I'm not a criminal lawyer; I try civil cases and the burden of proof is different. Beyond a reasonable doubt? Well there are a lot of facts in this case that I wouldn't like as a defense lawyer -- the fact that he was the only one in the tent when she was shot; that she was an experienced hunter and the theory is that she was trying to put a loaded shotgun into a case, something none of us would have done; the shot angles; using a shotgun on a leopard hunt in the first place; the mistress; the early cremation of the body; the supposed open marriage, etc.

But, on the other hand, if it is true that the life insurance proceeds go to a trust for the children, that's huge. I understand that motive is not an element of a murder case, but the jury wants to hear one. If you take out any financial motive, that's a problem for the prosecution. Lots and lots of really fishy stuff with this case, but beyond a reasonable doubt?

He either pulled off the perfect crime or he may actually be innocent.

She remembered that the RUDOLPHs brought several firearms, including a shotgun. The shotgun may have been customized to alter its ammunition capacity, repeatedly jammed, and was not functioning properly.

The point is that no one cases a loaded rifle or shotgun. Regardless of whether it is functioning properly or not.

Defense claims victim removed shotgun by grabbing the muzzle........wound pattern does not match the distance involved. Argument lost

Defense claims victim was casing the shotgun.......impossible for the muzzle to be pointed at the victims chest, and wound pattern does not match the distance. Argument lost.

However, neither of these lost arguments prove it was her hubby who pulled the trigger. Although reasonable doubt would say he did.

I have covered enough of these cases as a criminal courts network TV reporter to learn two things over the years. You never, and I mean NEVER, can effectively judge what's in the minds of the jurors.

I've covered cases where I have felt the doors were slammed airtight shut by the prosecution, yet the jury returned with a NOT GUILTY verdict. And vice versa.

The court of public opinion, which many of you are part of, typically judge such cases in one of two ways. Pre-existing opinions and the totality of evidence. Here's the second thing I've learned over the years interviewing jurors post verdict, which is...Jurors DON'T normally form their opinions that way. Often times it comes down to a single piece of evidence or testimony.

The finest lawyers in the land, trying high profile cases and nigh notariety cases such as this one are aware of this, that guilt or acquittal hinges on one single thing.

Now knowing this, go back and review this case and ask yourself, what is that one specific thing that can make or break this case? That's likely what it will come down to. I can almost guarantee you that the jury foreman/forewoman will utter something similar to this, when queried by a reporter post verdict on what led to the jury's decision.

Rudolph testified that he lied in the SCI law suit.

Win or lose, that might be a big problem for him.

I have absolutely no sympathy for the bastard!

Killing his wife!

Life does not get any lower!

quote:

Rudolph testified that he lied in the SCI law suit.

Win or lose, that might be a big problem for him.

Boom. That could be it Larry.
Jurors want to be able to point to one specific reason, in a mountain of evidence for or against, that swayed them. They learn during jury selection of the high notariety of such a case, that something doesn't smell right and they want to be able to justify their decision, instead of just making a general assessment on the overall evidence.

For years , I heard the croc attack didn’t happen. For a lesser period of time, I heard he killed his wife . I heard both from multiple people over a period of time .

I always ignored these rumors as just that. No idea if they are true or not.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
I have absolutely no sympathy for the bastard!

Killing his wife!

Life does not get any lower!

Yes it does - killing the unborn...

Was his wife pregnant??

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Was his wife pregnant??

At +60 doubtful. Abortion he probably means.

What did he lie in the SCI lawsuit about ?

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Was his wife pregnant??

He is referring to abortion.

quote:

Originally posted by A.Dahlgren:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Was his wife pregnant??

At +60 doubtful. Abortion he probably means.

What did he lie in the SCI lawsuit about ?

I’d hate to quote what he lied about . However , Rudolph testified that he lied in the lawsuit with SCI. It is in a published report .

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Moja:
I have covered enough of these cases as a criminal courts network TV reporter to learn two things over the years. You never, and I mean NEVER, can effectively judge what's in the minds of the jurors.

I've covered cases where I have felt the doors were slammed airtight shut by the prosecution, yet the jury returned with a NOT GUILTY verdict. And vice versa.

The court of public opinion, which many of you are part of, typically judge such cases in one of two ways. Pre-existing opinions and the totality of evidence. Here's the second thing I've learned over the years interviewing jurors post verdict, which is...Jurors DON'T normally form their opinions that way. Often times it comes down to a single piece of evidence or testimony.

The finest lawyers in the land, trying high profile cases and nigh notariety cases such as this one are aware of this, that guilt or acquittal hinges on one single thing.

Now knowing this, go back and review this case and ask yourself, what is that one specific thing that can make or break this case? That's likely what it will come down to. I can almost guarantee you that the jury foreman/forewoman will utter something similar to this, when queried by a reporter post verdict on what led to the jury's decision.

I am a (mostly) retired county-level prosecutor of three decades experience. Anyone who has done criminal law for any length of time will tell you that whenever you go to jury it is a spin of the roulette wheel, no matter how good the evidence is. That’s why we settle cases, even the very strong ones.
I had a dope case about twenty years back. Jury goes out to deliberate and everyone in the courtroom starts talking about scheduling the sentencing hearing— including defense counsel.Thirty minutes later the jury comes back with “not guilty.” Everyone in that courtroom knew the guy was guilty except the twelve people whose opinions counted.
My last jury trial before retirement was a a homicide. Woman was stabbed thirty times by her boyfriend, starting with about nine while she was sitting on the toilet (as judged by the wound angles.) We had DNA evidence, we had four different versions from the defendant as to what had happened, we had a jailhouse confession to a cell-mate (obviously not planted by the cops, otherwise it’s inadmissible) and the jury hung 10-2.
Like I said, it doesn’t matter how strong the evidence might be, go to jury and it’s a crap-shoot.

Yep, Prosecutor Dirks...there was this one I covered in which the defendant led law enforcement on a slow-speed Bronco parade throughout Southern California. Had $$$, a mask and a gun in the vehicle, which might have indicated he was trying to skip town. That's what bad boys do sometimes. But what do I know? I was just a correspondent who covered big trials.

But anyway this guy was a famous football player and a B-List actor. Spent a fortune on his legal team. Best lawyers money could buy. Names like Cochran, Dershowitz, Shapiro and Kardashian.

95% of the DNA evidence pointed to him. His blood supposedly at the murder scene, blood in his house, some in his Bronco. Prosecutors tried to establish motive. The typical angry jealous ex-spouse routine. Lotsa times it works. There was no direct evidence in this case. Just a pile of circumstantial stuff. In the end it came down to a rogue detective nasmed Fuhrman and a glove that didn't fit during a live court demonstration. The defendant walked. Like you said, spin the roulette wheel.

Oh, Bwana Moja, you have pushed the big button labeled "Jury Nullification."

Murder is Legal in the State of California

Anything can happen in a jury room, indeed.

As I’ve learned in many CLE courses, cases are won or lost during voir dire, or jury selection. At the same time, the principle of “beyond a reasonable doubt” is undefined, unlike “preponderance of evidence.”

Bwana Marc, you forgot he also ran through airports for his rental cars. The different burdens of proof were exemplified by the opposite outcomes of the criminal and civil trials.

The dude just seems like he is a creep, but even creeps get their day in court.

quote:

Oh, Bwana Moja, you have pushed the big button labeled "Jury Nullification."

I didn't mean to do it!!!

quote:

As I’ve learned in many CLE courses, cases are won or lost during voir dire, or jury selection. At the same time, the principle of “beyond a reasonable doubt” is undefined, unlike “preponderance of evidence.”

Bwana Marc, you forgot he also ran through airports for his rental cars. The different burdens of proof were exemplified by the opposite outcomes of the criminal and civil trials.

The dude just seems like he is a creep, but even creeps get their day in court.

He's not an easy guy to tackle.

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Moja:

quote:

As I’ve learned in many CLE courses, cases are won or lost during voir dire, or jury selection. At the same time, the principle of “beyond a reasonable doubt” is undefined, unlike “preponderance of evidence.”

Bwana Marc, you forgot he also ran through airports for his rental cars. The different burdens of proof were exemplified by the opposite outcomes of the criminal and civil trials.

The dude just seems like he is a creep, but even creeps get their day in court.

He's not an easy guy to tackle.

I have been called to be a juror in a criminal trial exactly once. If was crystal clear the defendant was guilty.

We took a poll in the jury room. One woman out of 12 said he was not guilty. Why we asked? The answer was astonishing. He must have been not guilty because his girlfriend was there to support him. If he was a bad man, she would not have come .

I hate to say it, but juries are the wrong lot to have in court!

Awarding MILLIONS because an idiot spilled coffee on himself??

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Moja:
Yep, Prosecutor Dirks...there was this one I covered in which the defendant led law enforcement on a slow-speed Bronco parade throughout Southern California. Had $$$, a mask and a gun in the vehicle, which might have indicated he was trying to skip town. That's what bad boys do sometimes. But what do I know? I was just a correspondent who covered big trials.

But anyway this guy was a famous football player and a B-List actor. Spent a fortune on his legal team. Best lawyers money could buy. Names like Cochran, Dershowitz, Shapiro and Kardashian.

95% of the DNA evidence pointed to him. His blood supposedly at the murder scene, blood in his house, some in his Bronco. Prosecutors tried to establish motive. The typical angry jealous ex-spouse routine. Lotsa times it works. There was no direct evidence in this case. Just a pile of circumstantial stuff. In the end it came down to a rogue detective nasmed Fuhrman and a glove that didn't fit during a live court demonstration. The defendant walked. Like you said, spin the roulette wheel.

If it doesn't fit you must ......

Guilty - Murder and Mail Fraud.

https://apnews.com/article/cri...14faa20705a8e1940a66

$150 gladly donated to the Green Beret Foundation.

My sense is that this is the right verdict.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
$150 gladly donated to the Green Beret Foundation.

My sense is that this is the right verdict.

I will match it.



Mike

This is how our news reports it.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/...-2016-african-safari

I was driving and listening to the radio yesterday afternoon and Fox National News reported the verdict.

Bwana Moja;

Juries are funny. I'll start by saying I've never tried a criminal case, but I try to interview jurors after my civil cases. I had one where the deciding factor appeared to be a question I posed, which was objected to, and the objection was sustained. So the jury never got the answer to that question, but they held it against the plaintiff that he didn't want that question answered.

I started long ago as a true believer, but been doing this for 35 years, and unfortunately, I'm not a big believer in juries getting it right.

quote:

I'm not a big believer in juries getting it right.

Within a panel of jurors there must be a varying level of IQ seeing there is no fixed practice in jury duty selection and there has to be an influential "I see it my way" element within the panel that does not necessarily mean it is the right way.

quote:

Within a panel of jurors there must be a varying level of IQ seeing there is no fixed practice in jury duty selection and there has to be an influential "I see it my way" element within the panel that does not necessarily mean it is the right way.

___________

If you could ever see the IQ level of some of the people put on trial, you would know why we call it, "A Jury Of Your Peers."

https://nypost.com/2022/08/02/...e-on-african-safari/


A multimillionaire dentist and big game hunter from Pennsylvania was found guilty of murder and mail fraud Monday for the shooting death of his wife on an African safari trip nearly six years earlier.

A jury found Lawrence “Larry” Rudolph, 67, guilty of gunning down his wife of 34 years, Bianca Rudolph, following a three-week trial in a Denver federal courthouse.

He was also convicted of mail fraud for cashing in $4.8 million in life insurance payments following his wife’s October 2016 death — which he claimed was accidental and self-inflicted.

Jurors sided with prosecutors who said Rudolph killed his wife in cold blood as part of a premeditated plan to take the life insurance payouts and start a new life with his mistress of 20 years.

They said Rudolph shot his wife while on a hunting trip in Zambia on Oct. 11, 2016, and was overheard years later shouting “I killed my f–king wife for you!” during an argument with the other woman, Lori Milliron, while out to dinner.

A jury found Lawrence “Larry” Rudolph guilty of murder on Monday.

The wealthy dentist maintained his innocence during the trial and claimed Bianca Rudolph had accidentally shot herself in the chest while packing a shotgun when he was in the bathroom. He said his wife had been packing her bags in a hurry as she was in a rush to return home from the trip.

However, prosecutors said her gun wound couldn’t have been self-inflicted. They presented evidence that showed the shot to her heart had been fired from two to three-and-a-half feet away.

Prosecutors said Rudolph planned to murder his wife after she asked for more decision-making power in the couple’s finances and had demanded he fire Milliron.

Prosecutors argued that Rudolph, 67, killed his wife of 34 years to collect nearly $5 million in life insurance payments and start a new life with his mistress of 20 years.


Rudolph’s lawyers said he had no motive to kill his wife for Milliron because the couple had been in an open relationship since 2000, which allowed them to have sexual relationships with others.

They also said he had no financial need for the life insurance payouts, which went into a trust for the couple’s children, when he was worth more than $15 million at the time. Investigators for the insurance companies concluded that the shooting was accidental and forked over nearly $5 million to the family.

Prosecutors claimed Milliron, who is the manager of Rudolph’s Pittsburgh-area dental franchise, became privy to the murder after the fact. They accused her of lying to a federal jury about the case and her relationship with Rudolph.
The son, left, and daughter, back right, of Pittsburgh dentist Lawrence "Larry" Rudolph head into federal court for the afternoon session of the trial, July 13, 2022, in Denver.
Rudolph says the millions in life insurance payments went to the couple’s children

She was also found guilty by the same jury of being an accessory after the fact to murder, obstruction of a grand jury and two counts of perjury before a grand jury. She was found not guilty on two other counts of perjury.

Rudolph faces a maximum term of life in prison or the death penalty.

CNN)An American dentist and big-game hunter was found guilty of murder in the shooting death of his wife on an African safari.
Lawrence Rudolph, 67, killed his wife, Bianca Rudolph, with a shotgun and defrauded multiple insurance companies, a federal jury found Monday. Rudolph cashed in more than $4.8 million in life insurance payments after her death almost six years ago.
Rudolph has maintained his innocence and said he believes the gun fired accidentally.

"I did not kill my wife. I could not murder my wife. I would not murder my wife," Rudolph told jurors when he took the stand in his own defense at a federal trial in Denver last week.

The Phoenix couple shared a passion for big-game hunting, and had traveled to the southern African nation of Zambia in September 2016 so Bianca Rudolph could add a leopard to her collection of animal trophies. They carried two guns for the hunt: a Remington .375 rifle and a Browning 12-gauge shotgun.

Two weeks later, as Bianca Rudolph was packing for the couple's return home, she suffered a fatal blast from the Browning shotgun in their hunting cabin at Kafue National Park. Rudolph told investigators he heard the shot at dawn while he was in the bathroom and believed the shotgun accidentally went off as she was putting it in its case, court documents said. He told investigators he found her bleeding on the floor.

But federal prosecutors at Rudolph's trial in Denver, where the insurance companies are based, described it as a premeditated crime. Prosecutors argued Rudolph killed his wife of 30 years for insurance money and to be with his girlfriend, Lori Milliron.
Defense attorney David Markus had argued that Larry Rudolph had no financial motive to kill his wife. In court documents, he noted that Rudolph owns a dental practice near Pittsburgh valued at $10 million.

"We are obviously extremely disappointed. We believe in Larry and his children," Markus and fellow defense attorneys Margot Moss and Lauren Doyle told CNN in a statement after Monday's verdict. "There are lots of really strong appellate issues, which we will be pursuing after we have had a chance to regroup."

The jury also found Milliron, Rudolph's girlfriend, guilty of being an accessory after the fact to murder, obstruction of justice and two counts of perjury based on her testimony before a grand jury, according to the Department of Justice.
Milliron, who was tried alongside Rudolph, said the couple had been in an open relationship, according to court documents. Milliron and Rudolph lived together from 2017 until his arrest last year, her attorney, John Dill, told CNN.
"We are disappointed in the jury's verdict, but that is our system," Dill said. "Lori Milliron is innocent and we will continue to fight to exonerate her."

An embassy official expressed suspicion after the shooting, the FBI said

In court documents, investigators alleged Rudolph raised suspicions when he sought to quickly cremate his wife's body in Zambia.
Rudolph scheduled a cremation three days after her death, according to court documents. After he reported her death to the US Embassy in the Zambian capital of Lusaka, the consular chief "told the FBI he had a bad feeling about the situation, which he thought was moving too quickly," FBI special agent Donald Peterson wrote in the criminal affidavit.

As a result, the consular chief and two other embassy officials went to the funeral home where the body was being held to take photographs and preserve any potential evidence. When Rudolph found out the embassy officials had taken photos of his wife's body, he was "livid," Peterson wrote.
Rudolph initially told the consular chief that his wife may have died by suicide, but an investigation by Zambian law enforcement ruled it an accidental discharge.

Investigators for the insurers reached a similar conclusion and paid on the policies.
But forensic evidence showed Bianca Rudolph's wounds came from a shot fired from at least two feet away, according to a criminal complaint filed in federal court.
"At that distance, there is reason to believe that Bianca Rudolph was not killed by an accidental discharge as stated," the complaint said.
US Attorney Cole Finegan welcomed the jury's ruling.

"Bianca Rudolph deserved justice," Finegan said in a statement. "We can only hope this verdict brings Bianca's family some amount of peace."

Rudolph orchestrated his wife's death as part of a scheme to defraud life insurance companies and to allow him to live openly with his girlfriend, the FBI alleged.

Bianca and Lawrence Rudolph moved from Pennsylvania to Arizona about four years before her death. Rudolph's dental practice remained in Pennsylvania, and he commuted back and forth from his Phoenix home.

Federal authorities got involved after a friend of Bianca Rudolph asked the FBI to investigate the death because she suspected foul play. The friend said Larry Rudolph had been involved in extramarital affairs and had a girlfriend at the time of his wife's death.
Milliron worked as a manager at Larry Rudolph's dental practice near Pittsburgh and told a former employee that she'd been dating him for 15 to 20 years, according to court documents. Milliron moved in with Rudolph three months after Bianca Rudolph's death, court documents said.

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
$150 gladly donated to the Green Beret Foundation.

My sense is that this is the right verdict.

I will match it.



Mike

Bravo, Mike!

I didn’t think they had enough evidence.

But I think it must’ve been the shot angle and muzzle distance that were sufficient to prove the prosecution’s case.

It certainly affected my opinion.

I thought he would walk, although I believed he is guilty. Glad to to be proven wrong. Hope he enjoys Bubba and his friends….

This may be just the start of his legal issues. I can not imagine the life insurance company not seeking a refund of the benefits under the policy.

He has admitted to lying in the SCI lawsuit. Under the assumption there was some sort of settlement, what issues arise there? If insurance paid the settlement, will the perjury be considered insurance fraud ?

I am not sure the life insurance carrier will be able to claw back the proceeds. He did not receive them, his kids did and unless they took an active part in the crime, I just don’t see the money going back to the carrier.

If one checks the previous Weatherby Award winners, they will find that Larry Rudolph’s name has been removed . They now show no award in 2007.