Explosive Testimony From Kouri Richins’ BOYFRIEND, Friends’ Shock Allegations, and Savannah Guthrie’s Next Move, with Maureen Callahan

and Managing Partner at Dave Aaronberg Law. Here's what's on the docket today.

Cory Richen's murder trial continues with the state pulling out the big guns with a parade of former friends making some shocking allegations. It hasn't moved the needle with a jury. We will discuss. Cory Richen's boyfriend also took the stand this week. Well, unpack this testimony with the host of the Nure Marine Callahan. Cannot wait for that. I'm going today by my co-host Phil Holloway, criminal lawyer, ex-prosculator and former police officer Phil. We've seen

some attempted character assassination in week two of the Cory Richen's trial. Do you think this strategy's been effective? Dave, you know, look, we've seen all kinds of stuff so far in this trial.

And, you know, there's a lot of stuff we can learn about the system about the process.

A lot we can learn about lawyering and trial advocates. There's so much we have to talk about as this case, at least the state's case, and chief seems to be past a halfway point and might be getting into the home stretch here. Look, you're speaking of things that have potentially backfired. So, I don't know where we want to begin, but recently, I guess it was earlier this week,

“maybe on Tuesday, March, the third to be specific. I think we had Brooke Errington, Dave, and she's”

a forensic accountant. She's been in the business like 38 years, right? So, the state hired her to do sort of the financial deep dive into Cory Richen's. And, you know, they have those financial charges against her that were part of a separate or severed case. The judge, I think, didn't want to include all that here as a matter of due process. And, I understand breaking that out, but she's got some significant criminal charges pertaining to the loans that she took out that were supposedly

fraudulent and then insurance fraud and all these kinds of things. But, there's this whole saying, and I'm going to talk more about this at the end of the show when we get to our closings, right? But, when we're cross-examining witnesses, we want to make sure we know sort of what's going to come out of the witnesses mouth, particularly when you're doing defense work. And, if you ask the wrong question and the witness says something you don't expect, you can just absolutely derail your

case. And, we saw some of that here, Dave, I don't know if you saw this, but we have a sought, Brooke Errington answers a question on defense. And, if we can go ahead and just show that to our audience, then we can talk about it. Yeah, that's sought one. And, nothing in all the hundred and some thousand pages that you reviewed. Did you ever see any statement by Corey Richins written down to anyone, to any of our investors, to anybody, saying, "I know I'm going to fix this

“problem. I'm going to kill my husband and then I'll have plenty of money." Did you ever see any of that?”

Ms. Kerenton, you can't answer the question. There's an email between her and Mount Strong, where she talks about the inconvenience of being married. Okay, that's, so does that answer the question I just asked you? You've asked, I'm not trying to create anything, but you said, "Is there anything that indicated anything?" And, you know, I don't talk like that. Yeah, I mean, David, look, we've,

look, I've been there. I mean, I've asked questions that I wish I could take back, as soon as it comes out of my mouth, I'm like, "Ooh, can I just get that back and you're just praying that the witness doesn't hit it out of the park like that witness did?" It was a little non-responsive to the question, to be fair, to attorney Nester, but still, the judge let it come in, and it's just not the kind of thing you want coming out and, and what's really the defense case, which is what

cross-examination is about. Yeah, never ask a question. You don't know the answer too, and sometimes

you get witnesses that'll surprise you, but it is not a death blow. I mean, she didn't say, there is no other course I've got to kill. I'm she's talking about the inconvenience of marriage. There are a lot of people who feel that way, and they get divorces, or they try to stick it out, they don't try to kill their spouse. Of course, even though I say this, I'm still a big believer in core-rich and it's a guilt. I just don't think that that moment was the death now for the defense.

“I think there's a lot of other reasons that think the defense is in trouble. That one, yeah,”

you know, that's just that can even play their narrative. Yes, she was unhappy. She had a boyfriend, but she didn't try to kill him. Oh, there's certainly no denying that she was unhappy and she wanted

on this case. Dave, I got a question for you that, right? So you've been, you were a prosecutor for

“a long time. Did you ever have a defense lawyer object that you were making faces to the jury”

when you were questioning a witness? Did that ever happen to you? No, but the defense lawyer is will throw just about anything against the wall to see if it will stick. Yes, it should. It's spoken like a good defense lawyer. Here, the prosecutor denied that she was making face. And the judge said, you know, I have a good view of this. I didn't see any any faces being made. So the judge took the state side on that, but this is typical. The defense has a lot lower tolerance for pain

than the prosecution does because the defense will love to jump and say, Miss trial, Miss trial,

any possible opportunity. And in fact, the defense did try to call for Miss trial. The housekeeper.

She was the one who said that she got the the drugs, the fentanyl four, quarry richins that was, you know, used to kill him was the murder weapon. Essentially, she testified previously in the case.

“Anytime you have a witness that's on the stand, their credibility is an issue and if they've been”

convicted of a felony or they got problems. Oh, in this case, if they have legal criminal legal problems in the jurisdiction where they're testifying, you have a lot of leeway to cross examine them because the idea is that they might have some tendency to shade their testimony in favor of the prosecution to curry favor with the prosecution, right? So there was some idea. The allegation was that she had messed up in her drug court program and drug court is one of these treatment

courts that say an accountability court varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but essentially it's a rehabilitative effort, right? And so if you have a drug court sanction or a violation, typically it can be addressed with like a short trip to jail here and there, but without completely revoke in your bond or your probation. So there was some idea that maybe the state had not turned everything over or the witness had not been truthful. So they're saying that that amounts

to a due process violation. They filed a written motion on that. The judge says he's going to take it under advisement, but because he's allowing the trial to proceed, that tells me Dave that he's probably going to say that's a minor or a non-intentional alleged violation of the new process, right? Yes. But back to the faces, right? Yes. I want to, I was just told that we have, we actually have some sound in some video. This is sought to, we can call for that. This is defense

attorney Katherine Nestor saying the prosecutors make in faces. I know that it is always

tradition that the state gets to sit closest to the jury in every trial. I've ever been in that's the case, and we actually prefer it that way. But we are getting reports from individuals who are watching this matter on television that particularly yesterday, but also previously T.S. today that members of the prosecution team are making faces at the jury during our cross examinations, and we would ask the staff. With respect, I have a better view of this than any

of the cameras. I haven't seen anything like that. Okay, well, we've asked for the time stance, and we're going to try to provide it to the court, but all I'm asking is just gentle admonishment, that that's not appropriate, and to try to refrain from doing that. The extent that is happening. I'm not going to admonish anybody for anything that isn't happening. The only

“faces I've seen are counsel at me, and so I think we're well within the proper bounds of appropriate”

conduct from what I can see from here. Okay, he's not wrong. The lawyers on both sides have been making some strange faces at the judge based on the rulings. I've seen that, and that's just, you know, I guess, maybe to be expected. But anyway, the judge is making his own record in cases in the appeal. He wants to make his finding that there was no such conduct by the prosecutor. The judge is trying to control the court, too. And just for the audience, these arguments are being

made outside of the jury's business. So they're not trying to prejudice a jury by saying, look, how terrible the prosecution is. They're juvenile. Now this is to the judge. So they said it's because they really did believe that this was going on, and they're trying to get a sanction, trying to get a chip with a judge, or maybe even the mistrial. But you know what happens, Phil, whether it's about faces being made or about testimony statements that come in that they're

not prepared for. They didn't know about like mislead. The defense is trying just to

is pretty substantial against their clients. So any chance they can get to just have a duel or

a meanwhile, the judge is aware of this. And the judge does not want to have to do it all over again,

“because it's not if you get a mistrial. That means everything stops. You have to go ahead and”

set it out months and advance again. Pick a jury again, the whole thing. And the trials are been underway for a significant period of time. We're talking about date, or any that we were talking about now. And so no, this had to be a lot to the clear mistrial. Like literally something that shocks the conscience. It's not going to do it because the prosecution is making faces. So now, this thing is going on. Yeah, it is. And speaking of date eight or date nine,

which is I think where we are right now on the fifth of March, as we're recording this show, there's a lot of stuff that happened today that is really worth talking about. But backing up a day or so, we had, did you see we had a witness Crystal Bowman Carter, the estate planning attorney, who said that, you know, Eric, the victim in the case, alleged victim, I guess, did not want

“to communicate with this estate planning lawyer, because he was making big changes financially.”

I mean, big changes like cutting her out of the will and everything. He didn't want to communicate with his lawyer by email, because he was afraid that his wife was reading his email. Did you catch that one? I did. And, in fact, we have a sought on that, sought three if we can play that.

Meeting with Eric Richins was there's something unique to you or something that you did for the first

time in preparing his estate plan. Yeah, there were a few things. Well, what were those? So one, he didn't want us to communicate with him by email that happened a little bit later, but because he was worried that Corey would be reading his emails. He left everything to his kids at possible. Yeah, client one time, who had a shared email with his spouse, and I didn't feel like I could really communicate very well with a client because, you know, I don't want

a third party sort of looking over my shoulder, so it's because it can actually destroy a attorney client privilege, and it's debatable about how much privilege applies to emails anyway,

but I didn't really want a third party involved in it. And I don't blame Eric for not wanting

his spouse, particularly if you're looking at maybe ending the marriage, or if it's not going well. But to think that you're being spied on, I mean, it really is something to say about the status

“of this marriage, and I think it goes to motive. Absolutely. Remember, jurors always want to know the”

why. They don't have to. It's not an element of the crime, but they want to know why and loving wife, the sweet woman sitting next to them and just seems so angelic, would commit this? Well, there are a lot of motives. The boyfriend, the fact that she hated her spouse, wanted out, it was inconvenient, but then there's the financial motive. And she's not just being charged with murder. She's been charged with financial crimes. I mean, when she realized that her name wasn't on the

documents, she tried to make sure her name was on the documents allegedly. So she was in financial straits. We saw testimony already about that that she was millions of dollars in debt. She was trying to buy that new mansion that she was going to refurbish. She needed cash. And here's the way to get it. After her husband's death, I guess people mourn in different ways. She seemed to be very euphoric about the money she was getting. So yes, this all fits the narrative. And I just think

the prosecution has done a really good job building up the motive because this case has a motive that is as easy to understand as any case I've seen, which is the motive that you hate your husband, you're in love with someone else, and you want money, duh. I mean, that's easy to get. Spoken like a career prosecutor day long time. You know, you do it so well. Speaking of your time as prosecutor, you've been a prosecutor more recently than I have. And so let me ask you about this.

How often did you have the opportunity or your colleagues who work for you in your office? How long did you guys? How often did you have the opportunity to use recorded jail calls where defendants are speaking on a recorded line and talking about their case foolishly and create lots of damning evidence for you to use to that happen a lot? Jail calls are prosecutors best friend. And we love them. In fact, we would listen to hours of it. And it was a labor of love because

you knew that you're likely to get something. And it is kind of interesting. The eavesdropping,

saying. I know what you're saying. Hey, don't they alert the inmates that their calls are being recorded? Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Usually an audible this call is recorded and all this kind of you get plenty of opportunity to not talk about the case. You do. They even like remind you, throughout the call sometimes with like a, this call is being recorded. There's even a sign up where you're making a call to calls when you're recording and get in their mind somehow.

“It doesn't see through. That's why if it's not for stupid criminals, prosecutors would”

have a much tougher time in our job. So yes, we love listening to them because there's always

some good stuff on it. And here is no joke. Home security can feel overwhelming, but simply safe makes it simple. Many people are choosing it for the peace of mind. It provides with over 4 million homes already protected with no long-term contracts and an anti-fifth guarantee, it's easy to see why so many feel safer having simply safe in their lives. With 20 years of experience in home security, simply safe has consistently been recognized for excellence. They were

named the best home security system of 2026 by US News and World Report and their customer service has been ranked the best in the industry. That's why so many homeowners feel safer and more secure with simply safe in their lives. Right now, you can get 50% off their new simply safe system at simplysafe.com/magan. That's simplysafe.com/magan. There's no safe like simplysafe. Well, here at MK Tree Prime, we're live streaming every minute of this trial. And I was actually

watching some this morning on the Thursday, March the 5th. And I was in the chat room with the other folks watching. And there was quite the kerfuffle where people were sort of surprised

that people would be basically saying these and criminally things. In fact, let's go ahead

and fast forward to we got sought free A. This is a witness named Becky Lloyd. And so she was a former employee of C&E stone maistering. This was the family business. She was hired as an admin in February of 2021. On December 17th of 2021, Corey Richards and Lloyd were wrapping gifts as part of a secret Santa project. Lloyd herself had divorced previously a few months before. And so she and Corey were talking about their marriages and Corey and Eric had a fight that day.

And let's take a listen to slot 3A and see what Becky Lloyd says that Corey Richards said.

“What else did Corey say during that conversation about her marriage with Eric?”

She talked about how she was feeling trapped. She was feeling like there wasn't an easy way forward out of the marriage. She felt like she was worried about her kids. She was worried that she was going to lose them and that Eric was going to take the kids from her and that his family was going to turn the community against her. And she said it in many ways it would be better if he were dead. What was the tone of Corey's voice during that conversation?

It was serious. She definitely had a very serious tone. We weren't really joking. It was a very honest conversation and a very heartfelt conversation and you could tell from her body language that she was frustrated and she was struggling with where she was at. That was serious tone. Well, you know, that obviously wasn't a recorded jail call, but it stands for like the proposition there is, you know, your words can can and will be used against you. It doesn't have

“to be a response to police questioning day. Yeah. Well, it's tough because that's how you know”

your talent truth is when you don't think anyone is paying attention and you're grabbing with your friend. Now, of course, if you're wondering if this is hearsay, there is an exception. Well, it's not even hearsay. It's a statement by a party opponent since the statement was made by the defendant. It comes in. It's not your typical hearsay. But the defense did try to listen the blow here because this, this was pretty bad for the defense, but they try to listen the blow.

By saying, you had a faulty memory, right? You didn't speak up on this right away. Did you? I mean, you were not 100% sure that she said what she said. Did you?

Yeah. Like, and look, I've been critical at times somewhat of sort of the advocacy on both sides

here. And this was an opportunity. This was an example, though, I think, of where the defense was, able to do a pretty good job with this witness because what we just played there, that is very damning evidence if the jury believes it. But the defense, I think, did a good job here of giving the jury a reason, perhaps, not believe it. So we have sought three B, which is the same witness

feel like if you put me on a stand, I would not be confident enough to actually, truly know if she said it, but I swear she said in many ways it would be better if you just died. The defense was aware that she had made this statement where she wasn't really sure and they did a good job being able to get right to it. In fact, I think that it shows the jury that this witness

hasn't always been as certain about her testimony as she is telling them that she is here

today on the stand. What do you think? Nothing. That's right. I think that was one of the

“few parts where I think they did score some points. They wanted to undermine this very important”

witness by saying that well, you didn't come out and say this at the beginning. You came out later and told this story and then you said that you weren't sure you could 100% say under oath, that Cory said what she said. And then later she said that, well, I'm 90% sure she said the comment about him being better dead. 90% could be reasonable to out. That's where I think the defense score points by Indian. There's still plenty of evidence whether this witness is believed

or not, but it does add to the narrative that clearly Cory was very unhappy in her marriage. Whether you believe her that she'd be better off if her husband were dead, she was still so despondent about the marriage that could you envision that someone who had a financial motive,

“who had a personal motive would commit this kind of crime? Yeah, I do. Well, you know,”

this is also what we have. This is a good example and look here at MK true crime. We like to educate

folks when we can. And so if you've never been part of a trial or seen things like this,

this is why we have something called re-direct examination where once the defense gets in their own cross examination, they make their blows. You know, the prosecutor gets to get to have another crack at the, at the Apple so it's speaking of the bite at it. And here we have sought three C, which is the witness trying to redeem herself. It is very difficult to say such a thing when someone that you care deeply about has been levelled with such charges. It is very difficult.

So that is why it didn't come up in the first interview. It is a very difficult position to be here on this dancing. Things like this. I don't want to be here. No one has supplied my testimony to me. No one has made me say anything about that. No one has supplied words to me. I know that that happened and it is unfortunate that it happened because I don't want to be here saying it. But I know that that is what was said. And that's about all you can do with that on on re-direct. But I thought

Dave, you tell me what you think. But I thought the witness did a pretty good job of saying look when she made this statement to me about an unfair phrasing. Everyone would be better off. Or if he were dead, you know, that's the kind of thing where if you've heard somebody say that and then their spouse turns up dead, and she's alleged to have done it. And your recant, I guess, recounting this conversation to investigators, I can see where you might be like

oh shit. She actually said that and you might just kind of momentarily question your memory and it might leave it out. That's sort of my take away from what she said about her initial reluctance to come forward with that. Yeah. Well, the defense lawyer Nester did ask about this witnesses conversation and who else she told about the statement that Corey allegedly made. And that would

be a really good gacha. I haven't told anyone else. It's the first time I've talked about it.

No, but that's not what she said. She said she did tell her partner, her friend Katie, the private investigator. So there are multiple people that she told. So that lens credibility that perhaps this is real, this happened. And then the prosecutor did get up and I thought did a good job asking, well, were you guys drinking? Because that's another thing you could say, well, you know, they were drinking then into what they were saying. And Lloyd, the witness said that she had

“one drink. And so they were not really drinking a lot. And they said, was, were you guys joking?”

Was this a joke? And Lloyd said she did not believe that Corey Richards was joking. So in the end, overall, good witness, not great, but good enough for the prosecution. You know, sometimes it's better to stop asking questions and to let the witness get down, particularly when they're

send them to prison for life. So maybe it's not a good idea to ask a lot of follow-ups sometimes,

“particularly if you don't ask leading questions. But this whole thing about the other people that”

are involved in this case, particularly you got the sister who obviously is really pissed off about it and very hurt. She's a, she was a very aggressive witness, you know, for the prosecutor. But there's this whole thing about the sister and Eric's family also hiring a private investigator. This is a theme that we've seen from the beginning. And the defense, I would imagine they might bring, come back to this in their case and maybe it's certainly in their closing to try to make

the point to the jury that the victim's family is really pushing this, really sort of driving this

prosecution train. And they are people that have an axe to grind. They have an emotional

investment in it, which prosecutors are not supposed to have, but the family obviously does. So I expect we'll see more about that, Dave, as this case goes forward. Yeah, this family has been victimized already and they're going to be taking through the

“ringer again by the defense because that's what they do, right? They're going to try to put the”

family and the victim on trial. I don't think it's going to work, but yeah, we'll keep following it here in MK True Crime film. Next, Marine Callahan. Journalists and host of the fellow MK Media Show, The Nerve with Marine Callahan. She's going to join us. So stay tuned. Waking up sneezing and congested every morning isn't just frustrating. Trust me, I know about that personally. It may be a sign that the air inside your home isn't as clean as it should be.

Even with regular cleaning dust, odors and invisible pollutants can linger in the air.

That's the air, the breathe every single day. Air doctor is a powerful air purifier designed

to remove those hidden contaminants. It's advanced age filtration system captures particles about 100 times smaller than what typical air purifiers can remove. And that includes dust and pollen, mold spores, pet dander. I got a lot of that with my beagle. Wild fire smoke, bacteria, viruses, odors, smoke, ozone, and harmful things that you don't want circulating indoors. So air doctor runs whisper quiet. So won't disrupt sleep or daily routines. The auto mode

feature monitors air quality 24/7 to maintain optimal performance. And built in filter change, reminders take away the guesswork. It's also backed by strong credibility. 98% of customers say their home air feels cleaner, safer and healthier. Over 93% notice fewer allergy symptoms. Plus air doctor won newsweek readers choice award for best air purifier. So head to airdoctorpro.com and use promo code true cry to get up to $300 off

today. Air doctor comes with a 30 day money back guarantee plus a three year warranty. In $84 value, that's free. So get this exclusive podcast only offer now at airdoctorpro.com A-I-R-D-O-C-T-O-R-P-R-O.com using promo code true cry. Welcome back to MK True Crime. I'm Phil Hawley. Along with my co-host today, Dave Erimberg. We're very pleased to be joined by Marine Callahan, journalist and host of the nerve with Marine Callahan. Marine, thanks for much for being here.

I know you've been following and talking about this Corey Richens case on your show and just right out of the gate. I'm going to do what lawyers on cross-examination should not do. And I'm going to ask you an open-ended question. And here it is. What are your thoughts about this trial so far before we get into the details? Well, I have to be honest. I haven't been following it with a day-to-day granularity that you guys probably have, but I am very, very familiar with it.

I am struck by her comportment and self-presentation in the courtroom, which to me evokes no one

“so much as Casey Anthony. Now I know Casey got off, but it's not a good thing. I think if I'm in”

that jury box and I'm looking at this woman who has is wearing no makeup, is wearing sort of dough eyes like who me. How do I get on trial for murder? I mean, you know, the black and white jacket as you guys noted right before we went to air evokes nothing so much as like a jailhouse, rock, scenario. And you know, I also wonder, I mean, how they found a jury that has really no familiarity with this case. She was really well known as the quote unquote children's grief author,

had complained to a friend that he was pretty sure his wife had tried to poison him. After he

ate a sandwich that made him so sick, he thought he was going to die. And in the aftermath of that,

“she allegedly went to her supplier/friend and said, you know what, I think I need a little more”

fentanyl. Yeah. Well, you know, there was a testimony today. And of course, this is March the 5th, this show will drop on March the 6th, but there was some testimony today about whether or not she might have tried to even poison the boyfriend, right? By serving him some food products that made him black out for several hours and lose time. The whole thing is crazy, but you mentioned her her comportment. I love that word because she's sitting in court and, you know, the lawyers,

I think need to be cautious with this because actually the lawyers have some input. The defendants

themselves don't always have the ability to decide what they're going to wear, but putting on and we'll

show it here on the screen, right? This picture of her with black and white stripes on it. It's sort of makes you think about the sort of the old school prisoners in their black and white jumpsuits, just not a good look if you're on trial for murder. It's not. And I wonder Phil, so if you're trying somebody as high profile as this, do you call in like a stylist, a wardrobe expert, someone who can really say like listen, this is exactly what you want to communicate to a jury,

this is what you don't want to communicate to a jury. It also makes me think of binary black and white thinking like you're either completely innocent or you're completely guilty. It's a strange,

“it's a strange ensemble, I think. It makes her look like she's working on the Chang gang,”

and maybe she will one day. Exactly Dave. In your where you practiced and where you prosecuted there in Palm Beach County, did the defense lawyers there have the ability to sort of decide what defendants are going to wear? Are they sort of up, is it up to the jailer or the sheriff, I guess, whoever's holding her, is it up to them that person or that agency to sort of decide what kind of clothes that you get to wear? The defense lawyers have a big say in it. In fact,

I've seen defense lawyers give their own clothes to the defendant who doesn't have the right clothes to wear. So they'll dress them up. In fact, they'll even take makeup on their own to cover up their face tattoos. I mean, so defense lawyers have a lot of sway when it comes this kind of stuff. Sometimes the inmate would just be like, forget it. Like in the case of the devil killer, the one in Southwest Florida, what's his name, who was a double murder, and he had the worst

taste tattoos. Eventually, it was like, yeah, you know, after like three days of wearing makeup, you just have to forget it. So that sort of undoes everything. Let his natural beauty show. Right. Right. Yeah. I'll compliment the guy's name before the end of the show, but yeah,

even though I should never mention his name again, he's a ruthless, disgusting killer.

Speaking of the guy's name's Marine, let's talk about Grossman, Robert, Josh Grossman, the boyfriend that we didn't know if they were going to be able to find him because there were reports that he was living out of a van down by the river or something at some point,

“and they weren't sure if they could get him, but they got him, and he testified. Did you catch any of that?”

I did not, but I've been reading about his testimony and got, if this guy doesn't look like a sad sack, you know, just yet another mark for what looks like a true black widow, you know, and how dumb to be eating any food, she serves up. That's just out of an abundance of caution, maybe, you know. So here's how they, little backstory here. So he apparently says he's known her for a year,

or excuse me, a 10 years a decade. They met in South Carolina. She was flipping a house and he answered a help wanted ad, but now fast forward to 2020 and so forth, and they're in love, and we have sought for, which is Grossman telling us how much he loves Corey. During that time that you were romanticly involved with Miss Richens, did you love her? Yes.

During that time, did you feel that she loved you? Yeah. Yeah. I have a tendency of going ahead over heels, though, probably more than most, so. You know, I think she did. Marine, this is how, according to the text messages presented in court,

Kay Babe. Kay Babe, and there's text messages, you know, where he's saying how draining it is to

love her and that he really just, he says, I don't want to avoid things with people I love, but he says has to avoid things with her. I guess it's because the her marriage, I guess, got in the way. Yeah, that will be an obstacle for sure. I find it interesting. He's on the stand and he's being asked do you think that she loved you? Do you believe that she loved you? And he's squirming. And he's looking down and away and it's all qualified. And that is one of those questions,

“where if it is not a full-throated yes, the answer is a no. You know, and I think he clearly”

realizes deep down that he was just a useful idiot for her. Yeah. He is a sad sack and I come across this credible because he just was so savvy. And I, I, I, I actually believed through the text messages that she really did want to live with him. She wanted to marry him. She, she loved him and was going to kill her husband to help to be with him. But really, as Phil said earlier, this wasn't about Grossman. This was about Cory Richens. This is about Cory, one to help Cory, and Grossman was a

useful idiot. So, but it does make his testimony pretty compelling and in my mind, pretty credible. Dave and Phil, what is the prosecution's theory of not just the case, but the motive? Why did she need her husband dead? Was it the money? I mean, I read that she was having real financial problems. He was very suspicious of what she was up to. She wound up taking out

“like a $500,000 life insurance policy on him forged his signature allegedly. Was it really that simple?”

Yes. Yes. Yeah. It's money. Also, she really hated her husband. She hated his family. And this was to her the most convenient way to get through it all. And also, she just, obviously, well, alleged is a very sick individual who poisons people pretty easily. I mean, we saw that

this wasn't the first time that he was poisoned the victim allegedly. There was a previous attempt.

And now when we heard about the hush puppies that he was eating, that Cory Richens made from Tomah Grossman, we're like, wow, this is just something that, you know, she wants you out of her life. She's not going to go break up with you over the phone. She's not going to call the divorce lawyer. She's going to put her notice in a baked good or a Moscow mule. You know what, if I'm a, if I'm a juror on this case, what's also going to sway me is, is the methodology,

right? Women prefer things like poisoning when it comes to either homicide or suicide. They tend not to go for firearms or anything really bloody or penetrative. So, you know, the pattern of behavior, it's very compelling. You know, I learned that as a criminal justice major, which is my almost useless undergraduate degree, but that's one of the things that's studying criminal criminology. Yeah, you're, you're right. And we're not trying to generalize, but it is not

“unheard of the idea. We, it's actually taught that that sometimes women will resort to poison. I think”

in history, if you look back on the cases that have really been big ones over, over all the history of criminal justice, the poisoning does tend to apply in cases involving female killers. But speaking of the boyfriend, our producer Natasha asked a great question, and I want to run a sought marina and then ask you to answer this question. If you don't mind, and the question is this. Did the defense cross backfire on them? And was this dangerous question? Here we have sought

five. We have defense attorney Lewis asking Grossman why he told prosecutors that Corey asked if he had ever killed anyone. If they're come out of time during that discussion, they're Corey Richens asked you about killing. Do you want me to contextualize it? Please. So yeah, you know, we sat there and talked for quite a while, you know, and

I had never seen her that way obviously. It was a heavy conversation. And I'm not used to that

with her. She's not used to being open like that. Marie being open and asking him if he's ever killed anyone. Why would she ask that question? I'm loving this for the prosecution. Loving it. He's so, you know, listen, this guy's not a hero either. Obviously he was difficult to

if I had ever killed somebody. And like, I didn't just say, why are you asking me that? What are we leaning towards? What are you trying to make me comfortable with? You know, like the guy

“kind of knew she tried to poison him too. I think I agree with you. I think this is if again,”

if I'm sitting in that jury box, I'm thinking this is a win for the prosecution that cross. At least a part of it. And so we also have, we also have another bit of his testimony

that I want to talk to you about. This is basically Grossman saying, you know, why he,

some people are saying he turned on her, right? But this is why he's cooperating, why he's testified for the prosecution. We have socks six. I think I did some research on my phone and saw that she had just been arrested or either she just got arrested. I don't know, days later a week later after I found that out, I was overwhelmed with, you know, guilt sorrow over my wrongdoings, you know, in fidelity. Okay. And that's when I called, I was trying to get a hold of Eric

Sister to tell her, I don't think she was home. I spoke with her husband instead, told him what I told him and he told me, I forget the guy's name, but he said I think there's somebody that

would like to talk to you and it was the rich and family private investigator. He told me that

Cory had done it, you know, that she was guilty. He couldn't tell me why, but she, she, she, and that changed everything for me. You know, I was blown away and then I'm like looking at, looking at everything in our past with a different set of goggles on through different

“lenses and I was trying to figure out if she did it and I could help. That's what I was going to do.”

He has different goggles, Marie. Yeah, I mean listen, he's not a word Smith, but he does, he seems credible. You know, if, otherwise he's the world's greatest actor, just how uncomfortable he seems on that stand. The way in which he still is clearly wrestling with a woman, he did once love and probably it's in some way still does. You know, coming to this very, almost unthinkable conclusion that yeah, she's a killer. She's a killer. The private investigator says to him,

"She did it. I can't tell you how." Now, most people who have an intimate partner who would want to think no way, no way would say, "Well, unless you tell me how you know, why should I believe you?" But this guy says, I took it, I took it as absolutely true, which means deep in his heart of hearts he knew which he was capable of by that point. Yeah, Dave, to her, to Marie's point, do you think he might have known something in his heart of hearts because of the

hush puppies that our friend Bob Mata was posting about on next, who's not, Bob being having been like, "I would see a guest on this show before." Do you think it's because he maybe thought

“that he was poisoned by hush puppies? Yeah. I think that's part of the reason why he can't even say”

that she loved him. I think that, if you would have asked that question, pre-attempted poisoning, then he would have given you a different answer. But he feels like he was used and maybe part of him wants to believe that there was something to her statements that she wasn't totally using him, but he's over her, and that's a good witness for the prosecution to have. So for those of our audience who are listening on podcasts or on serious XM, and you can't see this image of

this text message, I just want to read it for a second before we get into Nancy Guthrie with Marie.

And this is a text message from Josh to K-Babe, and what it says is, "Hey, cutie. Yeah, everything is good. My body disagreed with my mind yesterday, before I went to work, I sat down to eat that hush puppy thing, and that's all I recall until about 11 p.m. Sounds like the fire department experience was not a disappointment with a couple of exclamation marks. Call me if you get a chance today. Hope you're talking with Matt went good. And so that's all we know, Marie and about the

hush puppy business." And do we know, there's part of that message that's redacted, but how long after her husband's death was it before or after that she allegedly attempted to poison him with the hush puppies? Well, defense diaries, who are our friend Bob answers, he says, "I'm still trying to figure out how no one asked any follow-up questions regarding this message, which was sent to Cory Richins on 3, 2, 22, from Robert Grossman. It seems evident that Cory Cory has an

him to black out or lose time until 11 p.m. This is the day before Eric drinks the Moscow mute.

Yes, yes, so the three or four year anniversary of Eric's death was yesterday, March 4th. And she attempted allegedly to poison the boyfriend a day or two before that. That's the implications. If this is true, this woman is a psychopathic, what is the, I should know this because I wrote a book about a serial killer, but what is the official designation of a serial killer? Is it true or more? Dave, you know the answer to that,

“I think you'd like to be a visual. I've always thought it was true or more.”

Yeah, so she would be a serial, an attempted serial at least. If that's true, she is a true danger to society, they should lock her up and throw away the key, again, if true.

Speaking of serial killers, I want to move to Nancy Guthrie, and I've always kind of wondered

deep down, is Nancy Guthrie a victim of a serial killer because the sheriff tells us, Marine, that he's getting definitely closer. Your thoughts? Sheriff Nanos? Yeah, he says, he says that investigators are quote definitely closer to nabbing a suspect. I believe everything guarding five says. He never contradicts himself, he never says things that he should be keeping close to his best. You know, initially in the

immediate aftermath of her disappearance, it was most definitely a homicide and then like two weeks later, he said he definitely believed she was alive. I mean, I just, I, I really wish that

the Guthrie family had been able to just fully expunge him from this case and hand it over to

the FBI and leave it with them. It would be extremely rare if this were the work of a serial killer. I did think about Israel keys, who I wrote about extensively in American Predator because he did a crime like this where he took two elderly people from their beds in the dead of night. And this case, that case was cold for years until he confessed to it. But I think it's so rare fill in Dave because the effort involved in moving a very sickly 84-year-old woman from place

to place a live or dead is so dangerous. It exposes you to being caught at any given time. I'm sort of of the belief that it's, it's the statistical likelihood that it was somebody very close to her or who was known to her. You did it. Well, most, most murders are. They, I mean, you know, that's, we, we all, that sometimes it's not as complicated as, um, sometimes people for imaginations can make it out to me. Yeah, I, you know, I think it's been so frustrating for

all of us that with all of our technology that we still aren't that close to making a rest. I know that there's some information about the DNA and the gloves, but with our technology, you would think it would have happened sooner. And that's where the CEO of Ring comes in because he generated controversy because he was saying if there were cameras everywhere, if they had more video, we would have perhaps caught the guy by now and he had all these folks

on Reddit who jumped down this road saying, "Oh, really, uh, if only we had universal mass surveillance, but what do you expect the Ring CEO to say?" He's the CEO of a company that provides surveillance. And so, yeah, that's, like, duh. Like, if a Coca-Cola said, I don't know if everyone just had a

“Coke and a smile, we'd be a better world. Yes, that's what you're supposed to do. You're the CEO”

of that company. You're living your gimmick. So I actually think, and by the way, he's right, you would have to give up a lot of privacy, but if there were cameras everywhere, you would catch criminals, but we decided not to go that far. It's a trade-off in our world. Well, you know, to your point about how with all of this technology, there's still this far away, it seems from apprehending a suspect. The thing that's interesting and unique

about the topography there, and it's pitch black at night, I understand, Phil, you can speak to this better than I, you were there for a week. There are no streetlights in Nancy's neighborhood. It is under the cover of darkness, but most Americans do live in a post 9/11, the equivalent of a surveillance state. Many criminals are apprehended based on facial recognition. That is something

“that we all got very comfortable with after 9/11. So I think it's the, that's why I think that”

this had to be somebody known to Nancy, because only somebody of that area would know that stuff would know. Well, even if the nearest neighbor who's maybe an acre away has security camps, they're not really going to pick me up in the dead of night. Nobody's really got enough illumination in the dead of night. And also that some of those ransom notes were sent to

local affiliates are, only a local? You know, that's right. And by the way, you talk about the

darkness, it is pitch black out there at night. There's, there's, there's, there's ordinances and laws that deal with light pollution, right, that are aimed at keeping it dark out there. Of course, this is the downside to such a law or regulation is that it may make crimes more difficult to solve. But today's point, you know, I get where the CEO of RING is wanting people to buy more surveillance video equipment. I get that, but I also understand that we can't, I can't

just, we can't make that final leap because we have so much surveillance already that, you know, it just seems to like to come across as a little bit, um,

unseemly for him to be saying that we need to go into a, uh, such a dramatic surveillance type state.

But before we move on from, uh, Nancy Guthrie, while we've got you here, I did you notice that Savannah Guthrie has made an appearance back at the today's show now. We have video of her by the way that we can play while we talk about it, uh, which is Savannah back at the today's show. Did you hear about that? Yes, actually, we are talking about it on today's episode of the nerve.

“We've been covering a lot of the goings on at Studio 1A, um, and this, I think, so she showed up”

back at the studio on Thursday morning. She did not return to air, but she went to the studio. She was in her and makeup, which I think is a healthy sign. I think she is beginning to make it known that she, she's sort of setting the setting, setting her own, um, pace, but she will probably be coming back to her chair, which I think everybody in America would be very happy to see. Life must go on. It seems to me also an indication that Savannah has been told by law enforcement.

We are, we are not close to making an arrest. Uh, you know, you can stay here if you like, but it's not going to do any good. She's got young kids. She's got to return to life as best she can. And I think this is a very interesting development because what it's going to also kick up just in terms of like what's the power plays over at Studio 1A. You know, they're all wearing their yellow ribbons for Nancy and they're all expressing their like very gooey emotion about it, but really, you know,

they've been jogging for a hoax chair. There were, we talked about this on the nerve and I talked about it in a column for the Daily Mail. We had reporting from inside 30 rock that the minute Savannah got on a plane that Sunday that it was reported her mother had gone missing. Her colleagues were taking closed door meetings saying, you know what? It's really unprofessional

“that Savannah's left and that we don't know when she's coming back. You should hire me and put”

me in that chair. The another crime scene over at the today show. You know, that that's said because obviously for so many reasons, but also that publicly everyone has been so supportive of her and to think that behind the scene they're jogging for her seat is just really unseemly. Oh, Dave, if you think that's bad, the date line producers were going to the higher up saying, how soon is Tucson? Can we get a crew out there now? A date line on Nancy and Savannah got three?

That would be historic numbers. That's crazy. Yeah, it's too soon. I'm just going, that is too soon. And look, this by the way, this is why I'm going to read such a great journalist because she's got, she's so well plugged into all this. It's too soon, but I do think that Savannah going back to New York is a good thing. I think that Savannah, being back in New York tells us a lot, the sheriff isn't telling us anything. He's not telling us anything except the glove

that they got some DNA results back. It had nothing to do with the case. Apparently it was a restaurant worker somewhere nearby and it's unrelated to the case, but he's not really telling us anything else. He's telling us that he might be close to moving the case forward, but we don't know anything. Meanwhile, Savannah is going back to New York. They tell the victim's families in these cases

“things that they don't tell the public. So putting two and two together, I can do the math. I think”

that she knows that the case might be sadly on the verge of growing cold, but look, we have to leave it there with Marine. We don't say thank you very much for joining us and taking

the time to be with us. I know it's not your first time on this show. First time with me,

and I've been on your show and we just, we love talking with you. Tell our audience here at MK TrueCrum where they can find you. Marine. Oh, thank you, Phil. And I feel the same way. Thank you and Dave so much for having me. I love your show. I love MK TrueCrum. I can be found over at the

calling over at the Daily Mail. All right. I'll leave it right there with Marine. Thank you very much for being here with us. Next, we have our closing arguments and your questions from the mail badge. Stay tuned. If you're looking to make smarter choices for your health this year, River Bend Ranch is a great place to start. River Bend Ranch steaks are not only delicious. They also contain real high quality protein that helps fuel your body. Beef is a complete protein and

“it contains all nine essential amino acids your body needs to function. It also helps you feel”

fuller for longer reducing cravings and snacking. It's one of the most nutrient-dense foods you can eat. Pat with protein, iron, zinc, and B vitamins to help your body support energy strength and overall health. But here's the key. Not all beef is created equal. The quality of beef defends entirely on how it is raised and where it comes from. That's where River Bend Ranch stands apart. For more than 35 years, River Bend Ranch has been building an elite Black Angus

herd, carefully selecting cattle for exceptional flavor and tenderness. They use only the top one to two percent of the entire population for breeding, which is why their beef tastes noticeably better than average Black Angus beef. All River Bend Ranch cattle are born and raised

right here in the USA. They never use growth hormones or antibiotics and the beef is processed

“right at the ranch and they're award-winning USD-inspected facility. Each steak is aged 21 days to”

enhance flavor and tenderness. It's a difference you will notice with your very first succulent bite. No shortcuts, no metal men, just incredible, healthy and flavorable beef ship directly to your home. Order today at River Bend Ranch.com and use promo code Megan for $20 off your first order. Welcome back to MK True Crime. We'll get to our closing argument. The first we have a question from Kelly. Let me start by saying that this has become my absolute favorite podcast. Thank you,

Kelly. I love the perspective of both prosecutors and defense attorneys on current and past true crime cases. It's a brilliant and unique format that is truly enthralling. Thank you so much for your support, Kelly. My two-part question for the group pertains to the query richness case. Does

Utah have the son of Sam Long and of so? Could it be applied here? Let me take the first crack at it

for I turn over to Phil. Utah does have a son of Sam Long. In fact, the Supreme Court had overturned a lot of them because they're too broad, including New York's. So states like Utah have to limit theirs and now it's done through first notification. So an entity like a publisher that enters into a contract with someone like Corey Richens, someone who would be convicted of a notorious crime, must notify the crime victim reparations office and then the profits from any

deal would then go into escrow and then the funds are held to see if the victims or their families would follow a civil lawsuit and win a civil lawsuit against a perpetrator and that money would be sent to the victim's families. That way it is constitutional. It's not a prohibition on your first member right to speak out. It just means that you won't be able to profit from it. So it would apply here, Phil, your thoughts? Well, look, I look, you did a great job with that. I don't have a

whole lot to add other than to say thank you Kelly by the way for that nice compliment that was embedded in her question. Thanks to all of you by the way who right in we love hearing from our

listeners. The questions are always so thoughtful. Some of Sam Laws make perfectly good sense to

me. I agree that people should not be allowed to profit off of these things. There's always going to be ways that they try to get around them. I mean, they're going to have family members,

“friends, people like that, they try to do things sort of as a surrogate. But I think that we need”

to do everything we can to try to stop people from profiting once they've been convicted of a crime like that. But yeah, absolutely. Well, Phil, it's time for our favorite segment, closing arguments. Now, I want to let you take the first crack. So just this is probably the highest rate of it's part of our show fill. And so there's a lot of pressure right on you. So let's see what you got. Well, today they've decided to treat it like a pretend that really was a closing argument. Okay,

so and we've developed a lot of themes that we've been talking about, particularly with respect to the rich and strile. And we've learned a lot about trial advocacy, some things that work and some things that don't work. So here we go. Here's the closing. Ladies and gentlemen, the jury,

As a lawyer, cross examining a witness, we can wield leading questions like a precision

guided munition. If it is done correctly. Now, why is this important? Well, the answer to me is simple. It is about control. A leading question is one that suggests the answer within it.

“For example, isn't it true that you saw the defendant leave at 10 p.m.?”

Asking the question that way, it rains in the witness. It controls them. It prevents them from rambling or spinning tails that could muddy the waters. It also keeps the narrative type. It keeps the narrative focused on facts that bolster our presentation and our case and the themes that we're trying to develop. It exposes inconsistencies without giving the witness free reign to elaborate or to evade. Some of which we've seen already in the rich in case.

Leading questions aren't just allowed on cross examination, though. Their essential is the right

way to do things is how we're taught and how we're trained. And it's because they can be used to dismantle the opposition story brick by brick. But there's one golden rule that absolutely,

“in my opinion, must always be followed or you risk losing your case blowing it. And you should never”

ever ask a question that you don't already know the answer to. Very important. Why is that? It's because surprises are lawyers worse and nightmare. Unexpected response. And another thing we've seen in this rich in case unexpected responses could unleash very damaging information and in turn torpedo your strategy or hand the other side a verdict wrapped in a bow. So by knowing the answer in advance through discovery, through the discovery process, through

depositions, reading police reports, doing your homework talking to witnesses, you maintain the upper hand. You turn a cross examination into a scripted demolition rather than a risky gamble. In the end, it's about precision, not improvisation, master these, and you command the courtroom. Dave? Well said, Phil. That was a good primer for those of us who took evidence and trial advocacy workshop in law school. That was good stuff. Sort of my closing statement. I want to talk about

something different. So a lot of us thought about those Rayban meta glasses. No, those things like they were really supposed to be cool. It's cool tech. But it turns out that the intelligence in these glasses is really just a bunch of traumatized contractors in a dark room. Yes, most users are blissfully unaware that meta is shipping their private glasses off to data annotators who's entire job. Is to label your life to train AI? Yes, the footage from the glasses goes to some workers who

probably are not thrilled that they'd got to watch certain things about you that you didn't think anyone else would see. Like this is the ultimate read the terms and conditions horror story. It's about like the the whole that South Park episode where Stan clicks agree and ends up as part of a human

“experiment that forever changed the way I think about vanilla paste and cuttlefish. I'll let you”

watch the episode for yourself. Honestly, at least Stan had the dignity of a medical procedure. Now we're just giving Mark Zuckerberg a front row sea tour bathroom breaks. If you think your job

is bad, how would you like to be the person forced to watch a first person three-hour POV marathon

of someone at a gas station trying to pass a kidney stone? Somehow Zuckerberg took the excitement out of surveillance. It used to be spy versus spy shadowy government with bands and high stakes espionage. Now it's just an underpaid intern watching you eat a breakfast burritos that you didn't microwave enough. So it's still cold on the inside. It's not big brother anymore. It's just your really disappointed younger brother. And since we're all true crime fans, those high tech glasses

can be wearable subpoenas with a wifi connection. So take the glasses off people, stop being the involuntary star of a data entry snuff film, your family, your lawyer and the poor soul on the other end of that feed will thank you for. And that's my closing statement. Phil, I promise you a name of that ruthless killer in southwest Florida. Remember, this is the guy who there's a video a show about him called Handsome Devil. The guy's name is Wade Wilson.

And there's it's currently airing it. It's it's brutal. And by the way, I'm in it. Yes,

lawman. So the Florida lawman. Yes. Yes. So Phil, thank you. I really always enjoy doing this with you. And thank you to all of our audience who's out there watching us and to our guests, Marie and Callahan. We appreciate joining us here at MK True Crime. Have a great weekend.