Hidden True Crime - 7 Moments That Could Change the Jury’s Verdict in the Kouri Richins Trial

Episode Date: March 15, 2026

As the Kouri Richins trial heads into closing arguments, the biggest question is no longer what happened in court — it’s what the jury will do with it. In this episode, we break down the state’s circumstantial case charge by charge, from aggravated murder and attempted homicide to insurance fraud and forgery, and look at where the prosecution appears strong… and where real holes remain. We walk through the alleged fentanyl purchases, the Valentine’s Day sandwich incident, the suspicious insurance application, the missing hydrocodone bottle, the “Walk the Dog” letter, the ghostwritten grief book, the affair with Josh Grossman, and the financial pressure prosecutors say gave Kouri motive. But we also talk honestly about the places where the defense may have created reasonable doubt — especially by resting without calling a single witness and essentially telling the jury the state still hasn’t proven its case. With deliberations just ahead, this is a full look at the evidence, the unanswered questions, and the verdict possibilities now hanging over one of the most closely watched trials in Utah. Sponsors: Mint Mobile: Shop Mint Mobile plans at ⁠https://mintmobile.com/HIDDEN⁠ —new customers get 3 months of 5GB for $45 upfront ($15/mo); taxes and fees extra, see https://mintmobile.com for details. About Hidden True Crime What started as a simple conversation at their dinner table became a captivating podcast. Join the dynamic duo of Dr. John Matthias, a criminal psychologist, and Lauren Matthias, an investigative journalist, as they delve into the psychological facets of unthinkable crimes every week. Their unique perspectives and in-depth analysis offer a fresh take on true crime storytelling. Thank you for your support through sponsorships, subscribing, listening, and becoming a Patreon member at⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/HiddenTrueCrime⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Lately, I've been trying to be more intentional about what I wear, intentional about everything, just choosing pieces that feel effortless, still put together, timeless, but also not overthinking it every morning. It's why I keep going back to quince. Their pieces just make getting dressed easier and I feel so classy. I feel elevated. The fits are flattering. The fabric is really high quality. Everything is wearable day to day. I actually got this really, really, beautiful yellow V-neck midi dress from them, and I paired it with some Italian leather sandals. It's one of those outfits that just works. It feels polished but still comfortable. It's exactly what I've been looking for. What surprises me, though, is the quality for the price. Quince uses

premium materials like European linen, organic cotton, but they cut out the middleman. So everything is priced way lower than you'd expect. Refresh. your every day with luxury you can actually use. Head to quince.com slash hidden true crime for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's quince, quince, q-u-in-c-e-com slash hidden true crime for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash hidden true crime. At my bank, I was literally getting pennies using wallfront. Che-ching, there's this much that I'm getting an interest and I didn't have to do anything. Clients like Angela earn up to 4.2% APY on their cash with the Wealthfront cash account. Get started at Wealthfront.com. Client was paid $1,000 for their testimonial,

creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary. 3.3% base API Y as of January 30th, 2026, variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. 0.65% new client boost for three months on up to $150,000. Direct deposit $1,000 a month and fund an investing account for a 0.25% increase. Cash account offered by Wealthfront Brokerage LLC, member FINRA, SIPC, not a bank. As a trial of Corey Richens, the mother accused of fatally poisoning her husband with fentanyel draws to a close. The biggest question now is, what will the jury decide? Because, Jemns, this case, it's full of circumstantial evidence,

and the prosecution leaves some real holes. So let's get into it, and I want to know what you think. So leave your thoughts and comments because Corey is facing several serious charges. Aggravated murder, attempted criminal homicide, two counts of insurance fraud, and one count of forgery. After closing arguments on Monday, the case will move into the hands of the jury. Will they find her guilty? Will they find her not guilty?

Could the verdict be split on some of the charges? Or is it possible the jury can't reach in agreement at all, resulting in a mistrial? After weeks of testimony, evidence, and competing narratives from both sides, it's been a lot for the jury and the public to process. Now, the question is how they'll weigh at all when they begin deliberating. And in this episode, we're going to walk through the evidence. The state says supports their case, but we're also going to talk about those moments that could actually help the defense when the jury starts thinking about reasonable doubt. Because honestly, a lot of people were shocked by what happened at the end of the week three. The defense rested right after the prosecution, just like that.

We should probably do that in front of the jury. Right. Okay. agree. No witnesses, no experts, nothing. I think most people expected them to call at least a few people to push back on the state's narrative, but they didn't. And that might actually be strategic. Remember, in a criminal trial, the defense doesn't have to prove anything. The burden is entirely on the state. So sometimes the strategy is basically this. If the defense feels that the prosecution hasn't proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt, why risk putting on witnesses

that could open the door to more cross-examination or give the prosecution another opportunity to strengthen their case, right? In other words, the defense might be saying, look, we don't need to do anything because the state hasn't proven it. So with that in mind, let's break down the charges one by one and see what evidence the state actually presented for each charge and where the defense may have had some wins as well. The most serious charge here is, aggravated murder, which stems from Eric's death on March 4, 22. Then there's attempted criminal homicide coming from the state's theory that Corey tried to poison Eric earlier on Valentine's day in 2022. After that, there are two counts of insurance fraud and one count of forgery.

According to the prosecution, two of those charges are tied to a life insurance policy worth $100,000. The state, they say Corey took out that policy on Eric and forged his to do it. Their argument is that the reason she did that was to collect additional money after his death. So that single life insurance application actually ties in two separate charges. One is forgery for allegedly signing Eric's name, and the other is insurance fraud connected to collecting the money. The state's argument is basically this. In order to collect life insurance, you have to certify that you didn't cause the person's death. If the person who benefits from the policy is the one responsible for the death, the policy generally doesn't pay out. So the prosecution says that when

Corey claimed she didn't cause Eric's death, that statement itself would become fraud if the jury believed she actually poisoned him. Now, let's talk about the forgery part of that. The policy came from a credit union offer. It was basically a flyer offering members the option to sign up for a $100,000 life insurance policy. The state says Corey filled out that application and signed Eric's name without his knowledge. But the defense raises an important point here. They suggest it's possible. Eric actually gave her permission to send in the application for him. And legally, that matters. Because for something to be forgery, the state has to prove she did it without authorization. If he told her to sign it or submit it on his behalf, then it wouldn't be forgery. And the handwriting

expert testimony didn't completely lock that down. The expert said, Eric, probably didn't sign it. But that's not the same thing as saying he definitely didn't sign it. And it also doesn't prove that Corey was the one who signed it either. So that leaves a little bit of room for doubt. That said, the state did present some details that make the application look pretty suspicious. For example, the application listed the mailing address for Corey's business. It used the email address connected to her company and her company's phone number. So it's all tied to her business contact information. Now, the defense did point out that the address was already pre-printed by the credit union on the flyer itself. So it's not necessarily something

Corey filled in, but still, if this was really Eric applying for a policy that he knew about, you might expect to see his personal contact information on there somewhere. Instead, everything points back to Corey's business. So the state. is basically asking the jury to connect those dots and conclude that she was the one who submitted that application. Now, let's move to the second insurance fraud count. This one involves a much larger policy. We're talking about over a million dollars in life insurance. The prosecution says that when Corey communicated with the insurance company after Eric's death, she made statements that were false. Specifically, the company True Stage left her a voicemail asking verification

that Eric had a prescription for fentanyl. And since he died from fentanyl intoxication, that's why they asked. Later, that same day, Corey contacted the insurance company and told them that fentanyl was not prescribed to Eric and that she had no idea how he could have gotten it. So the state's theory is pretty straightforward. If the jury believes she poisoned him with fentanyl,

then that statement becomes a lie. And if that lie was made in order to protect or collect life insurance money, that's where the insurance fraud charges come in. Basically, the financial charges hinge on the murder charge. If the jury believes the state proved murder, those other counts suddenly make a lot more sense. And now let's talk about the attempted murder allegation.

The state says this happened on Valentine's Day 2020, when Corey allegedly tried to poison Eric with a sandwich. The problem for the prosecution is, that most of the evidence surrounding that incident is circumstantial. There's no toxicology report from that day, and Eric obviously survived that incident. The defense even got Detective O'Driscoll to say that there was no way of knowing what Eric took that day. So what the state has really relied on are statements, timing, and patterns that they say show this may have been an earlier attempt. And that's something juries often struggle with.

Circumstantial evidence can absolutely be powerful, but it usually requires the jury to connect a series of dots and draw their own conclusions. For example, we heard from Carmen Lobber, who testified that Corey bought pills from her on four separate occasions. Carmen said she got those pills from Robert Crozier. In investigators were able to back parts of her story up with cell phone data. They showed location data putting Carmen and Rob at a Maverick gas station in Draper, Utah when she said she picked up those pills. They also showed Carmen's phone traveling to the locations where she said she met Corey for the drop-offs. According to Carmen, the way it worked was Corey would leave cash somewhere and Carmen would leave

the pills. And one of those alleged transactions happened right before the Valentine's State incident where the state believes Eric was poisoned. The defense has really tried to attack Carmen's credibility from every possible angle. Their argument is basically that even if Corey bought pills, that doesn't automatically mean she bought fentanyl. The defense, as Corey believes, she was buying oxycodone. They emphasized this point through Robert Crozier's testimony. He told the jury that around that time he wasn't selling fentanyl and the people he was getting pills from didn't even have access to fentanyl either. So the defense wants the jury thinking about this possibility. If Corey thought she was buying oxycodone and Eric later overdosed on fentanyl,

then maybe she wasn't intentionally poisoning him at all. That's obviously a big deal for the intent part of this case. But the state also spent a lot of time pointing out inconsistencies in Corey's story about that Valentine's Day. We know that morning, Corey picked up breakfast for her and Eric from Mir Lake Diner. She left Eric's sandwich on the seat of his truck. And after that, she went to meet her paramour, Josh Grossman. But when she spoke about that days later, the story she told people didn't match what actually happened. She told her friend Chelsea, her mom and her brother that she was with Eric when he ate the sandwich. She also downplayed how sick he was. She suggested he didn't really need the epipin and that he eventually got up and went to work or maybe even to his son's

soccer practice. But the evidence doesn't really support that version of events. Corey wasn't actually with Eric when he ate the sandwich. And one of Eric's friends testified that he spoke to him on the phone afterward and Eric sounded extremely sick and really somber. Not like someone who just brushed it off and went about their day. So the state's point here is that Corey's version of that day has changed and in some cases it doesn't line up with the evidence. One thing I found interesting and I don't think it was really pointed out during the trial is that even though we don't know for sure whether Eric was given fentanyl in the sandwich,

fentanyl and other opioids can actually cause symptoms that resentful. an allergic reaction, including itching. That happens because the fentanyl binds to certain receptors in the body that can trigger histamine release or stimulate nerves, which can lead to itchy skin or rashes. So it made me wonder if that might be why Eric thought he was having an allergic reaction and decided to use an epipen. Fentanyl can also cause fatigue, drowsiness, and dizziness. We heard that Eric took Benadryl, right, which would likely have made him even more sleepy and could explain why he ended up falling asleep for a while. From what I've learned, fentanyl-induced drowsiness can last for a few hours if that's the case. It could potentially explain why Eric was still able to get

up and go and do other things later that day after initially feeling sick. But that brings us to the biggest charge in the entire case, the murder charge itself. I don't know about you, but a lot of people are getting tired of those massive wireless bills from the big carriers. Between the confusing fees and free perks that somehow cost more, it can feel like you're overpaying just because that's how it's always been. And that's exactly what Mint Mobile is trying to fix. They offer premium wireless plans starting at just 15 bucks a month. All plans come with high-speed data, unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. You can bring your own phone and number, activate with ESIM in minutes, and start saving right away with no long-term

contracts. Ditch overpriced wireless and get three months of premium wireless service from MintMobile for $15 a month. If you like your money, MintMobile is for you. Shop plans at MintMobile.com slash hidden. That's mintmobile.com slash hidden. Up front payment of $45 for three month, five gigabyte plan required, equivalent to $15 a month. New customer offer for first three months only, then full price plan options available. Taxes and fees. extra C, Mint Mobile for details. This is really where everything comes together. Because if the jury believes the state proved that Corey poisoned Eric with fentanyl,

then a lot of the other charges start falling into place behind that theory. But if the jury has reasonable doubt about the poisoning itself, that doubt can ripple out to several of the other counts too. So the big question becomes this. Did the state present enough evidence to convince a a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that this was intentional poisoning and not something else. And just like with the Valentine's Day incident, a lot of what the state is relying on here comes from Carmen's testimony backed up by phone data.

Investigators showed that Carmen's phone activity lined up with the dates. She said she was buying pills from Robert Crozier. And then those dates also lined up with the times when Corey allegedly left money for her at rental properties. The defense tried to poke hold in that by suggesting Corey no longer had access to one of the homes where Carmen says these exchanges happened, but the state pushed back on that pretty effectively. Evidence and testimony showed the property was still being worked on and that Corey likely

still had access to it at the time. So the prosecution is essentially asking the jury to see a pattern here. They're saying the phone data, the locations, and the timing of these transactions all line up with Carmen's story about how these pills were being exchanged. As we know, Corey was set to close on the Midway Mansion the very next day after Eric died, right? And throughout the trial, both the prosecution and the defense have painted very different pictures of how Eric actually felt about that Midway Mansion deal. The state pointed to several text messages where Eric seemed pretty clearly against it.

In those texts, he basically said they didn't have time to take on another project. He even broke down the numbers. explaining how expensive the whole thing would be and why it didn't make sense financially. On top of that, Eric's sister testified that he had told her he was not on board with the purchase. So the prosecution's narrative is that Eric was pushing back on the deal and that it was causing tension. But the defense has tried to counter that by saying Eric eventually warmed up to the idea. They claimed he was actually helping Corey prepare the property by spreading gravel at the Midway House. Their argument is that if Eric was truly against the deal, he probably wouldn't have been.

been out there working on it. The defense also suggested that Eric was excited enough about it that he even wanted to celebrate that night with Corey. According to the defense, that celebration happened the night of March 3rd. They say the two had a Moscow mule and a lemon drop shot together, but this is exactly where the state believes the poisoning happened. Prosecutors think one of those drinks is where Corey allegedly slipped the fentanyl. The problem is that when investigators first arrived at the house, they didn't know. They were dealing with a homicide or a possible homicide, right? So at that point, it looked like a sudden death and they didn't yet have any idea that fentanyl was involved. Because of that, the initial scene wasn't processed the way it would have been if they had known right away

that it was a homicide investigation. So things like cups, spoons, drink containers or anything used to prepare those drinks were never collected. And that ends up being a big issue now because investigators can't go back and test any of it. What they do know from the medical examiner is that the fentanyl was ingested orally, but beyond that, they can't say exactly how Eric consumed it. And the defense definitely leaned into that uncertainty. They even had crime scene technician Chelsea Gibson testify that technically a pill bottle could be considered drug paraphernalia if someone used it to store something other than its original prescription. So, for example, if someone had an empty hydrocodone bottle.

They could theoretically put something else in it, including fentanyl. That becomes interesting because investigators did find an empty hydrocodone bottle near Eric's bed. The issue is that bottle now appears to be missing and was never tested. So we're left with this situation where something potentially important existed at the scene but was never analyzed. Because of that, the state can't definitively show the jury the exact delivery method for the fentanyl. And when jurors don't have a clear explanation for how something happened, that can sometimes create doubt even if they believe a crime occurred. Another topic the prosecution

spent a lot of time on involves some jiffs that Corey allegedly accessed the morning after Eric died. The implication from the state was that these gifs, and I'm not talking about the peanut butter, gifs, gifs, memes, gifs. These gifs look celebratory, almost like someone reacting to good news. Obviously, if a jury believes that Corey was sending or viewing celebratory gifs on her phone right after her husband died, that is going to look incredibly bad. But again, the defense was also able to push back on that. The forensic digital examiner and detective Jeff O'Driscoll, both acknowledged that they couldn't actually determine what specific text conversations those gifs were tied to. There's also the possibility they weren't even sent

that morning at all. Context matters, especially in texts. They could have been sent by Eric the day before he died. So while it's definitely one of those strange little details that caught attention during the trial, it may not end up carrying a lot of weight. To me, it felt like the prosecution trying to give the jury a glimpse into Corey's potential state of mind. But without more context, again, it's hard to know how meaningful those gifs really are. Now let's talk about the walk the dog letter, ended up being one of the more dramatic pieces of evidence in the trial. The jury didn't get to see the entire letter, but the portion they did hear was read aloud by Detective Jeff O'Driscoll,

and honestly, it was pretty powerful. Take a listen. Detective O'Dresscoe, can you please, starting at the top where it says page one, read this letter aloud. Page one, walk the dog, but take vague notes so you remember. Here is what I'm thinking, but you have to talk to Rob. Ronnie. He would probably have to testify to this, but it's super short, not a lot to it. He will need to tell Sky at the meeting next week. Upon information and belief, just like they say,

a year prior to Eric's death, Ronnie was over watching football one Sunday, and Eric and Ronnie were chatting about Eric's Mexico trips. Eric told Ronnie he gets pain pills and fentanyl from Mexico from the workers at the ranch. not to tell me because I would get mad because I always said he just gets high every night and won't help take care of the kids. There are pictures in my phone of Eric passed out on the floor or in the chair. Ronnie should have texts from Eric talking about getting high as well. Eric told Ronnie he keeps them in an allergy pill bottle in his work truck so I wouldn't find them. Ronnie never told me about the conversation. Eric finally told me and asked if Carmen could get him some.

Eric never wanted anyone to know. He had an issue, especially get caught. He always wanted Corey to go down for him. When they traveled, Eric would put his drugs in Corey's bag at the airlines right before they boarded. That way, if they were caught, Corey got in trouble, not him. Once they got to wherever they were going, Eric would pull the drugs out of her bag and it would cause a huge fight. She was pissed he would risk her going to jail for his drug use. He just would laugh about it.

Eric couldn't ruin his image that he had drug issues so he would do whatever he had to. Corey has never done any type of pills, didn't like them. Rarely would she consume THC only if Eric begged her because it was a special occasion. Reword this however he needs to to make the point, just include it all. The connection has to be made with Mexico and drugs. Ronnie will have the messages to prove Eric confided in him about getting high. It can be short and to the point, but has to be done. Upon information and belief, L.O.L.

They never found pain pills or fentanyl in my house because he hid it in allergy bottle and work truck. And Cody emptied out work truck within a week, so they were never found. When you talk to Ronnie about this, meet up with him in person. I worry sometimes your house and phone are bugged. Maybe drive down to SL and meet him after work without Bree. Tell Ronnie, don't overanalyze it. It was a quick two-minute conversation, LOLL. Tell him, I need him to do this. Bring me home and then we will get those damn bitches. Also, please text Lotto or call. Tell him, do not text me anything about us doing things together ever, like church, skiing, trips, nothing that puts us together. It doesn't look good. We're so close to the end, let's push through. Have the conversation with Ron.

Johnny before he meets with Sky. Then tell him to tell Sky at the meeting about the conversation. Hang in there. We're almost there. Love you to the moon. Take vague notes of all this so you remember before you walk the dog. If you've been following this case since the beginning, you probably remember that this letter has been controversial for a while. Jail staff found it in Corey's jail cell inside an envelope labeled with her former attorney Sky Lazzaro's name on it. That immediately sparked a huge legal fight before trial about whether the letter could even be used as evidence. Normally, anything that falls under attorney-client privilege is protected. But prosecutors argued that this wasn't actually communication with her lawyer.

Instead, they believed it was basically a script. Corey claimed the letter was just part of a fictional book she was writing while in jail. But the prosecution's interpretation is very different. They argue that it reads like instructions for witnesses. specifically guidance on what her family members should say if they were called to testify. And if you read or hear the wording, you can kind of see why the state views it that way. It outlines narratives and talking points that align pretty closely with Corey's defense. Now, in the grand scheme of things, the letter may not have the same impact it once could have had,

and that's because her family members ultimately are not testifying in this trial. So the idea that it was a script where their testimony becomes less directly relevant. But even so, I still think this is one of the prosecution's strongest pieces of evidence. And I think they know that too. Not because of what it proves factually about Eric's death, but because of what it might suggest about Corey's behavior while in custody. Jurors often pay close attention to anything that looks like someone is trying to shape or influence testimony. And if they believe that's what this letter was doing, it could seriously hurt Corey's credibility in their eyes. At the end of the day, this is the kind of evidence that doesn't necessarily

prove the crime itself, but it can absolutely affect how the jury views the person on trial. And when jurors go back to deliberate, pieces like that sometimes stick in their minds more than people expect. Before I switched to wealth front, my APY was probably 0.1. Once I switched to ching, with the wealth front cash account earn up to 4.2% APY on your cash. I can trust Wellfront is taking care of me. Make your money earn more. Get started at Wealthfront.com. Clients were paid $1,000 for their testimonials, creating

a conflict of interest. Howcomes vary. 3.3%. 3.3% base APY as of January 30th, 26th, variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. 0.65% new client boost for three months on up to $150,000. Direct deposit $1,000 a month and fund an investing account for a 0.25% increase. Cash account offered by Wealthfront Brogeridge, LLC, member FINRA, SIPC, not a bank. And now let's get into the state's theory on motive. Because while there is a lot of circumstantial evidence suggesting a crime,

have occurred, motive is often what makes the story click for the jurors. People naturally want to understand the why. And in this case, prosecutors spent a lot of time trying to show that Corey had several strong reasons to want Eric out of the picture. One of the biggest things the state highlighted was the pre-nup. According to testimony, Eric and his family had Corey sign a prenuptial agreement right before their wedding. And when I say right before, I mean minutes before the the ceremony. The timing alone is pretty striking. That pre-up essentially said that if the two divorced, Corey would not walk away with Eric's money, his business, or any major assets. She would basically be on her own financially. However, the terms were very different if Eric died while they were still

married. In that scenario, she would receive significant benefits. So from the prosecution's perspective, that creates a pretty clear financial motive. If the marriage ended in divorce, Corey was left with nothing. But if Eric died, the financial picture changed dramatically. And when you combine that with everything we learned about their finances, the state's argument becomes even stronger. Evidence showed that Corey was in serious financial trouble. We're not talking about a little debt here and there. Testimony suggested she was millions of dollars in the hole. Millions and millions of debt. Her business ventures were struggling and she had taken on a huge amount of financial risk. We even heard that she took out a home equity line of credit on their house without Eric

knowing about it, which understandably caused a lot of tension in the marriage. That kind of move suggests she was trying to keep her business afloat in ways Eric might not have approved of. So on one hand, you have Eric, who, according to testimony, kept a pretty tight grip on the family finances. Some people might view that as controlling, and the defense certainly tried to frame it that way. but at the same time, the state argues that Eric may have had reasons to be cautious. If Corey was making risky financial decisions behind his back, that would obviously create conflict. Either way, the end result is a marriage where financial pressure and trust issues were clearly building. But money wasn't the only possible motive prosecutors pointed to.

The other major factor was Corey's relationship with her paramour, Josh Grossman. We heard directly from Josh during the trial. The jury saw their text messages and the picture that came out of that testimony was pretty clear. Corey and Josh were involved romantically and sexually while she was still married to Eric. Not only that, but they appeared to be talking about a future together that did not include Eric. That kind of situation naturally feeds into the prosecution's narrative if someone is deeply involved with another person and planning a life with them, getting out of the marriage becomes a a priority, and that's where the pre-up becomes relevant again. Divorce would leave Corey with very little financially, but if Eric died, she could potentially walk away with resources and the freedom to start a new life. Another detail the prosecution pointed to was the vacation Corey had booked

with Josh before Eric died. The trip was to Secrets Resort, which is an adult-only resort. It could be viewed that booking that trip ahead of time indicates, but pre-meditation. The obvious question becomes, how exactly did she think she was going to take a romantic getaway with another man while still married? The state's implication is that she believed Eric would not be around by that time the trip happened. Now, the defense did try to push back on this mode of argument. One of the ways they did that was by pointing out that Eric had also allegedly been unfaithful during the marriage. Their goal there was to probably show that the relationship problems went both ways and that Corey wasn't the only, only one stepping outside the marriage. But then things took a pretty surprising turn when the

defense tried to suggest that Eric may have been having a sexual relationship with his friend Bryce, his male friend Bryce. They pointed to messages between the two and attempted to frame them as sexting. And honestly, that moment in the trial, it seemed to land awkwardly. From what the private investigator said about the messages, the PI implied the texts were crude humor between friends rather than evidence of a serious affair. Others who had heard the rumors of Eric having an affair and assuming it was a woman, while the defense tries to frame Eric's friend, Bryce as the hidden relationship, were left confused. It may not have helped the defense very much, but who knows. In fact, I actually think it could have potentially hurt their credibility.

When a defense team hints for days at a big claim like Eric having an affair and jurors feel like the evidence doesn't really support it, it can make the whole argument feel stretched. And that matters because the defense is also asking the jury to trust their interpretation of other complicated issues in the case. For example, they've argued that detectives may have pressured Carmen Lobber or influenced parts of her testimony. That's a serious claim. But if jurors already feel like the defense exaggerated or misinterpreted something else, they might start viewing those arguments with more skepticism too. So while the defense was clearly trying to introduce reasonable doubt, some of those strategies may have backfired a little, at least from the outside looking in.

It made their overall perspective seem somewhat skewed. And when jurors are weighing two competing narratives, credibility becomes incredibly important. But, hey, who knows? it comes to the defense's claim that Eric and his friend Bryce were sexting, it could affect some jurors' opinions and the way they view Eric. We'll see. And speaking of credibility, we have to talk about the infamous book Corey published after Eric's death. Are You With Me? It was described as a children's book meant to help kids cope with grief after losing a loved one. Corey even went on several news outlets promoting the book, saying that she and her sons wrote it together

as a way to work through their grief. And in theory, that sounds like a really touching idea. So touching that maybe the news should promote it, right? But the state introduced evidence suggesting the book may not have actually been written by Corey at all. Instead, it appears a ghostwriter may have been hired to write it. And if that's true, it raises an obvious question. Was this really the heartfelt project she claimed it was?

Because publishing this book wasn't cheap. Corey reportedly spent thousands of dollars to have it written, illustrated, and published. So if it wasn't something she personally poured herself into, why go through all that time and expense to make it happen? Well, I think the state is going to argue during closing arguments that the book served another purpose, her image. And by that point, Corey knew she was being investigated for Eric's death. And if she could present herself publicly as this grieving wife and mother who cared so deeply that she wrote a book to help other children deal with loss, well, that creates a very powerful narrative because someone who does that could have possibly

be a murderer, right? At least that may have been what she was hoping people would believe. But when you put the book next to everything else, the jury has heard, the walk the dog letter, the lies she told friends and family, the book starts to look less like a passion project and more like another attempt to control the narrative and control how people view her. So now that we have gone through all of the points, I would love, love to hear your thoughts. Did the state prove their case? Is there reasonable doubt? I'm sure there are more points I forgot to mention that we can also discuss. So leave your thoughts in the comments below. And Monday morning, we'll be up bright and early, ready to watch closing statements take place before the jury

begins deliberating. Before I switched to wealth front, my APY was probably 0.1. like it was a joke. I was literally getting pennies. Once I switched, chit-ching. With a wealth-front cash account, earn up to 4.2% APY on your cash. The high APY with Wellfrent was a clear winner. There are no petty fees.

Every month, there's this much that I'm getting an interest, and I didn't have to do anything. My money is working hard on its own, and I can trust. Wealthfront is taking care of me. Earn more on your uninvested cash with a wealthfront cash account, no account fees, no minimums, and no strings attached. Get started today at Wealthfront.com. Clients were paid $1,000 for their testimonials,

creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary. 3.3%. Base APEWPY as of January 30th, 2026, variable, and earned on funds swept to program banks. 0.65% new client boosts for three months on up to $150,000. Direct deposit $1,000 a month and fund an investing account for a 0.25% increase. Cash account offered by Wealthfront Brokerage LLC member FINRA SIPC, not a bank. These and eligibility requirements may apply to certain checking features of the cash account.