The Victimization of Mary Winkler

Is murder ever justified? Did Mary Winkler’s husband deserve to die?

Mary Winkler is of course the celebrated murderous wife of the late Church of Christ pastor, Matthew Winkler. After a dispute over a crying baby in the middle of the night, Mary Winkler states that she grabbed a shotgun because she just wanted to talk to her husband. With a shotgun! Instead of talking, she shot him. Surpise. In the back. She states that it was an accident and that she has no memory of pulling the trigger. [Another surprise]. But gun accidents are the sort of things that occur when kids get ahold of loaded guns or in situations where guns are already legitimately present like a hunting trip. They do not occur in the middle of the night because you just want to talk to your husband. When she told a cop that her “ugly came out,” did she mean the gun? She stated under oath that “No one made that decision” [to kill her husband], but we have to admit that she made the decision to talk to her husband with a loaded gun. When guns speak, people die. But how did she react to her “accident?” She left her dead [or dying?] husband there, never bothering to call 911 to tell them about her accident. Instead, she grabbed their 3 children and fled.

But was she justified in killing him?

That’s the question [phrase it however you like] that a jury was asked to answer. It was a horrible bungle on the part of the prosecution to even entertain the question! The important matter wasn’t whether someone deserved to die, because that wasn’t Mary Winkler’s choice to make.

According to ABC’s 20/20, which aired a sympathetic piece on Mary Winkler tonight, the murderess is justified because she is a victim. The mousy, innocent wife of an abusive minister who treated her like a child, who led a double life and nearly suffocated their children as a way to keep them from crying. The battered spouse of a man who forced her to have kinky sex she was uncomfortable with, who may’ve gotten caught in a financial scam and who had a violent temper.

We only have Mary Winkler’s side of the story. Matthew isn’t around anymore to give his version. Yes, they found pornography on their computer [we’re led to assume that it was all his], some dress-up clothes [we’re told she wore them long-sufferingly] and he was noted to have a temper. His church should have disciplined and/or defrocked him for his unchecked temper if appropriate. After all, a minister is according to the Bible not to be a brawler or quick to anger. Even if every word of it were true, MURDER is always the WRONG solution!! She should have sued for divorce and prosecuted him. Even the Church of Christ must admit that divorce is preferable to murder. I’m sure I know which option Matthew Winkler would’ve prefered!

But the media has decided she is the victim, so we must pity her. Just as we were told to pity poor Andrea Yates after she drowned her children. She was suffering from post-partem depression after all. The poor dear. The press would have us canonize and exonnerate these murdering “victims.”

The REAL victims are all DEAD!!!!

Why are we calling evil good?

Think about it,
Sirius Knott

3 Comments Add yours

  1. Matthew Maule says:

    Thank you for pointing out something that very few people seem to realize: nothing justifies cold-blooded murder!

    I am a minister for the churches of Christ and knew Matthew and Mary. Personally, I never saw the side of Matthew that the world now accepts as fact. Of course, no one can know what goes on behind closed doors, but is it fair to take Mary’s word for it? Truth cannot be established on hearsay.

    If things were as bad as Mary says, she should have left Matthew. But she murdered him instead. In a just world, she would have to pay for her crime.

  2. andrew masetta says:

    Hmmmm, Although I agree with you on many subjects, I must take issue with you here. First let me say I’m against all forms of killing, [abortion, death penalty, euthanasia, etc] I believe life and death should be left in God’s most capable hands. However, I can sympathize with victims. If this woman had suffered years of abuse and snapped, who are we to condemn?. Have we not “all sinned, and come short of the Glory of God”? It seems unrealistic, that after years of living with this man as a dutiful wife, she would suddenly grab a shotgun and kill him, without provocation. Perhaps my assumption here is wrong, but, there doesn’t appear to be “another man”, or a financial gain. If this is indeed true, then the only sensible explanation, [if there is one] is abuse. Please don’t misunderstand, I am in no ways approving or condoning her actions, nor do I believe in her receiving an acquittal. However, a complete psychiatric evaluation should be done before any punishment is handed down. Perhaps leniency and understanding are the strongest requirements in her case

    1. Andrew,

      Thank you for your thoughts on this matter and for noting that Mary Winkler does in fact require our Christian compassion.

      I would like to note that there is at least one other possibility in this case. It could be that it was she who was secretly abused all those years. It’s also entirely [and sadly] possible that she was the abusive one and that she finally took it too far. It happens, despite the assumptions that spousal abuse is typically rendered by the man.

      But my point was not to demonize her – and it’s still not. I simply used this case as an example of how if one achieves the media nod of victimization, it seems any crime can be excused.

      I also agree with you that in cases like this, justice should only be meted out after a full psychiatric evaluation is complete.

      Again thanks for your well-put comments,
      Rev Tony Breeden

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s