I would love to see this poll taken again after all of these years. The Fed's have done everything in their will power to find an inch of evidence on Ruth but haven't had any luck. While Bernie is locked away playing golf and enjoying his popularity, Ruth is left to deal with 2 dead sons and the world accusing her of his crimes.
Macaca - 15 years ago
I'm not sure I understand why so many people think Ruth Madoff knew about her husband's fraud. Just because she benefitted from it by spending the money, (which is not surprising since she's his wife) ... it doesn't mean she "knew".
Where is the evidence that she knew? That she stayed with him while he was under house arrest? If you were married to someone for almost fifty years, it might take you awhile to accept the truth & break away. It sounds like she was a "needy person".... I can imagine how it would be hard for her to 'make the break'. Some critisized her for not making a statement right after her husband's arrest, expressing sympathy for the victims. But she may have been in shock, or maybe her lawyer told her not to make any public statements. Lawyers often advise their clients not to say anything, especially when they are vulnerable to lawsuits or prosecution. IN my opinion, the most damning evidence that Ruth "knew" was her withdrawls of cash in the days prior to his arrest. But that could be explained by a variety of things. For example, Madoff may have told her to withdraw the money, and he may have given her some b.s. reason to do so. It sounds as though Ruth did whatever he asked her to do....
I think the evidence that Ruth "didn't know" is more compelling... for example, she and her sister had money invested with Madoff. Would she have invested her own inheritance with Madoff if she knew? Would she have allowed her sister and brother-in-law to invest almost $10 million with Madoff if she knew? And it sounds like Ruth staunchly and loudly defended Madoff when anyone critisized him (eg in Cabo San Lucas)...that sounds sincere to me! And she's recently worked out a deal where she forfeited her right to a big chunk of the Madoff's mutual marital property.... doesn't that indicate a willingness on her part to acknowledge that she has no right to the money & wishes to "give it back"?
I know that many people lost a lot of money with Madoff and they're rightly devastated and many are angry. But it doesn't mean that Ruth knew. We need cold, hard evidence that she knew. Until we get that, she deserves what all North Americans are entitled to... the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law!!!!! You'd want the same thing for yourself!!
I would love to see this poll taken again after all of these years. The Fed's have done everything in their will power to find an inch of evidence on Ruth but haven't had any luck. While Bernie is locked away playing golf and enjoying his popularity, Ruth is left to deal with 2 dead sons and the world accusing her of his crimes.
I'm not sure I understand why so many people think Ruth Madoff knew about her husband's fraud. Just because she benefitted from it by spending the money, (which is not surprising since she's his wife) ... it doesn't mean she "knew".
Where is the evidence that she knew? That she stayed with him while he was under house arrest? If you were married to someone for almost fifty years, it might take you awhile to accept the truth & break away. It sounds like she was a "needy person".... I can imagine how it would be hard for her to 'make the break'. Some critisized her for not making a statement right after her husband's arrest, expressing sympathy for the victims. But she may have been in shock, or maybe her lawyer told her not to make any public statements. Lawyers often advise their clients not to say anything, especially when they are vulnerable to lawsuits or prosecution. IN my opinion, the most damning evidence that Ruth "knew" was her withdrawls of cash in the days prior to his arrest. But that could be explained by a variety of things. For example, Madoff may have told her to withdraw the money, and he may have given her some b.s. reason to do so. It sounds as though Ruth did whatever he asked her to do....
I think the evidence that Ruth "didn't know" is more compelling... for example, she and her sister had money invested with Madoff. Would she have invested her own inheritance with Madoff if she knew? Would she have allowed her sister and brother-in-law to invest almost $10 million with Madoff if she knew? And it sounds like Ruth staunchly and loudly defended Madoff when anyone critisized him (eg in Cabo San Lucas)...that sounds sincere to me! And she's recently worked out a deal where she forfeited her right to a big chunk of the Madoff's mutual marital property.... doesn't that indicate a willingness on her part to acknowledge that she has no right to the money & wishes to "give it back"?
I know that many people lost a lot of money with Madoff and they're rightly devastated and many are angry. But it doesn't mean that Ruth knew. We need cold, hard evidence that she knew. Until we get that, she deserves what all North Americans are entitled to... the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law!!!!! You'd want the same thing for yourself!!