Margaret Rudin - Getting a New Trial

Margaret Rudin, now 65 years old, is finally getting a new trial, one she has deserved since being sentenced for the murder of her husband, Ronald "Ron" Rudin when he "mysteriously" disappeared on or after the evening of December 18, 1994. Although she had been married five times and not a single husband had died until Rudin disappeared, Margaret Rudin was instantly branded the "Black Widow", an unjust misnomer for this woman.

The State alleged Margaret Rudin shot and murdered Ron Rudin in the bedroom of their home, and then, decapitated him by cutting off his head in the bathtub and stuffing the body into a trunk. Nonetheless, there was never any blood evidence discovered in the bathroom sink or tub. Yet, without any known help, she removed the 275-pound body from the house into a vehicle where she transported it to be burned. The State also acknowledged that Margaret could not have committed this crime on her own and alleged that Yehuda Sharon, a friend of Margaret's, helped with disposing of Ron's body.

Yehuda Sharon was the alleged "accomplice", according to the State. Nevertheless, even after giving Sharon "transactional immunity", he continued to insist he had nothing to do with the murder and was, in fact, with his girlfriend the night Ron Rudin disappeared. The night Ron disappeared Yehuda Sharon had rented a car and later, a van; however, there was no proof he helped Margaret dispose of Ron's body. Yehuda did admit that he later took Margaret to the airport when she was leaving town and the State finally admitted Yehuda Sharon probably knew nothing about the murder of Ronald Rudin.

Perhaps a new trial will answer some of the questions that were left mysteriously unasked. Only a few are listed below.

To whom did the skull actually belonged to, that was alleged to belong to Ron Rudin? No tissue was preserved from the skull to test for DNA matching to any of the blood in the Rudin house or to the other bones found with the remains. The bone fragments were tested and found supposedly to match the blood in the Rudin bedroom, yet the bones could not be matched with the skull. What proof do we have that the blood in the Rudin home belonged to Ron Rudin or to the skull found at Nelson's Landing? We do know the gun discovered over a year later on July 1996, when a diver found a Ruger .22-caliber semi-automatic pistol at the bottom of Lake Mead supposedly matched the bullets found in the skull. Was someone else killed with that gun?

To whom did the muddy footprints in Ron Rudin's Fleetwood Cadillac belong? Especially when, during an interview with "Inside Edition" in 1996, Dona claimed that half of Ron Rudin's gun collection was missing. She said Margaret had told her that Dona's 15-year-old son was a suspect, along with the son of their sister Barbara. Though not proven, it does provide a different idea of what could have happened the night Ron Rudin disappeared.

Why were fragments of a second skull discovered with the alleged burned remains of Ron Rudin? To whom did that skull belong?

To whom did clothing, keys, and a pair of sunglasses found inside the locked car belong? The police were never able to prove they belonged to Ron Rudin or any of his known associates.

To whom did the unknown fingerprints in Ron's vehicle belong? When they found 17 sets of fingerprints, all but one was identified. Who else had been in that vehicle and did they belong to the persons with the muddy feet prints on the back seat?

Why did the police not question each possible witness at the time of the disappearance, both at the Crazy Horse and at the Oasis Motel? Especially when witnesses made claims he was there the night he disappeared. At the time of the original trial in 2001, two of three witnesses were dead and one was missing. What happened to them? Ron told Margaret the night he disappeared that he might meet with someone who had answered a personal ad, but she thought he was only joking as he said that to her quite often.

Why, when Ron Rudin was updating his trust, was the "directive" (and which was not a legal document), added after Ron Rudin chose not to include it with the trust, even after the trust attorney asked him about it? Who had motive to insist it be included?

Why were his business associates, Harold Boscuitti and Sharon Cooper, both of whom would have been subject to investigation based on the "directive", never investigated? Each stood to lose a great deal of money if Margaret did divorce Ron or if he died of natural causes. In fact, they took over everything when he disappeared and through Margaret Rudin out of her home.

Why did Ron Rudin suddenly begin to carry guns, both on his person and in his vehicle? Ron Rudin was afraid of someone and this was evident when he started riding around with a gun strapped to his leg and even a shotgun lying across his lap while driving. Rudin was a federally licensed gun dealer and had a license to carry a gun in his boot. Had someone else threatened him? Did another business associate have a grudge against Ron for his "illegal" methods of selling real estate?

Why did Sharon Melton concoct the story that she heard gunshots coming from the direction of the Rudin home, when the police claim the .22 caliber semi-automatic Ruger pistol was outfitted with a silencer? In fact, why did Sharon Melton, who had an earlier romantic interest in Ron Rudin, state, "How dare he marry someone else?"

Why did the prosecution claim Ron Rudin is alleged to have made a report that it missing, just months after their 1987 marriage? Instead, Alan Peterson, an agent from the Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms agency (ATF), testified in court that this particular gun (that was found at Lake Mead and never identified as having belonged to Ron Rudin) and its attached suppressor, serial #SS011, had never been reported as missing.

Why was the chest, which supposedly was used by Margaret Rudin to move her husband's body, never identified as belonging to Margaret Rudin as the prosecution claimed? Especially when the seller, Bruce Honabach, admitted he could not remember when he sold it to her and did not have any sales receipt or other document to prove it. A surprise witness, Donald Schaupeter testified that he had never sold an antique trunk to Bruce Honabach. In fact, he said he only consigned items to the antique dealer and the only chest consigned was a small blue chest used to hold roller skates. With measurements of 2 feet long by 1 foot high and 16 inches wide, it certainly appears that Margaret would never have been able to fit her husband's body into it.

Why did the police claim they could not find Margaret Rudin and claimed she had fled the state to avoid being arrested? Note that from the end of the civil trial in January 1996 to April 1997 is 15 months and the State admitted they did not know where she was nor did they actively look for her prior to the indictment. Not knowing she had already left the area and, when they could not find her, they then issued a no bail warrant for her arrest. The evidence shows she was not fleeing from the law and the State had no reason to say she had. No doubt, thinking she may have been in danger from the real killers of Ron Rudin, she left with what money she had remaining from paying her legal fees from the $600,000 she received in the civil trial.

The evidence in her first trial never proved a direct connection from Margaret Rudin to the death of her husband. Most of the evidence produced appeared to be more like "circumstantial speculation" from witnesses who may have had a personal or financial motive to keep the spotlight on Margaret and away from them. Investigation of the evidence appears to have been completed in a sporadic and haphazard manner with Margaret being targeted as the only suspect right from the beginning, regardless that others seemed to have as much - if not more - motive to want Ron Rudin dead.

Does this evidence point to Margaret Rudin as the murderer of her husband, Ron Rudin? Was she so cold-hearted, she could kill him, mutilate his body and burn it, and then behave as though nothing had happened? Did Ron believe his wife was going to kill him?

On the other hand, is it more probable that he was having trouble with others he conducted business with on a daily basis. Could he have run into trouble with the person he was supposedly going to meet the night he disappeared? This case is quite complex and there are still many unanswered questions; however - the most important question is what happened to Ron Rudin that night? Who was actually responsible for his death?

District Judge Sally Loehrer ruled that two attorneys, who were called into the case late, Tom Pitaro and John Momot, were not prepared to defend her at her 2001 trial. She also ruled that Rudin's main attorney at the time, Michael Amador, was ineffective counsel. Perhaps Margaret Rudin's new trial will finally prove that justice is not always blind.

Sources:

What Really Happened to Ronald Rudin?, by Dusti Sparks-Myers

Rudin to get new trial, By David Kihara, December 19, 2008

Personal Notes and Interviews