Murderess Mary Winkler Gets Her Kids Back
Mary Winkler–who shot her husband in the back and then refused to aid him or call 911 as he slowly bled to death for 20 minutes–walked away a free woman last year after serving a farcically brief “sentence” for her crimes.
Mary Winkler’s claims of abuse were largely uncorroborated during the trial. According to the testimony from Matthew Winkler’s oldest daughter, Patricia, the dead father–who as he lay dying looked at his wife and asked “why?”–was a good man and did not abuse her mother.
Mary Winkler has been in a custody battle with Matthew Winkler’s parents, who have been raising the three girls since the murder. The Winklers sought to terminate Mary Winkler’s parental rights and adopt the girls, a position I’ve supported.
Mary Winkler was granted supervised visits with her daughters last year. Now, sadly, she has gained back custody of the three girls, which is clearly not in the girls’ best interests.
Last year Dan Winkler said, “These young ladies have not expressed any desire to be with their mother or her family,” but he and wife Diane have now ceded custody, knowing that continuing their legal battle to protect the girls would in the end be unsuccessful. A judge has approved the custody transfer.
Ned Holstein, MD, Fathers & Families and I laid out the case against child custody for Winkler in our co-authored column No child custody for husband-killer Mary Winkler (World Net Daily, 9/14/07).
From Mary Winkler Gets Daughters Back (myfoxmemphis.com, 8/1/08):
FOX13 has learned that Mary Winkler has gotten her three daughters back. Winkler picked up her children Friday afternoon. The girls had been living with their paternal grandparents since Winkler killed her husband Matthew in 2006. Now it appears the bitter custody battle is coming to a close.
As soon as Winkler’s criminal trial ended, the custody battle began. But Friday, in an unexpected turn of events, she regained physical custody of her three children.
A source told FOX13 that Winkler picked the girls up Friday afternoon and brought them to her new home in McMinnville, Tennessee. She will soon enroll them in local schools…
Winkler lost custody in 2006 when she was charged with the murder of her preacher husband Matthew Winkler.
Winkler was convicted of manslaughter in 2007 and has been fighting for custody of her children since her release from a mental facility.
Matthew’s parents, Dan and Diane Winkler, have had custody of the girls since 2006 and have been trying to adopt them.
“These young ladies have not expressed any desire to be with their mother or her family,” said Dan Winkler in 2007.
The Winkler’s filed appeals in an effort to stop Mary Winkler from having supervised visits and phone calls with her daughter.
But now, a source said they have turned over custody to the girls’ mother.
This is being called the first step to full custody, although no official court order has been filed.
Glenn Sacks, www.GlennSacks.com
Subscribe to Dean's World by Email
7 comments
We’ll see more of this extreme gender ABUSE until men stand up for themselves. Picture this case if the roles were reversed, and he shot her in the back, leaving her to bleed to death. Would he get a slap on the wrist? I don’t think so.
Then, this monster has the absolute audacity to on Oprah to share her victory kill with other women! The arrogance!!!!!! Digusting!
For God’s sakes men, wake up! Women can kill men in cold blood, claiming some BS sob story, then share the kill on TV with like minded monsters.
Find out how this happened. Get the names and the details. Petition to send this monster to jail for life. Let them put THAT on Oprah!
That’s despicable - what if she "snaps" again?
Living with teenage girls can be quite "abusive"!
Good lord, is there anything a biological parent can do to lose custodial rights in Tennessee? Even if one were to assume that Mary Winkler’s dubious claims of abuse were valid, and that the abuse was far more extreme than reports seem to indicate, she’d still be an unfit parent for allowing her kids to live with that abusive monster for all those years. I’m not sure I buy into the sexism angle, though; didn’t O.J. get custody of his kids, too?
Oh well, I guess this story is over. For now, at least, until she kills one of her own kids for
sassing back toabusing her, too.Xrlq’s last blog post..Two-Quarter Recessionaries
Good lord, is there anything a biological parent can do to lose custodial rights in Tennessee?
Sure: Have a Y chomosome. /hyberbole
I’m not sure I buy into the sexism angle, though; didn’t O.J. get custody of his kids, too?
No idea if he did or not, but the difference would be that O.J. was aquitted. So from a legal perspective, you can’t take away a man’s children because someone else murdered their mother.
No one else murdered their mother. O.J. did, and a civil jury found as much by clear and convincing evidence. If the law required judges to ignore all acts that don’t result in criminal convictions, most divorce proceedings and custody battles would be very, very short proceedings indeed.
Xrlq’s last blog post..The 411 on 911
Technically, no they didn’t. They found that he was more likely than not to have done it. That’s a much lower hurdle. (FWIW, I have no doubt that he did it, but my opinion doesn’t count for much in a courtroom.)
And I’m not saying judges should ignore all acts not resulting in criminal convictions. However, using a non-conviction as the non-basis for denying custody would seem easily overturnable.
In any case, the equivalency isn’t there as, from a legal, perpective, there’s only a better than 50/50 chance OJ did it, while Winkler thinks "Some people need killin’ " is a decent enough excuse.
“Technically,” yes they did. If the civil jury had found liability “only” by preponderance of evidence (more likely than not), there would have been no basis for the huge punitive damages they awarded. Even if they had found liability by “only” a preponderance of evidence, that would still be more than enough reason for any not-brain-dead judge to have concluded that their children’s best interests were served not by leaving them in his care but by having them as far away from him as humanly possible. If the family court judge had any doubt that he did it, he should have heard the evidence himself prior to awarding custody.
BTW, I’m not suggesting that the moron judge who gave Mary Winkler custody was any better. Same B.S., different day is more like it.
Xrlq’s last blog post..Poppa’s in the Graveyard and Momma’s
in the PenHome FreeYou must log in to post a comment.