Slain Minister's Wife to Be Charged With Murder

Can a moderator move or delete the posts on the Judge in Reno that inadvertantly got posted in this thread? The appear to be 1052 - 1058

Well, I hope they get the thread fixed, but otherwise ... we'll carry on!

Mary entered her "not guilty" plea this morning. Farese asked for a bond hearing and it has been set for June 30th, two weeks from this Friday. Will be interesting to see what transpires with that - if she gets bond, how high it will be, and if so, if she can raise it. I hope not.

My news search was very brief, so I didn't see if there were any new pix of Mary or any additional news - maybe can later.

Once again, they are saying the trial is set for October 30th.

[Mary got a letter from the children yesterday]

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060615/NEWS03/606150380/1017/NEWS

Thursday, 06/15/06

Winkler defense to hinge on marriage
Attorney: Jury will hear what 'led up to' minister's slaying

By TONYA SMITH-KING
The Jackson Sun

SELMER, Tenn. — The history of Mary Winkler's 10-year marriage will be key to her defense against a first-degree murder charge in the shooting death of her minister husband, her attorneys said after her arraignment Wednesday.

Although he didn't discuss details of the defense's case, attorney Leslie Ballin said, "Each of those years, each of those months, each of those days of marriage have history to it.

"This event just did not occur on March 22. The things that led up to March 22 need to be told to this jury. We can't share that with you today."

Mary Winkler, 32, pleaded not guilty Wednesday during her arraignment in McNairy County Circuit Court. The judge set a June 30 hearing to discuss bond and an Oct. 30 trial date.

A grand jury indicted Mary Winkler on Monday, deciding that there was sufficient evidence for her to stand trial in the killing of Matthew Winkler, 31, a popular minister at Selmer's Fourth Street Church of Christ.

Church members have said they weren't aware of any problems between the couple.

Police believe Mary Winkler planned the killing, and authorities have said she confessed to firing the single shotgun blast to her husband's back at the church's parsonage on March 22.

Ballin acknowledged that Mary Winkler talked to police about the night of the killing but said she did not confess.

''We've seen a copy of the statement. It's not a confession to me,'' Ballin said.

Defense attorney Steve Farese Sr. said he does not expect to argue that someone other than Mary Winkler fired the fatal shot.

''I would think that would probably be a stretch for us,'' he said.

Fourth Street church members discovered Matthew Winkler's body on the floor of his bedroom after he failed to show up for an evening service. An Amber Alert was issued for Mary Winkler and the couple's three girls, ages 1, 6 and 8. They were found the following evening in Orange Beach, Ala.

The case has attracted local and national media. Winkler's attorneys have not decided whether they will seek a change of venue.

Farese said he will call two to three witnesses for the bond hearing and perhaps to provide letters written on Mary Winkler's behalf.

"We'll put on proof of whether she's a threat or danger to herself or the community as a whole, where she will be living, what she will be doing, show a history of her nonviolent background and (present) witnesses that know more about her than any of us," Farese said.

Farese said his client has places she could stay and work in Selmer, McMinnville and Knoxville. Friends and family in those places would allow her to stay with them, Farese added.

The motion for the bond hearing was one of about 15 motions defense attorneys filed Wednesday. Other motions included those for discovery, exculpatory evidence and a list of witnesses.

The Winkler children are in the custody of their paternal grandparents, Dan and Diane Winkler, of Huntingdon, Tenn.

It was not until Tuesday that Mary Winkler got a response to her correspondences to the children in the form of two letters from her eldest daughters, Mary Alice (Allie) Winkler, 6, and Patricia Winkler, 8.

Her youngest daughter, Brianna Winkler, is 1.

The letters included drawings.

"Drawings of like you would expect from children — grass, trees, sun and pictures of children," Farese described them. "... I just looked to see that it wasn't anything bad."

Farese added that the girls wrote in their letters such things as, "I love you, Mommy; I wish that I could see you; I want to see you soon; I'm praying for you." •

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/14/ng.01.html

Hi. I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell, in for Nancy Grace tonight. ....

But first tonight: A preacher`s wife dressed in something less than her Sunday best as she appears in court today on charges of shooting her husband. Mary Winkler pleads not guilty to first degree murder in a Tennessee court.

Let`s go straight out to reporter Liz Daulton with WREC radio. She has been tracking this case from the start. Liz, give us a quick recap of the crime itself and an update on what happened today.

LIZ DAULTON, WREC RADIO: A quick recap of the crime itself is that the body of Matthew Winkler was found on March 22, when some church parishioners were concerned that he didn`t show up for a nightly service. They found the body in the master bedroom at the church parsonage, where he was shot, found in a prone position, face up.

And everything that`s happened since then -- a national Amber Alert was issued for Mary Winkler and the couple`s three daughters. They were found in Orange Beach, Alabama, the next day.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And today, we see Mary Winkler in court. We understand she was more emotional today than she had been in a previous court appearance. She apparently did not speak, but she held a Kleenex. What can you tell us about her emotional state?

DAULTON: I think it was a little bit more emotional than we were used to seeing. The several other appearances she has been, she`s kept her head down, stayed very quiet. The reason behind the emotion, according to her attorney, was that she has received a letter from her two older daughters, which is the first contact that she`s had with them.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Psychotherapist Lauren Howard, is it also a case that this crime happened in late March, now the shock of it is wearing off and the reality is setting in, and with that reality comes tremendous pain?

LAUREN HOWARD, PSYCHOTHERAPIST: Well, absolutely. No matter what her mental state is -- and whether or not we decide that she is compromised psychologically or not -- she is realty-based enough to recognize what she`s done, that she`s committed a murder. And certainly, her lack of access to her children has caused her a lot of pain. That we know. So there`s no question that at this juncture, her response to these events is outside of that sort of bubble of shock, if you will.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And of course, she does deserve the presumption of innocence. She has pleaded not guilty and she has not been convicted yet.

Let`s hear what her defense team has to say about her mental and emotional state.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am concerned about her emotional state. One of those concerns is whether or not she would harm herself. Now, suicide watch in different detention facilities means different things. From what I have seen this morning, I am not concerned that she could get to things that she could harm herself with.

She is trying to cope with the loss that she finds herself in. She`s accused with the homicide of the husband that she loved. She`s not been with her children. Her three kids are with the paternal grandparents. And from what we understand, they are in very capable, loving hands. But she`s separated from them, and she`s just an emotional wreck.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And we are very happy tonight to have with us one of Mary Winkler`s defense attorneys, Steve Farese. Now, thank you for joining us, sir. I do understand that what happened today is a trial was set, I believe for October 30. There is going to be a bond hearing on June 30. But how do you argue to get somebody out on bail when you`re concerned about their mental state and the possibility that they might harm themselves?

STEVE FARESE, MARY WINKLER`S ATTORNEY: Well, first of all, the clip that I only heard, I could not see, presumably was from March of this year. That`s one of the reasons that we decided not to ask for bail at that time. Since that time, we`ve had her seeing a psychologist. We`ve gotten reports from that psychologist, and we`ve continued to see her and has seen -- have seen the change in her mental state.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Listen, the entire world -- and I understand that you, as a defense attorney, don`t want to reveal your hand, but the entire world is wondering why. Why did this woman, a mother of three, seemingly happily married, allegedly do this? I understand you don`t want to tip your hand, but is there anything that you can tell us? Because you have been quoted as saying that you won`t use any one issue, that it`s not that clear-cut, that you have to look at the entire picture. Can you give us a sense of what you mean by that?

FARESE: Well, what we mean by that is that we can`t start with March 22 of 2006 and say this is the whole story. You have to go back into this family`s history, both Matthew`s and Mary Carol`s. You have to investigate the facts that led up to this incident.

And by the way, just so your therapist will know, I don`t appreciate her assuming that this was murder. Any therapist who has treated someone should find out the facts before they make such assumptions.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, are you essentially saying she didn`t fire the gun and hit her husband in the back, or are you saying that she had a very good reason for doing so, such as self-defense, insanity or possibly that it was an accident?

FARESE: I don`t know. Did Dick Cheney shoot his lawyer?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You`re talking about the hunting accident? I know he shot somebody.

FARESE: Oh, now it`s a hunting accident. Twenty-four hours before the police are called, he`s drinking. That`s a hunting accident. But this is a murder. You know, you can`t have it both ways, Jane. You have to know all the facts...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well...

FARESE: You have to know all the facts surrounding each incident.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: That`s why we have you on. We have you on to get the facts. I mean, we`ve heard a lot of possibilities here, and that`s what we want to hear. We want to understand. That`s all we`re trying to do, is understand. We`ve heard the possibility of an accident, of post-partum depression, of stressors, the fact that she is a preacher`s wife and they are held to tremendous scrutiny and put on a pedestal. They feel they have nobody to confide it. There`s a lot of factors that may be very important and explain her situation. That`s why we have you on.

FARESE: Well, I think that, if you take all of those factors and put them in a pot and stir them around, then you have a good idea of what the defense will be.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now, let me ask Allison Gilman about this because when she pleaded not guilty today, my understanding is -- and correct me if I`m wrong, sir, but my understanding is she didn`t plead not guilty by reason of insanity or self-defense or say it was an accident, she just said not guilty. Can they narrow that down the road?

ALLISON GILMAN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: They certainly can, if they decide to change that. But I don`t think they should. I like what they`re doing. Let people start thinking, wondering. I mean, you want to know what the defense is. I want to know what the defense is. But there`s so many possible defenses out there because this seems so unbelievable that this woman is going to do something like this. So we know that whatever the reason is, it`s going to be good and it`s going to be big. And people are going to be listening and waiting to hear what it is. So they`re keeping people guessing, and I think it`s smart.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But prosecutor Eleanor Dixon, maybe you can explain something to me, as a citizen. I don`t understand the difference between an explanation and a defense. We all have explanations for what we do. Even criminals who are convicted have explanations. When does it become a defense?

ELEANOR DIXON, PROSECUTOR: Well, it sounds like everything`s going to be a defense, at this point. I love how the defense attorney`s just throwing every possibility up there and stirring it all up because he wants to you focus on Dick Cheney, rather than the guilt of his client. And as the prosecutor that`s what I`d be looking at, everything that points to the premeditated murder of this man. He was shot in the back. That`s not an accident. That sounds like premeditation. That sounds like someone who is trying to get away from a situation. So I think it`ll be very interesting to see which wheel of defense he`ll spin this time.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, let`s go to our forensic pathologist and medical examiner with us tonight, Dr. Michael Hunter. What does the fact that this minister was shot in the back tell you about the crime? Can you accidentally shoot somebody in the back? I mean, wouldn`t your hand have to be up pretty high, you`re holding up your hand? So does that have a tendency to say accident or not accident?

DR. MICHAEL HUNTER, FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST, MEDICAL EXAMINER: You know, it`s really not possible, I think, looking at a wound like this in the back and say accident, homicide. You can tell a lot of things of the wound. You can certainly determine the range of the wound, as well as the trajectory of the wound. I mean, this wound is primarily coming from the back toward the front, and you know, it`s hard to explain, say self- defense, when the wound is right in the midline of the back.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I want to go back to Mary Winkler`s attorney, Steve Farese, because again, we`re all here just to try to understand the situation, not to attack you or your client. As part of trying to understand that, we look and try to extrapolate from the little tidbits you`ve given us and what we know about her background. Now, we understand that her husband was a minister with the Churches of Christ. And I have been told that even in the conservative Bible Belt, the Churches of Christ are considered rather strict, and that some of them have this philosophy that would be described by their critics as being the diminishment of women, that women are subservient to men, that they must submit to the will of their husbands. Was that a factor in this particular marriage?

FARESE: Well, first of all, I`m not here to take on any religion and would never dare to do so. In this specific case, yes, you do have people of the same religion, and you have the fact that he was a minister in this particular church. But I think you have to look at the specific type of person that he was, rather than the fact that he also happened to be a minister also.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But it`s relevant. I mean, this has come up in cases such as Andrea Yates and other women who are in very, very religious situations, where that becomes a factor, a stressor. If a woman has three children and it`s not considered proper for the husband to help and she`s overwhelmed, then that becomes a stressor. So that is relevant to this situation. It`s not irrelevant. Nobody`s trying to attack religion. But if it`s a factor, it`s a factor.

FARESE: Well, I don`t disagree that it might be a factor there in the overall story of how this event occurred. I`m just saying that I don`t want it to sound like that anyone is spinning, as one of your other guests said -- sounds like a prosecutor to me -- but is spinning anything. We want to show what the facts are and what the truth is, and we will rely on that as our defense.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. We have a caller who`s been waiting very patiently, Marie from Virginia. Your question, ma`am?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, Jane. We love you. While the defense attorney`s busy portraying his defendant as a victim, there are three victims. And those little kids, have they been examined for signs of sexual abuse or any other kind of physical abuse or emotional?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You raise such an important question. We are talking about this case, and there are those three gorgeous, beautiful children. Obviously, their lives have been completely shattered by this.

Lauren Howard, psychotherapist, how does something like this impact them, when their father has been murdered and their mother is accused of killing the dad?

HOWARD: Well, it`s horrific. I mean, how does it -- you know, first of all, the assumption that something untoward happened with the children at this point is such conjecture. We have no idea. None of us has any idea, which is why we`re so curious and at sort of the end of our seats. What happened here? It`s a strange incident. What occurred and why did it occur? There`s no reason to assume anything at all. I mean, our imaginations can run amok.

But for a child to have their mother incarcerated, to be removed from their home, to have their father dead by murder or accident or illness is a horrific, frightening, traumatic event. And to have their mother accused of that further confounds. Their abstract reasoning isn`t good, so there`s not a sort of a good-and-evil thing going on with them. It`s simply an abandonment issue, if you will, from their point of view.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And beyond that, they were kind of brought into it because they went along on the ride that the mother took, allegedly, to flee the scene.

HOWARD: Right.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let`s hear from Joe in Florida.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The police have stated with some certainty that it couldn`t have been anything from the minister`s side that provoked the murder or may have given a motive to the wife. How can they be so sure?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, that`s an excellent question. How could they possibly be so sure? Liz Daulton, you`ve been covering this from the start. How can they eliminate so many things, for example, the fact that there may have been a toxic situation inside the house? How do we know what happens behind closed doors?

DAULTON: How do we know what happens behind closed doors? There`s never any sure way to tell what`s going behind closed doors. What we are hearing is a lot of speculation from people that know the family or know the facts or police alleged confessions. And that`s the problem, is everything`s being thrown around, and it`s all speculation. So your guess is as good as mine.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: You`re absolutely right, it is all speculation at this point. All we can say is that she has pleaded not guilty, and at this point, she deserves the presumption of innocence. We do hope we get to the bottom of it, though, for all of our sake, and find out what was going on, what was the dynamic in that household. Thank you so much.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199291,00.html

BALLIN: No bond. We have not requested bond to be set. That may change on Wednesday, though.

VAN SUSTEREN: Why would it change on Wednesday? What's different on Wednesday that you're asking now and you didn't ask before?

BALLIN: Well, her mental state is a little — well, it's stable now. We have a place for her to go. And it just would be appropriate for her to be released on bond, in our humble opinion.

VAN SUSTEREN: Leslie, we hear from the police, and we have not heard from the defense, but that she confessed to the crime. It seems to me that it's either a self-defense or it's an admission she did it or that it's some sort of insanity defense. Am I right that it's one of those three?

BALLIN: Of course, you're right. To call what she said a confession may not be totally accurate. She gave a statement of what happened. We've been given a copy of that statement. I'm very comfortable with the contents of it and look forward to trying case, assuming that that statement is admitted and played before the jury.

VAN SUSTEREN: And I should probably tell the viewers that oftentimes, the police call something a confession, and oftentimes, it's a statement. It's just both sides describe it very differently. But in that statement, does she admit to shooting her husband?

BALLIN: I can't go into the details of the statement. Let me tell you that discovery has not thrown us any curves. We are happy with the state of the proof and look forward to putting on our defense at the appropriate time, which, of course, will be the trial.

VAN SUSTEREN: Has she — I know that there was some talk early on that she wanted to see her children. Has she been able to see her children?

BALLIN: She hasn't been able to see her children. She wants to so badly. The kids are with the paternal grandparents. We are just hopeful that she'll be able to see the kids, talk to the kids, have pictures of them or just maybe a bit of their homework for school. She yearns for some contact.

VAN SUSTEREN: Is the reason she hasn't seen the children her choice, the parents' choice, the children's choice, the jail, the judge? Why hasn't she seen them?

BALLIN: Well, she's requested to see them. The paternal grandparents have custody of the kids. We are comfortable in not doing anything to jeopardize their mental well being, as fragile as it may — you know, that you understand that it is now. She wants to see the kids, but time, hopefully, will tell when that's going to happen.

VAN SUSTEREN: Between the first time you saw her and the most recent time that you saw your client, is she any different?

BALLIN: A lot different. In the beginning, she was a depressed lady, head hanging down, not willing to share with us, even her lawyers, her history, what brought her to March 22.

I think I'm at liberty to tell you that she's opened up to us. She is telling us what happened. She has shared with us the 10 years or so of marital life, and we're going to tell the story at the appropriate time.

VAN SUSTEREN: Is that marital life one of bliss or one of just the opposite that you'll be sharing in courtroom and with others?

BALLIN: All is not what it appears to be. And it just — we're going to have to wait. You know, stay tuned. And we're going to try this case in the courtroom, not in the media. We will tell exactly what happened. We'll describe what brought us to March 22, and you're going to hear what happened behind those closed doors.

VAN SUSTEREN: One quick question, last question. Prediction of when there'll be a trial date. What's your docket like down there?

BALLIN: Hopefully, October, which will be pretty quick, if you think about the date of the event, March 22, '06, and then a trial the same year in October. That's pretty quick.

VAN SUSTEREN: It's a lot faster than North Carolina with that Duke case, I'll tell you that much. Thank you, Leslie.

BALLIN: Thank you.

[Susan Filan for Dan Abrams]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13323505/

FILAN: Coming up, a preacher‘s wife indicted for murder. Prosecutors say she confessed. But why did she do it? Her attorneys join us next. But first, the headlines.

(NEWS BREAK)

FILAN: Premeditated murder. That‘s the indictment for Mary Winkler, the Tennessee preacher‘s wife who reportedly admitted to killing her husband. The indictment reads on or about March 22, 2006 in McNairy County, Tennessee and before the filing of this indictment, Mary Winkler did unlawfully, feloniously, intentionally and with premeditation kill Matthew Brian Winkler. Matthew Winkler was found dead in the bedroom of the home he shared with Mary and their three children after he failed to show up for the evening service of his church. The medical examiner determined he was shot in the back with a shotgun at close range.

After the murder, Mary fled the state with their children. They were all found the next day in Alabama. She‘s been held without bond ever since and she‘s going to be arraigned tomorrow morning. Joining me now, Mary Winkler‘s attorneys, Steve Farese and Leslie Ballin, and former Tennessee prosecutor Brent Horst.

Steve, were you surprised by the premeditated murder indictment?

STEVE FARESE, ATTORNEY FOR MARY WINKLER: I wasn‘t surprised about the first-degree murder indictment. The premeditation has yet to be made visible to us. So we had heard about it, but I can‘t say I was surprised, but I wouldn‘t have been surprised if they had said it was not premeditated.

FILAN: Brent, when do you file a premeditated murder charge and when do you not?

BRENT HORST, FORMER TENNESSEE PROSECUTOR: Well, you simply look at the facts and what evidence you have. If you can meet the elements as a prosecutor, then you file for that charge. In this case, obviously, the state felt that they could prove, (A), that it was intended and premeditated simply meaning she reflected on what she was doing.

FILAN: I‘m going to put up the elements of what it takes to have a premeditated murder charge in the state of Tennessee. I‘m going to read them to you.

Intent to kill must have been formed prior to the act itself. It is not necessary that the purpose to kill preexist in the mind of the accused for any definite period of time. The mental state of the accused at the time the accuse allegedly decided to kill must be carefully considered in order to determine whether the accused was sufficiently free from excitement and passion as to be capable of premeditation.

Well Brent, if they‘re going to raise the defense, and I don‘t know that they are, I‘m going to ask them in a minute, but if they‘re going to raise an insanity defense or some kind of impaired or diminished capacity, don‘t you have some trouble with that second part of that statutory element that you‘ve got to satisfy for proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

HORST: Susan, you would only have trouble if the facts that the defense is able to present causes you that trouble. Simply raising the defense does not necessarily cause me pause as a prosecutor. Oftentimes defense counsel will be far reaching simply because they have nothing else that they can even try.

FILAN: Steve, Leslie, am I on the right track? Are you going to go somewhere with her mental state to show that they can‘t meet that second statutory criteria?

LESLIE BALLIN, ATTORNEY FOR MARY WINKLER: In any type of homicide charge, a person‘s mental state is an issue, so we‘re going to go there. Certainly, March 22 of this year is not the first day in the life of the Winklers. And so we‘re going to go back and portray what their lives were like, what happened, and what brought Mary Carol and Matthew to the event of March 22.

FILAN: Are you sowing the seeds for a battered woman defense?

BALLIN: That‘s not out of the ballpark at all. Certainly we can‘t go into any details and I‘m sure that you can appreciate why. But we feel like we have a very viable defense, and we look forward to our day in court.

FILAN: Why the heck did she do it? I mean we‘ve all just been baffled by this one.

BALLIN: I‘ve said to others stay tuned, and so I‘ll have to say that to you. Hopefully, we‘re going to get to trial in October, which in the grand scheme of things is not that long of a time away. So please stay tuned, there‘s a reasonable understandable explanation in our minds as to what happened and why.

FILAN: I want you to take a listen to a sound bite from a friend of Mary‘s.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BETTY WILKERSON, CHURCH SECRETARY: There has to be—there‘s got to be some deep dark reason that this has happened, and I don‘t know what it is. And I think that‘s the question on everybody‘s mind right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FILAN: Do you guys know what it is yet? Have you gotten there? Does she talk to you? Is she cooperating with her defense?

FARESE: Yes, she‘s cooperating with us. And slowly but surely we‘re

getting deeper through her layers. And we think we have a firm grip on

what was going on in that household through the past few years, why she has

why she finds herself in the situation she does today. But she‘s been very helpful as of late.

FILAN: Do you get to see her much?

FARESE: I try to see her about once a week. I also talk to her on the phone about once a week, and Leslie and I try to together go see her at least twice a month.

FILAN: She‘s not gotten to see her kids yet, has she?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Has not. We‘d like that to change. She certainly would like that to change, yesterday. She misses those kids and wants to have some contact with them.

FILAN: Can‘t even imagine what that must feel like for her. Are you guys going to ask for bail tomorrow at the hearing?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We haven‘t decided yet. We have had discussions with Mary Carol about the possibilities of that, but we‘ll probably make that decision tomorrow. If we do make a decision to seek bail, it probably will not be heard tomorrow, but sometime in the near future.

FILAN: Right. Brent, you know I was a prosecutor for many, many years, and what I‘m hearing from the defense is just because maybe you had a bad marriage or a sad life or a hard time, certainly doesn‘t give you the right to take the life of your husband. Diminished capacity or battered woman, I mean those are really, really tough defenses to prove.

Otherwise you‘re kind of giving people a license to say I didn‘t want to get a divorce. I thought it would be quicker to kill him. Am I on the right track with where you‘re going with this?

HORST: Well certainly I agree. And as a defense attorney, when you don‘t have much to work with, you always can kind of go for the sympathy vote and hope for a jury pardon or maybe a lesser-included offense of second degree or involuntary manslaughter. So I think that‘s—without knowing the facts of the case, obviously I think that‘s where they—looks like where they‘re heading.

FILAN: I mean legally to prevail on this, legally to prevail on this, you got to do better than boohoo cry me a river, life was bad, and I haven‘t seen my kids. Don‘t you think?

HORST: Exactly. Certainly.

FILAN: Gentlemen...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Susan...

FILAN: I‘m going to give you guys the last word because I think I took a pretty big shot at you, so I‘m going to give you a chance to come back.

FARESE: Well, we understand you taking the shot at us with your background, Susan, and that‘s quite all right. But we‘re not crying about anything. We‘re not looking for anyone‘s sympathy. We‘re looking for a fair jury because once we present the facts we think that we will be in good stead with a fair jury—Leslie.

BALLIN: Agreed. Sympathy has no place in the courtroom. We want this case to be tried on the facts, the evidence, and the law, and we feel good about things.

FILAN: Well I got to tell you guys, this is a real cliffhanger, because without the sympathy, which you just said you don‘t want from a jury, and good for you, I applaud that, and given that you‘re going to get a fair jury because I believe the jury system in this country is the best in the world...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We do too.

FILAN: ... you better come up—good for you—you better come up with something really good, legally, to hang your hat on. Because that premeditated murder statute the way I read just doesn‘t look that hard to prove when she admitted it. It‘s a lone gun, close range, in the back, flees with the kids, which tells me her mind had to be there enough to know I‘m killing him and getting out of town and I‘m taking my kids...

(CROSSTALK)

FILAN: Guys, thanks for coming on the program...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right. We‘re going to use our first (INAUDIBLE) strike on you, Susan.

FILAN: Very, very good. All right. Well I don‘t live in Tennessee so I don‘t think I‘d get called. Steve Farese, Leslie Ballin, thanks for coming on the program. Brent Horst, thanks for joining us.

FARESE: Thank you.

HORST: Thanks.

If you read the MSNBC transcript you'll see that Mary's attorney says it's not out of the ballpark that he will use the "battered woman defense." How could he even present any evidence about that if Mary doesn't testify? Maybe from the disgruntled next door neighbor? I find it so hard to believe based on what I know about this family. There may have been a refusal by one or both of them to seek marital counseling because of the stigma and close scrutiny of their lives. If he refused counseling, does that make her a battered wife? Could the defense bring in evidence about the beliefs of the church that the husband is the head of the household, and translate that to Mary being a battered wife? It would be hard to get a jury in Selmer to buy that!

Well, there were also these gems:

" ... Defense attorney Steve Farese Sr. said he does not expect to argue that someone other than Mary Winkler fired the fatal shot.
''I would think that would probably be a stretch for us,'' he said. ..."

Understatement of the year!

This made me see red at the man's out-and-out lying:

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, are you essentially saying she didn`t fire the gun and hit her husband in the back, or are you saying that she had a very good reason for doing so, such as self-defense, insanity or possibly that it was an accident?
FARESE: I don`t know. Did Dick Cheney shoot his lawyer?
VELEZ-MITCHELL: You`re talking about the hunting accident? I know he shot somebody.
FARESE: Oh, now it`s a hunting accident. Twenty-four hours before the police are called, he`s drinking. That`s a hunting accident. But this is a murder. You know, you can`t have it both ways, Jane. You have to know all the facts... ..."

Which he doesn't, obviously! If he mangles the truth this transparently with Mary's defense, the jury will see to it that she's toast.

Ballin *almost* gave a straight answer here:

" ... VAN SUSTEREN: Leslie, we hear from the police, and we have not heard from the defense, but that she confessed to the crime. It seems to me that it's either a self-defense or it's an admission she did it or that it's some sort of insanity defense. Am I right that it's one of those three?
BALLIN: Of course, you're right. ..."

He probably wishes he could take it back - on the basis of being "too truthful."

And, as you pointed out:

" ... FILAN: Are you sowing the seeds for a battered woman defense?
BALLIN: That‘s not out of the ballpark at all. ..."

I think it probably *is* out of a reasonably-sized ballpark ... but it will be interesting to see how that sits with a McNairy Co. jury. Depending on who is called and how many strikes the pros uses, they might have to wind up with a CofC member on the panel - maybe more than 1.

How many are "enlightened" enough to know that the Bible doesn't mean subservient in the "bowing and scraping to one's husband" sense? And even if they are, suppose there are some who feel that *is* what a *good* preacher's wife ought to be and do, whether or not they agree with it in their own marriages? That knife can cut both ways and seems risky for *both* sides - until we hear what the actual defense is going to be.

Methinks they are overplaying their hand ...

" ... BALLIN: ... So please stay tuned, there‘s a reasonable understandable explanation in our minds as to what happened and why. ..."

Whenever they finally create it, we'll see how reasonable it is to a normal "person on the street."

Oh, I loved this, too:

" ... FARESE: ... But we‘re not crying about anything. We‘re not looking for anyone‘s sympathy. ..."

Famous last words!

I'd like to know how he can even relate VP Cheney accidently shooting a hunting buddy to this case.

So if I am understanding the ME reports, he did not die immediately. How will that play into the Prosecution?

Well, evidently, Mary knew the special youth turkey hunting season was opening that next weekend and she decided to practice for it that morning.

But, just as she spied a wild turkey out their bedroom window and got it in her sights, Matthew appeared out of nowhere, without warning her he was approaching her line of sight, sideways, with his back to her, and as she pulled the trigger to bag her first turkey, she accidentally sprayed Matthew with some of the birdshot.

He laughed about it as they took him to the ER to pluck some of the pellets out from under his skin, commenting "happens all the time in turkey season - no problem."

That would be the parallel.

Don't know for sure. They have so much, they may not need to go overboard - but either she watched him die or left him to die. Either way, it was not an accident, or she would've called 911.

I think we already know that, anyway, from the way she told the Alabama cops what she had done. Come to think of it, I've forgotten some details, but did she know he was dead when she confessed to them? Now I'm not sure we know the answer to that.

We'll have to find out more of the story as to where the children were when it happened and what they know.

I wonder if she'll get bond? And if so, will they allow the children to go back to live with her? (surely not)

In an article from the Jackson Sun today it says that Mary is trying to suppress all evidence against her and statements she gave to the police when she was taken into custody.

I've been reading here for a while and decided to register simply to post about this case. I have friends who have family members who attend the church Matthew Winkler preached for. I don't live in the immediate area but I do live fairly close and I hope to be able to give some insight as the trial progresses.
As for the news of the motions filed last week, I expect that Farese and Ballin are grasping at straws about now. They don't have much going for their case, except a whole lot of free publicity!

I heard today that Mary has been requesting certain visitors from among the church members. Apparently she is concerned with some of them not being as forgiving to her as others have been.
Did it not cross her mind that some might hold the murder of their minister against her????