Home with Mommy: Mary Winkler Resumes Custody of Children After Killing Their Father

Mary Winkler was convicted of voluntary manslaughter in the 2006 shooting death of her husband, Church of Christ minister Matthew Winkler. However, she has now been reunited with her children and given full custody.

Winkler was sentenced only to three years in prison and spent only 12 days in jail after her sentencing. With the exception of a couple of months at a mental health facility, Winkler spent relatively little time in actual confinement for the crime.

She now has full custody of the children — ages 11, 9 and 3 — over the vehement objections of their paternal grandparents.

The jury found that her shooting her husband was voluntary manslaughter rather than murder after she alleged marital abuse by the minister.

For the full story, click here.

31 thoughts on “Home with Mommy: Mary Winkler Resumes Custody of Children After Killing Their Father

  1. To mespo: Are you aware of Thomas Jefferson defending Benedict Arnold on hearsay? Thomas Jefferson argued that in Court you can not hold hearsay in Court against a person based on one person’s testimony. If there was evidence it wouldn’t be called hearsay. Sworn testimony isn’t always truth. People do lie under oath and again I point to Thomas Jefferson’s argument about hearsay. About Jefferson and rape it’s always hard to prove in Court. Usually it turns into a verbal argument with no evidence because the evidence doesn’t last very long so if you do get to prove rape in court you’re lucky.

    Patty C- So because I haven’t graduated college yet that means my opinion is less than yours? What’s your qualifications on the subject matter? At least I will have qualifications at least in another year.

  2. Patty C- So because I haven’t graduated college yet that means my opinion is less than yours? What’s your qualifications on the subject matter? At least I will have qualifications at least in another year.
    ****

    No, it just means you have much to learn. Stick around.

    My qualifications come from my education and my years of professional working experience-in both law and medicine, and my life experience.

  3. Patty C- Well that’s nice and all but doesn’t really mean much to me. I don’t know you. You’re a stranger on a blog. The only person around here with real credibility is Mr. Turley since he can prove things with his qualifications etc. I have been enjoying all of my classes.🙂 I just finished last term Criminology and aced the course. Of course really enjoying a course helps too…. Hopefully next term I’ll get to take Criminal Law. I can’t wait for that. I was hoping to do it this term but the professor wasn’t teaching it this term on my campus but another one in town sadly.😦 The man teaching Criminal Law is a lawyer himself and his son-in-law works for the FBI. I had a class with a guy who was taking the course that term and he said at the end of the term the FBI guy came in and told stories.🙂 My end goal is to either work with the US Marshals or FBI.

  4. Emily:

    “Are you aware of Thomas Jefferson defending Benedict Arnold on hearsay? Thomas Jefferson argued that in Court you can not hold hearsay in Court against a person based on one person’s testimony. If there was evidence it wouldn’t be called hearsay. Sworn testimony isn’t always truth. People do lie under oath and again I point to Thomas Jefferson’s argument about hearsay. About Jefferson and rape it’s always hard to prove in Court.”

    ***************************
    I applaud your interest in the law, but your history is faulty. While Governor of Virgina in 1781, Jefferson offered a reward of the then-immense sum of $25,000.00 for Arnold’s capture after the traitorous General sacked Richmond. Jefferson, rather than defending Arnold, put a price on his head for his treachery after fleeing town by the way.”

    Hearsay is simply an out of court statement, made in court, to prove the truth of the matter asserted. One cannot “hold” hearsay, it can only be offered. The rule against it is fraught with about 24 exceptions like excited utterances, ancient documents, dying declarations, past recollection recorded, business records, and on and on.

    Sworn testimony is not always truthful, nor are documents (I give you the Yellow Cake Uranimum/Niger fiasco); nor photographs; nor DNA; nor even the words of Presidents. Evidence doesn’t mean ultimate proof; it’s merely testimony or documents or things which TEND to prove an assertion relevant and material to the proceedings at hand. That’s why we have conflicting evidence sometimes. It is for the jury to resolve questions about which evidence is more believable to THEM, and to decide the case. The jury can discard any evidence it deems appropriate and may do so even if the Judge has admitted it to their consideration.

    Keep working hard and enjoying your classes, but you may learn from my painful experiences that in areas where you are just a novice it’s best to first listen, and then to research, and finally to opine instead of the reverse of those actions.

    Lastly the only crime I am aware of that requires two sworn witnesses to convict is treason against the United States* and that may be what you are referring to.

    _______________________

    * Article III, Sec. 3 of the US Constitution provides in relevant part: “[n]o Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” This is the English Two Witness Rule which derives from the 16th century (reign of Edward VI) when treason, like rape, was easy to assert but, quite properly, difficult to prove.

  5. A slave can neither consent nor refuse sexual intercourse with her master. Any sex with a slave would be rape. But since some of these rapists AND slave masters were “Founding Fathers”, feel free to put a good spin on it.

  6. And Dr. Turley; mespo turned my denunciation of spouse and child abusers into a smear of Muslims and Hindus. This is not the sort to be suggesting who should and shouldn’t post on this site.

  7. zak:

    “mespo turned my denunciation of spouse and child abusers into a smear of Muslims and Hindus.”

    *****************

    I guess you didn’t read my comment in your blind rage against anyone who calls you on your prejudice. I said the religiously observant protect these spouse beaters from Sharia and Hindu law. The “smear,” if against anyone, was against the religionists who pervert both.

  8. Mespo: Yes I was referring to Arnold and Jefferson with the treason act when it was claimed he fired and attacked a military base. There was only one eye witness who could confirm the story. If I’m remembering correctly nobody else was actually there who could confirm it except this one person and that’s when Jefferson argued hearsay isn’t acceptable by one person. Did anyone else here buy the insanity plea by the woman Ms Winkler? Personally I did not because she ran away and took her children with her and hid out at a hotel. If she did it in self defense in my unprofessional opinion, why didn’t she run to a family member or a friend she trusted or an abused woman’s shelter? I guess my whole point with Jefferson is that this lady claimed abuse and it’s only HER word we have. What about family, friends, coworkers etc? I guess I’m just surprised that she got off so easily when if she was another color and her husband wasn’t who he was etc. with their family she would probably still be in jail. Not even Britney Spears is getting off this easy.

  9. Im sorry for the tragedy in their family,but I think she did what she had to do.I was in an abuse relationship for 13 years my husband choked me unconscious in front of our 3 year old son,he was so devastated when he saw that.1 month before I thought about buying a gun,butt I didn’t if I had he would have been dead maybe.abuse is terrible I couldn’t even go to the bathroom without my son following me,I had to reassure him mommy was o.k,but we are doing somewhat better.to all thats in any abusive relationship please get help.take care God bless:) xoxo

  10. I was in a horrendously abusive relationship during which I had to children
    I had my the doctor who delivered my second chid perform a tubal ligation on me while I was still on the delivery table without the knowledge of my abuser.I was only 25at the time and when the dr. questioned why I informed him that I would be having a baby every year if I did not get this surgery as it was my abusers belief that I would not be able to escape him if he kept me barefoot and pregnant.Thid was a litreral statement-he often took my one pair if shoes with himmto work and often locked me in the trailer from the outside when he left the house.Today 20 years after my escape I still suffer from severe PTSD and and permenant damage to my spine and brain from the abuse.Sometimes I can’t helped but think if I had killed him during one of the hundreds of brutal attacks I suffered at his psycopathic hands I might not be suffering still to this day the permenant physical effects and mental effects which have caused my being permentally disfigured and disabled.To most this is just a story I tell about my past..but to me it is the thing that altered my life forever.My prayers for any women out there still trapped…

Comments are closed.