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