The last high-profile murderer Leslie Ballin defended was Mary Winkler. I don’t think she should have gotten off either – most of the testimony about her husband was a straight up tissue of lies that did not hang together or make sense. It’s interesting to see that you believe Ballin when he defends a woman, but not when he defends a man.

Someone on the Commercial Appeal comments section asked the following question: If restricting his wife’s money is typical behavior of an abuser, how is it that when Mary Winkler’s husband made her handle all the money, he was considered abusive? It seems like you’ve got men coming and going.

Yes, that’s a very good question. And the answer is that Mary Winkler’s husband was not abusive, and making your wife handle all the bills is NOT typical of an abuser. However, most people have an emotional reaction to the idea of women being abused which destroys their ability to pay attention to facts.

I think Ballin’s technique of abusing the dead is going to backfire when he tries to use it against a woman. I’m already hearing much more outrage at his blackening the name of the victim who can’t speak for herself and is didn’t you notice the one who ended up DEAD than I ever heard when he did the same thing to Matthew Winkler.