Mary Winkler, as you will recall, was arrested a few weeks ago on murder charges, and shortly after her arrest she apparently confessed to the shooting of her husband of 10 years. The fact that her husband was a popular, and presumably successful, preacher at a mainstream church in the quiet and beautiful community of Selmer, Tennessee says nothing about why his wife would shoot him in the back. The particulars of the town's shared opinions that Mary Winkler's reputation was beyond reproach, and the near universal description of her as being a quiet, pleasant, helpful and unassuming wonderful wife and mother also contributes nothing to the question of why Mary Winkler shot her husband. Tennessee Bureau of Investigation agent John Mehr has been quoted as saying that the bureau knows the motive (they haven't revealed it at this writing). But, that motive too will say nothing, basically, about how Mary Winkler came to that brief (or was it premeditated?) moment in which shooting her husband seemed a perfectly "reasonable" thing to do. If motive can be proved, there is no refuge for Mrs. Winkler in the "insanity," temporary or not, defense. And, even if motive can be logically and legally arrived at, there is still no safety to be found in an insanity defense for Mary Winkler.

Motive usually speaks to "cause," and cause plus intent plus the thoughtful attraction of "satisfaction," suggest to me a good deal of advanced planning, thus the crime doesn't fit the typical picture of a psychotic disorder, brief or chronic. As we have written in this space before (Andrea Yates drowning her five children), there is a huge difference in the behavior of a "psychotic" and a "psychopath." To be psychotic, even briefly, and too "crazy" to the extent that she would have not known that what she was about to do was wrong, and likely to end in the death of her husband, Mary Winkler would have to have had one of the following symptoms: 1. Delusions (A bizarrely false belief, regarding herself or the world, that she had persistently held despite clear evidence to the contrary); 2. Hallucinations (A perception of sound, sights, physical sensations, or smells that do not exist); 3. Disorganized speech, or speech that would not make "sense" to a normal person, i.e., compulsively repeating nonsense phrases [similar to Rep. Cynthia McKinney's TV interviews], or spout gibberish in response to a question; 4. Grossly disorganized or catatonic behavior (a motionless state characterized by muscle rigidity, or inflexibility, i.e., holding an arm out straight for hours, without varying its position).

Mary Winkler did not, according to those who knew her well, show any of the above signs of being psychotic (legally "insane") before the shooting. After confessing to shooting her husband, she reportedly did not "act out" in bizarre ways, screaming or refusing to speak, nor did she assume strange physical postures, nor was she dressed in outlandish, or even inappropriate clothes. And, she had apparently packed clothes (before or after the killing) for her three daughters and herself, and successfully drove 340 miles (a "reasonable" driving distant before calling it a day) to the motel in which they were soon discovered. During the trip, Mary had fed her children and herself in a timely ("reasonable") fashion. She was, evidently, behaving in a responsible-mother-mode during the trip, a woman guided by "reason." The police remarked that she did not appear grossly disoriented and unable to remember recent events. A true psychotic, a person who is not legally responsible for her behavior because of mental disease, would not have been able to give straightforward answers to questions put to her by the police that day. Her taped confession, or a true contemporaneously written record, would have been filled with silly or obviously bizarre answers, and many of them would have been given in an aggressive rage, if she spoke at all? I'm guessing that Mary Winkler, like Angela Yates, is legally sane. She might very well be mentally ill, but still capable of understanding the consequences of her shooting a man, a husband or not, in the back.

"Psychopaths," unlike "psychotics"(the truly "insane"), are responsible for their behavior. The vast majority of people who commit violent crimes are psychopaths, and are notoriously aware of what they are doing, and what the likely consequences of their actions will be. One thinks of a psychopath as more evil than ill. They (psychopaths) know what they're doing is wrong, and whether or not it is likely to cause injury and/or the death to their victim, they just don't care. They have no feelings for others. Psychopaths are dangerous, because they frequently show us the face of someone having extremely high moral standards, and a good fellow, well met. But, they are souls seething with a lifetime of extremely resentful and hostile feelings for the rest of us. However, they always know right from wrong. Again, they just don't care. That's how they differ from the truly "insane," which by the way is a legal and not a psychiatric term or condition.

How then do go about describing (labeling?) Mary Winkler? She doesn't seem to be clearly legally mentally ill (psychotic). She doesn't, according to all who know her well, have a history of mental illness. She may not even be classified as a psychopath (one who is well enough mentally to be held responsible for her actions, yet able to do something "crazy," by most folk's standards). The community sees her as a sympathetic sad figure, yet she did something truly evil. She shot her husband, and went on a holiday with her kids? Next week, we will be looking for an explanation beyond classical psychology, and psychiatry, into the domain of the moral and spiritual. Psychology might not have the answers for people such as Mary Winkler. We might find some answers in Mary's case by exploring the vilest version of human behavior, a version of misdeeds and murder that has traditionally been banished from the so-called "science" of psychology to the fields of religion and morality. One speaks of Evil. Psychologists are loathed to name "evil," much less study it?