Legally Brunette: Kouri Richins

Kouri Richins has been accused of poisoning her husband, then posing as a “grieving widow” by writing a children’s book about grief. 

Though Kouri has yet to go to trial, evidence continues to build. From allegedly buying fentanyl from their housekeeper to recording her murder plans in a notebook, she seems to be digging her own grave…

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
Hi, guys, Welcome to a new episode of Legally Brunette.
I will be your host Emily Simpson with Shane with
Shane Simpson. First of all, on today's episode, we just
wanted to do a little update on Karen Reid. There's
some activity going on in that case, so we want
to just discuss that briefly. Then after we talk about
Karen Reid for a little bit, we are going to

(00:21):
go into a brand new case. It is the Corey
Richan's case, which I've taken a deep dive into over
the past few days. So I'm pretty excited about discussing
this with you all. If you haven't heard of it yet,
it's it's a young mom out in Utah with kids
who is allegedly poisoned her husband so is allegedly a murderer.

(00:45):
So we are going to take a deep dive into
that case. But first let's do some updates in Karen Reid. So,
Karen Reid has a civil lawsuit against several witnesses from
her murder trial that has now been transferred to federal court.
This is according to court records. She originally filed the
case in state court, targeting members of the Massachusetts State
Police investigation, as well as the people present in the

(01:08):
home where John O'Keeffe was discovered outside back in January
of twenty twenty two. Also, if you have not listened
to our podcast on the Karen Reid, we did a
couple episodes on Karen Reid.

Speaker 2 (01:19):
Yeah, but maybe we sul still a little quick reminder.
She was accused of murdering her fiance with a car.
She was on trial with the hung jury. Then there
was a second trial.

Speaker 1 (01:31):
And she was acquitted.

Speaker 2 (01:32):
She was acquitted except she got a duy.

Speaker 1 (01:34):
She did she was convicted of the lesser charge of dui.
But it all this case, if you don't know Karen Reid,
it all revolved around the defense alleged that there was
a conspiracy and that John O'Keeffe was actually murdered within
the home of other Boston police officers, and then his
body was put into the yard. And then this.

Speaker 2 (01:53):
Case was so and prosecutor was alleging that she had
run him over before while dropping.

Speaker 1 (01:58):
They had a night of drinking.

Speaker 2 (02:00):
House was not searched. There was issues surrounding every piece
of evidence exactly.

Speaker 1 (02:05):
It was really fascinating to discuss. That's one of my favorites,
just because every piece of evidence didn't lead to any answers.
It really just led to more questions, which when you're
analyzing it, it's fun to go down that route. So anyway,
if you haven't listened to our care and read episodes,
I would suggest doing that. So, now that she's been acquitted,
she's going after the people that were witnesses against her

(02:27):
and members of the Massachusetts State Police Department.

Speaker 2 (02:31):
In her complaint really noteworthy, not the judge or the prosecutor. No, yes,
I just want to make that clear.

Speaker 1 (02:38):
In her complaint read alleges civil rights violations, malicious prosecution,
and a coordinated effort to conceal what she believes happened
inside the house during a party. The individuals she names
in her lawsuit include Brian and Nicole Albert. If you remember,
Brian and Nicole are the ones that were the homeowners
that evening, Jennifer and Matthew McCabe. Jennifer is also was

(02:59):
the friend that also went to search for him in
the morning in the car and they found him in
the in the in the front yard. And Brian Higgins,
And if you remember, Brian Higgins is the ATF agent
who was also there that night, and there was a
lot of you know, butt dialing going on in the
middle of the night between all of these people.

Speaker 2 (03:19):
And searching for how long does it take a body
to die in the snow or whatever she searched right,
there were a.

Speaker 1 (03:24):
Lot of things, So the court requested that the matter
be Actually, the defendants have requested that the matter be
moved to federal court because one of her claims involves
a federal civil rights claim which involves the Fourth Amendment,
and so we know a fourth Amenute Amendment issue is
a federal issue, So they've been asked that this case
be moved to federal court. The defendants argued they intend

(03:45):
to show that Reid's lawsuit is retaliatory misuse of the
legal system aimed at shifting blame for Oket's death from
her back to them. Reid has previously taken related issues
through the federal appeals process up to the Supreme Court,
which declined to hear her challenge. That was after her
original mistrial. She then went all the way up to

(04:09):
the Supreme Court saying that remember that jury had said
after the fact that they had found her and to
send on some of the other charges, but it wasn't
a formal They didn't make a formal decision. They said
it like I think in interviews or something after So
she actually challenged it and said that they'd really found
her not guilty, not guilty, so she shouldn't be tried again.
But her retrial did proceed afterward, resulting in acquittals on

(04:32):
the major charges and a conviction only on the a
lesser impaired driving count. You know my also also, I
was thinking when I was reading all this, do you
think at any point she needs to just let it go?

Speaker 2 (04:44):
Well? No, if financially she's no, no, I would be.
I would be doing just as she is. Really, Yes,
if people accused you of a murder and you didn't
have nothing to do with it, and you had to
go through two trials, spend time in Jai, however long
it was, I don't remember, and have the threat of
going to prison and all this while you're trying to

(05:07):
supposedly mourn the loss of her fiance. I don't know
if she is mourning or not, because then she kicked
him out of the car or whatever.

Speaker 1 (05:11):
Well, they got a fight that night. I mean they
had both been drinking and.

Speaker 2 (05:15):
So I mean, and then you can't move on from
the slightest thing, And you can't move on if I like,
don't use the if I don't put the cup in
the dishwasher, and you want her to move on from
murder charges.

Speaker 1 (05:28):
Well, I'm just saying, at the end of the day,
it just draws more attention back onto herself and onto
the case. And she's been acquitted to me that question, No,
I'm not talking about the cup and the dishwasher. I'm
just talking about at the end of the day she's
been acquitted. Maybe I would just feel a sense of
relief to just like pick up and move on and
just go on with life instead of having to be

(05:49):
constantly dealing with legal battle after legal battle with attorneys.

Speaker 2 (05:53):
Yeah, but now she's on the offense.

Speaker 1 (05:55):
Well, I know she's on the offense, but sometimes when
you're on the offense, it doesn't work out in your favor.

Speaker 2 (05:59):
I'm just saying, maybe i'd love for you to I'm
going to play this podcast for you next time you
complained about something and you won't move on all right.

Speaker 1 (06:07):
There's also an interesting thing I saw in the Karen
Reid case. The jury form and his name is Charlie Deloache.
He did a talk at a I believe it was
a law school or he was in front of some students,
and he said that even though there were thirty one
days of testimony, he believed that there was a conspiracy
right from the very first witness. And he said the

(06:28):
biggest piece of evidence for him, and I agree with this.
When he said that, I was like, yes, I agree.
He said, the biggest piece of evidence that made him
believe that there was a conspiracy and there was a
reasonable doubt was that the investigators never entered Albert's home
right from the huge That is huge, right, I mean
the whole If they found like a.

Speaker 2 (06:47):
Crack pipe on our lawn, they'd be searching our house exactly.
There was a dead body.

Speaker 1 (06:52):
Right, and no one went inside the house to look
for fingerprints, and people.

Speaker 2 (06:57):
Went outside the house to wipe the fingerprints down, right
whatever else. But wasn't there a dog? They got rid
of the canine, Chloe, like a German shepherd police dog.

Speaker 1 (07:07):
Yeah, Chloe was rehomed. So that was And then he
said he was surprised, I believe he said he was
surprised that they even retried her because from him there
was reasonable doubt right from the first witness. Also, he
said that all the jurors wanted to look at one
critical piece of evidence. Do you know what that was?

Speaker 2 (07:27):
I want to look at one critical piece of evidence, right,
I don't know. Was it like a device like her
search history? No tail light?

Speaker 1 (07:34):
It was the tail light, Yeah, it was the tail light.

Speaker 2 (07:37):
Or smashed by hammer and placed in the front.

Speaker 1 (07:39):
Lee allegedly that tail light. But he said, according to
the jurors that all looked to them like it was
tampered with, So.

Speaker 2 (07:47):
Fabricated is more likely.

Speaker 1 (07:49):
Also, there is a behind the scenes battle over Karen
Reid's phone that continues to go on. A legal fight
over two iPhones taken from Karen Reid by Massachusetts State
Police nearly two years ago has escalated since in October
court hearing. This is according to new filings reviewed by
Boston twenty five News. The dispute centers on Special Prosecutor

(08:11):
Robert Cosgrove's effort to examine the device the devices for
possible evidence that Reid coordinated with blogger Aiden Kearney, who's
known as turtle Boy. We didn't really talk about turtle
Boy a lot, but he was very invested in the
Karen Reid case and he did podcast like daily on
her Was it turtle Boy? Yes, turtle Boy, it's what
he calls himself. Read's newest defense lawyer, Benjamin P. Orbellis

(08:36):
told investigative reporter Ted Daniel in a zoom interview that
he believes his search is driven by pressure on the
DA's office to get her for something after the Myrtle
murder acquittal. They also have found so much more things
on John Proctor's phone that that's affecting I believe what
was it, nineteen cases, So we'll see what happens as

(08:57):
to I don't know how you analyze that, but do
you analyze the weight of these of these text messages
and inappropriate things that he's been saying on his phone
with these cases? Well, what goes from what happens after that?
Do they do they all get a retrial?

Speaker 2 (09:13):
Like then you have to you have to look and
see if it if it cause like if did that
have an impact significantly on the outcome? Right?

Speaker 1 (09:23):
But then are you going to have to go to
trial on each of those nineteen cases to determine whether
what is on his phone impacted the case.

Speaker 2 (09:31):
Of the way that they are some type of hearing.
Some type of hearing may not be a full trial,
but I don't know the procedures. I don't know, but
definitely you present it before a judge to say was
this materially significant? Right?

Speaker 1 (09:43):
And did it impact the outcome?

Speaker 2 (09:45):
Yeah? You know. I think it's fair to say though
that this is a civil case. So she was previously
was a criminal case, right, So it's a state prosecuting
charging her with a crime. Now it's civilly, it's her
going after the state or I don't know, she hasn't No,
it's them individually.

Speaker 1 (10:03):
She's going after it.

Speaker 2 (10:04):
I think I read that she has to make a
claim of some sort with the police department and when
they deny it, then she can add them as a party.
But she has to kind of exhaust those resources first. Yeah,
but this is a civil case. Criminally, it's beyond a
reasonable doubt civilly, she just has to tip the scale
in her favor. So yeah, propond's the evidence, So it's
fifty one, forty nine percent kind of thing. Lady adjustice, right,
just tipping the scale, that's all she has to do.

(10:27):
So I don't know if she's gonna succeed in that.

Speaker 1 (10:29):
But well, she doesn't have Alan Jackson, but I'm sure
she'll be okay.

Speaker 2 (10:35):
All she has to do is tip the scale.

Speaker 1 (10:45):
All right, let's go into the Corey Richand's case. If
you have not heard of this case and it has
not been on your radar, I feel like it will
be if you listen to this, because it's a really interesting,
fascinating true crime case.

Speaker 2 (10:57):
And it's unfolding as we speak.

Speaker 1 (10:59):
It is folding as we speak. It's a recent case.
She is currently incarcerated a waiting trial, and she is
slated to go to trial in February of twenty twenty six.
So it's actually coming up because I just realized February
of twenty twenty six is just a couple months away.
So all right, let's just do a brief overview of
the Corey Richards case.

Speaker 2 (11:21):
So.

Speaker 1 (11:21):
Corey Richins is a Utah mother accused of killing her
husband Eric Richins in March of twenty twenty two by
giving him a moscow mule, which was allegedly laced with
a massive dose of illicit fentanyl. Investigators claim she had
been secretly taking out large life insurance policies on him,
moving money from his accounts and committing various financial and

(11:45):
mortgage fraud schemes in the years leading up to his death.
After Eric died, she published a children's book about grief,
portraying herself as a mourning widow, which drew national attention.
Once she was charged in his murder, prosecutors claim her
actions were motivated by financial desperation, while Corey denies all allegations,

(12:08):
and she has currently incarcerated a waiting trial. Now, I
do know that she has attempted bail multiple times and
she's been consistently denied, so she is currently in prison.
So this case is interesting because first of all, she
was married to Eric. They had three young boys together,
and she was saying her boys were having trouble with

(12:30):
the death of their fathers, so that she wrote a
book on grief to help her children. And then I
know she did some media, some local media in Utah surrounding,
you know, doing interviews talking about her book. It was
self published, and I was wondering if you could still
find it on Amazon. I was going to look it
up and see if you could still buy it. But
the reviews, well, no, And is she allowed to financially

(12:51):
profit at this time. I mean she hasn't been convicted
of a murder yet, so.

Speaker 2 (12:55):
Probably at this time. I don't know, that's the least
of the problems.

Speaker 1 (12:58):
Yeah, so anyway, I just want to take a little backtrack.
So she and Eric were married back in twenty thirteen.
Eric was very successful. I read that he was worth
around five million dollars when they were married. He had
a very successful stone masonry business. I think it was
a family business. So on the day they were married,
his mother presented Corey with a prenuptial agreement that she

(13:20):
signed on the day of their wedding. I believe it
was written by Corey's mother. I don't think it was
drafted by an attorney.

Speaker 2 (13:27):
I'd love to read the mother in law's prenups. Well.

Speaker 1 (13:30):
I did read some excerpts of it, and I think
where they went wrong because.

Speaker 2 (13:34):
It's just like and you will never if you ever
speak to my son.

Speaker 1 (13:40):
Okay, what would your mom if your mother wrote a prenup?

Speaker 2 (13:43):
It would be like, well, you know what. To be fair,
my mom was very is very opposed to prenups. Like
if I present, I said I wanted to get a prenup,
I'm going to marry Emily. Yeah, she honestly would be like, well,
then you probably shouldn't be getting married.

Speaker 1 (13:55):
Well, just to let everyone know, I did not sign
a prenup when I married Shane Simpson. So anyway, the
pre nup is interesting because I read a lawyer, like
an estate planning a lawyer, and he was he was
analyzing it, and basically the prenups said she gets nothing
in the event of a divorce, but there wasn't. I
believe that it was lacking language.

Speaker 2 (14:16):
But you can kill him about death.

Speaker 1 (14:18):
And also it was saying where people made a critical
error was that there was nothing that mentioned if you
are in the process of getting a divorce and then
that party dies. So yeah, so anyway, there's that's.

Speaker 2 (14:33):
Why she shouldn't have written it. She should have had
an attorney rite it.

Speaker 1 (14:35):
Right, So there's less than number one. If you can
take away, don't have your mother, don't have your mother,
your contracts, your prenuptial agreement. If you really feel as
if you need one, go to an attorney and have
an attorney draft it all right. According to prosecutors back
in this timeline twenty fifteen to twenty seventeen, Corey took
out multiple life insurance policies on Eric without his explicit knowledge,

(14:57):
totally nearly two million dollars and potential benefits. You know,
she's also she's being charged with a lot of financial
crimes and insurance fraud as well as murder. So there's
a lot of different charges against her.

Speaker 2 (15:11):
Why is it that? I mean, if you pull out
life insurance policies with me and yourself as a beneficiary
and I don't have to be there to sign it,
shouldn't they like call me?

Speaker 1 (15:23):
Well?

Speaker 2 (15:23):
I was going to be like, hey, your wife just
took out three insurance policies on you.

Speaker 1 (15:27):
Right, And like, isn't there someone in the insurance department.

Speaker 2 (15:32):
That works flag anyone? Right?

Speaker 1 (15:34):
Like, isn't there like a red flag department where people
feel like maybe they should let someone?

Speaker 2 (15:38):
I mean, if your credit cards used in some other state,
the bank calls you, like, is this your fifty dollars charge? Right?
Why wouldn't a life insurance policy like, you know, carry
or call you and say.

Speaker 1 (15:48):
Hey, I don't know you know what. That's a good point.
But also my other question is can you take a
life insurance policy out on someone without their knowledge?

Speaker 2 (15:58):
Yeah? But I think you have to have some fine
dependency on them.

Speaker 1 (16:01):
All right. So then by twenty twenty, Eric reportedly discovered
secret financial activity. I guess he found a home equity
line of credit in his name, which means that she
would have had to have forged his name, substantial withdrawals
from his bank and credit accounts, and more than one
hundred and thirty thousand dollars taken from his business.

Speaker 2 (16:20):
What was she? So?

Speaker 1 (16:22):
She was a real estate agent, but then she went
into this business that was her own separate business of
flipping houses. But I don't think she was as successful
as she was tying.

Speaker 2 (16:31):
Her She probably thought like, Okay, my husband's in the
business and family maybe and we have money, I'll just
buy a home. I'll paint it and then flip it right,
and watching a couple of TV shows and not she
could do it right.

Speaker 1 (16:41):
She watched HGTV and then she thought she was a
home flipper, which I feel like a lot of people
probably do. I might have been one of those people
at one time when I was like, we should just
flip homes.

Speaker 2 (16:51):
It seems really easy. You just make it cute, you
sell it. I was happy he.

Speaker 1 (16:56):
Put pretty ceramic in the kitchen it's so easy that.

Speaker 2 (16:59):
Yeah, so anyone to decorate our own home, I don't.

Speaker 1 (17:02):
I don't want to do anything anyway. I think for
outward appearances, they came off very successful. They were a
young couple, They were attractive.

Speaker 2 (17:11):
She has always it sounds like they were.

Speaker 1 (17:13):
They have this home. She has this home flipping business,
he has this stone masonry business. They go on vacations,
They live in a big house. So I don't think
that anyone was knowledgeable that there were financial issustes.

Speaker 2 (17:24):
You getting at she was withdrawing all this money and
using all this money for her home flipping failures.

Speaker 1 (17:31):
Yes, and so I do know that so and.

Speaker 2 (17:38):
Future endeavors with publishing a book, right.

Speaker 1 (17:40):
She needed money to publish her book on grief. In
October of twenty twenty, after finding these discoveries, Eric met
with a divorce attorney and an estate planner, signaling serious
material and financial conflict. Then Corey allegedly submitted a new
life insurance application on Eric, naming herself as beneficiary. The
paul went into effect on February fourth of twenty twenty two.

(18:04):
So Eric knew about all of this?

Speaker 2 (18:06):
Why did he file for divorce? Do we know he
didn't file for divorce.

Speaker 1 (18:08):
He just met with a door. I also think that
there was infidelity. I believe she was having some type
of affair too, so there was infidelity. There was financial problems.
She was stealing money, so he should.

Speaker 2 (18:19):
Have any redeeming qualities as a wife.

Speaker 1 (18:20):
Doesn't seem like it. But I do know that he
changed his finances based upon this without telling her. And
he did name his sister as like trustee or says trustee.
I believe he had like a living trust or a
living will something I don't know, but he took her
off Corey and named his sister. And she was not

(18:43):
aware of any of this, so he knew that she
was doing these things.

Speaker 2 (18:48):
And the prebaturrey going to get in. Didn't he text
or make note that he thinks his wife is poisoning him?

Speaker 1 (18:54):
Yes, but I was going to wait until I got
to the point where she spoiler. Yes. So then on
February fourteenth, we're gonna go to Valentine's Day of twenty
twenty two, prosecutors claimed Corey made an attempt on Eric's
life by giving him a sandwich lace with some toxin
which we believe was fentanyl. Eric reportedly broke out in
hives and used an EpiPen and anahistamines. This incident sparked

(19:16):
his suspension, suspicion that she was trying to poison him.

Speaker 2 (19:20):
Well, he had an EpiPen, so did he have an
allergy that was known?

Speaker 1 (19:24):
I don't know if it was his or if it
was the kids. But she didn't give him first.

Speaker 2 (19:29):
Album is a sandwich for Valentine's Day? Seriously, right, she
didn't want him to give him the last meal. No,
here's a peanut butter sandwich.

Speaker 1 (19:37):
Colony. Some fentanyl.

Speaker 2 (19:40):
Take a big bite fentanyl lace to sandwich.

Speaker 1 (19:44):
Yeah, so she she did learn that she did not.
That's why this is Oh, this is why, this is why.

Speaker 2 (19:50):
You say, what are you doing for dinner? I'm like, oh,
I just cook.

Speaker 1 (19:52):
I doesn't have a sandwich that I make myself, don't
touch anything, and.

Speaker 2 (19:56):
I cover my cup every time we're sitting at the
dinner table, as you should.

Speaker 1 (20:03):
All right. Then in March of twenty twenty two, this
is the evening before Eric's death, Corey allegedly made a
moscow mule cocks.

Speaker 2 (20:13):
Is that just a drink moscow mule?

Speaker 1 (20:16):
Yes, it's a cocktail. It's vodka. And I think it's
got meant you like crush the mint. And you know
those moscow mule cups, they're like the copper. I know
you know nothing about alcohol or drinking.

Speaker 2 (20:26):
This is a waste of money.

Speaker 1 (20:27):
Yeah, that's why you don't drink, because of the financial
aspect of it.

Speaker 2 (20:32):
Yeah, I can't afford it.

Speaker 1 (20:34):
Oh my gosh. So anyway, she made him, as she
called it, or they I read it was a celebratory
Moscow mule because apparently she had closed on a house
or something like that.

Speaker 2 (20:44):
She got the fyl She's like, yeah, let's have a drink. Wait,
she got enough.

Speaker 1 (20:51):
Yeah, pulled through right, she learned from the sandwich incident.
But she didn't use enough fentanyl. So on the morning
of March.

Speaker 2 (20:59):
Fourth, she should have put in his EpiPen.

Speaker 1 (21:02):
Yeah, well now I'm not I'm gonna avoid EpiPens, thank you.

Speaker 2 (21:06):
She just put it in there and then she's like, oh, babe,
you're having an hollurgy attack. Yet here's an EpiPen.

Speaker 1 (21:11):
So on the morning of March fourth, twenty twenty two,
Eric was found unresponsive in bed. Corey called nine to
one one. A later autopsy revealed he had ingested about
five times the lethal dose of fentanyl.

Speaker 2 (21:24):
She went all out or she wasn't? She was she
never again? Yeah, she was like.

Speaker 1 (21:28):
I'm done making sandwiches, so it's gonna work this time.
Now we get to March six of twenty twenty two,
which is two days after Eric's death. Prosecutors say Corey
hired a Locke smith to open his safe, which reportedly
contained over one hundred thousand dollars in cash.

Speaker 2 (21:46):
Meanwhile, she learns like the next day or two days later.

Speaker 1 (21:49):
Two days later, why was she said?

Speaker 2 (21:51):
What would her argument be to be such a hurry
to get in that safe, Like two days later your
husband dies and you're like, I need to get into
the safe. I don't know.

Speaker 1 (22:01):
I don't know if her argument is I have to
take care of three kids and now you know he's dead,
and I've got to be for a.

Speaker 2 (22:05):
Funeral, and she you know what, Well, okay, I'm just
saying that. I'm not saying that's evidence, but that's definitely
UNUSUALA do you have.

Speaker 1 (22:12):
A safe somewhere in this house? I don't know all
about Are you sure? No?

Speaker 2 (22:15):
You have everything I own?

Speaker 1 (22:17):
Okay? Good?

Speaker 2 (22:17):
Have no safs?

Speaker 1 (22:19):
Meanwhile, she learned she was not named in his will.
His sister was and allegedly Corey punched her sister in
law during a dispute over the estate, which led to
a misdemeanor assault charge that she later pleaded no contest to.
I did hear a podcast with that with the brother
talking about what happened. He said that she learned that
she wasn't you know, she wasn't in the will. He

(22:39):
had removed her from all the financial things, and she
and the sister got into some altercation, and so there
were some assault charges against her. So later in March
of twenty twenty two, Corey reportedly filed a lawsuit against
her sister in law over rights to property that had
been jointly held under a prenuptial agreement. Then in April
of twenty twenty three, this is when Corey self publishes

(23:01):
a children's book titled Quote Are You with Me, a
grief themed story about a father's presence after death. She
promoted it publicly, portraying herself as a grieving widow. Prosecutors
view that as part of a potential cover up. I mean,
of course, prosecution's gonna take a look at the book
and say that that was part of her, you know,

(23:22):
her masking that she had anything to do with his death,
as she portrays herself of this as this grieving widow
that's trying to help her three sons get through the
process of gen.

Speaker 2 (23:33):
Writing that book. How she took out life insurance policies
and tried to get into a safe.

Speaker 1 (23:37):
I don't think there's anything wrong she assaulted the sister
in law Mary either. Yeah. Then in May, on May eighth,
the twenty twenty three, actually investigators did. They searched the
home and arrested her. On March eighth of twenty twenty three,
Corey was formally arrested in charge in connection with Eric's
death and the related allegations. Now there's also when she
was arrested that day, she was held outside the home.

(23:59):
I guess they were so the home on the day
she was arrested.

Speaker 2 (24:02):
See do you search the home when there's a homicide?

Speaker 1 (24:05):
Well, right, normal, And during this search of her home
she was held. I believe she was held in a
police car with a deputy outside the home, and the
deputy recorded her in the car and this became a
piece of evidence.

Speaker 2 (24:21):
Well, I'm sure that's a standard camera in the car that.

Speaker 1 (24:24):
Comes so it's not he recorded her with his cell phone,
really yeah, because I don't know why she was talking.
She was babbling, she was I think he thought her
reaction was strange because she was crying, but there were
no tears. So for some reason he felt compelled to
just record all of it, and so I listened to

(24:45):
some of it. She also talks about how she's embarrassed
because the neighbors are going to see because she's being held,
you know, in a police car outside the house. They're
searching the house. And also this search is also interesting
because let's talk about a warrant for a second. So
they have an arrest warrant, right, they have an arrest
warrant to arrest her, and they have a warrant to
search her house. But the warrant to search her house

(25:06):
is a very limited scope, right.

Speaker 2 (25:08):
What's the warrant for searching what?

Speaker 1 (25:10):
I don't know what was in the warrant, but I'm
gonna tell you it was a limited scope, meaning that
there were certain things listed that they were looking for
within the home when they searched it.

Speaker 2 (25:19):
I'm going to guess drugs and maybe text like devices message.

Speaker 1 (25:26):
I don't know. I haven't actually looked at that.

Speaker 2 (25:28):
I'm going to guess, Yes, I get.

Speaker 1 (25:29):
It, you're guessing. However, when they searched the home on
May eighth, they found an orange notebook, and this orange
notebook has become like a critical piece of evidence that's
being disputed over because the orange notebook had writings in
it that were her journal that allegedly no one knows

(25:50):
what exactly is in it, but it looks but it seemed.
People have been speculating. But I think it has to
do with communications with her and a therapist, which would
be privileged possibly possibly, and then maybe there's some type
of journaling or confession as to her involvement. So the

(26:10):
police found the orange notebook, they read what was inside,
and based upon what they read, they took the orange notebook,
even though it wasn't explicitly stated in okay, so that.

Speaker 2 (26:20):
We know that the well was it in Plaine View.
If they have a warrant that says you can look
for drugs, right then they open a drawer and they
see a handgun or something that's contraband now that's fair game.
So I don't know. So the argument is whether this

(26:41):
notebook fell within plane view and it was it was
fair game for the cops to seize it, or whether
they shouldn't have opened a notebook at all, because if
they were looking for drugs, you're not going to open up.

Speaker 1 (26:52):
Well, I think the prosecution has conceded that it was
not It was outside the scope it warrant, and it's
a fruit of the poisonous tree issue because they issued
a second warrant to search her home based upon what
was written in the Orange notebook. So now you have
a second search based upon what was written in the.

Speaker 2 (27:13):
Orange improper search initially, right, So we don't know anything
that's in the book at all.

Speaker 1 (27:18):
Well, no, we we know that it has to do
something with her therapists and subtype of notes and communications,
and maybe there's some type of confession or her involvement,
but we don't know explicitly what it says. All we
know is it was damaging enough to be able to
get a second warrant. However, the defense is going to
argue that it should be admitted. We'll see what happens

(27:40):
with the Orange notebook, right, all right, So let's move on.
So in May of twenty twenty three. This goes from
May to August of twenty twenty four, the case moved
through preliminary hearings, with prosecutors presenting evidence including forensic data,
financial and insurance documents, and witness testimony. That all goes
to motive, right, because the motive is why did she

(28:02):
do it? So that's why you're going to bring in
all the financial records, right, You're going to portray this
woman as someone that was deeply in debt with a
failing business that was taking out life insurance policies without
his knowledge.

Speaker 2 (28:14):
She had she had reason to believe that she was
in the will.

Speaker 1 (28:17):
Right, and she would inherit, and that she would also
inherit fifty percent of his business. I believe she thought
that too, So her motive is financially driven.

Speaker 2 (28:26):
Contents of the notebook details of Eric Richand's death. In
Vesiero has found notes in the notebook that seemed to
contain details about Eric's death, including discussions about ways to
kill him and how to cover up the crime.

Speaker 1 (28:38):
Wow.

Speaker 2 (28:38):
Yeah, plans to poison Eric, purchase a fentanyl, conversations on
notes on life insurance, and there's all a whole breakdown
of that.

Speaker 1 (28:48):
Wow. So that orange notebook, I mean, prosecution is going
to want that orange.

Speaker 2 (28:52):
Why doesn't she have it in orange too? I think
it couldn't have been labeled like you know, twenty twenty
four tax lads.

Speaker 1 (28:59):
Yeah, that's what I don't understand about people that go
through all these they jump through all these hoops to
commit crimes, and then they do something stupid like write
down their exact plan within a notebook.

Speaker 2 (29:12):
No doubt the defense wants us thrown out, of course,
So absolutely all right, So let's.

Speaker 1 (29:19):
Talk about other evidence the prosecution has against Corey. First
of all, we talked about the orange notebook. There's also
the housekeeper testimony. So Carmen Lobber was the housekeeper or
she she did some work for Corey. I believe with
her homes that she was flipping. She told prosecutors that
she sold fittanyl to Corey, but she received immunity for

(29:42):
her testimony. She'd had previous drug charges.

Speaker 2 (29:44):
What's her name.

Speaker 1 (29:45):
Her name is Carmen Lauber. She's fifty one, and she
had done some housekeeping.

Speaker 2 (29:50):
Car Exchangedyl was right right.

Speaker 1 (29:55):
So allegedly Carmen was the one that sold Corey the
fentanyl and that she says she claims that she sold
fentanyl to her on two different occasions, each time around
nine hundred dollars, which, however, I assumed the second time
she sold it to her it would have been more
expensive because that's when she learned that the sandwich didn't work,
so she had to buy more fetanyl.

Speaker 2 (30:14):
But anyway, she didn't supplying demand. Now she really wants.

Speaker 1 (30:18):
It, so yeah, right, so yeah, I don't know why
shouldn't raise her prices. We talked about how she first
attempted the fentanyl on Valentine's Day with the sandwich, and
forensic evidence corroborates Carmen's statements where she talks about their
meeting points where she met her and sold her and allegedly,
what I've read is that based upon forensic evidence I'm
sure from phone and computer or whatever it is that

(30:40):
they took during the search, it corroborates the locations. However,
you know, the defense is going to argue that this
is a woman with drug charges against her who took immunity,
and so she's going to be compelled to say whatever
the prosecution wants. So that's that's going to.

Speaker 2 (30:56):
Put like she's an untrustworthy, noncredible source. You know, I
have to say that, you know, the few times that
you've prepared a meal for me, Yes, over the last
sixteen years. And if I've like fallen ill and had
a stomach ache or after I made something for you,

(31:17):
I've never once thought, oh my gosh, she's trying to
poison me. I just thought, oh, I don't feel well.

Speaker 1 (31:21):
Well, I'm glad that. I'm glad you've never felt that way,
I know.

Speaker 2 (31:25):
But for him to think that, yes, I mean, it's
not just he had hives so he thought his wife
poisoned him. He had it led up to that. There
was lots of things before that that made him think,
my wife wants to kill me.

Speaker 1 (31:38):
Well, that's not meir, Okay, it is weird. And this
is what I don't understand. He clearly knew that she
was doing financial things behind his back. There's one problem
because he took her out of the will and he
named his sister as you know, having controlling interests and everything. Yeah,
so he didn't trust her financially, right. He also knew

(31:59):
that she was having an affair. I believe there was
some infidelity fidelity going on. He also told his family
that he thought she was trying to kill him. So
I don't understand why you stay.

Speaker 2 (32:11):
In the party, Like I think I need a file
for right.

Speaker 1 (32:15):
And I mean he took he ate the sandwich, and
he still hung out with her, and he still continued
to live with her and take a cocktail from her.

Speaker 2 (32:23):
Oh well, it's like, hey, I'm going to go I
have some drinks with my wife. By the way, I
think she's trying to kill me.

Speaker 1 (32:27):
Yeah, and then she hands she hands him a cocktail
and he drinks it. I mean, make that makes sense.
I mean, this guy, I don't understand the first second.
I thought you were trying to kill me. I'm gonna
move out. I'm just letting you know, all right. So

(32:48):
we have the orange notebook. We have the drug.

Speaker 2 (32:51):
Dealer orange notebook.

Speaker 1 (32:53):
I know, right, that's the orange notebook. Now you're gonna
love the Walk of the Dog letter because this is
another piece of evidence that the prosecution against her. So
this walk that they call it Walk the Dog letter
because this is a handwritten letter that Corey wrote while
she is in prison awaiting trial, that she wrote to
her mother. It's six pages long, and the prison staff

(33:14):
I don't know who it was, but they found it
when they searched her cell, and they found it hidden
inside a book, an orange book, not an orange book,
just a regular book. And at the top and big
bold letters with the exclamation point, it says walk the dog.
So she's, you know, reminding her mom to walk the dog.
So they call it the walk the Dog Letter. But
it's so incriminating. I'm just going to read some of it.

(33:35):
So she says to her mother, and.

Speaker 2 (33:37):
We believe this to have been written while in prison.

Speaker 1 (33:40):
No, she yes, they found it in her cell.

Speaker 2 (33:42):
She didn't submit it to whoever, her mom or whatever.

Speaker 1 (33:45):
No, I'm sure she at some point was going to
mail it.

Speaker 2 (33:48):
Yeah, so she wrote it, right, So she wrote a
six page handwritten letter, hid it in a book in
her prison cell, and then prison staff found it.

Speaker 1 (33:58):
And obviously, like we were talking about this earlier, there's
no there's no privacy in a prison cell. I assume
there's no there's.

Speaker 2 (34:06):
No bathroom door, there's no fourth right right out there.

Speaker 1 (34:11):
So she says, here is what I'm thinking, But you
have to talk to Ronnie. So Ronnie is her brother.
He would probably have to testify to this, but it's
super short, not a lot to it. He will need
to tell Sky. Sky is her attorney at the time.
She has a new attorney now, but Sky at the
meeting next week upon information and belief. A year prior
to Eric's death, Ronnie was over watching football one Sunday

(34:34):
and Eric and Ronnie were chatting about Eric's Mexico trips.
Eric told Ronnie he gets paint pills and fentanyl from
Mexico from the workers at the ranch, and not to
tell me because I would get mad because I always
said he just gets high every night and and won't
help take care of the kids. There are pictures in
my phones of Eric passed out on the floor or

(34:55):
in the chair. Ronnie should have text from Eric talking
about getting high as well. Eric told Ronnie he keeps
them and an allergy pill bottle in his work truck
so I wouldn't find them. Ronnie never told me about
the conversation. Eric finally told me and asked if Carmen
could get him some. That's the housekeeper. Eric never wanted
anyone to know he had an issue, especially get caught.

(35:15):
He always wanted Corey to go down for him. When
they traveled. Eric would put his drugs in and Carrie's
bag at the airlines right before they boarded. That way,
if they were caught. Corey got in trouble, not him.
It goes on.

Speaker 2 (35:28):
So having testify to all those things, right.

Speaker 1 (35:31):
So then after this letter is found, which basically to
me is nothing more than instructions about what her brother
Ronnie needs to go to her attorney and say what
he needs to testify what he needs to say that
Eric has a drug problem, because that's her defense, right,
Her defense is that he is a drug addict and
he overdosed. Right, It's not that she poisoned him with fences.

Speaker 2 (35:52):
It wasn't that did it.

Speaker 1 (35:53):
It was. It's just that he has a drug problem
and that he goes to Mexico and he buys drugs
and he could tie every night and asses out. So
she's giving explicit instructions.

Speaker 2 (36:02):
Meanwhile her brother, but meanwhile their housekeeper apparently can get fentanyl,
but he goes to Mexico to get it. Right, Yeah,
that makes sense.

Speaker 1 (36:10):
Right, So her defense claims that this is not an
instructions to her brother and to her mom as to
how to testify it or to make this story into
her her husband being a drug addict. But it's a
fictional work. That she's writing a book and this is
just a fictional other piece of writing, even though it

(36:33):
names her brother Ronnie explicitly, and it's written to her mom,
and it says walk the dog at the top of it.

Speaker 2 (36:39):
I understand. I don't know anyway, I mean, who does
she thinks she's fooling.

Speaker 1 (36:44):
I don't know. But this is I mean, talk about incriminating.
I mean, you're literally telling your brother how to testify
he's going.

Speaker 2 (36:51):
Quit writing stuff down and leaving it everywhere. You leave
notebooks in your house, you leave them in the cell.
Quit writing this stuff down, right.

Speaker 1 (37:00):
Well, she makes reference to her attorney Sky, and we
do know that that attorney they parted way. She has
a new attorney now based upon irreconcilable differences, so that
was probably part.

Speaker 2 (37:11):
Of the divorce attorney she divorced.

Speaker 1 (37:13):
Her attorney she did. So the walk the Dog letter,
I don't know. I found it isn't.

Speaker 2 (37:18):
Just say walk the dog and then it talks about testimonies.

Speaker 1 (37:21):
It just says walk the dog really big at the top.
So they call it. They call it the walk the
Dog Letter, but take it says, but take vague notes,
so you remember, I don't know.

Speaker 2 (37:31):
I don't know either.

Speaker 1 (37:33):
I mean, it's it's very I mean, it's it's as
incriminating as you can get.

Speaker 2 (37:37):
Well, uh Oj wrote a book that was called If
I Did It. If I did it, this is what
I would kill her. But if I was going to
kill the love of my life, this is how I
would do it. I would And then outrage came out
before it was even published, and the publishing company somehow
like dropped it or.

Speaker 1 (37:55):
Whatever, so it was never Actually I don't remember, like
you find it anywhere?

Speaker 2 (37:59):
Yeah, I downloaded it.

Speaker 1 (38:00):
Did you read it?

Speaker 2 (38:01):
Yeah? I read. I like skimmed through it. It was
creepy and weird, and it was Yeah, it was if
I did It.

Speaker 1 (38:06):
Yeah, that's strange, I'm saying.

Speaker 2 (38:10):
Well, apparently the publishing company I don't know. I don't know.

Speaker 1 (38:15):
So now there's a witness named Robert Krozer. He is
the drug dealer who is high. So when you're talking
about drug dealing, apparently the housekeeper was just the distributor.
But then she had to buy the fentanyl from someone else.
So the person she bought it from was a man
named Robert Krozer. He is the drug dealer who supplied
the housekeeper. He gave a statement originally to investigators to

(38:37):
the prosecution that said he sold fentanyl to Carmen Lauber
on two different occasions. However, recently he has now come
forward and says he's changed his statements, claiming that he
did not sell her fentanyl, that he sold her oxy.
So he's claiming that when he made those original statements
when he said he did sell fentanyl to the housekeeper,

(38:58):
Carmen was what was that he was coming out of wa.

Speaker 2 (39:02):
Was detoxing, and so he has he has no memory
during a certain period of time while he was detoxing,
probably because he was on medication or I don't know
how it works.

Speaker 1 (39:13):
So now he's coming forward and his statements are very clear,
and he's saying that he did not sell fentanyl to
the housekeeper, he sold oxy, which is actually it's very
critical to this case because the case with the prosecution
against her is that she because he had a lethal
dose of fentanyl, and.

Speaker 2 (39:32):
It believe him, and you take his testimony that he
did not give fetanyl to the housekeeper, then that means
the housekeeper did not give fentanyl to the defendant, which
means that which is how the victim died. So therefore,
if you can't place the weapon in the defendant's hands.

(39:55):
It's kind of you're creating a lot.

Speaker 1 (39:57):
Of doubt, you're creating a lot of reason.

Speaker 2 (39:58):
But it sounds silly. Well here's it sounds absolutely ridiculous
to say like, I don't know, it's like a technicality.
It's like, well, it wasn't fetanyl. It was oxy that
I got and I didn't I don't know. It's just
a whole And then he has incentive to say like, oh, wait,
he died of fentanyl. There's murder chargers. Yeah, I didn't
give her feentanyl, I her oxy.

Speaker 1 (40:17):
Right. But also he's the drug dealer, he's not the chemist. No,
So in my mind when I read that, I was thinking.

Speaker 2 (40:26):
He doesn't have a degree in pharmacology.

Speaker 1 (40:27):
No, that what drug dealer knows what the chemical makeup
is And isn't it possible that it's oxy? But it
could also happen layl Yeah, right, So.

Speaker 2 (40:39):
I mean it is an argument, Well, it's but the
orange notebook is of more value.

Speaker 1 (40:43):
To me, like the Walk the Dog letter and the
Orange notebook. Right, So there we go with that. That's
the defense creating reasonable doubt by having him testify that
it wasn't actually fentanyl. That it was oxy. It also
made me wonder if and this is just an opinion,
this is not based in anything other than maybe her

(41:04):
family got to him to this witness.

Speaker 2 (41:09):
Okay, Corey's family, Yes, got to the witness and said.

Speaker 1 (41:12):
What like, maybe there's some witness tampering going on and
got in something some incentive to for him to recant
and change it, because that's the crux of the case,
if it's not fentanyl that she was buying.

Speaker 2 (41:25):
Yeah, but you really are discussing that's not based on
anything I.

Speaker 1 (41:28):
Just said, I'm just guessing.

Speaker 2 (41:29):
Yeah, it's guessing, not even based on aposti some evidence
out there that they had conversations.

Speaker 1 (41:35):
No, I'm just guessing. It's just in the dark shot
at maybe there was some witness tampering going on, and
that's why this drug dealer has now changed his testimony.

Speaker 2 (41:46):
Or maybe it's the fact that he doesn't want charge
is brought against him.

Speaker 1 (41:48):
Why because do you get lesser charges if it's oxy?

Speaker 2 (41:51):
Yeah, because then it's like I didn't I didn't contribute
to this murder. I didn't play a part in this.

Speaker 1 (41:57):
Okay. Now, also with these drug charges and these witnesses
that are comeing forward that are testifying to this drugs.
I just I just saw a podcast on this where
this was recent in this case, where there's motions being
made that these witnesses need independent counsel to represent them
because they're going to testify about drugs drug deal.

Speaker 2 (42:20):
That's where the immunity comes in. Yeah, you want to
sometimes they want to grant like, we'll just give you
immunity because we don't really care about your stupid little
technol party we had the other night. We want to
know about this murder, and we want you to speak
freely and candidly without any worries or any you know,
censoring of anything.

Speaker 1 (42:39):
Right, the only person that has immunity so far is
just the housekeeper, Carmen. But there are other people that
are going to testify that has to do with the
drugs and the drug deal and talking about all that.
So I believe it was the defense that made emotion
that said the state needs to supply these people with
their own independent counsel and pay for their counsel because

(43:00):
they're self incriminating and they don't have anyone.

Speaker 2 (43:03):
Well, when you're a criminal, you need to be prepared
to have a criminal defense attorney, right, so that's tough
for them, okay, all right, Like I have no sympathy
for the fact that you have no sympathy. Oh no,
they're burdened with having to get an attorney because they
party on the weekends with drugs.

Speaker 1 (43:19):
All right. So in August of twenty twenty four, a
judge ruled there was enough evidence to send Corey to
trial on charges including aggravated murder, attempted murder that's related
to the alleged Valentine's Day poisoning, drug distribution, insurance and
mortgage fraud and forgery. Corey pleaded not guilty to all counts,
so the trial for the murder and associated charges was

(43:41):
initially scheduled to begin in April of twenty twenty five. However,
the start of the trial was delayed and definitely as
her defense challenged certain aspects of jury selection. So the
prosecutors have amended the charging documents to separate financial crimes
like the mortgage fraud and forgery from the murder case,
consolidating them into a separate twenty six count case. So

(44:03):
the murder trial remains pending in County jail, delayed while
legal motions continue. However, I have read that she is
slated to go to trial in February of twenty twenty six,
so that's coming up in a couple months and we'll
see what's going to happen with that. Obviously, there's going
to be a lot of.

Speaker 2 (44:17):
Hearing, maybe ups pushed, It might be issues with evidence
and discovery and all that stuff, especially with this Orange notebook.
I'm dying to read this in Orange notebook.

Speaker 1 (44:29):
All right. So that is the Corey Richard's case that's
in Utah. I find it fascinating and obviously because she
is slated to go to trial soon, there's going to
be a lot of things that probably come up in
the next couple months with this case. So we will
continue to follow it and give you guys updates on
it and then obviously file the trial once it happens.
So anyway, thank you guys so much for listening to
Legally Brunette. As always, if you have any cases that

(44:51):
you would like us to discuss. I love when you
guys give me information on Instagram. I read it and
a lot of times I do google the cases that
you guys suggest, So thank you for that, and remember
to follow us on our new feed. It's legally Brunette,
you can get all of our episodes there, so thanks
so much for listening. We appreciate you.

Speaker 2 (45:11):
Thank you,