Posted on 06/15/2010 1:23:12 AM PDT by FreeManDC
It used to be that the definition of chutzpah was a man who had murdered his parents pleading for mercy from the court because he was an orphan. We have for our delectation an update on this definition out of Sacramento, California, in a story about a woman – the wife of a police detective, to add spice to the narrative — who, disgruntled over the loss of custody of her children to the husband (and going by the stats on this subject, she must be a piece of work to begin with to have lost custody in today’s mother-friendly courts) hires a motorcycle gang hit man to off her husband. Or she thinks she did. Members of the hit man’s gang tape damning conversations with her and alert the police, who arrest her and eventually convict her for solicitation to murder. The story doesn’t say why, but I’m thinking the gang probably has enough problems with the police, and don’t need the aggravation of a furious vendetta from their proposed victim’s colleagues. But get this: Later in divorce court, after being released from prison in 2004, the would-be murderer is awarded half the couple’s property, $70,000, just as though they were any other divorcing couple with, say, “irreconcilable differences.” I guess you don’t get more “irreconcilable” that when one partner tries to whack the other and fails. The husband isn’t too thrilled about this, and presses for changes to the divorce laws. As a result, tomorrow the state legislative committee will hear arguments for a change to the no-fault divorce laws that will close this little loophole, stating that folks who try to murder their partners won’t be eligible for financial rewards in divorce proceedings.
(Excerpt) Read more at fullcomment.nationalpost.com ...
“irreconcilable differences.” My way or no way.
Mary Winkler from Selmer, Tennessee managed to pull it off. Shot him in the back while he slept and then claimed abuse and got a jury to believe her with absolutely no evidence. Even the daughter said there was no abuse. The 3 kids went to the dead husbands parents. She spent a few monthes at the funny farm, got out and got her kids back even with the oldest child pleading with the judge to not make her go back and live with her mother. Then she sued her former in laws for money that had been given to them by their church and friends for legal bills trying to get custody of the kids, and won. The judge ordered the parents of the murdered man to turn over 235,000 dollars to the murderer. To beat it all she played the victim and managed to get all kinds of free stuff. And the reason she murdered him was because she was involved in a check kiting operation and the banks were closing in on her and he was about to find out that she had gotten them tens of thousands of dollars in debt and was fixing to go to prison. She even got out of that scot free.
You forget she got paid what Four Hundred thousand for her Interview on Oprah. She was partying on New Year’s day. Less than a year after murdering her Husband. His crime? He asked her to weak lingerie, high heels and a Wig during sex. So she said. This was his crime.
True and according to her own confession after she was caught, she said he was never abusive. She kept repeating, “he was so good”. Then she got that lawyer and he told her to shut up and they proceeded to cook up the abuse story. Also, her lawyer said after the trial that he didn’t consider it lying, he considered it good lawyering.
Good grief. I didn’t realize that’s how all that Winkler drama played out. I stopped following the case after she was exonerated. (A great miscarriage of justice, IMHO.)
Ditto, that! Unbelievable!
That Winkler case is so disturbing. I don’t know how the jury could have reached such a decision, and the whole legal system makes no sense.
Yet I saw many people defending her, even here, on the grounds that she was “cute” and seemed “innocent” and also that there was something “dark going on in the marriage.”
Khankr has pointed out that she made allegations of sexual misbehaviour. Since her husband is dead he can’t answer any of that. In any case, when did that become grounds for murder? The whole thing is a US version of an honour killing - if the victim is said to be unchase - well then, go to, kill them off and society will reward you.
It's one of the many reasons Americans are losing faith in the system. Liberals and lesbian feminists now create policy, and the policy is to destroy males in every way possible.
Men are considered guilty of everything, we have to proof innocence.
And it’s might near impossible to prove a negative.
It is a sad statement on common sense when you have to spell out in divorce law that if one party tries to kill the other, they are not eligible for spoils.
Yes it is disturbing. I rate it right up there with the OJ Simpson case. So many things pointed to the fact that Mary planned to kill him to keep him from finding out that she had not only went through their money, she had control of the church’s money, too, and had went through that. She claimed that he was abusing the children, yet the 9 yr old girl said he never abused them. She claimed he had gotten up early that morning and tried to smother the baby, yet when she shot him less than a half hour later, he was sound asleep. And he had a full bladder. The prosecution stated if he had gotten up, he would have had to pass the bathroom twice to get to the babies room and back to bed. Why would he have went back to bed without stopping to use the bathroom? And how could he have fallen so sound asleep in such a short time with the discomfort of a full bladder. Also she has made her brags to people that her lawyer bought the shoes. This was a terrible miscarriage of justice.
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.