“…There was telephone call after telephone call saying, ‘Mary, you’ve got to come in tomorrow. You’ve got to bring in Matthew. We’ve got to get this straightened out.’ Well, tomorrow was March twenty-second. Tomorrow was the day that Matthew got shot.
“…There will be evidence that she asked people at Regions Bank before March twenty-second, perhaps the day before: ‘Can I take my husband off the account?’
“‘You can’t take your husband off the account, because there is a negative balance.’ This was not a good reason to kill Matthew Winkler, but the state’s proof will be that it informed her mind and formed the intent that she had after her sleepless night on March twenty-first, knowing that that next day Matthew and she had to go to the bank and get her problems straightened out.”
Freeland summarized the ballistics and medical examiner’s evidence and then said, “[Y]ou will hear evidence that there were seventy-seven number six steel birdshot recovered from Matthew’s body. That shotgun blast blew apart his ribs. That it perforated his ribs, his lung, his diaphragm, his stomach, his spleen, his pancreas and his adrenal glands. That his ribs were fragmented and thrown throughout the inside of his body, causing him to bleed to death. And you will hear testimony from her that despite these massive injuries, that Matthew Winkler could have lived for several minutes after this. That the shot was from one to three feet from the end of the muzzle to his back.”
He informed the jury that they would hear testimony from Matthew’s oldest daughter and what she saw on the morning of her father’s death. “You will also hear testimony that some months later, months after this event, months after the charge, Mary is at an establishment in McMinnville. A man walks in and says, ‘We got a preacher killer here? Are you the lady who killed the preacher?’ And you will hear testimony that she laughed and said, ‘You wanna be next?’”
At the defense table, Mary’s mouth formed the word “Wow!”
“You will not be given a good reason why, but the state will show you ample evidence that Mary Winkler willfully, unlawfully and intentionally killed Matthew Winkler. A man that did not deserve to die.”
Freeland delivered even the most emotion-laden words in a matter-of-fact fashion. He addressed the predominately female jury without passion or outrage. He seemed incapable of summoning the energy required to express animated concern for the 31-year-old man who was dead, or for the three little girls who no longer had a father.
Chapter 35
In a black suit and a red tie, Steve Farese stalked to the podium with the pent-up energy of a Thoroughbred delayed at the starting gate. As he began to speak, his face distorted as if he were pained by what he had to say. “Good morning. Matthew and Mary Winkler had what appeared to everyone who observed them—those on the outside—to have had a marriage made in heaven. But behind closed doors, it was a living hell.
“As I listen to the prosecution submit to you that they were going to have a child eight years old at the time on that stand to testify, it breaks my heart,” Farese said looking as if he would cry.
Walt Freeland jumped to his feet. “Objection. May we approach, Your Honor?”
After a brief sidebar, Farese continued. “If that does occur, it should break your heart. Because this child has been kept away from her mother since September of 2006. Her own mother, who was out on bond, could not see her.” His voice raised an octave, his emotions obvious.
“A child who reportedly saw nothing when first interviewed, now has seen everything. A child who loved her mother, who wanted to touch her mother, who wanted to be with her mother, who wanted her mother to be found innocent, who hoped that this was an accident, now hates her mother. That should break your heart.
“The proof will show that these three girls were Mary’s only reason for living. They were her flowers. They were her ray of sunshine each day. Because a huge cloud loomed over that household. Mary Carol and Matthew were married after dating from July of 1995 to October of 1995. August, September, October, Matthew asked her to marry him after three months of dating. That’s a whirlwind romance. But he was handsome. He was charismatic. He was the perfect husband—until they married.
“And then, like many marriages, people find out there are differences. That would not be unusual, but these differences were unusual. And I submit to you that we will show you proof that he would destroy objects that she loved. He would isolate her from her family. And he would abuse her. Not just verbally. Not just emotionally. Not just physically. In other ways, too. And that this was constant.
“And she lived a life where she walked on eggshells. Because Matthew was wrestling with his demons, too. He had a father that he couldn’t satisfy. A father who was well-known, respected, legendary in the Church. But didn’t give Matthew what he needed—positive reinforcement. He gave him negative reinforcement. And Mary knew that was hard on Matthew. And Mary took it.”
Farese backtracked, offering, with tenderness, a portrait of Mary growing up in a strict household, experiencing the death of a sister and welcoming her adopted siblings into her home. He then returned to her marriage.
“The proof will show that Matthew Winkler, whenever things did not suit him—his shirts weren’t ironed correctly, if the car wouldn’t start, if something didn’t work—Mary was his whipping boy. He didn’t like the way she talked. He didn’t like the way she walked. He didn’t like it because she was too fat. He would tell her she couldn’t eat lunch because she was too fat. She wasn’t perfect and she had to be perfect, because she was a preacher’s wife. And not only did she have to be perfect, her children had to be perfect.”
Farese complained about the time the state spent talking about Mary’s financial motivation for shooting Matthew, then said, “I submit to you, the proof will show, yes, Mary wrote almost every check, because Mary did everything Matthew said to do. The proof will show that Mary was not the academic. That Mary’s not the smart one in the family. Matthew was the smart person, and we’ll submit to you the proof to show you that. No, Matthew did not sign those checks, because Matthew always set up Mary to fail.
“Their finances were in shambles—and who do you think got blamed for that? Mary did try to get Matthew’s name off that so it wouldn’t affect Matthew’s credit. That was his thinking. We’ll submit to you proof that he told Mary to set up her own account so if bad checks, insufficient funds, came back, it would not be on his account, and to get his name off that account. We will submit proof to you from that stand, from people that say Mary did nothing without Matthew’s approval. That Matthew was in control. She would not lift a finger unless Matthew said to. That she couldn’t get her hair cut unless Matthew said she could get her hair cut. She could not buy Christmas presents for the children unless Matthew said so.”
He criticized the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation’s policy to not perform audio or video recording of statements. He spoke of his gratitude to Alabama’s investigative bureau, which did tape-record the first interview, because it showed Mary’s state of mind more clearly. “She wasn’t thinking about herself. She was thinking about her children—and one other thing, something that had been more important to her before March twenty-second, 2006, than anything else: protect Matthew’s name.
“She will say it more than once. ‘I don’t want his name smeared.’ ‘There’s no sense in his name being smeared.’ Every time they asked her what happened, I submit to you the proof will show, she said, ‘I can’t talk about that right now.’ ‘I don’t want this to go public.’ She was still protecting her children from knowing about their father. And was protecting her husband in his death. She said, ‘Let me take all the blame.’ ‘Put it on me.’ She was still in that mode, ‘Put it on me.’ As long as the children are okay, ‘Put it on me.’
“Because, ladies and gentlemen, she could take what had been dished out to her. She could take it. She thought that was the way it was going to be. Nobody knew about it, because she hid it—except for a couple things. Whenever you have a secret
, there’s always a few clues that slip out. I don’t care how careful you are. There’s always a few clues that slip out.
“Taken one by one, I would submit, those clues don’t mean anything. But when you put them together, they do. Trips to the doctor for a swollen jaw. A black eye not covered up adequately with makeup. Little things. Not being able to buy your own clothes. Little things that can be found on computers. Little things that add up to her existence—but she took it.
“…Mary can take it for herself, but she could not let her children take it for her. You will hear from the stand what happened on the morning of March twenty-second of 2006. Mary had always tried to talk to Matthew about his problems. She loved him. I don’t know why. She loved him. She wanted him to change. To be a better person. She thought he had it in him. They had three children. All she wanted to do was talk to him.
“Mary’d been threatened before. She’d had that shotgun pointed at her before. He threatened to cut her brake lines. He threatened to cut her into a million pieces if she talked back to Matthew the way that one of Matthew’s brother’s wives talked back to him.”
That morning, Farese said, “…she was going to get his attention. And there was only one way to get his attention—with the very thing that he’d always threatened her with—the only thing that he appeared at six-foot-one and two hundred and forty pounds to fear. The shotgun.”
Farese described the events of that morning, bringing Mary to tears. He pointed to his client and said, “Mary was invisible. She lived in a shadow. Mary was a second-class citizen. Matthew Winkler was the face of that family. He was the preacher. He was the important one. He was the handsome one. He was the charismatic one. And he was the mean one.
“Nobody was going to believe Mary—in her mind, at that time—about what happened. Nobody was going to believe Mary. So Mary thought about one thing, and that was her children. She grabbed them up. She didn’t grab clothes. She didn’t grab anything of any importance that would indicate planning. And she left.”
He discussed Mary’s frenzied trip south, the upcoming mental health testimony and Mary’s inability to see the children. Then he wrapped up his statement. “You will be the judges of, number one, whether a crime was committed. And number two, if so, what crime was committed. There was no premeditation, and there’ll be no proof of it. There was no planning, and there’ll be no proof of it. They had to come up with something. And I submit to you they’re trying to use these finances in the record that had nothing to do with it.
“Proof will show that now they have some guy who comes up and said, ‘Are you the preacher killer?’ They’re trying to use that for proof, because they didn’t have any. They’re trying to use her own daughter against her, because they’ve turned that love into hate.
“Mary may not be a perfect person. But Mary Winkler was a good wife and a good mother. Unfortunately, she wasn’t perfect.”
Throughout, Farese’s voice was lyrical, alternating between poignancy and outrage. When he spoke of his client, he often almost whispered, caressing each word. At other times, when he talked about the deceased victim, he shouted and pounded his fist on the podium. With the power of his emotions, Farese planted the first seeds of sympathy for Mary in the hearts of the jurors. He would tend that garden well throughout the trial.
Chapter 36
The prosecution called its first witness to the stand, Matthew Winkler’s father, Dan. Dan sat with an erect posture in a black suit and black-and-silver tie, with his hands folded in his lap. He nodded frequently. His spoke in a confident, calm tone of voice with little or no apparent emotion. But his face gave his heart away. A bright red flush highlighted his cheekbones, and intensity burned deep in his eyes.
Freeland guided him as he related his background and the family biography. He then helped Dan recount the night of his birthday in 2006, when he learned of the death of his son. Dan spoke about being informed that his daughter-in law was responsible for Matthew’s death, his first meeting with her at the jail, his reunion with his granddaughters and how he learned about his son’s adverse reactions to drugs on two occasions. Freeland then questioned him about how he was caring for Matt’s children. “At some point after you and your wife got custody of your grandchildren and started to raise them, I guess, as your own, did you attempt to get them any therapy?”
Dan nodded and said, “Immediately.”
“And who paid for the therapy?”
“We did until TennCare [Tennessee’s Medicaid program] kicked in.”
“Did you tell the therapist to plant anything in the little girls’ minds?” Freeland asked.
“Absolutely not.”
“…When you were with the children, at home, when you weren’t working, did you attempt to influence them or poison their minds against their mother in any way?”
“We have not,” Dan declared without hesitation.
“Are you aware of whether or not your wife did?”
“Not in my presence, and if I know her, no.”
“How do they, at least, appear to be doing now?” Freeland asked about the children.
“Incredibly well.”
“Now, Mr. Winkler, I’m going to ask you: Are you a party to a lawsuit in which you are suing Mary?”
“Yes, sir, on behalf of the children.”
“Is your testimony today in any way affected by the money you hope to get out of that lawsuit?”
“Absolutely not.”
Freeland switched gears. “Do you have any knowledge from what you observed as to who ran the finances in your son’s household?”
“Yes sir. Mary.”
“Mary?” Freeland asked with a slight overtone of incredulousness.
“Mary.”
“Do you know that was just a default on Matthew’s part, or how do you know, if you know, how that came about?”
“Several years ago, Matthew was involved in an automobile accident in Nashville, Tennessee. A lady was under the influence of either alcohol or drugs and rear-ended his car, and they received a financial settlement for that. And he was sharing this with me and was thankful for what he was able to do. From that financial settlement, he said, he was able to call all his creditors…”
Farese interrupted. “Objection, Your Honor. Can we approach?”
“That’s okay,” Freeland said. “I’ll withdraw that question. But do you know from anything other than what Matthew told you that Mary was in charge of finances? Did Mary ever indicate anything to you, or did you ever make any observations independent of Matthew about her being in control?”
“I suggested to my son on one occasion, that it would be…”
Farese spoke up again, “Objection, Your Honor. Non-responsive.”
“That’s all right. I withdraw the question,” Freeland said again, and then turned back to his witness. “Are you aware of anything you personally observed of any physical abuse by Matthew of Mary?”
“Not at all.”
“Are you aware from what you personally observed of anything that could, in any way, be described as emotional abuse of Mary by Matthew?”
“Not at all.”
“And by emotional abuse, I’m including even something like nagging, carping or complaining, or anything of that nature by Matthew to Mary?”
“Not in our presence.”
“What was your observation of Matthew growing up in that regard, did you observe any physical abuse by Matthew to anybody?”
“No, sir.”
“Did you observe any emotional sort of abuse by Matthew to anybody?”
“No, sir.”
“Now, children of ministers and preachers often have the reputation, perhaps, of being hellions growing up, when they spread their wings. Did you ever observe anything of that in Matthew?”
“No, sir,” Dan said with a soft smile.
One member of the press was tossed from the courtroom that day. Ted Parks, a correspondent with The Christian Chronicle, a publication of the churches of
Christ, refused to follow instructions from the judge.
He had a noisy still camera and kept jumping up in the back, snapping pictures and being disruptive. Judge McCraw spoke to media liaison Sue Allison about this annoyance. Sue brought Ted out into the hall to tell him it had to stop.
Sue barely had time to sit down in the courtroom before Ted was at it again. The judge gestured with his thumb to Sue to “Get him out of here.” Sue got up to deal with the problem. Ted saw her coming and snapped shots off as fast as he could. McCraw later said that it reminded him “…of a child stuffing candy into his mouth as fast as possible to get as much as he could before his mom stopped him.”
Out in the hall, Ted taunted Sue. “I got everything I wanted already anyway.” He went into the media room, where he snapped shots of the Court TV monitors before deputies escorted him out of the building. He was the only reporter Sue had to rebuke throughout the trial.
Chapter 37
The tone in the courtroom changed dramatically when cross-examination began. Dan faced the man who just besmirched his son’s character in front of the jury and video cameras during opening arguments.
Farese began with a polite, solicitous and considerate demeanor. He obviously wanted to position himself as the nice guy in the coming confrontation—a brief prelude to the verbal attack awaiting the witness. The ominous approach of severe questioning hung in the air.
With the niceties aside, Farese asked Dan a series of questions to get him to admit that his oldest son, Daniel, had marital problems at one time. The relevance of that badgering was not apparent. Then Farese moved to the events immediately after Matthew’s death. “You were interviewed by the police concerning what you knew about the disappearance, and about what you knew were going on at the time?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Okay. And you gave them a statement? Or they took information from you—that would probably be a fair statement, wouldn’t it?”
The Pastor's Wife Page 16