Episode 600: Winnie Ruth Judd: The Trunk Murderess

In 1931, Winnie Ruth Judd made news when she shot and killed her two friends, Anne and Sammy, in Phoenix, Arizona, leaving behind a trail of evidence that implicated her in the gruesome crime.

Winnie Ruth Judd (also known as Ruth) shot and killed her two friends, Anne and Sammy, in 1931 in Phoenix, Arizona.

The crime scene evidence, including the discovery of the victims' dismembered bodies in trunks, strongly implicated Ruth as the murderer.

Authorities were confronted with a disturbing sight when the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) forced open some locked trunks and revealed the dismembered bodies of the victims, Sammy and Anne. Detectives had discovered the bodies inside the trunks, along with the women's purses, which enabled them to confirm the identities of the deceased. Among the belongings, detectives found spent shell casings from the .25 caliber pistol that killed both women and a green-handled bread knife, which was used to stab Sammy. The items and the inside of the trunks were covered in bloody fingerprints.

Authorities found bloody evidence and the murder weapon linking Ruth to the crime.

The physical evidence did not stand alone; a letter Ruth had written post-murder disclosed details of the crime, which further implicated her. She recorded a confession, saying that she had gone to confront Sammy about derogatory comments made about Anne, leading to a conflict in which she ended up killing both. Ruth repeatedly stated, "I had to shoot her."

Ruth initially confessed to the murders, though she later claimed self-defense.

Ruth did not deny killing her friends but claimed it was in self-defense. Evidence such as scratches on her arms and face, along with a ga ...

The complexity of Ruth's mental state during her trial was marked by erratic behavior and multiple contradictory confessions. The hosts of the podcast delve into the nuanced debate over her sanity and the nature of her actions.

Ruth provided multiple, conflicting accounts of the incident, sometimes claiming self-defense and other times admitting to premeditated murder.

Ruth's accounts of the incident where she wounded her hand and shot Sammy and Ann were inconsistent, ranging from self-defense claims to admissions of premeditation. She initially told a story of self-defense, detailing a struggle with Sammy who, according to Ruth, had a gun, and an altercation with Ann who wielded an ironing board. Other times she claimed self-defense after a heated argument with Sammy, using a bread knife and then the gun during the fight.

In stark contrast, the state's version suggested Ruth executed premeditated murders by sneaking into bedrooms and shooting each victim in the head. Ruth's letter, which she first denied writing, detailed her thoughts and actions after the killings, suggesting a consciousness of guilt and premeditation by her note, "I've got to, got to, or I'll be hung."

Despite these varying stories, Ruth maintained a narrative of self-defense after her conviction, which was in opposition to her earlier claims. This prompted a rigorous debate over her mental state at the time of the crime.

Psychiatrists who evaluated Ruth were divided on whether she was legally insane at the time of the killings.

A key question at the trial was whether Ruth was legally insane at the time of the killings. The prosecution used psychiatrists like Dr. Catton and Dr. Paul Bowers to argue that Ruth was sane. Bowers contested the insanity defense by noting Ruth's premeditated actions to conceal her crimes and affair.

The prosecution argued that Ruth's actions in concealing the crimes showed she was sane and aware of the consequences, rather than acting on an "irresistible impulse."

Ruth's attorney, Paul Schenk, invoked the irresistible impulse doctrine, contending that Ruth may have been legally insane and unaware of the consequences ...

Ruth Judd's marriage and personal relationships are characterized by the press as tumultuous and have become a focal point in unraveling the motives behind a crime that shocked the public.

Ruth had a troubled, unhappy marriage to her husband William Judd, who was addicted to [restricted term].

In 1924, at just 19 years old, Ruth married William Judd, a World War I veteran who was over two decades her senior. The union shattered her expectations of a loving marriage akin to that of her parents. William struggled with a [restricted term] addiction, likely stemming from war injuries, and the burden of this addiction negatively impacted his ability to maintain steady employment. The couple moved to Mexico for a mining job which William lost, prompting a return and an informal separation in 1930. Ruth then moved to Phoenix, ostensibly for her tuberculosis care but also due to their marital discord.

Seeking independence, Ruth moved to Phoenix, where she became involved in a secret affair with a married man named Jack Halloran.

Ruth's move to Phoenix marked the beginning of a secret affair with Jack "Happy Jack" Halloran, a married local businessman. Although William was unaware of Ruth's infidelity, the torrid affair was a poorly kept secret among other parties. Ruth found herself conflicted and ensnared in a web of relationships, as she attempted to conceal her affair to protect her reputation and maintain her marital façade.

Ruth lied to her husband and others to conceal her affair with Halloran.

While her relationship with Halloran was flourishing, Ruth engaged in deceptive behavior, including lying to her husband and others to protect the secrecy of the affair. By engaging in misleading actions, Ruth compounded the complexity of her personal life, increasing the scrutiny upon her as the authorities delved into the circumstances that led to her involvement in the murders.

Jealousy over Halloran's ...

Ruth Judd's sensational case, involving murder, insanity pleas, multiple escapes, and legal battles for wages, captivated the nation and resulted in her eventual release and a substantial financial settlement.

Despite claims of self-defense and insanity, the jury ultimately found Ruth guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced her to death.

Amidst the spectacle of her return to Phoenix, where she was famously dubbed the "trunk murderous," Ruth was quickly brought to trial, with the County Attorney determined to secure the death penalty. Despite Ruth's defense of insanity, the Supreme Court of Arizona upheld her conviction, dismissing Ruth's insanity argument on the basis of a letter she wrote. Nonetheless, just before her execution, Ruth was deemed mentally ill and sent to the Arizona State Hospital for the Insane under the provision that she would be executed if she ever regained sanity.

Ruth's lawyers unsuccessfully appealed the conviction, but her execution was delayed due to questions about her mental state.

Following her conviction, Ruth's execution date was put on hold as appeals were made, including to the Supreme Court of Arizona, but to no avail. The jury, after nearly two days of deliberation, found Ruth guilty, influenced by the testimony of a Dr. Catton who, despite Ruth's emotional outbursts in court, stated that she was sane. However, her subsequent mental health evaluation delayed her execution indefinitely.

Over the next two decades, Ruth escaped from psychiatric institutions multiple times, before eventually being paroled in 1969.

During Ruth's time in the state hospital, her struggle with the system persisted; she escaped six times over 12 years. After Petitioning for her sentence to be commuted to ...