Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Wife who killed preacher could go free today
CNN ^

Posted on 08/14/2007 9:36:33 AM PDT by Blue Turtle

After spending a total of seven months in custody, the Tennessee woman who fatally shot her preacher husband in the back will be released as early as today.

Farese said his client will not talk to the news media because she continues to wage a legal battle to win custody of her girls and faces a $2 million civil suit filed by the parents of of her slain husband, Matthew Winkler.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Local News
KEYWORDS: highheelsherewecome; marywinkler; matthewwinkler; murder; preacherwife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last
In a statement to police after her arrest, Winkler said she didn't recall pulling the trigger .She said she apologized and wiped the blood that bubbled from her dying husband's lips as he asked, "Why?"
1 posted on 08/14/2007 9:36:55 AM PDT by Blue Turtle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Blue Turtle

Ever heard of DIVORCE ?


2 posted on 08/14/2007 9:44:12 AM PDT by TaxxMann (THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GUARANTEE FAIR SPEECH, IT GUARANTEES FREE SPEECH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaxxMann

So...

She commits a horrific murder and uses the “I don’t recall pulling the trigger” & “he made me wear high heels” defense and now she’s out.

The law thinks it’s a good idea to put someone this imbalanced back on the streets? I wonder if she’ll remember her next murder...?


3 posted on 08/14/2007 9:49:36 AM PDT by bolobaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Blue Turtle

Let me guess...she found Jesus in the last few months?


4 posted on 08/14/2007 9:50:43 AM PDT by Badeye (You know its a kook site when they ban the word 'kook')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blue Turtle
She said she apologized and wiped the blood that bubbled from her dying husband's lips as he asked, "Why?"

And then she disconnected the phone from the wall in case he still had enough energy left to call 9/11 before he bled to death.

5 posted on 08/14/2007 9:53:06 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blue Turtle
It's amazing how little of the true story has been told.

She was an embezzler who was running a check-kiting scheme to cover up the money she stole from her husband's congregation. She killed him because he was going to expose her malfeasance.

His murder was a cold and calculated action. She waited for him to go to bed. When she was sure he was asleep, she went downstairs, retrieved a shotgun, and shot him point blank as he slept.

If a man had done the things she did, he would be on death row - not out in 7 months.

6 posted on 08/14/2007 9:56:56 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

And when here trial began, she spit on her husband’s memory with completely unsupported tales of abuse and debauchery. She smeared his name and walked away clean.


7 posted on 08/14/2007 10:02:29 AM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE

this turned battered woman syndrome into a get out of jail free card.


8 posted on 08/14/2007 10:04:26 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Blue Turtle
Farese said his client will not talk to the news media because she continues to wage a legal battle to win custody of her girls . . .

Imagine the conversation that will ensue when one of her daughters asks the inevitable questions about their father.

9 posted on 08/14/2007 10:04:51 AM PDT by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE
And when here trial began, she spit on her husband’s memory with completely unsupported tales of abuse and debauchery.

She had one corroborating "witness."

A friend from her hometown who had only met her husband briefly once or twice.

She spent several weeks crying on the phone to this friend in another town, complaining of abuse.

That several week period likely coincided with her husband's increasingly pointed questioning of her over the bank statements they had begun receiving.

Establishing that timeline more closely would likely reveal that she spent weeks planning the murder.

10 posted on 08/14/2007 10:07:57 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Blue Turtle

I don’t recall and I apologized. That makes it all better,,,,right?


11 posted on 08/14/2007 10:10:07 AM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

which just shows how under brain powered the jury and prosecutor pools are.


12 posted on 08/14/2007 10:10:33 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Blue Turtle

I’ve pretty much lost all faith in juries and prosecutors.


13 posted on 08/14/2007 10:12:38 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
It's amazing how little of the true story has been told. She was an embezzler who was running a check-kiting scheme to cover up the money she stole from her husband's congregation.

Do you have a supporting link you can post?

14 posted on 08/14/2007 10:15:59 AM PDT by jokar (for it is by grace, http://www.gbible.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
It's not clear to me exactly how much evidence the prosecution was allowed to use and how much evidence the jury was allowed to see.

Also, she had the benefit of her husband's moron congregation who rushed to her support before they even had the facts. And her highly sympathetic parents.

15 posted on 08/14/2007 10:17:06 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jokar
Here's an article that references the check-kiting scheme - there is a longer article out there with more details:

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/070420/winkler.shtml

16 posted on 08/14/2007 10:22:46 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: All
I followed this case very very closely. Absolutely no evidence was presented in this case that supported her claims against her husband. She was allowed to sit there and ruin this man’s good name. I was very disappointed in the prosecution during this trial.

Watching her testify was a joke. When her attorney was questioning her she sniffled and kept her head down and acted like a beaten puppy. When the prosecution cross examined her she was like a different person.

When she was first arrested she denied that her husband abused her and in fact stated he had not. Once she lawyered up all of a sudden he was a monster.

I watched her barely able to control a smirk when she was first sprung from jail on bail. Led out of the jail with an attorney on each side of her, obviously told to keep her head down and look at the ground and say nothing she was smirking.

The evidence presented to the jury that she had been check kiting was irrefutable. Although she claimed her husband knew about it there was no evidence that he had and in fact all of the accounts were in her name. Where she was getting the money to deposit was never made clear. A good guess is that is was coming from the church but that was never mentioned in court. Who knows.

The jury completely ignored the check kiting it seems and focused on the poor downtrodden abused preacher’s wife. They took a woman’s word who would shoot her sleeping husband in the back.

This was not a woman who shot a man in the midst of a heated argument or who was being beaten. Mary had not one bruise on her or broken bone, or black eye when she was arrested.

I guess if you want to get rid of your husband all you have to do is shoot him in the back while he is sleeping, go to walmart and buy a cheap wig and some red high heels, claim that he wanted kinky sex and was mean to you. Then you’ll get 7 months rest in a mental institution where all of your meals are taken care of for you and you can sit and chat about yourself for hours on end. Then you’ll be out and about.

Pictures were snapped of her out celebrating New Year’s Eve after she shot her husband. She was in a bar/restaurant with a friend. The photos are probably still on the internet. She was wearing makeup and long dangling earrings. Drinking, smoking and smiling. The judge said that technically this was not a violation of her probation because it was a restaurant that had a bar and not just a bar. The judge would not allow the photos to be presented in court nor any mention of the incident.

I think she wasn’t enjoying being the preacher’s wife so much and wanted a little bit more. She stole money and was check kiting. Her husband found out and it ruined her plans. He had to go. Her stories about her husbands sexual demands were probably more of her fantasy than the truth of what happened.

She surely wasn’t wearing makeup in court and the only jewelry she had on was a very large crucifix.

People called into the news shows in droves claiming that they were once a member of this church and they too were abused by their husbands. What that had to do with this case is beyond me but it seems that anyone who had ever been abused obviously doesn’t need any stinkin’ evidence to prove it. The case wasn’t about them. It was about Mary Winkler.

Many of the church members and townspeople flocked to her defense. Her husband’s life apparently meant nothing to them. She’ll get her kids back too. That will be the final slap in the face. I don’t know how the grandparents manage to keep sane after all of this. It has to be horrible for them. And now they have to worry and fear for their son’s 3 children too. This case will go down in history as a gross miscarriage of justice just as the OJ case has.

Every once in awhile you get the judicial version of the perfect storm. The right jury, a pathological good liar, inept prosecution etc.

17 posted on 08/14/2007 10:56:34 AM PDT by conservativegranny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: conservativegranny

Did you see the pictures of Sweet Mary in the cocktail lounge puffing on a cigarette with a drink in front of her?
This was just before the trial, when she was out on bail for the murder of her husband.

May she rot in hell.


18 posted on 08/14/2007 11:08:47 AM PDT by ishabibble (ALL-AMERICAN INFIDEL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: All

I believe I misspoke about ALL of the bank accounts being in her name. She had accounts at other banks in her name only. Accounts at the bank that were joint had a positive balance. Accounts in her name were overdrawn.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/14/winkler.trial/index.html

Interesting in this case is that the day before he was shot the bank had been calling Mary to tell her that she was breaking the law and that the accounts were overdrawn. Mary & her husband supposedly had an appointment the day she shot her husband at the bank to discuss the problem. I do not believe that she ever intended on keeping that appointment. Either she never told her husband about it or she did tell him that night and an argument followed in which he told Mary that she was going to have to fix this.

She handled all of the banking which I thought was very odd for an abused woman. Abusive husbands do not let their wives handle all of the finances. She made transfers and bank transactions via her cellphone.

The two days before the murder she made 16 tranfers via phone. Many of these phone calls transpired while she was teaching that day.

If Matthew was anything like my husband he probably never looked at the bank statements. My husband doesn’t want to be bothered and leaves all of that up to me. I could be doing the same thing Mary was doing and he wouldn’t even be aware of it.


19 posted on 08/14/2007 11:10:16 AM PDT by conservativegranny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ishabibble

Yes, she sure looked different than the beaten little meek plain puppy in the courtroom huh? I believe that Mary found that being a preacher’s wife was a bit confining. Perhaps her husband didn’t want her dressing flashy, wearing makeup, drinking & smoking. Maybe that was the criticism that she claimed Matthew directed towards her.

This is just my guess but I think she was trying to amass some funds to leave Matthew and go it on her own. The house of cards she was building for herself fell apart.

It looks like shooting Matthew though is going to work out for her after all. She’s free.


20 posted on 08/14/2007 11:13:57 AM PDT by conservativegranny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson