick a quarrel with her husband about anything she
likes, then she can indulge in desertion and adultery
with impunity, and claim the usual divorce and confis-
cation from a sympathising tribunal.
It is singular that the law on this very offence should
be perpetually cited by women's righters as her chief
grievance, next to the absence of the Parliamentary
franchise--and as the standing illustration of the "cruel
inequality and injustice as between the woman and the
man" of the English law of divorce. If a woman, we
are told, commits adultery, a man can obtain absolute
divorce, but if a woman sues she must prove cruelty as
Now as to the earlier law, this was the rule, and
something could be said to defend it. It is obvious that
if a woman commits adultery she may introduce a
bastard child to her husband's family, and saddle him
with a pecuniary burden and them with an onerous
relationship which it is unjust should be borne by them
[which would be unjust if borne by them]. If a
husband has illicit relations, he does not bring home
his bastard offspring. But since 1857 the secular court
has practically abolished the discriminations. Let the
wife prove illicit relations by the husband, and she has
always had her divorce for the asking. The reason
is simple. The Courts will hold, to oblige a wife, that 21
anything is cruelty if committed by a husband. It is
cruelty to come home late from his club; it is cruelty to
spend an evening with friends without her company.
It is cruelty to hold her hands if she tries to strike or to
bite him.
However, these refinements are no longer necessary
to the pro-feminist tribunals of England. The last
charter of feminine privilege (the Act of 1895) has set
the balance of express law the other way. Now a wife
can commit adultery with impunity--if induced by the
"neglect" of her husband. No such excuse for the

" (g) Impunity for Desertion.

A woman can have her husband arrested and sent to
gaol if he leaves her, even though her own violence and
cruelty led to his flight. The husband gets no assist-
ance from the law if his wife deserts him.
The method in which this privilege has been worked
out was simple enough. It consisted in abolishing all
the husband's control over the wife's actions and
property, and, on the other hand, retaining all the wife's
power of legal compulsion on the husband, with added
These changes have practically come in during the
period since 1857, when a secular court for divorce was
established. Under the earlier law, prior to, and long
after the Reformation, ecclesiastical censure restrained
the deserting wife. But the secular common law also
lent its aid to the husband. He could prevent her by
force from leaving his house, and could bring her back
if she had escaped. More, he had an action for
"harbouring" against any of her relations or strangers
who assisted her in straying away--as late as George
III. a husband's action for damages on this ground was
successful. 22

An exception to the general rule, and even this was of
doubtful validity, was introduced under Henry VIII. A
wife could be assisted to leave her husband's house if
she were journeying to the Bishop's Court to seek a
But the latest feminist rulings of the judges have quite
swept away such fine distinctions as those of 1857.
(1) By their fiction of "cruelty"--anything a
husband does being "cruelty"--they have enabled
any woman who likes to leave on a pretended
(2) By procuring the passing of an Act (Lord
Chancellor Cairns' Act, 1884) the Courts got rid of
their theoretical duty of ordering a wife to be
imprisoned for refusing to obey an order of
restitution of conjugal rights. Nothing in the way
of compulsion by restraint of person or property is
to be applied to the wife. But by a cynical stroke
this Act provides that if a husband refuses to obey,
his property is to be confiscated. And, more out-
rageous than all, the wife's power to procure the
arrest and imprisonment of the husband by the
magistrate's Court is left untouched.
A case in which the wife of a clergyman caused her
husband to be arrested on board a ship going to
America, and sentenced to hard labour by alleging his
desertion, deserves special notice. True that the clergy-
man, having means, could appeal to a higher Court and
have the iniquitous sentence quashed. But the working
man would have had to serve his allotted term in the
prison cell. And no one has ever suggested that this
wife should be punished. (See the case of the Rev.
Peter MacDonald Neilson, June, 1894.)
The notorious Jackson case furnished another pic-
ture. Here a woman is upheld by the Court of Appeal
in deserting her husband and condemning him to life- 23

long celibacy. He has absolutely no remedy against
her. If she commits any civil injury against any one, he
can be sued. If he should live with any other woman,
Mrs. Jackson can get a portion of the property confis-
cated and settled on herself. She is not obliged to ask
for a divorce, she can still keep him bound by limiting
her demand to a judicial separation.
The criticisms which some lawyers have made on this
decision are wide of the mark. It was quite in harmony
with the later current of authority, though in violent
conflict with the settled Common Law of last century.
Tie the man and let the woman free, is the prevalent
judicial theory of to-day.
Though the judges could obtain the passing of Lord
Chancellor Cairns' Act, 1884, freeing the wife from
imprisonment for desertion, there has been no sugges-
tion of promoting an Act to enable a man in Mr.
Jackson's position to obtain a divorce.
So enamoured have they become with the new doctrine
of feminine predominance in the relation of marriage,
that the judges of the House of Lords have actually
extended to Scotland their theory of tying the man and
letting the woman free. For over three centuries the
law of Scotland has provided that desertion for four
years on the part of either spouse is ground for absolute
divorce, with right of second marriage. For all that
long period the Act has been found most salutary in
effect. Now the judges in the House of Lords, in the
year 1894, have practically repealed it. They have
refused to grant a Scotch litigant divorce, although his
wife has deserted him for over four years, and at the
same time abducted his child. They allege, as the
ground for this astonishing "new readings" of the law,
that the husband did not really want her to return. As
this can be alleged in every case in which a husband
does not slavishly implore a shrew to come back, the
result is that when a vindictive woman wants to prevent 24

the man remarrying, she can successfully resist his claim
for divorce. This salutary Act of Scots Parliament has
been offered up as a whole burnt offering on the altar of
the dominant female."

" (i) Impunity for False Charges on Oath.

No crime is too abominable to be imputed by a wife,
with absolute impunity, against a husband. More pre-
cise details need not be given, as recent instances will
occur to the public mind of notorious and infamous ill-
usage of a husband in this way by a heartless and vin-
dictive woman. But the Public Prosecutor is silent
when the false accusation is brought by one of the
privileged sex. Prosecutions of women for perjury in
a divorce suit are unknown.
And, be it observed, this privilege extends to all
female friends or hirelings of the wife. These persons
are allowed to accuse, with elaborately-prepared details
of corroboration, the husband of the woman litigant of
committing adultery with themselves. They are never
punished. An obliging maiden sister--to help her
married sister to procure divorce and confiscation of
property against a troublesome husband--swears that
the husband committed adultery with herself, the wife's
sister! The judge and jury find this story a concocted
lie. The infamous perjurer is not punished--is not even
prosecuted. Obliging maid servants every day come
forward to allege their own or some other woman's
"immoral relations" with the victim husband. No one
ever dreams of prosecuting them. It would be waste
of time and money--as no jury would convict. 27

(k) Impunity for Perjured Denials of Guilt.

Women, it is notorious, every day perjure themselves
in divorce suits, by denying that they committed adultery
when their guilt is manifest. They are never prose-
cuted. The administrators of the law show by their
practice--though not in articulate words--that they hold
such perjury a venial fault, if not, indeed, a justifiable
means of self-defence in the case of holy, inviolate
This privilege, like the analogous one of bringing
lying charges against a husband, extends to the wife's
friends and hirelings. Let a husband untruly deny his
illicit connection with a woman if his wife is the accuser.
The Public Prosecutor intervenes, as a case decided in
June, 1896, shows clearly enough, when the male went
to penal servitude.
Yet, be it observed, it is only the man's denying with
the object of protecting himself against his wife that is
punished. If the man he not a husband, but a co-
respondent: if he deny the truth with the laudable
object of protecting a wife (who happens to be an
adulteress--but that does not strip her of her privilege)
then his perjury is pardonable and chivalrous. The
co-respondent is safe under the shadow of the wife. In
fact he must lie. And this brings us to the next head
of privilege.

(l) Impunity for Treacherous Confession of Guilt.

Here we have a most striking rule--No woman is
supposed to be a cowardly traitor if she turns "wife's
evidence" against a man, and truly alleges that he had
illicit relations with herself. She is assisting justice,
promoting morality, showing true repentance by open
confession, and aiding in the women's trade union
object of keeping down man, the slave! Her treachery
to her accomplice is condoned. 28

But a man who would dare to turn "husband's
evidence" against a wife, cannot be found within the
four seas. The reason stares one in the face. Such a
witness would not he welcomed as a servant of justice,
and a repentant sinner. No! he would be esteemed by
judge, jury, press and public to be a loathsome reptile,
unfit for human society. A howl of execration would
drive him from the land. Such a depth of morbid senti-
ment has been reached that even if a man charged with
immoral relations with a wife, refuses or omits--pre-
sumably through religious or conscientious motives--
to come forward and perjure himself on her behalf, an
indignant press comments on his conduct, and tells him
he has not acted as a gentleman.

(m) Impunity to Procure Adultery.

A wife seeking divorce and confiscation of her
husband's property can exercise all her privileges of
violence, insolence, and, under her recent charter, of
adultery, without inconvenience, but she can in addition
make him guilty as well as herself, with the trivial
difference that he will be punished. A wife can get
female detectives to send female seducers in her hus-
hand's path, and can then produce her hirelings in the
box with conclusive proofs of the husband's and their
own guilt.
If the attempt be made on the husband's side there is
swift retribution. In the first place as the adultery was
committed with his own connivance she is quite absolved
from legal responsibility. But more follows. At this
moment, such witnesses on a husband's side can be sent
to prison for successful conspiracy to procure the
adultery of a wire. The wife herself wins her suit."


9:05 AM, August 14, 2007  
Blogger Blue Texan said...

Really, men just can't catch a break in this country nowadays. Especially white men.

2:41 PM, August 15, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...



Shade sail
nike shoes



4:29 AM, February 01, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...









6:04 AM, February 10, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

作愛影片免費觀賞免費a片卡通免費a片卡通免費a片卡通免費a片卡通免費a片卡通免費a片卡通免費a片卡通免費a片卡通免費a片卡通免費a片卡通性影片下載性影片下載性影片下載性影片下載性影片下載性影片下載性影片下載性影片下載性影片下載性影片下載線上免費a片觀看線上免費a片觀看線上免費a片觀看線上免費a片觀看線上免費a片觀看線上免費a片觀看線上免費a片觀看線上免費a片觀看線上免費a片觀看線上免費a片觀看a免費影片觀賞a免費影片觀賞a免費影片觀賞a免費影片觀賞a免費影片觀賞a免費影片觀賞a免費影片觀賞a免費影片觀賞a免費影片觀賞a免費影片觀賞免費線上觀賞卡通影片免費線上觀賞卡通影片免費線上觀賞卡通影片免費線上觀賞卡通影片免費線上觀賞卡通影片免費線上觀賞卡通影片免費線上觀賞卡通影片免費線上觀賞卡通影片aa片免費看微風論壇080哈啦聊天室6k聊天室成人聊天室上班族捷克論壇大眾論壇plus論壇080視訊聊天室520視訊聊天室尋夢園上班族聊天室成人聊天室上班族 a片a片影片免費情色影片免費a片觀看小弟第貼影片區免費av影片免費h影片試看 H漫 - 卡通美女短片小魔女貼影片免費影片觀賞無碼a片網美女pc交友相簿美女交友-哈啦聊天室中文a片線上試看免費電影下載區免費試看a短片免費卡通aa片觀看女優影片無碼直播免費性感a片試看日本AV女優影音娛樂網日本av女優無碼dvd辣妹視訊 - 免費聊天室美女交友視訊聊天室080免費視訊聊天室尋夢園聊天室080苗栗人聊天室a片下載日本免費視訊美女免費視訊聊天

11:03 AM, February 16, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...



18禁 -女優王國

8:06 AM, February 18, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Canton Fair
Guangzhou Hotel

4:24 AM, February 23, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


10:59 AM, February 25, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

咆嘯小老鼠情色貼圖咆嘯小老鼠情色貼圖咆嘯小老鼠情色貼圖咆嘯小老鼠情色貼圖咆嘯小老鼠情色貼圖咆嘯小老鼠情色貼圖咪咪免費情色貼圖咪咪免費情色貼圖咪咪免費情色貼圖咪咪免費情色貼圖咪咪免費情色貼圖咪咪免費情色貼圖咪咪免費情色貼圖咪咪免費情色貼圖咪咪免費情色貼圖色色免費情色貼圖網波波美女情色貼圖波波美女情色貼圖波波美女情色貼圖波波美女情色貼圖波波美女情色貼圖波波美女情色貼圖波波美女情色貼圖波波美女情色貼圖波波美女情色貼圖波波美女情色貼圖台灣美少女八大娛樂網台灣美少女八大娛樂網台灣美少女八大娛樂網台灣美少女八大娛樂網台灣美少女八大娛樂網台灣美少女八大娛樂網台灣美少女八大娛樂網台灣美少女八大娛樂網台灣美少女八大娛樂網台灣美少女八大娛樂網新UT中部人聊天室新UT中部人聊天室新UT中部人聊天室新UT中部人聊天室新UT中部人聊天室新UT中部人聊天室新UT中部人聊天室新UT中部人聊天室新UT中部人聊天室新UT中部人聊天室金瓶梅情色文學 金瓶梅情色文學 金瓶梅情色文學 金瓶梅情色文學 金瓶梅情色文學 金瓶梅情色文學 金瓶梅情色文學 金瓶梅情色文學 金瓶梅情色文學 金瓶梅情色文學 金瓶梅情色小說金瓶梅情色小說金瓶梅情色小說金瓶梅情色小說金瓶梅情色小說金瓶梅情色小說金瓶梅情色小說金瓶梅情色小說金瓶梅情色小說金瓶梅情色小說0951免費視訊聊天秀0951免費視訊聊天秀0951免費視訊聊天秀0951免費視訊聊天秀0951免費視訊聊天秀0951免費視訊聊天秀0951免費視訊聊天秀0951免費視訊聊天秀0951免費視訊聊天秀0951免費視訊聊天秀金瓶梅漫畫下載網金瓶梅漫畫下載網金瓶梅漫畫下載網金瓶梅漫畫下載網金瓶梅漫畫下載網金瓶梅漫畫下載網金瓶梅漫畫下載網金瓶梅漫畫下載網金瓶梅漫畫下載網金瓶梅漫畫下載網2009新金瓶梅影片交流區2009新金瓶梅影片交流區2009新金瓶梅影片交流區2009新金瓶梅影片交流區2009新金瓶梅影片交流區2009新金瓶梅影片交流區2009新金瓶梅影片交流區

4:14 AM, March 22, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


1:38 AM, April 07, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


1:38 AM, April 07, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


1:41 AM, April 07, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................

11:19 PM, May 19, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

視訊交友 kugirl電話網愛視訊交友電話網愛視訊交友168 視訊交友168 視訊交友5320 視訊交友5320 視訊交友視訊交友高雄網視訊交友高雄網383視訊影音城視訊交友web365kiss168下載a視訊聊天室v6 0台灣成人網免費線上歐美av美女美女

2:45 AM, June 08, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home