Posted on 10/02/2007 11:08:38 AM PDT by PercivalWalks
As many of you know, Mary Winkler recently appeared on Oprah. To watch the show in its entirety, click here.
Oprah was annoyingly sympathetic to Winkler, and seemed to buy her abused wife shtick. My opinion of her claims is as follows:
1) Winkler provided no substantive evidence for her claims--no medical reports, no police reports, no 911 calls, nothing.
2) The defense did put a few people on the stand who testified as to various indirect indications that Winkler might have been abused. A couple of these were of some value. For example, a doctor said Winkler visited her one time with what he described as a "minor injury" to her face, which Winkler said at the time came when a kids' softball hit her. She now claims this was an example of Matthew's abuse of her. The doctor said the injury was consistent with either one.
Also, Winkler's father testified as to seeing injuries on Mary previously, which Mary denied were related to abuse. Of course, even if these were true examples of abuse--and it's far from clear that they are--it doesn't mean that Matthew was the aggressor. Research shows that a large percentage of domestic violence is mutual abuse--Mary's alleged injuries could've been the end result of her attacks on Matthew. We'll never know whether Matthew was abusive or not, but we do know that one member of that household was violent--Mary Winkler. Anybody capable of shooting a sleeping man in the back and allowing him to bleed to death is certainly capable of initiating domestic violence in the home.
3) Some of the other witnesses were meaningless, including one neighbor who said that Matthew threatened to shoot his dog because it kept coming to Matthew's house and barking at night and waking him up. I guess my wife and I are abusers, too--at our previous house our neighbors' dog would bark outside our window at 3 AM, and after several complaints we banged on my neighbor's door and screamed at him, and, if we didn't threaten to shoot the damn thing, we should've.
4) One of the few times on Oprah where Oprah did voice skepticism was when Mary described the morning of the crime. Winkler told Oprah she was angry at her husband and “just wanted to talk to him," and then she “heard a boom.” A more complete description of the incident would have been that she wanted to talk to him, waited until he fell asleep, retrieved the shotgun, pumped it, aimed it at his back, pulled the trigger, and then “heard a boom.”
5) Ironically, the truth-teller on the show was feminist Court TV commentator Lisa Bloom, Gloria Allred’s daughter. Bloom said, "At Court TV a collective gasp went up at this verdict. We all thought it was a first degree murder case....Didn't she make the decision to allow him to fall asleep? Didn't she make the decision to go into that closet and get that gun? Didn't she make the decision to aim it at Matthew and pull the trigger?"
Bloom also asserted that "there wasn't much corroboration [of the abuse] at the trial."
6) Perhaps the most absurd aspect of both the trial and Oprah was the way Mary highlighted the white platform shoes which she claimed Matthew “made her” wear, and which she said were deeply humiliating to her. During the trial, Mary held up the shoe and bowed her head down in mock pain and shame. Oprah bought it, telling her audience that on her show “everybody gasped when they saw the shoe.” Bloom explained to Oprah that in any "big city" people would have “laughed at” Mary’s claims that the shoes were part of the “abuse” she suffered.
www.GlennSacks.com, Glenn Sacks
Guys like to see women wearing heels while having sex?
What a crazy fetish that sick man had.
Seriously, that’s probably about the most normal thing in the world.
Did this woman have any boyfriends before she met this guy?
It would also explain why her first act after shooting her husband was to disconnect the bedroom phone to make sure he was unable to call 9/11 or make a deathbed accusation.
The day of the murder Mrs. Winkler visited five different local banks trying to cover her tracks by writing yet another round of bad checks.
OMG, was this allowed at trial? In my opinion she has not only ended her husband’s life, now she trashes his reputation. I hope some day she gets what’s coming to her. Victim? The only victims here was the man she killed and the children who now have no father.
“Winkler provided no substantive evidence for her claims—no medical reports, no police reports, no 911 calls, nothing”
Unfortunately, this is typical of abusive situations...
The wife does not report her husband...and then its too late...
usually its the woman who gets murdered by her own husband...
The chck-kiting and the disconnected phone...
Maybe her husband disconnected the phone...
maybe he forced her to sign the checks...
You dont know ...he may have threatened her somehow...
She admitted under oath that she disconnected it.
maybe he forced her to sign the checks...
That seems highly unlikely, since she set up separate accounts in her name only.
You dont know ...he may have threatened her somehow...
In other words, you are arguing that murderers should get off with a slap on the wrist if it seems possible that their victim may have threatened them in some way.
If he was threatening her, she could have left with the children while he was sleeping, headed to a women's shelter or a relative's home or sought police protection.
Instead, she went upstairs to see if he was sleeping, went down to the basement to retrieve a shotgun, loaded it with shells, pumped it and then walked upstairs and calmly shot her husband in the back of the head. When he started twitching, she walked around the bed closer to his writhing body so she could disconnect the phone and prevent him from calling 9/11 or seeking help.
She is a stone cold murdering psychopath.
No, it isn't. Typically, police are summoned to the house at least once and the abused spouse refuses to press charges.
It is extremely rare for a woman to be systematically abused without the police getting some word of it.
Perhaps in Lifetime movies there are brilliantly cold, calculating abusers who cleverly hide their personalities - but in reality abusers are usually stupid loudmouth slobs who get into tangles and disputes with neighbors, coworkers, strangers, etc.
No one ever mentions the money she lost with the Nigerian bank scam.
“It is extremely rare for a woman to be systematically abused without the police getting some word of it”
It happens all the time...
I know you would like to think that women tell someone but most never do ..
They are ashamed and they generally don't tell. But neighbors can tell, and neighbors call police when the commotion gets loud.
The person who reveals the abuse to the police is usually the abuser, because the abuser is a stupid, violent loudmouth who generally not only beats his wife but antagonizes his neighbors, gets into fights with fellow tavern customers, other motorists, coworkers, etc. He can't help but betray himself because he has zero self-control.
“not only beats his wife but antagonizes his neighbors, gets into fights with fellow tavern customers, other motorists, coworkers, etc. He can’t help but betray himself because he has zero self-control”
Most wife beaters are great actors..they are like alcoholics and could win Academy Awards..
They are one thing at home and another person at work, and in public..they even go to church and act like a good Christian husband...who would believe they beat their wives at home?
They convince other people that the woman is emotional, nuts etc...the woman has no creditability...and is oh so clumsy...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.