Hidden True Crime - Cell Data ANNIHILATES Defense as Drug Dealer's Story Shifts to Fentanyl | Kouri Richins Day 6 Recap

Episode Date: March 3, 2026

Day six of the Kouri Richins trial was a digital deep dive — and it seriously challenged the defense’s accidental overdose narrative. In this episode, we unpack explosive Google searches about wiping iPhones, retrieving deleted texts, life insurance payouts, prisons, and FBI electronic analysis — alongside hundreds of deleted messages and app-based communications that vanished during the critical January–March 2022 window. We break down the minute-by-minute phone movement the night Eric died, the 87-minute Valentine’s Day gap on Eric’s device, and the cell tower data tying Carmen and Robert Crozier’s movements to key dates. Plus, we finally watch Crozier’s original police interview — and what he says there doesn’t entirely match his testimony on the stand. From forensic pathology with Dr. Erik Christensen to motive testimony about prenups and financial fear, today was layered, technical, and heavy. And when you zoom out? The digital breadcrumbs paint a picture the jury can’t easily ignore. Follow our Kouri Richins Coverage Gossip Rumor and Innuendo Interview About Hidden True Crime What started as a simple conversation at their dinner table became a captivating podcast. Join the dynamic duo of Dr. John Matthias, a criminal psychologist, and Lauren Matthias, an investigative journalist, as they delve into the psychological facets of unthinkable crimes every week. Their unique perspectives and in-depth analysis offer a fresh take on true crime storytelling. Thank you for your support through sponsorships, subscribing, listening, and becoming a Patreon member at⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/HiddenTrueCrime⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

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

premium materials like European linen, organic cotton, but they cut out the middleman. So everything is priced way lower than you'd expect. Refresh. your every day with luxury you can actually use. Head to quince.com slash hidden true crime for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's quince, quince, q-u-in-c-com slash hidden true crime for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash hidden true crime. Before I switched to wealth front, my APY was probably 0.1. Once I switched to ching, with a wellfront cash account, earn up to 4.2% APY on your cash. I can trust. Wellfront is taking care of me. Make your money earn more. Get started at

wealthfront.com. Clients were paid $1,000 for their testimonials, creating a conflict of interest. Howcomes vary. 3.3%. Bay Safety Y as of January 30th, 2026 is representative variable and earned on funds swept to program. $150,000.0.6% new client boost for three months on up to $150,000, $1,000 a month and fund an investment account for a point 25% increase. Cash account offered by Wealthfront Brokeridge, LLC, member FINRA, SIPC, not a bank. Day six of the Corey Richens' trial, Corey Richens, for those new here, the mother and children's book author, accused of killing her husband with a least Moscow mule. And we're gathering to talk because there is so much that happened today.

So I hope everybody's ready because, whoa, there are Google searches about some wild stuff and text messages. Texts that surprise do not line up with the defense's accidental overdose narrative. Yeah. that's not who these text messages help. They do not help the defense. And we also finally see that OG interview between Robert Krazier and law enforcement. So Robert Krazier, remember the supplier of the pills, he says some pretty different things than what he shared on the stand last eight week. So we'll get into it. We have a lot to talk about. For those who are new here, I'm Lori Matthias. This is Hidden True Crime. We are here every single night breaking down these eight-hour trial days because,

let's be honest, some of it is really confusing. Or it can be for me. Even I have to like rewatch things a few times to really understand it. Confusing testimony. So many sidebars, the technical stuff, we make it digestible here. And honestly, something we can like process together too because here hidden true crime, we hang out. We connect dots, don't we? Even dots, maybe sometimes we shouldn't connect. We try it. Let's give it a whirl. And we count corrects or corrects, as we call them here. And yes, correct correct corrects is how they say it at the Corey Richens trial. And the last week's official correct count, correct count, are you ready for this? 1,295 corrects. Today's count was 148. And the total amount of sidebars today, six, which makes the total amount of sidebars thus far

in this entire trial, 43, that poor jury. They are hanging in there. And a big thank you to one of our trial moderators, Mrs. Martin, for keeping tally. And a big thank you to all of our moderators that make these lives and the live streams possible because we're also live streaming this in chat during the day. So if you're new here, hit subscribe, hit notifications, turn those on because we are not missing a minute of this trial. Today, the defense narrative got seriously challenged, the gallery did look pretty full this morning, I'll say, too. I'm not totally surprised. In my experience, Mondays are always, I've noticed in high profile cases like this, pretty busy. But one person who wasn't there was that trial attendee that was sketching the jury. Yeah, she wasn't there.

She was kicked out last week after a juror wrote a note outing her. And our friend Kathy from gossip, rumor, and innuendo, she actually interviewed a trial inside. who saw the whole thing, saw it, and tells Kathy more about that in an interview. You can watch over there. She tells Kathy what she was drawing, like the literal numbers and the jurors. And to be clear, no one is to ever sketch a jury. Sketch artists are never allowed to sketch a jury or juror. So, yeah, it was fascinating to learn more over there at Gossip Rumor and Induendo.

So go check it out there. Anyway, back to day six. things started a little tense this morning and before the jury even heard from the next witness, there were a few already legal issues to go over. Defense attorney Ramos told the judge, his team hasn't been able to consult with Dr. Eric Christensen, who the state planned to call today and did call. According to Ramos, they've tried to reach him and never got a response. So Judge Marazix stepped in and said that they could shuffle the order of the witnesses to give the defense time to speak with him. Then defense attorney Lewis objected to another planned witness,

Lieutenant Davis, and she argued that the state added him to the list late last week and didn't give enough notice. So back to these legal issues about the defense, not being able to talk to the possible witnesses that the prosecution is calling. Prosecutor Bloodworth pushed back, saying Davis was just there to authenticate a video. So in other words, this is not going to be a dramatic witness, but it's a procedure witness, an important procedural witness, right? And speaking of that video, yeah, that video is important because the two sides also argued over the transcript of that video. Razek told the state that they needed to provide aversion with a running transcript for the defense. And that video,

along with Dr. Christensen, was supposed to start off the morning, but instead, surprise court went into recess while everything was sorted out. And when court came back, the state called finally Dr. Eric Christensen to the stand. So they got it worked out. Here he is. Dr. Eric Christensen is important. He served as Utah's chief medical examiner from 2016 until just recently retiring. So he is the medical examiner. He also supervised Dr. Olmer, who signed Eric Richon's death certificate. And for those of us here that follow the lorry. and Chad Daybell trials, Dr. Christensen's testimony about Tammy Daybell's autopsy will be remembered as absolutely heartbreaking. It was Dr. Christensen. He is the one who did Tammy Daybell's autopsy after her body was exhumed from the Springville Cemetery.

So again, while Tammy DeBell died in Idaho, and they didn't, unfortunately, do an autopsy there, remember, she was buried in Springville Cemetery in Utah. Thus, the Utah Medical Examiner took over, and that was Dr. Eric Christensen. So anyway, and he testified, by the way, he was the testimony that stated that Tammy DeBell died by homicide by asphyxiation. So justice was served for Tammy. And here he is now back on the stand again for another spouse accused of killing their spouse. I can't imagine his work. So Dr. Christensen testified that he's an executive.

expert in forensic pathology, and he walked the jury through how medical examiners determining cause and manner of death. And he said Eric Richen's manner of death was ruled undetermined at the time. They didn't know whether Eric overdosed on his own or if someone administered the drug. So in other words, he knew how he died, right? It was a fentanyl overdose. The manner of death is whether it was a homicide or accidental, and that was ruled undetermined. They didn't know again. Did he overdose or did someone administer? this drug. He then explained how fentanyl works in the body. It can be injected, swallowed, inhaled, or otherwise ingested. And once it hits the bloodstream, it affects thinking,

it causes drowsiness, and most critically slows breathing. That's what makes it lethal. He said fentanyl is about 100 times more potent than morphine. I didn't even know that. That's incredible. And Christianson testified their suggestive evidence that Eric ingested the fentanyl orally, but there's no definitive way to prove that. However, however, there's always a however, there were no injection sites on Eric's body. And in cases where someone smokes, fentanyl you might see burns on fingers or drug paraphernalia nearby. And none of that was present in this case. So again, well, he can't say it was orally taken. We can say what it probably wasn't, and then equate that it was likely oral. Then the jury heard a recorded phone call between

Christensen and Corey Richens. And then on the call, Corey asked several questions about the substances found in Eric's system. Christensen told her that Eric could have taken the fentanyl orally or by injection and that people can die from even half, just half the amount that was found in his blood, in Eric's blood. Corey also asked about Syracquel, an antipsychotic medication found in Eric's system, which was really, really interesting because why was that interesting? well, it was actually Corey's prescription, Corey's prescription. And so she clearly already knew what that medication was, but was kind of acting like that she didn't. I mean, this was a moment.

This was a moment. And I don't even know if everybody caught this moment. I was watching the trial going, holy crap, like the Sarah Quills hers. That's hers. That's her antipsychotic medication, not his. So let's go ahead and listen to the call because this was an important moment. is Corey Ritchin. Hey, I just have some quick questions for you. I'm just trying to understand the toxicology report, and I promise I won't pick up at the time. Oh, you're fine. You're fine.

Can you just kind of explain to me, I guess? She was saying that this kind of supplemental report, I guess, was left out of the first autopsy, and so nothing has really changed. Do you have it in front of you? I do. I get the file here. So can you? So we issue supplemental report, like if once the original examination, anything like that, then we include that. We issue it further, but in this case. Okay. So it was just like extra testing done?

Extra tax testing, yes. So originally the testing, the only tax tells you. Okay. And so is there a mean difference in that, I guess? Well, did they just tell you different things in the sense of, you know, it, you know, what tells you, you know, was it, learned I'm looking to find it in this

So does I guess so does this tell you Like if he If it was like injected If he ate it If I mean Is that what this Can you tell from this report

Not definitively I mean it seems like You know with what the amount that's there That it probably was ingested Okay And so this So the 15 NG Like is that like a substantial

amount? Is that like a trace? Okay, so that's quite a bit. Yeah. So what's the the next one down the nor fetonol? What is? Oh, I gotcha. Okay. And then, sorry, just the third one, the acetyl. I don't know how you say that. Asthma. Asseal fentanyl. Oh, that's just a form of in the setting. It was manufactured like a pharmacy? No, no, no. Like, so. aren't like a lot of most fentanyl that we oh good lord so this is like more of like a cartel no i mean that's not what it is you call this the street street fentanyl as opposed to you know prescription okay i see and then is this so is the ethanol is that alcohol that's alcohol

okay and is that like the 279 is that kind of like a substantial amount or is that like one drink is that five things? You can't tell how much it is. And in this case, you know, since this testing was sent, you know, quite a lot could be related to. So either way, what, you know, in the stomach kind of what that was a blood level, that would be, you know, which would be, you know, 100% ethanol, you know, depending on their stage.

So it doesn't really. I got you. Okay. So it's not present in the blood, just the gastric or whatever. Right. Okay, and then just the last one, what is quatioidine? Qatopin. Quotapine is an antipsychotic medication.

Okay, I got you. Okay, and it has like $16,000? Okay, and is that, I mean, quite a bit. Yeah, I mean, it's, that's a name. Okay. Is there like, could those have been mixed, or is that not kind of a? What's that? could what be next?

Puttyapine and like the fentanyl? Or, I mean, is that like drug a normal, I guess, drug thing? I don't know. Like, it's not, I mean, you know, most of the time with somebody prescribed medication and the other's, there's, you know, no,

that's why all the list is just like, what the heck is this and going on? So I guess that's why I'm confused just about. all of this, honestly. So I'm, yeah, I don't know. So, I mean, I know it doesn't mean anything now, but just kind of something for me to, you know, try and figure out, I guess.

Yeah. And then I'm assuming the acid tophan. Is that like an aspirin or something? I feed it in medicine, that's just ethanol. Yeah. Oh, that's fentanyl too? No, that's Tylenol. Oh, Tylenol.

I was like, holy shit. Okay. Yeah. So just like Tylenol caffeine. And then the naloxone, I'm assuming, is just something that they gave him while he was here. Probably would be my... Okay.

Okay, no, that... That works. I was just trying to figure out, you know, if this is anything different, if we found out anything new with this stuff. Oh, come on. Pause there. It's okay.

Scott, don't change anything. It seems like. if I do this. Yeah, like she said, it doesn't really, it doesn't change anything. Yeah. And I mean, is that anything you could ever find out if it was, I mean, do people normally eat that, like take it? Like, is that something you like shoot?

It's not usually something that people eat. Well, that's not even true anymore. That has that. So, yeah, these days you can't believe how. Yeah. All right. Well, I appreciate your time. I do.

Thank you very much. And if you have other questions, don't hesitate to get a call. Okay, awesome. What was your name? Dr. Christensen. Oh, Christensen. Okay, perfect. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Okay. Okay. You're welcome. No, it's not, Corey, something that people typically eat. And, again, you know exactly what Sarah Quall is. Interesting, right?

We haven't heard a lot from Corey. It's interesting to hear this call fascinated me, really. I don't know. I saw a lot of your thoughts. Yeah, I also got the Lori Valo, nonchalant vibes, right? When Lori Vallow was talking about after her husband, Charles Vallow, was shot and killed and she's like, hi, neighbors is sort of that same kind of vibe, right? It's not really a grieving widow, is it? And someone pointed that out. Look, this trial is about doubt, you know?

Is there enough reasonable doubt for the jury to say, we don't know for sure that Corey is guilty of this? and as someone in chat said, I don't know if I like our lifee chat. They're like, it seems like everybody here feels like Corey Richens is guilty. And I said in response to that, that's fair. But when somebody isn't sounding like one thing that Cory Richens is guilty of,

in my opinion, is not reading the room and not acting like a grieving widow at all. And I would say she's certainly guilty of being cold. after her husband dies, and I don't think that's going to bode well with the jury in this case. All right. It was a fascinating moment. So let's keep going. Before I switched to wealth front, my APY was probably 0.1. Like, it was a joke. I was literally getting pennies. Once I switched, chiching. With a wealthfront cash account, earn up to 4.2% APY on your cash. The high APY with wealthfront was a clear winner.

There are no petty fees. Every month there's this month. that I'm getting an interest and I didn't have to do anything. My money is working hard on its own and I can trust Wellfront is taking care of me. Earn more on your uninvested cash with a wealthfront cash account. No account fees, no minimums, and no strings attached. Get started today at Wealthfront.com. Clients were paid $1,000 for their testimonials creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary. 3.3%. Base API as of January 30th, 2026, is representative variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. $0.65% new client boost for three months on up to $150,000.

Direct deposit $1,000 a month and fund an investing account for a 0.25% increase. Cash account offered by Wealthfront Brokerage LLC member FINRA SIPC, not a bank. These eligibility requirements may apply to certain checking features of the cash account. Christensen also testified that over the past 20 years, fentanyl deaths have risen dramatically. This is an interesting thing to testify about. I think initially most deaths involve prescription fentanyl used improperly. And then he said that people weren't eating. fentanyl until counterfeit street pills became common. In other words, taking it. He explained that

counterfeit pills are made to look like legitimate prescriptions, often oxycodone, are largely fentanyl. And that's what we all Googled together last week, right? We were trying to process if it was oxycodone that was sold. Why was fentanyl there? Well, they sometimes are made to look like oxycodone, but are largely fentanyl. He told the jury that there was nothing to suggest Eric was a chronic opioid user. Nothing in that autopsy, nothing he saw. He also addressed pseudo-allergic reactions to opioids explaining that while opioids don't cause true allergic responses, some people can have allergy like symptoms, such as hives. And in Eric's case, there were no hives. And across examination, Ramos highlighted that Christiansen received a call from law enforcement

the day before speaking with Corey. That's interesting, right? He also questioned him about allergic type reactions and whether they can change over time. And Christensen said that they can fluctuate or disappear. And then the defense also attempted to ask about pills containing fentanyl traces. Christensen explained how counterfeit pills are pressed

to resemble legitimate medications and that fentanyl can heavy fake oxycodone pills are common. So overall, this one, was all very technical, lots of science, lots of medical explanation. Really interesting, though. I can't imagine, again, a medical examiner's job and what they learn. And underneath it all is the same core question, though, the jury has to ultimately answer. And I think, again, was it an accidental overdose or was it murder? And again, nothing else really matters. Everybody agrees how Eric Richens died. It was a fentanyl overdose. But was it truly accidental. Was it truly

accidental or was it murder? And really, all they need is some reasonable doubt. I do think the defense is poking holes in some things. Because Ramos then started digging into the postmortem comments and the toxicology results. He asked about the specific numbers tied to Eric's fentanyl level and Christianson said he doesn't remember the exact numbers off the top of his head. He explained there isn't some universal number where you can say this is fatal and this is not. It varies from person to person. Tolerance and body chemistry play a role. But he also said there is what he described as a fixed fatal threshold.

So while there's no one-size-fits-all number, there are ranges that are considered deadly. So Ramos then shifted to what wasn't done. He asked Christensen about additional testing that could have been performed. This is what the defense always does, right? Well, what wasn't done? What did you miss? Perfect opportunity to throw in reasonable doubt, right? what testing could have been performed.

And Christensen said medical examiners typically test blood, not urine, but literature suggests urine testing can provide more insight. And he mentioned eye fluid and liver testing as well, saying those can sometimes help paint a fuller picture. Ramos brought up hair follicle testing. And Christensen explained that hair testing is generally used to evaluate drug use over time, not just what is in someone's system at the moment they died. He admitted hair testing isn't something they typically do,

and autopsies focused on cause of death, because essentially they're tasked with determining what happened at the time, not necessarily a long medical history, right? Then Ramos asked an important question, in my opinion. So if hair follicle testing had been done, would those results have factored into determining the manner of death? And Christensen's answer was yes. It would have been part of the overall analysis. And that felt like the defense subtly reinforcing its theme.

There could have been more investigation into whether Eric was a long-term user, right? Ramos reminded him that in the recorded phone call, Corey said she was not aware. Eric had been using fentanyl. So at that point, the attorney's approach for a sidebar. Surprise, da-da-da, another sidebar. And then after they returned, Christian's son. said he was not aware of hair follicle drug testing being part of a typical autopsy process for this purpose. So it's not typical to do such a thing. Then Ramos brought up something he called unusual,

though. He said, Christensen, this is unusual. This was, okay, here we go. This is what the defense said. Christensen, they said, received communication from multiple law enforcement officers and was invited to a meeting about the case that included the DEA and prosecutors. Christensen acknowledged that this does happen, but it's not common. And that line of questioning definitely seemed kind of like they were hinting at possible coordination or influence, even a very subtle. Yeah.

I mean, that's really what I got from it. I wanted to know more. They left me hanging. I'm like, well, tell me. What happened at that meeting? Instead, Ramos wrapped up and prosecutor, Vermester got up to fly. follow-up questions to redirect. I like prosecutor Bermester. Christensen clarified while the prosecutor questioned him that the meeting was an online video call and said he doesn't remember

exactly who attended. Okay, so we're getting more info about the meeting. It was a video. And it happened the day before Corey called him, just the day before. And he also testified that there were no other illicit drugs found in Eric's blood besides fentanyl. And he reiterated, there's no definitive way to know whether Eric was a long-time fentanyl user. And with that, Christensen was released. The jury took a short restroom break, but the parties had to sort a few things out, surprise, and the attorneys began arguing about a May 4th, 2020 interview.

The defense objected to playing a video. We know what may have. Do you guys remember May 4th, 2020? It's a big interview, the OG interview, with Robert, Robbie, pill supplier, and law enforcement. So the defense, they objected to playing this video. Of course, they would object because it's a good one. It's a really good one.

So they objected to playing this video, arguing it was hearsay between law enforcement officers and Robert Crozier. And they also said they didn't have a chance to question, Robert, about this particular video, which is strange. Really, they didn't. I am surprised that they really didn't have an opportunity or chance to question Robert about this particular video. Well, Judge Marazzik ruled they could have further discussion about admitting. Crozier's side of the conversation, he said he would instruct jurors that they are only to consider law enforcement's statements for context, not for the truth of what the officers are saying. Okay, it makes sense, but good luck, jurors, doing that. But I agree. Don't just, you know, it's context for the responses of Robert. Bloodworth, then asked for five minutes before playing the recording of that May 4th interview. The judge said, Crozier can be recalled for further testimony about this and be questioned

about this video and this interview, even though he had already been released from his subpoena, which makes it a little complicated, but he can be re-questioned or questioned again about it. Court then took a 10-minute break. Like, seriously, we're at the edge of our seats. we're like, okay, we're going to hear it, we're going to hear it, we're going to hear it, 10 minute break, come back, the state then played, though, the recording of Robert being interviewed by law enforcement. And Judge Marzah constructed the jury that only Crozier's statements can be considered for their truth during deliberations. And in the recording, Sergeant Todd Davis tells

Crozier, who was in custody at the time that they want to discuss a transaction. He had made about a year earlier out of Maverick gas station and Draper, For those of you have been following this, yes, we've heard Carmen testify to this. We heard Robert testify to this. And Davis says Crozier sold blues to Carmen Lauber and that someone died as a result. So that's what police say. And Davis told Crozier that officers had already spoken to Lauber, Carmen Lauber, that's Carmen and Nicole and downloaded their phone records. And Robert Crozier says that he knew who Nicole was, according to Davis.

the Nicole message Carmen Lauber in February a year before the recording telling her that she could buy blues from Crozier. And then Robert Crozier, he says he didn't know anyone had died from the drugs. He admitted talking to Carmen Lauber a few times and estimated that she paid him around $500 to $600. He claimed he lost the phone. He used to communicate with her. He said Lauber told him the blues before a friend who wanted them. Crozier described Labr as being with an older man in his 60s. He thought they were in a white truck the first time they met.

He said she bought from him a second time as well, though he didn't remember how much that purchase was. He insisted he only spoke with her twice. He also mentioned he knows Nicole through a man named Cam. So let's listen to this recording because honestly, okay, so if you can recall, Robert said he was detoxing in this interview, right? When Robert was on the stand last week, he said, I was detoxing in a really bad way during that interview.

Remember, he said that, which is why his story he claims has changed a little bit. Carmen's story's changed too, right? But he's saying he came up, and their stories were different. He's saying, look, this was my interview back then, but I was detoxing in a really bad way during that. And look, I don't know. I don't know what it's like to detox. I think he sounded pretty coherent, in my opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong. Again, I don't know what it feels like to detox. He also said it felt like the investigators were telling him what he did and didn't do. In other words, sort of planting some things. I didn't really get that vibe of them planting any information or anything like that either. He seemed very agreeable. But those are his arguments from last week. So let's take a listen and process this together. We're in a position right now. I'm either telling us what you know about it

and basically not hurting any of your buddy because Carmen and Nicole will start to talk to us because that's fine. We'll pursue it February because we know that we sold them. So that's kind of where we're at. And I'm not trying to bullshit you. I'm just kind of laying it out exactly how. I know who called it.

February 5th and 25th is when Carmen message Nicole. And you guys set up to your transactions. at the Maverick and Dream. Last year. Yes. It's not this previous February, a year before that.

It's been a bit. Yeah. I'm still quite a bit. I'm not trying to be. I remember that much time passed. And did you have a number that she bought for me? Was it a quantity? She said between 20 and 30 bills both times.

Then probably, yeah. Do you remember going to that Maverican vapor? Were you living down there at the time? She lives. I want to say she lives pretty far away. Yeah, so that was just what we were meeting because of it was. Where were you coming?

So it's kind of ringing back, you're kind of getting a little bit of more. Tell me what you can remember about. I remember Nicole calling saying, hey, she was a lot. I didn't know anybody died. Yeah, and we didn't expect that you knew that. And like I said, that's why at this point, your information is more, we're not interested in jamming you up or the distribution of her. like that. We're doing our investigation. You're kind of just on the edges that it a little bit as kind of

involved. We're not interested in the jam and you have over anything like that, but we are interested in the information you have to be provided to us that validates what people want to tell us. As far as I know, yeah, I've met just two times. I think I talked about a couple more times after, but just to see, you know what I mean, hey, you know, if somebody's spent it, you know, five, six hundred bucks. Because I was 30 round about five or six hundred bucks. bit. So something like that. And did you hit her up afterwards to see if she wanted more or did she hit you up after? I think I asked her one other time and then she just didn't she's like, hey, you're looking for anymore or something? Yeah, something like that. She did she just get responsive. Do you remember how you contact her?

Was it text messaging and message her? I want to say it was text messages, but I don't have. What phone would have been? Three three, six, one, five, six something? You still have that phone. The phone you have now is it newer one time? You don't worry that old phone would have been. I would have those text messages on. What did you think the phone number was you said? 3.3.3. 385, 333.

So with these transactions, when Carmen hit, yeah, what did she tell you? She's something that she had a friend. Did she want. And she asked for blue specific of your friend also. She might ask for blue like the man to count. Where you sold her at her. Yeah, I told her what she knew what she was fine. Okay, so she wasn't like she's asking for oxies or something like that.

She got the answer. Right. No. Okay. So she knew that there was. Those. That's all we're here to talk to you about was that transaction, those two transactions, like, yes. Over the old rate there, go.

You don't care about anything else, but what else can remember about those? She was with the older guy. You remember what kind of car they should have a minute? Oh, the white truck or something. When you say she was with an older guy, do you remember? You thought maybe one time of a truck. They went into a car. When you guys were to show up in Maverick, where was you?

It was about 600 bucks or so. I would charge for those. Do you remember? So I think she would have ordered more the second pack. You remember the quantity? I remember her. You remember me? Yeah.

I told me there twice. I've spent it once. But do you remember it now that they've kind of jogged memory? Yeah. Okay. That's only six times I talked to her. Okay. How do you know Nicole?

Uh, who's didn't in camp. I was staying with a boy for a while. She stayed there for a while. So Nicole just hits you up and said, hey, would you go on here with my friends? Yeah. You're like that. like two technical like hey what's up i think she was like say with like two take me what's up press pause we'll fix that my apologies she was on up there or drill court or something she was

on yeah she didn't run AP&P around drill court or something i don't remember and she had to hurry okay well i'm living here now so i can meet you like halfway you mean me halfway or yeah halfway was that maverd you said one time she came with an older dad you remember that was the first time and second. I think those are all the questions we had for you. If we have any more follow questions, we want to talk to us again. I appreciate you talk to us, Robert. Like I said, we're on here to jam me up over anything. We're just here to try and get some of that. I don't know if any like that way of a couple of supplies. NASDAX charges? No, no. We're not going to pursue that. Like I said, if you didn't want to help us out

or anything, we kind of have this view right now that the people are going to be in, we've got enough information and we're just trying to verify it. You're kind of either helping us out. or you're not. And if you're not, you might, honestly. But all you've done right now, so we've already talked, Carmen's already talked, and the Cole's already talked. So you're not telling us anything we didn't know. You're not talking to us. All you'd be doing is basically a rule of advice with your future. When the deaths are involved, the prosecutors do get a little spun up over it with fentanyl in the federal system. If you don't know this, if you get, if you get caught dealing fentanyl that results in the vet, you could potentially face

federal charges. It doesn't matter if you're intended to cause the death. or anything else like that. They're cracking down on it. So I don't know how long you're in for with. I know you're on some possession with intense stuff. But if you are still dealing, don't you don't put that shit anymore because the feds are going to die. Especially got nasty that shit. Most of them have you gave me my name. Well, we already verified it through phone records. We already did that you got it from. It wasn't like they told us anything we had no either. Yeah. We've been able to find everything

we need to do. Yeah, we knew all of that before we made contact with anybody. Yeah. So it wasn't like that they were. timing out or anything. We asked me and Carmen were friends on Facebook. We asked you the ones that brought up your hands Nicole because we already knew

that Nicole had put you in touch with Carmen. We're just trying to verify stories is all we're trying. Do you have any questions for us or anything like that? Other than this isn't going to back door me here. No.

No. I'm going to hear the jammy up or anything like that. We don't get a shit about what's going on down here. I was just going to ask you, do you have did any of your people would tell you whether they're going to, if they're going to try to sell it to anybody else, what their intents are. Everybody that I did does it themselves.

All right. So I was looking at a few of your comments to see what you guys thought. Here are a few things you said. Tammy says he knew the dates, times, numbers, and names while detoxing, but barely remembered anything in court. Exactly. Renee says, no wonder the defense didn't want this entered into evidence. It is damning.

And then this is an interesting one. I don't believe any of these cops. They're looking for a conviction, but they're willing to make deals with drug dealers for a conviction. Mar Cic's, I think Robbie got cold feet and was worried over there. Someone else, I don't think he was honest on the stand at all. And Catalina says this has to be hell on earth for Eric's family and kids. Yeah, I can only imagine.

They actually scanned over often to Eric's family and sister. during a lot of today's testimony. I cannot imagine how they're feeling. All right. Yeah, someone, okay, Fox, Fox Red Dog Mom says, after today's day in trial, Robbie is a liar. Carmen is not.

Can't convince me otherwise. Again, coming in blind here. Interesting. Interesting. So, all right. Well, anyway, after that recording, Yeah, I can see what the defense didn't want that in. The story certainly changed, and fentanyl was definitely much more of a prominent possibility there, right?

After that recording wrapped up, the state called Molly Crosswhite to the stand. Molly was an interesting, unexpected witness. Molly testified that she does not know Corey personally, but what did she do? She bought a home from Corey. They closed on the property January 26th, 2022. So that would be before Eric Richens died, like less than two months, like about a month and a little bit, a month and change before Eric's death. And Molly said she never actually moved into the house herself. Instead, she planned to rent it out.

The lease began for her renters on March 1st. Okay. But they didn't physically move in until March 30th, 2022. Okay, so now the timeline there is after Eric Gritchin's death. Eric Richon's death was March 4th. So nobody even moved in until March 30th. Thus, what she's kind of implying is this was a vacant home until March 30th, 2022.

And that's the key part. Molly testified that no one was living in the home between the day she closed in late January and the end of March when the renters moved in. And again, if you've been following closely, you probably see why this matters earlier in the trial. The defense pressed Carmen Lauber, who most of us seem to agree is telling the truth more than we believe Robbie's telling the truth. So the defense pressed Carmen Lauber

about whether she knew Corey no longer owned the home where Carmen claimed she picked up money and dropped off drugs. The defense clearly suggesting that Carmen's timeline didn't make sense because Corey had already sold the house. But today, the prosecution seemed to be filling in that gap for the jury and for us watching from home, right?

even if Corey had technically sold the house, the state is showing it was sitting empty for weeks. No renters. No one is occupying it. So theoretically, it could still have been used as a drop-off location because that's what Carmen testified to to put it in the fire pit at one of Corey Richens' properties. That's what she was directed to do. And now we're learning, yes, it was indeed vacant. Molly also testified that the locks remain the same from the time she closed on January 26 until the renters moved in. And Bloodworth asked that specifically. And Molly said, yes, which strongly suggests Corey likely still had a key, right? Bloodworth also asked about renovations.

Molly explained that before she purchased the home, Corey had done renovation work and had possession of the keys during that time. Oh, okay. So even more emphasis and evidence that Corey could get in. So as far as Molly knew, the house was vacant between late January and late March 2022. Okay. No further questions from the state. By the way, I just want to point out, can you imagine being subpoenaed to a high profile trial because you purchased a property? I mean, Molly, wait a, yeah, she came on this and I can't imagine the world watching her. Anyway, defense attorney Lewis got up and immediately pulled up the real estate contract. The contract was dated January 14th, 2022. Closing happened January 26th.

And Lewis asked Molly if she did a walkthrough between those dates. And Molly said yes. Lewis asked what was inside the home during that walkthrough. Molly said the home had been staged while it was on the market. So there was furniture at one point. But during the final walkthrough, a couple days before closing, the furniture had been removed. She did not recall seeing boxes, cups, or items left behind in closets. I think that Carmen said the money or drugs were supposedly left in a cup there. And so Lewis pressed on that,

like if there had been items left, would you have asked for them to be removed? And Molly said, well, if it was something small, like a single cup, she probably would have just tossed it herself, right? Yeah, I agree. You need to come call and ask someone to remove a cup. Then Lewis turned to February 2020. And Molly testified that contractors were working on the home throughout February. And this is important again, February 22. Are the dates, this is the timeline that Carmen testified to, but also remember, there's not just a murder charge on the table. There's also an attempted murder charge on the table for February 14th, 2022, the Valentine's Day. That's an important date. That there was an alleged sandwich that the prosecutors say was left for Eric, that he survived, Valentine's

day. But, you know, but less than a month later, he was dead. So February 22 is also important. And Molly testified that contractors were working on the home throughout February. She specifically mentioned February 10th through the 14th and possibly the 19th and 20th. She wasn't sure if they were there all day, every day, but they were in and out doing various projects to get the rental ready. Lewis asked about the keys. And when Molly purchased the home, did she get all of the keys from Corey. And Molly explained that a key used for access, like one left, typically in a lock box or hidden outside, did remain at the property or the contractors. She said that she left it somewhere you'd expect a hidden key to be like under a mat or a pot. She even acknowledged that

might not have been the best hiding place. And Lewis asked whether contractors kept the home locked. Molly said she didn't know for sure, but she would expect them to. And there was also testimony that Molly didn't have direct communication with Corey after closing because she was represented by another real estate agent. Before closing, they discussed additional work that needed to be done and everyone understood the home couldn't be rented out immediately. Lewis asked whether Corey or her agent would have known when contractors were coming and going or when renters would move in, and Molly said that she was not sure. They communicated the house. would not be rentable right away, but she didn't know the exact dates and if they were shared.

So reading between the lines here in this testimony, it seems, as if the state is suggesting, Corey, could have reasonably assumed the house was still vacant during that window, right? That's why she would send Carmen there to drop off the drugs that she later wanted to pick up. The defense, meanwhile, is pointing out the contractors were coming and going. And a key was hidden outside for the contractors. So if someone were using that house as a secret drop location, it would be incredibly risky. But risky doesn't mean impossible. Lewis also asked Molly about a prior interview with the defense investigator.

And Molly confirmed she told him that when she took possession of the home, nothing was left inside. Lewis asked whether she turned the key over directly to contractors. Molly clarified that she never met them on site. She would have told them where the key was hidden, and Lewis had nothing further. Next up was Allison Wright. Allison has worked at C&E Stone Masonry since it was established in 2010. This is Eric Richon's company. She does, does administrative work and bookkeeping. She first met Eric Richens in school. He was friends with her sister and spent time at their home. So they go way back. Her husband, Cody Wright, was Eric's business partner. I find this really interesting. We're hearing from Eric's business

partner's wife. Allison met Corey when she first started dating Eric. So right away. And the state, showed Allison examples of handwriting and return checks from CNE's business checking account. And she testified that she gathered those checks from the company's accounting books and banking records and provided them to Katie, Eric's sister, who was there sitting in the gallery today. Katie, Eric's sister. And then the state, they directed back to February 2019 and asked about a vacation that Allison took with Eric, Corey and her husband Cody and others. So, So there are a couple that these are a couple friends that even vacation together. Okay.

And Allison said that she remembered a conversation with Corey that stood out on that vacation. She said the two of them ended up alone at one point and started talking about live family and kids. Okay. Vacation talk. And before she could go further, there was an objection. Da, da, da. We're all on the edge of our seats.

We're like, okay, she's going to talk about the vacation conversation she had with Corey. and then there's an objection, of course. So it appeared the state hadn't asked a narrowly tailored question. And Allison was about to launch into a full narrative, which is what we were all hoping for. I was like, just give us the tea. Tell us. Give us a full recap. You know, tell us everything. Who said what? What was everyone wearing? Where were we? The whole recap. But no, that's not what happened. There was a, there was an objection to that. So Judge Morazek, excuse the jury so they could sort of sort this out outside the presence of the jury, the state asked Allison to preview what she would

say. And so Allison described that during the conversation, Corey said things weren't great in her marriage. Okay. And she said that Corey felt trapped. Why did Corey feel trapped? Well, Corey felt trapped, according to Allison, partly because of this prenuptial agreement that she had, right? Allison, she had to sign a pre-nup. And Allison testified that Corey believed, Eric would continue to benefit financially and maintain their lifestyle while she would be in a very different position. She said Corey feared the kids would gravitate towards Eric's life more if the marriage ended. And according to Allison, Corey was unhappy but scared of what ending the marriage would look like. The prosecutor asked whether that conversation later gave Allison context for Corey's business

decisions at the time. And Allison said yes, things started to make more sense. During that 2019 vacation to Costa Rica, nonetheless, Corey talked about feeling trapped in her marriage because of a pre-nip. And she said, you know, there were a lot of concerns again, you know, the gravitating towards Eric and a lot of concerns. She also mentioned things about Corey. Allison said that she admired Corey, right? That she was impressed that Corey went back and got her master's degree. She described her as motivated. She described her as hardworking, ambitious. I do think that Corey is all of those things. She also said that Corey was trying to become financially independent, building her real estate business. And she respected that. Allison respected that.

The defense, though, they pushed back hard. They pointed out that this conversation happened in 2019, three years before Eric's death, three years before his death. And And in that time, they said the couple went to counseling and they worked on their marriage and there was a lot of water under the bridge. It makes sense. Three years is a fair, fair thing to say by the defense. A lot can happen in three years, right? They argued there's no allegation that Corey was planning a murder three years in advance.

So a private conversation between two women venting about a marriage issues on vacation shouldn't be relevant. I disagree with that. I think it's relevant, but there's context. So this is where the judge has to come in, right? So Judge Mazik disagreed. He ruled it is relevant because it shows Corey was aware of the financial implications of divorce due to the pre-up debt. That's where I think is relevant to, very relevant.

The defense then asked if it's coming in that if it should be limited strictly to the financial aspect then. They argued that saying she felt unhappy or trapped would be unfairly prejudiced. prejudicial. Well, I still think that's relevant. Judge Morazic ultimately ruled that the state could question Allison about the financial component and that the value of that outweighed any unfair prejudice. And at that point, the defense made it very clear, very clear that they intended to challenge Allison's credibility and potential bias. That's what you do, right? If someone can't control what you say, they can at least control how others see you. Attack. your credibility. And that's what the defense made very clear they're about to do to Allison.

So when the jury returned, Allison repeated the substance of that conversation. She testified that Corey did say she felt trapped and that there was a pre-up and that she was frustrated in the relationship. It would be difficult to leave. Eric would be the one that was financially secure. The kids would want to hang out with Eric and not her. And she was insecure about how she'd be viewed in the community. You know, it was, it was interesting to hear her say this. But, you know, she also said that she, she was tender towards Corey's situation at the time, right? And the state connected it back to business.

Allison testified that Corey, you know, she was trying and she did feel empathy for her. And there were no further questions after that. And the defense attorney Nestor, though, stepped up, ready to do what we knew that they were going to do. question Allison's credibility, right? She asked where this conversation took place. Allison again said, it's Costa Rica. Nestor asked if there was a reason. They were discussing marriage troubles. I'm like, have you ever been on, you know, with girls on a trip? They start talking about everything. But she asked, why were you discussing marriage troubles? And they said, was Corey upset about something specific at the time? And Allison said she just wasn't sure, just that things were hard at home.

and Nestor then went straight at it. She suggested that the reason Corey was upset was because she believed Eric was having an affair with a co-worker. Well, the state immediately objected. The judge overruled it. I was kind of surprised by that because it was absolutely a moment where the defense was testifying, right? She's not, Allison's not saying this. The defense is saying this that Eric might have been having an affair. So the state immediately objected.

Judge overruled it, surprised by that. Allison testified that she and Corey never discussed Eric having an affair during that conversation. And then at that moment, at that moment, we saw Corey's eyebrows lift, similar to moments earlier in the trial where she seemed to react to testimony she didn't like. She definitely is an eyebrow lifter. It almost looked like a silent, like, wait a minute, you don't remember this expression? Like, wait, what? The defense press again, you know, wasn't the reason. they kept going because, you know, the judge overruled the objection. So they kept going.

They're like, great, thank you. Wasn't the reason she was unhappy was because she thought Eric was having an affair. And Allison said she doesn't recall that being discussed. So Nestor asked whether Allison was aware at the time that Eric was having an affair with a coworker. Allison said she wasn't sure when she found out or whether she already knew at the time of that vacation. Then the defense shifted to bias, potential bias. Allison testified. that she and her husband, Cody, used to vacation with Corey and Eric, but that eventually stopped. Nestor asked if that was because Eric and Cody had a falling out, and Allison said that they still attended birthday parties in advance, but they were not as close as couples after COVID. So Nestor pushed further. Didn't Cody call the police on Eric? This is interesting.

Allison said, no. Well, they pushed further then. Didn't Cody testify against? Eric for violating hunting laws. The state objected for lack of foundation. After some back and forth, Nestor asked whether Allison was aware that Cody provided information to law enforcement about a hunting violation. Allison said yes, and that Eric and Cody had a temporary falling out because of that. Interesting. They never vacationed together after that. Business partners. Interesting. And then Nestor drilled into finances. Allison confirmed she handles bookkeeping for C&E Stone Masonry, which you know, C&E stone masonry is Cody and Eric's business, C&E. And she knows how much money is coming in and going out. So, right, she's really in the know. And Nestor asked whether she and Cody shared

marital money or if Cody keeps his business money separate. And Allison said they share marital money. The state objected is out of scope. Like, why are we talking about this? But the, and the objection was sustained by the judge. Nestor rephrase and emphasized that Allison is very aware of C&E's financial affairs. And that Allison could agree to. And then came another bias angle. And when I'm saying bias, I mean, does Allison have a bias to testify one way or another? And so the defense is pointing out that Allison's testimony might be very biased to the state, to the prosecution. So another bias angle then that the defense brings up is that Nestor then asks whether since Eric's death, she and Cody have become very close with the Richens family. And Allison responded, well,

they've always been very close to the Richens family. Nestor then pointed out, well, but you and Cody, you guys have accompanied the Richens family two court hearings. And Allison acknowledged that they have. The defense said they would be recalling Allison later, so she's not done. And that was an interesting moment to say, not only are you very close with the Richens family, you come with them to court hearings. You support them in this. So it is showing a bias.

It is a bias angle that they have here. They said that they'd be recalling Allison later, so she's not done. The jury was then released for lunch. And during the break, the attorneys argued about call detail records. the defense said they were not given proper notice that specific call records would be used at trial. Judge Morazik said the issue would be addressed after lunch. And then, get this, there was also a note from a juror. Yeah, another note.

When they said we have a note from the juror, I was like, oh, my gosh, I've never seen a trial with continuous notes from jurors. What's this one going to be? I was holding my breath because, again, the last one was about somebody in the gallery sketching them, which is so problematic and actually kind of scary. So there was a note from a juror. The juror disclosed that they had met Molly Crosswhite professionally and completed one home transaction where they worked. So that was the woman that had just testified about purchasing the home.

And so the juror is like, wait a minute, I know this person or we had a home transaction. So Judge Marazick said it didn't appear to present an issue, right? People are going to know people in Summit County if they search. serve on a public jury. After lunch, the judge ruled on the call detailed records objection. He said the records had been provided during discovery and were listed in the state's exhibit list. And that meant the defense had notice and a fair opportunity to challenge them. Okay, fair. The objection was overruled. But then things got tense again. Defense attorney Wendy Lewis came back to that juror issue. The juror wrote the note confessing, look, I knew one of the witnesses.

there was a business, you know, relationship we had. So Wendy Lewis came back to the juror issue, and she said she did have concerns about the juror who disclosed knowing Molly Crosswhite professionally. So the defense did have issues with this. And the defense argued, Lewis argued, that if they had known about this connection during jury selection, that juror would have likely not even made it onto the panel. She said the defense had to push back on Crosswhite during testimony.

and if a juror hold her in high regard because of a prior business dealing that could create bias. So in other words, they're saying, wait, we had to really push back and make her not look so great. Right. And so now if this person really likes her, that's going to make us look bad. I mean, things to think about when you're a defense attorney anyway. Who looks worse? The defense attorney really pushing back on a witness that seems nice and credible? Or does the witness, actually look bad, you know? So they're saying, well, wait, wait a minute. Now this could be a problem for us. This could create bias for us. So Lewis formally asked for that juror to actually be dismissed. That's how far she went. Prosecutor Bloodworth, though, responded by saying they don't even

know the nature of the business relationship. He suggested conducting limited Wadir, basically questioning the juror further to understand Wadir's juror questions, like questioning to learn more about this relationship, more than a note, to sort of determine whether there's an actual bias concern before removing them completely. Judge Marazik said he would rule on it later. For now, he didn't see harm in leaving the juror in place until they gather more information. And then the defense made a much bigger move. Nestor raised a motion for mistrial. She brought the court back, yeah, mistrial, a mistrial. And we had heard about this last week. So we're like, okay, what is it going to be? So she brings the court back to her cross-examination of Chelsea Gibson.

Earlier in the trial, Chelsea was on the stand for a few days. And Nestor said she had been very careful in Lane Foundation for what are known as Homewave calls. Remember this? Homeway calls, which are recorded jail calls. It's a fancy way of saying recorded jail calls without saying recorded jail calls. Tell me their recorded jail calls without telling me, you call them Homewave calls. And she said, Nestor said that she deliberately avoided using the language jailhouse calls because that would reveal custody status and even warned Chelsea Gibson to mirror her wording, like mirror it back to me. And despite that, Gibson still used the phrase jailhouse calls in front of the jury.

And to remind all of you, she pretty much said, you know, were there any recorded calls? She didn't say Home Wave calls at first. She actually said to Chelsea Gibson, were there any recorded calls? and Chelsea Gibson, I think innocently responded, do you mean jailhouse calls? That's what they're referring to. It wasn't good to the defense. They felt very upset about that because she said jailhouse calls in front of the jury and they argued that case law makes it clear that informing a jury, a defendant is incarcerated, can implicate the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. She said it chips away at the presumption of innocence, right?

there are appellate decisions warning that evidence of custody that the defendants in custody custody status carries a risk of prejudice even if it's this sort of subtle prejudice this subconscious prejudice it can influence how jurors view a defendant she acknowledged that judge morazick has broad discretion in handling these situations she also noted that he gave a limiting instruction telling jurors not to consider that comment jailhouse calls but she argued that sometimes giving that instruction just underscores that it was said in the first place, right? Don't think about that. It's going to make people think about that.

Hey, you didn't hear that. Jailhouse calls were never said, and what are the jurors going to remember? Jail house calls. So Judge Mazzik then responded that the issue was noted for the record. He said, while the comment wasn't proper, I mean, it wasn't intentional he didn't see by either party. It was made in passing. I agree with this.

This is how I viewed it. And in his view, relatively innocuous, given the nature of the case, he pointed out this is a homicide trial. This isn't like, you know, shoplifting. This is a homicide trial. So pretty much would not shock jurors to know the defendant had been arrested at some point. And he also said the curative instruction was like sufficient to address any potential prejudice. There you go.

The motion for mistrial was denied. I have to agree. I've said the same thing. Like, I guess they could think that that, you know, She's out on bail and maybe has an ankle monitor, but I don't think anybody thinks that someone charged with homicide hasn't been to jail, right? So I agree with the judge there. Anyway, next up was Major Crimes Detective Jeff O'Driscoll with the Summit County Sheriff's Office. The state asked him whether during the investigation he seized a cell phone belonging to Carmen Lauber in April, 23.

He said, yes, it was a black Samsung phone with a number ending in 6127. he testified that it was booked into evidence and later downloaded with the help of Chelsea Gibbs using Cellbright software. Love me Cell Bright. I love it when Cell Bright comes into trials because it's always the cell phone text. Always, always. I mean, cell phones, I don't know. They hold secrets.

Whenever you hear Cell Bright, you know it's going to be interesting. Anyway, that was basically it, though, from the state. No deep dive yet. So just big picture testimony at this point. So just foundation. And if you've been following this case, you know Detective O'Driscoll is a central figure in this investigation. So I feel like it's just like he just got up to late groundwork for something much bigger. It's likely still coming.

So, you know, I think that's true. So I'm sure we'll see plenty of O'Driscoll later on. We'll just have to wait. This foundation lane honestly can be such a, it's like a trailer. It's like a preview of what's to come. It's like a T. You're like, okay, you know, when's the premiere? Anyway, the defense had just one question.

They clarified that O'Driscoll is the chief investigator in this case. He confirmed that he is. And the next witness on the stand was Chris Cotrodimos. He currently owns a business called M20 Solutions. And he explained that his company does investigations, training, consultations for prosecutors, defense teams, and law enforcement. A major focus of his work is digital forensics. So before starting his own company, he worked in law enforcement. And in this case, he was asked to analyze phone downloads and records, specifically three phones.

Oh, three phones. And these three phones are belonging to Corey and one belonging to Eric and one belonging to Carmen Lauer, the former housekeeper. And then one to Josh Grossman and one to Ron. Robert Crozier. He explained that digital forensics is the analysis of electronic devices. And Cellbrite is a company that provides extraction and analysis tools. So we walk the jury through some terminology. Okay, CDR. CDR stands for call detail records. Those come from your cell phone carrier and show incoming and outgoing calls. Got it. And then there's text, location data, web history, and other activity. Law enforcement can obtain those records including associated

location data. Coach Ademus testified that he used a Cell Bright physical analyzer, which allows you to review the files extracted from a phone. And he said it can sometimes show whether data has been deleted, although deleted content isn't always recoverable, depending on how long ago was removed. He was brought into this case in May, 20, 23 to analyze the phone downloads. So this is his thing that he does. He does the phone downloads. And he didn't personally, though, perform the extractions. He reviewed the report. So the extraction happens and then it's handed off to him. And he sort of decifers all of it. Starting with Eric's phone, Coach Redema said he did not find evidence of mass deletions. So Eric wasn't out there deleting a bunch of stuff

on his phone. In other words, he did review text messages. He reviewed device activity data and biometric data. He specifically looked for references to THC Gummies because, you know, Corey said that's what he used. And he found text conversations between Eric and Corey about those in November 2021 and January 2022. And then the state displayed those messages in court. He also searched for anything related to illicit drug use. He testified that he did not find key. communications on Eric's phone about buying drugs. Well, shoot, there goes the theory about Eric's secret drug life, right? Nope, he did not find communications on Eric's phone about buying drugs.

That definitely pokes a hole in the defense's theory. Again, a lot of wins for the prosecution today. So Eric's secret drug life, not really prominent on his phone. So that theory is kind of not holding up. up. Then the focus shifted to Corey's white iPhone. Coach Ademus testified that she had two phone numbers associated with that device. One was through her cellular carrier. The other was through an app-based number, multiple numbers. That's always a little suspicious to me too. He explained that the app-based number would not necessarily save its details in traditional call records.

And then on that white iPhone, he found evidence of deletions. Oh, so Corey does have evidence of deletions. Okay. Just take a note of that. Corey is evidence of deletions, and according to his testimony between January and March 2022, there were hundreds, hundreds of deleted text messages, deleted web history entries, and deleted call logs. And this is how he described it. He described it as significant chunks of data missing during that time frame for Corey. then he discussed Corey's silver iPhone, which she obtained on April 14th, 2022. Oh, so she obtained a brand new cell phone, brand new iPhone, brand new iPhone after the death of her husband on April 14th, 2020, a month after his death. And compared to the white phone, there were some deletions, but not nearly to the same extent as around that time.

he said there weren't large blocks of missing data like on the earlier device that sounds like she was kind of trying to move on from right by buying the new phone there was also a blue iPhone the Corey was using at the same time as the silver phone two phones always again okay two phones and then moving to Carmen Lauber's phone coach ademus testified that there were deletions there as well including hundreds of calls and text messages and then he analyzed Josh Grossman's phone. Again, Josh Grossman is the paramour, the paramour of court, the one that she would, was having an affair with. And he said the volume of communication between Corey and Grossman from November 2021 was daily. So daily communication between her and

the paramour. I don't, you know, side, you know, as Kathy from gossip room and new one just a side piece, but paramour in this trial. And that was daily. So text, communications between Grossman and Corey Daily. And he testified that the content of those communications was located on Grossman's phone because Corey used the app-based number to communicate with him, which didn't preserve traditional carrier record. So on top of that, she had deleted significant data from her own device. Coach Ademus also mentioned locating a vacation reservation on Corey's phone. I think that's the vacation they plan to Secrets Resort. That's no longer a secret. But then came the number that released it out from January to March 2022, there were approximately 800 text messages exchanged

between Corey and Carmen Lauer. Okay. So that's from January to March 2022, less than two months. 800 text messages exchanged between Corey and Carmen. In other words, again, Eric Richens died March 4th, 2022. And this was from January to March. So probably until his death, 800 text messages between Carmen and Corey, exchange between them. And then from March to December of 2022, so months after Eric's death, there were about 650. So that's roughly a 70% decrease in communication after that January to March window. And because so many messages were deleted, we don't know what many of them said. At this point, the state appears to be building a timeline through digital, you know, bits and pieces here and there, like who was talking to who, how often, what disappeared,

who was trying to hide what. Coach Ademus then zeroed in on those specific dates. And he testified that on February 11th, 2022, so okay, three days before the attempted murder, the state alleges, the alleged attempted murder, three days, February 11th, because it's Valentine's Day. February 11th, 2022, Corey made three phone calls. to the IRS. And then that same day, she and Carmen Lauber, former housekeeper,

they were also communicating. There was also cell tower data pulled from Carmen's phone. And the state displayed a map showing the communication patterns between Corey, Carmen, and Robert Crozier, who we saw earlier in the body cam footage,

or I guess not body cam, the police interview. So Coach Redemus walked the jury through Carmen's movements that day. Her phone actually. activity showed her traveling through Heber down Provo Canyon and into Draper. And while she was moving, she and Corey were in communication. They were talking, chatting as she drove to Draper. And at the same time, Robert Crozier's phone was leaving Davis County and heading toward

Utah County. And this is one of the dates. Carmen testified she picked up pills for Corey. So Coach O'Demus testified that Crozier's phone activity increased significantly as the afternoon went on, meaning, and meanwhile, Corey and Carmen were communicating throughout the afternoon and into the evening. Another exhibit showed the volume of communication between Carmen and Crozier specifically on February 11th. And then we moved to February 14th, 2022, that Valentine's Day that I keep bringing up. 8.53 p.m. Corey called the Mir Lake, diner. And there was also communication between Corey and Josh Grossman, Paramore, that day. Several messages between Corey and Grossman were displayed for the jury. And here's what it included on Valentine's day when she's married to someone else. They included, I love you. I want to be my Valentine's.

And my heart is smiling when those three words come from you. It's very unique, different than any time I've heard them before, end quote. Honestly, those sounded like sweetheart hearts that you could buy from the store, not very creative. But nonetheless, those were their text between one another showing that they had a very loving relationship. And Coach Redemus also pointed out a text from Eric to Corey at 1133am that same day, Valentine's Day. And Eric said he didn't feel well and was going to lay down. And then more Valentine's Day texts were displayed between Corey and Eric. And they were going back and forth that afternoon.

Eric was home. Corey was not home. Eric said he wished that she was there. That's sweet. And the exchange ended with Corey telling him there was food on the seat of the truck. Again, that's the infamous sandwich. The state is claiming may have been a murder weapon. you know, the alleged attempted murder.

Then Cotrademus showed a graph of Eric's phone movement on February 14th. There was an 87-minute gap in recorded activity between 12.05 p.m. and 132 p.m. No movement data during that time, Coach deemis testified that after analyzing other days on Eric's phone, that kind of midday gap was not typical for him. So what's going on? Because it's not a pattern, right? They're looking at patterns. This is not typical to have this sort of midday gap. on a device. Well, the state then displayed cell tower mapping from February 26, 2022.

Corey and Carmen texted 71 times between 2.25 p.m. and 1033 p.m. that day. And then Carmen and Robert Crozier communicated 65 times, 65 times that day. Like more times than there have been sidebars in this entire trial. That's how much Carmen and Robert Crozier, the housekeeper and the pill supply, are communicating 65 times. Next, we're call records from March 2nd, 2022. At 10.22 a.m. Corey made an outgoing three-minute call to the IRS, strange. And then at 1027 a.m. Also, who makes just a three-minute call to the IRS? And at 1027 a.m., there was a 101-minute phone call, much longer phone call. And then we moved to March 9th, 2022. A cell tower map showed text conversations between core.

Corey and Carmen beginning, beginning early at 6.28 a.m. and continuing throughout the day, they started early on these text messages this day. Carmen's phone traveled down Provo Canyon to the Maverick and Draper where she states this exchange happened with Robert Crozier. And what's Robert Crozier's phone during this time? What's also traveling from Davis County to Draper as well? And then another map showed communication between Carmen and Crozier starting at 1015 a.m. and lasting until about 1128 p.m. Their devices met up in the Draper area. It's very clear here, both leaving separate locations and meeting up in the Draper area. Coach Ademos testified that Carmen's phone never visited the Draper area except, except on the three dates when she met with Crozier at Maverick.

This is damning. Like this is why they were there. It's like they're just setting the stage here. You cannot dispute that this, this happened. And then the focus shifted to March 3rd, 2022. The night Eric died. A timeline of Eric's phone activity between 8.30 p.m. and midnight was displayed. He was texting work associates. He had a call at 9.45 p.m. He searched how far it is from Scottsdale to Nogales, Mexico.

Okay. And then at 10.13 p.m., he received a text from a contact named Raul. And there's no indication that text was ever opened. read. So in other words, okay, so in other words, the day, the night, he died. Let me be clear. They said, they declared Eric died March 4th in the morning, early morning hours. That's when Corey called 911, but this is implying it might have been earlier, but he was declared dead March 4th. So this is March 3rd, the night before, the night Eric died and a timeline of Eric's phone activity. So once again, between 8.30 p.m. and midnight, that was displayed.

for the court. He was texting work associates. He had a call at 9.45 p.m. And then he searched how far from Scottsdale to Nogales after that. And then at 10.13 p.m. a text that it looks like he never opened. So it's giving us a timeline of probably when he died or when the fentanyl was ingested. Because this 945 p.m. he's responding. 1013. No, nothing ever. again. That's it. So then we see Corey's phone activity from that same night to the early morning hours until she called 911, right? So between 8.30 p.m. and midnight, her phone was locked and unlocked multiple times. That disputes her story. Her story is that she was laying with her, her son, right, in bed. But her phone was locked and unlocked multiple times around 8.30 p.m. and

midnight. And then at 306 a.m. the phone was unlocked for 28 seconds. And this is the time she kind of think she claims that, you know, she woke up to find Eric, right? And that she just quickly called 911. But it unlocked for 28 seconds. At 307 a.m., the speaker was activated. At 308 a.m., the device moved 243 feet. At 310 a.m. it was unlocked for one minute and 40 seconds. At 315 a.m. it's unlocked again for 37 seconds. And at 3.19 a.m. It's unlocked for 28 seconds. And then again, briefly.

This is not a phone that's sitting still. At 321 a.m., the phone moved 135 feet. At 322 a.m. The receiver was activated. The courtroom, well, the courtroom was very quiet during this portion. Seeing the movement laid out minute by minute, it really gives, like, a new weight. It did for me. I was like, yeah, yeah, wow.

Then Coach Redemus testified that he recovered three. PNG thumbnail images from Corey's phone. He described them as ghost or orphaned images. The original files have been deleted, in other words. So they're ghost or orphaned images. But thumbnail remnants did remain on the device, the things that remain, right? And the defense quickly objected to admitting the images. Judge Richard Marazik overruled the objection and the images were admitted.

And Coach Ademus explained these were. memes, memes that had been accessed on her phone. The state displayed them for the jury. Next, prosecutor Shurnaq switched from text and tower pings to something that felt even more chilling, which is web searches. So we'll try to pull those image PNGs up in just a second, but let's jump to web searches and we'll go back to those. He asked Cotrademus about internet searches. conducted on Corey's phone. I was like, okay, we've heard of some of them, right? We heard of some of them before this trial started. We heard of more in opening statements, right? So, internet searches, guys, conducted on Corey's phone. Not good. They are not good. The jury heard a

very long list today. Okay, Corey Richards, Google searches, or I guess to clarify, searches found on Corey's devices. So we can assume it's Corey, but I guess they could argue it's not. Okay. Search is included. Can you delete everything on an ICloud account? Another search.

Can deleted text messages be retrieved? Another one. How to completely wipe an iPhone clear remotely. And what is FBI analysis? of electronics, she asks. And then there were also searches that we've heard before, but they're so good. And here are more. Utah prison and Utah women's prison was another one. Oh, another one. This is, what are you allowed inside Utah jails? She wonders. And our favorite here at Hidden Shoe Crime, luxury prisons for the rich in America. Here's here are some more searches,

though. Can cops force you to do a lie detector test? Just prepping for something. And another one, can probable cause be testimony. There were searches about life insurance as well. Here we go. Will life insurance pay if death certificate is pending? That's a good question. And questions about how long it takes to receive life insurance money. Not that she wasn't money hungry. There are also searches about recovering data from deleted phones, whether police can see your messages and articles about Utah's new prison. She was really into that reading about that new prison in Utah. One search that stood out was her own name. Corey Richens' Camus Networth. Camus is the city. She's from Corey Richens Camus. Make sure it's not the other Corey Richens net worth. Like, Corey,

I just have to ask, like, what was that murder document? What was that murder document? you were watching and texting your paramour about. Remember that that was a text we learned about earlier that she was texting, she was texting her paramour, her side guy and saying that she wishes she could just watch a murder documentary with him? I want to know, like, what murder documentary were you watching? What did you learn from that murder documentary? Because these Google searches are not a good look, especially if you're not only being investigated. I don't know if she learned that much. I don't know what documentary she was watching.

I don't think she was listening to Hidden True Crime. Anyway, Coach of DMA is confirmed. These were pulled from her phone data, though. And as a prosecutor, methodically read through them, you could sort of feel the tone shift in the courtroom. It's like it's one thing to hear about deleted texts. it's another to hear searches that appear to show someone wondering whether deleted data can be recovered or how prisons operate. You know, she's thinking about her future, her long-term goals, long-term plans.

And of course, look, searches do not automatically mean intent. People Google weird kind of things all day. People Google some weird shit. But in the context of everything else, the jury has heard today, The state is clearly trying to suggest a pattern. Curiosity about wiping devices. Curiosity about jail and her future plans. Curiosity about life insurance payouts. Trivenek finished and said he had no further questions. And before we get into Cross, because this is going to keep going,

I do want to take a second, though, to hear a quick word from our trial sponsor, all of you know I have been using this product for years. I love it. And a quick, a quick word from our trial sponsor, Beam, Dream. All right, gems. 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. He 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.

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 to Dream, our sponsor. They have been incredible and I love drinking my nightly drink every night. So, and they have little travel pouches and they get me through trials, that's for sure. Okay, so next up was the cross-examination with Ramos and Ramos, and Ramos, start. by saying, let's just dive in right into the gist, the PNG files. I don't know if we ever were able to grab those, but that was my first cue, though, to like buckle up for a million corrects, corrects, right?

The correct counter. Take a listen to this. It's been marked as states exhibit 340. Do you recognize that? Yes, sir. Now, when you were testifying earlier, you informed the jury, that it was all the image files that you received, correct? Well, just for this representation is just for that for the fourth.

Correct. Yeah, yes. So what we're looking at are images, data files for that day, specifically, I think there was a range, it was for the March 4th, correct? Correct. Okay. Now, in that, there were 39 images, right? Correct.

Now, of those images, obviously we've seen three of them. Okay? So I want to focus on those, okay? Okay. All right. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to pull up those three images that you've seen. Okay. And I'm going to show you the Mac, right?

Okay. Which is the modified access created. Okay? Yeah. All right. Correct. Ramos brought up that there were 39 images. from the March 4th date, but that only three images had been shown.

Okay. So again, these were the, these were the images we saw earlier, you know, showing that like they're not, they're not a good look for, for Corey at all. You know, money, money hungry images showing she's rich and that she's going to, you know, enjoy the good life. Probably before she started Googling luxury prisons before that, you know. She thought maybe, you know, it showed motive, showed, motive, okay? And one was a photo, though, but, but they're going to, but they're saying, the defense is saying,

hey, look, only three images were shown. Three images were shown of all the images, but one is a photo of a property and Coach O'Demus couldn't tell what property the house was, but, you know, just that it was a property of sorts. And then Ramos then pulled out his phone and started doing a thought experiment, essentially. And this was, this was actually, I thought he did a pretty good job. So Ramos unlocked his phone saying he was going to send a text to a son and it had three gifts or gifs potato potato, potatoes, and a picture from his photos. And then Ramos asked Cotredemus if Cotodemus, if he got his phone extracted and analyzed it, would all of those be the same date in time down to the second? And Cotodemus responded that, yeah, they could be. And then Ramos asked where exactly the images from

Corey's phone were. And Coach Redemos explained the images were in an SMS database. The system in Corey's phone logged those images. And Coach Redemus also said that there are things that are in our phones that we can't necessarily access. And in order to do so, one needs to process to go below the surface. That's where Cellbride comes in. Below the surface. Cochidemus confirmed that he provided the entire extraction report with all 39 images. And then Ramos shifted from extraction over to analysis. Cochrademus confirmed that Celebrate is not infallible and that Celebrate recommends its operators to make sure the operators validate their data for lots of reasons, including making sure the hardware and the software is used as being, is working. So let's take a look at this

clip. A lot of money went into making those phones. Yes. A lot of the data and how it it works is all of its proprietary. Correct. Now, in a way, CELAWRIE is trying to hack the phone to get the information. It doesn't really hack it, but it parses the data.

It parses the data. Yeah. Okay. And when it sits, that's not a common term, when the report gives you this information, you can't take, take it as God's truth. There's context to a lot of stuff. So, yeah, I mean, I can take it as,

I can take it as God's truth, quote unquote, that that is how the system files within the construct or are constructed. You can take it that that's how Celebrite put the data, or extracted the data. Correct. Now, you've heard, I suspect, of the epoch time. Yes. Okay. Now, if you could explain to the jury, epoch time in terms of digital forensics. I cannot. Cannot? No. Why not?

I don't have enough familiarization with it. I just don't. Okay. Not on the stand. All right. Well, is it fair to say that let's look at this created and modified and access, that date and time. Okay. Are you aware that that time isn't actually how it's stored on the phones?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Sure. So the epoch time, if you're not familiar with it, it's the number of seconds that has elapsed since January 1st, 1970. Are you familiar with that? I am. Oh, sorry. What was the objection? He said he couldn't testify about what epoch time is. So foundation. I think you're laying foundation. I am. Let's see where this goes. Overrule. So would I interrupted you gentlemen if you would ask that question absolutely so the epoch time and I'm just gonna I'll explain it how I know it and if it refreshes your collection great not we'll move on okay

okay so epoch time is a number of seconds that has elapsed since January 1st 1970 okay yes don't know why they did it this way but that is how the phones have registered the information or were you aware of that yes and And I don't know the technical aspects of it, but it's a programming reason. Correct. And because we're not going to do the math together. No, we're not. We rely, or in this case, you were relying on Celebrite to do that.

Correct. Correct. Now, you also, a way to validate your data, because things even as, you know, little as time, you also have the ability to cross-reference the data that you have in the Celebrate report, excuse me, okay, the extraction, with other information, correct? Correct. So for example, the call logs, the text messages that you sent out, right, that's presented in the extraction.

You could then compare it to the call detail records. Correct. Right? And you could say, oh, yeah, you know what? This matches up. Yes. Okay. And you do that in a way to make sure that the information you're getting is correct.

Yes. Okay. Now, when we look at this four images, the three, I'm going to call them the what's been admitted as the three PNGs, okay, which we all saw. Or just call them Jiffs, even though I know they're not right now. Right. But just so everybody's aware. And then we have this photo that appears to be of a home. Okay.

Now, you have records and you have call logs for March 4th, correct? Yes. Okay. And you can see who all was communicated, who all communicated that day. Correct. Correct. And you could also get that through call detail records, correct? Mm, not always.

The call detail records you indicated mark the time that a call was sent out and a text was sent out. If it hits the carrier. So if it's a Wi-Fi call or if it's like I message, like iPhone to iPhone, by messaging, it can route around it and it won't hit the call detail. Perfect. So you had on March 4th at least some information in what you received from the extraction report that some calls were made, some text messages were sent from Ms. Richon's phone. Yes. Okay. Now, with that information, you can, if you wanted to, you can attempt to see whether this image was sent or received.

by somebody, correct? Yes. Okay. You did not do that. I did do that. Okay. And who did it come back to? I don't know.

It was not available in the system file. Okay. Would you like, can I explain why? Sure. Yeah, that'd be great. Why, I think, based on... Yeah. There is, from the time this event occurred on March 4th,

till the time the phone was seized on April, 13. I believe, 2022, there's an extended period of time that has passed in data turns. Okay. So the reason why going back to the source on this is challenging is if the text source of this incoming or outgoing is missing, you can sometimes go into the data file, like from the timeline and from the extraction. You can go into the database information. You can go in there and you can look at that. to see if that information is contained in the database still.

The problem is that data is overwritten. Once it's deleted, the database then overrides it. So then what happens is the source in there goes away. There are small amounts of data that are in there. Like traces. Well, like P&Gs. Yeah. Okay.

That are still there. but like I kind of explained with the the data space think of it as a oh one second is that the is that like the garbage collection yeah we're talking about that right so yeah so deletions so think of that as think of that that deletion file is like the trash

can in your house like in your kitchen okay Corey always looks so stressed I think more than she's looked in hearings during this trial so we have the PNG images I did I did want to show them this is this is what we're talking about. These are three of the nearly 40 images found on her phone. So here you go. Idiots, idiots everywhere. I'm really rich. Wiping your nose with money is the dumb and dumber scenes. Implying the motive, the motive money. Okay. So there you go. That's what we're talking about.

But they're saying, look, there were, there's plenty of images and how can you know and just, you know, poking holes. But then Ramos then wanted to move on to the web searches. And Coach of Dimas confirmed that a lot of those web searches have no dates. That's interesting. And then Ramos moved into context. Well, and in Ramos's thought experiment,

I actually thought this was a pretty good thought experiment. He brought up a certain real housewife of Salt Lake City being sentenced in April 2022. Didn't see this one coming up. But, you know, take a listen to this. not on my bingo card today. Here we got, take a listen.

Did you perform any searches around the time, on those that you can see on the web searches, that you can see the date that they were searched, okay? Did you do any searches on Google or any validation to see what, if anything, was relevant to what was being pulled up? Like, did I perform the searches myself? Not the searches.

So, for example, did you, Are you familiar with a certain real housewife in Salt Lake City? Recently. In April 2022? Oh, no. Okay. Are you aware of somebody maybe being sentenced around that time? No.

Okay. And now that would provide context to you, correct? I could. Yeah. Because right now, just as we see the searches, we don't know why that would be a search, correct? I don't know. content or can't speculate on anything.

You can't speculate. No. You shouldn't speculate. No. You also can't tell me with the information that you have who actually did the search. Correct. Right. It was done on the phone.

It was done on the device. You could tell us the location of the phone possibly when those searches were done. Correct. You could tell us possibly the Wi-Fi that it was connected to, if it was connected to one. Correct. But you can't tell us who searched it. Correct.

Now, you can't tell us if we were at, if this happened on the fourth, let's go back to the GIF images, okay? On that day at that time, are you aware, were you told that there were other people in that home? I'm aware of that. You are aware of that. Yes.

Okay. And so did you reach out to those, or I guess that's not your job? you could not tell us who opened that phone at that time, correct? Correct. Okay. Now, I do want to talk to you about something you just brought up? It was the, you said, oh, the Wi-Fi.

You said not necessarily because it could be an I message, right? Correct. It was one option. And then the other one was that it was connected or sent through Wi-Fi. Yeah, the file path on here indicates that is, it is a mobile SMS, which went through iMessage. And the IMessage, iPhone to iPhone, typically will not hit a call, a carrier.

So it won't be in a call detail. Right. But that also is helpful to you, right? Because you're able to see, of all the people that she could have possibly contacted that day, you could then narrow it to like who has an iPhone. Correct. And so because of the communication and correct me if I'm wrong, I'm guessing here, between iPhone and iPhone and iPhone,

phone, it's a different connection, correct? It makes it easier to communicate? It's a typical Wi-Fi connection, so it's not a different connection. It's just a different system. Or it's the same, they're on the same system. It goes through Apple servers versus the carrier. So for example, can you pull up the Mr. Ritchin's mobile activity on the night of March 3rd? Do you recall that state's exhibit where you laid out a graph of all the text messages that were sent from Mr. Richens to a Pedro Sonora? Yes, right? I think it's up on your screen now. Yes.

Okay. When we were talking about this, one of the last questions was about the text from Raoul at 1018. Okay. And I believe Ms. Shervinak asked if he, if it had been read or if you could tell if it had been read. And you answered it very curiously, which is I'm left to wonder. I just want clarification, whether or not you could actually tell it that it was read or whether there just wasn't enough data to determine whether it had been read. I didn't see any.

I'm sorry, I just don't remember the data. And that's what I'm following. Yeah. That's why I'm following up. There's no response. The indication was that it was not read. Okay. Yes. And we just talked about the I message that you just discussed.

That sometimes that won't register on call detail records, for example, right? Correct. Now that's different than this, right? That is different than this. Okay. You would expect an I message to show up here? Yes, because it's from the phone's timeline itself. Correct.

These are a system file. Correct. Just want to make sure. Wow. I'm going to read some of your comments there. First off, I love that one where someone said, like watching them past corrects is like watching a ping pong match. The corrects, it's painful.

It's painful. Thank you. Again, to Mrs. Martin for keeping the correct counter going. It's like mind-blowing. So somebody asked, Robin asked, where are the searches with Jen Shaw's name in it? Yes, Jen Shaw is the real housewives of Salt Lake City person they brought up. Grayson says, Mr. Correct needs to brush you up on his facts.

Jen Shaw was arrested in March of 2021, pleaded guilty in July of 2022, and sentenced in January of 2023. So why would these searches be relevant? And then people point out that they're also sort of implying that like, look, it could have been your kids making these searches. How do we know? Someone said, yeah, blame it on the only other people with them at the time, your kids.

Yeah, there's Krista saying the correct between these two are like watching a ping pong match. And someone saying, are you kidding me? The kids made those searches. So, and then Tracy says, so they're trying to make it seem like because of the real housewives of Salt Lake City, that's why she might have been searching that, but then says you can't prove who searched for it. Which one is it, Ramos, right?

In other words, he's just trying to confuse the jury, I'm sure. Janalee explains who Jen Shaw is. Yes, now everyone watches real housewives. Yes, he is talking about Jen Shaw. She was a Salt Lake City housewife that committed fraud. Her husband was a coach at the University of Utah. And Mrs. Martin states, yeah, I'm going to assume as a mom of four, three boys, specifically then at 9, 7, and 5,

then making the searches incredibly doubtful. Agree. Agree. Great thoughts from all of you. You know, honestly, all I could say was like, all I could think of was like poor Jen Shaw for being brought up in this, in court over this. That was like he said, not what I was expecting.

Jen Shaw was arrested for financial crime. So yeah, maybe the searches Corey did about, FBI investigations could be passed off for Corey's alleged interest in Jen Shaw. Never heard about that before. But, you know, okay, okay, let's say that Ramos has a point with this thought experiment there. But as for the fentanyl and death certificate searches, I'm going to say that those can't be tied back to Jen's case as easily, right? But hey, to acknowledge, I do want to say to acknowledge the defense's argument and participate

in their thought experiment and see if it could indeed bring in reasonable doubt. I agree. People, context is everything. And people Google weird stuff, especially if they're in true crime, right? There's some weird stuff people Google. So I was like, you know what? I'm going to go find out what my Google searches are from just since this morning. I thought, you know what?

Let's practice this thought experiment with the defense. Real time. Dead serious. I pulled up every single Google search of mine since this morning. Here's what they are. Full disclosure. Squatty potty. Squatty potty Duke.

There's a reason. And it's not what you think. Neil Daniel and Jeffrey Harmon as one Google search. Angel Studios. They're the ones that made Sound of Freedom, by the way. Who made the Squatty Potty commercial? It was another question. I had a lot of questions this morning.

Jeanette McCurdy was another Google search of mine. And then Daphne of Scooby-Doo because Grayson and mentioned that I looked like Belma, Belma, and I was like, no, I think it's Daphne. But either way, both of them are the OG true crime sluice. So yes, this is my Daphne Scooby-Doo shirt today. Those measly, those kids got into everything and solved a lot of crime. So the original true crime sleuth, Scooby-Doo. Okay.

So and then Philip Lum Dream Patchwork, Pull-on jeans sale because I like them and they're way too expensive full price. So I'm waiting patiently for my patchwork pull-on jeans. All right. Well, there you go. Full disclosure. Everything I've Googled today. So what do we learn from that?

You know what? I didn't Google. I didn't Google how to delete my search history or wipe. data. I did not search. Can you delete everything on an ICloud account? No, not on my history. You know, I wonder, maybe I've once upon a time deleted search that I don't know about, can deleted text messages be retrieved. I probably Googled something like that. I don't know when. I don't remember. But like if I'm, shoot, missed a text, deleted a text. I wish I hadn't. Probably Google that. Fair, maybe. But at the same time, I wasn't under investigation for murder.

and rather, I was probably just wanting to know some stuff. I did not Google how to completely wipe an iPhone clear remotely. And what is FBI analysis of electronics? No, none of those on my Google search. Anyway, point taken, carry on. There you go. And just so you guys know, I am researching. I do not use Squatty Potty, but there was a reason for that.

Nonetheless, moving on. Ramos then brought up the movement Not that there's anything wrong with that if you do, but Ramos brought up the movement of the iPhone. Coach O'Demus had done an analysis with the overall use in terms of activity on Eric's Apple Watch. And there was an 87-minute gap on February 14th, 2022, that Coach O'Dima said was atypical. So Coach O'Dima said that he came to that conclusion by doing random spot chats on random activity

in Eric's devices and looking at large types of movement. Cochidema said that there were periods of inactivity on Eric's devices, but not in that context that the 87 minutes was in. Coach O'Dima said he did spot checks throughout the 20 different days and made a mental note of it. And while Coach O'Dima agreed that he was speculating on the stand, he did say that in the topic of context, Eric had texted Corey. He was going to take a nap. So he figured he was taking a nap, which was atypical with Eric's regular activity. Ramos focused next on VALYMAP. validating the activity sensor data for Corey and Eric's devices.

Because if you remember, we listened to that. They said the cell right isn't always reliable that you need to probably best validate it. So Ramos asked for the validating activity. Ramos wanted to start with the distance traveled. And what did Coach Redema say that he did not validate them because the information was just given to him, which that's interesting. Okay. So after all that talk of its best to validate, he's saying he didn't. information was just given to him. Then we looked at yet. Another graph. Take a listen.

So let's look at that 30810am. Okay. Okay. Now the 74.14 meters, that comes straight from the extraction report, correct? Correct. Okay. And the 243 feet, I imagine that's something that you converted. Yes. Okay. And using what? Just a Google conversion. I mean, right. Okay. And in this device travels, we know that it was 74.14 meters that was registered on the device. Correct. Okay.

Now, what kind of iPhone was this? I believe it was an iPhone 12. Okay. And do you recall what iOS system it had? I do not. Okay. Now, did you, for example, going back to, so I could explain myself, did you, grab your phone, a phone, and measure the distance from point X to point Y, put the phone in your pocket,

walk over there, knowing the distance, walk back, plug in the phone, and see whether the celebrate data that you received for what you just did in that controlled environment matched what was being produced. No. Did you purchase or have access to the iPhone make and model of Ms. Richens? No. On either of her phones that she had. No.

Did you have access to Mr. Richens' iPhone maker model? No. Okay. And you did not do any tests, correct? Correct. So these numbers right here that were seen, you are special. speculating that is correct? I'm not speculating.

I'm relying on the data being correct inside the device. But you have no way of knowing that. The examples you're giving are not 100% wouldn't 100% verify this anyway, I don't think. I think you would have to use the exact device under the exact conditions in any way for one. Yeah, so let's go with that. And two, which I didn't do. Right, which I didn't do. Real quick, real quick.

Go on. So let's be clear. We understand you didn't do it. You did have access or could gain access to the environment, correct? I could. Okay. So then let's go from there. There are body cams in this case.

Were you aware of that? Yes. Okay. Have you been to the Richens home? No. Okay. Have you seen those body cams? I've seen some images of the body cams.

Okay. Have you seen videos of the body cams? Very few. Okay. Do you recall a video where one of Ms. Richon's phones is handed from one of the EMS to an officer and then the officer walks over all the way to where Ms. Richens is to provide her the phone?

No. Had you been aware of that or had that, rather, I'll be fair to you, had that been told to you by the prosecutors or law enforcement, having that controlled environment, having this data, having access to the same phone, downloading the same iOS, could you have run a test? to see if it was similar, and specifically referring to the 41 meters that's indicated there.

I could. Okay. But your statement just actually opened up why there's a defense movement later on. It tends to. I agree. I took his giggles as confidence, too. So Ramos then asked Coach Ademus if he knows about narcotics. from his former law enforcement background

and how most people dealing with drugs may want to delete their tax. Cochidemus was aware that yes, people do, in fact, want to delete their tax. And then Ramos asked about the calls to the IRS made a month before tax season. Given the timeline in context of it being close to tax season, Cochidemus agreed that the call to the IRS

would not necessarily be unusual. Ramos then shifted to GPS data from the PowerPoints that have been shown earlier, showing Carmen's GPS data and the communications Carmen was having with Corey at that time. And on the stand, Coach Adema said he believed he was asked to look to see if Carmen had ever gone to the small midway house, but the data is not that specific. It's not specific GPS location is tower pings.

In other words, when you're getting tower pings, it's a broad tower. It's in the area of the house. But it's not specific GPS. Like I see that like with my earpods at the house. house in that bedroom, right? So it's not a specific GPS location. It's tower pings. Anyway, then Raymo shifted to biometric data. He asked Coach O'Demus if he ever went anywhere in the extraction to see where Corey put in her weight or height, and Coach Redemus did not remember doing that for either Corey or Eric. Ramos then asked Coach Redemus if Cote damez had done anything

to check the settings on Corey's phone, and Coach Redemus said he had not. The prosecution had a quick redirect, set everything straight. Take a listen to this. We talked a little bit about CDR data and Wi-Fi, maybe why things wouldn't show up on Wi-Fi. Sure. What type of messaging can happen over Wi-Fi? Most app messaging happens over Wi-Fi.

So third-party apps, like WhatsApp, kick, signal, those types of apps. But also, again, I message. And so when talking about those three image files located on Ms. Richon's phone from March 4th, 22 at 829 a.m., we don't know all of the information about those because it was deleted. Correct. If it hadn't been deleted, we'd know more. We might. Talking about the web searches on the blue phone,

when you looked through and analyzed that blue phone, nothing indicated to you that that blue phone was being used by someone else. Correct. I want to talk about Exhibit 3-14D. And this is the device. Scott, if we could put that one up. One moment.

The witness has it. Do you want to publish it? Please. Okay. Now you made this exhibit in conditions. conjunction with the context of what was happening during this time frame. Is that correct? Correct.

Meaning that you looked at messages between Corey Richens and Eric Richens during this time frame. Yes. And in those messages, Corey Richens was telling Eric Richens to go take a nap. Yes. And based on what you've created with this exhibit, does this movement in context, indicate to you that during this time frame, Mr. Richens could have been laying down or not moving. Yes.

I want to talk about this activity sensor data. That data is proprietary to Apple. Yes. And tell me if I'm wrong, but Apple probably puts a lot of money into making that data. I'm sure they do. They want it to be correct for their users. Yes. And they would want it to be accurate for their users.

Yes. Because their users want that activity data to reflect what they're actually doing. Yes. Have you looked at activity data in other phone downloads that you've analyzed? Yes. And looking at phone activity data for other hundreds, maybe south of phones that you've analyzed, have you been able to tell if that data can be checked in other cases, meaning that if somebody said, hey, I went for a one-mile walk today, giving you a hypothetical,

and then you could look at their phone and say that they went for a one-mile walk. Have you been able to look at that type of data in other phones and verify that it reports in the way you would expect? Are you asking about corroborating witness statements based on their activity in their devices? Right. Yes. That activity data in other cases when you've analyzed it has been accurate and corroborated by other information. In my experience, yes.

All right. So then, so Ramos then came back up for one more final attempt. I just found this exchange so interesting how they're trying to sort of minimize cell data, celebrate cell data, which, you know, I get it. They have to do, but it's difficult. Cell data doesn't lie. I guess it's not infallible, right? But, okay, so Ramos comes back up for one more final attempt.

Take a listen to this. I indicated that the, Ms. Shervinak was talking about the information that was deleted. Yes. Regarding those thumbnails, just correct? Yes. Certainly it would have been better for all of us. It would have. Does that file path and the information tell you who deleted it?

No. And as you explained with the garbage collection, it could have been that way, correct? It would have to be, if it wasn't deleted from the device, it would not have ended up there. It would be a remnant of it. Right. It would be a day line. Okay. Now, you were also asked about that you did not investigate or you don't have any reason to believe that anybody else had the blue iPhone.

Do you recall that question? Yes. And you said that no. Yes. How do you come to that conclusion? The big thing for me is there is a text in that phone from that device to Mr. Grossman in which the defendant indicates that. So to be clear, yes.

Not saying that the phone wasn't Ms. Richards. Right. Right. Yeah. My question is. Okay. Well, I'm trying to answer it. Yeah.

So I'll clarify my question to make sure I'm. Okay. I'm asking it, all right. Is your testimony that there was nobody else who had access to that phone at all? I don't know that. Okay, that's my question. Now, you were asked about Apple software and proprietary software, and did you attempt to get information from anywhere else,

whether it's Apple, whether it's another peer, whether it's another case where you can get the information that you have in these extractions to validate it. I kind of don't understand that question. I'll rephrase. Okay. Yeah. So I understand that you don't work for Apple.

No, I don't. That you don't know how it works. Sorry, you don't know how the activity sensor data is logged, correct? I don't, yeah, I don't know what they're. programming looks like. Correct. Yeah. Do you make any efforts in this case with this information to try to validate that the

information you had was up to Apple standards? No. You indicated that you've been able to rely on other cases before. How many cases? At least 100. And so in those cases with activity sensor data, in those you did test? Oh, okay. So analyze data in phones, at least 100 phones.

There have probably been, I apologize, there have probably been a dozen or so cases where I've had to corroborate, like witness statements and suspect statements, that type of thing, against their phones. And I have not found any inaccuracy. I misunderstood. You, in those cases, corroborated the data that you received,

but you did not run tests to make sure that the data you had was accurate. Not physical tests, no. Correct. Okay. That's all I have to know. honestly um the corrects they kill me the prosecution then came up once more once more and asked about that text from the blue phone and what indicated that it was corey herself the sent the text so who are we going to blame this time coach ojima said that corey had essentially told josh grossman

over text that she had activated one of her mom's phones and would be using that phone now that's how they know. And with that, Coach Redemus was done on the stand, but possibly not for good, as he is subject to rebuttal, of course. And like I said, people are asking in chat, I love that. What were trials like before cell data? Remember?

As people say, cell phones now tell our entire life history. The jury was then released and Judge Merrick noted that tomorrow morning, they will talk about the juror issue with Molly and decide whether to Wadir, the juror, in other words, ask more questions to decide whether or not to release this juror, the defense is requested release, or how they want to handle that,

figure out how well she knows or they, I don't know if it's a they male or a female, but how well they know, Molly. Oh, and people are asking, I see there's still talk about today's Google searches. So let's give them all context, because that's what they're, that's a thought experiment, right? If you give them context, um, there, there is a crime. Um, I'm covering an episode I'm writing, which is why I was Googling the earlier stuff. And then I am reading Jeanette McCurdy's memoir, and I'm a little old for I Carly, so I don't, I never watched it. And I wanted to like try to understand more who she was.

It's a really well-written memoir. And then all the other things, the pants, I'm waiting for a sale. And then all those other searches were for one, for a, for a, episode I'm working on. So there you go. There you go. Yeah. And they were not my son's searches. They were on my phone. So there you go. Yeah. A few of your comments before we take off. It's been a long live. So I know it's it's time to head, but I do want to share a few pinned comments or start comments. This is a great question. Does anyone know if Corey recorded that call with Dr. Christensen? because he said he isn't sure how that call was recorded,

or were they tapping her phone at the time? So in other words, he wasn't the one recording it. Was it Corey recording it or were they tapping his phone? That's actually a really, really, really great question. This one, too, is unlocking the phone and walking around for 15 minutes before calling 911 is not a great look, even if the distance walked isn't precise. Agree. That's, I think, what the jurors will take, right?

If the distance walked isn't precise, who cares? talk about semantics. Is that really what matters here? No, what matters is that you're unlocking your phone and walking around for 15 minutes before calling 911 and it's not a good look. Angela, this is one. You said, oh my goodness, my cell phone data tells my entire life story. I think someone else said, can you imagine what trials would be like without cell phone data? Couldn't tell you. Yeah. And here's Chris the saying. It's just a while to think about trials before we had cell phones. Yeah. And Robbins making a good point. He is, he's, he's, he's, reporting what the phone says happened, not what actually happened. That's true. It's what the phone

is saying happened. And so they're able to, you know, put in some ideas about maybe it wasn't Corey. You know, maybe it was somebody else. Maybe she was really in two real housewives of Salt Lake City and just, just waiting, right? Just waiting. And waiting. And waiting for. And waiting for. all this information about her favorite real housewife's star. I mean, what a, what a stretch. I think that's what we call a stretch. It was really odd. It was really odd.

All right. I want to give a big thing to our moderators. These lives can't be possible without all of you. I know that we honestly, we do these lives kind of like we might be late. We might be early. You never know when we're going to finish it. It's a big job. job every day. Troublemaker Baker has been helping us to live stream. Mrs. Martin is doing the

painful job of correct counting what a legend you are. And our moderators are just incredible. They show up. Thank you. Thank you. And yeah, and you know, hit subscribe, hit notifications. Thank you for supporting our work. That's what makes this possible. If you value our work here hidden chew crime. Please hit subscribe and hit notifications. There were so many kind people today, gifting memberships. That was so nice.

As they said, it was like raining memberships out there. Thank you. Someone mentioned that they could only afford giving one membership. We gave some memberships. Don't feel like you have to. The greatest gift you can give us,

if you want to support our channel, honestly, it is free. It's subscribing. It's hitting notifications. It's maybe leaving a comment and engaging and being here. So thank you. We do have some other things in the works. There's a lot of true crime cases going on that we really care about right now.

We're a small team and we are trying to cover all of them. So thank you to those in chat to keep us updated and all these other cases that are happening right now. Monkey Vaughn is one of them. Stacey Wundra in Idaho. Monkey Vaughn, Michael Vaughn's mother showed up today, Brandy. And, you know, there's so much the Nancy Guthrie case is still going on. And of course, the other episode I'm writing, that you guys will know soon. So thank you.

Thank you, thank you. And this will redirect to our live tomorrow, to our life feed. Come join us in the live feed as we continue to watch this trial. Get caught up with our playlist. We'll have the link to our full playlist in the description of this episode as well as pinned comments. You can also listen to our full playlist on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcast.

Yeah. So thank you. Thank you. All right. We'll see you guys. Bye. Before I switched to wealth front, my APY was probably 0.1. Like, it was a joke. I was literally getting pennies. Once I switched to chiching, with the wealthfront cash account, earn up to 4.2% APY on your cash. The high APY with wealth front was a clear winner. There are no petty fees. Every month, there's this much that I'm getting an interest, and I didn't have to do anything. My money is working hard on its own. And I can. trust wealth front is taking care of me.

Earn more on your uninvested cash with a wealthfront cash account. No account fees, no minimums, and no strings attached. Get started today at wealthfront.com. Clients were paid $1,000 for their testimonials creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary. 3.3% base API as of January 30th, 2026 is representative variable and earned on funds swept to program banks. 0.65% new client boosts for three months on up to $150,000.

Direct deposit $1,000 a month and fund an investing account for a 0.25% increase. Cash account offered by Wealthfront broker. LLC member FINRA SIPC, not a bank. These eligibility requirements may apply to certain checking features of the cash account.