GUILTY TN - Rev. Matthew Winkler, 31, shot to death, Selmer, 23 March 2006

[southcitymom]

Hey now, wasn't there a wig involved also?

I am sure for an ultra-conservative woman such as herself, that was really - demeaning to her. Along with daily assults (the way he may have talked to her or treated her) and other stuff that was alleged at trial... I can see her being mentally stressed out. That's just me. I respected the judge's decision in this case.

Also - and again someone please correct me if I am recalling things incorrectly - I believe Mary testified that she didn't mean for the gun to go off - it is obvious to me that the jury believed that.

Now, I'm the sort of person that thinks if you ever find yourself in a situation where you are so freaked out that you are holding a gun at the sleeping father of your children, you need to get yourself some help ASAP.....that said, I am not convinced that she intended to walk in there and shoot him.

Does anyone know the status of her relationship with her children? Have the grandparents been granted custody? Does Mary have rights and/or visitation? I am interested to see how that plays out.

 

[southcitymom]

I only slightly followed this case so please forgive if this is a dumb question..

What is check kiting?

Floating bad checks and taking the money.

 

[Amraann]

Floating bad checks and taking the money.

Thanks SCM!!! I just always knew that as "floating a check"

Never heard it called Kiting before.

 

[southcitymom]

Thanks SCM!!! I just always knew that as "floating a check"

Never heard it called Kiting before.

Yep - just a sexy term for floating!

 

[sherri79]

Also - and again someone please correct me if I am recalling things incorrectly - I believe Mary testified that she didn't mean for the gun to go off - it is obvious to me that the jury believed that.

Now, I'm the sort of person that thinks if you ever find yourself in a situation where you are so freaked out that you are holding a gun at the sleeping father of your children, you need to get yourself some help ASAP.....that said, I am not convinced that she intended to walk in there and shoot him.

Does anyone know the status of her relationship with her children? Have the grandparents been granted custody? Does Mary have rights and/or visitation? I am interested to see how that plays out.

i dont know about visits but the custody battle is still going on. i'm not sure her kids can ever feel safe sleeping in the same house with her. if it was cold blooded murder they are not safe. if she just snapped then 60 days would not make me sure it wouldn't happen again.

 

[southcitymom]

i dont know about visits but the custody battle is still going on. i'm not sure her kids can ever feel safe sleeping in the same house with her. if it was cold blooded murder they are not safe. if she just snapped then 60 days would not make me sure it wouldn't happen again.

Yeah - that's a tough one. I do hope that those kids have received some counseling. I would think that Mary herself would have to undergo a battery of psych tests to even determine if visitation is oaky.

 

[fundiva]

Also - and again someone please correct me if I am recalling things incorrectly - I believe Mary testified that she didn't mean for the gun to go off - it is obvious to me that the jury believed that.

Now, I'm the sort of person that thinks if you ever find yourself in a situation where you are so freaked out that you are holding a gun at the sleeping father of your children, you need to get yourself some help ASAP.....that said, I am not convinced that she intended to walk in there and shoot him.

Does anyone know the status of her relationship with her children? Have the grandparents been granted custody? Does Mary have rights and/or visitation? I am interested to see how that plays out.

If I remember correctly this was a shotgun, which doesn't just "go off" accidentally. You don't just pull a trigger, you have to slide the bolt or pump it before it will shoot. The jury had to completely disregard how the gun worked. For her to dig the gun out of the closet, rack it and aim it she had a lot of intent, IMO.

 

[Jodibug]

This may not be 100% accurate, as I'm just going from memory and not re-reading the facts of the case. Feel free to correct anything I have wrong.

Check kiting is a little more involved than what we just think of as "floating a check". Mary opened several accounts in different towns. She then wrote checks back and fourth for a couple of months, knowing that none of the accounts had any money in them. More than one bank teller testified that they advised her that what she was doing was illegal. One of the banks asked her to come into the bank, with Matthew, for a meeting.

Mary shot Matthew the night before the meeting was to take place.

Mary testified that Matthew instructed her to write the checks and make the deposits, even though Matthew's name wasn't even on all of the accounts, and Matthew's name wasn't on ANY of the checks involved. Mary tried to say that she didn't know what was going on, she just trusted Matthew and did whatever he told her to do.

I don't think that Matthew knew anything about the check kiting, and I believe that Mary killed him because she didn't want him to find out. She knew that if Matthew didn't show up at the bank meeting with her, someone at the bank would most likely make attempts to speak with Matthew directly.

This is all IMO, of course.

The last I knew of (during the trial), one of the banks was still out about $5k, that Mary stole.

I can't think of any reason that she has not been prosecuted for stealing that money. Most likely, she would have a harsher sentence for stealing the $5k, than she received for Matthew's murder.

Again, IMO.

 

[Squishified]

This may not be 100% accurate, as I'm just going from memory and not re-reading the facts of the case. Feel free to correct anything I have wrong.

Check kiting is a little more involved than what we just think of as "floating a check". Mary opened several accounts in different towns. She then wrote checks back and fourth for a couple of months, knowing that none of the accounts had any money in them. More than one bank teller testified that they advised her that what she was doing was illegal. One of the banks asked her to come into the bank, with Matthew, for a meeting.

Mary shot Matthew the night before the meeting was to take place.

Mary testified that Matthew instructed her to write the checks and make the deposits, even though Matthew's name wasn't even on all of the accounts, and Matthew's name wasn't on ANY of the checks involved. Mary tried to say that she didn't know what was going on, she just trusted Matthew and did whatever he told her to do.

I don't think that Matthew knew anything about the check kiting, and I believe that Mary killed him because she didn't want him to find out. She knew that if Matthew didn't show up at the bank meeting with her, someone at the bank would most likely make attempts to speak with Matthew directly.

This is all IMO, of course.

The last I knew of (during the trial), one of the banks was still out about $5k, that Mary stole.

I can't think of any reason that she has not been prosecuted for stealing that money. Most likely, she would have a harsher sentence for stealing the $5k, than she received for Matthew's murder.

Again, IMO.

I think you got it right, Jodibug.

 

[southcitymom]

If I remember correctly this was a shotgun, which doesn't just "go off" accidentally. You don't just pull a trigger, you have to slide the bolt or pump it before it will shoot. The jury had to completely disregard how the gun worked. For her to dig the gun out of the closet, rack it and aim it she had a lot of intent, IMO.

I do recall that it was a shotgun and you make a great point. I also recall her saying she didn't remember the actual shooting.

 

[Logger]

I think they saw him for a bully though. I do think he abused her. I am not saying that he deserved to die...but he did do harm to her. I wonder how the children are doing?

I haven't hear how the children are doing. I WORRY FOR THEM.

They are with his parents. The role models for abuse. Abusers learn it from
someone. If the parents keep the kids the cycle will continue.

 

[MagicRose99]

I haven't hear how the children are doing. I WORRY FOR THEM.

They are with his parents. The role models for abuse. Abusers learn it from
someone. If the parents keep the kids the cycle will continue.

<sarcasm>Yes, let's blame everybody BUT the b*tch with the gun... It's certainly not her fault... after all, divorce was NOT an option...</sarcasm>

Mary is the only one to blame for what happened. Those children are so much better off with their grandparents than they are with a murderous b*tch who may end up killing them while they sleep too.

 

[sherri79]

I haven't hear how the children are doing. I WORRY FOR THEM.

They are with his parents. The role models for abuse. Abusers learn it from
someone. If the parents keep the kids the cycle will continue.

we have no proof of abuse. we have only the killers word. i know men beat their wives. i know women kill husbands who beat them. the fact every woman who kills her husband now says she was beat makes it unlikely that at least a few are not liars. i think to kill their father with them in the home was a form of abuse.

 

[Squishified]

The children's grandparents have never killed anyone. The children's mother has.

 

[anneoakley63]

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070814/NEWS01/70814041

:banghead:

 

[southcitymom]

I haven't hear how the children are doing. I WORRY FOR THEM.

They are with his parents. The role models for abuse. Abusers learn it from
someone. If the parents keep the kids the cycle will continue.

That's a very interesting perspective, Logger. But of course Mary was also abusive to her children in the fact that she killed their father while they were at home.

Except in the most extreme cases of abuse, I believe children should remain with their family. I am glad they had Matthew's parents to go to.

 

[tennessee]

<sarcasm>Yes, let's blame everybody BUT the b*tch with the gun... It's certainly not her fault... after all, divorce was NOT an option...</sarcasm>

Mary is the only one to blame for what happened. Those children are so much better off with their grandparents than they are with a murderous b*tch who may end up killing them while they sleep too.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[jubie]

She certainly knew what to do to protect herself and her children AFTER she shot him.... disconnect the phone and run away with the girls. Those poor little girls, I can't imagine what this has been like for them. IF they want to see their mom I think they should be allowed. Tough decisions all around this one.



Jubie

 

[Texana]

This may not be 100% accurate, as I'm just going from memory and not re-reading the facts of the case. Feel free to correct anything I have wrong.

Check kiting is a little more involved than what we just think of as "floating a check". Mary opened several accounts in different towns. She then wrote checks back and fourth for a couple of months, knowing that none of the accounts had any money in them. More than one bank teller testified that they advised her that what she was doing was illegal. One of the banks asked her to come into the bank, with Matthew, for a meeting.

Mary shot Matthew the night before the meeting was to take place.

Mary testified that Matthew instructed her to write the checks and make the deposits, even though Matthew's name wasn't even on all of the accounts, and Matthew's name wasn't on ANY of the checks involved. Mary tried to say that she didn't know what was going on, she just trusted Matthew and did whatever he told her to do.

I don't think that Matthew knew anything about the check kiting, and I believe that Mary killed him because she didn't want him to find out. She knew that if Matthew didn't show up at the bank meeting with her, someone at the bank would most likely make attempts to speak with Matthew directly.

This is all IMO, of course.

The last I knew of (during the trial), one of the banks was still out about $5k, that Mary stole.

I can't think of any reason that she has not been prosecuted for stealing that money. Most likely, she would have a harsher sentence for stealing the $5k, than she received for Matthew's murder.

Again, IMO.

Excellent summary of what was actually going on, Jodibug, despite all the smoke and mirrors Mary's defense threw out about "kinky sex" and abuse.

 

[Texana]

If I remember correctly this was a shotgun, which doesn't just "go off" accidentally. You don't just pull a trigger, you have to slide the bolt or pump it before it will shoot. The jury had to completely disregard how the gun worked. For her to dig the gun out of the closet, rack it and aim it she had a lot of intent, IMO.

Exactly. She wasn't just grabbing a pistol and holding it up in a "Stop coming towards me or I'll have to shoot you" or a "I'm going to kill myself if you don't stop" kind of action.

Unplugging the phone to me was the clearest piece of evidence that she deliberately meant for him to die. If she didn't mean for the gun to go off, she could have picked up the phone immediately and dialed 911, not left him to die alone.

Right now the grandparents have custody but she's suing to get it back permanently. I'd pick the grandparents over Mary any day for a better chance for those children.