Scientists have identified 50
individuals who are able to spot deception with great accuracy after testing
more than 15,000 people. Eyes for Lies is one of the 50 people.
More
Eyes kept score on her blog for 7.5 years and had an accuracy rate of 95%
after identifying truth and deception in
38/40 people
before the truth was known by watching media clips. A record comparable to none.
Eyes for Lies is not psychic.
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
Mary Winkler's story was featured on Dateline recently, and I have been unable to get to reviewing the show. In looking at it, however, I found an audio clip of Mary that was shocking to me. Its on Dateline NBC's website and it is titled, "My Ugly Came Out" (in the lower left column).
This audio is shocking because this is Mary's first response after shooting her husband. It was recorded in Alabama the day after Matthew was shot dead. She didn't have time to think through everything. Her responses were gut responses much of the time, though you can still hear Mary self-censor, and change the direction of what she says, sometimes saying nonsense.
Read moreWhat Mary says in this audio at one point shocks me, because this was played during her trial, yet I think few people really listened to what she said and thought about the implications.
Let me review it with you.
When the investigators say to Mary, "I know you are not a cold blooded murderer," do you hear a little laugh? I can't believe she laughs!!
Mary says, "I don't think I'm selfish, but I'd be driving down the road and something would go into my head....about what just happened. And then I had seen anything or heard anything."
Mary starts to tell what really happened if you ask me, and then she pauses and changes the direction of her thoughts.
Listen to how Mary laughs when she says, "I wasn't going to Mexico, or anything." How can she be laughing?
Then she rambles, "I thought about going to Louisiana." Her demeanor is so matter-of-fact, it gives me pause. This woman is not upset at all about what she did. It's very notable.
Mary then talks about how she wants her children to go with Matthew's parents!
If Matthew was abusive to her, I am surprised to hear her say she wants her children to go to "his parents", and not hers. Isn't that surprising? They even ask her, "You don't have any problems with them going with your in-laws? They're good people?" Mary says, "Oh god, no."
Do I hear her say "Better than family?"
Mary says, "Not wanting to be selfish, I keep thinking about him, but I probably deserve a slap in the face for that...I don't know. I just don't know."
Mary wants to talk about her selfishness, but she just can't do it. She starts to and then keeps stopping. Maybe she senses the investigators are being lenient with her and she is having a hard time grasping it?
The investigator says he thinks something had to happen because she is a nice person and she says, "I was just laying there and I fell asleep, and they woke me up to come in here, and it is just the thought of stupid stuff, and schedules and this in a certain order."
I believe that this is true. This is what set Mary off.
She continues, "I love him dearly, but gosh he just nailed me in the ground. And it was real good for quite...a...a quite some time, the problem was...I got a job at the post office a couple of years ago and the first of our marriage, I just took it like a mouse, didn't think anything different. My mom just took it from my dad — that uhhhh....stupid scenario. And uh, I got a job ...right...and nerve and high self esteem, and I've been battling this for years."
Start putting the pieces together. Mary tells us she doesn't want to think she is selfish, but she got nerve and she has been battling that "nerve" for years!! Then she tells us, "I don't think I'm selfish, but I'd be driving down the road and something would go into my head..."
If you ask me Mary had thought of doing this to Matthew for years!!
"Um, I don't know when, but at some point it was really good, and I don't know, but we moved over a year ago, um (unintelligible), and it just came back out for some reason."
The investigator says, "He would knock your self esteem down."
Mary responds from the heart without thinking, "Nooo." Then she recovers and says, "...um...chew'n...whatever. And that's the problem. I have nerve now and I have self-esteem and so my ugly came out, um..."
You see, Mary keeps telling us she has this ugly side--this "nerve" -- like a demon that wants to surface.
This is shocking, but clearly the truth!
The investigators says, "So you are more or less standing up for yourself now?"
Mary says, "Yeah, and my only battle has been children, too. I mean, I don't know. I just don't know what in the world just happened. There's just no way..."
So let's add in her next thought. Mary's only battle with acting on her "nerve" is her children. That demon was kept in check because of her children, and then one day, she lost it.
"How would he run you down," questions the investigator.
Mary says, "Just chew'n on you. Just mistakes".
Hmmm...check fraud?
Mary says, "And some well deserved...not always."
This is big!
"Did he pick on the little things a lot though?" questions the investigator?
Mary says, "Yeah. But gosh, I don't want to talk about that now. But that's just, yeah, I just didn't get up and say, 'Let's see how this thing works'. I've been battling it, battling not to do that FOREVER. And I don't know why."
Mary is confessing here. She finally tells us she has been battling killing Matthew FOREVER! Worse, she tells us she didn't just look at the gun to see how this thing works. What that means is she has been thinking about this for a long, long time and likely had checked out that gun many times!! I wish the investigators would have responded to what she was telling them!
The investigator asks, "Was he chewing on you when it happened?"
Mary says without thinking (which supports this is the truth), "I don't even know....It was this and that, and I can't even. I can't even imagine pulling anything. I'll tell you that. I don't... I just...I really don't know how it happened still."
This is supportive she had been dreaming about doing this for years and finally just acted out, likely without a lot of thought or even provocation.
The investigator says, "You just got to a boiling point-- just boil over?"
Notice she doesn't answer the question. If she was a victim and she boiled over, she would know it. I think she is having a hard time registering that they don't see her as a cold-blooded murderer.
Instead Mary says, "But it was so good, so good, too."
Mary continues, "It was just a weakn..." Mary stops. It was a weakness--that's what Mary was going to say. It was HER WEAKNESS. She had "been battling this FOREVER" as she told us. Her "ugly came out". She "got nerve". She had the desire to kill Matthew for a long, long time and she finally acted on it.
Mary tries to recover from that leak and says that Matthew had high blood pressure and didn't go to the doctor like he should. There is no logic in that at all. She continues, " Because he was a mighty fine person, and that's the thing, there is no sense, you know, thoughts to a newsstand--some hick town lady did this because she was a mean, you know--no sense in that. Just say the lady was a moron, evil woman and let's go on with it."
Mary is calling herself "EVIL" here. The whole picture makes total sense.
Mary says, "That's my point of view." No one is leading her, causing her to say things -- this is the true Mary. She knows Matthew is dead so she could claim he beat her up here, but she doesn't!!!
Mary then talks about how her dad will want to come visit her, and want to live by her and she does not want to see him. It makes me wonder if her own father was abusive to her and jealousy could have eaten away at Mary for years...
She says at another point, "That's some of it. There is no poor me. I'm in control, and um..."
Does this complete the picture for you? A woman who was abused would NEVER say this.
The investigator interrupts and says, "There was no major event that took place or an accumulation over the years?"
Mary laughs and says, "No, (unintelligible)."
The investigator says, "You don't recall what it was Tuesday morning that kind of set you off? Had you all argued the night before? Was this kind of a daily thing?"
In a normal, not down sounding tone, Mary finally answers, "Not necessarily. I guess that's just the thing. My nerves. I just never know whats coming next. I think we are having a good day and...BAM! I'm nervous about something and he's ALOOF about it."
Aloof? Is that the behavior of an abusive man??! No. But Mary had a problem with her nerves, and had a strong impulses she didn't understand and didn't know how to cope with. She knew it was wrong and she finally acted on it.
She is telling us the truth here!!
Mary says, "There is just no excuse for anything, but you know, it WASN'T just out of the blue. I don't know."
She confirms again that what I believe are impulse to harm Matthew were not out of the blue. This was something she was "battling forever"!
The investigator says, "Have you thought about doing it before?"
Mary says, "It's crossed minds, threats have been made..to me as well, but that's hearsay, you know?" Notice she leaves off the pronouns about who did what?? That's because its all about her. She even adds in the "to me as well" as an afterthought.
The investigator said, but he's threatened you? And Mary says, "I remember when we lived in (town), he said something that really scared me."
The investigator said, "What was it?"
Mary says, "I don't know. It was something...life threatening. But that was when he was at his absolute worst!"
She can't remember what it was? Notice how she adds on "life threatening" as an afterthought? This is ridiculous. If you've had your life threatened and believed you were in harm, you'd remember it.
Mary clearly tells us in this audio confession what happened. It's clear as day, if you truly listen. What saddens me is the jurors had their emotions tugged on and they discounted the truth when they heard it with their very own ears.
Do you have any doubts about what happened to Matthew?
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
This is a MUST see. I have written extensively on Mary Winkler, and she displays one of the most haunting micro expressions I have ever seen when she is on the stand. I wonder if Dateline will show it.
If I have time, I will try to write up a review on Mary Winkler for you.
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
I found some footage of Mary Winkler today on Dateline NBC's website. They have video and audio files that are worth listening to if you have interest in case.
I found the following video files interesting:
Video: Describes 'ugly' part of relationship
Video: Says she was afraid of husband after shooting
And I found the audio recording of her talking to the police right after she was apprehended almost bone chilling.
Audio: "My ugly came out" Audio: "Winkler says kids her only concern"
Read moreIn the "My ugly came out" audio Mary talks about how she became confident after she got a job at the post office a couple of years ago, and how she got high self-esteem. She talks about how she had been battling this for years. It's about half-way through the audio. Mary says, "...And it just came back out for some reason, and that’s the problem. I have nerve now and I have self-esteem now. And so my ugly came out."
How does self-esteem and nerve fit into a victim of abuse scenario? Isn't that when the woman normally gets enough nerve to walk away?
I thought about writing up a review, but this case is old news so unless I get an overwhelming response from my readers, this will be my last comment on the Winkler case.
NEWS: I had linked to a video of Mary during the testimony that showed Mary make an eerie smile when asked if she "intentionally" shot her husband (here). The link expired, but now I have found the video footage on another site: Court TV.
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
Listen to and watch Mary Winkler on trial and during her interrogation here. In the audio segment found from the link above titled "My Ugly Came Out" Mary says, "...And it just came back out for some reason, and that’s the problem. I have nerve now and I have self-esteem now. And so my ugly came out."
* * *
There are two potentials for Mary Winkler: Either her husband abused her and she could no longer take it, and she snapped. Or, it is the unthinkable: Mary's husband Matthew wasn't as cruel as she'd like us to believe, and she killed him in cold blood.
I personally believe Mary killed Matthew in cold blood. I felt that way from the day I saw her in court on a video. Her behavior was peculiar. She displayed a microexpression grin contrary to her spoken words when she was asked if she "intentionally" killed her husband that was flat out haunting. Her statements to police were odd and inconsistent as well. And now again, Mary's behavior on the Oprah show doesn't fit with her scenario. Her words and behavior are odd and inconsistent another time. Her facial expressions out-of-place. Except on the Oprah Winfrey show, Mary forgot her facts this time and Oprah caught it. Let's begin there.
Look at the inconsistencies in Mary's different testimonies/statements.
OPRAH: According to Mary's statement to police, just after 6:00 in the morning, the Winklers' house on Molly Drive was quiet. Mary and Matthew were asleep in their bed. The Winklers' youngest daughter, one-year-old Brianna began crying from her crib. According to Mary, Matthew woke up in a rage and stormed into Brianna's room.
MARY: So I went in there after him and took the baby...took Brianna from him, asked him to let me have her. And got her settled back down.
OPRAH: I had read--I don't know if it's true -- that's why I'm interviewing you -- that he literally kicked you out of bed.
MARY : Mm-hmm.
OPRAH: So when I read that, I thought, like, with his feet, kicked you out of bed? Is that true?
MARY: That's correct.
(moments later)
OPRAH: He was trying to suffocate her (Brianna)?
MARY: He was trying to get her to go back to sleep. He...I don't think he had intentions of killing. He just...trying to get her to pass out.
OPRAH: So what was he doing? What was he doing? Get her to pass out? Really, you have to explain that because that doesn't make any sense to me or anybody else who's hearing this.
MARY: Well, I don't understand it myself.
OPRAH WINFREY (HOST): What did he do?
MARY : Just covered her mouth and her nose.
(moments later)
OPRAH: ...cover the baby's mouth and cover the baby's nose and then you take the baby from him. And you were obviously upset and, what, he walked away?
MARY: Mm-hmm. Yeah, he just--hmm.
OPRAH: And then what?
MARY: Just...I got her...got her situated, and I just wanted to talk to Matthew.
OPRAH: Mm-hmm.
MARY : And there's just that awful...awful sound.
Yet oddly, in Mary's police confession to the police, this is what she said:
"I don't know of anything he specifically said or did to me to upset me, but I had an uneasiness about me. I remember not sleeping well (the night before the murder). The next morning, the alarm went off 6-6:30 and I got up. He was still in bed. I don't think I left the room. He had a shotgun he kept in the closet just in case. I don't remember going to the closet or getting the gun. The next thing I remember was hearing a loud boom, and I remember thinking that it wasn't as loud as I thought it would be."
Furthermore, in Mary's police interrogation transcript on the bottom of page 14, the conversation goes like this:
The police asked Mary,” Had ya’ll talked yet that morning? Had he woke up or did you wake up and do it before he got out of bed?”
Mary says, “He had gotten up but I want to say he’d just gone back for a few more minutes.”
Clearly, Mary is not telling the same story to us. There are big inconsistencies here. Furthermore, what really stands out to me is when Mary says "I remember thinking that it (the gunshot) wasn't as loud as I thought it would be." If you don't anticipate shooting a gun, you have no anticipation for how loud it would be, do you??
Point #2:
Again, look at the inconsistencies in Mary's different testimonies/statements.
Once Mary shot Matthew, she tells Oprah the following:
OPRAH: Was he dead when you went back into the room?
MARY: That's what I thought so.
OPRAH: Yeah. Did he say anything?
MARY: No.
OPRAH: To you?
MARY: No, there was nothing.
Yet in Mary's transcribed statement on March 24, 2006 Mary said:
"I heard the boom and he rolled out of the bed onto the floor and I saw some blood on the floor and some bleeding around his mouth. I went over and wiped his mouth off with a sheet. I told him I was sorry and that I loved him, and I went and ran.I do remember me holding the shotgun, hearing the boom, and then the smell. He asked me why and I just said I was sorry."
Clearly two different accounts.
Point #3:
I think this is self-explanatory.
OPRAH: Did one of your daughters come into the room?
MARY: No.
OPRAH: I'd read that one of your daughters came into the room.
MARY: Right. She said that she looked in the room, I believe. This is off the top of my head. I don't think came in. And I could not tell you from my memory...
OPRAH: And you said, daddy had been hurt.
MARY: Mm-hmm.
OPRAH: Do you recall that?
MARY: I'm sure--I don't remember that exactly, but I know that day, I did say that he was hurt.
The 9-year-old daughter of a Tennessee preacher was reduced to tears Monday as she described the morning she heard a "boom" in her parents' bedroom and discovered her father wounded and dying.
"I went in and I saw my daddy face-down on the ground," Patricia Winkler quietly testified Monday in the first-degree murder trial of her mother, Mary Winkler. "He was just groaning."
Patricia testified that, before her mother closed the bedroom door on her, she noticed a telephone "behind" her father. When investigators arrived at the scene later that evening, Matthew Winkler was lying face-up and the telephone was unplugged at his feet.
..."She said we were going somewhere special," said Patricia, describing her mother's demeanor as "normal" for the next day that they spent driving to Orange Beach, Ala. "She said Daddy was in the hospital."
Point #4:
Here are a handful of oddities. You have to read the statement first to follow this. I will explain it afterwards.
OPRAH: In court, you also said you felt that you were sexually abused.
MARY: Mm-hmm.
OPRAH: How so?
MARY: You know, when two people have tastes and likes, it's fine for each person in their own home who agrees. But just...at some point, when there's one person saying no, not to do something, then the other person who's just pushed himself on that person and made them do that.
OPRAH: So he would force you to do what? (Mary almost breaks out into a laugh, but works hard to stop it by biting her lip).
MARY: Do sexual acts that I didn't wanna do.
OPRAH: Uh-huh. I think in court you said you watched pornography...
MARY: Mm-hmm.
OPRAH: ...which you didn't wanna do, oral and anal sex, which you thought were unnatural acts, correct? And when he would force you to do it and you didn't want to do it, would you tell him? Would you say to him, I don't want to do it?
MARY: In the...at the moment... I know...I know there were certain times where my natural reaction would have been to push him off and he would stop that. When we were not in the heat of the moment and he would say, what do you think about this or that? And I would say no, don't like that. Let's not. And he'd say, okay. But he just would get going and that was just it.
Here during the interview when Oprah started talking about being sexually abused, and says, "So he forces you to do what?" Mary reacts with a grin like a cat who ate a canary. You can tell she wants to laugh. And no, it is not a nervous reaction. Mary was not nervous during this interview. I can guarantee, if you were sexually abused, talking about it would not make you want to laugh. If anything you would want to cover your face, or cry -- not laugh.
Furthermore, Mary's testimony is inconsistent. She says at times her "natural reaction would have been to push him off and he would stop that". Then she says "he would get going and that was just it." These are inconsistent number one. Number two, if she was the meek mouse she claims to be who never stood up for herself, would she really push him off? It doesn't fit with the image she is portraying. And last, her words give her away, "I know there were certain times where my natural reaction would have been to push him off and he would stop that." This is not how people recollect a story. "Would have been" indicates what she would do in that situation -- not what she did do -- but then she ends the sentence as if she did do it -- because Matthew stopped.
This is a mound of red flags!
Point #5:
Here, I think you can see Mary's story is absolute nonsense.
OPRAH: Did you wanna hold the gun to get his attention?
MARY: That's what I would think. That's just...just wanted to talk to him.
OPRAH: And you wanted to talk to him holding a gun?
MARY: I was so afraid.
OPRAH: Because you thought he would do what?
MARY: At that point, it was...I didn’t think...at that point,I felt like my life was in danger.
OPRAH: So you chose to speak to him by getting the gun. What did you wanna say?
MARY WINKLER: Just to stop. Just--be happy. He just...he had to be miserable the way he acted, and just to stop being so mean.
OPRAH: Mm-hmm.
MARY: And just relax and enjoy life.
OPRAH: That’s what you'd wanted to say to him?
MARY: Mm-hmm.
Here are other clues that Mary exhibits on the Oprah show that I believe strongly point to deception:
ONE Mary displays classic "thinking-on-your-feet" behavior throughout the majority of her interview. Her sentences are spliced and all chopped up. She says little snippets of information -- but not complete sentences. She pauses at odd times -- over and over. All of which are red flags.
Here is one example:
OPRAH: Was it what you expected marriage to be?
MARY : Well...um...no. I just remember at some point... the....just being shocked...um... at the yelling and the...just this different person.
TWO Mary also doesn't speak in a manner that is consistent with memory recall. When we recall our past, we tell a story. We explain what happened in a coherent manner. We don't pause because the story rolls off the top of head. Often times, in memory recall, the words flow faster than we can speak them. I see none of this with Mary. Instead, I see someone who appears to be brainstorming. She strangely doesn't use pronouns much of the time which is another trait of liars.
Example 1:
OPRAH : Yes. And what surprised you the most? Did you see a side of him that you hadn't seen when you were dating?
MARY: Mm-hmm. And the things that he would say... just off the wall. And ... I didn't understand where he was coming from. I didn't understand his train of thought.
OPRAH WINFREY: Like what?
MARY: Um...he just...one day...he may encourage me to be with family, and... then... another day, he may say... we're...you're never talking to them again. It just...it was just sad. I mean... I don't think he... knew exactly all that he was thinking all the time.
Example 2:
OPRAH: And how did that rage show itself in other ways? Would he rage against you?
MARY: Mm-hmm. Just certain thing...see...I couldn't tell you one thing...what was the reason was. If something upset him...if he's having a bad day that was just all there was about it. There was no...it was just get out of the way. He was just...he verbally could just say some very horrible things.
Mary's words don't even make sentence or answer the question she is being asked. Mary's answers also lack detail and personal identity as well -- which is also inconsistent with memory recollection. Each of these things mentioned above hints at deception.
THREE Also, throughout the interview with Oprah, Mary makes expressions with her lips that are odd. She purses them together at times which is an indication she is holding things back. I thought she came onto Oprah to help other women. Why is she holding back?
Many times, she purses her lips together and drops the outer edges of her lips down like when you say, "Hmmm...I don't know. Let me think about it."
This facial expression indicates that Mary likely doesn't know the answers to the questions she is being asked -- which fits with her speech pattern of talk-pause, talk-pause and her inability to give precise, clear definitive answers. I suspect it is because she didn't experience what she is telling us.
People never turn the outer edge of their lips down when they are certain of what they are saying. It's one of the biggest clues I see on a regular basis that someone is hedging on me and not being honest when they use words to try to tell me otherwise.
Mary makes several more expressions which are odd.
FOUR Mary also lacks any emotions or caring. She shows no signs of having an attachment to anyone -- not even her children. She shows no regard or pain for what her children endured, or are enduring because of what she did. Did you notice her children don't even enter into the equation -- and supposedly she wants her kids back!
She even suggests that Matthew smothered the children with a pillow to shut them up, and that doesn't even evoke emotion. This is abnormal and odd. It makes me question what she says, over and over again.
FIVE Also, Mary tells us she "loves" Matthew still -- which is really off the mark. If someone abuses you, and then you kill them in self-preservation -- you can say you still love them. That is absolutely a possibility -- I've seen people do it and say it honestly. But if Mary was being honest in saying this, wouldn't she be the slightest bit remorseful? When we love someone and we hurt them, it devastates us. Why is Mary not feeling this emotion?
I can even accept a woman who kills her abusive husband, and has no remorse due to the fact she suffered dearly at the hands of sick man for years. But then, I would not expect to hear the words "I love him".
You can't have it both ways. It's inconsistent. It's like saying you love the guy who cracked your skull open with a bat, but you hope he gets the death penalty and dies. It's nonsense. We never wish to harm or kill those we love. Ever.
SIX Mary also acts like she is answering questions for a job interview -- not telling the most painful story of her life. This is a huge red flag! Even if she was emotionally vacant and overwhelmed by her situation, we would still see snippets of emotions -- feelings of pain and violation or expressions of love for her children - but strangely this is not the case for Mary.
So many people have said, yes, but that is because she is traumatized and emotionally withdrawn. I'm not buying that. If she was that traumatized still, would she be coming out saying that she wants to help other people on the Oprah show -- and go on TV in front of millions of people-- when she herself is still in shambles? It's highly unlikely.
SEVEN Compare Mary to Susan Still. Susan was a battered woman, who was soft-spoken and subservient to her husband, like Mary wants us to think she was. Yet the behavior between the two is drastically different. Susan has emotions, expresses feelings and complete thoughts. She expresses how she cares about her children, and how this will effect their lives -- and how it has affected hers. Susan genuinely recollect her horrible ordeal and it shows.
Furthermore, Susan gives us details and facts. She explains what she thought, how she coped and how she got through her ordeal. She gives advice and insight. She speaks in a way that is consistent with memory recall. She doesn't tell us how she loves her abuser now either, does she? You can feel her resentment towards him which is natural.
EIGHT Mary got her facts wrong, which I find incredibly disturbing. It wasn't like when Oprah asked her the question, she didn't hear her, or got confused. It wasn't like she struggled to answer the question. Oh, no. She went right into her story, and oops, forgot the details.
FINAL NOTE In the end, this is really just the tip of the iceberg of what I see when I look at Mary. I see pages and pages more, but if I wrote it all up, I'd have a book on my hands, not a blog post. This post is long enough as it is. If you are interested in this interview, you can purchase the transcripts from Oprah.com to see more detail.
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
Last night, the jury came back with voluntary manslaughter for Mary Winkler.
With that, I wanted to read the police report again, because I remembered something else that was a hot spot for me. But instead of finding the police report, I found Mary's confession -- which was transcribed as she spoke. You can find it here.
I find this document to be interesting. What Mary says seems to be inconsistent with a woman who accidentally shot her husband.
(1) "I don't know of anything he specifically said or did to me to upset me, but I had an uneasiness about me. I remember not sleeping well."
Usually when women reach their breaking point with their husbands, especially when they are abusive, there is a breaking point. There is a moment, a memorable moment that sets them off, that makes them snap. This is odd. Either this isn't the truth, or perhaps she didn't snap - but premeditated this?
(2) "The next morning, the alarm went off 6-6:30 and I got up. He was still in bed. I don't think I left the room. He had a shotgun he kept in the closet just in case. I don't remember going to the closet or getting the gun. The next thing I remember was hearing a loud boom, and I remember thinking that it wasn't as loud as I thought it would be."
If you shot your husband by accident, you don't have any preconceived notions about how loud a gunshot would sound if you didn't anticipate discharging it, would you? Doesn't this hint at premeditation?
(3) "I heard the boom and he rolled out of the bed onto the floor and I saw some blood on the floor and some bleeding around his mouth. I went over and wiped his mouth off with a sheet. I told him I was sorry and that I loved him, and I went and ran.
I do remember me holding the shotgun, hearing the boom, and then the smell. He asked me why and I just said I was sorry."
She was so calm, she just wiped away the blood -- as if she was resolved to the outcome, wouldn't you say? She obviously wasn't in shock about what she just did, was she?
If she was truly boiling over from abuse when her husband asked her why she did what she did -- would you expect that she would tell him? "You were a bastard! You deserved this!!" Perhaps she did -- but she wasn't going to admit to it?
Furthermore, if she shot him "by accident" -- and he was still taking -- why didn't she call the police? She left him to die, knowingly.
(4) "Patricia came to the hallway and asked what was going on, and I told her Daddy was hurt and I told her we were leaving."
She even has enough reason about her to talk rationally to her daughter and say that daddy is hurt. It obviously registered what she had done.
(5) "That Tuesday night, we had also talked about our finances that night. I had gotten a call from the bank and we were having troubles, mostly my fault, bad bookkeeping. He was upset with me about that. I was upset at him because he had really been on me lately, criticising me for things, the way I walk, what I eat, everything. I was just tired of it. I guess I just got to a point and snapped."
I find the choice of the word "guess" interesting. You know you either snapped or you didn't. You don't guess that you did -- for no apparent reason.
Does this sound like a woman whose husband was horrible to her? As I have seen this morning, Mary was involved in a check fraud scam of sorts -- and if her husband knew about it as she suggests above -- if he was abusive -- don't you think he would have really let her have it here? She is admitting it was mostly her fault, and she doesn't say he hurt her in anyway. Earlier she even says "I don't know of anything he specifically said or did to me to upset me, but I had an uneasiness about me. I remember not sleeping well." This is a complete contradiction.
What a complete tragedy.
I have to admit, I double-checked the documents source -- it seems so unreal.
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
The Mary Winkler case has gone to the jury today. While I haven't followed the court case because I've been busy with work, I did look for a video of Mary Winkler's testimony this morning.
You can see the video I saw by clicking on this link.
Move the video to time marker 6:55. Then watch Mary when she listens to the person questioning her. He says, "Did you intentionally, purposefully kill your husband?"
At time marker 7:01 -- watch Mary's expression.
What do you see?
* * *
My personal opinion: I don't believe Mary Winkler accidentally killed her husband.
When the man in the video says "Did you intentionally..." -- at the point he says the word "intentionally" - Mary Winkler grins the most eerie grin I have seen in a long, long time. It's bone-chilling! The grin lasts only for a split-second and disappears but that expression is very telling as to what Mary really believes...
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
I'm looking for video of the minister's wife, Mary Winkler (close-up talking headshot - talking about this case). She is a suspect in the murder of her husband.
Mary Winkler was not found after the murder was discovered. Instead, she went missing with their three children and was only found after an amber alert was issued. Instead of being in Tennessee where they lived, she was found in Orange Beach, Alabama.
UPDATE 11:50 a.m.: MSN has published a new article saying the police are going to arrest the woman. I suspect they have good evidence or a confession. In the event the woman claims innocence, I will gladly give you my take. What a sad, sad story.
ALL IDEAS AND CONTENT ON THIS BLOG ARE PROTECTED BY LAW. DO NOT COPY ANYTHING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION. Any violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law.
Comment Policy: This blog is about understanding human behavior. You have the right to state your opinion if it is respectful. Disagreements are encouraged if they meet this standard. This blog is about deception and not about politics or religion--hence discussions on these topics will not be tolerated. Anyone who violates these general rules will be immediately banned. I have a zero intolerance for rude and disrespectful behavior. Permalink
Disclaimer:
All data and information provided on this site is for
informational purposes only. Eyes for Lies Blog makes no representations as to
accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information
on this site & will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in
this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its
display or use. This is a blog and expresses opinions of the author. Just
because Eyes for Lies does not believe someone does not mean they are (a)
lying, or (b) a liar. All information is provided on an as-is basis. Eyes for Lies does not take
any responsibility for comments published by its readers. Readers publish comments at their own risk.
By reading this blog, you agree to the terms expressed
in this link.
Copyright
Notice 2004-2013
The content of this blog cannot in any way be reproduced, replicated, copied,
duplicated or performed in any manner without express written permission from
Eyes for Lies. You don't want to get caught in a lie, do you? Ask first.
