Feb. 27, 2026
Children’s Grief Author Murder Trial: Week One Ends With Star Witness Testimony
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed 35-year-old mom of 3, Kouri Richins, is accused of poisoning her husband Eric with 5 times the lethal dose of fentanyl in March of 2022. A year later, RIchins was arrested for murder while she was promoting her new book on helping children deal with the grief of losing a parent. The prosecution wrapped its first week of testimony with its key witness: Richins’ housekeeper who claims she’s the one who sold Kouri the fentanyl, but the defense poked significant holes in Carmen Lauder’s testimony.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey, there are folks. Week one of the so called grief author murder trial is in the books. Welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ presents Robes a week in the books. We always go back and forth after one week. Let me ask you, now, who do you think has made a better case so far? Just one week? But just curious?
00:00:27
Speaker 2: Yes, And obviously the prosecution is in the middle of presenting its evidence and its testimony, and it's pretty damning. I think the defense has done what it can so far. But this is as our friend Alison Triesol calls some of these cases a stinker of a case for the defense.
00:00:49
Speaker 1: So this case, that's such a stinker. Have you heard about this? When Corey richins, it's her name, she's thirty five years old. Her husband died in March of twenty twenty two of fentanyl poisoning. Prosecutors say she is the one who poisoned her husband by giving him a drink that had fentanyl in it the month before. She tried to kill him as well, according to prosecutors, by putting poison in his sandwich, trying to poison him with a sandwich. So she is on trial and the reason they call it Robes the Grief Author murder trial. I'm not sure who dubbed it that, but they always give him some kind of clever little names. This one's pretty apt.
00:01:29
Speaker 2: Yes, I think it might have been Court TV. They went with the grief author murder trial. I liked children's author murder trial because, yes, the reason why this story has catapulted to the headline making trial that it is. This isn't just your run of the mill murder. No, this woman is accused not only of attempting to murder her husband, as TJ just outlined, then successfully murdering him, but then she went on to capitalize on said murder and wrote eight children book on how to deal with the grief of losing a parent. Now, she says she wrote this for her sons. In this book, it's about a dad who goes to heaven, he gets angel wings and he looks down on his son. Are You with Me is the name of the book. And she was literally on a book tour when she was arrested for the murder of her children's father.
00:02:23
Speaker 1: Innocent till proven guilty, So this is why we have a trial. But she has certainly plaied not guilty, to it. Dozens I think literally dozens of charges.
00:02:31
Speaker 2: Dozens.
00:02:31
Speaker 1: Certainly the murder, but alsop is weird to be able to have a murder and the tempted murder with the same person. But yes, attempted murder and murder. But all kinds of fraud charges.
00:02:40
Speaker 2: Yes, insurance fraud, mortgage fraud, financial crimes. There is a laundry list of items, and that is also part of the motive according to prosecutors behind the murder. Not only do they say Corey richand wanted the life of luxury that her husband provided, and she was I think they said four and a half million dollars in debt.
00:03:00
Speaker 1: I don't even know how you do that.
00:03:01
Speaker 2: Real estate she was heavy in real estate losses. I believe she was trying to flip homes. That was what she did for a living. She wasn't doing it very well and hiding that from her husband, and now she needed money. So that was number one. But number two, she had a lover. She had a boyfriend who prosecutors say she wanted to marry, and basically she just wanted to swap out men and keep her lifestyle where it was.
00:03:26
Speaker 1: This is as classic a tale as it gets right. We watch a lot of true crime, We see a lot of stories and you all do as well. And this is as classic as it gets. People get murdered over two things, usually for love and usually for money, and you combine them in this case is what you have you throw in the element robes of course, talk about a mother of three. Remind me, I'm sorry to put you on the spot if you don't remember as well the age of the children.
00:03:47
Speaker 2: Well, I know that they were all under the age of ten at the time of his death. So these are young kids. And look from some of the testimony and we'll get into this, but just hearing initially, some of the first folks called up by the prosecution were family members of Eric Richins, and they talked about his love of the outdoors, his love of his sons, his love of his life, and his family. He was so tight with his sister it was impressive. So this was a man who, yeah, who was just beloved by his family, loved his children, was successful, like wildly successful in his job. I think he had a was it a cement business? But he everything was going right except for his marriage. And he had even talked to divorce lawyers so had she apparently so, look, they had this presentation as we often see of a perfect marriage, but pulled back the curtains and it looked like both folks were looking for potential ways out. But divorce, I guess was not going to work out so well for Corey Richins because Eric Richards had put a lot of his property in a trust to protect him from a divorce, and actually by doing so, he was trying to financially protect himself and financially protect his sons. That may have been what ended up getting.
00:05:02
Speaker 1: Him killed because according to prosecutors, they're saying they she knew after divorce she was not going to be getting anything, so she needed to hurry up this process and needed him to be dead before they divorced. That is what prosecutors say, And that is a tail and a mode of as old as time, it feels these days, Robes. I'm blown away at so many of these stories we see in which somebody ends up dead and it takes them five minutes to call the insurance company and say a new policy was put in place two months ago.
00:05:31
Speaker 2: Yeah, this one. I believe she had at least one, I think several life insurance policies that she created without Eric's knowledge. This always when they go back. This is a really big, huge red flag. Not quite a smoking gun, but as close to a smoking gun as you can get when you see when you're looking for motive. And she did this a couple years prior to the alleged attempt and ultimate successful murder of him. But she was planning I mean, this would imply that she was planning this for years.
00:06:06
Speaker 1: And again she, according to prosecutors, did make an attempt the month before he died in Robes. This was one where he, yes, he got terribly sick, but he also at that time began to at least according to his friends, suspect his wife.
00:06:23
Speaker 2: Yes, according to his friends, he actually told them and maybe it was half joking. I think my wife just tried to poison me because she gave him this sandwich on Valentine's Day of all days. Wow, that really is just what is that rubbing salt in the wound? But if this is true, prosecutors say she laced a sandwich with feentanyl. He eats it, he immediately feels pretty sick, and eventually he has to take benadryl and actually give himself an EpiPen. He has allergies, He has allergic reactions to certain things, so we had an EpiPen lying around. He actually had to and that's no small deal. That's a big deal. Shooting epinephrine into your body.
00:07:06
Speaker 1: That's the last resort, yes, moment, that is.
00:07:09
Speaker 2: Life or death. Yes, last resort. So he didn't have narcon, but he didn't know he was given fentanyl, but he didn't. And that's actually really smart that he injected himself with a neppiepen, took benadryl and woke up and eventually felt better.
00:07:23
Speaker 1: So survive that one. But prosecutors say she got him the next month. Now this case started out, we were very curious robes to see and we heard an opening statements. What is the defense going to be? And it makes clear Robes and it's going to be uncomfortable in that room because his family is there. But this is a blame the victim situation. As far as where the drugs came from, this is going to be key. We can see this fight in week one. How did those drugs get in his system?
00:07:53
Speaker 2: Yes, And we've seen blame the victim defenses quite often and so far they haven't worked. But it just seems so terrible for family members who are already grieving the loss of someone to now make it seem as though their loved one is to blame for their own death. But yes, the insinuation so far, and the defense has not put on its case yet, but through cross examination and their opening statement, it does appear that they are saying that Eric Richins had a pain problem, he had back pain, and he had a drug problem. He was addicted, that's what they are insinuating, to painkillers, and was very into THHC gummies And so they are showing pill bottles and THCHC gummies and saying, hey, who knows any of those could have been laced with fentanyl, And that has happened in this country. We've certainly seen it mostly pills gotten all the black market. But that is where they are going in this defense that basically he did it to himself, whether accidentally or deliberately.
00:08:56
Speaker 1: And it's a case also roads we should note that is starting maybe to find a flow and a rhythm, and the personalities in the courtroom are starting to figure each other out because it's been a little disjointed, it's been a little uncomfortable it's been a little at times we felt disrespectful to the judge who has been masterful. We should give him credit. But the dynamics in the courtroom have been interesting and it's wonder if the jurors are even frustrated. It's been a lot of stopping and starting and you will have to go out so we can discuss this.
00:09:26
Speaker 2: It's been a lot of that, there has and there was even a moment which wasn't ever explained by the judge on Thursday, or was it Wednesday? I believe it was Wednesday. They start for one hour, they just start to get into testimony. He calls a recess, comes back an hour later and says there is an unforeseen emergency unrelated to the case. Course court is dismissed for the rest of the day. So yes, it's just there's been a lot of stops and starts just throughout the trial on an hourly basis, and then that was extremely disruptive on Wednesday. But they are It does feel like getting into a flow now and understanding each other's rhythms. From attorneys to the judge.
00:10:00
Speaker 1: Loving this judge.
00:10:02
Speaker 2: I like him too.
00:10:02
Speaker 1: He has been very kind. He has given them a lot of leeway, and they were some of their bickering and whatnot, And that was the first couple of days. I'm like, Wow, this guy is good, and we both said he's gonna eventually just let loose on these folks. He hasn't completely yet, but he has started to now in the past day, starting to shut this down and saying, come on, guys.
00:10:25
Speaker 2: Yeah, we saw that the defense attorney actually say some things that seemed quite just a shotful to the judge, basically saying I have never had a judge make decisions like this before. Obviously you're allowed to, but I have never experienced basically, Yeah, it was I was like, what's I'm just curious about that approach, because this person is literally going to be determining or at least having a huge impact whether he overrules or sustains objections. He has a huge impact on what jurors think and feel about a case.
00:10:57
Speaker 1: Just like sports, why would you piss off the referee in the first quart, He's gonna remember that in the fourth when you really need him to make a call on your behalf. So it's been fascinating, it's been interesting to watch. However, Robes already already here at the end of week one, certainly the most important witness we've seen so far. How important will she end up being ultimately because Corey Richards is accused, yes, of giving fentanyl to her husband to kill him, but where did she get it? And the woman who's on the stand right now wrapping up the end of this week is the woman who allegedly gave her those drugs. This has been interesting, and this is where I think the defense is making scorns some.
00:11:41
Speaker 2: Point they are because the defense and opening statement said, yes, we know this for a fact that Eric Richards died with five times the lethal amount of fentanyl in his system, and that's provable. But she said what the prosecution will never be able to tell you or prove to you is how that fentanyl got into air rich in system. And that is this is basically the key point of the prosecution's argument that we actually can tell you because we have the woman who gave her sold her the fentanyl, and the timing of those moments when she actually got the fentanyl and gave it to Corey match up precisely with the attempted murder and then the ultimate murder.
00:12:26
Speaker 1: So that's yes, twenty twenty two. Right, he dies in March. The attempt on his life was February. All the drugs were bought January.
00:12:35
Speaker 2: And February, correct, so the exact times where she would need it. And look, we've got this testimony from this, at least when the prosecution was doing direct questioning, was pretty powerful. I mean, you're talking about not only going once for the drugs. According to the prosecution, they didn't work. It was an attempt of murder that didn't actually result in a murder. Then she goes back and says, I need something stronger for a investor, and so then she goes back and gets something stronger, which is reportedly that was when she got the fentanyl and or there were blue pills versus yellow pills I believe, and that then led to the death of Eric Richards. I mean, that's pretty hard to get around.
00:13:21
Speaker 1: However, the defense is claiming robes they have a way around that. What do you make of this? Now? The prosecutors, excuse me, the defense and the cross examination really is going after this woman who does have a drug history, has a criminal history, has been in rehab, she has been frankly and admittedly a mess at times throughout her life. They are now attacking Robes and this is key for me to understand was it fentanyl or not? Does she understand that she was purchasing fentanyl or not? And there are two issues with that, Robes. One of them happens to be that the guy who sold her the stuff is now claiming he never gave her fentanyl. The other issue Robes with that is that she now admits on the stand that she wasn't the one that said fentanyl to the investigators. Investigators, they were the ones that said it to her. Those two issues, Robes, do you start even if you don't have reasonable doubt in your mind? Do you think that's enough to make the jurors pause?
00:14:30
Speaker 2: It gives doubt? Is it reasonable or is it just that's it absolutely puts some doubt on the prosecution story. This reminds me a lot of what we saw with Brandon Brendan Banfield, where the insinuation by the defense was that the prosecution fed their key witness the exact type of testimony they needed her to say on the stand to prove their theory. It didn't work out so well for Brendan Banfield because the old pair's story that Matt with the prosecutor. The jury obviously bought. This is almost an identical situation where the defense is trying to say the prosecution the investigators told this housekeeper exactly what to say, and in return, she gets a massive immunity deal to save her own skin because she was looking at some pretty serious prison time given her prior offenses. So it's almost identical in terms of what the defense is trying to poke holes in. The question is how believable is this housekeeper? How believable is this witness?
00:15:33
Speaker 1: Well, stay here, when we come back, we'll tell you just how believable we think she is. And well, the will tell you also the key quote there was a conversation she had with Corey Richins after Eric Richins died, and it was a simple line, a simple quote that might might robes be a part of Corey Richards' undoings. Stay here and.
00:16:08
Speaker 2: Welcome back to this episode of Amy and TJ Presents. We are following the Corey Richards trial. The what else is it called? The Grief author murder trial, the Children's Grief author murder trial, whatever you want to call it. I like it because it just gives an extra Oh my god, no, she did it.
00:16:27
Speaker 1: Actually explains it more. I think it is better. Actually, you're right.
00:16:31
Speaker 3: She wrote a book for children being like the maternal savior who comes in to help all mothers or parents help their children and guide them.
00:16:42
Speaker 2: Through the loss of a parent. When she actually stands accused of murdering said parent, it really is the audacity. If she is guilty, which she has not been found guilty as if yet she is innocentential proof and guilty. But if she's found guilty, that the odddacity, I guess is what you would say. Don't just deny, actually swoop in and act like you're the savior. That's tough.
00:17:11
Speaker 1: To be honest with you. I do want to read the book now. I want to see that book and what she actually wrote.
00:17:17
Speaker 2: Are you with me?
00:17:18
Speaker 1: Are you with me? And she's innocent to approven guilty? Now we talked about some of the issues with the housekeeper here in her testimony, and her name is Carmen Lawber. Is her name Carmen Lauber and robes she I mean, they go through and I felt bad for this woman because she has of her own doing and admittedly so, she has had criminal history, drug history, addiction history, even her family, her kids. We talk about hearing now she said her own daughter is overdosed several times. Right, it's just a family dynamic. And yes, people make all kinds of mistakes. But you hear also addiction. You hear just how impactful it sounds, and listen to your ropes. This is an illness. Obviously she was sick. Obviously she's made some bad decisions. But you hearing her, I think she handled herself so well and calmly and saying yep, I did that, Yes I did. Maybe she was just well prepared. But it's hard in listening to her to not find her to be a credible witness.
00:18:18
Speaker 2: Oh, you and I were both moved listening to her because this is painful and not easy for her to get up on this stand and not only talk about what she knows, her role in what happened according to prosecutors, and her history. We saw the defense attorney go from talking about obviously her criminal history, her drug abuse and addiction, and her what did they talk about her her learning disability. I mean, it was just it was basically everything that would be humiliating about you feeling poorly about yourself and your ability and capability and decisions. It was like everything was on the table for all all to see. It was painful to watch her be exposed in that way, and yet I understand why it had to happen from a legal standpoint. This is the key prosecution witness. This is the person who literally is putting the final nail in the coffin of Corey Richards. So they have to impugne her credibility, they have to question her credibility. And it makes sense because she even had to admit on the stand that she was high on meth, that she tested positive for meth during this period of time. She said, I wasn't high all the time, but she was high quite a bit of the time.
00:19:33
Speaker 1: I don't remember. The defense attorney said, so you were high this whole time. It was said in a way, and I get it. They're doing their job. They have to defend their client who is potentially going to prison for the rest of her life Ropes. I get it. It's just it was a part of discrediting someone. And I think the only part I would question Robes is that she did she did have an incentive to say whatever prosecutors wanted her.
00:19:57
Speaker 2: To say, she was looking at federal drug charges she had already. I think they asked her how many times she had been arrested, charge convicted of drug charges. She said, I don't know, So that will just tell you how lengthy her rap sheet is. And so look, once you've already had that many strikes against you, and now and now you've sold the drugs to somebody who was accused of using those drugs to murder that person. Those are some serious charges, serious federal charges, potentially life in prison types of charges. So she is incentivized, for sure to take this deal and testify against her former boss.
00:20:36
Speaker 1: And what the defense is trying to say, yes, lie, but essentially say anything they want you to say. I don't know. There's still a question. There's no question that she bought drugs, is it not. There's no question she bought drugs on behalf of Corey Richards.
00:20:52
Speaker 2: Absolutely. I mean she went through the whole process of explaining how Corey would say, I have an investor who needs something strong. She obviously knew she had connections. So she goes and she gives her cash, drops it off at a fire pit at this house she was renovating. She goes and gets the drugs from some gas station, brings and drops the drugs at this fire pit, picks up the money. I mean it was she She tells a very specific and detailed account of how this all transpired four separate times, but most notably the last two times and roke.
00:21:26
Speaker 1: Those last two times or an attempt on his life, and one in which he actually did die. So no, aheam No.
00:21:34
Speaker 2: I was just thinking the question is is it oxy cotton or is it vetah?
00:21:37
Speaker 1: Yes, they're going all of the Okay, this is the other one. Nobody seems to remember exactly what the drugs were. This was four years ago.
00:21:44
Speaker 2: Now, yes, and everybody was high.
00:21:46
Speaker 1: Everybody's on something. One's potentially a murderer, one's dead, one's trying to stay out of prison. Yeah, who you believe.
00:21:56
Speaker 2: And there's a drug dealer always changed his story.
00:21:59
Speaker 1: Yeah, so this is what the prosecution. Yes, when you're dealing with trying to you hear this all the time. You're not dealing with the best among us. Sometimes, when you're trying to put on a case and you have a drug dealer and a drug user who are a couple of your key witnesses, you.
00:22:17
Speaker 2: Know the key witnesses because you have to prove Look, we know how he died like that is so interesting. Sometimes we don't. In other cases, we just don't know how the drugs got in his system. And so yes, the people who bought the drugs, sold the drugs, used the drug All of that is key to proving that Corey Richins is the person who actually gave him those drugs.
00:22:41
Speaker 1: Right, So what if we throw all of that out? Even if you don't like this witness, right, robes and things, she's full of it, and don't believe a thing she says. There is so much more to this case. I don't know if you can remember some of them off the top of your head. I can look up. But the first day of the tru when opening statements, when the prosecution use some of her Google.
00:23:01
Speaker 2: Searches, Oh my goodness.
00:23:04
Speaker 1: There is so much circumstantial at least evidence rope that it's hard for you to go, Okay, there's reasonable doubt some of the things she was looking for. We've seen this in some cases.
00:23:16
Speaker 2: It's hard to explain, and it usually it's all about the cover up, you know. Can police find deleted emails? Can police find deleted texts. She's asking all sorts of questions about how what are prisons like for the rich? It was like, it was, oh, here we go, I got him exactly? Can cops uncover deleted messages iPhone? Can you delete everything off an old iPhone without actually having it? Can deleted text meshes be retrieved from an iPhone? How to completely wipe an iPhone clear remotely? How to permanently delete information from an iPhone remotely? I mean, look, and there's another one here. My favorite was the ones about prison because she was anticipating. That's the crazy thing, anticipating getting caught and trying to prepare herself mentally for going to prison. That's one of the more damning searches I can even imagine. And to get it exactly right, Oh wow, luxury prisons for the rich in America? What women Utah prison? Can cops force you to do a lie detector test? If someone is poisoned? What does it go down on the death certificate? As? I mean literally that one to me, How do you explain that search weekend? If someone is poisoned, what does it go down on death certificate? As? And by the way, I know what her attorneys are going to try to say, well, she was just wondering if she was charged with it, what would it No, you would say, how could someone be accused of poisoning? Like you know what you would do? These searches tell you exactly what was.
00:24:54
Speaker 1: In her heart. You can't get inside her.
00:24:59
Speaker 2: But as a journ using common sense, there it is. Those searches are the smoking gun. Yes, great to hear from the house creek keeper. Great to hear from the forensic experts and from the police on the scene and looking at that body cam and watching her reaction and hearing about all of her choices before and after those searches. To me, I can't unsee them. I can't unhear them as a juror, and you can't explain them to me that would make any sense other than the fact she did something and was trying to find a way out of that.
00:25:34
Speaker 1: And they do. They have a hell of a circumstantial case against her. This is a case that was anticipated to go at least a month. I've heard them say as much as five weeks, but now I have I mean, honestly, Robes, things have been a little slow, and it's taken a little time, and they've asked the delays and they lost a full day, so who knows how long this thing is going to go. Now, Yep, we did mention though ropes. Look, we talk about circumstantial stuff and stuff you can't under see. Those searches just don't make sense. That an innocent person would do luxury prisons for the rich in America is something that's going to stay with me the entire trial.
00:26:08
Speaker 2: That's just it's like you're an entitled murderer.
00:26:13
Speaker 1: Maybe she was doing research on Glene Maxwell.
00:26:16
Speaker 2: Yeah, for nonviolent offenders. And unless she has something that she can blackmail a very prominent public official with, I don't think she's gonna get the same treatment.
00:26:25
Speaker 1: That's a separate episode of Folks. We'll tell you where you can find that one. But this was another part of the circumstantial evidence that just doesn't make sense and you won't be able to explain it away. But the housekeeper said that after Eric Richards died, she reached out to Corey Richards and she was concerned and she should have been Robes. This housekeeper in her mind, now, this is part that is very convincing to me. In her mind, she knows she provided drugs to Corey Richins. She now knows that Eric Richards is dead, so the first thing in her mind was about herself, was about, oh my god, did I purchase drugs that end up killing this guy? So she reached out that to me, Robes is authentic. So they did have in court the exchange between her and Corey Richins, and I believe she just did this from memory, right. It wasn't like a video or a yes, excuse me audio, but this was the exchange she said she had with Corey Richins. And I think this says a lot.
00:27:30
Speaker 2: Yeah, she testified to this. She said that she said to Corey, please tell me these pills were not for him. Corey Richins, No, they were not. Eric passed away from a brain ANEURYSM.
00:27:42
Speaker 1: Okay, what does that tell you? So who if they weren't for him, who were they for an investor? According to Corey, an investor who is not on the witness list, by the way, and we have no idea who that person is. Afterwards, Robes they were saying, like weeks after or something, the housekeeper asked Richard's about drugs and she said, no, I don't need anything. The investor what left town left town. This was after the investor left town. But that exchange robes seems to be an authentic one, at least from the housekeeper, like she's concerned, I gave you drugs and he's dead. If I provided them, I'm in trouble. That seemed authentic yep to me. Yep.
00:28:25
Speaker 2: And look, why would someone This is also just a very valid point go on the stand and admit to all of this, like this is she has put. I know that she's getting a sweetheart deal, and I know that she is getting off, but this she said, she wanted to do the right thing. She's clean and sober, and she talked about her daughter's overdoses, and she said, I just I don't want to have this weighing on me. That she said part of her motivation was also just to do the right thing.
00:28:51
Speaker 1: I get that. I can understand that. But I can also understand that any juror looking at her and say, woman, you will say anything you have to stay out of prison. Keep in mind, also, if one word she said on the stand proves to be not true, she's going to prison for a long time. That's a part of the deal. You have to tell the truth. So she is also, as we say, incentive to make sure she does not mess her story up in terms of telling a lie. So this is one we will keep a very close eye on some of these details. As you said, Robes, what's your title of the trial?
00:29:25
Speaker 2: Oh, I like Children's Grief author murder trial.
00:29:28
Speaker 1: That's what we're going with. It's a bit of a mouthful, but it tells the whole story in one line. Folks, we will follow this keep an eye on this feed. Of course, we're following several high profile trials. It seems a new one pops up every week.
00:29:43
Speaker 2: It certainly does, and of course you can always catch We covered this trial and as you pointed out, many others on our regular feed, Amy and TJ versus Amy and TJ Presents, which is what you're on right now, So please feel free to go back and forth between the two. We try to give different types of episode for different audiences, but please be a fan of both. We would really appreciate that. As always, thank you for listening to us. I made me Robock alongside TJ. Holmes.
00:30:09
Speaker 1: We'll talk to you soon.
Speaker 1: Hey, there are folks. Week one of the so called grief author murder trial is in the books. Welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ presents Robes a week in the books. We always go back and forth after one week. Let me ask you, now, who do you think has made a better case so far? Just one week? But just curious?
00:00:27
Speaker 2: Yes, And obviously the prosecution is in the middle of presenting its evidence and its testimony, and it's pretty damning. I think the defense has done what it can so far. But this is as our friend Alison Triesol calls some of these cases a stinker of a case for the defense.
00:00:49
Speaker 1: So this case, that's such a stinker. Have you heard about this? When Corey richins, it's her name, she's thirty five years old. Her husband died in March of twenty twenty two of fentanyl poisoning. Prosecutors say she is the one who poisoned her husband by giving him a drink that had fentanyl in it the month before. She tried to kill him as well, according to prosecutors, by putting poison in his sandwich, trying to poison him with a sandwich. So she is on trial and the reason they call it Robes the Grief Author murder trial. I'm not sure who dubbed it that, but they always give him some kind of clever little names. This one's pretty apt.
00:01:29
Speaker 2: Yes, I think it might have been Court TV. They went with the grief author murder trial. I liked children's author murder trial because, yes, the reason why this story has catapulted to the headline making trial that it is. This isn't just your run of the mill murder. No, this woman is accused not only of attempting to murder her husband, as TJ just outlined, then successfully murdering him, but then she went on to capitalize on said murder and wrote eight children book on how to deal with the grief of losing a parent. Now, she says she wrote this for her sons. In this book, it's about a dad who goes to heaven, he gets angel wings and he looks down on his son. Are You with Me is the name of the book. And she was literally on a book tour when she was arrested for the murder of her children's father.
00:02:23
Speaker 1: Innocent till proven guilty, So this is why we have a trial. But she has certainly plaied not guilty, to it. Dozens I think literally dozens of charges.
00:02:31
Speaker 2: Dozens.
00:02:31
Speaker 1: Certainly the murder, but alsop is weird to be able to have a murder and the tempted murder with the same person. But yes, attempted murder and murder. But all kinds of fraud charges.
00:02:40
Speaker 2: Yes, insurance fraud, mortgage fraud, financial crimes. There is a laundry list of items, and that is also part of the motive according to prosecutors behind the murder. Not only do they say Corey richand wanted the life of luxury that her husband provided, and she was I think they said four and a half million dollars in debt.
00:03:00
Speaker 1: I don't even know how you do that.
00:03:01
Speaker 2: Real estate she was heavy in real estate losses. I believe she was trying to flip homes. That was what she did for a living. She wasn't doing it very well and hiding that from her husband, and now she needed money. So that was number one. But number two, she had a lover. She had a boyfriend who prosecutors say she wanted to marry, and basically she just wanted to swap out men and keep her lifestyle where it was.
00:03:26
Speaker 1: This is as classic a tale as it gets right. We watch a lot of true crime, We see a lot of stories and you all do as well. And this is as classic as it gets. People get murdered over two things, usually for love and usually for money, and you combine them in this case is what you have you throw in the element robes of course, talk about a mother of three. Remind me, I'm sorry to put you on the spot if you don't remember as well the age of the children.
00:03:47
Speaker 2: Well, I know that they were all under the age of ten at the time of his death. So these are young kids. And look from some of the testimony and we'll get into this, but just hearing initially, some of the first folks called up by the prosecution were family members of Eric Richins, and they talked about his love of the outdoors, his love of his sons, his love of his life, and his family. He was so tight with his sister it was impressive. So this was a man who, yeah, who was just beloved by his family, loved his children, was successful, like wildly successful in his job. I think he had a was it a cement business? But he everything was going right except for his marriage. And he had even talked to divorce lawyers so had she apparently so, look, they had this presentation as we often see of a perfect marriage, but pulled back the curtains and it looked like both folks were looking for potential ways out. But divorce, I guess was not going to work out so well for Corey Richins because Eric Richards had put a lot of his property in a trust to protect him from a divorce, and actually by doing so, he was trying to financially protect himself and financially protect his sons. That may have been what ended up getting.
00:05:02
Speaker 1: Him killed because according to prosecutors, they're saying they she knew after divorce she was not going to be getting anything, so she needed to hurry up this process and needed him to be dead before they divorced. That is what prosecutors say, And that is a tail and a mode of as old as time, it feels these days, Robes. I'm blown away at so many of these stories we see in which somebody ends up dead and it takes them five minutes to call the insurance company and say a new policy was put in place two months ago.
00:05:31
Speaker 2: Yeah, this one. I believe she had at least one, I think several life insurance policies that she created without Eric's knowledge. This always when they go back. This is a really big, huge red flag. Not quite a smoking gun, but as close to a smoking gun as you can get when you see when you're looking for motive. And she did this a couple years prior to the alleged attempt and ultimate successful murder of him. But she was planning I mean, this would imply that she was planning this for years.
00:06:06
Speaker 1: And again she, according to prosecutors, did make an attempt the month before he died in Robes. This was one where he, yes, he got terribly sick, but he also at that time began to at least according to his friends, suspect his wife.
00:06:23
Speaker 2: Yes, according to his friends, he actually told them and maybe it was half joking. I think my wife just tried to poison me because she gave him this sandwich on Valentine's Day of all days. Wow, that really is just what is that rubbing salt in the wound? But if this is true, prosecutors say she laced a sandwich with feentanyl. He eats it, he immediately feels pretty sick, and eventually he has to take benadryl and actually give himself an EpiPen. He has allergies, He has allergic reactions to certain things, so we had an EpiPen lying around. He actually had to and that's no small deal. That's a big deal. Shooting epinephrine into your body.
00:07:06
Speaker 1: That's the last resort, yes, moment, that is.
00:07:09
Speaker 2: Life or death. Yes, last resort. So he didn't have narcon, but he didn't know he was given fentanyl, but he didn't. And that's actually really smart that he injected himself with a neppiepen, took benadryl and woke up and eventually felt better.
00:07:23
Speaker 1: So survive that one. But prosecutors say she got him the next month. Now this case started out, we were very curious robes to see and we heard an opening statements. What is the defense going to be? And it makes clear Robes and it's going to be uncomfortable in that room because his family is there. But this is a blame the victim situation. As far as where the drugs came from, this is going to be key. We can see this fight in week one. How did those drugs get in his system?
00:07:53
Speaker 2: Yes, And we've seen blame the victim defenses quite often and so far they haven't worked. But it just seems so terrible for family members who are already grieving the loss of someone to now make it seem as though their loved one is to blame for their own death. But yes, the insinuation so far, and the defense has not put on its case yet, but through cross examination and their opening statement, it does appear that they are saying that Eric Richins had a pain problem, he had back pain, and he had a drug problem. He was addicted, that's what they are insinuating, to painkillers, and was very into THHC gummies And so they are showing pill bottles and THCHC gummies and saying, hey, who knows any of those could have been laced with fentanyl, And that has happened in this country. We've certainly seen it mostly pills gotten all the black market. But that is where they are going in this defense that basically he did it to himself, whether accidentally or deliberately.
00:08:56
Speaker 1: And it's a case also roads we should note that is starting maybe to find a flow and a rhythm, and the personalities in the courtroom are starting to figure each other out because it's been a little disjointed, it's been a little uncomfortable it's been a little at times we felt disrespectful to the judge who has been masterful. We should give him credit. But the dynamics in the courtroom have been interesting and it's wonder if the jurors are even frustrated. It's been a lot of stopping and starting and you will have to go out so we can discuss this.
00:09:26
Speaker 2: It's been a lot of that, there has and there was even a moment which wasn't ever explained by the judge on Thursday, or was it Wednesday? I believe it was Wednesday. They start for one hour, they just start to get into testimony. He calls a recess, comes back an hour later and says there is an unforeseen emergency unrelated to the case. Course court is dismissed for the rest of the day. So yes, it's just there's been a lot of stops and starts just throughout the trial on an hourly basis, and then that was extremely disruptive on Wednesday. But they are It does feel like getting into a flow now and understanding each other's rhythms. From attorneys to the judge.
00:10:00
Speaker 1: Loving this judge.
00:10:02
Speaker 2: I like him too.
00:10:02
Speaker 1: He has been very kind. He has given them a lot of leeway, and they were some of their bickering and whatnot, And that was the first couple of days. I'm like, Wow, this guy is good, and we both said he's gonna eventually just let loose on these folks. He hasn't completely yet, but he has started to now in the past day, starting to shut this down and saying, come on, guys.
00:10:25
Speaker 2: Yeah, we saw that the defense attorney actually say some things that seemed quite just a shotful to the judge, basically saying I have never had a judge make decisions like this before. Obviously you're allowed to, but I have never experienced basically, Yeah, it was I was like, what's I'm just curious about that approach, because this person is literally going to be determining or at least having a huge impact whether he overrules or sustains objections. He has a huge impact on what jurors think and feel about a case.
00:10:57
Speaker 1: Just like sports, why would you piss off the referee in the first quart, He's gonna remember that in the fourth when you really need him to make a call on your behalf. So it's been fascinating, it's been interesting to watch. However, Robes already already here at the end of week one, certainly the most important witness we've seen so far. How important will she end up being ultimately because Corey Richards is accused, yes, of giving fentanyl to her husband to kill him, but where did she get it? And the woman who's on the stand right now wrapping up the end of this week is the woman who allegedly gave her those drugs. This has been interesting, and this is where I think the defense is making scorns some.
00:11:41
Speaker 2: Point they are because the defense and opening statement said, yes, we know this for a fact that Eric Richards died with five times the lethal amount of fentanyl in his system, and that's provable. But she said what the prosecution will never be able to tell you or prove to you is how that fentanyl got into air rich in system. And that is this is basically the key point of the prosecution's argument that we actually can tell you because we have the woman who gave her sold her the fentanyl, and the timing of those moments when she actually got the fentanyl and gave it to Corey match up precisely with the attempted murder and then the ultimate murder.
00:12:26
Speaker 1: So that's yes, twenty twenty two. Right, he dies in March. The attempt on his life was February. All the drugs were bought January.
00:12:35
Speaker 2: And February, correct, so the exact times where she would need it. And look, we've got this testimony from this, at least when the prosecution was doing direct questioning, was pretty powerful. I mean, you're talking about not only going once for the drugs. According to the prosecution, they didn't work. It was an attempt of murder that didn't actually result in a murder. Then she goes back and says, I need something stronger for a investor, and so then she goes back and gets something stronger, which is reportedly that was when she got the fentanyl and or there were blue pills versus yellow pills I believe, and that then led to the death of Eric Richards. I mean, that's pretty hard to get around.
00:13:21
Speaker 1: However, the defense is claiming robes they have a way around that. What do you make of this? Now? The prosecutors, excuse me, the defense and the cross examination really is going after this woman who does have a drug history, has a criminal history, has been in rehab, she has been frankly and admittedly a mess at times throughout her life. They are now attacking Robes and this is key for me to understand was it fentanyl or not? Does she understand that she was purchasing fentanyl or not? And there are two issues with that, Robes. One of them happens to be that the guy who sold her the stuff is now claiming he never gave her fentanyl. The other issue Robes with that is that she now admits on the stand that she wasn't the one that said fentanyl to the investigators. Investigators, they were the ones that said it to her. Those two issues, Robes, do you start even if you don't have reasonable doubt in your mind? Do you think that's enough to make the jurors pause?
00:14:30
Speaker 2: It gives doubt? Is it reasonable or is it just that's it absolutely puts some doubt on the prosecution story. This reminds me a lot of what we saw with Brandon Brendan Banfield, where the insinuation by the defense was that the prosecution fed their key witness the exact type of testimony they needed her to say on the stand to prove their theory. It didn't work out so well for Brendan Banfield because the old pair's story that Matt with the prosecutor. The jury obviously bought. This is almost an identical situation where the defense is trying to say the prosecution the investigators told this housekeeper exactly what to say, and in return, she gets a massive immunity deal to save her own skin because she was looking at some pretty serious prison time given her prior offenses. So it's almost identical in terms of what the defense is trying to poke holes in. The question is how believable is this housekeeper? How believable is this witness?
00:15:33
Speaker 1: Well, stay here, when we come back, we'll tell you just how believable we think she is. And well, the will tell you also the key quote there was a conversation she had with Corey Richins after Eric Richins died, and it was a simple line, a simple quote that might might robes be a part of Corey Richards' undoings. Stay here and.
00:16:08
Speaker 2: Welcome back to this episode of Amy and TJ Presents. We are following the Corey Richards trial. The what else is it called? The Grief author murder trial, the Children's Grief author murder trial, whatever you want to call it. I like it because it just gives an extra Oh my god, no, she did it.
00:16:27
Speaker 1: Actually explains it more. I think it is better. Actually, you're right.
00:16:31
Speaker 3: She wrote a book for children being like the maternal savior who comes in to help all mothers or parents help their children and guide them.
00:16:42
Speaker 2: Through the loss of a parent. When she actually stands accused of murdering said parent, it really is the audacity. If she is guilty, which she has not been found guilty as if yet she is innocentential proof and guilty. But if she's found guilty, that the odddacity, I guess is what you would say. Don't just deny, actually swoop in and act like you're the savior. That's tough.
00:17:11
Speaker 1: To be honest with you. I do want to read the book now. I want to see that book and what she actually wrote.
00:17:17
Speaker 2: Are you with me?
00:17:18
Speaker 1: Are you with me? And she's innocent to approven guilty? Now we talked about some of the issues with the housekeeper here in her testimony, and her name is Carmen Lawber. Is her name Carmen Lauber and robes she I mean, they go through and I felt bad for this woman because she has of her own doing and admittedly so, she has had criminal history, drug history, addiction history, even her family, her kids. We talk about hearing now she said her own daughter is overdosed several times. Right, it's just a family dynamic. And yes, people make all kinds of mistakes. But you hear also addiction. You hear just how impactful it sounds, and listen to your ropes. This is an illness. Obviously she was sick. Obviously she's made some bad decisions. But you hearing her, I think she handled herself so well and calmly and saying yep, I did that, Yes I did. Maybe she was just well prepared. But it's hard in listening to her to not find her to be a credible witness.
00:18:18
Speaker 2: Oh, you and I were both moved listening to her because this is painful and not easy for her to get up on this stand and not only talk about what she knows, her role in what happened according to prosecutors, and her history. We saw the defense attorney go from talking about obviously her criminal history, her drug abuse and addiction, and her what did they talk about her her learning disability. I mean, it was just it was basically everything that would be humiliating about you feeling poorly about yourself and your ability and capability and decisions. It was like everything was on the table for all all to see. It was painful to watch her be exposed in that way, and yet I understand why it had to happen from a legal standpoint. This is the key prosecution witness. This is the person who literally is putting the final nail in the coffin of Corey Richards. So they have to impugne her credibility, they have to question her credibility. And it makes sense because she even had to admit on the stand that she was high on meth, that she tested positive for meth during this period of time. She said, I wasn't high all the time, but she was high quite a bit of the time.
00:19:33
Speaker 1: I don't remember. The defense attorney said, so you were high this whole time. It was said in a way, and I get it. They're doing their job. They have to defend their client who is potentially going to prison for the rest of her life Ropes. I get it. It's just it was a part of discrediting someone. And I think the only part I would question Robes is that she did she did have an incentive to say whatever prosecutors wanted her.
00:19:57
Speaker 2: To say, she was looking at federal drug charges she had already. I think they asked her how many times she had been arrested, charge convicted of drug charges. She said, I don't know, So that will just tell you how lengthy her rap sheet is. And so look, once you've already had that many strikes against you, and now and now you've sold the drugs to somebody who was accused of using those drugs to murder that person. Those are some serious charges, serious federal charges, potentially life in prison types of charges. So she is incentivized, for sure to take this deal and testify against her former boss.
00:20:36
Speaker 1: And what the defense is trying to say, yes, lie, but essentially say anything they want you to say. I don't know. There's still a question. There's no question that she bought drugs, is it not. There's no question she bought drugs on behalf of Corey Richards.
00:20:52
Speaker 2: Absolutely. I mean she went through the whole process of explaining how Corey would say, I have an investor who needs something strong. She obviously knew she had connections. So she goes and she gives her cash, drops it off at a fire pit at this house she was renovating. She goes and gets the drugs from some gas station, brings and drops the drugs at this fire pit, picks up the money. I mean it was she She tells a very specific and detailed account of how this all transpired four separate times, but most notably the last two times and roke.
00:21:26
Speaker 1: Those last two times or an attempt on his life, and one in which he actually did die. So no, aheam No.
00:21:34
Speaker 2: I was just thinking the question is is it oxy cotton or is it vetah?
00:21:37
Speaker 1: Yes, they're going all of the Okay, this is the other one. Nobody seems to remember exactly what the drugs were. This was four years ago.
00:21:44
Speaker 2: Now, yes, and everybody was high.
00:21:46
Speaker 1: Everybody's on something. One's potentially a murderer, one's dead, one's trying to stay out of prison. Yeah, who you believe.
00:21:56
Speaker 2: And there's a drug dealer always changed his story.
00:21:59
Speaker 1: Yeah, so this is what the prosecution. Yes, when you're dealing with trying to you hear this all the time. You're not dealing with the best among us. Sometimes, when you're trying to put on a case and you have a drug dealer and a drug user who are a couple of your key witnesses, you.
00:22:17
Speaker 2: Know the key witnesses because you have to prove Look, we know how he died like that is so interesting. Sometimes we don't. In other cases, we just don't know how the drugs got in his system. And so yes, the people who bought the drugs, sold the drugs, used the drug All of that is key to proving that Corey Richins is the person who actually gave him those drugs.
00:22:41
Speaker 1: Right, So what if we throw all of that out? Even if you don't like this witness, right, robes and things, she's full of it, and don't believe a thing she says. There is so much more to this case. I don't know if you can remember some of them off the top of your head. I can look up. But the first day of the tru when opening statements, when the prosecution use some of her Google.
00:23:01
Speaker 2: Searches, Oh my goodness.
00:23:04
Speaker 1: There is so much circumstantial at least evidence rope that it's hard for you to go, Okay, there's reasonable doubt some of the things she was looking for. We've seen this in some cases.
00:23:16
Speaker 2: It's hard to explain, and it usually it's all about the cover up, you know. Can police find deleted emails? Can police find deleted texts. She's asking all sorts of questions about how what are prisons like for the rich? It was like, it was, oh, here we go, I got him exactly? Can cops uncover deleted messages iPhone? Can you delete everything off an old iPhone without actually having it? Can deleted text meshes be retrieved from an iPhone? How to completely wipe an iPhone clear remotely? How to permanently delete information from an iPhone remotely? I mean, look, and there's another one here. My favorite was the ones about prison because she was anticipating. That's the crazy thing, anticipating getting caught and trying to prepare herself mentally for going to prison. That's one of the more damning searches I can even imagine. And to get it exactly right, Oh wow, luxury prisons for the rich in America? What women Utah prison? Can cops force you to do a lie detector test? If someone is poisoned? What does it go down on the death certificate? As? I mean literally that one to me, How do you explain that search weekend? If someone is poisoned, what does it go down on death certificate? As? And by the way, I know what her attorneys are going to try to say, well, she was just wondering if she was charged with it, what would it No, you would say, how could someone be accused of poisoning? Like you know what you would do? These searches tell you exactly what was.
00:24:54
Speaker 1: In her heart. You can't get inside her.
00:24:59
Speaker 2: But as a journ using common sense, there it is. Those searches are the smoking gun. Yes, great to hear from the house creek keeper. Great to hear from the forensic experts and from the police on the scene and looking at that body cam and watching her reaction and hearing about all of her choices before and after those searches. To me, I can't unsee them. I can't unhear them as a juror, and you can't explain them to me that would make any sense other than the fact she did something and was trying to find a way out of that.
00:25:34
Speaker 1: And they do. They have a hell of a circumstantial case against her. This is a case that was anticipated to go at least a month. I've heard them say as much as five weeks, but now I have I mean, honestly, Robes, things have been a little slow, and it's taken a little time, and they've asked the delays and they lost a full day, so who knows how long this thing is going to go. Now, Yep, we did mention though ropes. Look, we talk about circumstantial stuff and stuff you can't under see. Those searches just don't make sense. That an innocent person would do luxury prisons for the rich in America is something that's going to stay with me the entire trial.
00:26:08
Speaker 2: That's just it's like you're an entitled murderer.
00:26:13
Speaker 1: Maybe she was doing research on Glene Maxwell.
00:26:16
Speaker 2: Yeah, for nonviolent offenders. And unless she has something that she can blackmail a very prominent public official with, I don't think she's gonna get the same treatment.
00:26:25
Speaker 1: That's a separate episode of Folks. We'll tell you where you can find that one. But this was another part of the circumstantial evidence that just doesn't make sense and you won't be able to explain it away. But the housekeeper said that after Eric Richards died, she reached out to Corey Richards and she was concerned and she should have been Robes. This housekeeper in her mind, now, this is part that is very convincing to me. In her mind, she knows she provided drugs to Corey Richins. She now knows that Eric Richards is dead, so the first thing in her mind was about herself, was about, oh my god, did I purchase drugs that end up killing this guy? So she reached out that to me, Robes is authentic. So they did have in court the exchange between her and Corey Richins, and I believe she just did this from memory, right. It wasn't like a video or a yes, excuse me audio, but this was the exchange she said she had with Corey Richins. And I think this says a lot.
00:27:30
Speaker 2: Yeah, she testified to this. She said that she said to Corey, please tell me these pills were not for him. Corey Richins, No, they were not. Eric passed away from a brain ANEURYSM.
00:27:42
Speaker 1: Okay, what does that tell you? So who if they weren't for him, who were they for an investor? According to Corey, an investor who is not on the witness list, by the way, and we have no idea who that person is. Afterwards, Robes they were saying, like weeks after or something, the housekeeper asked Richard's about drugs and she said, no, I don't need anything. The investor what left town left town. This was after the investor left town. But that exchange robes seems to be an authentic one, at least from the housekeeper, like she's concerned, I gave you drugs and he's dead. If I provided them, I'm in trouble. That seemed authentic yep to me. Yep.
00:28:25
Speaker 2: And look, why would someone This is also just a very valid point go on the stand and admit to all of this, like this is she has put. I know that she's getting a sweetheart deal, and I know that she is getting off, but this she said, she wanted to do the right thing. She's clean and sober, and she talked about her daughter's overdoses, and she said, I just I don't want to have this weighing on me. That she said part of her motivation was also just to do the right thing.
00:28:51
Speaker 1: I get that. I can understand that. But I can also understand that any juror looking at her and say, woman, you will say anything you have to stay out of prison. Keep in mind, also, if one word she said on the stand proves to be not true, she's going to prison for a long time. That's a part of the deal. You have to tell the truth. So she is also, as we say, incentive to make sure she does not mess her story up in terms of telling a lie. So this is one we will keep a very close eye on some of these details. As you said, Robes, what's your title of the trial?
00:29:25
Speaker 2: Oh, I like Children's Grief author murder trial.
00:29:28
Speaker 1: That's what we're going with. It's a bit of a mouthful, but it tells the whole story in one line. Folks, we will follow this keep an eye on this feed. Of course, we're following several high profile trials. It seems a new one pops up every week.
00:29:43
Speaker 2: It certainly does, and of course you can always catch We covered this trial and as you pointed out, many others on our regular feed, Amy and TJ versus Amy and TJ Presents, which is what you're on right now, So please feel free to go back and forth between the two. We try to give different types of episode for different audiences, but please be a fan of both. We would really appreciate that. As always, thank you for listening to us. I made me Robock alongside TJ. Holmes.
00:30:09
Speaker 1: We'll talk to you soon.