Comments on: Murderess Mary Winkler Gets Her Kids Back http://deanesmay.com/2008/08/04/murderess-mary-winkler-gets-her-kids-back/ Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy. Wed, 23 May 2012 01:47:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Xrlq http://deanesmay.com/2008/08/04/murderess-mary-winkler-gets-her-kids-back/#comment-160516 Xrlq Wed, 06 Aug 2008 20:14:14 +0000 http://deanesmay.com/2008/08/04/murderess-mary-winkler-gets-her-kids-back/#comment-160516 "Technically," <a href="http://www.cnn.com/US/9702/04/jury.questions/index.html">yes they did.</a> If the civil jury had found liability "only" by preponderance of evidence (more likely than not), there would have been no basis for the huge punitive damages they awarded. Even if they had found liability by "only" a preponderance of evidence, that would still be more than enough reason for any not-brain-dead judge to have concluded that their children's best interests were served not by leaving them in his care but by having them as far away from him as humanly possible. If the family court judge had any doubt that he did it, he should have heard the evidence himself prior to awarding custody. BTW, I'm not suggesting that the moron judge who gave Mary Winkler custody was any better. Same B.S., different day is more like it. <em>Xrlq's last blog post..<a href='http://xrlq.com/2008/08/05/poppas-in-the-graveyard-and-mommas-in-the-pen-home-free/' rel="nofollow">Poppa's in the Graveyard and Momma's <del>in the Pen</del> <b>Home Free</b></a></em> “Technically,” yes they did. If the civil jury had found liability “only” by preponderance of evidence (more likely than not), there would have been no basis for the huge punitive damages they awarded. Even if they had found liability by “only” a preponderance of evidence, that would still be more than enough reason for any not-brain-dead judge to have concluded that their children’s best interests were served not by leaving them in his care but by having them as far away from him as humanly possible. If the family court judge had any doubt that he did it, he should have heard the evidence himself prior to awarding custody.

BTW, I’m not suggesting that the moron judge who gave Mary Winkler custody was any better. Same B.S., different day is more like it.

Xrlq’s last blog post..Poppa’s in the Graveyard and Momma’s in the Pen Home Free

]]> By: Yu-Ain Gonnano http://deanesmay.com/2008/08/04/murderess-mary-winkler-gets-her-kids-back/#comment-160511 Yu-Ain Gonnano Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:40:33 +0000 http://deanesmay.com/2008/08/04/murderess-mary-winkler-gets-her-kids-back/#comment-160511 Technically, no they didn't.  They found that he was more likely than not to have done it.  That's a much lower hurdle. (FWIW, I have no doubt that he did it, but my opinion doesn't count for much in a courtroom.) And I'm not saying judges should ignore all acts not resulting in criminal convictions.  However, using a non-conviction as the non-basis for denying custody would seem easily overturnable. In any case, the equivalency isn't there as, from a legal, perpective, there's only a better than 50/50 chance OJ did it, while Winkler thinks "Some people need killin' " is a decent enough excuse. Technically, no they didn’t.  They found that he was more likely than not to have done it.  That’s a much lower hurdle. (FWIW, I have no doubt that he did it, but my opinion doesn’t count for much in a courtroom.)

And I’m not saying judges should ignore all acts not resulting in criminal convictions.  However, using a non-conviction as the non-basis for denying custody would seem easily overturnable.

In any case, the equivalency isn’t there as, from a legal, perpective, there’s only a better than 50/50 chance OJ did it, while Winkler thinks "Some people need killin’ " is a decent enough excuse.

]]> By: Xrlq http://deanesmay.com/2008/08/04/murderess-mary-winkler-gets-her-kids-back/#comment-160484 Xrlq Tue, 05 Aug 2008 19:51:48 +0000 http://deanesmay.com/2008/08/04/murderess-mary-winkler-gets-her-kids-back/#comment-160484 No one else murdered their mother. O.J. did, and a civil jury found as much by clear and convincing evidence.  If the law required judges to ignore all acts that don't result in criminal convictions, most divorce proceedings and custody battles would be very, very short proceedings indeed. <em>Xrlq's last blog post..<a href='http://xrlq.com/2008/08/04/the-411-on-911/' rel="nofollow">The 411 on 911</a></em> No one else murdered their mother. O.J. did, and a civil jury found as much by clear and convincing evidence.  If the law required judges to ignore all acts that don’t result in criminal convictions, most divorce proceedings and custody battles would be very, very short proceedings indeed.

Xrlq’s last blog post..The 411 on 911

]]> By: Yu-Ain Gonnano http://deanesmay.com/2008/08/04/murderess-mary-winkler-gets-her-kids-back/#comment-160483 Yu-Ain Gonnano Tue, 05 Aug 2008 19:16:53 +0000 http://deanesmay.com/2008/08/04/murderess-mary-winkler-gets-her-kids-back/#comment-160483 <em>Good lord, is there anything a biological parent can do to lose custodial rights in Tennessee?</em>  Sure: Have a Y chomosome. /hyberbole <em>I’m not sure I buy into the sexism angle, though; didn’t O.J. get custody of his kids, too? </em>No idea if he did or not, but the difference would be that O.J. was aquitted. So from a legal perspective, you can't take away a man's children because someone else murdered their mother. Good lord, is there anything a biological parent can do to lose custodial rights in Tennessee? 

Sure: Have a Y chomosome. /hyberbole

I’m not sure I buy into the sexism angle, though; didn’t O.J. get custody of his kids, too?

No idea if he did or not, but the difference would be that O.J. was aquitted. So from a legal perspective, you can’t take away a man’s children because someone else murdered their mother.

]]> By: Xrlq http://deanesmay.com/2008/08/04/murderess-mary-winkler-gets-her-kids-back/#comment-160482 Xrlq Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:54:38 +0000 http://deanesmay.com/2008/08/04/murderess-mary-winkler-gets-her-kids-back/#comment-160482 Good lord, is there <em>anything</em> a biological parent can do to lose custodial rights in Tennessee?  Even if one were to assume that Mary Winkler's dubious claims of abuse were valid, and that the abuse was far more extreme than reports seem to indicate, she'd still be an unfit parent for allowing her kids to live with that abusive monster for all those years.  I'm not sure I buy into the sexism angle, though; didn't O.J. get custody of his kids, too? Oh well, I guess this story is over.  For now, at least, until she kills one of her own kids for <del>sassing back to</del> <b>abusing</b> her, too. <cite>Xrlq's last blog post..<a href='http://xrlq.com/2008/08/02/two-quarter-recessionaries/'>Two-Quarter Recessionaries</a></cite> Good lord, is there anything a biological parent can do to lose custodial rights in Tennessee?  Even if one were to assume that Mary Winkler’s dubious claims of abuse were valid, and that the abuse was far more extreme than reports seem to indicate, she’d still be an unfit parent for allowing her kids to live with that abusive monster for all those years.  I’m not sure I buy into the sexism angle, though; didn’t O.J. get custody of his kids, too?

Oh well, I guess this story is over.  For now, at least, until she kills one of her own kids for sassing back to abusing her, too.

Xrlq’s last blog post..Two-Quarter Recessionaries

]]> By: maggie - labrat http://deanesmay.com/2008/08/04/murderess-mary-winkler-gets-her-kids-back/#comment-160458 maggie - labrat Tue, 05 Aug 2008 00:30:23 +0000 http://deanesmay.com/2008/08/04/murderess-mary-winkler-gets-her-kids-back/#comment-160458 That's despicable - what if she "snaps" again? Living with teenage girls can be quite "abusive"! That’s despicable – what if she "snaps" again?

Living with teenage girls can be quite "abusive"!

]]> By: Men Again http://deanesmay.com/2008/08/04/murderess-mary-winkler-gets-her-kids-back/#comment-160457 Men Again Tue, 05 Aug 2008 00:20:36 +0000 http://deanesmay.com/2008/08/04/murderess-mary-winkler-gets-her-kids-back/#comment-160457 We'll see more of this extreme gender ABUSE until men stand up for themselves. Picture this case if the roles were reversed, and he shot her in the back, leaving her to bleed to death. Would he get a slap on the wrist? I don't think so. Then, this monster has the absolute audacity to on Oprah to share her victory kill with other women! The arrogance!!!!!! Digusting! For God's sakes men, wake up! Women can kill men in cold blood, claiming some BS sob story, then share the kill on TV with like minded monsters. Find out how this happened. Get the names and the details. Petition to send this monster to jail for life. Let them put THAT on Oprah! We’ll see more of this extreme gender ABUSE until men stand up for themselves. Picture this case if the roles were reversed, and he shot her in the back, leaving her to bleed to death. Would he get a slap on the wrist? I don’t think so.

Then, this monster has the absolute audacity to on Oprah to share her victory kill with other women! The arrogance!!!!!! Digusting!

For God’s sakes men, wake up! Women can kill men in cold blood, claiming some BS sob story, then share the kill on TV with like minded monsters.

Find out how this happened. Get the names and the details. Petition to send this monster to jail for life. Let them put THAT on Oprah!

]]>