Margaret Rudin

ABC’s 20/20 featured the story of Ron and Margaret Rudin this past weekend. Did you catch it?

Margaret and Ron were both married five times, and this last marriage ended with Ron being murdered. Ron’s beheaded body was found in an antique chest burned in the desert. Margaret was the last one to see him.

The question, of course, was whodunit.

Margaret has always stood steadfast that she was innocent, but she ended up being convicted, and served 20 years of her life sentence before winning parole a year ago in January.

When you watch Margaret speak, what do you see? Do you see an innocent woman or someone who is denying her dirty deeds?

I always caution people not to assess someone’s truthfulness after they have paid the price for their crime. Why? Because there is no longer any pressure to have to succeed with their lie. Liars leak the most clues when they are under pressure to succeed with the lie, avoid punishment, etc.

Once the stakes are gone, its very easy to say you are innocent without any stress or indicators–there are zero risks and all benefit to do so now! That’s not to say one wouldn’t leak clues, but I have seen guilty people years later come across very honest and innocent when they claimed they were innocent when they were far from it! So be warned.

However, Margaret, in my opinion is only fooling herself here. She thinks she is still so brilliant she can tell you her story and you won’t pick up on the inconsistencies, but oh dear, no. She is wrong.

Did you catch any of her leaks?

Here is one of my favorites: “They stuck the name on me. That ‘black widow, black widow, black widow,’ like I had killed somebody before, or like that I was in the habit,” said Margaret Rudin.

Oh dear, Margaret. You aren’t good at self-censoring, are you? Your interview? It was a train wreck. I did not believe a word.

7 replies
  1. Shane's failed bar exams
    Shane's failed bar exams says:

    She had over 20 years to come up with something that proved her innocence but she still has no proof. A very scary woman.

    • venicementor
      venicementor says:

      Really, seriously?! The burden of the proof lies on the accuser and not the defense. Are you serious? “She still has no proof” OF WHAT, THAT SHE IS INNOCENT?!

      I hope to God you never get charged in the manner she was. What a crazy system we have. Well, maybe I do.

      There was absolutely no evidence that was proven – what have we turned into?

      No wonder your moniker is what it is.

  2. venicementor
    venicementor says:

    In retrospect and watching what went on in court and listening to what people said, it was a bloody sham.

    Unbelievable, ineptitude. There was no proof and everything was circumstantial. This is crazy.

    The mere fact that she never made a plea makes me think she is innocent.

    American injustice system – I was appalled. Especially, in today’s world.

    She did not get a fair trial and her defense attorney was a total IDIOT!!!

    • Keith D.
      Keith D. says:

      Almost all evidence in every trial is “circumstantial”. Most trials that don’t come with a confession are also proven with circumstantial evidence, and even some that do have a signed confession are still proven with circumstantial evidence. I’d bet money that most of the things that you’d likely consider definitive evidence are likely also circumstantial evidence and not nearly as cut and dried as you believe they are.

      I used to be the same way, and then I spent some time critically examining the things that I thought were slam dunk evidence, only to find that they’re also pretty riddled with holes.

  3. Gryffinhore
    Gryffinhore says:

    Renee, do you have any plans to blog about Meghan Markle’s interview with Oprah? I would love to hear your take!

  4. Emily
    Emily says:

    At 2:25 she says “I want the truth to come out, I’ve waited a long time” while she’s shaking her head no.

Comments are closed.