March 5, 2026 • 22 mins
It was an emotional day in court as the former lover of 35-year-old Kouri Ritchins wiped away tears, with his head on the table, unable to look at text messages between him and Kouri in the weeks leading up to Eric Richins’ death. Robert Joshua Grossman testified he had plans with Kouri the day Eric died, but she never showed up and eventually texted him “Eric has passed away.” Ritchins is accused of fatally poisoning her husband with fentanyl in order to get out of debt and spend her life with Grossman.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Hey there, folks. It is Thursday, March fifth, and what
a day in the Corey Richands murder trial, the so
called grief author murder trial. The boyfriend of the woman
on trial was on the stand yesterday and it was
more emotional than maybe folks had anticipated with that. Welcome
(00:23):
to this episode of Amy and TJ. Roapes. He was
the most anticipated witness, right, even if he might not
be the most important.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Yes, I think the most important witness was at the
end of last week when we heard from the housekeeper
of Corey Richins, who claims that she secured the fentanyl
for Corey, who then, according to prosecutors, gave it to
her husband, first in a sandwich that was a failed attempt,
and then eventually in a Moscow mule which ended up
(00:53):
with him having five times the lethal limit a fentanyl
in a system. So, yes, she was important, But now
we're hearing the why this is going towards the motive.
Prosecutors say she wanted money and she wanted her man,
and her man was Joshua Robert Joshua Grossman.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
Yeah, this is very important as far as establishing motive. Yet,
and I didn't know I was expecting I suppose more questions,
and it seemed like they weren't to get a lot
of stuff in evidence and have him confirm a bunch
of their communications. But this was essentially Robert Joshua Grossman
sitting up their robes looking through a lot of their
(01:32):
text messages. But it gave us insight into their relationship.
Where her head was and where his head was.
Speaker 3 (01:39):
Yeah, it was really fascinating to watch.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
So they put up all of their text messages in
the month and then the weeks leading up to Eric
Richand's death, and we're all reading them on the screen
along with the jurors. And then they'll throw a shot
of the ex boyfriend and he had his head on
the table. He was not looking, he was covering his
(02:03):
eyes and when he would lift his head.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
Up he'd be wiping tears.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
He I mean, this is it was four years ago
to the day that Eric Richards died. And to see
that emotional impact of just seeing those texts and where
he was. I mean, this was a man who seemed
to be deeply in love with Corey Richins and hoping
to spend the rest of his life with her.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
I mean, they finally got him to admit on the
stand and maybe that was a little pie in the sky,
but based on some of these writings, robes absolutely he
was in to this woman in a major way. A
reminder here, Corey Richards out in Utah Park City, Utah,
accused of killing her husband in March of twenty twenty
two by giving him that laced drink. She claims he
must have gotten somewhere else. He had pain pills he used,
(02:47):
he had THC gummies he used, So she's claiming maybe
he did it to himself or took it himself, but
the prosecution doesn't believe that's the case, saying she poisoned him.
And then I guess robes the other part after that,
and the reason they call the grief author murder trial.
I guess some of those details are the ones that
are really often make headlines and have people interested in
this story.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
That's right, because she actually published wrote and published a
book about helping children get through the grief of losing
a parent, and she had actually been on local television stations,
local radio promoting her book, and then within weeks of
that book promotion, she's arrested for murdering the.
Speaker 3 (03:31):
Father of her children.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
Yeah, I can't make this stuff up. You cannot, yeah,
make it app So this is where we are. She's
facing and wild as it is roads you should mention, yes,
she's facing a murder charge, but also an attempted murder
charge because they say she failed the first time. She
tried to get it.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Right with that sandwich that she tried to give or
she did give him and he ate but apparently he
was able to survive it by he just was texting
her saying hey, and we've seen the text admitted into
court where he's telling her, I feel terrible. I might
have to go to the hospital. He ended up giving
himself an EpiPen and taking some benadryl and sleeping it
off and surviving it. So yeah, according to prosecutors, two
(04:11):
weeks later, she tried again and was successful.
Speaker 1 (04:14):
It's a weird thing to think rogues and it's not
a comedian would make a joke about it. What would
she try next if the drink didn't work? What is
the next thing she's going to serve him? What other
dish is there? What other right? It seemed like she
was determined to kill. Excuse me, she's accused. She is innocent.
To approven guilty, but based on the prosecution storyline, this
(04:37):
moment was determined to kill this guy.
Speaker 3 (04:39):
Yes, and it's really you know, you look at her,
she looks.
Speaker 2 (04:42):
Like this girl next door, your next door neighbor, mom
of three, real estate agent. It's just she doesn't fit
the type of someone who you would think would be
capable of something like this. And then to actually yesterday
was so fascinating hearing from her then boyfriend and to
see the text. She didn't give him one indication that
(05:02):
she was headed in this direction. They were talking about
her getting a divorce, her needing time because she didn't
want to break up her family, and she absolutely kept
her boyfriend her lover, in the dark in terms of
her plans. If she in fact did murder Eric Richards,
she certainly didn't let him know.
Speaker 3 (05:22):
That's where she was headed.
Speaker 1 (05:23):
But there were other things the prosecution is trying to
piece together that seemed to allude to certain dates. We'll
get into that into a second. But Romes I didn't know,
but he explained on the stand how they met in
the first place, and it was all because of a
help wanted add.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
Yes, so they met in South Carolina.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
He answered the help wanted ad because she was flipping
homes down there. So we started working with her, and
I believe he ended up. He said that it was
purely platonic for the first couple of years. I think
he said they met even in twenty sixteen, twenty seventeen,
so quite a while ago. But he ultimately moved to
Utah in twenty twenty to work with her. But he
(06:00):
said before he moved to Utah, things turned romantic.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
And I was, this is odd. He starts working with
her robes, but he didn't. He wasn't necessarily an employee.
It was interesting to hear the arrangement they had. I
guess once they started dating.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
Yeah, so he had his He talked about he had
his dog with him and he would live in the
house that they were flipping, and so kind of basically
he was he was working for shelter and food and
a car.
Speaker 3 (06:29):
He said.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
She bought him a vehicle, two vehicles actually, so she
said she would give him cash here and there. But
it wasn't as if he was on the payroll. He
wasn't paying taxes. It wasn't as if he was a
formal or yeah, a formal employee. It was like kind
of her paying him on the side and letting him
live in these homes.
Speaker 1 (06:49):
And that's a part of understanding where his head was
and what, or at least how he felt about her.
He said it on the stand. I liked her, so
I worked for free, he said. And as this thing built.
If you said it once, rogue, you said it fifty times.
While he was testifying, Oh, I feel bad for this
guy because it did up there. He seemed like a
(07:11):
love sick puppy.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
He did. Look, this is a look. He is a guy.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
He has a formidable appearance. He was in a rock
war veteran, a good looking guy, kind of like that
blue collar almost as if, I hate to say this,
but like, oh, almost a suburban bored, suburban wife's fantasy.
You go and you meet this kind of rugged, handsome
war vet who has his dog. He's good with his hands,
(07:39):
he can build things, he can fix things.
Speaker 3 (07:41):
And so let me a watch.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
But doesn't that sound like the beginning of a romance novel.
I'm not sure that you are familiar with them, but
I can tell you that this is actually I was
thinking this as I was watching. It was almost as
if it was It was like a stereotypical affair in
a way, like a board housewife looking for some hot,
blue collar guy who's gonna love her and not talk
(08:06):
too much, not want to go too deep about anything philosophical,
just like.
Speaker 3 (08:10):
Fine or sex.
Speaker 1 (08:11):
Never would have thought that, Yeah, that's.
Speaker 3 (08:12):
What it looked like to me.
Speaker 2 (08:14):
And it looks like he fell hard for her, and
he was still so emotional. She was stonefaced by the
way because they would cut to her, and he even
kind of he looked at her at one point and said,
this is the first time I've seen her since twenty
twenty three and since they broke up, and they broke
up several months before she was arrested. But I felt
so bad for him. And look, I think when you're
(08:36):
hearing the story as a juror, you're feeling terrible for
Eric Richins if you believe that she actually committed this crime,
and it almost honestly, having him on the stand, looked
like this is a woman who basically manipulated two men
who were both wanting to be with her.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
Yes, that if nothing else, And a lot of the
messages we read and some of the back and forth
is stuff to be expect, and folks already knew they
were in a relationship. I don't know how impactful some
of that is, but ro I told her from an
emotional standpoint, seeing that guy, mm hmm, I was upset
with her.
Speaker 3 (09:13):
He was so genuine.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Because so much of the messages and so much of
what we did see was I don't want to say,
leading him on, But certainly what I even found a
lot of it wasn't she apologetic the way she couldn't
spend so much time with him? She was?
Speaker 2 (09:26):
She kept saying, I'm so sorry. You deserve more than this.
At one point it looked as though and the defense
really tried to hone in on this. You know, wasn't
she breaking up with you? Weren't you before Eric Richards died?
But I think she was just basically acknowledging that he
was only getting, you know, just a few drips and
drops from her. She wasn't able to give him the
(09:46):
time he deserved. But he's told her I'm in love
with you. And then she said, if I weren't married,
would you marry me tomorrow? And he said, of course
I would.
Speaker 1 (09:57):
Well, she goes on and reciprocates, at one time, I'm
in love with a man that's not my husband. She
says that to him and the guy on the stand,
I mean, he kind of admitted maybe I go head
over heels more than most. But they asked him directly,
do you believe that she loved you too? And he
said yeah, genuinely, like yes, I know when.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
He said this, big gruff guy says, I have a
tendency for going head over heels, maybe more than most.
Speaker 3 (10:21):
The whole there was just something so heartfelt about that. Yeah,
I just I felt for him.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
But I thought one of the worst texts that they
were able to put up there for jurors to hear
was where Corey Richins talked about wanting to just be
with him.
Speaker 3 (10:38):
She said, if he meeting Eric, her husband, if.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
He could just go away and you could just be here,
life would be so perfect.
Speaker 1 (10:47):
I get the refusal on trial for cheating, that would
be awful. Does that suggest murder? We have seen robes,
We've covered enough trials in the past six months that
we have seen some Google surgers and text messages much
more damning than some of these we saw. But they
established whatever they wanted to, But the thing didn't make
a difference to you, at least from a case from
(11:09):
an evidence standpoint, is it circumstantial the messages surrounding when
they were supposed to meet for brunch and have mimosas.
This timing of that was strange.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
Okay, I'm thinking that she Look, this is a woman
who was if she is guilty, she was manipulating everyone
because she didn't let her lover in on her plans.
She made him think about a year from now, maybe
I could get divorced. So she wasn't saying anything that
would insinuate that she was planning. What prosecutors say, she
(11:41):
was very actively planning. So if she was planning that
would it also make sense that she was planning to
have brunch plans with her lover the day Eric died
that morning to celebrate a big real estate deal that
was about to go through that day as well. So
why would she If she did ill her husband and
plan this all out, why would she choose to do
(12:02):
it the morning and the morning hours or the night
before this big day? She had set up a big
celebratory day where she was closing on this house she
had been working on closing for many many months, and
going to celebrate with her lover.
Speaker 3 (12:16):
Could she have thought that this would be.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
Something that police would look at, investigators will and say, oh,
there's no way she would do that. Look at what
this big day was that she had planned. Why would
she have done that. That wouldn't make any sense. She
knew that it was going to come out, probably that
she was involved.
Speaker 1 (12:33):
In an affair, So it doesn't make sense for her
to have planned if she planned to have that brunch,
that would lend itself to suggesting not guilty. Is that
what we're saying.
Speaker 3 (12:45):
Yeah, so maybe she planned it so it would look
like it.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
So if it there, then it's you're saying, she's probably
guilty because this is now you're talking about a lot
of manipulation and planning and surrounding this death, even looking
to manipulate the police. That that suggests an extensive amount
of preparation.
Speaker 2 (13:03):
Yeah, I mean she had to think maybe, because look,
she her Google searches. I'm piecing this together. Her Google
searches were ken police, you know, look at your phone
and look at your messages. So she was probably thinking,
they are almost certainly going to find out that I
was having an affair and.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
Then me give us some break, crumps, Yes, give them break. Crumps.
It was the last thing here on him, just wrote.
Seeing him yesterday was at times a little devastating. We
mentioned that the he got upset, he was crying several times.
They at times when they were just showing on the
screen at least we were seeing just the text messages
(13:40):
like a close up reading. Whoever's controlling the cameras did
a cutaway to show him with his head down.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
It was devastating.
Speaker 1 (13:48):
He stopped reading them and that's I'm sure he hasn't
read that stuff in years. And to go back and
put himself in that position to where he was, he
seemed like he was head over heels for this woman.
Speaker 3 (13:58):
Oh, that was devastating. But also of note.
Speaker 2 (14:02):
She asked him, and he said, we both went whoa.
Towards the end, he said, she asked him if he'd
ever killed anybody and how did it make him feel?
Speaker 1 (14:12):
And he had been in a rock that so, he said,
looking back now, that might be a little weird. At
the time, he didn't think anything of it, but he
has the hindsight now is at the end of the
world again. It's all circumstantial, right, It's all circumstance.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
It all looks bad It's another piece in the puzzle,
and it helps durers get a fuller picture when they're
making their decisions. So I thought this was actually fascinating.
Also asking him about illicit drug use, she was asking
him if he ever did anything more than marijuana. All
of that now seems interesting given how prosecutors say she
killed her husband.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
Interesting. No smoking gun quite just yet. But this wasn't
the only emotion and also not the only drama in
the courtroom yesterday. There was outside of the presence of
the jury a pretty interesting back and forth between the
prosecution lawyers and the defense lawyers, including a flat out
(15:07):
accusation of one side misbehaving when it comes to the jury.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
Stay here, Welcome back, everyone to this episode of Amy
and TJ, where we have been glued to the coverage
and watching the trial of Corey Richins. She is the
thirty five year old mom of three who was accused
(15:36):
of poisoning, first attempting to poison her husband and then
successfully poisoning her husband with fentanyl, and then writing a
book helping her children deal with the grief of losing
their father so that she could help children everywhere who
have lost a loved one. She was arrested a few
weeks after that book was published, and now she is
(15:57):
on trial for Eric Richards's murder. Saw her lover on
the stand yesterday. But as you said before the break,
this was not the only drama in the courtroom we
saw yesterday.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
I didn't see this coming. We're used to at the
end of a try. Actually, it's usually the end of
the prosecution making their case the defense. It's customary they
get up and make a motion for a dismissal. We
move for mistrial. Right, It's never granted, never almost.
Speaker 3 (16:28):
I've never seen it.
Speaker 1 (16:29):
Not a one oh right. That's a pretty high bar.
So the prosecution is still putting on its case. But yesterday,
outside of the presence of the jury, this threw me.
They always have some back and forth, they need to
work out an issue, and these lawyers have more issues,
it seems to work out than most. But there was
an issue that the defense said they received a text
(16:49):
message which said that Carmen Lawber, the housekeeper who got
the drugs for Corey Richards, Carmen Lawber, had had a
violation in drug court. Why is that a big deal,
Because the defense says, we didn't know about it. Ahead
of time, which could have changed how we prosecuted our case.
(17:13):
The prosecution had the burden to tell us. They didn't
and Roe, she explained it in about sixty seconds and
I didn't know where it was going. Then she all
of a sudden, we immediately moved for a mistrial. What yeah,
because ro, this is a big deal. If you withhold evidence.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
Yes, if the prosecution withheld the fact that carbon Lauber
violated drug court, yeah, that would be that would change
perhaps how they cross examined her, what they held her
accountable for. It would call into question her credibility even further,
which they already tried to erode. But the prosecutor's response was, yeah,
(17:52):
I don't know what you're talking about, wasn't us Yeah, I.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
Don't know what text she's talking about. You all have had.
And then they went through, this information has been out there,
it's been in Then they said, we gave it to
you several days ago. Was part of this. And so
the judge in that moment said, look, you're gonna have
to put this in writing. He said, I'm not going
to shoot from the hip, is what he said. So
I'm not going to rule right here, right now, on
a mistrial something like this. So they waiting on him,
(18:17):
so it might be very interesting when they start today.
Speaker 3 (18:19):
Correct.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
So the trial continued as planned with him considering this,
and yes, we'll hear on what he rules on later.
He did, though, make a ruling on the other claim
that the defense made. The defense was claiming that the
prosecution was making faces at the jury to try and
(18:40):
sway them in their direction.
Speaker 1 (18:44):
I didn't hear. I don't know how you make a
face to sway, but they said during cross examination, when
the defenses up there cross examining, they're getting reports that
the prosecution at times just making faces in reaction to
whatever is going on with the defense at times. How
do they know this? Television?
Speaker 2 (19:03):
They said, people who are watching TV somehow let them
know that they have seen the prosecution. So yes, like
perhaps just I'm guessing when they're cross examining and say
the defense attorney says something crazy, they're looking at the
jury like, uh huh, really right, Like that's what I'm
assuming they're talking about.
Speaker 1 (19:24):
I don't know, A weink, a nod of rolling of
the eyes, I don't know. I loved that the judge
didn't necessarily entertain this much.
Speaker 2 (19:34):
Yeah, he shot it down, but he's gonna need he
hasn't seen anything.
Speaker 3 (19:37):
He's like, I'm looking at the prosecution.
Speaker 1 (19:39):
And his point was I have a better view than
even the cameras, and I haven't seen a damn thing,
and so yeah, you got to give me more than that.
And he was about to let it go. They have
now agreed to go back and get time stamps and
going to bring into the judge of the faces roads.
I can't wait for the starter quars.
Speaker 2 (19:55):
I hope they have like a time stamp and then
like a freeze frame, like a a snapshot of whatever
these faces are they claim. Look, I wonder, though, I
wonder if you, just as a human being react, I
don't have a poker face. I do not, So when
someone says something that sounds fishy or a bunch of
bs or something seems ridiculous, you're probably gonna see it
(20:17):
on my face. Now, did they turn their faces to
the jury and do that? Are you not allowed to
have a human reaction to something if you hear it
and you smell bs.
Speaker 1 (20:27):
Me, Obviously you're not allowed to interact with the jury
in any way. Fine, but are you not allowed to
so that's the question. Rose. Can an attorney roll his
or her eyes just looking? Are you not supposed to
react in any way, shape or form emotionally in the courtroom.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
I've seen Corey Richins, and I think that's just a
human reaction when you hear something that you disagree with
her or you don't think it's right. She's raised her
eyebrows and tilted her head and splinted her eyes and
been like wait what and then whisper to her attorney,
and the jury can.
Speaker 3 (20:56):
See all of that, So I don't know.
Speaker 2 (20:58):
I guess the difference would be turning your head to
the dree like right right, you see.
Speaker 3 (21:03):
Like that would be the distinction.
Speaker 2 (21:05):
So they'd have to actually show because I do think
it's just an understandable thing to have a reaction to
something that you don't agree with.
Speaker 1 (21:12):
They better come with receipts today. But folks, this trial,
what was the timing on this when they said how
many was this?
Speaker 2 (21:18):
You know? I feel like all trials they always say
four to five weeks, and I feel like that is
about what they've said this one will go as well.
So we're coming at the end of two weeks and
for the I don't know how much more the prosecution
still has. In terms of witnesses. It's always a little
bit of an unknown entity because sometimes they make decisions.
In fact, they had a surprise witness yesterday, so that
was why the court was delayed for an hour. So
(21:39):
we shall see. But definitely still many many days ahead
of this trial. The defense still has to put up
and we assume it will put up.
Speaker 3 (21:46):
It's defense.
Speaker 2 (21:47):
They don't have to, but it looks like they're going
to in terms of what we heard from opening arguments.
Speaker 3 (21:51):
We will, of.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
Course stay on top of this trial as always. Thank
you for listening to us everyone. I'm Amy Roboch alongside TJ.
Speaker 3 (21:59):
Holmes. We will talk tears n
Hey there, folks. It is Thursday, March fifth, and what
a day in the Corey Richands murder trial, the so
called grief author murder trial. The boyfriend of the woman
on trial was on the stand yesterday and it was
more emotional than maybe folks had anticipated with that. Welcome
(00:23):
to this episode of Amy and TJ. Roapes. He was
the most anticipated witness, right, even if he might not
be the most important.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Yes, I think the most important witness was at the
end of last week when we heard from the housekeeper
of Corey Richins, who claims that she secured the fentanyl
for Corey, who then, according to prosecutors, gave it to
her husband, first in a sandwich that was a failed attempt,
and then eventually in a Moscow mule which ended up
(00:53):
with him having five times the lethal limit a fentanyl
in a system. So, yes, she was important, But now
we're hearing the why this is going towards the motive.
Prosecutors say she wanted money and she wanted her man,
and her man was Joshua Robert Joshua Grossman.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
Yeah, this is very important as far as establishing motive. Yet,
and I didn't know I was expecting I suppose more questions,
and it seemed like they weren't to get a lot
of stuff in evidence and have him confirm a bunch
of their communications. But this was essentially Robert Joshua Grossman
sitting up their robes looking through a lot of their
(01:32):
text messages. But it gave us insight into their relationship.
Where her head was and where his head was.
Speaker 3 (01:39):
Yeah, it was really fascinating to watch.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
So they put up all of their text messages in
the month and then the weeks leading up to Eric
Richand's death, and we're all reading them on the screen
along with the jurors. And then they'll throw a shot
of the ex boyfriend and he had his head on
the table. He was not looking, he was covering his
(02:03):
eyes and when he would lift his head.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
Up he'd be wiping tears.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
He I mean, this is it was four years ago
to the day that Eric Richards died. And to see
that emotional impact of just seeing those texts and where
he was. I mean, this was a man who seemed
to be deeply in love with Corey Richins and hoping
to spend the rest of his life with her.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
I mean, they finally got him to admit on the
stand and maybe that was a little pie in the sky,
but based on some of these writings, robes absolutely he
was in to this woman in a major way. A
reminder here, Corey Richards out in Utah Park City, Utah,
accused of killing her husband in March of twenty twenty
two by giving him that laced drink. She claims he
must have gotten somewhere else. He had pain pills he used,
(02:47):
he had THC gummies he used, So she's claiming maybe
he did it to himself or took it himself, but
the prosecution doesn't believe that's the case, saying she poisoned him.
And then I guess robes the other part after that,
and the reason they call the grief author murder trial.
I guess some of those details are the ones that
are really often make headlines and have people interested in
this story.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
That's right, because she actually published wrote and published a
book about helping children get through the grief of losing
a parent, and she had actually been on local television stations,
local radio promoting her book, and then within weeks of
that book promotion, she's arrested for murdering the.
Speaker 3 (03:31):
Father of her children.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
Yeah, I can't make this stuff up. You cannot, yeah,
make it app So this is where we are. She's
facing and wild as it is roads you should mention, yes,
she's facing a murder charge, but also an attempted murder
charge because they say she failed the first time. She
tried to get it.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Right with that sandwich that she tried to give or
she did give him and he ate but apparently he
was able to survive it by he just was texting
her saying hey, and we've seen the text admitted into
court where he's telling her, I feel terrible. I might
have to go to the hospital. He ended up giving
himself an EpiPen and taking some benadryl and sleeping it
off and surviving it. So yeah, according to prosecutors, two
(04:11):
weeks later, she tried again and was successful.
Speaker 1 (04:14):
It's a weird thing to think rogues and it's not
a comedian would make a joke about it. What would
she try next if the drink didn't work? What is
the next thing she's going to serve him? What other
dish is there? What other right? It seemed like she
was determined to kill. Excuse me, she's accused. She is innocent.
To approven guilty, but based on the prosecution storyline, this
(04:37):
moment was determined to kill this guy.
Speaker 3 (04:39):
Yes, and it's really you know, you look at her,
she looks.
Speaker 2 (04:42):
Like this girl next door, your next door neighbor, mom
of three, real estate agent. It's just she doesn't fit
the type of someone who you would think would be
capable of something like this. And then to actually yesterday
was so fascinating hearing from her then boyfriend and to
see the text. She didn't give him one indication that
(05:02):
she was headed in this direction. They were talking about
her getting a divorce, her needing time because she didn't
want to break up her family, and she absolutely kept
her boyfriend her lover, in the dark in terms of
her plans. If she in fact did murder Eric Richards,
she certainly didn't let him know.
Speaker 3 (05:22):
That's where she was headed.
Speaker 1 (05:23):
But there were other things the prosecution is trying to
piece together that seemed to allude to certain dates. We'll
get into that into a second. But Romes I didn't know,
but he explained on the stand how they met in
the first place, and it was all because of a
help wanted add.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
Yes, so they met in South Carolina.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
He answered the help wanted ad because she was flipping
homes down there. So we started working with her, and
I believe he ended up. He said that it was
purely platonic for the first couple of years. I think
he said they met even in twenty sixteen, twenty seventeen,
so quite a while ago. But he ultimately moved to
Utah in twenty twenty to work with her. But he
(06:00):
said before he moved to Utah, things turned romantic.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
And I was, this is odd. He starts working with
her robes, but he didn't. He wasn't necessarily an employee.
It was interesting to hear the arrangement they had. I
guess once they started dating.
Speaker 2 (06:16):
Yeah, so he had his He talked about he had
his dog with him and he would live in the
house that they were flipping, and so kind of basically
he was he was working for shelter and food and
a car.
Speaker 3 (06:29):
He said.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
She bought him a vehicle, two vehicles actually, so she
said she would give him cash here and there. But
it wasn't as if he was on the payroll. He
wasn't paying taxes. It wasn't as if he was a
formal or yeah, a formal employee. It was like kind
of her paying him on the side and letting him
live in these homes.
Speaker 1 (06:49):
And that's a part of understanding where his head was
and what, or at least how he felt about her.
He said it on the stand. I liked her, so
I worked for free, he said. And as this thing built.
If you said it once, rogue, you said it fifty times.
While he was testifying, Oh, I feel bad for this
guy because it did up there. He seemed like a
(07:11):
love sick puppy.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
He did. Look, this is a look. He is a guy.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
He has a formidable appearance. He was in a rock
war veteran, a good looking guy, kind of like that
blue collar almost as if, I hate to say this,
but like, oh, almost a suburban bored, suburban wife's fantasy.
You go and you meet this kind of rugged, handsome
war vet who has his dog. He's good with his hands,
(07:39):
he can build things, he can fix things.
Speaker 3 (07:41):
And so let me a watch.
Speaker 2 (07:44):
But doesn't that sound like the beginning of a romance novel.
I'm not sure that you are familiar with them, but
I can tell you that this is actually I was
thinking this as I was watching. It was almost as
if it was It was like a stereotypical affair in
a way, like a board housewife looking for some hot,
blue collar guy who's gonna love her and not talk
(08:06):
too much, not want to go too deep about anything philosophical,
just like.
Speaker 3 (08:10):
Fine or sex.
Speaker 1 (08:11):
Never would have thought that, Yeah, that's.
Speaker 3 (08:12):
What it looked like to me.
Speaker 2 (08:14):
And it looks like he fell hard for her, and
he was still so emotional. She was stonefaced by the
way because they would cut to her, and he even
kind of he looked at her at one point and said,
this is the first time I've seen her since twenty
twenty three and since they broke up, and they broke
up several months before she was arrested. But I felt
so bad for him. And look, I think when you're
(08:36):
hearing the story as a juror, you're feeling terrible for
Eric Richins if you believe that she actually committed this crime,
and it almost honestly, having him on the stand, looked
like this is a woman who basically manipulated two men
who were both wanting to be with her.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
Yes, that if nothing else, And a lot of the
messages we read and some of the back and forth
is stuff to be expect, and folks already knew they
were in a relationship. I don't know how impactful some
of that is, but ro I told her from an
emotional standpoint, seeing that guy, mm hmm, I was upset
with her.
Speaker 3 (09:13):
He was so genuine.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Because so much of the messages and so much of
what we did see was I don't want to say,
leading him on, But certainly what I even found a
lot of it wasn't she apologetic the way she couldn't
spend so much time with him? She was?
Speaker 2 (09:26):
She kept saying, I'm so sorry. You deserve more than this.
At one point it looked as though and the defense
really tried to hone in on this. You know, wasn't
she breaking up with you? Weren't you before Eric Richards died?
But I think she was just basically acknowledging that he
was only getting, you know, just a few drips and
drops from her. She wasn't able to give him the
(09:46):
time he deserved. But he's told her I'm in love
with you. And then she said, if I weren't married,
would you marry me tomorrow? And he said, of course
I would.
Speaker 1 (09:57):
Well, she goes on and reciprocates, at one time, I'm
in love with a man that's not my husband. She
says that to him and the guy on the stand,
I mean, he kind of admitted maybe I go head
over heels more than most. But they asked him directly,
do you believe that she loved you too? And he
said yeah, genuinely, like yes, I know when.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
He said this, big gruff guy says, I have a
tendency for going head over heels, maybe more than most.
Speaker 3 (10:21):
The whole there was just something so heartfelt about that. Yeah,
I just I felt for him.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
But I thought one of the worst texts that they
were able to put up there for jurors to hear
was where Corey Richins talked about wanting to just be
with him.
Speaker 3 (10:38):
She said, if he meeting Eric, her husband, if.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
He could just go away and you could just be here,
life would be so perfect.
Speaker 1 (10:47):
I get the refusal on trial for cheating, that would
be awful. Does that suggest murder? We have seen robes,
We've covered enough trials in the past six months that
we have seen some Google surgers and text messages much
more damning than some of these we saw. But they
established whatever they wanted to, But the thing didn't make
a difference to you, at least from a case from
(11:09):
an evidence standpoint, is it circumstantial the messages surrounding when
they were supposed to meet for brunch and have mimosas.
This timing of that was strange.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
Okay, I'm thinking that she Look, this is a woman
who was if she is guilty, she was manipulating everyone
because she didn't let her lover in on her plans.
She made him think about a year from now, maybe
I could get divorced. So she wasn't saying anything that
would insinuate that she was planning. What prosecutors say, she
(11:41):
was very actively planning. So if she was planning that
would it also make sense that she was planning to
have brunch plans with her lover the day Eric died
that morning to celebrate a big real estate deal that
was about to go through that day as well. So
why would she If she did ill her husband and
plan this all out, why would she choose to do
(12:02):
it the morning and the morning hours or the night
before this big day? She had set up a big
celebratory day where she was closing on this house she
had been working on closing for many many months, and
going to celebrate with her lover.
Speaker 3 (12:16):
Could she have thought that this would be.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
Something that police would look at, investigators will and say, oh,
there's no way she would do that. Look at what
this big day was that she had planned. Why would
she have done that. That wouldn't make any sense. She
knew that it was going to come out, probably that
she was involved.
Speaker 1 (12:33):
In an affair, So it doesn't make sense for her
to have planned if she planned to have that brunch,
that would lend itself to suggesting not guilty. Is that
what we're saying.
Speaker 3 (12:45):
Yeah, so maybe she planned it so it would look
like it.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
So if it there, then it's you're saying, she's probably
guilty because this is now you're talking about a lot
of manipulation and planning and surrounding this death, even looking
to manipulate the police. That that suggests an extensive amount
of preparation.
Speaker 2 (13:03):
Yeah, I mean she had to think maybe, because look,
she her Google searches. I'm piecing this together. Her Google
searches were ken police, you know, look at your phone
and look at your messages. So she was probably thinking,
they are almost certainly going to find out that I
was having an affair and.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
Then me give us some break, crumps, Yes, give them break. Crumps.
It was the last thing here on him, just wrote.
Seeing him yesterday was at times a little devastating. We
mentioned that the he got upset, he was crying several times.
They at times when they were just showing on the
screen at least we were seeing just the text messages
(13:40):
like a close up reading. Whoever's controlling the cameras did
a cutaway to show him with his head down.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
It was devastating.
Speaker 1 (13:48):
He stopped reading them and that's I'm sure he hasn't
read that stuff in years. And to go back and
put himself in that position to where he was, he
seemed like he was head over heels for this woman.
Speaker 3 (13:58):
Oh, that was devastating. But also of note.
Speaker 2 (14:02):
She asked him, and he said, we both went whoa.
Towards the end, he said, she asked him if he'd
ever killed anybody and how did it make him feel?
Speaker 1 (14:12):
And he had been in a rock that so, he said,
looking back now, that might be a little weird. At
the time, he didn't think anything of it, but he
has the hindsight now is at the end of the
world again. It's all circumstantial, right, It's all circumstance.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
It all looks bad It's another piece in the puzzle,
and it helps durers get a fuller picture when they're
making their decisions. So I thought this was actually fascinating.
Also asking him about illicit drug use, she was asking
him if he ever did anything more than marijuana. All
of that now seems interesting given how prosecutors say she
killed her husband.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
Interesting. No smoking gun quite just yet. But this wasn't
the only emotion and also not the only drama in
the courtroom yesterday. There was outside of the presence of
the jury a pretty interesting back and forth between the
prosecution lawyers and the defense lawyers, including a flat out
(15:07):
accusation of one side misbehaving when it comes to the jury.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
Stay here, Welcome back, everyone to this episode of Amy
and TJ, where we have been glued to the coverage
and watching the trial of Corey Richins. She is the
thirty five year old mom of three who was accused
(15:36):
of poisoning, first attempting to poison her husband and then
successfully poisoning her husband with fentanyl, and then writing a
book helping her children deal with the grief of losing
their father so that she could help children everywhere who
have lost a loved one. She was arrested a few
weeks after that book was published, and now she is
(15:57):
on trial for Eric Richards's murder. Saw her lover on
the stand yesterday. But as you said before the break,
this was not the only drama in the courtroom we
saw yesterday.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
I didn't see this coming. We're used to at the
end of a try. Actually, it's usually the end of
the prosecution making their case the defense. It's customary they
get up and make a motion for a dismissal. We
move for mistrial. Right, It's never granted, never almost.
Speaker 3 (16:28):
I've never seen it.
Speaker 1 (16:29):
Not a one oh right. That's a pretty high bar.
So the prosecution is still putting on its case. But yesterday,
outside of the presence of the jury, this threw me.
They always have some back and forth, they need to
work out an issue, and these lawyers have more issues,
it seems to work out than most. But there was
an issue that the defense said they received a text
(16:49):
message which said that Carmen Lawber, the housekeeper who got
the drugs for Corey Richards, Carmen Lawber, had had a
violation in drug court. Why is that a big deal,
Because the defense says, we didn't know about it. Ahead
of time, which could have changed how we prosecuted our case.
(17:13):
The prosecution had the burden to tell us. They didn't
and Roe, she explained it in about sixty seconds and
I didn't know where it was going. Then she all
of a sudden, we immediately moved for a mistrial. What yeah,
because ro, this is a big deal. If you withhold evidence.
Speaker 2 (17:30):
Yes, if the prosecution withheld the fact that carbon Lauber
violated drug court, yeah, that would be that would change
perhaps how they cross examined her, what they held her
accountable for. It would call into question her credibility even further,
which they already tried to erode. But the prosecutor's response was, yeah,
(17:52):
I don't know what you're talking about, wasn't us Yeah, I.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
Don't know what text she's talking about. You all have had.
And then they went through, this information has been out there,
it's been in Then they said, we gave it to
you several days ago. Was part of this. And so
the judge in that moment said, look, you're gonna have
to put this in writing. He said, I'm not going
to shoot from the hip, is what he said. So
I'm not going to rule right here, right now, on
a mistrial something like this. So they waiting on him,
(18:17):
so it might be very interesting when they start today.
Speaker 3 (18:19):
Correct.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
So the trial continued as planned with him considering this,
and yes, we'll hear on what he rules on later.
He did, though, make a ruling on the other claim
that the defense made. The defense was claiming that the
prosecution was making faces at the jury to try and
(18:40):
sway them in their direction.
Speaker 1 (18:44):
I didn't hear. I don't know how you make a
face to sway, but they said during cross examination, when
the defenses up there cross examining, they're getting reports that
the prosecution at times just making faces in reaction to
whatever is going on with the defense at times. How
do they know this? Television?
Speaker 2 (19:03):
They said, people who are watching TV somehow let them
know that they have seen the prosecution. So yes, like
perhaps just I'm guessing when they're cross examining and say
the defense attorney says something crazy, they're looking at the
jury like, uh huh, really right, Like that's what I'm
assuming they're talking about.
Speaker 1 (19:24):
I don't know, A weink, a nod of rolling of
the eyes, I don't know. I loved that the judge
didn't necessarily entertain this much.
Speaker 2 (19:34):
Yeah, he shot it down, but he's gonna need he
hasn't seen anything.
Speaker 3 (19:37):
He's like, I'm looking at the prosecution.
Speaker 1 (19:39):
And his point was I have a better view than
even the cameras, and I haven't seen a damn thing,
and so yeah, you got to give me more than that.
And he was about to let it go. They have
now agreed to go back and get time stamps and
going to bring into the judge of the faces roads.
I can't wait for the starter quars.
Speaker 2 (19:55):
I hope they have like a time stamp and then
like a freeze frame, like a a snapshot of whatever
these faces are they claim. Look, I wonder, though, I
wonder if you, just as a human being react, I
don't have a poker face. I do not, So when
someone says something that sounds fishy or a bunch of
bs or something seems ridiculous, you're probably gonna see it
(20:17):
on my face. Now, did they turn their faces to
the jury and do that? Are you not allowed to
have a human reaction to something if you hear it
and you smell bs.
Speaker 1 (20:27):
Me, Obviously you're not allowed to interact with the jury
in any way. Fine, but are you not allowed to
so that's the question. Rose. Can an attorney roll his
or her eyes just looking? Are you not supposed to
react in any way, shape or form emotionally in the courtroom.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
I've seen Corey Richins, and I think that's just a
human reaction when you hear something that you disagree with
her or you don't think it's right. She's raised her
eyebrows and tilted her head and splinted her eyes and
been like wait what and then whisper to her attorney,
and the jury can.
Speaker 3 (20:56):
See all of that, So I don't know.
Speaker 2 (20:58):
I guess the difference would be turning your head to
the dree like right right, you see.
Speaker 3 (21:03):
Like that would be the distinction.
Speaker 2 (21:05):
So they'd have to actually show because I do think
it's just an understandable thing to have a reaction to
something that you don't agree with.
Speaker 1 (21:12):
They better come with receipts today. But folks, this trial,
what was the timing on this when they said how
many was this?
Speaker 2 (21:18):
You know? I feel like all trials they always say
four to five weeks, and I feel like that is
about what they've said this one will go as well.
So we're coming at the end of two weeks and
for the I don't know how much more the prosecution
still has. In terms of witnesses. It's always a little
bit of an unknown entity because sometimes they make decisions.
In fact, they had a surprise witness yesterday, so that
was why the court was delayed for an hour. So
(21:39):
we shall see. But definitely still many many days ahead
of this trial. The defense still has to put up
and we assume it will put up.
Speaker 3 (21:46):
It's defense.
Speaker 2 (21:47):
They don't have to, but it looks like they're going
to in terms of what we heard from opening arguments.
Speaker 3 (21:51):
We will, of.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
Course stay on top of this trial as always. Thank
you for listening to us everyone. I'm Amy Roboch alongside TJ.
Speaker 3 (21:59):
Holmes. We will talk tears n
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Clifford Show
The Clifford Show with Clifford Taylor IV blends humor, culture, and behind-the-scenes sports talk with real conversations featuring athletes, creators, and personalities—spotlighting the grind, the growth, and the opportunities shaping the next generation of sports and culture.