The Institute (協会)

Wow. I hadn't heard about this.

"A wig and a tall, white platform shoe were placed on the witness stand during her testimony. Blushing crimson and staring at the floor, she said her husband bought them for her to wear to get him in the mood for sex.

She testified that his sex drive was much stronger than hers, referring to it as "a weakness of his."

"This is not about religion, but I suggest to you that a Church of Christ preacher's wife does not wear those shoes," Farese argued."

To me, that says a lot about some of the kids of problems our society has about the views of sexuality. No way the guy should have been forcing her to watch porn, but holy crap... I'd say satan snaked his way into this early on.

So sad...

My guess? She was probably sexually abused as a youngster, and has never dealt with it in a healthy way. I don't believe the killing had anything to do with him being a preacher so much, as probably it was a REALLY BIG chunk of anger she sat on all her life, up to that point. Maybe some similarities of cause to the VTECH killings, just on a much smaller scale, that is, unresolved anger being the root cause.

Actually, try searching around a little more on this. Winkler anally and orally raped her, beat her, forced her to watch porn, and the outfits he forced her to wear were just one more drop in the bucket.

Lia, she __says__ he raped her, beat her, and forced her to watch porn. He's not around to defend himself. Maybe he did; maybe he didn't. Even if everything happened just the way she said, that's grounds to call a divorce lawyer, not fill him with gunshot.

None of us knows what happened because none of us was there, so this is all just guesswork. All we really know is that (1) he's dead; (2) she's a deeply troubled woman who has most likely been deeply troubled for a long time; and (3) she was taken in by a con game that probably pushed her over the edge. I'm willing to show compassion to the deeply troubled -- on occasion I've been deeply troubled myself -- but I'm not going to judge a man based solely on the testimony of his deeply troubled wife.

Well, said, NI. I have little doubt that she was in some way abused as a child, probably mentally/emotionally, which led her into a troubled marriage. We can't know the extent of the trouble in her marriage, but something happened during that marriage that caused her to finally snap.

I will say that in my experience, women like Mrs. Winkler are afraid to get a divorce or even speak up because they are afraid the church members won't believe them, will just think they are tired of being married, and they are usually afraid of causing their husband to lose their job and make the situation worse. That combination of fear is a very powerful oppressor.

Evil can be anywhere, no family or person is immune. Needless to say, a good wife is worth more than precious jewels.

However, I find it hard to sympathize with Mrs. Winkler in this case. Her reasons sound like nothing more than the typical excuses she probably thought up before trial.

I mean, first, shotguns don't just "go off." Secondly, they don't just "get loaded" when you have 3 kids in the house! Lastly, if she was really forcing him to talk, do you honestly think he would have turned his back on her? Unless he either 1) didn't see it coming or 2) didn't believe she would do it?

That means either the guy who knew this woman better than anybody was totally decieved (like we are?), or she was stronger than she lets on that she was (able to pull trigger when he wasn't threatening her, thus NOT self defense).

Also, aren't kids normally pretty receptive to family problems? Why did they not know of anything going on that the mother claimed was going on? Notice also that the child did NOT say she heard an argument, the wife going to the bedroom, coming back, more fighting, THEN a boom and thump.

From the glimpse we have, everything about her story is fishy. While I agree that we can't judge either because we don't have the full story, I'm much more inclined to believe the prosecution rather than the defendant after reading the CNN story.

Yes, guns don't just "go off," but having taught several people how to shoot, I know that I'll always need to remind a new shooter (and sometimes experienced ones) to get the finger off the trigger until they're ready to pull it. I also generally need to remind new shooters where the muzzle is pointed, and that I get a little grouchy if "where" is anywhere but the ground or the target. (I have grabbed barrels and pointed them in a safe direction more than once)

So it is possible that she had her finger on the trigger and didn't intend to pull it.

Other allegations? Well, a good lawyer could buttress them by producing some of the husband's stash of porn or "pay per view" bills. Otherwise, that's awfully hard to prove.

Production of porn at trial might not be allowed under FR 403, depending on the judge.