INJUSTICE: Winkler Sentenced to 3 Years for Killing Husband, May Serve Only 60 Days

Associated Press ^ | 06/08/07 | AP

[SwordofTruth]

BTW I know someone that was very close to the case, he was one of the 2 male jurors. He has never given a public interview. He said that all jurors except 4 women were ready to give a verdict of guilty of 2nd degree murder. These 4 women said they would only give a verdict of manslaughter and would not change their minds no matter how long they stayed there. Unfortunately the rest of the jurors didn’t want to stay there for the length of time it would take to declare a hung jury so they went with the lesser charge. So she basically got away with cold blooded murder because the jurors didn’t want to be inconvenienced any longer. Damn, what a shame!

[jdub]

Personally, I don't think whether he was a bully mattered, the fact remains she shot him in the back, when she could have left instead. That is interesting what you say regarding the women jurors. A public defender I know said before the trial that if she had her way and was defending Winkler, she wouldn't want ANY women on the jury, as they are less likely to buy the battered woman syndrome. I thought that was odd.

The PD thought she should have got one level less than she got. I said she should have got murder, to which she replied "DID YOU SEE THOSE SHOES????". I think that one piece of evidence is what got those 4 women to find sympathy for her. I think it is wrong, but thats a jury for you.

[beckysueb]

Chances are they are going by what they’ve heard in the news. They lived here for 5 years and all the people who are defending her now just loved Matthew then. People want their 15 minutes of fame.

[beckysueb]

It is a shame! My husband was on a jury once for a case of murder. He was the only one who believed the defendent was innocent. The rest of the jurors were ready to hang the guy. My husband stuck to his guns and eventually the rest came around. They arrested the real killer shortly after they found the first guy not guilty.

[beckysueb]

Her defense attorney told an interesting little story about those shoes. He told her after she showed the shoe to the jury, to set it on the rail and not move it until the judge told her to. That way the jury would have to look at the shoe everytime they looked at her. The judge never did tell her to remove the shoe. He also told her to forget who she was and act like an abused woman would durring her testimony.

[LUCKYLADY1]

But what everyone didn’t know about those shoes was that Mary had bought them herself for a halloween party a few years back. a friend of hers was at the party remarked to Mary about the shoes and Mary made the remark that she had trouble finding them. Did anyone on the jury ever look at the soles of these shoes to see that they’d been wore outside? I live in the same county where this took place and she should have left and took the kids instead of killing him, no matter what he had done to her. But no one would have believed her if she’d told about abuse, just like most don’t believe it now. It’s a sad situation any way you look at it, the kids lost a daddy, the Winklers lost a son and brother. She may not get what she deserved here on earth, but she as well as everyone else will be judged by GOD!