The Pastor's Wife (17 page)

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?”

“Yes.”

“Yes. Did you say anything to them—in all fairness to you, Mr. Winkler, you may not have had any reason to—did you say anything to them about Matthew having episodes while taking medications…”

“No, sir.”

“…that you recall?” said Farese, finishing his incomplete sentence.

“No, sir.”

“So it wouldn't be in your report?”

“No, sir.”

“But evidently, since then, you have given statements to someone concerning Matthew having episodes while on medication, bizarre actions, or whatever, I think hallucinations—and I apologize, sir. You had to tell someone that in order for Mr. Freeland to ask you that question, correct?”

“Correct,” Dan said with a nod.

“So who did you tell first? Who was the first person you told about Matthew's hallucinations?”

“The former district attorney, Elizabeth Rice.”

“Okay, and when did you tell her?”

“I cannot recall the exact date,” Dan said.

“Well, was it a time while she was still in office?”

“Yes.”

“Okay. Who else was present?”

“It was a phone conversation.”

“Why did that issue come up? Why did the issue about Matthew's bizarre behavior come up in that telephone conversation?” Farese asked.

“Because of quotes from either you or your comrade in the newspapers.”

“Okay. And my comrade? Meaning, Mr. Ballin?”

“Correct.”

“The other defense attorney?”

“Yes.”

“So you read in the newspaper, what? What were the comments?”

“That there was some life-threatening…” Dan began.

Prosecutor Freeland stood and interrupted. “I'm going to object to getting into prejudiced statements that he made…”

“Would you approach, please?” Judge McCraw asked.

After two minutes at the bar, Farese resumed the cross-examination. “Mr. Winkler, if you could listen to my question carefully—without saying what you read—did you call Ms. Rice as a result of reading some article in the newspaper?”

“No, sir,” Dan answered, looking confused. “I don't recall. Would you state your question again?”

“And I may be misstating it. I think I know where you're going,” Farese said. “You had an opportunity to talk to Ms. Rice concerning the reaction that Matthew had with some medications, correct?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Okay. Did you call her, or did she call you?”

“I can't remember that.”

“You all had a telephone conversation, though?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And whoever called whom, it was concerning some things you read in the newspaper concerning Matthew. Without going into details, what exactly was said?”

“The phone call was not for that specific purpose.”

“Did it come up in that conversation?”

“Yes, it did.”

“And, as a result of that, did Ms. Rice ask you, ‘Did Matthew ever exhibit any violent tendencies?'”

“I can't recall the details of the conversation,” Dan said, shaking his head.

“Okay, but you felt it necessary to explain some of his bizarre actions during that conversation?”

“I felt it necessary to respond to what had been said in the newspaper.”

“Okay, what were you trying to explain to Ms. Rice? You talked about an incident in Pegram. What happened in Pegram?”

“What I said happened earlier,” Dan replied with a defiant thrust of his chin.

“And I'm asking you again, what happened?” Farese followed with testiness in his voice.

“That he had taken medication for a tooth problem. And had an adverse reaction, and had hallucinated thinking someone was trying to kill him.”

“As a result of that, he did what toward Mary?”

“Locked her out of the house.”

“So that's it?” Farese said, disbelief etching the edges of his words. “That's all that happened? He locked her out of the house?”

“To my knowledge.”

“There may have been some things that happened that's beyond your knowledge?”

“Certainly.”

“Certainly. Now, there was a second occasion that this happened. Where did this happen?”

“In McMinnville, Tennessee.”

“And what happened, what was your understanding of what happened, in McMinnville?”

“That again, a strong drug was given to him for a stomach problem that caused an adverse reaction of hallucinating.”

“Okay. How did these hallucinations manifest themselves?”

“The same way.”

“So he locked her out of the house again?”

“No, sir, where he thought that someone was going to kill him.”

“So how did he act out toward Mary?”

“I do not know,” Dan said with a tight shake of his head.

“Okay. Now, you would agree with me that these revelations are not written down anywhere, correct? The revelations about the remembering about Matthew's reaction?”

“I have no knowledge of whether they are written down or not.”

“Well, did you think they were important to help explain his actions?”

“I thought they were important enough to express to the former D.A.”

“To the former D.A., but not to any agent or policeman or investigator or anything else?”

“No, because my conversations with them were prior to the statement in the newspaper.”

“I understand that. But what I'm saying is, you didn't reach out to any TBI agent, to any FBI agent, any Selmer police officer to talk about this?”

“I went directly to the district attorney.”

“Directly to the district attorney. When she was the district attorney?”

“That is correct.”

“Mr. Winkler, you said when you went to see Mary at the jail, you said, ‘I'm so sorry for all of this,' correct?”

“Yes, sir, ‘I'm so sorry for this' or ‘for all of this' or ‘I'm so sorry.'”

“That sounds like something that Mary would have said to you, doesn't it?” Puzzlement furrowed his brow.

“Should have.”

“But you're saying that Mary said nothing to you.”

“No, sir. Not to my recollection.”

“Okay. Are you saying that Mary,” swinging his arm to his client, “didn't tell you that she was so sorry for all of this?”

“I'm saying that she did not say that to me.”

Farese moved on to the trust fund that had been set up for the benefit of the Winkler children. He insinuated that the fund was not legitimate or above board because a family friend, Eddie Thompson of Thompson and Associates managed the fund. He also questioned the use of the funds. “Have you never asked your dear friend, Mr. Thompson, how much money is in that fund?”

“On purpose, I have not.”

“But you're saying, therefore, that no money has been expended from the fund?”

“There has been a recent trip to Disney World that the trustees asked if we would like to take. And outside of
that, to my knowledge, there has been no expense taken out of the fund.”

“When you say the trustees suggested for you all to take a trip to Disney World, is that correct?”

“Yes, sir.”

In an incredulous tone, Farese said, “They just came up and said, ‘You know, we've got a lot of money in this fund, it may be just a good idea for you to go to Disneyland' [sic]?”

“They asked us if we wanted to do so, on spring break.”

“The reason I'm saying that was—was that also a time when Mary was trying to see her children?”

After a long pause, Dan said, “Be more specific, please.”

“What I'm saying is: It's difficult for Mary to see her children because they are in school, correct?”

“Correct.”

“You all didn't want to disrupt their school, their regular school schedule, correct?”

“Correct.”

“So, if the children were going to be out of school, spring break would be a good time for Mary to get to see her children, correct?”

“Would be a possibility,” Dan said, nodding his head.

At the prosecution's objection, the testimony was again interrupted. After the sidebar, Farese continued to belabor the same point, implying that the only purpose of the trip to Disney World was to prevent Mary from visiting the children. Farese insisted and Dan denied that Mary's attempts to see her children were constant.

The court recessed for lunch. After the break, Farese delved into questions about the temporary custody agreement. He accused Dan and his attorney of misleading Mary about the permanence of the situation. He then turned to the two-million-dollar civil lawsuit. “You know Mary doesn't have any money, don't you?”

“Yes, sir.”

“So you're suing her because—why?” Farese asked.

“Punitive and compensatory damages.”

“I understand. But you know she doesn't have any money?”

“Not currently.”

“Okay. So, what you want to do is make sure she never has any money.”

“That she doesn't benefit from these proceedings,” Dan insisted.

In a testy tone of voice, Farese snapped back, “What I'm saying is, you want to make sure that she never has any money, yes or no?”

“No, sir.”

“Yes or no?”

“No.”

“Well, if she has any money, and you all are suing her for it, and if you all were to get a judgment, you would take that money. Is that correct?”

“If anything came from these proceedings, yes, on behalf of the children.”

“But that's not what the lawsuit says; the lawsuit says nothing about coming from this proceeding, does it?”

“No, sir. It says ‘compensatory and punitive damages.'”

“For the death of Matthew Winkler?”

“Correct.”

Farese battered Dan again, his voice becoming more strident with each phrase. “You don't want her to have any future, you don't want her to have any dreams, you don't want her to have any money, you don't want her to have her children, do you?”

“I don't know that you can say that,” Dan objected.

“I just did, sir,” Farese retorted. “I'm asking you a question.”

“Okay, repeat the question, please.”

“Do you want her to have her children?”

“When?”

“Today.”

“No, sir.”

Farese approached the witness with a document in his
hand. “Again, Mr. Winkler, this is a legal document that appears to be the complaint we've been talking about, isn't it?”

Dan glanced down at it and said, “Yes.”

“It is about punitive and compensatory damages.”

“It is.”

“Is that correct?”

“Yes, it is.”

Farese moved to have the wrongful death civil suit document entered into evidence. Prosecutor Freeland objected on grounds of relevance. Once again, the attorneys gathered at the bench. Judge McCraw ruled in favor of the defense and the document was admitted.

Farese switched his questioning to another topic. “Now, in the Church of Christ, who is the head of the household?”

“The Bible says that the husband is.”

“Now, my question is, in the Church of Christ, who is the head of the household?”

“If you go by what the Bible says, the husband is.”

Farese refused to concede that the question was asked and answered until he got an answer without any caveats. “My question is, in the Church of Christ, who is the head of the household?”

“The husband is,” Dan finally obliged.

“Thank you,” Farese said with a nod. “If the husband is the head of the household, what does that entail? What is contemplated by the meaning of ‘the head of the house-hold'?”

“That he sets directions for the family dynamic…”

“And,” Farese began, and then stopped. “Excuse me, sir.”

Dan continued, “While at the same time, according to what the Bible teaches, he cherishes his wife and honors her.”

“But he is the boss of the house?”

“He sets the dynamic for the direction of the family. What do you mean by ‘boss'?”

“Who decides what goes on in that household?”

“The husband takes into consideration and then if there is a disagreement, I don't know that there is any policy says that he has to have his way, but the husband is the one that has to set the direction.”

“He would be the one who would be making the decision as to whether he would be consenting to his wife,” Farese testified, and then asked, “Do you have woman preachers in the Church of Christ?”

“No, sir.”

“And why is that?”

Freeland objected to the line of questioning about theology or religion.

Farese snapped back like a tattle-tale kid, “Sounds like a talking objection, Your Honor. Just what you told him not to do a couple of minutes ago.”

The judge didn't comment on that, but told the attorneys to approach for a sidebar. After that conference, Farese switched to a line of questioning about a piece of evidence found in Mary's mini-van that the state did not plan to enter as an exhibit because of its dubious chain of custody. “You understand that vehicle was the subject—before it was given to you—of a homicide investigation?”