Hidden True Crime - BIZARRE Affair Claims & Sexting?! Private Investigator Testifies | Kouri Richins Trial Recap Day 10

Episode Date: March 10, 2026

Day 10 of the Kouri Richins trial brought emotional testimony, forensic analysis, and a few moments of real courtroom tension. Eric Richins’ longtime friend and business partner Cody Wright took the stand, describing Eric as a hardworking father, loyal friend, and successful businessman while also facing tough questions from the defense about finances, hunting violations, and past drug rumors. Jurors then heard from a forensic document examiner who testified that a key signature attributed to Eric “probably” was not written by him and appeared to be a simulated forgery. Later, the court played the 911 call from the night Eric died, raising new questions about the timeline and response. The jury also heard from lead investigator Jamie Woody, who revealed that Eric’s sister told police that Eric had previously warned Kouri might kill him, a statement that shaped the early direction of the investigation. Finally, veteran private investigator Todd Gabler detailed the independent investigation that ultimately flagged Kouri’s hundreds of contacts with alleged drug dealer Carmen Lauber. From forgery allegations to the chilling 911 call and a heated cross-examination, Day 10 added several new layers to the state’s case. 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

Hello, Hidden Jens. Day 10 of us following the Corey Richards trial, right? They've seemed to not say correct as much anymore. They've switched for throat clears and coughs joining me. So hopefully I'll do okay. There were a few corrects today, yeah. But they've definitely lessened, haven't they? The defense is opting for other things.

I mean, maybe they're watching Hidden True Crime. I don't know. But yeah, Nestor definitely had her throat clears. And I can't blame her because, I've been doing it too with all of you. But we have a lot to go over today, don't we? Including some wild allegations from the defense. I mean, every day there are wild allegations from the defense.

So maybe I shouldn't be so shocked. But I felt like today there were a lot. And I'm cozy. I've got my pillow. We get settled in. Today was a wild ride, including the, the full 911 call that we're about to play. So day 10 actually started with the attorneys and their judge handling a few issues before the jury was brought in. So that was good. They just knew.

They're like, before we bring the jury in, let's just get this out of the way because it seems like every day starts with that. And by the way, if those of you that are new here to our channel, we are the most comprehensive breakdown of every day in trial. My name is Lauren. Lauren, Mathias, and we're going to break it down for you today. So the jury is brought in. The state said there were still a handful of witnesses left a call because we know that the prosecution is going to rest soon. But Judge Mrazik said that first they needed to discuss the jail calls

that the prosecution wants to admit into evidence, although they can't call them jail calls, but they want to admit them. The defense has objected to those calls. So that's still something the court has to sort through. prosecutor Bloodworth told the judge that lead detective Jeff O'Driscoll, who we know now is planning to be the prosecution's final witness, and that he will likely, we can expect to hear from him tomorrow.

So we thought maybe today, but now we know. That is a plan for tomorrow. It sounds like the state still needs to leave. More foundation for some evidence before he takes the stand. But because of that, he'll probably, you know, we'll probably hear from him tomorrow. So that'll be big. That'll be really big. And then regarding the defense's motion for mistrial last week, Judge Morazik, they asked the state when they could respond to that motion, the prosecution.

And Bloodworth said he could respond right then. But the judge said, well, he wanted the response in writing. So Bloodworth said the state would have that ready by tomorrow morning. After that, the state called their first. witness of the day. Every day is like, who's it going to be? And this was big. This was big. The first witness, Cody Wright. Yes, Cody Wright, business partner of Eric Richens. But before he could actually take the stand, Bloodworth addressed something from earlier testimony. He talked about Chelsea Barney. That would be Corey's best friend since junior high. He talked about Chelsea

Barney referencing the celebration of life video. And the state had been working on blurring the children's faces in that video. And it was now ready to admit it into evidence. And technically, the video had already been admitted into evidence during that testimony from Ali Staking. But now the jury got to see it. So the video showed a small gathering with a few adults drinking, laughing, and hanging out. Let's take a look.

Yeah, I'm getting that free. True, boys. Yeah, I'm back in the corner. There we go. Richard. Richard. Richard. Richard.

What? Chatch you said, though. Dr. drink that all out of safety out of your school. You are an Afghanistan warrior. Corey was on the right there. It's an interesting video. Yeah, doing that in front of children.

People are pointing out, not just that, but odd celebration of life shortly after. just sort of showing their thought process and where they were mentally where Corey was perhaps shortly after the celebration of life, aka. Memorial for Eric Richens. After that, then the state finally called Cody Wright to the stand. And Cody then explained his relationship with Eric and said that he wasn't just a colleague. He was a good friend and business partner. They met in high school.

So this is Eric's ride or die, right? As I call loyal best friends. Eric and Cody met in high school, and their friendship grew through their shared love of hunting and hard work. Not long after they met, Eric went to work for Cody's family's business as a hog tender. So they both grew up around animals, and Eric actually worked for Cody's family. And both of them eventually went on. on LDS missions. Then they came back and continued working together in the family business.

And by 2010, they decided they wanted to start something of their own. And that's when the two launched their own masonry company together. The company was called C&E Masonry, and the name literally stood for Cody and Eric. Cody said that they ran that company together for almost 12 years before Eric died. The two of them stayed very close during that time. Cody said they saw each other a few times a week and tried to grab lunch together whenever they could. And during the fall months, they spent even more time together. A lot of that was out on the ranch or in the mountains, usually hunting or just spending time outdoors. They also talked on the phone almost every single day and they would travel together for hunting trips. Cody described Eric's personality to the jury in a way that really painted a picture of who he was.

said, Eric's feisty. Eric's hardworking. Eric's the life of the party. Eric's funny. He can be very fun to be around depending where he's at or what he's doing. Very comforting at times. And he also can tell you what you've done wrong and make sure you know it was wrong. And that should have been done differently.

A great personality. End quote. Cody also said Eric took business very seriously. That was one of the things he was most passionate about. He said, Eric wanted C&E masonry to be successful and continue growing. Eric came from a background of hardworking business people, and he wanted to replicate that success. Bloodworth, the nasty, Cody spent time around Eric and his kids. Cody said yes.

And that gave an example, he gave an example involving Ericson Carter. Cody had been a good baseball player in high school, so Eric actually asked him to help Carter work on his pitching. Cody described Eric as a very competitive and dedicated father. He joked that Eric was always wanting to know what Cody's kids were doing so that he could tell him what his own kids were up to and how well they were doing. Basically, Eric wanted his kids to succeed and be the best they could. Then the testimony shifted more toward the business side. Cody confirmed that he and Eric were 50-50 partners in CNA masonry. By early 2022, the company had grown quite a bit.

Cody said they employed around 90 people at that point. When Eric died, Cody remembered counting 47 active projects that the company was working on. So business was strong. Cody said the company had a very good outlook in early 2022 and was continuing to grow. Interestingly, though, he explained that he explained that he, and Eric did not always see eye to eye when it came to expansion of the company. Eric, Eric wanted to keep growing bigger and bigger. Well, Cody described himself as being more conservative and comfortable with where the

company already was. The company had home offices set up for both of them. Eric used a C and E computer that he kept in his home office. They also had a shared company email and a company account. through American First Credit Union. Next, Cody recalled a time when Eric told him that K. Richens Realty, so a.k.a. Corey's Realty needed a loan from C&E Masonry in order to pay for some projects. Cody made it very clear when he testified about this. He said it was a loan, not an investment.

According to Cody, this conversation happened in October of 2020. C&E masonry ultimately agreed to provide a $200,000 loan to K Richens Realty. Bloodworth continued and asked about something that had come up earlier in the trial. The New York life insurance policy tied to the business partnership between Cody and Eric. Bloodworth asked Cody about a series of beneficiary changes that were made to the policy in January 2022. Cody told the jury that he did not make those changes and he also, also said he did not make any changes to Eric's policy either. Then, Bloodworth handed Cody some handwriting samples to review.

Cody explained that he had gathered documents containing Eric's signatures from a company called Integrated Solutions. So now we know where they're going with this, by the way. They're going into the forgery charges. Not only is Corey, by the way, just to set the stage for people new to this trial, I know a lot of people said they actually caught up over the weekend. But we have an murder charge for Corey. we also have an attempted murder charge, but we also have insurance fraud and forgery.

So now bringing in a handwriting analysis, we know where we're going. We're going into the forgery charge. So they had a bunch of documents containing Eric's signatures from a company called Integrated Solutions. He also requested documents from Big Deconstruction that contained Eric's signatures, and those signatures were eventually given to Katie Richens, Eric's sister. So then, Bloodworth, who's doing the questioning on all this for the, prosecution circled back to that photo the jury saw earlier this week and it was taken at the celebration of life, aka a memorial gathering. So the celebration of life gathering, the after

party or after gathering that happened. The night Eric died. He asked Cody if his wife, Ali Wright, appeared in that photo. And Cody said no, she was not in it. Next, Bloodworth switched the focus to Eric's health over the year. He asked Cody if he had ever seen Eric sick or injured, and Cody said yes, but mostly in pretty typical situations. He said that Eric had dealt with COVID, Lyme disease, cold, and some back injuries, along with other minor illnesses. But Cody made it clear that Eric wasn't the kind of person who slowed down easily. He described him this way. I like this. He said, quote, he's a cowboy. He's a go get him. He's not going to sit at home. He's not going to sit at home.

because he's sick. He's not going to not show up because he's feeling under the weather. He's very tough, spirited, roughhearted as far as not being a wimp goes. End quote. Cody also said that he had never seen Eric use over-the-counter medications, prescription drugs, or illicit drugs. Put a pin in that. That's going to come back. But Cody says he's never seen Eric use over-the-counter medications, prescription drugs, or illicit drugs. Ben Bloodworth asked Cody about a call he received from Eric on Valentine's Day 2022. So Cody said he remembered that call very clearly because Eric sounded scared. Cody told the jury there was fear in Eric's voice along with a sense of urgency and seriousness

about what was happening at the time. He said he had only heard Eric sound like that two other times in his entire life. And one was when Eric's mother died in the hospital, heartbreaking, and the other was when Eric had been rear-ended in a serious car accident. And Eric was worried that the person who hit him might have died. So Cody was basically telling the jury that Eric sounded that shaken, being that shaken, this was not your typical Eric. This is super unusual. And after that, Bloodworth said, he had no further questions and the defense stepped up for cross-examination. The defense attorney Nestor began by asking Cody about the structure of C and E masonry.

She confirmed again that the company was split 50-50 between Cody and Eric, and then she asked Cody how much money he personally made in 2022. The prosecution immediately objected arguing the question wasn't relevant. But Judge Morazet called the attorneys to the bench for a sidebar discussion. And once they returned, Nestor shifted the question slightly. she asked Cody how much he made in 2021 instead. And Cody said he didn't have the numbers in front of him. He couldn't really recall exactly.

Nestor then asked if it was more than $500,000. Cody said no. Well, then Nestor followed up by referencing tax returns that indicated Eric had declared between $700,000 and $900,000 that year. And she asked if that number sounded off. The prosecution objected again and the judge called for another sidebar. Clearly, the defense is trying to paint the picture that maybe Eric was taking more than his share. Maybe there were some unethical business practices, right?

I mean, the defense is definitely this is their job, right, to poke holes in the story, but they're certainly trying to poke holes in Eric's character. And they did that a lot today, a lot for those that were watching live, a hit and true crime. And we'll keep getting into it. So the judge called for another sidebar. This time the judge sustained the objection. so the question wasn't allowed. Nestor moved on and asked if the company had been planning for future growth and whether they were financially stable going forward. Cody said yes, they were. Then

Nestor asked about Corey being on the company payroll and how much she was making each month. Cody said he didn't recall that exact amount. Nestor then asked if after Eric died, Corey asked to be removed from the payroll. Cody said he didn't believe she asked to be removed. In fact, he testified that they continued paying her for a couple of months after Eric died. Nestor then tried to ask about whether Cody had been involved in house flipping through C&E or another business, but the prosecution objected again and it was sustained. Nestor pivoted to the $200,000 loan that C&E Masonry had given to Corey for one of her real estate projects. Cody confirmed that the company did get all of the money. back and they also received interest on top of it. Nestor asked how much interest they made, but Cody said he didn't recall the exact number. Next, Nestor brought up Cody and Eric's buy and sell agreement. We heard about this. We learned about this agreement in life insurance. It's pretty common in business partnerships. Basically, the partners take out life insurance policies on each other so that if one partner dies, the surviving partner can buy.

out the deceased partner's share of the business. And Nester asked Cody about the beneficiary change made on January 1st, 2022. She said the change was made on Corey's policy and not Eric's, right? Which was interesting, right? When they're talking about insurance fraud, this was a bizarre moment that it was made on Cody's policy and not Erics. So Cody said he didn't recall the exact wording of the change. At that point, Nestor pressed him a little. She said, well, think about it. You remember everything else, but not this, really kind of pushing the witness, right? And Cody responded that the wording was confusing.

He said, quote, what I was told is that there was a change made to the beneficiary. Somebody had gone in and changed it. I do not recall whose name it was or anything like that, end quote. And then Nestor for the defense continued her questioning and started asking. asking about Eric's health again. She asked about Eric having back pain and whether he still worked through it. Cody said Eric would still go out and drive around in his truck, but he probably would not be doing the heavy lifting. Nestor also asked about knee pain and surgery, but Cody said he didn't remember that.

She asked about Lyme disease, which Cody had mentioned earlier. Then the questioning turned briefly to religion. religion, yes, because Eric, Richens, and their family, Eric was raised a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, right? Mormon went on an LDS mission. So Nestor asked Cody if he too belonged to the Church of Jesus Christ of Lattery Saints. Cody said yes. He was LDS. So Nestor then pointed out that members of that faith typically do not drink alcohol, nor do they use drugs. Cody explained that if someone is an active member and follows the teachings closely, true they would follow those rules and those are rules. Then she asked if Eric ever drank

alcohol or used marijuana gummies. Cody said Eric never offered him a drink and he never saw Eric take gummies, which he believes was out of respect for his LDS beliefs. So again, you can see the defense trying to poke holes in maybe Eric's character, maybe in that he's not exactly who he says he was, just kind of trying to, I mean, in my opinion, they're painting someone more complex, not someone so simple, but I see what the defense is trying to do here. Basically, Eric, though, what Cody is saying is that Eric knew that Cody wouldn't like, maybe that he didn't follow all the rules and like that, so he didn't share this with Cody,

which actually to me shows a respectful friendship, right? Boundaries. And then Cody added something interesting, though. He said, quote, Eric would be okay telling me some of those things. He would tell me that I am his good friend. He would tell me things, but not be proud of that, end quote. So Nestor immediately jumped. on that. And she asked, so he did share with you that he used drugs with a question mark.

Well, the prosecution objected before Cody could answer. Next, Nestor shifted to Eric and Cody's hunting trips. She asked about hunting violations that Eric had committed in the past. And Cody explained that he had been questioned about those violations. And Eric eventually ended up going to jail over this issue. And this is, that's interesting. We've, we've heard about this hunting violation. We've heard this story of these best friends and that Cody might have been a snitch at one point, right? They both love hunting. They both grew up together. And we've been hearing sort of rumors and, and a tease about this idea that that maybe Cody, Cody told on Eric violating some hunting, uh, laws. So now we're learning about it.

and now we're hearing that Eric eventually ended up going to jail over this issue. Nester asked if that situation caused a falling out between the two. And Cody asked her to clarify what a falling out meant. Fair. Question is the defense would say fair. And so she suggested that maybe the relationship had become more tense and that their families had stopped going on vacations together. Cody said Eric definitely wasn't happy about the situation,

but he didn't think it fundamentally changed. their relationship. He also pointed out that they really didn't go on many family vacations often anyway, so that wasn't a big sort of change in their relationship. According to Cody, Eric was just angry about what happened. Then, Nestor asked whether Eric worked on Valentine's Day that Valentine's Day, 2022. Cody said in their line of work, they were basically always working or they were taking calls, which is essentially working. Like, Eric always worked. Nestor showed Cody several photos of houses, and one of them appeared to be Eric's home, which Cody recognized as Eric's home. But the other houses shown in the photos were not familiar to him, and he said he didn't recognize them.

Finally, Nestor asked about Eric going to the doctor on Valentine's Day, 2022, the attempted murder date. Cody told the jury that Eric had said he took his son to get an allergy shot that day. As far as Cody knew, Eric didn't go to the hospital, and he showed up to work the next day like normal. Moving on to the day before Eric died, Cody testified that on March 3rd, he and Eric went to lunch together at the Mir Lake Cafe. We know about the Mir Lake Cafe and their delicious bagel sandwiches and quinoa salad. We had Gabe, the owner, testify on day nine.

So it was a day eight. It's all a blur, guys, recently. Thursday. Then the next morning, he got word that Eric had passed away. So March 3rd, Cody and Eric, they go to lunch together at the Mir Lake Cafe. They like this place. It's in Camas. It's been around. Then the very next morning, he got word that Eric had passed away. So at some point, after that, Cody sent Becky Lloyd to pick up Eric's computers. We've heard from Becky Lloyd, too. She's the one who stated that Corey told her that it would almost be easier if Eric was dead. So Cody sends Becky Lloyd.

She worked for C&E Masonry to pick up Eric's computers because they were the C&E company computers. Remember, they work from home sometimes, remote. So Becky brings those back to the office. Cody said he personally didn't know how to get into the computer. Nestor asked if Becky was able to access it, but Cody said he didn't see her get into the computer. Later on, a private investigator named Todd came to talk with Cody, and Cody told him Becky had the computer so he directed Todd to go get it from her. Cody confirmed that law enforcement had not gotten the computer first. Cody also sent someone to pick up Eric's

brown work truck from the Richens home. Nestor pointed out that Eric spent a lot of time in that truck, and Cody agreed. A lot of their work involved driving around two different job sites. So Nestor then asked if the truck had been searched by police before it was in Cody's custody and whether anyone had asked his permission to search it after he had it. Cody said no to both. He also said he kept that truck. And that, guess what? He still has that truck.

So then Nestor asked about Eric's red personal truck, which C&E also owned. At some point after Eric died, Cody said he got a notification from the the Ford dealership saying the truck was being serviced. Yeah, that's how he learned it had been being driven was he got the call. It was being serviced. Nestor asked if he was aware that Corey had been driving that truck. Cody said the truck should not have been being driven at all. It had been sitting at Corey's house, but there had been instructions that it was not supposed to be used. So when Cody got the notification to the truck, that the truck was ready at the dealership? Well, he just went and picked it up. Nestor pointed out that he didn't tell Corey he was

doing that. He just took the truck from the dealership. It was CNE's truck. Cody explained again, company vehicle, and there were insurance implications. Only someone working for C&E was supposed to be driving it. Nestor asked where that truck is now, and Cody said it's currently in Katie's yard or garage, Katie Richens's yard or garage, still is not being driven. Well, and then Nestor followed up asking if before law enforcement ever examined it, multiple people had access to that truck. And she listed Cody, Katie Richens, other members of Katie's family,

the dealership and the people at C&E Masonry. And Cody acknowledged that, yes, many people did have access to this truck. And if they had a key and permission to drive it, they had access to it. So Nestor then switched focus back to the business side of things. She asked about the buy-sell agreement between Cody and Eric and after Eric died and that agreement was executed.

Cody paid money into the court and the company became 100% his. Cody confirmed that was correct. Nestor then asked if that meant his personal net worth essentially doubled at that point, right? Eric dies and your your net worth essentially. doubles. Cody. Cody responded, you could say that. This is true. I think, again, the defense is just trying to say,

could there be another motive here, right? Ho Colton Eric's testimony made people confused about who Eric is or was, you know, make him a more complex person, not perfect, and now maybe imply that Cody could benefit, right?

That doesn't mean, they're not necessarily saying Cody did anything, but they're certainly trying to like say, hey, jury, there are other people that could have a motive here, right? Cody's net worth doubled after Eric passed away. You know, and Cody says, yeah, you could say that. My net worth doubled. Nestor also asked if Cody had remained close with the Richens family since Eric's death. Cody said, yes, again, I think pointing out, look, you know, maybe there's a conspiracy to frame Corey Richon. Cody's in with the Richens family, right? We're going to hear from their PI later today.

That was quite the testimony. But, you know, have you stayed close to the Richens family since Eric's death? And Cody said yes. The Nestor, she pointed out that he and his wife have attended court hearings and sat with Eric's family in court. Cody agreed that they had. So in other words, besties with Eric's family. family. Nestor asked if Cody knew that Eric and Corey had personal life insurance policies through New York life. And Cody said he was not aware of that. She then asked if C&E was paying for a personal

life insurance policy for Eric through auto owners or integrated insurance solutions. Cody said he was not aware of that either. I'm not really sure the point of that. But next, Nestor asked about Cody hunting in Mexico. So then she pointed out that Eric couldn't hunt in the United States for a period of time after Cody gave testimony to the Department of Wildlife and Natural Resources about a hunting violation that, but through Eric, Eric's hunting violation. Cody said yes, that was true. Nestor said Eric could still hunt in Mexico though and Cody confirmed that. Yeah. So she asked if Cody knew Eric went to Mexico in February of 2020 for a hunting trip. Cody said yes, he knew about that. I mean, Eric does love hunting. Think of it.

about that. Can't hunt in the United States. He's going to go find a way to hunt in Mexico. So then Nester asked how often Eric hunted in Mexico. Cody said Eric went down for a trip, so he assumed he was hunting every day while he was there. He said Eric had gone to Mexico more than once to hunt, but Cody never went with him. As far as he knew, the hunting took place somewhere around Sonora. Then after that, Nestor said she had no further questions, which means it's time. It's time. for the state to redirect and ask their questions again after all that questioning and prosecutor bloodworth was back up following up and then asking questions for the state and bloodworth asked cody if from his perspective the loan to k a richon's realty so corey's company connected

to the franzin lane property that made out of necessity that property that was and at the loan was made out of necessity. Cody said yes. In other words, this wasn't just some happy, happy joy, joy loan, as I say. This was a loan out of necessity. Cody said, yes. This is a loan that they needed. The K. Richens needed necessity. Bloodworth then clarified something from earlier testimony about drugs. He asked Cody if other people had told him Eric used THC Edibles, since Eric never told him that directly and Cody said yes that information came from others. Bloodworth then asked if anyone had ever told him that Eric used illicit street drugs. Cody said no. Bloodworth also asked about the hunting incident that had been brought up during cross-examination and Cody explained that Eric had

been investigated for a wildlife violation after someone turned him in. Cody himself had been brought in for questioning. The incident, now we are finally learning about this incident. The incident involved Eric killing an elk without having the proper attack. Bloodworth asked Cody why he chose to provide truthful information rather than covering for his friend. And Cody explained that Eric knew what he did wasn't right. He said Eric was willing to be a big boy and deal with the consequences of his actions. Cody said he felt it was important to be honest and tell investigators the truth so they could do what they needed to do on their end. He added that he simply wanted to do the right thing.

Ludworth asked if that had been difficult for him, and Cody said it was extremely hard because he didn't know what the ramifications were going to be. Ludworth then asked if March 7th, 2022, sounded like the correct day when Cody sent someone to pick up the brown truck from Eric's home, so after Eric's death, March 22nd. Cody said that sounded right. Ludworth also asked Cody why he chose to sit with Eric's family

during court hearings leading up to this trial. And Cody explained that he loves the Richens family. He said Eric was one of his best friends. And he wants to support the family however he can. At that point, Nestor requested a sidebar. So all of a sudden the defense is like, sidebar, you know, okay. The court, you know, and when the defense is asking for a sidebar and redirect, you know, something's up.

The court briefly recessed to address some, technical issues, but during that discussion between the attorneys and the judge, the focus, turn back to the topic of drugs. Remember I said put a pin in a bit of Cody's testimony? Yeah, here we go. All of a sudden the defense is arguing. Nestor is arguing that she believed she could impeach Cody as a witness, meaning making him less credible because she thought he had not been truthful about Eric's drug use. In other words, that he had never seen him do

prescription over-the-counter or illicit drugs. So Judge Mrazik responded that if Cody had actually said something impeachable, she could address it. But the judge also, they also said he wasn't

sure Cody had made any statements that were actually impeachable. But let's hear it, Nestor. Let's hear it, right? This is what Nestor said. Nestor referenced, testimonial. from the preliminary hearing and brought up something called Red Devils. So this is back in the preliminary hearing, 24. I attended two days of this prelim hearing. So she brings it something called Red Devils. And the attorneys then went back and forth about the difference between illicit street

drugs and things like pain pills and whether past behavior in high school would even be relevant. The discussion continue with arguments over what exactly red devils refer to and whether it counted as illicit drug use. So clearly, okay, we're talking about high school Eric. We're talking about if high school Eric is relevant to this murder trial and we're talking about red devils, which may or may not be illicit drugs. I'm listening. I'm paying attention. I'm like, what are red devils? You know me?

Like, I don't know the nicknames for this stuff. So I'm listening. I'm like, okay, what else are they going to pull up? about Eric Richens. What did Cody not tell the truth on in this testimony? What has changed? So the defense began looking for the transcript of the earlier testimony to support their argument. Okay. So looking for the transcript. But after that, Judge Marazic said that the topic of whether Eric used pain pills during his lifetime, whether prescription or illicit, that it could. It could be relevant to the case. Right? Because the defense is trying to paint this picture of Eric as maybe a past drug user, past or present. If he had a problem in high school, could he have a problem as an adult, right? Past behavior, does it reflect future behavior or present behavior? I see what they're doing. And Judge Marozica saying, hey, this could be relevant to the case. But based on what's presented so far, said it was still unclear whether there was any admissible evidence that Eric actually did any drugs.

even in high school. And because of that, the judge said the correct way forward was to allow the defense to voir dire, Cody, outside the presence of the jury. In other words, ask Cody questions, detailed questions about things outside the presence of the jury

about something that came up during the preliminary hearings. So specifically, the question was about Cody's knowledge of Eric possibly using pain pills in high school. That and these pain pills, were allegedly referred to as red devils.

They sound frightening. Red devils. Pain pills called the red devils. Okay. So if red devils referred to prescription pain medication, then that could contradict Kozi's testimony on the stand that he had never known Eric, his best friend to use prescription drugs or illicit drugs.

If the pills were illicit, then it could contradict Cody's statement, but he had never known Eric to take illicit drugs. But if Cody didn't actually know it, red devils were, than everyone, including the jury, would just be speculating, right? And the judge said speculation is not allowed. Okay. Good job, Judge. I agree. So we can speculate. They can't. So, Bloodworth responded that he believed Cody's testimony had been that he had never personally seen Eric E's prescription

or illicit drugs. Judge Marzik said that was something that they could sort out during the voir dire. Cody returned to the stand outside the presence of the jury and take a listen to this questioning. Take a listen. Let's just watch this. Let's see if they can impeach Cody. What are red devils? We want to just dig in a little bit to the question that you were asked on redirect when Mr. Bloodworth asked you if anyone had ever told you that Eric used illicit drugs. I believe he's said illicit street drugs. Does that sound right? Or do you recall? Did he say illicit street drugs? Is that what you're asking? What was your understanding of the question that he asked you at the very end about whether you'd ever heard about Eric using drugs? I understand. Elicit street drugs. Right. What was

your understanding of that question? If anyone had ever told me about him using an illicit street drug. Okay. Now, I'm not in the drug world. I have no clue. most drugs are categorized as. Did you talk to anyone outside in the hallway while you were waiting? I did not. Okay, just check. Okay. So at the preliminary hearing, we asked you some questions about whether you were aware

that Eric used pain pills in high school. Do you remember that? Yes. And are you aware of that? I was told that that had happened. All right. And were you ever told about where he got the? those pain pills.

I have no idea where he got those pain pills from. So when Mr. Bloodworth asked you earlier today, if you were ever aware of Mr. Richens using prescription drugs, you said no. Your Honor, that's not the question I asked. Pause, Mr. Wright. If you would just object to foundation and restate the question for him. Your Honor, objections foundation. Let me ask you this way.

Do you, was it your understanding in high school when you had this knowledge that Mr. Richens was using these drugs illicitly? In other words, not with the prescription of a, of a pharmacist. I need you to be more precise in that question, which drugs are you referring? The pain pills, sorry. And if you would re-ask it. Was it your understanding in high school when you knew about this, that Mr. Richens was using his own prescription for pain, pills or someone else's? I learned about this later on in life, not in high school.

Okay, and what did you learn? And I learned that he had taken pain pills in high school. That's what I had been told. Without a prescription? I didn't get asked. There was a prescription or not. I don't know. All right.

And then I think you said in the prelim that you thought they were called red devils, is that right? That's what I was told. And was it your understanding that? that red devils were an illicit street drug? I don't know what an illicit street drug entails, but I assumed that the red devils were being abused as that's what high school kids were doing.

So people were doing that in your school? I heard that, yes. And did you know what red devils? Later on in life. Did you know what red devils were? I learned later on what those were, yes. What are those? I believe it's suit of it.

Oh, it's pseudofed? I think. I'm not a drug person. I'm sorry. Okay. Could be pseudoephedrine, maybe. I have no idea. Okay.

But that's what I think it is, is pseudobed being abused. Okay. So when you testified at the preliminary hearing that you were aware in high school that Eric, or you became aware later that in high school, Eric, Eric abused red devils and pain pills. Do you still stand by that today? Yes. Okay.

All right. Your Honor, do you need more than that? I understand Mr. Wright's testimony on the record. Okay. Okay. Let me just think one second. If there's anything else, when you answered Mr. Bloodworth's question in front of the jury,

that you have, had not heard from anyone that Eric used illicit street drugs. That's except for what you heard about in high school. Objection, Your Honor, the foundation. I can ask him what his intention of his answer was, Your Honor. Did you intend to carve that out? Can you restate that? I'm sorry. You intend to carve out from that answer what you knew about high school?

What answer, sorry. From the answer that Mr. Bloodworth asked you in front of the jury, if anyone had ever told you or if you'd ever heard that Eric used illicit street drugs. Did you intend to not include what you knew in high school? Are you carving that out? If I said that I was in high school, what I've been told about Eric is throughout my life. I don't know if it was exactly in high school.

I don't know if it was in my early 20s or now. What I've been told over the years is that he had used those. in high school. And that's what I know. Right. And so if I were to ask you the question again that Mr. Bloodworth asked you, has anyone ever told you that Eric used illicit street drugs? And you included all the knowledge you have all the way back through what he did in high school.

What would your answer be now? I don't know what illicit street drugs intel. Okay. I've been told some drugs that he used. And that's what I would testify to is that. that I know that he used some drugs, form of drugs. I don't know what they are exactly. I don't know if they're illicit street drugs or not,

but that he had to use drugs at some point. Okay. You know, Cody doesn't know much. He was minding his own business in high school. He thinks Red Devils might be pseudofid. We'll keep going. Not really impeachable stuff. But he explained that everything he had heard about Eric

using pills came from other people too and things people told them about Eric's life. That's also interesting. I saw the hearsay comment there. He said he really didn't know the specific timeline and had only been told Eric used them during high school by other people. So then Nester asked him again whether Eric used illicit street drugs. And Cody responded that he didn't actually know what qualified as illicit street drugs. Again, Cody was mine in his own business in high school being probably a good LDS boy, and he said he only knew that Eric could use drugs at some point. Nestor said she had nothing further. Bloodworth asked Cody if he had ever heard that Eric used any drugs in high school other than Red Devils. Cody said he had heard

Eric had popped pills, heard it. I mean, this is a stretch, right? Nestor asked if he had heard about any drug use after high school. Cody said that he didn't know specific times or dates. He said he had only been told again that Eric popped pills in high school. And who's telling him? Is it Corey telling him? I mean, kind of who's telling him is kind of important here? He said he had no knowledge that Eric continued doing that after high school. However, Cody did say, again, that he had heard that Eric used THC Gummies after high school. That we all know. That's definitely something Eric used. Cody was then excused from the courtroom while the attorneys argued the issue further. And Esther told the judge that the entire case, this entire case, revolves around a pill addiction

and whether Eric voluntarily took a pill or whether he was given one by his wife, Corey Richens. And, you know, that's true. That's true. Like, this is the defense's biggest defense is what she's arguing, right? She argued that this was a critical part of the case and said the defense should be able to impeach Cody based on what he said during the preliminary hearing compared to what he said on this stand. Well, Prosecutor Bloodworth pushed back saying the state disagreed with Nestor's characterization of the evidence. He argued that anything that may have happened in high school about 20 years earlier was not relevant to the issues in the case. Judge Marazek said the case has to be decided based upon admissible evidence.

and he is required to apply the rules of evidence. He said that nothing Cody said during the preliminary hearing, again, back in 2024, and nothing he said during the voir dire outside the jury's presence just now, actually contradicted the testimony he gave in front of the jury. The judge said Cody did not change his testimony. So let's just listen to this argument because it did get pretty heated. And again, I do understand why the defense is trained so hard, right?

I do agree with their point. This case hinges on whether or not somebody poisoned Eric Richards or whether he voluntarily took these pills if he has an addiction. Although I think one point I want to make too, though, it's kind of a stretch that like if nobody can figure out whether Eric was a pill pop or not. And we're all the way back in high school arguing about what Red Devils may or may not be. I'm going to suspect that Eric probably wasn't a drug. drug user. But let's listen to how he did this got. Well, Your Honor, I mean, I think that this witness has now clarified that if he were to answer the question now, he would include that he was aware Eric popped pills in high school. He also heard that people in his high school were doing Red Devils. He said he

assumed that's what Eric was doing, but he doesn't know, but he has knowledge that Eric was popping pills. This whole case is about a pill addiction. This whole case is about whether or not Eric Richens voluntarily ingested that or if he was given it by his wife. This is a critical piece of the defense. He's been allowed to make a statement in front of the jury that we have now found out through Vordire is not 100% accurate and one of the core issues in this case. I'm only asking to impeach him. I can limit it to what he said in the prelim. We can go farther if you want us to, or we can limit it to what he said in the prelim. I'll do it either way.

But I think to deny Ms. Richens the right to impeach him on something this critical to the defense and the prosecution when the door was absolutely opened by the prosecution would be reversible error. And we're asking that the court allow us to do that now. Mr. Court. Your Honor, this state disagrees with all of that,

including the veracity of some of that. The state reverts back to what we had briefed in motion. By the way, any relevancy to what happened in high school has decayed to zero, 40 or 20 plus years later. The testimony at issue was, is Mr. Wright's response to the question of, did anyone ever tell you that Eric Richards used illicit street drugs? to which he responded. Nothing in his voir dire impeaches that testimony. Therefore, bringing in

the preliminary hearing transcript or any further questioning on this, the preliminary hearing transcript or any further questioning on this is in a message. The case has to be tried based upon admissible evidence. And on both sides of the V, there are pieces of evidence that either the state or the defense has sought to admit that the court has ruled are not admissible. I'm required to apply the rules of evidence. We instruct the jury that the rules of evidence developed over hundreds of years to make sure the trials are tried in a fair and impartial way.

This issue developed in a way where defense counsel asked a question that elicited hearsay testimony regarding what Mr. Wright had heard about Mr. Richens' prior drug use generally. Whether or not that's what the defendant intended, that's what happened. So then on redirect, the state asked two very specific questions to characterize that volunteering of hearsay by Mr. Wright, whether they heard that Mr. Richens had used THC products and whether he had ever heard that Mr. Wright used illicit street drugs. Nothing in his prior preliminary hearing testimony or during his war dire outside the presence of the jury on the stand, is admissible evidence contrary to his sworn testimony on the stand in front of the jury.

His prior reference to Red Devils, he's now clarified a suit of it, which is not painful to begin with. Moreover, he doesn't have any admissible testimony that Eric Richens used illicit drugs of any kind. This is hearsay. It is speculation. It's not. admissible. Your Honor, may I just make a record? Of course. Your Honor, it's our position that first of all, when I asked the question it was not objected to by the state. Second of all, I'd like to make the record that this would be for purposes of impeachment. To deny us this opportunity is a violation of Crawford. It is a violation of our Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine.

It is a violation of a due process right to a fair trial. We would be able to call in our case an expert who would testify that Red Devils were in fact PCP in that period of time. They were not suitor fed. The DEA has a pamphlet on that. We're being denied that option. We're being denied the ability to attack the credibility of someone who has changed. Respectfully, we disagree with your honor's position on this. We think he absolutely changed his testimony. And we're being prohibited the right to impeach him on the fact he changed his testimony. And I believe that the question I would ask him if I were allowed to go forward would be, did you learn that Eric popped pills in high school?

And that would impeach what he said to Mr. Bloodworth, unrebutted and not allowed to be rebutted by me when we know that I can rebut it. And we just, we, on our strongest way possible, we object to this. We would like a continuing objection. We moved to strike all of Cody Wright's testimony. All of the issues that Mr.

Whoa. You lost me there. On redirect. On redirect. The redirect testimony. Which piece? Where he answered the question that I'm not now being allowed to impeach him on. We're asking to strike it at the very minimum.

All of the things that Mr. Bloodworth just brought up all go to wait, not admissibility. What is the non-hearsay route for this witness to testify regarding what he heard if it's coming in for the truth of the matter of cert. It's not. It's coming in to impeach that once the court allowed him to answer that question with hearsay, to rebut the hearsay that we elisted. What's the evidence that he heard prior to today, testifying today, that Eric Richens used illicit street trucks? He just testified to it on a stand. That is not true. Okay, well, we agree to disagree on that, Your Honor. Have you disclosed that expert that would provide a non-speculative basis that red devils are Ellis's Street drug?

We have disclosed that expert. His name is Mr. Kearney. He is on our list. He's been available. We did not know the Red Devil stuff was coming in until 10 minutes ago because we were told, well, okay. Well, that's obvious then. I mean, we did the best we could. We gave him our drug expert that as soon as the Red Devils comes in, we can.

let them talk to him about that because we sure would go into that with our expert that we're now being denied the ability to do that. There is a key question here, Your Honor, if Eric Richens had a drug problem. And if he did, Ms. Richens is innocent. And we are being prohibited from going into that with the one person who knows. And I just think that the veracity of this witness on this topic cannot be underestimated for purposes of the defense. I know you disagree with us. I believe I've made my record. Yes.

He's changed his story. He's now saying he's never heard that Eric used drugs when he knows in the prelim that he did. And I just think this is just a huge, huge impediment to us to put on a fair trial in this case. And I believe I've made my record. I can't think of anything else I need to say on the record. Thank you for letting me make a proffer. Okay. Are you asking me to strike Mr. Wright's?

answer that he's never heard that eric used elicit street charge on which basis on what basis on the fact i'm not allowed to impeach him on it and we all know it's not a correct answer you certainly can impeach him on it if you have any evidence that it's impeachable no any other way to show it to the court other than what we've already got okay can can i want to be clear there's just no evidence that cody wright believes that red devils are illicit street But he separated the red devils from the popping pills. He separated that. No, with respect, he didn't.

Okay, well, I think the transcript will reflect. All right. We pause. Anything further? Judge Given side eye right here. He looks done. Are you done? I have nothing further to add, Your Honor.

Mr. Bloodworth, a direct question. I need to exercise a measure of humility here. Is the state sure that you won't? Don't want to just get this out on the record to insulate the potential of a verdict. You now know what Mr. Wright's gonna say. And if you need to confer with your team, I'm happy to give you a moment.

Yes, Your Honor, let me take a moment to confer. Can I make a record on one thing though? Sure. Let me read to the court, the expert disclosures as it relates to. I don't know that we need to get into that at this moment. I won't be basing anything I do on that. Okay, then.

Thank you. Can I step back, of course? You know, one thing I also think is interesting too, and certainly when the jury goes back to deliberate, if they look at all the evidence, I'm sure they'll notice this, but, you know, not only are we not hearing that with accuracy that Eric ever did any drugs, you know, because if he had, that would be an important part of this trial, I'll give Nestor that. But Corey allegedly asked an investor for drugs, whether Carmen's line or telling the truth, whether Roberts line are telling the truth. You know, both of them may or may not have credibility issues. It depends on who you believe.

But it's pretty clear their GPS is sync up. The drugs were purchased. They both say, you know, a Robert says he got them for Carmen, who says she was getting for Corey. And that was for an investor. Where's the investor? Where's the investor? Where is he or she on the stand? Whenever the defense, I mean, maybe the defense will call the investor.

Who knows? But that's another thing I'd like to point out. Who got these drugs? Who, you know, where did the drugs come from? Did Corey really get them for an investor? You know, anyway. Anyway, Judge Marzac, if you noticed there, asked Budworth if for the sake of an appeal, he wanted to get additional clarification about the drug issue on the record.

Bloodworth said he needed to confer with his team and the prosecution left the courtroom briefly. Court went off the record while they discussed it. And then when the prosecution returned, Bloodworth told the judge that the state was comfortable with the court's ruling. Judge Morazik said the ruling would stand. He said Nestor had not provided a legal basis to strike Cody's testimony that he had never been told Eric Richards used illicit. street drugs. After that, the jury was brought back into the courtroom. Cody returned to the stand. Nestor asked him again about THC gummies. She asked if he was aware that Eric used them. I mean, at this point, we are all aware that Eric used THC gummies. Cody said, yes, he had heard that.

She asked if he had any personal knowledge that Eric abused them. Cody said he did not. She asked if he knew where Eric got them. Cody said, no. Nestor then asked. That was just a part of Eric's life that he didn't share with Cody. Cody said yes. Nestor then briefly returned to the topic of the trucks after that. Okay. Cody said the work truck had been picked up within a few days of Eric's death and the red truck was picked up from the dealership about a month later. And then Nestor said that she had no further question that Cody was released from the stand. We have a really great witness up on the stand next but before we get there a quick word from one of our amazing trial sponsors you guys know that this is a company that i have been using for years it is not red doubles

it's not red devils but it's the next best thing i love beam let's take a listen to this ad all right jims many people have been asking me for my secret formula or the perfect way to make dream and although there's not any perfect way. I think I found the almost perfect way, if I'm going to be honest. It starts with hot water, as you can see there. And then you add a scoop of dream. Okay, a scoop and just a little bit more, especially when I need that extra help falling asleep. It does the job every time I sleep so well and wake up feeling refreshed and ready to go in the mornings. And then I use the frother. The dream gave me on my first order. Everyone gets this on their first order. I use it more than just on dream. It is now a staple in the kitchen. I love this.

And then what I'm going to do is top my drink with some steamed oat milk. This is a secret, in my opinion, just a perfect amount of creaminess, but nothing too extreme right before bed. Use a QR code or the link in the description of this episode for more information on Dream. We love this drink. It has done so much for our family. Thank you, Dream. Thank you, Dream. I saw a funny comment in chat there too from Eat, Pray Crime, where she said,

I keep getting worried that people are going to mix up THC and HTC. So, yes, Beam is neither. But we love being at HTC. But you're right. I've almost slipped up a couple of times too there. We'll have a link to Beam in the pinned comment once this live is over. But next up was Matthew Throckmorton. I love that last name.

By the way, it was like straight out of a Dickens. novel Charles Dickon character, Matthew Throckmorton, and he worked for the Salt Lake City Police Department Crime Lab as a crime scene investigator, so investigator Throck Morton. And his specialty was forensic document examination. He told the jury he'd been doing that kind of work for about 27 years, and overall, he'd been evaluating documents forensically for about 30 years. Throck Morton explained that his job is basically to examine and compare writing to confirm things like authorship, identity, or authenticity. That can include handwriting, paper ink, or really anything related to documents.

In other words, we're getting into the forgery charges. And when there is a question about whether someone actually signed something, Throckmorton is kind of the expert who gets called in to look at it. Right? So prosecutor Bermester, which I think is like a very another Charles Dickens character name. So prosecutor Bermester now is walking Throckmorton through his background. And Throckmorton talked about his training, the classes he's taught and the leadership roles he's had in the field. Over the years, he's worked on a lot of the cases and has testified in court many, many times.

So one of the first things he told the jury was a pretty foundational point in handwriting analysis. he said the no two people write exactly the same way. So everyone's handwriting is like snowflakes. That's my interpretation. He didn't say that on the stand, but that's what I'm picking up. Anyway, everyone has their own handwriting habits. He also explained that even the same person can't reproduce their writing exactly the same way every single time. There are natural variations. I probably have more variations than the average person. What that means, I don't know. But despite that, Studies show that each person's handwriting has unique characteristics. And Bermester then asked how he actually goes about comparing handwriting.

Brock Morton said he receives two categories of documents. The first are question documents, meaning the ones where the authorship is in doubt. The second are known samples, meaning documents that are undisputed and definitely written or signed by the person in question. He then compares them. He explained that he looks at the question sample along. the known samples and evaluates similarities and differences. The goal is to determine whether the writing was likely produced by the same person or by two different people. He also made it clear that when he's doing this work, he focuses strictly on the documents themselves. He said he doesn't

look at other case information. He just evaluates the physical evidence in front of him and applies the standards and guidelines used in forensic document examination. So at that point, prosecutor Bermester admitted a document into evidence, and it was a PDF copy of a document that had a signature attributed to Eric Richens. We're going to get deep into forgery. This is really it. Did Cory Richens or did she not sign Eric Richens' name? Well, according to Investigator Throckmorton, he explained something important about the document analysis. Originals are always the best evidence to work with, photocopies come next, and PDFs are the least ideal. Interesting. And that's because when documents are copied or converted to PDFs, they can become pixelized. Some of the

finer details that exist in an original document can get lost in that process. So not long after that, the judge said he needed to take a quick break. And then when court resumed, Bermester continued walking through the evidence with Throckmorton. Ormester walking through evidence with Throckmorton, and they pulled up an exhibit showing the known signature samples Throck Morton had been given. These were undisputed examples of Eric's writing and signature that came from Eric's attorneys. Throck Morton explained that he had originally been hired by the trust attorneys and was paid $900 to assist them. And later, he began working with Summit County on the case.

And the known samples, he reviewed, came from a variety of sources. He said they included canceled checks, driver's licenses, tax tax taxes. documents, a trust, a will, and other documents Eric had signed during his life. And in addition to those, Thark Morton said he also reviewed handwriting samples from a mission journal and several digital PDFs. Altogether, he analyzed 86 signatures and 24 sets of initials from Eric. Wow. He compared all of those known examples to the question signature that appeared on the documented issue. And then after he reached his conclusion,

he said he had another examiner review his work, and he sent it to a woman in Colorado for verification, which is something experts sometimes do as a quality check. So Burmester then displayed a document on the courtroom screen. At the top was the questioned signature. Below it were 10 known examples of Eric's signature. So when Burmester asked for his conclusion, which is what we're all wanting to know,

Throckmorton testified that there was no evidence that Eric authored the questioned signature and that quotes, he probably did not. Okay, there's your forgery charge evidence. He went further and explained what he believed the signature looked like from a forensic standpoint, according to Throckmorton,

it appeared to be what's called a simulmonary. violated forgery, meaning a signature written by someone who had access to Eric's writing and attempted to copy or duplicate it to try and pass it off as a genuine signature of Eric. To help explain this, Throck Morton actually stepped down from the witness stand, walked over to the courtroom monitor. Let's watch this. Handwriting analysis. Could the witness step down with a microphone?

And let's just look at 828. Why you have one thing. There appears to be one that's in yellow. It looks like it's been highlighted. Is it been highlighted? No. Can you hear me? Yes, sir.

Okay. No, that one came from an NCR copy. It was a yellow piece of paper. All I did was crop the signature off that paper. put it on this document. All right. Could you explain to the jury how your analysis went? Sure.

First thing in looking at the question signature on this, it's basically EER. And the way that the E is formed starts at the top, comes down, creates the first semicircle, comes to a point, and then comes back down towards the baseline. When it gets to the baseline, it shoots on, off to the right. Then a line comes down towards the baseline,

continues up to create the second E, which is leaning a little further over. This E is not as defined, a little more loosely made. When we get to the second portion of the E, it shoots over to the right to start the letter R, which creates a kind of a triangle formation there, then goes up and creates kind of an arc, A cut more square than normal comes back down towards the baseline

From towards the baseline and then shoots off over to the right and terminates a couple things that pointed that stuck out to me on this signature This is what's called a one-stroke signature that means that the writing instrument Starts and continues all the way through to the end. There are no pen lifts as well within the signature The things that stick out again is there's pen lifts are not found here. If you look at the known samples from Eric, you'll notice that there's a pen lift between each of the letters, a pen lift between the E and the E, pen lift between the E and the R. And that's a consistent characteristic and habit that Eric has.

The other thing too is the second E actually starts at the baseline. notice that on the known E's the E start up top in a normal fashion that they always start at the top they don't start at the baseline like this one does the other thing to to note is this are again where it's connected it actually starts down closer to the baseline and then comes up you'll notice in these E's or in the R's that they start at the top like we're We traditionally learn how to do in school. You've got a line that comes down, pen comes off the paper,

and then the second part of the R is made. You can see the staff of the R here, staff here. So a couple of things that stuck out to me that were not common among his writing again, is we've got a single one-stroke signature instead of pen lifts. The E, second E starts at the bottom at the baseline, and the R starts at the bottom at the baseline. It was by looking at these characteristics in comparison that I was able to render an opinion that the question and known signatures were not authored by the same person.

Wow. What a skill Throckmorton has to give that sort of description on whether or not Eric Richon's signature is actually his or if it was forged by someone else. And again, we're talking insurance policies and going into the insurance. fraud charges as well, but this is the forgery charge. Did Cory Richon sign Eric's signature? Perhaps, perhaps not. I want to point this comment out.

Margaret says, I only signed my husband's signature after we broke up when I signed him up for a bunch of services and pamphlets he didn't need. You know, fair. I would sign my dad's signature in high school. when I wanted to be excused from class early. Makes me wonder, though, if that high school signature would be held against me today. According to Nestor, it would. But nonetheless, I have never forged my husband's signature.

Anyway, even with that opinion, though, he acknowledged an important limitation because he was analyzing a photocopy instead of the original document. He said he could not absolutely eliminate the possibility that Eric signed it. Hmm. A copy, it was a copy

that limited how definitive he could be. He also made it clear that while he could say Eric probably did not sign it,

he could not determine who actually wrote the signature. And after that, Burmester said he had nothing further. Like,

okay, well, that was a little anticlimactic to end there. We want you to know for certain. But when defense attorney Nestor stood up

to begin cross-examination, it was pretty clear almost immediately what direction she was going to take. Her focus was on challenging the certainty of Throckmorton's conclusions, right? He gave a little window there, also raising questions about the field of handwriting analysis itself. She started by asking about the difference between being a certified forensic examiner and simply a forensic examiner.

Throckmorton explained that certification usually involves paying to become certified through certain professional organizations. Nestor then asked about the various national boards and associations that offer certifications. Brock Morton told the jury that there are quite a few organizations people can join. He even pointed out that some of them allow people to become members, even if they don't have much training. Nestor noted that Throck Morton himself has never sought certification through any of those organizations and hasn't joined those professional groups.

Throckmorton confirmed that was correct. this is like pretty much a classic cross-examination move. The defense trying to suggest to the jury that even though he has decades of experience, he doesn't hold those formal certifications. Nestor then moved into the reliability of handwriting analysis. She pointed out that not every forensic examiner would necessarily come to the same conclusion when looking at the same evidence. Frog Morton agreed with that.

She also asked about the fact that he was working. from a copy of the document rather than the original, as he admitted. And then she highlighted the wording of his conclusion that Eric probably did not sign the document. In other words, she's emphasizing that his opinion wasn't absolute. I mean, this happens all the time in trials, including with DNA, because they're like, when they, like, lay out the statistics, it's 99.9% point 9%, 0.9%, you know, on and on and on. this person but, you know, just like a dumb and dumber. So you're telling me there's a chance that it's not absolute.

So the defense loves to go after that. And at one point, Throck Martin made something very clear. He said he could not say that Corey signed the document. He could not. Nestor followed up by asking whether he had any personal knowledge that Eric may have given Corey permission to sign it on his behalf. That was a good move. That was a good move, right?

spouses do that, you know, babe signed this, I'm late. Brockmoren said he had no knowledge of that and that wasn't part of his examination, not his job, you know, he did his job, doesn't know about that. Then Nester asked a question that the prosecution immediately objected to. She asked Rock Morton whether his wife had ever signed his name to anything. Well, the prosecution quickly objected and the judge sustained the objection so that question was not allowed. The implication, pretty obvious, though, right? The defense introducing some idea that spouses sign things for each other. Surprise, and possibly with permission. They do that.

Next, Nestor shifted gears and asked about Brock Morton's employment history. So Throckmonds, Throckmorton's employment history out of a Dickens novel. And she asked when he stopped working with the Salt Lake City Police Department. He said around 2020, COVID era. Then she asked a much more pointed question. She asked if it was because he had been falsifying documents. What? Brought Moore said, no.

Nestor followed up by asking if he had ever been the subject of an internal affairs investigation for falseifying documents. Well, then he acknowledged that he had been investigated, but he also said he was cleared. Thank you. I mean, anyone can file for an investigation. investigation and then an investigation happens and then he's cleared. So no, he was cleared. It was not an investigation that was needed, but this guy is clear. And according to him,

the accusation came from someone who had previously been a law enforcement officer. So the defense managed to get that investigation mentioned in front of the jury. But Throckmorn was clear that it didn't result in any wrongdoing on his part. In fact, in other words, it proves that he did nothing wrong. Then Nester brought up a national report that raised concerns about forensic handwriting analysis and said the field needs improvement. The report outlined concerns about the conclusion some forensic examiners make. Throckmorton said he believed he had read the study. Nestor then asked him about the error rate for forensic examiners.

He testified that the error rate is about four out of 100 cases. Again, that's another moment where the defense highlighting uncertainty, the fact that this is not absolute. Nestor also asked him about something referred to as the My Princess Letter. So it's described as two pages written by Eric. Brockborn said he'd reviewed that letter, but only after he had already reviewed the documented issue. Nestor then asked whether he looked at other insurance documents to see if any other signatures appeared to be forged.

He said he reviewed a number of documents. She also asked if he had looked at the closing. documents for the Midway Mansion. Brock Morton said he had not looked at those. So after that, the defense had nothing further. Well, the prosecution did decide to briefly follow up with a redirect. Burmester asked Throck Morton how many times he has testified in court as a forensic handwriting expert and Throck Morton told the jury, he's testified 48 times.

That's a lot. Yeah, wow. Burmester then circled back to the key point of his testimony, the alleged forgery. Brock Morton reiterated that there was no evidence. Eric signed the document. And with that, the court broke for lunch recess. Oh, yeah. Did you guys hear that? We're just at lunch. We're just at lunch. I know. Many of you have already like said the PI. I know. We're getting there. We're going to get to the PI. But after lunch, the state moved to admit the 911 call into evidence.

Let's listen to the 911 call. Right. Let's take a listen. Okay. What's the address of the emergency? Okay. What's the address? We're low court. Okay, what's a good phone number in case we get disconnected? Okay, it's going to be in Francis. Okay, tell me exactly what happened. Okay, I can't understand you.

I need you to take a deep breath. What's going on? We did with my kids. I just came and turned over. Who's cold? He's not breathing? He's not breathing? I need you to confirm it for me.

Is he not breathing? Okay, we're going to sit. Can you do see the? You don't know. I'm going to tell you how to. Are you willing to do CPR? Yeah. Okay. If there's a distributor available, send someone to get it now and tell me when you have it. No, thank you. Are you available? Okay. I'm sending the paramedics to help you now. Stay on the line and I'll tell you exactly what to do next, okay? Okay. Are you right by your, are you right by your husband right now? Okay, listen carefully. Are you able to lay him on the floor on the ground on the ground?

You can do it You can do it You need to calm down We need to help them I can guide you through CPR Take a deep breath from me I'm here with you He doesn't have a pulse

He doesn't have a pulse I'm here with you I'm here with you We need to get him help If I if you need to put me on speaker Put me on speaker I'm going to guide you through CPR okay You're ready? Okay

He's on the floor He's on the bed Okay, are you able by any chance to move them on the floor? I'm here with you. You're not able to move him to the floor? Go out. I don't come in there. Oh, my suspension.

You're not able to move him to the floor? Listen carefully. We should need to get him on the floor. Don't worry about hurting them. Is he still on the bed? Okay. If there's a sheet or a blanket under them, can you loosen it from the mattress? Okay, stand up the side of the bed closest to them and remove anything under the head.

Okay. Okay. I need you to pull the sheets towards you and slide them off the bed. Don't worry about him falling. We just need to help him now. Tell me when he's on the floor. If he has sheets under, pull them to the floor. Don't worry about hurting him.

The ambulance that's on the way. Okay, there's another way to do this, okay? Grab his feet, grab his feet, slide them towards you until they're just off the bed. How old is your husband? 39. Okay, were you able to pull his feet off the bed? Okay, now grab the arm closer, pull the rest of the way off the bed. Again, don't worry about the fall.

We just need to help them now. I have the ambulance on the way. I just need you to do this, okay, so we can get the help for him. When they arrive, they'll take over. We just need to start CPR now. You are doing great, okay? I just need you to get him on the floor. You got him on the floor?

Yeah. Okay, listen carefully, okay? Make sure that there's nothing under his head. Is he laying flat on his back? Listen carefully and I'll tell you how to do chest compressions, okay? Place the heel of your hand on the breastbone. This is in the center of the chest, right between the nipples. Okay.

Put your other hand on top of that hand. Okay? Stop pumping the chest hard and fast at least twice per second and two inches deep. Okay, start counting out so I can count. with you, okay? We're going to go one, two, three, four, okay? Let me know when you're ready. One, one, two, three, four. One, two, three, four. Count out so I can hear you. I'm counting with you. One, one, two, three, four. One, two, three, four. One, two, three, four. One, two, three, four. One, two, three, four. One, two, three, four. One, two, three, four. One, two, three, four. One, two, three, Four. One, if it's easier for you, am I on speaker?

Yes. Okay. One, two, three, four. Do you know the front door is open? No. I need you to go. Are you there anybody else within the home or is it just you? It's all my kids. Okay.

Are you one of them old enough to go and lock the door? Yeah, it's on lock now. Yeah, he's there. He's there. Okay. I need to keep doing TPR. Yes. Keep the door and come back, come back to doing CPR.

Okay, let's... Bye, brother to Monaco. It's on scene. I'm beginning of CPR, chest depression. Okay, is the ambulance there with you? Yes. Not yet. In-row.

Are we doing CPR still? Yes, we're doing CPR. You're doing CPR right now. Okay. Oh, my God. I'm outside. Me? Why toy the four runners?

Okay. I have a paramedic take over. I have a lot of thoughts. We'll talk about them all. Also, did anybody notice that how difficult it was for her to say no when the 911 operator was asking, is he breathing?

Is he breathing? And she was quiet. It reminded me of the body cam footage where she's putting her hand in her head in her hands and not looking, like refusing to look and see the truth. Dr. John talked about that. We shared Dr. John's thoughts on Corey Rich and so far in trial last night.

You can go see that. It's in pinned comments. But he said it was like she wanted to see no evil. When she was hesitating to say, no, he's not breathing and was quiet, she said, you got to speak up. You got to speak up. And she was just like, very quiet. I almost wondered if that was like a similar sort of feeling to me, you know, just sort of hiding behind her hands, not wanting to say, say no evil.

You know, that's what I thought of. I also, I don't know about you, but I didn't hear Corey Richens doing any chest compressions. I saw you guys in chat kind of saying the same thing. Like, why aren't we hearing anything? Yeah, that's, that stood out to me too. Also, no thump, right? Pulling him off the bed. He was found at the foot of the bed.

Another thing I saw a lot of people mentioning the comments and something I noticed too was just how long it seemed to take her to follow the dispatcher's instructions. Even if she wasn't shocked, there didn't really seem to be a sense of urgency when it came to getting Eric off the bed and starting CPR. Something else people pointed out were the voices in the background before paramedics arrived. You can clearly hear at least two other people, right? A lot of yours were asking the same question. Who were they? were they police officers family members at this point i don't think that's been made clear

another heartbreaking detail that came out of in this call is that one of their sons actually tried to come in to the room while corey was on the phone with 9-1-1 that that part is just tragic on its own so sad but i am curious what you think i saw a lot of thoughts in chat but leave your thoughts and comments because I actually found this fascinating. Did you hear her doing chest compressions at all? Did anything about that call stand out to you? It was really interesting to hear the full call. And the next up on the stand was Jamie Woody.

Jamie Woody, she is a deputy with the Summit County Sheriff's Office. Back in 2022, she was working as a detective, but she's now a canine officer, Woody was originally assigned as the lead detective in Eric Richon's death investigation. She explained that when she responds to a death scene, her first job is to determine whether it's attended or unattended death and whether it's expected or unexpected. So before this case, she had participated in a handful of death investigations. She had never worked a poisoning case before. She also said that she didn't have experience with digital forensics.

or forensic accounting. The biggest case she had previously been the lead investigator on was a R case, a grape case. Most of her work had been in special victims and sexual assault cases. So Woody was called to the Richens home on March 4th, 2022, to conduct a death investigation. She was the on-call detective that night. Her first goal was to determine whether Eric's death appease. medical or suspicious. That was her first goal. Okay. She explained that the death scene was the bedroom where Eric's body was found. So when she arrived, the first person she encountered was

Eric's sister at the end of the driveway. She spoke with her briefly before even going into the house where she spoke with the initial responding officer and interviewed other witnesses who were there. The sister that she encountered was Amy Richens. So according to to Woody, what Amy told her immediately influenced how she approached the scene when she entered the house. Bloodworth asked Woody what Amy had told her, but Nestor immediately asked to approach the bench. Judge Marazik then sent the jury out so they could deal with a legal issue. And then outside the presence of the jury, the judge told Bloodworth to go ahead and start asking the next line of questions to see where it was going before deciding whether the jury would be allowed to hear it.

Bloodworth asked Woody if Amy had told her something that affected the direction of her investigation. Woody said yes. Amy told her that Eric had previously said that Corey was going to kill him. Bloodworth and asked if Woody went into the house after hearing that. That's wow, right? Right? Eric had, Amy told her that Eric had previously said that Corey was going to kill him. Bloodworth then asked if Woody went into the house. She did.

Nestor then questioned Woody about the conversation. She asked if Amy had told her in the driveway that Corey was going to kill Eric. Woody said yes and said Amy repeated it in both conversations they had that night. Nestor pointed out that in Woody's report, she had written that Amy said Eric and Corey were having problems and that Corey had threatened him. Woody clarified that yes, Amy said Corey had threatened to kill him. Nestor pushed back on the wording, saying that was slightly different from what Woody I just said on the stand. Woody confirmed that was what she had been referring to.

So after going inside, Woody said she came back outside and spoke with Amy again, this time along with another sister, Katie. And according to Woody, they told her that Eric and Corey had been fighting a lot and that Corey could be erratic when she was drinking. they also said Eric had told them that Corey threatened to kill him. Nestor asked if the sisters had also mentioned a beneficiary change and said that Corey threatened Eric because of it. Woody said they had mentioned that at some point, but she couldn't remember exactly when during the conversations. Nestor then asked whether Woody ever conducted an investigation to confirm whether Eric had actually made that statement. Woody said they conducted an investigation, but when it came to that specific statement, all she could do was ask the sisters what Eric had said. She acknowledged that it was essentially their word and that she did not corroborate that statement with anyone else.

Nestor then asked what impact that statement had on how Woody approached the investigation inside the house. Woody said it made them look at the situation with a more critical eye, right? When the jury returned, Bloodworth asked Woody directly whether what Amy told her suggested that Corey may have been involved in Eric's death. Woody answered yes. And after that, Woody went into the house. Woody interviewed people there and spoke with Deputy Nguyen. She also spoke with Corey. According to Woody, Corey told her that she and Eric had been celebrating something that night and had taken a shot of alcohol together.

She said they went to bed around 9 p.m. And then around 9.30, one of the children woke her up after having a nightmare. She said she stayed with the child until about 3 a.m. And when she went back into the bedroom, Eric was ghost wide and cold. When she nudged him, he didn't appear to be breathing. So she called 911. Woody also said that Corey told her that Eric had complained about chest pains that night. She also told Woody that Eric had gotten COVID twice in the past and that he didn't like taking medications.

By the way, this is what Dr. John talked about yesterday to all of the array of health issues. Corey just went over that first night. Dr. John, criminal psychologist, pointed a lot of this out, clinical and forensic psychologist. Importantly, Corey never mentioned anything about street drugs, though, right? Yeah. And then Bloodworth then asked Woody if any. anyone at the scene suggested Eric might have died from an aneurysm. Woody said, yes, a paramedic or other medical professional at the scene mentioned the possibility.

So that is true. Someone else mentioned that. Woody testified that when she looked around the house, she didn't see any signs of drug use or drug paraphernalia. And then one detail that stood out to her was that the garbage cans in the house were empty. She asked Corey about that and Corey told her the housekeeper had emptied them earlier. Woody followed up and asked for the housekeeper's name, but apparently Corey said she could not remember it. Woody explained that she searched the immediate area of the death scene, which was in the bedroom, but she didn't have a warrant to search the entire house at that point.

And because of that, she asked for consent to search outside the immediate scene and specifically wanted to look in the kitchen garbage, since that's where Eric had been earlier in the evening. someone else searched the trash cans and found no evidence of illicit drugs. Bloodworth asked Woody why she didn't request consent to search the rest of the house. Woody said that at that point there wasn't anything clearly showing a crime had occurred. She also said she wanted to be mindful of the grieving family. So she limited the search to what was necessary in the moment. And within about two weeks after Eric died, Katie provided Woody with Eric's medical records.

and those records were turned over to the medical examiner, and then the toxicology results came back. Woody testified. That's when investigators learned. Eric had died from a fentanyl overdose. The finding completely changed the direction of the investigation. Up until then, they had been looking at a possible natural death or medical issue. Once fentanyl showed up in the toxicology,

it shifted things towards the possibility that something criminal had happened. Bloodworth and asked Woody about a search warrant that was executed on April 13, 23. So just a little over a year and a month after Eric's death. And this warrant allowed investigators to search the Richards home, Corey's vehicle and Corey herself. Despite that search, Woody said no fentanyl, no fentanyl was found in the house or in the car. Investigators did seize both Corey's phone and Eric's phone during that search. They also seized some THC products, surprise. Bloodworth then asked whether those THC products were tested for fentanyl.

And before Woody could answer, defense nestor asked for a sidebar. And then after the sidebar ended, Bloodworth continued. Woody explained that both phones were sent to a lab to be downloaded, but the process turned out to be complicated. According to Woody, there were deletions found on Corey's phone. We've heard about these deletions. which made the digital analysis more difficult. Woody also testified that the family's private investigator had given detectives

information he gathered during his own investigation. And at that point, Woody mentioned a career change she had made. She said in March of 2023, she began working with a canine dog after wanting to do that for years. Eventually, another detective, Jeff O'Driscoll, took over as the lead investigator on the case. And then Nestor got up. for cross-examination. She started by asking Woody if it was fair to say that before she even walked into

the Richens home that night, she already believed it could be a murder scene. Woody answered yes. That's a strategic question, right, for the defense. What Nestor seemed to be suggesting was that Woody may have been looking at the situation through the lens of a potential homicide right from the start, right? She has a prejudice and a bias right for the beginning after she talks to Amy. and then the Katie. Nutter then asked whether Woody had crime scene tape available that night.

Woody said she didn't remember, but no crime scene tape was put around the house. But Woody said an officer was stationed at the bedroom door to control access, and she also testified that crime scene investigators did come to the house. One of them was Chelsea Gibson, along with someone from the medical examiner's office. A patrol deputy was also present, although Woody said she could not recall. the deputy's name. Nestor then asked whether Corey had given investigators permission to search the home. This was interesting. Whether Corey

had given investigators permission to search the home. Let's watch this portion together. Between the four of you, the only area that you searched was the area immediately around the body and then the kitchen trash can, right? the bathroom that was attached to the bedroom as well. All right. Did you have consent from Ms. Richens? Did she cooperate with you on that?

Yes, she cooperated. And she gave you consent to search the kitchen? Just the garbage is. That's all we asked for. That's what you asked for. Yes. Right. And you mentioned that she told you that she couldn't remember her housekeeper's name.

Did you ultimately confirm that a housekeeper did come that day and clean the house? I can't remember. If I gave you the name Norma Garcia, does that refresh your memory? No. Okay. So you don't know if you ever confirmed that or not? I can't remember. I don't recognize that name, though.

Did you or any of the other three search the large trash cans that were out in the back in the garage? No. And did anybody search Mr. Richens' vehicles that night? No, we didn't search any vehicles. you did mention that when Mr. Bloodworth was talking to you that you did not see any evidence of drug use or paraphernalia. Is that right?

Correct. But in fact, wasn't there an empty hydrocodone bottle seized from right next to Mr. Richon's bed? There was. And do you know what happened to that bottle? We took some pictures, but I'm not sure if we took it or not.

You didn't put an in evidence back. No. You didn't swab it for the inside of it. No, it was empty. Do you know where it is to this day? No. You talked with Mr. Bloodworth about the fact that in order to go outside the immediate area of the body or anywhere else where you get consent, you'd have to go to a judge to get a warrant.

Is that right? Outside of the immediate area, yes. Right. And nowadays, when I first started practicing law, this was different. This has changed in the many decades that I've been doing this. But now you can actually call a judge on the phone and get a warrant, can't you? You can do an e-warrant. Over the email?

Yeah, online. Okay. That did not exist when I started vursing law. So did anybody try to get an e-warrant that day to look anywhere else in the house? We didn't really have any idea if there was a crime that was committed or not. So even with all your experience and your training, there was nothing about that house that day that indicated to you it was a crime scene sufficient to even get a probable cause warrant. Correct. You also mentioned that you gathered some health records from Mr. Rich and sister Katie.

I did. And did you ever subpoena those same records from the actual doctor? Can't remember. So before you gave these records to the medical examiner, you can't say for sure if Katie removed any part of it or changed any part of it or if they were actually accurate valid records can you? I just read them to her over the phone, but yes, I give for that information. Okay. And Mr. Bloodworth talked to you about the search on April 13th of 2022. You were basically the person in charge of that search, right? I don't know if I would say I was in charge. I don't have any rank, but yeah, I was there. Okay. And when that search happened, is it totally fair to say Corey Richens did not know that search was imminent?

Meaning she didn't know that it was going to happen? Right. I have no idea. And as a matter of fact, she was seized and detained as she was driving away from her house, right? She was. And she was held in a police car while you guys did at least part of this search? She was only held there until I could explain it to her. So how long was she held in the police car until you could get to her and explain everything?

I believe they said it was 10 minutes. Okay. And when you got there, you explained to her what you were doing, right? Yes. How would you, well, strike that? She was obviously very upset when you saw her. Yes. And she, is it fair to say that she was under the impression that this was related to them taking her house

until you explained to her that it had to do with Eric's death? I don't remember that. You don't remember her talking about. Is this them trying to take my house? I don't remember her saying that. Okay. But either way, you told her that day, hey, Eric died of fentanyl.

And that was in April. Yes. So just over a month after his death, she knew that you all believed he died of a fentanyl overdose, correct? Yes. Have you reviewed the website searches that the states tried to put into evidence in this case? No. Okay, no worries. To your knowledge, did any of your four team members on the day of the death go downstairs or upstairs?

Not to my knowledge. When Ms. Richens told you on the day of the death when you first responded, that she had come back to the bed and found that her husband was cold to the touch, did you ask? Did you ask, her if she went anywhere else in the house before she laid down? I don't remember. Did you ask her if she went to their bathroom? I don't think I asked that specifically. And I know you like dogs. Did you notice there was a dog in the house?

They must have had it put up when I was there because I never saw it. Did you ask her if she let the dog out before she went to bed? I didn't even know there was a dog. Did you ask her if she went to the kitchen and got a glass of water? Nope. All right. Well, next, Nestor asked how thoroughly investigators examined Eric's phone.

Woody said they mainly looked at the call logs when it came to digging deeper into the data on the phone. She said investigators didn't go much further because the information was pretty confusing, as she explained it. Nestor then asked about how often she communicated with Eric's family during the investigation. She specifically asked about a timeline that Katie had sent her. Woody confirmed that she did receive that timeline. Next, Nestor asked whether Woody was aware of reports in Summit County, Utah. about fentanyl being found in marijuana. As you guys have pointed out,

there was no marijuana found it in a system, but hey, Woody said she wasn't familiar with those reports. At that point, there was another sidebar. And then when court resumed, Nestor moved to admit an exhibit. She asked Woody if she had ever provided the private investigator

with reports about people being arrested for fentanyl in Summit County. Woody said that did not sound familiar. Nestor then asked whether Woody knew that Corey had already been represented by an attorney on April 13th when investigators searched the house. The prosecution objected to that, arguing the question was not relevant, and Judge Marazik sustained the objection. After another sidebar, Nestor returned to the events of the morning Eric died. She asked Woody about our interview with Corey that day. Nestor specifically asked

whether Woody had ever asked Corey how long she had been lying in bed, next to Eric before realizing and he was cold. Woody said that Corey told her it was almost immediate. Nestor also asked whether Woody had listened to the 911 call. Woody said she might have listened to it at some point, but she did not clearly remember. She also testified that Corey had told her Eric have been healthy. And at that point, Nestor said she had nothing further and ended her cross-examination. So with that, the state called its next witness. Todd Gabler, yes, Todd Gabler. You guys have been waiting for Todd Gabler.

Todd Gabler walked into the courtroom. He was using a cane and explained that on January 13th, his neck had been surgically fused with titanium rods, bless him. And because of that surgery, he said he decided not to take any prescribed pain medication before testifying so that his mind would be completely clear. And he told the court that the only thing he had taken that morning was Tylenol. And as you guys have said, I just want to share this pinned comment. As you said, the PI, the private investigator was the highlight of the day.

It was certainly the most interesting, right? And we have arrived. We have saved, I think, in my opinion, the most interesting for last. So, yes, that is who Gabler is. He said he had been working as a private investigator for 34 years. He also explained that over the course of his career, he had worked on around 100 homicide cases. Interestingly, he said every single one of those cases had been for the defense.

So in his words, he always has sat on that side of the room with the defense. He also made it clear that he had never testified for the state before. never testified for prosecution. Gabler said he first became involved in the case in 2022. Lily, the night dog, has just jumped up. Okay, she resettled. Oh, no, she's scratching. Okay.

So Gabor became involved in the case, 2022. An attorney contacted him, suggested that he speak with Katie Richens Benton about Eric's death. That's Eric's sister. He was one of the first people to testify at this trial. He said he met with Clint Benson and Katie, husband and wife in April of 2022. And during that meeting, he walked them through the way he conducts investigations. He told them he would need to access things like phones, computers, other materials if he was going to look into what happened to Eric Richens.

Gavler said he was very upfront with them. He told them they were hiring him to find the truth, even if that truth ended up being difficult to hear. He explained that if Eric had taken his own line. they would have to accept that. And if someone else was responsible, they would also have to accept wherever the evidence led. In other words, he said he was not prejudiced. He was not biased to finding something certain, which is a big sort of argument of the defense, right? But he's saying, look, I'm going to go wherever the evidence leads.

And according to Gabler, they agreed to that. He testified that the Benson paid him for his work. He said his process was to discuss his findings with his clients first and then pass that relevant information to law enforcement. Gabor also pointed out that it would actually be a crime for him to share investigative files with anyone other than his client without permission. So he described the relationship with law enforcement as pretty one-sided. So in his words, the flow of information was mostly giving, was him giving the information to

investigators. He said he tried multiple times to obtain the 911 call that we just heard there. but every request was denied. He told the jury that in his experience, it's not unusual for police agencies to sort of operate as a one-way street when it comes to sharing information with outside investigators.

So, in other words, this wasn't a team. This was a one-sided relationship, Gableser telling police stuff, but law enforcement keeping their mouth zipped. Allegedly. Gabor also made it clear that he had no contact with the Summit County Sheriff's office before Corey was arrested.

and eventually he said he turned over two hard drives of material to the county attorney's office. He explained that his investigation focused on two possible scenarios. Either Eric had accidentally overdosed or Corey had secretly caused Eric to ingest a massive amount of fentanyl. Gagler said every piece of data he gathered was evaluated against those two competing explanations. Eric told the jury that he always records his interviews and then later types up summaries into the report sheets. And over the course of his investigation, he conducted somewhere between 40 and 50 interviews. He said he always identified himself in speaking with people. Those interviews included Eric's friends, Corey's friends, Eric's business contacts, personal acquaintances, and members of Eric's family.

Gable said he also tried to interview members of Corey's family but was never able to get them to sit down with him. And one of the things Gaveller spent time analyzing was the couple's phone records. He explained that the phones were paid for through C&E masonry, so Cody and Eric's business. So he obtained the billing records through that account. He ended up with two sets of records covering January through May of 2022. And then May 2022 through February, 2023. Gaveller clarified the billing records don't show the actual content of the messages or calls. They just show that a call or text happened.

when it happened and between which numbers. He explained that when he reviews records like that, he's looking at patterns. He pays attention to how often someone contacts another person, what time of the day the communication happens, and whether it's a text, a voice call, or something else. And according to Gabler, the person Corey communicated with the most was not the paramour, not Josh. It was her mother.

Right? I found that interesting. Corey's mother was the person Corey communicated with the most. He described her as a high weight contact because of the high number of interactions. But another name also stood out in the records, and Gailer testified there were hundreds of texts exchanged between Corey and not Josh again, not Josh, Carmen Lauber, the housekeeper, former housekeeper. the drug dealer between January and May of 2022. So just between the time where Eric passed away in March. And the only two people Corey contacted more frequently during that time were her mom and Eric and then Carmen. Gabler told the jury that when he looked into Carmen Lauber further, he discovered she had an extensive criminal history involving drugs.

He also learned that she had tested positive for drugs while she was in drug court around. the time Eric died. Gableler said that combination of things immediately raised a red flag for him. He said, quote, I was very concerned about the high number of contacts and the criminal history for Carmen and I alerted the sheriff's office about that. And quote, Gablellert also testified about searching the Richens home. He said the first time he went inside the house was on May 8th, 2023, which was the day the property was officially released by the sheriff's office because that was the day of Corey Richon's arrest was May 8th, 2023.

So he went and in the house that day. He said that as soon as law enforcement left the property, Corey's lawyer showed up. Gableer had arranged for the sheriff's office to provide security at the home while he conducted his search and one of Corey's attorneys accompanied him at the beginning to conduct

an inventory of assets in the house. And according to Gableer, that attorney stayed for a few hours, but did not participate in the actual search of the property. Gable said he initially searched the home for four to five days, and during that time, he took photographs, recorded videos, scanned thousands of documents, and carefully documented everything he saw. Prosecutor Bloodworth asked if Clint Benson was present every time Gable search the house,

and Gableer clarified that he was never in the house without Benson's authorization. He also said he recorded nearly the entire search using a GoPro camera. The only time that he didn't use a GoPro was once when someone called. him over and he used his cell phone to record instead. He also made a point of saying he never brought anything into the house. So during his searches in May, Gableer came across a number of documents between Corey and her attorneys, along with billing records from those lawyers. Gable testified that it would have been unethical for him to read those materials because they were protected by attorney-client privilege. So instead, he placed them in a manila envelope. At the

end of his search, he took that sealed envelope to the attorney's office. Gableer also said he removed a few items from the house that belonged to the boys. He clarified that if he ever came across something he believed could be evidence, he did not take it himself. Any potential evidence was removed by the sheriff's office, not by Gabor. So after that testimony, Lederworth told the court, he had no further questions for Gabor. And the court that took an afternoon recess, and after that, defense attorney Nestor started. This is where it gets interesting. By pointing out that Gabler is not law enforcement and that private investigators don't

operate under the same rules, Gablel pushed back on that a bit saying it depends on the situation and that when he's hired by an attorney, he follows that attorney's ethical guidelines. Well, Nestor, for the defense, suggested that because he's a private investigator, he could technically search a home for days if he wanted. Gabled responded that Eric's brother-in-law, Clinton, Benson, had given him a to the house and permission to access it at his discretion. Nestor noted that there were times Gabler went to the house alone without Clint

present. Gabler confirmed that but said Clint always knew when he was there. Nestor pointed out that there are hours of video showing Gabler alone inside the home going through items and Gabler said he had already testified about that earlier. Gabler explained that the home had been released by the Summit County Sheriff's Office on May 8th, 2023, which is when his search began, again, the day of Corey's arrest. Nest. Nestor pointed out that May 8th, you know, was that arrest day. Gable said that he didn't know that date. He testified that he never entered the home at any point between March 4th, 2022, the day Eric died and May 8th, 23. So never been in until then. Nestor asked how many times police had searched the house before that. Gable said he didn't know. She then asked, but the times he called law enforcement, back to the house after finding items. Gables said that happened about four or five times.

And during that exchange, he added a comment that police never get everything in cases he has worked on. Nestor said she wouldn't argue with him about that. Police don't get it all. Nestor also asked whether police ever told him to stop calling them when he found items. Gable said no. He explained that his client instructed him to turn over anything that might be useful in the civil case.

and if he came across potential evidence, he would notify law enforcement. He even said that if police had told him to stop calling, he still would have reported it. As an example, he recalled finding an audio recorder in a dresser drawer and pointed it to investigators. Wow. Nestor then asked about a letter Eric had written to Corey that stated with baby cakes. Gableer said he didn't remember moving it. Video showed that he found the letter on May 10th, 2023, so a couple days after the arrest. And in the bottom drawer on Eric's side of the bed, he testified that he looked at it, did not think it was relevant, and put it back.

Later, on August 9th, 2024, he photographed the letter while it was sitting on the bed, but he said he couldn't remember whether it had already been there or if he had retrieved it from the vanity. Gave would also testified that he left a video recording device on the master bedroom bed and didn't realize that law enforcement would later collect it. Nestor asked whether he moved items around inside the house. Gailer said no. She then asked if he had moved a computer and placed it in his Tesla. Gableer asked if she was referring to the C&E Masonry computer and said that's not what happened. According to him, Eric's sister Becky took the computer after Eric died, gave it to Katie and Katie later gave it to him. Nestor then showed video of Gabler in the home office going through a computer and asked to play the clip without sound.

The questioning then turned to a safe that had been removed from the house. Gailer said that the safe was in the master closet and that he removed it at Clinton Benson's request, the brother-in-law's request, Corey's brother-in-law, and took it to a locksmith. Nestor suggested that he busted into the safe. Gabler pushed back on that wording saying it wasn't accurate and that a rubber mallet had been used. Nestor pointed out that no law enforcement officers were present when that happened, and Gabler responded that he didn't need police there to babysit. Nestor also played video that she claimed showed Gabler going through a computer from the office. Gabler testified that the computer in the video was actually his own laptop

and that he was scanning documents, not removing anything from the office. She asked about claims that he sat outside Corey's home watching her. Gable said that that was fault. However, he did confirm that he had placed GPS trackers on several vehicles, including Corey's car, her mother's car, and her brother's car, and that he provided that tracking data to law enforcement. Gable would also testify that he tracked the vehicle of Carmen Lauber and gave that information to police as well.

He said once he realized Carmen herself was not driving the car, he removed the tracking device. Nestor asked how many times he met with law enforcement during the investigation. He initially says he doesn't remember because it wasn't really relevant, but Nestor said that it's relevant to the defense. And he answered that he maybe met with them five or six times. Then there was this really kind of rather strange moment

where someone seemingly from the gallery objected to a line of questioning. I'm not sure if it was an attorney representing Mr. Gabler. It might have been or the Richens family or just a spectator. I really don't know. Listen to this. All right, sir, do you recognize that? Can you see it? I can see it.

Do you recognize it? I do. All right. And is that an email that you sent to Detective Woody on July 13th of 2022? I'm going to have difficulty talking about this exhibit because if it becomes an exhibit, it contains a confidential client communication. But I did send it to Detective Woody. Okay.

Mr. Beaver being required to testify regarding any client. With respect, I'm not sure you have standing to make any objections. And he seems fully attuned to the issue. Ms. Nestor, I'm not sure where we're headed. So just take it one question. I shall. Thank you, Your Honor. Everyone seemed a little confused, so you'll have to tell me what you think.

I don't know. I couldn't figure it out. I was not there today. I wrote some comments. people were asking who was piping in from the gallery and I just kind of found it funny. I would like to know who it is. So if any of you have ideas or have some insight scoop, let me know. Nesser displayed an email Gabbler had sent to Detective Woody in the message.

Gableer suggested that it would be a good time to interview Carmen Lauer because she was on the ropes in drug court. That's interesting, right? He wrote that he believed she would likely cooperate with law enforcement at that point. going with the defense's theory that Carmen is cooperating. And that's why she's saying what she's saying. Nestor then asked whether Gabler had ever been given access to law enforcement folders during the investigation. Gabler said no and said he explained that he provided investigators with links to his own folders.

Nestor followed up by asking whether he had given police access to the contents of Eric's phone. Gabler responded that law enforcement already had access to Eric's phone. then Nestor switched focus to Gabler's review of Eric's messages. Okay, Eric's text messages. She asked how much time he had spent reading through Eric's text. Gabler said he didn't remember the exact amount of time, but estimated it was a number of hours. He added that in total he has spent, listen to this, 930. 36.3 hours working on the case. So a thousand hours working on the case.

Gabor said that he charges $125 per hour for his work, but his rate was higher when he performed computer forensics. He said that overall he has made more than $100,000 on this case. Nesser asked whether he had seen any evidence on Eric's phone that Eric was sexting other women. I mean, this is like, again, so let's just stop here for a second. There have been so many hints on an affair Eric had. Even Corey in her little Sedona retreat said something about an emotional affair. You've seen no proof. So I'm sitting here watching this going like, okay, we're talking sexting.

Evidence on Eric's phone that Eric was sexting other women. Gabler said he did look into whether Eric might have been having an affair, but he didn't find texting that suggested that. Well, Nestor then asked whether he saw texts where Eric talked about having an open marriage with Corey. Gabor said he didn't recall seeing that. Nestor also asked whether around the time Eric died, Gable had been investigating other cases in Summit County involving people prosecuted or distributing fentanyl. Gabor said yes. As part of his work, he gathered affidavits from fentanyl distribution cases in the area and added them to what he described as in a hypothesis testing matrix.

However, he said he ultimately didn't find any connection between those cases and Eric's death. Nestor asked whether Gaveller had ever made calls or trips to Mexico as part of the investigation. That's where Eric would allegedly go hunting. He said no. The question then turned to a phone call between Gabor and Corey. Gabler testified that Corey called him on January 19th, 2023. He said he stopped the conversation because it would have been unethical and inappropriate for him to speak with her without her attorney present. And after that, he contacted her lawyer.

And according to Gabler, Corey was very angry that he contacted one of her business associates. Gable said that after that first call, he made repeated requests to speak with Corey. Nestor then asked whether he was aware that the trust connected to Eric's estate is seeking more than $10 million from Corey in a wrongful death claim. That's interesting. $10 million from Corey in a wrongful death claim

and Gabe was said he didn't know that and added that it wasn't relevant to his work. Nestor then brought up documentation suggesting Eric had talked about an open relationship. And then she just thought, a text message on the screen or Gabler to review. And after reading it, Gableer said that he believed it was a joke. And you really just have to watch this part because, I mean, I was not prepared for this.

Seeing any texts with Eric about him and Corey having an open relationship and you said you could not recall. Is that right? Correct. Can you put that up on the screen? Do you recall looking at that text? I do. You've seen this one? I believe I have.

It's a joke. It's a joke? It is. It appears to me to be a joke. Did you see the text around this text? I did. So you have reviewed the text between Eric and Bryce. I don't know. I don't know that this is a text from Bryce.

I have no idea. This does not identify Bryce. So now that you have your memory refreshed, do you remember seeing this text between Eric and another individual saying that Corey and I are starting an open relationship tonight, right? It says, Corey and I are starting an open relationship tonight, so I told her I'm taking you home. Right.

Yeah. Okay. You let that out of your report? No. This would be part of my report. Did you see sexting between Bryce and Eric when you looked at their texts? I don't recall that, no. And is this, I mean, is this sexting?

I don't know what you mean. No, I'm not talking about this one. Okay. All right. I don't recall. I'm talking about many hundreds of thousands of messages in this case. I can't recall them all. Another text right here and see if this refreshes your memory.

Do you remember seeing a whole bunch of emails like this or texts like this between Eric and Bryce? Honestly, no, I don't remember. Like I say, there were hundreds of thousands of messages in this case. I don't remember even 1% of them. As I look at this, I mean, it just makes me laugh. It doesn't appear to be serious. So how many of these joke sextings did you review that Eric did? I don't understand this to be sexting.

I think you're wrong about that. I resist your characterization. These are two friends joking with each other. That's what I'm reading here. And they did that all the time? I don't know. Hundreds of times. If I had the records and then I could answer your question,

But I don't remember all of these messages. And yeah, this is a joke. Did you review all of the text between Bryce and Eric? I think at one time I would have gone through every single text message that was available to me on Eric's clone phone. So do I recall it? Well, I mean, I recall that it was a bit mind-numbing. There was a lot there.

Nothing particularly stuck out in my mind or memory about those messages. Did they repeatedly talk about having sex acts together? I don't recall. Did they repeatedly talk about oral sex together? I don't recall. Did they talk about anal sex together? Also, don't recall. But you read them all?

I'm sure that I did. And it's all joking. Knowing what I know about Bryce and Eric, yeah, that's how I Interpret it. So you do remember reading things of this nature and you interpret it at all as joking? No, as I sit here today, I interpret it that way. I would have interpreted it that way back at my original reading of it. That doesn't mean I recall it. It means I have an opinion about what I thought then. That's different. And what did you think then? They were joking. No, no. What I think now is that this was a joke. I do not have a recollection of, of this at the time that I first read it. But if I had a recollection of that time,

I'm sure it would be the same as it is today. And if there were these tens of tens of 20s, of 50s of these types of emails, all of them would be jokes. That's it, that's all I have here. Mr. Bloodworth, anything further from Mr. Gatler? Yes, Your Honor, thank you. You can't have a bunch of figures blocker room

of 2018. That was my read of it, yes. There wasn't any serious read that Eric, Richens, and Bryce Knussen were engaged in some homosexual affair. Zero. In all of the text messages you reviewed, did you see any evidence of Eric using illicit street drugs? No, I looked and I could not find. You mentioned legal requirements for a licensed private investigator to place. investigator to place the GPS tracker on a car.

What are those legal requirements? So the statute governing that was adopted some a few years ago. It requires that before placing the device licensed private investigator must identify the person or persons that are driving that vehicle and potentially the owner of that vehicle. and that they submit a request to query the protected persons database in the state of Utah for any record of those persons that are subject to the GPS tracking. That is designed to keep us from tracking people who have protective orders or temporary restraining orders or other lawful processes that define them as a protected person.

We cannot track you in that circumstance. We do not have independent access to that database. So we must ask an agency of the state for a yea or nay. Is this person in the protected person's database? We have to do that before we place a device. We have to be certain that we are not tracking a protected person. So I submitted those requests to the appropriate counties of the jurisdictions where I placed these devices. The Summit County Sheriff's Office initially declined my request under the statute.

I insisted. I finally got them to comply. I did the same with the Wasatch County Sheriff's Office, and they complied with my request. Did you conduct your investigation entirely within the bounds of the law? I believe I did. did you conduct your investigation entirely within the ethical bounds of private investigators and the attorneys you were working for in this case? I believe that I did. Is Nestor anything further for Mr. Gable? No, Your Honor.

May we release this witness? Yes, sir. Wow, right? As we say, that was not on, you know, my trial bingo card. A lot of mixed feelings in chat about that. I'll share a few thoughts I've had and a few thoughts you guys shared. I did like this one. A lot of people asking you, Bryce's.

Bryce has not been a witness yet in this case, although he's been brought up several times now in all sorts of weird scenarios. Bryce is a good friend of Eric's. And I liked this comment where somebody states, oh, I pinned a bunch and now, Bryce was unfairly triangulated in Corey's drama. I agree. I agree. He's recorded without knowing it. It was a great recording and glad Corey did that. You know, she is trying to manipulate him and gain his sympathy.

Then he's accused of not wearing pants. Now he's accused of sexting with his best friend. You know, Eric. And honestly, okay, first of all, I want to say this too. this alleged affair we continue hearing about with Eric, I really did want to know if this PI found anything, right? The fact that they're stretching, it feels like they're stretching now, the fact that they're implying that he and his best friend that this is the affair because, you know,

they were teasing about an open relationship that Corey's never mentioned happening either. I mean, she was, you know, she had a secret lover. I don't think there was any open relationship. My thought, too, just, you know, is, and I wonder if the jury thinks this is, like, that's it? That's what you got.

I don't see an affair then. Then I think that Eric's probably a fair free. You know, I don't think Eric had a secret lover or anything. I think we can call it good now. But honestly, I felt like this part of the questioning, it felt like the defense was basically trying to out, again, Eric and Bryson open court. Again, Bryce hasn't, Eric's dead.

Bryce hasn't testified. This guy just keeps being pulled in and all sorts of like triangulation. And I'm not sure that this is the best look for the defense, in my opinion. You know, Eric isn't here to defend himself. He can't explain the context of those messages or what the tone of those conversations actually was. We keep hearing about Bryce. We don't know who he is, though.

Trying to frame him as having an affair with one of his best friends when he's not alive. It just, you know, framing him for an affair, not just an affair, but one with his best friend, a dude, I don't know, it feels wrong because let's say those messages exist. They talked about one of them. What exactly does they have to do with whether Corey poisoned him? Even if Eric had been gay or bisexual, what would they have anything to do with the allegation that he was given fentanyl. It feels like the defense, again, is trying to poke holes in the prosecution's theory by simply just trying to make Eric look like somebody he's not cast doubt on who Eric Richens is, which again

really has nothing to do with the central question of this case. You know, pulling all these messages out of court and framing them, like they mean something deeper, it feels misleading, but it also feels like the defense doesn't have much. I'm like, that's what you got. That's what you got. People brought up some other trials too where this is done. They brought up Jodi Arias in chat and how Jody Arias tried to say that Travis Alexander had some, you know, fetishes of sorts that were not good. And at the same time, I do think it might reveal sort of this strategy. They have nothing. And it also reminds me of Melanie Pulaski, Melanie Boudreauke, and how she decides to say Brandon Boudreau, a man who survived

an attempted murder that she was trying to divorce was gay. I mean, what is this? Is this like a thing that, you know, I don't know what this defense strategy is. This alternative narrative for the jury, I guess, to sort of chew on. For example, you know, so Eric wasn't who people thought he was. he's been living some kind of double life. Eric was known to be religious, so the defense could be trying to suggest that this is one theory I have. Like, okay, he's religious, right? The LDS faith, it's controversial with LGBTQ rights, right?

So it's the defense trying to suggest that if he was secretly involved in something he felt he was conflicted about, might he have been struggling with guilt or shame and from there build a theory that he turned to drugs and accidentally overdosed, perhaps harmed himself. But even if this was their strategy, it just, again, it felt like a stretch. It felt ridiculous. To me, again, I'm thinking, you have nothing. It's also hard to ignore the fact that it involves airing out very personal messages of someone

who is no longer alive, who cannot clarify them. And then after that, neither had any questions. And Gabler was dismissed. And the judge dismissed the jury for the day, bringing the day's testimony to a close. And so I also don't think the jury is going to really forget that. You know, you kind of remember and think and chew on the last things in court. I was certainly, it was certainly an odd way to end court. Yeah, I agree. Bryce was unfairly triangulated in the core drama. A couple of other things.

Right. Someone saying trying to assinuate Eric was having an affair with his male best friend is low key even for Nestor. Mrs. Martin says, so was he cheating with another woman or sexing with his male B.F? Maybe they need to clarify for us. same with Miss Beema so we pull a Lori and blame the man for being gay, right? The Lori Valo, the Melanie Polowski move shaking my head

no words yet. However, I do want Bryce to clarify a few things now. I think someone should be calling Bryce to the stand now simply because of how often he's been pulled into this. You know, what does he have to stay? right so is Eric a womanizer or is he gay?

Trying to throw shade like this is not a good look. Todd is working on the defense team in another case with Corey in my opinion. Interesting. Someone else mentioned the Jody Arias thing. This is someone that I think kind of brings up my theory that maybe the defense is trying to like really stretch. Maybe Eric was embarrassed or confused because he's LDS because he was right. maybe not strayed and and maybe he harmed himself. I don't know.

I don't know what they're going, but that is such a stretch. And again, there is no proof to any of this. And that was laid right out there with Todd. He simply said there's just absolutely no, no evidence of this, that this is a joke,

that he saw no evidence. And he also made a joke back to kind of like saying, this is texting, or sexting, like you really think this is sexting. You know, it was kind of like a low, like this is what you think sexting is really yeah no it's a joke it's a joke so you know um

very interesting very interesting i'm so excited to see a lulu is raging as a new member and mrs martin has our correct count 1,737 wow for words correct being said and then 1,700 and then 92 sidebars. I was like, there's no way. There's been that. Okay, 92. So we're nearing 100 sidebars and the prosecution hasn't even rested. Thank you to those that are gifting memberships,

but also the greatest gift you could give us, if that's not something you can afford, is just to subscribe and to hit notifications and support our channel and to like this video. It means so much. We are continuing to follow this trial every day, wherever it leads. And check out,

Check out Dr. John brought at home last night when he asked the question, what is home to Cory Richens? Dr. John Matthias is my co-host. And I appear more because the work he does and the research he does to prepare his shows is so much more. It's incredible. We all work very hard here at hidden two crime. But he brought it home in helping to understand my question, who is Corey Richens?

and he posed a question, what is home to Corey Richens? I really recommend watching that episode if you want to understand. Dr. John Matthias is a forensic and clinical psychologist. And yeah, I mean, I'm biased there and prejudicial, but I think he's amazing and he did an incredible job helping me to understand. So thank you, everyone. Thank you, thank you. You guys are the best. So good to see everyone in here.

Thank you to our incredible moderators. thank you to there's so many incredible moderators thank you to troublemaker baker who is helping to to run the live streams along with gracin and for her uh spinning records and creating some great songs too so yeah everybody's everybody's doing a great job um i just this couldn't happen without an incredible community so thank you to everyone and thank you for being here and supporting us we'll do these trial recaps another thing um we do have an episode as well about Ruby Frankie, another case that we've covered in detail. And so check that out. We put it out this weekend. And we have many more things to bring you as well. So thanks,

everyone. We appreciate it. Have a great night. We'll see you. Bye-bye.