Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Kill Your Husband--Get a House and Car

So Mary Winkler, the woman who shot her husband, Matthew in the back has been granted supervised visits with her children by a judge:

HUNTINGDON, Tenn. - Carroll County Chancellor Ron Harmon ruled Wednesday night that a woman who fatally shot her minister husband could have supervised visitation of their three daughters.

Although Mary Winkler was denied custody, she will be allowed to visit the girls ages 10, 8 and 2 under supervised conditions. She can also talk to them on the phone every other day.

Winkler is on probation after serving about seven months in jail for shooting Matthew Winkler.

Not only will this murderess get supervised visits with the kids, but now her enabling community has provided her with some goodies, just to show their support!

Mary Winkler's supporters such as Kathy Thompson are helping her make a new home for herself.

"She's asked for forgiveness," Thompson said. "It's our duty. The Bible tells us, if we don't forgive others God won't forgive us. So we're just trying to pick up pieces and go on."

Winkler said the community has reached out to her, giving her everything from a five -bedroom home to live in for $150 to a car she's traded in for a sports utility vehicle.

What, the car wasn't good enough for her and she had to trade it in for a sports utility vehicle? Well, why not? Nothing's too good for Mary! It's hard to know who is sicker, Mary or her community.



Blogger pockosmum said...

Incredible. I am still shaking my head in disbelief. I really wish someone would tear her apart when she appears on TV. She keeps saying that she shot her husband 'during an argument' but he was lying on his side, in bed, facing away from her. Can no one put two and two together and see that she shot him in the back while he was sleeping?

How can she win any kind of custody?? Her jail sentence was a joke, but I had hoped someone in the justice system would have some sense where the children are concerned...how much more twisted can the justice system become?

7:29 AM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger Unknown said...

I do agree with what she says about forgiveness, but to me, "forgive" means "refrain from revenge" not "give house and car".

8:50 AM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger Cham said...

Ms. Winkler's "community" desperately wants to believe the story Ms. Winkler has outlined, they are free to buy her a house and a trade-in car if they wish in order to encourage her to stick around although I am not sure about the intelligence of having this lady in their midst. Ms. Winker might kill the next husband, and there will be a next husband. I doubt Mary is going to remain in the employment pool much longer, too much like work. The justice system wherever this boondoggle took place wanted to believe this young white lady's story because she talked a good game with her well-practice innocent victim routine. If Mary had been a large black woman with bad teeth she would have been swinging from the nearest tree months ago. Mary wouldn't have made too much headway with her game in my state.

8:52 AM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger DADvocate said...

Along the same lines as john m., the Bible says to forgive but it doesn't say to be a total idiot. I'm sickened that there are so many deserving people who could be helped by this community (Mary Winkler's kids and their grandparents for starters) and they choose to support a murderer.

9:49 AM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger Derve Swanson said...

One of the hardest things in Family Law is understanding the pain that some children must endure in their lifetimes.

The mother of these girls is a killer, and not only that, killed their father. Still, they are her children. Biologically, she and the dead man created them. If not now, later in their life, they'll just have to come to accept this -- or let it eat them alive maybe via alcohol or other self destruction.

If a family judge thinks that supervised visits and daily phone calls for these girls with their mother is in their best interests now, well there is painful acceptance for all of us in life because it goes on for so many. You can't "fix" the past by denying the girls now.

I can only hope that the time for the girls is being supervised, and that someone wise thinks that it is better for them to confront the ugly reality of what happened in their family now, than to bury and deny. Again, there are no easy answers for these girls. Experts can try and observe, and advise what is best for them .

It's not really about the mother, those visits and phone calls, you have to believe that someone in the Family Court system decided that supervised visits are in the best interests of the child(ren) at this time.

As on other family issues you write about her Helen, once again I have to wonder if your emotions -- your understandable hatred of the killer here -- are overriding your understanding of the goals for the surviving children, and the painful life that no one can wish away.

I hope you can understand what I'm saying through the children's eyes rather than just label me as the victim-sympathizer making excuses for a mother. Those poor kids.

10:26 AM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger Yamantaka said...

Hey Dr. Helen- did you see this? It was pretty gross:


This woman in Maryland had 4 dead fetuses found on her property, and (based on what I know) in custody she admitted to drowning a viable, newly-born infant in a toilet.

As of last week, no charges were pressed. I'm baffled as to how that happened.

11:06 AM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger Helen said...


"you have to believe that someone in the Family Court system decided that supervised visits are in the best interests of the child(ren) at this time."

That's laughable. Have you ever worked in family court? I have seen decisions based on the whims on judges that make no sense at all. One example I saw--a mother lost custody of her kids for having a couple of tattoos the judge didn't like. Was her loss of custody in the best interests of her children? I don't think so. Courts make mistakes all the time.

11:43 AM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger Derve Swanson said...

Courts make mistakes all the time.

If you "know" something that's not being said here that would override the court's decision to let these children talk to their mother daily, I wish you'd share it.

What's so hard for you to accept is exactly what these little girls must -- they have no choice: that this monster who killed their father is still their mother, the same one.

Again, think of the kids. Maybe it's not a mistake here -- for their sake -- to allow supervised visits and daily phone calls. You can't just "turn off" your thoughts of Mom at that age, even if some angry adults would tell you that's her punishment.

All I'm suggesting is again you presume to know best what those girls need, and I don't think you know where they are at with all this right now. And they are kids, who will respond as children do.

Peace, out.

11:59 AM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger JBlog said...

Book deal!

Wait for it -- it's coming.

12:43 PM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger Jay Manifold said...

So how many of these idiots are the same people who can't decide on a penalty for abortion either?

12:48 PM, September 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It appears the kids are being taught that there is only a small and manageable amount of punishment handed to a woman who murders her spouse. All of society, actually.

I suppose we'll see where this precedent leads us in times to come.

1:00 PM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger jdkchem said...

The bible is not a Hsuicide pact.

Who saw that one coming?

1:01 PM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger Dan said...

"Again, think of the kids. Maybe it's not a mistake here -- for their sake -- to allow supervised visits and daily phone calls."

I'm thinking of the kids, and I'm thinking it's not in their best interest to have them associating with a murderer. The biological bond is grossly overrated in this context. I know whereof I speak...as a foster dad I deal with kids whose parents should never be allowed within 300 feet of "their" kids for the rest of their lives.


1:01 PM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger Unknown said...


Children don't need biological parents to grow up well adjusted, they just need guardians who are well adjusted themselves. Much better to put these kids in a foster home with sane people than to let them come in contact with a monster that just so happens to have the same DNA as them.

1:02 PM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger Cityside said...

FYI, Mary Winkler will be the season premiere episode of Oxygen's Snapped on Sunday, Oct 7th at 10PM.


1:05 PM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger Stephen said...

Forgiveness is granted by the person injured, not by Mrs. Winkler's friends for whom "I forgive you" are just painless cheap words. The world is filled with people---Christians and non-Christians alike---who mouth platitudes without thinking about what they're saying.

1:07 PM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger KoryO said...

Considering how much they've already bent over backwards for this murderer, why the shock at granting her visitation with her kids? (I'm sure it will be strictly monitored, too....snicker.)

Remind me if I ever want to whack anyone, to do it in her neighborhood. After all, I'm a nice, white, middle class lady who goes to church....I'll be perfectly happy with whatever little sporty car they want to buy me as a reward, I promise.

1:09 PM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger Thor's Dad said...

For another Christian perspective on Mary's "plight" I quote C.S. Lewis on Forgiveness in Mere Christianity
"Does loving your enemy mean not punishing him? No, for loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment - even to death. If one had committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and be hanged...Even while we kill [in war] and punish we must try to feel about the enemy as we feel about ourselves - to wish that he were not bad, to hope that he may, in this world or another, be cured: in fact to wish his good. That is what is meant in the Bible by loving him: wishing his good, not feeling fond of him nor saying he is nice when he is not."

I think I know where dear old Lewis would come down in Mary's case.

1:16 PM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger Sam said...

I agree with Mary regarding the children and the courts. While there are bad judges making arbitrary decisions in family courts, there are many more responsible judges seeking to act in the children's best interest in accordance with the law, and in so doing, listening sincerely to the advice of dedicated professionals. To suggest that such a scenario is laughable is beyond cynical. Other than getting some enlightened, benevolent, omnipotent philosopher king, there is no hope for humanity other than to task certain people with the job of making hard decisions and trust that, on the whole, they will listen to good advice and do their jobs well.

1:19 PM, September 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's not forget she will also be receiving $400,000 from his life insurance policy. Isn't that really neat?

In step with the insanity of all of this, it's highly likely this woman will get custody of her children, and considering that she is obvioulsy psychotic, this puts her own children at an extremely high risk of being murdered by her as well. The children harbor a deep resentment of her- hey, what could wrong?!?

I wonder that once she does kill her children, will society finally grow up and hold women responsible for their actions?

1:43 PM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger Cham said...

$400K? Hmmm, I am going to have to look into this husband-killing line. Where did this lady do the crime and what is the cost of housing there?

2:06 PM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger T Mack said...

I am not gay, but does this state allow gay marriage or "civil" unions?
It is such a good deal if I can't get a mail order bride, I'll check the gay stuff.
They'll probably pay double for a gay killing out of the oppersion stuff.

2:18 PM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger 64 said...

Reminds me of the woman who was a juror at the Menendez brothers' trial. She felt sorry for them because they didn't have a mother.

Because they killer her.

Since C.S. Lewis remarked on this subject, I can't believe it's new. Just another case of modern man pushing the limits. But I could understand how someone would think they're witnessing the total breakdown of society.

2:21 PM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger Ken Humphrey said...

If I understand correctly, Winkler has stated that her actions were self-defence (i.e., she did not commit murder). If that is the case, why whould she need to ask for forgiveness? It seems that Ms. Thompson's desire to grant forgiveness, while commendable in the abstract (and in reality in most cases) is moot-- Winkler has done nothing wrong in her mind; therefore, there is no sin to be foregiven. I wonder why her supporters cannot see the disconnect there. Perhaps they simply want to accept her version of the story in order to avoid facing an ugly truth-- there is a seemingly very nice lady in their midst who is a callous murderer

2:22 PM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger Fred said...

@Mary, Sam Family Law in this coutry is a joke. Murdering moms apparently get the benefit of the doubt for visitation rights. How many murdering fathers are awarded visitation rights? Even though most fatal child abuse is committed by women, there is nothing heinous enough to persuade a Family Law judge to decide a mother is unfit. Having 50% of the DNA isn't enough to override the fact that she is a convicted felon who killed the childrens' father.

2:33 PM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger Ken said...

While it may not be, strictly speaking, theologically sound to say so, it also seems that forgiveness ought to presuppose actual repentance by the transgressor.

As for her supporters...they have received their reward here on Earth.

2:43 PM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger DADvocate said...

I've stated before, can you imagine the sleep disorders these kids will have is they spend the night with their mother? How spending time with their mother is in the best interest of Mary Winkler's children is beyond me.

What other idiotic actions are going to come forth in order to make this sociopathic, cold-blooded killer feel better about herself and to be "forgiven?"

Here's a hypothetical: What if a family member of Matthew Winkler "snaps" due to the pity party for Mary Winkler and kills her. How do you think that person would be treated?

2:50 PM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger Maxine Weiss said...

From the time they are born...little girls are made of sugar and spice and everything nice..

...right up till the time they become Mothers, when they really become saints. Motherhood is sacred and it is an absolute defense against anything and everything.

--Even though women simply aren't capable of crime in the first place.

3:23 PM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger lovemelikeareptile said...

Just some passing thoughts-
Mary Mary Quite Contrary--

First the sheer idiocy posted by Mary-- our female Family Law person, showing the anti-male bigotry endemic to her little fiefdoom and the courts.
I love the idea that if the judge/the system decided X it is prima facie correct. Thats because she agrees-- without any direct argument-- with the decision.
The "Best Interest of the Child"-- like most legal concepts--is purely fictional, with no actual meaning, such content being poured in based on the "Best Interest of the Woman" by activists such as Mary. Its amazing how the Best Interest of the Child (BIC) -- which sounds objective and neutral--nearly always results in the woman getting what she wants-- as dear Mary argues here, in totally irrational a fashion.

Lets see-- she is their biological Mother ... OK a man who murderd his wife is his children's biological father... think Mary would make the same argument about the need for the kids to be with their father ? Ha--

ok... the girls will have to accept the ugly reality-- ok, thats obvious..

so "denying" the girls won't "fix the past". Whats that-- people who think she should not get custody she implies-- without arguing directly-- are just seeking revenge on poor mary-- not seeking the Best Interest of the Child like she nobably is.

Then there is the absurd psychological myth that the girls neeed to process all this--= with their patricidal Mother-- or alcoholism, death and destruction will result. Sheer psychobabble.

The vast majority of children who are sexually abused or abused or suffer harmful events-- turn out just fine. You as a psychologist or counselor or whatnot have no skills to help anyone with anything. Your services-- such as they are-- are not needed. The only way to insure problems for the girls is to have idiot psychologists try to help them deal with this-- we know that from evidence from ambulance chasing psychologists and their fellow pimps in the mental health field 's total uselessness in "crisis trauma".
Then, more conclusory idiocy,. Mary thinks making a statement is arguing for it. So "denying the girls" won't fix the pst. Who said it would fix the past and what is being denied the girls? By definiton, for Mary, Mothers ALways get their children-- by definiton, not for them to be with their Mother-- ANY MOTHER-- harms the child and is not in his/her best interest. See how it works .

Here is a look at the women in the system, who chose their work to effect their personal preferences for women and have no interest whatever in pursuing the "Best Interest of the Child " if that means anything other than doing what the female wants .

For Mary, whatever the Mother wants IS the "best interst of the Child .' Unless the woman beats the child within an inch of his/her life in open court, Mary will always decide for the WOMAN... Mary is the system... She is totally devoted to serving the interests and needs of women (gynocentric), as she sees them, uses the courts to do this , and dresses it up in the fine linen of "Best Interest of the Child". Dangerous to all concepts of fairness, equality and justice-- thats what Mary is.
The girls are being denied something by not associating with their Mother. What would that be ? Not being with thewir Mother is ALwyas HARMFUL FOR MARY.
Why Mary is the typical gynecocentric female that runs the system-- AGAIN-- she ASSUMES-- THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD ALWAYS COINCIDE WITH BEING WITH THE MOTHER-- EVEN IF SHE IS A MURDERER OF THEIR FATHER!!! Ya think Mary is using our courts to implement her bias against men-- could any man gain custody per Mary if the Mother opposed him ?
The Marys in our judicial system dressing their bigotry with nice sounding phrases like "BIC" is the problem. Legal concepts have no inherent meaning-- that why "legal reasoning" is an oxymoron ( I have three years and a law degree to support that statement).

Could this really be Mary Winkler who has come on the blog ? Out with it Mary-- did you have a day off from the cleaners and are cruising the web on your new DELL super-computer in your new home after driving about in your new SUV, all bestowed on you by the adoring female populace , planning your next media campaign ?
Does a feminist group or just a women's organization want to bronze your shotgun as an example of the advancement of women ?

Women-- giving gifts to a woman who brutally murdered her sleeping husband-- and then women in the judicial system arguing the girls "are being denied" something by not being with the murderer. . Can there be any doubt that many women are unable to act rationally or morally-- and indeed, behave in the most despicable way. Look-- they do it for all to see. Like the women who picketed the office of the dr who performed surgery on Mr Bobbitt-- or hassled his wife at a beauty parlor. Why do men tolerate women's disgusting, immoral behavior... Lets drop the big one now... they all hate us anyhow...

1. You can usually tell the gender of the writer of articles about crimes considered to be of interest to women-- specifically women killing, hacking off sex organs ( even 5 week olds -- Google "Katherine Nadal"), pouring boiling oil or water on, running over with SUVs , pouring gasoline on and setting ablaze, suffocating bound men slowly with plastic bags--etc-- men, preferably helpless, sleeping men. Female writers are inevitably biased , slanting the article toward the alleged culprit. Its typically rather obvious . Here we just have the euphemisms "fatally shot" and her husband's "shooting"-- instead of that mean ole "killing". Would not want to be too cruel to poor "Mary Carol" .
( I loved it when the Mississippi redneck attorney-- who embarrassed my state with his Mr Haney -like -on- Green Acres accent and his stereotyped gynecological defense-- adopted that name for poor Mary. Anyone from the old South knows those double first names are terms of affection, as my cousin "Martha Sue" (sigh-- she was 16 and I was 11...like Strawberry Wine...).

b. There is a first here-- the first time I have ever seen a picture of the murdered man-- reminding the reader a human being-- albeit just a man-- was murdered. These crimes are heavily dependent on the perp's lawyers-- along with the media --who support women killing/maiming sleeping men as POLITICAL ACTS-- degrading and dehumanizing the man.
Someone was definitely sympathetic with the victim to post his pic. Actually-- it is an editorial comment unless Mary is also depicted-- which I think she was....

2. It has to be said-- if a woman-- on these facts-- can kill a sleeping sixth generation MINISTER with a shotgun blast to the back, with all the evidence of motive (5 bank accounts in her name only, check kiting, caught and the two seeing the bank the day of the murder etc-) and NO corroborating evidence of abuse ( before 1980 , almost irrelevant, as "intent" and the law of self-defense ruled, )---if this woman receives no punishment, one poll saying 41% believe she should get her children back ( 90% women no doubt)-- every man is always at risk of being murdered by a woman.

Going to sleep is a perilous project if a woman is anywhere in the house-- or can break in.

Its considered POLITICAL SPEECH speech for women. Other women rush to embrace and show their "overwhelming support" for a woman who brutally murders her husband-- we are girls , too !!.

Misandry beyond imagination.. and media-stoked and instituitionalized ( can never spell that word) and now sanctified by our legal system. This has not happened since Jum Crow and the Nazi's racial hygiene laws... . The analogies are all too real-- men -- as a group-- are now the stingy ,slimy Jew and the dirty shifty n*****, because so many women like to see us that why.
As a letter to Time-- they actually published-- during the Bobbitt lovefest-- "I feel like a Jew in Nazi Germany". You got that right... This is what its really like if women were to gain control ( thankfully impossible)-- massive civil rights violations against men and boys. Be very worried... in my best Rod Serling voice...

3. By my estimation, Winkler is a sociopath. It is a rule in behavior genetics that "the least often afflicted sex is the worst afflicted" based on a simple dual threshold model--" more" genes being necessary to express a phenotype-- here sociopathy-- uncommon in men but very uncommon in women. When you get a female sociopath-- she is a real monster. ( see the unbelievably brutal acts women commit against men and then claim innocence etc. ) (( Never marry a woman with alcolholism or sociopathy in her family.. or a man with such with phobias).Some quotes-- the appeal for healing,...hypocritical, vacuous references to God, and no indication anywhere of her responsibility for his brutal murder. The idea that her former in-laws have also committed wrongs is utterly incomprehensible to the normal mind. She has referred to his killing being "bad, but it could be very good" reflecting a calculus in which murder has a corresponding and off-setting "good" result. I treasure her comment that she needs custody of the girls so that she can "begin to heal the emotional trauma" caused by their fathers death . Uh-- lets see-- she is responsible for that trauma because she killed him-- and now she is a healing salve ? Sorta like the child who murdered his parents appealing for mercy because he is an orphan...
A sociopath-- unplugging a phone to keep a victim from calling for help, driving off to look for a hotel "with an indoor swimming pool for the girls ". She aint kidding-- that was what she was thinking about.
Sociopaths-- you would need an "expert"-- from dint of exposure- to probably say for sure. You know them by their fruits , as Christ said.

4. One medical examiner, peering over the body of a man murdered by his wife, said " A man kills his wife and he kills himself. A woman kills her husband and she does her nails"...
all the anti-male references to the number of women killed by their husbands omit one crucial fact-- the husband often then kills himself-- indicating a state of severe emotional pain and thought disturbance.
Women NEVER do that. Because its calculated. They don't "snap". All the use of the bullshit "Battered Wife Syndrome"-- which has NO empirical basis whatever as a defense to violent acts-- is pure theater, sterotypically planned by defense counsel and expertly rendered by our female murderder /maimer. fooling almost every woman in America., who irrationally support her because she is a girl, too and men are mean and deserve it. ( indeed , the fact they were killed is proof to many a female mind THAT they deserved it.)

5.Ah-- her supporters-- almost exclusively female , no doubt, with their irrational emotionalisms like "No one knows what goes on behind closed doors (but she obviously does !), "let God judge her" ( hmmm--- maybe rapists, too-- maybe they just need counselling too)-- I/my niece/aunt/friend/someone I know/ a Martian who landed in the pasture --was abused so I know how it is, reflecting an emotional identification rather than an empirical analysis of the facts.

( Indeed it may be argued that-- or at least I argue that-- men have evolved to use rationality and empiricism as they build machines from cars, to planes, to the transister to the computer chip, to social and political sturctures to sciences and medicine, ad infintum. Without a rational, empirically based approach, everything bombs. Men's minds are tested by physical reality.
Women have evolved to have expertise in the emotional realm of motherhood, family , small groups, typically with close connections TO OTHER WOMEN . Hence their often irrational "take" on things reflecting a weakness in reality-testing, becasue their minds have evolved not for expertise in mattters requiring cause- effect analysis and trial and error and correction-- but in emotion. So men often think women are "crazy" when they explain why they hold their positions, because they are illogical ( like supporting mary as a victim of domestic violence ) while women think men are emotional blockheads who never get any of the truly important communication going on.
Nice insight or misoygynous. But the latter epithet is usually conclusory.
Its genetic, a female adaptation-- thats why its impossible to make rational/ empirical appeals to many women in cases like these. The other women --"the babes"-- automatically see the lack of empirical corroborating evidence and make rational arguments. You can read them arguing with their sisters-- but , like most men, to no avail. Its the way many women see the world.
Hence to justify someone's fears when i started, women should be barred from sitting on juries, getting law and medical licenses or-- obviously -- voting ( Ann Coulter agrees that women should not be allowed to vote , as Ann is a "babe", though God she needs to gain some weight !). Just kidding-- but not the part about juries...

Women -- at least a minority-- often emotionally bond with other women who kill/maim men. The "outpouring of support" from these women is typical-- see that old bitch who killed Dr Tanhower ( the first major use of "degrade the man/ make the woman a sympathetic victim ( she penned a paranoid insanely jealous certified letter to him, bought a gun, drove a couple of hours to his house to "talk " to him after he said it was very late but "suit "yourself" and he winds up dead in his bedroom from 3 gunshots -- and -- she is the victim ! The gynecological defense started then -- because it works so well with about 75% of women who are "Us agin Them".

Men never identify and emotionally support men who murder maim women. Its the difference between jack the Ripper and Lorena Bobbitt. Jack was the focus of an unprecedented man hunt for the brutal muder and dissection of his female victims. Lorena was and is a hero to many women, as other women who murder/maim are, if not heroes, justified vengeance- takers --routinely referenced in their communication with men as a humorous comment or a threatening one.
If Ms Bobbitt had gotten 20 years like she deserved, the jokes and degradation of men stops right there.
But of course, that was a political trial, covered at the insistence of women in the media. who saw it as "empowering " and "brave" to attack a man's sex organs while he is asleep.
Good-ole -boy-wannabe- ole Dan Rather said No-- we aint covering that bullshit, to his credit.He told the feminsits on his staff to go to hell-- this aint no political statement like women saw it as and continue to see it as. CBS-- to its credit- did not participate in women's barbarism.

That was a political rally put on by feminists and 90 % of women reveled in it-- and still do . Probably the sickest public display of hatred directed at an identifiable group since the 1930s when women, men and childred laughingly posed in front of a lynched black man. The same root-- public acceptance of the dehumanization of another person-- here , as then-- a class of people-- men.

Newsflash-- Oprah to have the DUKE LACROSSE boys on to talk about racism and sexism against white males and the very high frequency of false rape allegations...
And You have now entered the Twilite Zone

You know-- women should be glad we are around to take care of them.

Rant finshed-- time for my ECT seesion

3:49 PM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger Unknown said...

wow. Dr. Helen, would you defend etahasgard1986 as a man who's been oppressed by women letting off steam, or does the fact he thinks you shouldn't be able to serve on a jury because your brain has not evolved to think rationally put him over the top? :)

4:54 PM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger lovemelikeareptile said...

The results here-- no punishnment, eventual custody of the children, and support from many women-- was totally predictable if you follow these cases. So was the appearance on Oprah etc.. This scenario is the same over and over again.
This case show women will believe anything any woman says if they say it to justify murdering/maiming a man. They will believe her, think she is the victim, etc welcome to the world since 1980--

There are a lot of elements-- some-- that are sure -fire winners known as the p**** card

1. Claim emotional and physical , but always, sexual abuse. The latter is the most important. Make him out to be a rapist, a pervert, a sadomasochist, forcing anal and oral sex etc.. a bizarre as practices of forced sex as possible. Women identify with you becasue of their felt vulnerability and the charges cannot be refuted. He is dead and who knows what they did in private. He raped her and violated here every day for 100 years and made her particiapoate in bizarre, demeaning sex acts.. That is always presented.

2. He threatened the children by some series of evil acts. So she acted to protect them.

3. I just meant to "talk" wih him.

4. I don't remember anything about what happened.

5. It was an accident anyway.

6. I was totally passive-- the gun went off somehow, he collided with the knife I had in my hand ( real case), I did not kill him by hitting him with the SUV he ran at me and I tried to swerve but he ran into me ( real case).

7. I "snapped"

8. Make jury forget the defendants unlawyered initial admissions of guilt -- "My ugly came out" " He have orgasms and I never do so I cut it "-- normally these are very damaging but they are easily dissolved by the powerful p***** card.

8 Female expert to say you have PTSD-- no matter what. These whores of the female murderer/maimer beg the question-- they assume all the claimed abuse occurred then present an opinion that she has PTSD. Incredible huh.. Winkler was suffering from the lingering effects of her sister's death years ago-- check PTSD in DSM-1v-TR. That aint it-- that your dog "Fluffy" died when you were 5 only works if you are playing the p**** card with another one testifying for you.

No evidence is needed becasue of the female mind-- just "sling shit"

Why ? 90 % of women believe two things
1. Women never do bad things unless mean men make them.-- just ask them
2. Women tell the truth.
and for women, the attribution "error"
Women think women are innately good, if they appear to have done something bad, a mean man or something in the environment made them do it. Hence, counseling is the answer-- to restore her innate goodness.
Women think men are innately bad and doing bad things is their nature, so no need to ask "Why" they did an evil deed-- as every woman asks when a woman does something evil.
With a woman-- other women always ask "Why" did she do it,ie, there was a reason she did it that excuses it. Women never ask "Why did he rape her" or "Why" anyhting when men do something bad.
No its men's nature to do evil things, So they are guilty and should be put in prison becase they are always a threat because they are men and thus bad .

Thats how women have a double standard-- they want men heavily punished for any crime against women -- but women should not be punished at all for crimes against men.

Even women-- Lisa Nowak-- the diaper-wearing astronaut-- is pleading temporary insanity. Obviously-- its the p**** card. One woman called into a radio show i was listening to and-- asked what the old boyfriend ddi to make her do it. Women cannot stop their bigotry. Women are innately good in their mind and an absolving explantion is needde-- since all women tell the truth, just ask her and then believe everything she says.

Every defense attorney plays it-- it works every time. Whatever the crime , the most important thing a defendant can have is a vagina.

Get out of jail free.. or a deal to testify againt your male -codefendant.. etc ad nausemn.

There is nothing unusual or atypical about this result-- it has nothing to do with Tennessee or small communities. Women are the same everywhere and they enjoy men being murdered or maimed by women and support those women, and if they are jurors walk in with the intention of aquitting before any evidence ie heard--- ask the foreman of the Winkler trial who called it "unfair" becasue 9 of the 10 women wanted to let her off scot free-- before deliberations.
It was a compromise verdict-- 2 men and one women saying she is not going free. 9 women saying she is.. so they agreed on the completely imposssible "voluntary manslaughter" verdict.

Nothing unusual here. Its standard procedure-- all the elements occur in every trial of women-- amd they always get off and they always get their children and most women always support them. Just research the cases --

Engelbrect---- Google that woman--God ! 5 minutes sentence ... for encasing her bound es in plastic bag and waiting until he slowly strangled to death. You guessed it-- a hero to women-- a 5 minute sentence-- a man's life is worth nothing to women-- he must have deserved it-- women don't do bad things...

Nothing shocking here. Business as usual. The p**** card. It always works. Women can be counted on to find her blameless, support her , idolize her, and acquit her.
Most women are a threat to the very lives of men becasue they place no value on our lives.

5:06 PM, September 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know if she "deserves" gifts, but I'm puzzled as to why so many of your commenters are so convinced her husband didn't "have it coming" to him. A jury that hear ALL the evidence decided he did. Sometimes people reap what they sow.

5:26 PM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger Helen said...


Uhh, because many people feel that one shouldn't have the right to kill their spouse in cold blood like Winkler did and get a lousy 210 days in jail and some "mental health" time. He had it coming to him? Really? So if a woman nags a man (you know--abuse and all) to the point where he "snaps" would it be okay for him to put a bullet in her back? Because that is basically what you are saying.

5:48 PM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger Dragon Hawk said...

It is difficult not to despair when hearing things like this, and the justifications that people make.

Let us suppose for the sake of argument that her husband really was abusive (despite the fact that there was no evidence of abuse, only her word.) Does that really give a woman the right to kill a man who is asleep? She couldn't just leave?

I am the mother of a son. I know not all women are like this, since I obviously am not like this. But I am tempted to tell him to avoid relationships with women all together.

BTW, I wonder if Winkler's In-Laws can kill *her* with impunity because of the mental anguish of losing their sons? After all, that's got to be the worst sort of abuse, having your child murdered.

6:20 PM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger Unknown said...

Actually, forgiveness has nothing to do with it. I can't forgive Mary Winkler, nor can most of the people who are talking about forgiveness right now. She didn't harm me personally, so there's nothing for me to forgive. Her family and her murdered husband's family, on the other hand, have been harmed.

It doesn't make sense for this lady to say "I have a Biblical duty to forgive her". No, you don't have standing in that court.

Don't even ask me how we get from the faux "forgiveness" to "let's buy her a house and SUV".

6:32 PM, September 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Helen-- Nice spin. The evidence that the jury heard AND accepted as true included physical beatings by her husband as well as sexual humiliation (e.g., forcing her to wear erotic outfits under threat of further physical abuse.) The jury also accepted as true that she was forced to put on certain items of clothing before he had sex with her. The jury hear and accepted as true that she was terrified of him. The behavior was a bit more than "nagging." If one human being treats another human in that manner, then one should not be very surprised when if there is blow back. Not very difficult to see how this could happen to the poor fella.

7:05 PM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger Gerald Hibbs said...

Richard, even if all that were actually true could you please explain to me why it is okay to murder someone? Let us pretend that I am being bullied by someone up to and including some beatings. I don't call the police or run away but instead wait until the bully is asleep and shoot him in the head. Are you saying that I would be justified?

As to the truth of what was said I'm curious how many eyewitnesses or contemporaneous witnesses there were. Was she telling people about her abuse as it happened over the years or did she just make all of this up out of whole cloth to garner sympathy? But, as I said, it isn't as if that distinction really matters.

Please keep in mind that 50% of all domestic abuse if perpetrated by women. If this type of thing is accepted you can bet quite a few women will pay the price of death for being "abusive." Heck, I love my wonderful wife but for $400,000, a new house and SUV I'd probably give it a few minutes thought! :-)

7:34 PM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger pockosmum said...

"but I'm puzzled as to why so many of your commenters are so convinced her husband didn't "have it coming" to him"

I hate that phrase...but I digress. Richard, Richard, Richard...I guess you're one of those who will only finally understand when it happens to someone you know. That's the only way I can understand remarks like 'how do you know he didn't have it coming'. If she shot him as he allegedly held his hand over the baby's mouth and nose (several times, if we are to believe what she says.Convenient that dead men can't defend themselves), or while he was allegedly beating her, self defense would have made this a whole different ballgame. He was lying on his side, facing away from her, sleeping, Richard. Isn't just leaving an option? The gun was loaded and prepared. Baloney about wanting to 'scare him' he never knew she was holding a gun till he got a hole blown in his back. Unplugging the phone was a nice touch too. Why is it so difficult to say that what she did was wrong?

Ditto for Mary. This is what disturbs me so much about current liberal thought. Everything is relative,there is no black or white, just infinite shades of grey. No one is absolutely in the wrong. No line where you say 'Okay, enough is enough!'Mary Winkler is a murderer...I can see no benefit to her children having visitation with her. I cannot fathom the feelings of the Winklers, who have to have her in their home and supervise her visits. Think about that for a minute!

To think that murder is justified for anything other than an immediate threat to one's life is something I can't fathom.

8:05 PM, September 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

m repeated what I have said before, and that which continues to puzzle me. Why didn't she just leave? Obviously, her husband was sleeping. She could have calmly and quietly grabbed the kids and left, long before she shot her husband in the back. Also, as a pastor, he was at work during the day. Her parents and his parents are evidently near by. She had friends. Any number of people could have helped her and the kids escape.

I have seen on TV and read where people murdered their spouse for the insurance money. And spent life in prison for it. Now, in addition to insurance money, you get gifts?

Time for a sex change operation.

This pendulum will one day swing back in the other direction. Hopefully back to a place of sanity. It doesn't look good for happening in my life time, though.

8:20 PM, September 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gerald-- I understand your concern, and if you read my comments carefully, I never said it was "okay." I even put "had it coming to him" in “scare” quotes hoping no one would take it literally. I am an attorney who has seen the absolute horror and feelings of hopelessness a battered individual can experience in these situations. Many abused people fail to think rationally anymore. For them it becomes a choice between staying in their Hell, or taking deadly action to make it stop.

A lot is made of the fact that he was shot while he was sleeping. How cold and calculated this seems to many. But I find this fact to be completely consistent with her stories of physical abuse, humiliation and sexual abuse. A person in abject terror is not going to confront their tormentor when he’s fully alert and focused. When he’s sleeping is precisely when you would expect her to kill him if she was telling the truth.

I believe the jury, after hearing the evidence, came to the conclusion that she was indeed wrong for killing her husband, but – and this is critical -- it was her husband who created the atmosphere and conditions for her wrong-headed violence to blossom forth, and so he shared in the accountability. I personally have very little sympathy for the husband if he did what the jury obviously believed he had done. He sowed the seeds of his own violent end, and I believe her punishment was under these circumstances was entirely appropriate.

8:31 PM, September 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

pockosmum-- I say to you what I said to Gerald. What she did was wrong, but the jury believed, I think, that he was the one who created the conditions for her to believe that was her only way out. Through physical and sexual abuse, he created a world where killing made "sense" to her at that moment.

"Why couldn't she just leave?," you ask. I wish she had. I wish all abused people could "just leave" leave their abuser. But vast numbers do not, and unless you have ever known a person living in that kind of perverse Hell, I would be careful not to judge too harshly. In homes where raw bona fide physical and sexual abuse is taking place on a regular basis, all the rules of reality that you and I take for granted get twisted into something you cannot even begin to imagine. And the responsibility for creating that world in the first place resides directly with the abuser, not his victim.

8:45 PM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger Cham said...

To be honest with you, I don't buy into a clear definition between "abuser" and "victim". If Ms. Winkler was being abused over a period of time, at what point did she determine this was a negative? Probably years prior to the act of killing her husband. "Victims" in an abuse cycle are often getting something from being abused: The ability to call themselves victims, gain sympathy from friends and relatives, the power over the abuser to eek out apologies, making their abusers feel guilty for their actions and the excitement of the roller coaster lifestyle at the thought of what the abuser is going to do next. I don't exactly feel sorry for people who stay with abusers in the US, as there are shelters in just about every town, support services and assistance with leaving. Ms. Winkler might have been caught up in the emotion and excitement of living with an abuser, but as an adult, it was her moral responsibility to remove herself and her children from the household, she could have let the justice system deal with her husband. I'm not buying that murder was her only way out. She saw herself as a victim, she still sees herself as a victim. This pathetic helpless-flower routine in some women makes me nauseas. Grow up.

9:16 PM, September 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just like OJ we will hear from this person again. They cannot help themselves. They will charm, disarm, devalue and degrade and finally (as the Rev discovered) ... discard. A few slit your throat or shoot you when they are done with you ... but most ... watch you shoot yourself.

Still, know this ... those who escape the law always ... and I mean ALWAYS ... get caught again .... they cannot change ... it is impossible. With no conscience, no remourse, no empathy and an amazing lack of fear, they can and always do strike again. They do so because they can ... because they know we socio-normals are weak and inferior ... In her case her neighbors validate that belief everyday (can you say car, house?) rewarding her actions ... fooled em again. BTW the damsel in distress is a favorite of this type of person. I know ... personally.

Wihtout expert analysis there is no way to know for sure, but if she is she remains a danger to society and if she is ... trust me inside she is likely enjoying it all ... These conscienceless humans make up 4% of the population and only 1% of those are women but any expert will tell you the female version is deadlier than the male ... now you know why.

10:22 PM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger rudebwoy said...

When you examine the real carnage that is our contemporary "gender wars," it is becoming more and more difficult to contemplate why one should risk actual face-to-face relationship "combat" with your adversarial gender. (Equal opportunity jeopardy for women & men.)

There are any number of logical agruments for why men should refuse to be enticed into the killing zone.

Truth be told, women have nothing of equitable value to offer, when it is your life that is at stake.

Sleep with your enemy at your peril, and you might not ever wake up.

Well, sleep with her OK, but just get up and make a fast strategic exit after that magic climax.

So, at heart I am an optimist, about men's capacity to learn...

following sufficient suffering and
the inevitable amputation of chivalry.

10:25 PM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger lovemelikeareptile said...

Richard has no empiricsl basis whatever for his anti-male meanderings.
I love the minimization of a killing of a human being " What she did was s wrong ,but ".. thanks Richard for granting the slaughter of a helpless defenseless human being is "wrong",, "but" now how are you going to justify her acts.

It was his fault. How is that ? No corroboratong evidence of physical or sexual abuse was presented at trial and no rational person can support such a finding. You reflexively believe the woman-- talk about drinking the kool-aid.

"The jury " did not believe any such thing. It was p**** justice-- 9 women who already were going to acquit before the trial started ( I allege they are just like you and convicted HIM before the trial upon mere hearsay and allegations and anti-male bigotry )--walked into deliberations and announced their intentions, en masse. The foreman stated the trial was "unfair" because of the "ladies".
I love the ridiculous intuiting of her mental state, which assumes abuse-- that he created this mythical world of altered reality that required her to kill him. Present empirical findings-- not anecdotes-- about the existence of such a mental state and that it leads to murder.
Oh no -- Richard continues to irrationally assume-- with no evidence what ever -- that she was abused and blah blah, femminist anti-male bullshit follows ad nausem.
Hey buddy, you judge him harshly so I will judge an acknowledged killer harshly. You know she committed domestic violence.
What is this world that "the abuser" created that always results in murder ?
Since men are equally likely to be victimized by DV -- do you defend men who murder their wives because she created such a world... I know Richard.. tell us all the anti-male feminist bullshit you have imbibed.. the mental state is unique to women blah blah

Your position is irrational and immoral. Nobody deserves to be murdered. For you, apparently, merely alleging abuse is enough to send you off on your fantasy PC , feminist world ot the Land of OZ , a mental state the victim creates and therefore his murder is not legally prohibited.
" I wish she had"-- left that is.. alas -- its the Land of OZ again, this imaginary world created by mere alleging abuse.
Notice Richard assumes she was severely abused-- and no rational person can think that. For Richard and his ilk, every woman who murders/maims a man is a political act and an occassion for his political musings that killing men is justified if you are 1. female and 2. allege abuse.
Women never attack their own gender with ideas created by people who hate that gender and have no empirical basis whatever. Its the effete liberal white male-- tring to show he "gets it" he "understands"-- maybe you can get some really bad sex if you grovel enough , Richard.

hey Richard-- before feminists ivented the bogus "BWS) no woman got away with killing her sleeping husband. The rules of self-defense were imposed on both sexes-- "imminent bodily harm"-- objectively.Fenminists see it is a political act to kill men ( see Ann Jones, Women Who Kill, 1980 ). So all killing of men is justifiable. So to get women off , when self-defense would not apply... like he was asleep-- they came up with BWS. Lenore Walker never did any research on this -- she just created this fiction and got courts to buy it.
So you have people like you going around talking about this mental Land of OZ that viscerates the normal rules of self-defense. So now murdering defense-less men is OK.

you need to educate yourself of the origins of PTSD-- and what people who actually have it look like and act like. Violence is unthinkable... see "battle fatigue " and "shell shock" and forget Walker's imaginary journey through Seligman's "Learned helplessness" to her "BWS".
Walker states that the woman should not be even sent to a mental hospital ! Its the perfect defense-- it was temporary insanity, you get away with killing a man, you are fine now and no treatment is needed, and since he is dead, move on, heal, and get custody of your children and appear on Oprah,

You have no sense of history. Feminists have been planning this since 1970-- and they have effected it.

Now we have all this sanctiminous pontificating about it being OK to kill men -- becasue its their fault that the Land of OZ was created and so she is not responsible and needs counseling to heal and get custody... etc

In short, Richard is a dupe. The "new man " feminists have created and adore. The effete liberal white male whose self-flagellations support the anti-male efforts of feminism. How was the "I'm Sorry I am A Man " meeting last night, Richard.

God-- this guy has the colossal gall to tell someone not to judge a killer harshly-- while he-- with no evidence whatever-- judges the murdered man an abuser and responsible for his own killing-- which was justified.
When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn

10:41 PM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger lovemelikeareptile said...

There is no " Gender War"-- white women have declared and waged war on white men for 40 + years. There has been no salvos in response from men.

Its like that ridiculous title by Cathy Young 'Ceasefire"-- men have no fired a shot. Its all women with the abuse and venom and degradation and applauding and laughing at male genital mutiliation and enabling murder of men. Women have spoken and shown what collossal asses most of them are-- and that is being kind.
Women are waging the slaughter.
I have no idea why men have allowed it.

I just hope I live long enough to see the day fire will be returned... in equal measure... it won't be... men are far to moral and rational to ever do to women what they have done to us. Men have an interst in helping all of humankind... women just want to help other women and girls... just ask them

11:01 PM, September 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

estahasgard1986 wrote: "In short, Richard is a dupe. The "new man " feminists have created and adore. The effete liberal white male whose self-flagellations support the anti-male efforts of feminism. How was the 'I'm Sorry I am A Man' meeting last night, Richard."


I'm the "Richard" the feminists are spewing their hate at in that post. They simply can't stand me. Not that I'm proud of this, I don't really care. But next time, before you go make another colossal ass of yourself, take a deep breath and get a gripe on your rage and self-loathing, pal.

11:21 PM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger Patrick said...

Maybe I can kill my wife and claim, ex post facto, that I did so because she wanted me to dress up in high heels, etc., and thereby gain freedom and loads of goodies.

Yeah. Right.

11:45 PM, September 25, 2007  
Blogger Unknown said...

What really worries me about all this is we --our society-- are teaching boys that they are not human enough to stay alive. We're teaching boys that women can murder them and get goodies for doing so. We're teaching boys that they are merely cash machines with legs. Add in the hate we're teaching girls and we have a recipe for disaster.

3:57 AM, September 26, 2007  
Blogger HeatherRadish said...

The part that's disturbing me is all the crap this woman's enablers/Oprah/etc are spewing (I like the P**** Defense as a shorthand) is the exact same stuff that was used for centuries to keep women from owning property, having bank accounts, voting, working outside the home (except for the impoverished women who had no choices but factory, domestic, or sex work). I don't want to go back to that, ladies. All that "the uterus makes women irrational and immature" nonsense was debunked DECADES ago. Shut up already! Stop painting me with your own pathetic brush!

9:40 AM, September 26, 2007  
Blogger DADvocate said...

A lot is made of the fact that he was shot while he was sleeping. How cold and calculated this seems to many. But I find this fact to be completely consistent with her stories of physical abuse, humiliation and sexual abuse.

And who tells these stories, certainly not the murdered person. This woman had an escape planned, pulled the phone plug, considering the various banking accounts and other financial meanderings, she was financially abusing the relationship. It looks much more like the final abusive act of an abusive, sociapathic woman. Mary Winkler can claim any thing she wants. She killed the only person who can fully refute her. Her daughter disagreed with her abuse claim.

As we saw in the O.J. trial, juries can easily be loaded to favor the defense. I keep up with the news in the Cincinnati area. I can't remember a woman killing a significant other case where she didn't claim abuse. They write books, make movies, etc., granted it may be valid in some cases, but it's grown to an free pass for women to kill their husbands and walk.

10:05 AM, September 26, 2007  
Blogger Dan Patterson said...

Ya'll be carefeul in here, or somebody's going to get, you know, what's coming to them. All this rage and anger. Why can't we get along? She said she was sorry. She cried. She was on Oprah ("...right after this break"). She was traaaaumatized, don't you see that?? Garter and heels? Imagine!

Women's empowerment might extend from voting and property ownership, to freer forms of expression. Not all of it positive: The same "You GO girrrl" sisterhood that enables the "WOOOOOOOOOOO" cheerleading from comedy clubs and political rallies has released hormones that make pu***whipped men agree that men are bumbling fools and women hold secret powers.

I play the bullsh** card. Again.

Non manner of empowerment overcomes the immorality of murder.

A man was murdered. Children are harmed. The murderer should be locked away and the children placed elsewhere (as bad as it might be it will be far worse to reward the murderer and further harm the children).

What would have happened had the murder taken place in 1950? You've come a long way, baby.

Dan Patterson

11:15 AM, September 26, 2007  
Blogger Webutante said...

It seems you have a constituency here--of abused men---who are awfully quick to automatically judge. And you are building your own readership on this premise which is certainly your right.

But I disagree with the angry tone and tenor of most of the comments herewith, except for Richard, who is being excoriated for having a different perspective.

None of us can know what really went on. Murder is wrong and no one disputes that for a minute. But some murders are wronger than others...at least in my world. Moral relativism would say I'm crazy and so be it.

You seem to be saying that Mary shouldn't have tried to defend herself in court and there were no extinuating circumstances.

You also seem to be saying that now that Mary is out of incarceration that she should be walking alongside some road, without a car or vehicle---she should be getting her just desserts--permanently separated from her children.

I don't believe we can ever know what's it's like being in a marriage where you give up selfhood, career, money and destiny to a man and a church---because that's what you're told you must do as a minister's wife in the Church of Chrust---life without parole. I don't think Mary considered divorce as an option for her because that's what she grew up being taught. That was incorrect, of course, but it does mitigate the horrific tension that lead to the murder of Matthew.

My hometown has taken Mary in because she and Matt lived there---where he was a youth pastor for several years---before moving to Selmer. I can tell you that many of Matt's younger students at his church disliked him intensely and none were surprised by what happened.

That still doesn't make his murder right. However, it does make the concept of mercy viable in an atheistic world that calls for justice, justice, justice for the sake of the now new victim du jour...the man!

We're all victims, and we're all perpetrators in some form or fashion. And when we so summarily pass such strong emotional judgment then it looks and sounds and feels like a lot of projection is going on......

12:08 PM, September 26, 2007  
Blogger Cham said...

I don't think Mary considered divorce as an option for her because that's what she grew up being taught. That was incorrect, of course, but it does mitigate the horrific tension that lead to the murder of Matthew.

I am getting sick and tired of this "Christianity" defense. No, Ms. Winkler's Christian beliefs that divorce was not an option does NOT mitigate the murder. It seems that some people who call themselves Christians (or Jews or Islamists or whatever...) feel that the US law shouldn't apply to them. "I'm a Christian so you just wouldn't understand." Um, yes we do Mary Winkler and Andrea Yates, yes we do. You murdered because you felt there was no way out and now you are throwing the bible in our faces, saying that asking for help was beneath you.

These two aren't the only women playing the religion card. I've seen "Christians" use the religion card to abuse drugs, abuse their kids, and demand what they want all in the name of the good Lord.

12:39 PM, September 26, 2007  
Blogger Helen said...


My question back to you is, if the circumstance were such that Mary was Michael with a wife who was critical and "intensely" disliked, would you say that he should get off? Because that is what happened. This woman walked away from a murder rap--would you say it's okay for a man to do the same to his wife--shoot her in the back when she is asleep. I have known many wives in my time who have been horrible spouses, as bad or much worse than Matthew Winkler is described as, if they were shot dead in their sleep, would you be so nonchalant in your attitude towards their murderer? And shower them with a house and a car?


I am in full agreement with you, the Christianity card is not a good enough reason to get away with murder. And no one except Matthew Winkler has the right to forgive his "wife" for what she has done. And even then, there should be some form of justice for a spouse who decides that murder is an easy way out.

12:48 PM, September 26, 2007  
Blogger Webutante said...

BTW, and my last comment here, this has nothing to do with religion---that's your take, not mine. It has to do with culture, and a sub-culture.

Say for instance, I was brought up believing and being taught that eating pork, or wearing pants as a women was not the thing to do---for whatever reason. It may be ridiculous, but I never question that and over time, it becomes a deeply held belief that seems like a truth.

Once again, I say for whatever reason, Mary did not consider divorce an option. Furthermore, I do not believe her culture would have ever condoned her working outside the home, or doing anything other than being a mother and supporting her husband.

Culture, not religion, in my opinion.

12:54 PM, September 26, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We are not all victims. We all may be targets at one time or another. But we are not all victims. Perpetrators is debatable.

Perhaps, webutante, their relationship was truly dysfunctional.
Had she her wits about her, she would have left, filed restraining orders...something. I can't remember the last time parading around naked in high heels resulted in death. De-humanizing to some, although there are those who like it. Some married folks (even live in couples) do some pretty off the wall stuff behind closed doors.

I must add that some of your statements about the man are but here say, without any proof. But I should just believe you.

Some say damaging things about one who is no longer here to defend himself. Some say damaging things about her.

There are 2 camps. Camps with those who feel sorry for the "little backwoods woman" who's handy with a shotgun, and a sleeping at the time murder victim.

Some responses typed here may well be from those who know of what they speak - perhaps having been in near similar situations.

Anyone not in that court room knows nothing more than that, using your logic - except for what you have to add.

It is my understanding she had a car, but traded up to an SUV with help from locals. You see, this confuses me even more. Liberal mind set would be a reason she would have gotten off so lightly. But liberals certainly would discourage her from driving a gas guzzling SUV, wouldn't they? I am surprised she wasn't rewarded with a hybrid, you know? Maybe even an all electric vehicle.

Seriously, do you think for one five seconds a man would have gotten off as lightly? Does anyone? Of course not.

All of you, spend a damned week in the last row of a local divorce court and see what goes on. If there is any fairness coursing through your veins, you will leave totally discouraged - about a lot of things.

1:04 PM, September 26, 2007  
Blogger pockosmum said...

"I don't believe we can ever know what's it's like being in a marriage where you give up selfhood, career, money and destiny to a man and a church---because that's what you're told you must do as a minister's wife in the Church of Chrust---life without parole."

Which she chose willingly. 'Life without parole' is a bit much,don't you think? Are all minister's wives in their church SAHMs? They all have tossed away their 'selfhood'? When she was 'told' that was what she would have to do, she could have turned down his proposal. I don't think she was forced to marry him.

1:07 PM, September 26, 2007  
Blogger DADvocate said...

Once again, I say for whatever reason, Mary did not consider divorce an option.

But, somehow, murder is an option? And that culture based upon Christianity in her case.

webutante, my protest is against the growing beliefs of people such as you who find women murdering men increasingly easy to justify, rationalize, etc. Somehow being an unlikable youth minister or poor husband is worthy of capital punishment but murder is rewarded with a new home and car. Very, very sick logic.

You call us "a constituency here--of abused men---." Does that somehow sooth your warped views of justice? Does that make is easier to dismiss whatever we say and help you feel that our opinions don't matter?

I'm not nor have been a man abused by women but I don't like a world where a man can be murdered by a woman who then happily skips away to her new house, etc. People such as yourself are developing a culture where murder is preferable to divorce for a woman. No court fight, she gets it all plus an appearance on Oprah.

2:18 PM, September 26, 2007  
Blogger ErikZ said...

You people read too much into this.

It may just be that her community likes her, and didn't like her husband.

2:51 PM, September 26, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"HeatherRadish said...
The part that's disturbing me is all the crap this woman's enablers/Oprah/etc are spewing (I like the P**** Defense as a shorthand) is the exact same stuff that was used for centuries to keep women from owning property, having bank accounts, voting, working outside the home..."

WOW!!! I can't believe my eyes! A female who actually 'gets it.' I had just about come to the conclusion that there weren't any women anywhere intelligent enough to understand why our society let's women get away with crime.

I actually had one woman tell me that women get away with crimes because they 'are smarter at getting away with crimes.'

Why is it, then, HeatherRadish, that the vast majority of women don't 'get it?' Is it because of their typical lack of any corresponding intelligence to the world in which they live, mental illness.. self-absorbtion? Or is this supposed lack of understanding all a con?

3:32 PM, September 26, 2007  
Blogger SGT Ted said...

"I don't believe we can ever know what's it's like being in a marriage where you give up selfhood, career, money and destiny to a man and a church---because that's what you're told you must do as a minister's wife in the Church of Chrust---life without parole."


I throw the bullshit flag. This isn't the 1800s. She is an adult with free will. There was no evidence presented during trial showing diminished capacity. There is reason to beleive that certain jurors lied in that they would listen to the evidence impartially.

She was allegedly "forced" to wear rather ordinary platform shoes. I saw the shoes on Oprah. The city women in the audience ridiculed Mary for characterizing the shoes as kinky. Her allegation of humiliating sexual perversion is not credible and lacks evidence of even occuring at all.

Mary is a sociopath. She got away with premeditated murder.

But what really makes me ill are the mindless sympathy for this woman and utter disregard for the safety and well being of her children.

3:50 PM, September 26, 2007  
Blogger Gayle Miller said...

My daddy used to say that any slut on the streets could bear a child - but only very special people could be real PARENTS. As far as I'm concerned, Mary Winkler has no more entitlement than a cat who spits out a litter and leaves them at 6 weeks to fend for themselves. Did this despicable woman give even a second's thought to the effect her horrendous act would have on THEIR CHILDREN? No she did not.

Welcome to the entitlement generation! A bunch of selfish, hedonistic LOSERS - and their children are paying the price.

4:56 PM, September 26, 2007  
Blogger Webutante said...

Helen, let me say:

1) I NEVER said that Mary should have gotten off from jail time for murdering her husband. Where ever did you get that idea? If it had been left up to me, I would have indeed sent her to jail for some years.

2)I NEVER said either that murder is justifiable, especially as a way to deal with a bad marriage. Where ever did you get that idea? Murder is wrong, period. Whether Mary knew what she was getting into when she married Matt, or not, murder was in no way justified.

I might add, though, that many people, including myself, think that abortion is a form of murder, even though society now condones it through our laws. One of your commenters said, "Mary knew full well what she was getting in to when she married him." I wonder if he would say the same about the millions of women who had sex and then realized they were pregnant after the fact. Didn't they know what they were getting into on the front end? They get off the hook and get to rechoose. There seems to be a big double standard here, espepcially in people decrying the effect this murder has on the children.

3) My comment was addressing the reality: Mary Winkler did get off after a jury trail.

She and her case went through due process of law, not a perfect process by any means, but it's the best we have in this country. The verdict can always be appealed.

My comments addressed how a jury in a small town might find their way to this verdict. I was saying, frankly I can understand how they came to their verdict. They had to balance justice with mercy in my opinion and in their own minds took the children into consideration. The verdict they rendered is the reality we have, like it or not. You clearly do not like it which is clearly your right.

4) As to your rhetorical question about how I would respond to your commenter Richard being murdered:

If such an answer were so obvious and easy, without discovery and due process, then why do we need juries or judges (all imperfect to say the least)? We could just plug your question into a big judicial computer and get the right answer: JUSTICE.

5) Everyone I know who has ever gone through a difficult divorce---and I know you are blessed not to have--- can honestly say afterwards, when they hear about a murder like this, if they're really, really honest can say, "But by the grace of God go I."

What I am saying is by the Grace of God I am not in a federal pen somewhere myself, or dead; and but by the Grace of God my erstwhile husband isn't in a federal pen or dead The emotions of an explosive divorce are, to say the least, murderous at times. It can be hell.

Only if you've been there can you have a little more gracious opinion about the Winkler muder. Only if you've been there can you know that both people are culpable in that murder, as in every divorce.

That still doesn't make murder right, but it makes my personal judgment of it all less that of a Pharisee.

I don't expect you to agree. But I do want to say, that life has knocked me off my self-righteous pedestal just a bit, and given me a bit more compassion for both Mary, and Matt too. I don't have to project so much on this case anymore.

And that, is all I have to say on the matter.

Best wishes.

5:30 PM, September 26, 2007  
Blogger Helen said...


"but by the Grace of God my erstwhile husband isn't in a federal pen or dead The emotions of an explosive divorce are, to say the least, murderous at times. It can be hell."

Wrong, people want to forgive people because they think, there but for the Grace of God go I, I could have (fill in the blank). I know myself well enough to know that I would never shoot a person I loved out of anger--never, ever, no ifs, ands or buts. It is a cop out. We have more control over ourselves that that, I have seen it, taught people self-control and do not believe that a "normal" person blows their spouse away because of an "explosive divorce." You accuse me of projecting but perhaps this case is close to your heart, not mine. I am sorry if you have gone through a hard time. Many of us have, believe me. I understand that, but a hard time doesn't make it right to allow our court systems to let people walk away from an act of murder. That is sheer lunacy. Our courts exist to take emotion out of the process--to try to provide equal justice under the law, not "oh,well, there for the grace of God go I, go and sin no more."

Many injustices are reality; the Duke rape case was--and many good people stepped forward to fight for justice and won. I hope that the men and women who care about fairness, justice and true equality will believe that Matthew Winkler's life was worth more than a shrug and a "there but for the Grace of God go I" attitude, for it sets the next victim up for the same treatment from the next woman who thinks that she can take a man's life one day and be rewarded with a low house payment the next.

6:01 PM, September 26, 2007  
Blogger 1charlie2 said...


Despite my primal instincts, this is a tough one. I'd say that, absent a direct threat to the kids, she can't legally be prevented from supervised visits.

Yes, it's quite obvious that she should still be in jail. Absent reputable and independent corroboration of "abuse" (and I invite her supporters to supply any such -- I haven't found any), shooting a sleeping man does not qualify as justifiable under any jurisdiction I know of. (If anyone thinks differently, I want a cite.) What does Tenn. have for defense of justification, snoring too loudly ?

Sadly, the true sociopaths can be the most convincing, and the jury system can be flawed. Sometimes, the most twisted liars go free or with minimal sentences. It really sucks, except that it's better than any other system I know of.

So, now that I've established that I'd have locked her up and sent the key to the bottom of the sea . . .

She's out on probation. They are her kids. There is no evidence (that I can find) that she intends to harm them. For a mother, that's pretty-much it -- she gets visits.

I'm actually surprised that a FC judge insisted on supervision -- nice to see not everyone in that community is whackers.

6:09 PM, September 26, 2007  
Blogger Webutante said...

Well, Helen, I couldn't shoot anyone I love either, truly, ever, for any reason. But that doesn't mean I can't understand how it can happen. BTW, my divorce was decades ago and in retrospect an incredible blessing to both of us.

I believe Matt Winkler's life was worthwhile too. I suppose it will get sorted out in the legal system and outside of it too. In the Duke rape case, the defendents maintained their innocence. In the Winkler case, Mary admitted her guilt and then went through due process and a jury trail.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this. It's not either/or, in my opinion, but both/and.

All best to you.

6:15 PM, September 26, 2007  
Blogger Helen said...


Thanks for sharing your opinion, although we disagree, you are respectful and kind and I really appreciate that.

6:26 PM, September 26, 2007  
Blogger Webutante said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

6:31 PM, September 26, 2007  
Blogger lovemelikeareptile said...

No better case of pre-meditated execution exists.

Mary should have received the death penalty.

It is difficult to believe any rational and moral person could find any mitigating circumstance at all. They cannot.

Only stupidity or idelogy can reach a different result than, guilty , premediated murder.

She has a vagina. Thats all-- the golden key to dissolve the criminal justice system and indeed to get special priveleges that violate the civil rights of men throughout our society.

The ultimate violation of one's civil rights-- a planned, premeditated execution of a defenseless, unconscious man--- women actually find , if not totally excusable criminally, a "hard case".
Your typical woman is an affront to all the values held sacrosnact by civilized societies...

It is impossible for any rational neutral person to believe the allegations of abuse were colorable. Its absurd. Its sadly laughable that women-- always ready to justify the murder/mutiliation of men as expressions of political activism-- and that is what this is-- actually find for mary "shotgun" Winkler.

Murder 1. Death Penalty.. Scott Peterson got the death penalty-- when there was no evidence connecting him to her "death'. Many legal observers will tell you that peterson should not have been convicted. But he got death. he had a penis. Therefore his life had no value.Why ? Women whipped up a hysteria of hate against a husband who murderded his pregnant wife. Why-- women's lives have value to women.

To women-- there is no justification ever, for a man to kill a woman. Ever. Her life has value. But , for women, its always justifiable to kill a man if you are a woman. If it doesn't exist women will supply it. Hence, the gaziilion female-only defenses to everything.

Thats why women always ask " What did he do to make her do that " when they hear a woman has murdered/maimed a sleeping man. She must have had a legitimate reason. She has a vagina. We are unable to commit crimes against men-- we are absolutely good. He made her do it .
Hence, women think it is impossible to murder a man-- by definiton ., he deserved, or she would not have done it.

This insane thinking process is present in every woman's defense of homicidal women. She is actually a victim-- she has to be-- Vagino Americans-- a political interest group-- never do anything wrong --to men-- and are incapable of wrongdoing..
like the insipid "Richard"-- he created a mental world that made his killing inevitable. Out goes the law of self-defense intact for 100s of years- until women found it necessary to vitiate it so they could murder and maim sleeping men, as terrorists, striking a blow against the "oppressor".

To women-- this is all about "Us v Them ". These cases become national because they are political. The Bobbitt case was a political trial. So was the Winkler case. Women as a group saying we can cut off your sex organs in your sleep and murder you in your sleep-- and not be punished, becasue men are evil as a group and women are good and women have been oppressed by evil men. Feminism. Class warfare.
Like flying a plane into the Twin Towers and rejoicuing at striking back AGAINST THE "OPPRESSOR"
wHY do you think these cases get national attention= they serve the political interests of women-- its ok to mutiliate and murder men as a class.

Its a sick society-- mainly because we have allowed women to subvert our society with their notions of female sainthood, specialness and special privelege-- at the same time campaigning for "equality". Women have no understanding of "equality"-- they think its whatever is in their interests. Now they murder sleeping ministers with impunity-- and actually support the murdering woman.

Woman retrieves shotgun ( Loads ? ) pumps a shell in, places it in the back of her sleeping husband-- a sixth generation minister-- and blows his body apart. onto the floor. She disconnects the phone so he cannot call for help. It would not matter-- the injuries are fatal. he slowly bleed s to death over the next 20 minutes.

And our feminine heroine, why her daughter -- WHO TESTIFIED AgAINST HER MOTHER THAT THERE WAS NO ABUSE ( women don't care ) --hears his body hit the floor, asks 'What's wrong with Daddy", she closes the door , hiding her evil deed and tells her she is calling 911. All acts of a totally rational person who murders someone.

Only a woman-- in their boundless narcissim, there boundless belief that they alone count, that their lives alone have value, in the sanctification of the vagina, wallow in the pure , utter evil of the degradation of others-- men- that has existed in Jim Crow and Nazi Germany.
Thats where you have to go to get people who justify the murder of helpless people becasue the y "deserve" it because their lives are worthless.

In short, there is little diference today between the woman who absolves mary of criminal responsiblity and the Nazis who justified the slaughter of the Jews and the racists who killed blacks, knowing no jury would convict them for killing a n*****.

Its the same mindset-- degrading the other so his life has no value. See -- The Blank Slate, Pinker, p 274. That is what women have done to men and have been doing .


Look at Bobbitt-- that was a moral holocaust. No morAL PERSON CAN DEFINE WOMEN AS OTHER THAN ABJECT, BASE, ANIMALS BY THEIR REACTION TO THAT. iT TURNED THE LITTLE SCUMBAGS ON. tHEY REVELLED IIN IT. iTS A FANTASY ALL WOMEN HAVE. cAN YOU BELIEVE ANY PERSON IS SO SICK AS TO "FANTASIZE" ABOUT HACKING UP SOMEOME'S GENITALS-- WELCOME TO THE MORAL UNIVERSe OF YOUR AVERAGE WOAM.( Damn, hit caps) Now rape-- no jokes about that-- women have value. Men don't-- so its funny, lets do it , too-- its not even a crime.
In 50 years , historians will look back on women's conduct and degradation of men as a class-- as men-- and compare it to the Nazis and the Jim crow killers.

Hyperbole-- nope-- the root is degradation-- its the only way to justify killing people-- deny their humanity.
Thats what women do to men. Deny our humanity. Women are moral Nazis

I do have a "modest proposal" about what to do about it. We had to fight and kill the Nazis. Jim Crow-- federal force was required and the imposition of federal law and people of good will saying that blacks had value.
Since women control the legal process-- there is apparently only one way to go...

People who deny your humanity-- like women routinely do to men- will justify any act taken against you. You have to fight back and destroy them and their ideleogy of hate. Once it was just femnists, but the vast majority of women are now anti-male bigots who legitimize our suffering, the violation of our civil rights and -- our killing-- all as expressions of their solidarity as a political party-- the Vagino Americans.

A "modest proposal"-- the women are terrified if we get pissed and decide to kick their ass. We don't have to wait until they are asleep. And we can pack the courts and acquit men who kill their wives-- or any random woman-- as ridding the world of vermin... sorta like the way women think now-- read what they say. Men cannot do that-- we cannot descend to the level of most women.

Only in a thoroughly gynocentric and misandric society is this even discussed.
an easy murder one.

Even feminist commentator-- Gloria Allred's daughter on Court TV said they all gasped when they heard the verdict-- they all thought it was an easy murder 1.

It is-- women embrace killing men. They defend it and excuse it. Its only becasue a woman did the killing and a man was killed that their is a "debate"-- becasue women think killing men is almost always justifiable.
Women are that morally perverse and ,irrational, and motivated by a doctrin of hate and degrading men-- feminism.

I plan to fight back right now-- this evening I am going out and look for a woman pushing a stoller. If the baby is wearing pink-- I am going to steal her bottle . Take that ! There is a limit to what a man can take.... action is necessary-

Elwood P, Suggins
Home for the Criminally Insane
Floor A ,Row 6, Cell #21
Attention Nurse Ratched
Meridian, Ms 39305

8:08 PM, September 26, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obviously, the camp is divided here as well.

So, who wants tea?

8:42 PM, September 26, 2007  
Blogger Cham said...

I don't know about tea but I am going to stay the heck away from Mississippi.

11:34 PM, September 26, 2007  
Blogger lovemelikeareptile said...

1. There is no basis for any other verdict than guilty, premeditated murder-- and since women never get the death penalty-- at least life..

2. Can you believe women actually think there is a debate ?

Its all ideology.

Its women doing what they always do-- demand special treatment-- even immunity from criminal prosecution !!!

Can women go any further than KILLING MEN and saying women are not culpable-- have no criminal responsibilty ?

Counseling-- she needs


Women have placed in our criminal justice system the concept that a woman who kills /maims an unconscious man are immune from criminal responsibility.

Women are a danger to a civilized society that respects and values all human beings equally.


Women have placed a Vagina where the blind goddess of Justice holds the scales. Women want her to take a peek and see they have a Vagina and so are unique and have special dispensation to kill men.

Its so outrageous its beyond belief... women already drown and hang babies and are immune from criminal responsiblity..

is there anything any woman ever does that is wrong and punishable ? YES-- if she kills or hurts a legitimate person-- another female. No excuses then !.


Heck -- there was no need for a trial. Women always make up their "minds" on sheer hearing "woman kills /maims man". She must have had a good reason, and she will tell us what it is and we will believe her without question because 1) women are innately good
2) therefore women cannot do bad things unless mean men make them or something in the environment makes them "snap"
3) so she needs counseling to recover her innate goodness. PUKE


Its all there-- Women are innately good (Germans)-- Men are innately bad (Jews)-- Men can be killed with impunity becase they are not fully human (Jews, Blacks).


I am starting a new business , yes --
its... RENT-A-VAGINA @ by Ronco--

now men, you too can murder sleeping men and cut off their sex organs just like women do-- AND like them-- serve no time and become media heroes !

Yes, with my patented RENT-A-Vagina@, murder and maim at will-- just like a woman with a real one does !

Want to rape a little 10 year old boy that is so cute in your 5th grade class ? Not a problem. Claim he raped you, say you have a mental disorder, receive probation and then get dolled up for an hour long interview on the Today Show !

Try that without the real or Rent-A-VAGINA-- you would never get out of prison !

Police try to arrest you after a muder or maiming of a helpless, defenseless, unconcious man-- flash the RENT-A-VAGINA and they will ask you why you did it and not even arrest you!! ( see L Bobbitt , who admitting the assault in the police station was allowed to leave without being arrested ).

Have to appear in Court-- just show the judge your RENT-A-VAGINA-- and all crimnal charges are dropped instantly !
Indeed , if the man is still alive in the hospital, HE will be arrested, prosecuted, and incarcerated for being maimed by you.( Thats women's next step ).

Yes -- My RENT-A-VAGINA -- by Ronco-- works just like the real thing.
Caveat-- it does not work if the victim is female.


At Manparts.com whatever severed organ you want is up for bidding. Need that special piece of jewlery-- wouldn't a severed penis dripping blood go nicely with that wine colored blouse . What compliments you will get !

Yes we at Manparts.com are responding to the demand from women to wear severed male body parts as fashion statements, the new accessory for today's modern woman.
Fingers, ears, heads, tongues, toes, eyeballs,testicles, penises-- MAnparts.com will let you buy that special item that you need to show you are a modern woman-- displaying mutilated parts of men as a statement of female solidarity and threats to men!!!

Think ! What will your son ( sorry you had one ) say when he sees you wearing one of your numerous severed penises you purchased on EBAY -- BET HE WILL NOT ACT UP ANYMORE !! HA HA

At ManParts.com-- we have a huge inventory of male body parts women have severed through random assaults on sleeping men. Since such conduct is perfectly legal and indeed encouraged by modern society, a continous supply is guaranteed as women continue their mutiliation ways--
and at

"SHOT/CUT HIM .Com", our sister EBAY company -- we make bronze molds of those weapons women have used to murder/mutilate men ! WOULDN'T YOU LIKE TO HANG A COPY Of THE BRONZED SHOTGUN MARY wINKLER USED TO KILL HER HUSBAND-- SURE TO BE A VERY EXPENSIVE ITEM, AS WOMEN ACROES THE NATION WILL BE BIDDING..
Scissors, knives, shotguns, pistols, razorblades, pistols, used SUVs with the blood on the tires or windshild, empty pots that once held boiling oil or water-- Your choice of 14 k or 10k gold !

It will happen-- there is no limit to the depths of iniquity most women will sink

12:17 AM, September 27, 2007  
Blogger lovemelikeareptile said...

Yeah, Cham-- i would to-- the intellectually butt-kicking of your life surely awaits you.

Enter the arena instead of snide little insults.

12:19 AM, September 27, 2007  
Blogger lovemelikeareptile said...

How are women like Willie Sutton-- neither appreciates the moral dimension of their behavior.

Willie Sutton, famous ,prolific bank robber was asked 'Why do you rob banks ?"
His retort (not really)-- "Because thats where the money is ."

You see the question was a moral one But Willie thought it was a practical one-- where else would I go but where the money is?. Willie did not appreciate the moral question because he had very little morality ,obviously.

The same case can be made for women. Ask them "How can you attack a helpless, sleeping man ?" Women answer " Why he would stop me if he was awake ."

Women cannot appreciate the moral natue of the question and respond in a practical fashion.

I have never seen or heard a woman ever even ponder that there is a moral issue with attacking sleeping, helpless people. Women don't think there is one.
Such an act by a man would be regarded as so cowardly and pathetic he would be shunned.

For women, its not even an issue.
It is sorta like the absurd idea of two women fighting a duel over honor ! which is an old observation.

Every moral philospher has noted the inferiortiy of women in moral reasoning-- Carol Gilligan tried to rescue women by inventing an "ethic of care" because women always tested out so poorly on abstract reasoning about abstract moral concepts like good, justice, integrity, equality, fairness.
Women use the McKinnon test -- "Is it good for women " as their criterion of "morality".

Women think there is no moral issue with attacking helpless, defenseless, unconscious, sleeping men. Such a person should be shunned. I need not complete my syllogism ( big word for you Cham ).

12:54 AM, September 27, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reading all posts above, one can pull things that make sense, perhaps all can agree on, out of each and every one. Seriously. It may be hard to sift through some of the posts (my own posts come to mind) but there you go.

I agree whole heartedly with a couple statements made. She's a sociopath. Charming and disarming, with the capability of murder. We'll hear about her again.

I have been through similar. Could have ended up the same way, but did not. She was held blameless in the courts, where were it me, I'd have been thrown in the ground and a new jail built over top of me. My kids are scared to death of her, and will not have anything to do with her. She got the car, too. The judge gave it to her. My situation was right out of the kitchen fight scene in "Fatal Attraction". Except my kids were watching, and would also have been targets were I less than successful at self defense. So, yeah, unbelievable stuff can happen too. Perhaps that's why she got off so lightly. Someone known in her community as a "little backwoods girl" just couldn't be harboring those capabilities in her mind. No way. It had to be him.

Uhhhhh, sgt. ted.....Oprah?

7:03 AM, September 27, 2007  
Blogger Unknown said...


Would the courts allow a man to see his children after he killed their mother? If the answer is no, then the same rule should apply when a woman kills her children's father.

There are decent law-abding men out there who are disallowed from seeing their children. Therefore, it's understandable for people to be outraged when a murderess is given the "right" to see her children after she killed their father.

In my opinion, Mary Winkler should have been sentenced to Death by Lethal Injection. She's just an evil -- and cunning -- cunt.

9:48 AM, September 27, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


There, now it's a four letter word.

12:45 PM, September 27, 2007  
Blogger SGT Ted said...

Uhhhhh, sgt. ted.....Oprah?

Well, actually a Youtube clip of it. No I don't watch Oprah. feh

4:21 PM, September 27, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've been told that in Texas parental rights are automatically stripped when one parent murders another.

In North Carolina, Ray Carruth insisted on his parental rights to his child when he was convicted of 1st degree murder and life in prison. He killed the pregnant woman in an attempt to kill the unborn child.
The judge ordered the guardians (maternal grandparents) to bring the kid to prison once a week/month in order to visit "daddy" in prison.

5:59 PM, September 27, 2007  
Blogger Seerak said...

What church is this she's going to? "The Church of Christ the Enabler"?

6:58 PM, September 27, 2007  
Blogger Helen said...

Myrtle Hocklemeier,

In the Rae Carruth case, he was not convicted of first degree murder but sounds like he should have been--his charge was conspiracy. From what I read, he hired a gunman to kill his pregnant girlfriend, he got 19-23 years in prison, the gunman 40-50. He has since appealed his case and lost and a judge wisely had this to say about the child visiting his father in prison:

In May 2004, a Mecklenburg County judge ruled Chancellor cannot be forced to visit his father in prison, rejecting a bid by Carruth's mother, Theodry, for court-ordered visits.

"No court on the face of this earth," District Judge Becky Thorne Tin said, would force visits in light of the circumstances.


Too bad this wise judge was not available for Winkler's trial.

7:18 PM, September 27, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


the grandparents were on tv saying otherwise some years ago, it was around the time of the original trial that I remember this. Perhaps they appealed, (or perhaps they simply lied)

Nonetheless, whether a parent is a "direct threat" to the kids or not is irrelevant, having one parent kill the other should in and of itself qualify as extreme emotional torture/abuse of the child.

11:12 PM, September 27, 2007  
Blogger Misanthrope said...

Doesn't forgiveness come from remorse, hence the granting of absolution, which comes from either the victim or God?

Methinks Mary isn't remorseful. And as someone posted earlier, her neighbors can't forgive her a slight not commited against them.

7:32 AM, September 28, 2007  
Blogger Serket said...

br549: It is my understanding she had a car, but traded up to an SUV with help from locals. You see, this confuses me even more. Liberal mind set would be a reason she would have gotten off so lightly. But liberals certainly would discourage her from driving a gas guzzling SUV, wouldn't they? I am surprised she wasn't rewarded with a hybrid, you know? Maybe even an all electric vehicle.

I don't know if they are liberals. Webutante and Richard claim to be conservatives and they seem to believe the guy was guilty of abuse. Perhaps it is a Southern thing.

4:09 PM, September 28, 2007  
Blogger Helen said...


In some sense, giving women a lighter sentence is both a right and left issue; there is a sense of chivalry among those on the right, women can't really protect themselves and a guy gets what's coming to him if he abuses a "lady" and on the left, they figure women should not be held accountable for any violence as it is just desserts for any man or boy! since thousands of years ago women were not treated so well.

4:45 PM, September 28, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, serket, that was a play on a couple things. Liberals screaming about the environment, and the fact a family of three doesn't need such a large vehicle...........
However, where I am from, and how I was raised, I say yes sir and no sir and yes ma'am and no ma'am. Even at 54. So maybe it IS southern.

I stop and hold doors open for women, and anyone with their hands full. Regardless of sex, color, creed. But if I get that "look", I just say say, "Oh, OK. I'm sorry", step in front of them, walk through, and let go of the door.

Holding the door is appropriate. So is thank you. When someone holds the door for me, I say thank you. I don't feel slighted. I am appreciative. It's a nice thing to do, or have someone do for you. It ain't that hard, and takes no real time. But I too, can be (and if so, purposely) an a**hole. And since everyone has one, and anyone can be one, it isn't a sexist thing at all.

8:54 AM, September 29, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm having a problem with the statement "Christianity Card" coming up here and there, and I realize Southern Baptists don't believe in divorce.

However, there is this little problem called "The Ten Commandments". Most troublesome is number 6. "Thou shalt not kill". Even agnostics suffering dyslexia have heard of the Ten Commandments.

So, I'm borrowing sgt. ted's whistle and bullshit flag for a minute.

It is safe to assume most have never truly read through the Bible, much less studied it. Therefore, its contents, although roughly 2,000 years old are STILL NEW to the overwhelming majority people.
The devil can quote scripture when it suits his needs. And anyone can spin any statement in it.

But if it is truly studied, and understood, my take on what I know of the Bible's contents, means Mary Winkler should be in prison for life, if not executed. And not just Mary Winkler, OK? She's but a poster child at this point in time. The name and face don't matter. There are many who insist it should matter, and are evidently making it so. But that doesn't make it right.

This is as stupid as our own congress, writing a 700 page set of laws concerning immigration, that absolutely NONE of them have read from cover to cover, and don't even know its contents completely. Hell, ten separate statements could cover immigration, too, if thought out.

5:43 PM, September 29, 2007  
Blogger Unknown said...

Mary Inker=Two Words:

Bloody Mary.

Or if you prefer, two other words:

Elizabeth Bathory.

The woman needs to hang.

I'm sorry. Liberals aren't supposed to say things like that, are they? Well, I guess I'm not with Stupid, then.


6:23 PM, September 29, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So now that it's been established that women can kill their husbands with no consequences anytime they feel like it, the number of marriages will drop even further in the U.S.

3:34 PM, October 01, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

徵信社, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社

11:48 AM, February 04, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

85cc免費影片85cc免費影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片85cc免費影片台灣論壇免費影片免費看 aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費A片線上免費a片觀看a片免費看小魔女免費影城A片-sex520aaa片免費看短片aaaaa片俱樂部sex888免費看影片sex520免費影片sex免費成人影片馬子免費影片免費線上a片成人圖片區18成人avooo520sex貼片區臺灣情色網線上免費a長片免費卡通影片線上觀看gogo2sex免費 a 片sex520免費影片援交av080影片免費線上avdvd免費 aa 片試看,成人影片分享後宮0204movie免費影片免費線上歐美A片觀看sex888影片分享區微風成人av論壇plus論壇自拍情色0204movie免費影片aaa片免費看短片免費色咪咪影片網aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞85cc免費影城5278論壇倉井空免費a影片bbs x693 com sex888a片免費觀賞sexy girls get fucked吉澤明步彩虹頻道免費短片sex520-卡通影片台灣情色網無碼avdvdaaa影片下載城彩虹頻道免費影片 sex383線上娛樂場一本道 a片 東京熱情色影片彩虹成人avdvd洪爺影城高中生援交偷拍自拍限制級色情 片

7:18 PM, April 13, 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..........................

11:32 PM, May 19, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


3:15 AM, June 08, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home