Hidden True Crime - Inside the James Craig Trial: The Poison Plot Unraveled | Lauren Matthias x Josh Ritter

Episode Date: July 30, 2025

**This episode was recorded live** Lauren is joined by Josh Ritter from Courtroom Confidential to discuss the latest in the James Craig trial as the jury continues deliberating. 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 of returns. Quince.com slash hidden true crime. At my bank, I was literally getting pennies using wallfront. Che-ching, there's this much that I'm getting an interest and I didn't have to do anything. Clients like Angela. earn up to 4.2% APY on their cash with the Wealthfront cash account. Get started at Wealthfront.com.

Client was paid $1,000 for their testimonial, creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary. 3.3% base APII as of January 30th, 2026, is representative variable and earned on funds swept to program. $150,000.6% new client boost for three months on up to $150,000. Direct deposit $1,000 a month and fund an investment for a 0.25% increase. Cash account offered by Wealthfront Brokerage, LLC, member FINRA, SIPC, not a bank. Hello, Hidden Gens. I am with the Josh Ritter from courtroom confidential, a friend of mine. I was so excited, Josh, when you said, yes, you jump on because I'm going to be really honest. I have so many questions for you when it comes to the James, or the James Craig trial that we've been covering with nightly recaps. So many interesting things.

Josh, for all of you, for all of you that don't follow courtroom confidential, which I think a lot of our hidden gems already do. And if you don't go follow courtroom confidential, you do an excellent job breaking down cases, especially from that law side of things. I'm not a lawyer, nor am I a psychologist. I'd pretend to play both sometimes, but we know I'm not. But you are the real deal. You've been both a defense attorney and you're currently a prosecutor. Is that it, Josh? I was a prosecutor and now I'm a defense attorney. Okay, I got it. Okay, that way. So, okay. So, you know, I have questions and I thought I've got to stop playing attorney here. And I've got a list here of questions. People have sent some questions to ask you. So again, just thank you for taking the

time. This trial and this case for a brief overview for those that haven't been following it, it's fairly basic. And to the point, a dentist in Colorado, Aurora, Colorado is charged with poisoning his wife with arsenic cyanide and vizing eyedrops. And it's so upsetting, a wife of 23 years. they have six children. He's, he's also LDS and was in high leadership positions in his LDS church. And it's, it's just heartbreaking.

Not only is the prosecution saying that he did this, you would think it was like a day. Like, you know, like Corey Richards did it in one. He did this over like a 10 day period, multiple hospitalizations, multiple poisons, allegedly,

according to the prosecution. We're on verdict watch right now. Like the jury has been deliberating. They went home for the day. They're coming back tomorrow. also like tension is high. We shared closing statements on our channel earlier. It'll be on our podcast later today. And so I have questions. But have you been following it? Can I ask? And how are you? First of all, I'm good. Thank you so much. A little bit tired. We were just saying before you,

we started to go on that we both were up in Idaho. Now, you traveled a few more places in between than I did, but just getting back from Idaho, I'm still a little bit exhausted and jet lag. even though it wasn't that much of a time change for me, but it was a whirlwind trip. But I've been following this case fairly closely since we did a show on it way back soon after his arrest because it is a fascinating case, as you pointed out, the fact that he's got a wife that he's been with for so long. They've got six children.

By all accounts from the outside looking in, it's this ideal life. I mean, you see the photos of them that they've shown, and it's all the smiles. the family and it looks like, oh, what a lovely family. He's got this, what we thought was a successful dentistry practice, these beautiful kids, all of this stuff. And then you find out that he's this really, I mean, evil, selfish, narcissistic, horrible human being. He's cheating on her all over the place. You know, that's awful. Yeah, the defense doesn't deny it. Right.

Defense doesn't deny it. Actually leans into it because if that's the worst, that they think he is is a cheater, fine. But then you find out that, you know, the way that he goes about, and we, you know, we see these stories all the time, sadly and unfortunately, where people want to end their marriage and they don't, can't think of the adult way to do it. So they decide to kill their loved one. But then as you just pointed out, and it was highlighted in the closings by the prosecution, this wasn't a quick, painless death. This was torture. This was torture over a 10-day period. This poor woman for 10 days is in the hospital, feeling like she's dying, no idea what's wrong with her. You imagine like the psychological trauma she's going through, not realizing what the

heck is going on with her. Doctors have no idea. He's playing this role of the loving husband. Meanwhile, he's flying out one of his, you know, women that he's been having an affair with, who, by the way, is also a victim in this, doesn't really know what's going on. And then on top of you take what he's done since his time since he's been arrested. And it's just like he's turned the craziness up to 11. It's a fascinating story. And I hate to use that term when we're talking about people having lost their lives. And then we're talking about children who are not going to have a mother and maybe not even a father for the rest of their life.

But it is fascinating to just see someone go this crazy because they're so desperate for this. I don't know what, this life, something, something that they feel will be fulfilling to him, them. I don't know. I don't know. I'm no psychologist either, but it's like it's, it's pure selfishness in my view. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. As, you know, Dr. John, my husband, luckily we do have a criminal psychologist, you know, that we can pull, you know, from every so often. And he said, yeah, it's just this fantasy that he has, that he's searching for something, uh, that he probably has attachment issues. And, and, and yeah, we brought up the sort of sadistic quality to it, right? again, it's not, this isn't quick.

He's going to make her suffer over a long period. He could have stopped at any moment. And that is what's so upsetting. And yes, this this long time cheater, which also just shows, you know, that he had always been a, you know, wolf, you know, a sheep in, yeah, a wolf in sheep's clothing. I was just like, it's been a long day. I was like, wait. But, yeah, just, yeah, just pretending he's someone he's not for a very long time.

So, yeah. cheating, they said for probably 20 years of their 23 year marriage. You know, one thing that's interesting, I'm going to read to you the charges, Josh, and I have a lot of questions when it comes to just the charges and how they're doing this, because there could be options, like the jury can pick. So first off, what he's charged with is first-degree murder, solicitation to commit tampering with physical evidence, solicitation to commit tampering with physical evidence,

solicitation to commit first degree perjury, solicitation to commit first degree murder, solicitation to commit first degree perjury. So that's six counts, or just six, you know, six different charges there. And then the seventh is the jury can consider second degree murder, criminal negligent homicide or manslaughter if they do not find him guilty of first degree murder. So the manslaughter charge will appear on the. jury instruction form as count seven. So my first question for you is, is this normal? Because it does seem like sometimes we watch these trials and, oh, maybe they overcharged somebody and it should

have been manslaughter and it was first degree. And so he's acquitted. And they're giving an option of like, look, if you don't think he's guilty of first degree murder, you can, you can try him, you know, you can chart, you can convict him, excuse me, for manslaughter and like helping in self-harm. because that's his defense is that he helped his wife he wanted to self-harm. Right. Is this typical? I mean, not typical, but not entirely unheard of when you really understand what they're trying to do. So first of all, six out of the seven charges that you first listed, putting that seventh one aside for a moment, are all charges, by the way, since he's been in custody.

Like the solicitation for perjury, the solicitation about fabricating evidence, the solicitation for murder. that's all the stuff that he's been since he's been in jail since he's been arrested for the murder you know he's trying to plant evidence trying to get people to lie trying to murder the lead detective wild wild stuff but if you look just at the murder they've charged him and this happens in a lot of jurisdictions the degree can be set by the jury the prosecution goes in with a murder charge they feel that they can prove first degree murder and i think they've got a very good case for it for what you just outlined a moment ago about over the course of that 10 days, how many off-ramps did he have? How many times could he have changed his mind? How many times could he have just stopped trying to

poison her? So when you think about the premeditation and malice of forethought that's put into a 10-day period, that to me is signature first-degree murder. But with murder, it always comes down to intent. The jury needs to decide and they need to agree upon what kind of criminal intent did he have. And if they don't believe that there were these kind of aggravating circumstances of first degree murder, then kind of their default is second degree murder if they feel that it was premeditated murder. But then because of what the defense has offered in their own arguments, they're saying this wasn't murder, this was an assisted suicide, essentially. They're saying that she wanted to commit some sort of self-harm and that he was helping facilitate that. By all,

offering that and essentially introducing that argument in front of the jury and evidence, you know, even though weak, but evidence to support it, the judge then has decided and judges say that they have a sua sponte duty, meaning it's in there, it's in the case. They now have almost a requirement to instruct the jurors on this. So the prosecution isn't arguing for that. They don't believe that's what this is at all. But because there is evidence of it, the jurors need to have that at least as an option. So it's not what he was charged with originally, but it is something that the jurors can consider. And like I said, it's all going to come down to what do they believe was his intent. Do they believe that he

had these affairs and had money problems and all the other motives that the prosecution has presented and therefore wanted to kill her? Or do they think it was kind of something gone wrong or an accident or even if they buy what the defense is trying to sell, there's still a manslaughter on the table, though I don't, I don't personally feel that was supported by the evidence at all. Yeah. Yeah. You know, this Ola is saying defense technically said he did it in other words. I mean, yeah. Yeah. Right. They're saying, yeah, he might. Right. Like their best defense is to say, hey, let's get them on manslaughter or? Yeah. I mean, they, I mean, what it is is they've run out of defenses. They don't, they don't, you know, they, when you usually see these kind of wild defense arguments,

it's because they don't really have anything else. It's not like they sat back in the drawing room, and this was the clever idea they came up with. They really ran out of options, and that's because his Google searches, the delivery of poisons, the comments that he's making to all of the other women, they got to his own handwritten timeline.

A handwritten timeline. He's got to explain all of this. And so what they land on is like, well, he was trying to help her commit this, self-harm to herself, which is ridiculous, but it's, I think really they ran out of any other argument to make. And I think they feel, well, hey, if he goes down for a manslaughter, that's a heck of a lot better than going down for a first-degree murder. And so maybe they are, you know,

it's one of those things where from the beginning, like you said, they've admitted to his involvement. They're not going to deny it. It's not like they're making some sort of argument of an alibi or he didn't do it or mistaken identity or something, they're just left with what they have and they just have to kind of lean into what they feel might be the least of his problems, which would be a manslaughter charge. I think in the defense view, if he was convicted of manslaughter, they would view that as a win. Okay. Interesting.

You know, people are, of course, we're all on edge waiting for this verdict. I think I've made it pretty clear. well, I give my nightly recaps every night fairly. Like, I'll say this happened and this happened and this happened. At the same time, I think after I've seen all the evidence and I was there the first entire week of trial, I think our listeners know pretty clear that I'm probably pro prosecution in this case. Well, let me be honest.

I'm pro defense and prosecution. We always need a good defense. Always, always. So I'm always happy when they do a good job. And I think they've been doing a great job in this case. But I'm hoping for a particular verdict is what I'm saying because of what I'm believing and seeing in the evidence. So it always stresses me out a little bit when the jury takes, you know, their time, that they went home for the night. Yeah.

And they're coming back. And so, you know, a few people. But I, so let's talk about this because I also realize there are a lot of charges. As you pointed out, some more charges came down after he was, you know, behind bars to, you know, doctor. Butter is saying what the heck is taking the jury so long. And do you think we'll see a verdict perhaps tomorrow? What's your experience with something like this? It's, again, not just a murder charge, but we've got perjury and tampering.

Do you think that this is, they're on schedule or am I overreacting? Yeah. I don't think we're into panic time yet. How, when did they start delivering? They've had it for a few hours today, right? It was probably, yeah, like four hours tonight, I think, about four hours. Yeah. I mean, you have a case that was, it took 10 days to put it on.

They called what, 50 something witnesses. That's a lot to digest. And I always say, too, the jurors spend a lot of the time just kind of getting to know each other. I mean, they get back in a room and they're 12 people who really don't know much about each other. And now you take 12 strangers, put them in a room and say, hey, we would like you to make probably the most impactful decision you're ever going to make in your lives together, have at it. It's going to take a little time to warm up. Now, sometimes you see lightning quick verdicts, but I would say that more the rule of thumb is in a case this long,

it's going to probably take a day or two. I mean, because even as convincing as the evidence is, there's just a lot of evidence for them to go through. Sometimes you have jurors who feel like I don't want to give a vote on this till we, talk about everything. I feel like this defendant deserves us to consider all the evidence. And then, you know, compounding all of that is the fact that we've got seven different counts. They could be easily made up their mind on murder and now they're going through the solicitation stuff. And that all has different elements and different pieces of evidence that they've got to go through. So I don't think we're in panic mode at all. I wouldn't even be surprised if we didn't get a

verdict tomorrow. I know that everybody who's been watching this with you and following it with you is probably fairly convinced like you are of where this case stands. But I would say, you know, you can start to get nervous and ring your hands together by, what are we? Tuesday. By Thursday, I give you permission to start getting nervous. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. Before I switched to wealth front, my APY was probably 0.1. Like, it was a joke. I was literally getting pennies. Once I switched, chit-ching. With a wealthfront cash account, earn up to 4.2% APY on your cash.

The high APY with Wellfront 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 Welfront 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 30%. of 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 Brokerage LLC member FINRA SIPC, not a bank. Fees and eligibility requirements may apply to certain checking features of the cash account.

At my bank, I was literally getting pennies using wealthfront. Cheching, there's this much that I'm getting an interest and I didn't have to do anything. Clients like Angela earn up to 4.2% APY on their cash with the Wealthfront cash account. Get started. Wealthfront.com. Client was paid $1,000 for their testimonial, creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary. 3.3%. 3.3%. As a pay-safi as of January 30th, 2026, is representative variable and earned on funds swept to program. to program banks. 0.65,000 new client boost for three months on up to $150,000. Direct deposit $1,000 a month and fund an investing account for a point.

Cash account offered by Wealthfront Brokerage, LLC, member FINRA, SIPC, not a bank. And CJ makes a good point. They said my family of four was literally unable to decide upon dinner tonight. And that's actually a solid point. I went out with my family. And it is true. We went to Cafe Rio where then our son was like, I don't like Cafe Rio. And so I had to walk them down to go get some pancakes at a down or die of the street. And then, yeah, so I do understand. That resonates with me, CJ. I got you.

So they're going to take a while in other words. You know, I have a few questions here written down that people had for me. I feel bad. I'm just like nailing you with questions. No, I love it. Yeah. We've been waiting for an actual. This is one of those cases too.

Yeah. It's a fascinating case. It's got all these kind of weird intricacies, and I'm happy to answer whatever questions you got. Fire them at me. Right, like the additional charges. And, you know, once he was in jail, that was filed. So, okay, so here's something that I've written down.

What do you think about the investigators' choice, so like the law enforcement investigators, to leave behind so much digital evidence, like Angela's laptop and iPads and not originally collecting the clindomycin capsules that they claim. So they claim these clindomycin capsules, were, you know, tampered by James Craig, you know, with some of the poison.

The iPads that were Angela's, the laptop that was Angela's, or try to find the actual syringe that he may have allegedly used in the hospital or that they're claiming he used. I do feel like the defense had a point when they brought up all of this evidence that seemed to be left behind. But do you, but is that a thing or am I over thinking? this? Well, I think it's very clever strategy on the defense part. And it's it's something that you're going to see is, you know, they're always going to highlight what didn't the police do because then it starts to make it look like what the police did was a rush to judgment. But I think you have to

really think about how the police were initially investigating this. And they're probably investigating it, you know, quickly soon after they find out why she died as a homicide. And maybe the idea of getting her entire mental history through digital devices and everything else were not top of mind. They're not thinking about this potential defense later on being that she may have wanted to commit self-harm. So in retrospect, yeah, they probably would have got more of that stuff. They probably would have done more of a thorough investigation on some of that. But I think in the moment they were thinking, hey, we've got a guy here. Our suspect is, you know, we're starting to find out he's cheating. We're starting to find out he's got

financial problems. Oh, lo and behold, we've got him on computers that are not his normal computer and his own dentistry practice and he's ordering sign. You know, that's where the evidence is leading them and that's the path they're going and maybe they are in that kind of pursuit, missing some stuff. But I think more than anything, it's good work on the part of the defense. They're going to want to point that all out because it gives them that argument. they're going to, like I said, this is one of those cases where they're just going to use what they have and what they had was to some extent the police arguably in retrospect not doing some of the things that maybe they, it would have looked better had they done it. Does that make sense? It does make sense. Yeah, thank you for that. So another question having, you know, the defense gave no defense, really. We did wonder if James Craig might. testify or take the stand.

And again, no defense. Do you think that is a wise choice at time? I mean, you know, because Lori Valo also chose to give no defense, you know, and that was sort of her thing. And now I'm seeing it in this trial too. Is that pretty normal for the defense to say, you know what?

We're going to rest without really bringing any witnesses without James Craig testifying. Will that affect the jurors at all? Or do you think it's a smart move or any thoughts on it? I don't even know I'm going to ask. I want to hear your thoughts. You know, jurors are constantly reminded that, listen, this is not a game of count the number of witnesses, that the burden always rests with the prosecution.

They're the ones who have to prove the case. The defense doesn't have to do anything. Many times, you know, as a defense attorney, I remind jurors in the beginning of a trial that, hey, I could sit on my hands through this whole thing. I don't have to call witnesses. I don't have to make an argument. I don't even have to question witnesses. They have the burden. Do you guys all appreciate that?

And people, yeah, we understand, we understand. But in practice, you're right. They want to hear something from the defense. They want the defense to kind of make an argument, make some sort of, you know, certainly cross-examine people. But many times when it comes down to, oh, they didn't call any witnesses,

my question is always, well, who are they going to call? Like it might be they don't have anybody to call. They don't have anybody of value. I mean, even his own family members were called as witness. against him. So it might be one of those situations where you call a witness and if they're not a great witness, that's worse than calling no witnesses at all. So I think that could have been the case here that they simply didn't have anything to put on that would have been all that convincing or helpful to them. Every, you know, the prosecution called the women he was with, the prosecution called

his own children. It's like who's he left with. That all being said, I did think this is one of those cases where we might see him testify. because it is all about understanding what he says was going through her mind in private conversations in her final days. And if they want to make that argument, I feel like their last ditch effort probably would have been put him on the stand, have him stare 12 people in the eye and say, this is what happened. This is what I was going through in those final days.

it may sound wild, it may sound awful. I'm a horrible human being for all the cheating I've done, but I didn't try to kill my wife for my own sake. I was trying to help her in dealing with what she was dealing with. And even as I say that, it sounds ridiculous, but it's like that's their defense. It seems like it would have been best coming from him and out of his mouth. But maybe they've thought about it.

Maybe they felt like he wouldn't be able to stand up under cross-examination. Maybe they felt like that would have opened the door for far too much more ugliness about him. Maybe he just doesn't come across as sympathetic. In my view, the kind of person who commits this kind of crime is probably a very narcissistic, entitled person. And that might ooze from him when you speak to him. And maybe his attorney's thought, we're not putting you on the stand. I don't know.

Who knows? I will say this. He shows a lot of emotion. And I'll say emotion. I'll use my quote fingers. in in in in court maybe it's just because I'm used to like Chad day about and Lori Valo right but uh and Brian Coburger too doesn't show a lot of emotion so uh he cries

I mean he he was weeping during closing not weeping I don't know what he was doing he he looked to be emotional right I can't claim what that motion was but um you know during closing statement so just another interesting thing But I agree with you, if there should be a testimony, it does feel like it should maybe be this. But you're right. You know, look, they're just not taking their chances. They're making sure their narrative is set.

And why give any chances to make him to him to best. I know, but it's like to me, this case was so strong for the prosecution with everything they had, including all the stuff that we haven't even gotten into, the stuff that he did since he was in jail. it's almost like a Hail Mary situation in my view. In my view, if I'm representing him, thank God I'm not. But if I were, I would be like you've got to take the stand, James. If you want any chance of this at all, you are not coming across as likable. You are not, this argument is not convincing.

The only chance we have is you to get up there and maybe use some of those crocodile tears. And maybe you get a couple of jurors who just get a little confused at the end of it. because to me that was the only shot that they had out of this thing. But I don't feel that the case, I feel like I agree with you. The attorneys did an admirable job, but I don't feel that the case that was presented on his behalf, he's going to be convincing to anyone. Yeah, the defense can only do so much. Yeah.

They did an admirable job. But any, as you, as you watched, you know, well, let me ask you, some of the witnesses were jailhouse snitches. I love a good jailhouse niche. It's always, I'm like, bring them. Let's hear. But what's your experience? Do you think that the jury might dismiss someone a witness, you know, that's from behind bars because they might be getting a deal or what's your take?

And from your experience of witnesses that come, you know, from one of them walked in, you know, in, you know, in. In a jumpsuit, you know? What's your take on how those are, how the jury takes those? My experience is that somehow, sometimes these jailhouse snitches are your best witnesses you're ever going to see. They come across as people who've got, you know, they're not, they're not up there trying to make friends. They're up there just telling the truth.

It really comes down to what are they being given in exchange for this. You know, obviously if there's some sort of, they're getting a sweet. We had a deal on their case or there's some sort of immunity involved for their testimony. The defense might exploit that. But I've seen a lot of people, inmates, lifers who got who were, you know, I think pivotal witnesses in a case. They just come across as not BSing the jury. And they're up there telling the story. And then I felt like that part of the case, maybe I don't know, I'm curious to hear what you feel about this.

But to me, to me, jurors, they naturally say when somebody's accused of a crime, they understand the concept of innocent people being charged with crimes, right? They understand that there is such a thing as a person who didn't do it being charged with a crime. But then jurors, I think, naturally place themselves in the position of the defendant and say, well, how would I respond to that? And so when you have a defendant like James Craig, who after he gets arrested, starts to do all of this wacky stuff, get his daughter to lie for him, try to plant evidence, try to fabricate evidence, try to kill the lead investigator.

Jurors look out at all of that and they go, well, that's not how an innocent person would respond to this. That's how an incredibly guilty person would respond to this and a person who would likely go about trying to poison his own wife. So to me, that part of the case was the strongest parts of the case, the jail, the hearing from the jailhouse snitches and about all of the stuff he was up to since he got arrested. Okay. Okay. Yeah. I was going to ask you what evidence and or witnesses are most compelling to you. So there's a little bit. What's that? I said, what about the sugar babies and then Karen Kane?

I thought they were compelling too. There was a lot of really good stuff in this case. but I wonder, well, here's a question. Do you feel, how do you feel that, how strong do you feel the case would be had he not done anything since he was in jail? If it was just all of the, everything leading up to the point he got arrested, do you feel that you would feel as strongly about the prosecution case as you do with all of the added benefit of everything he did since he got arrested? Well, that's a good question.

I like trying to process because, of course, all the info is blurred right now. All the info is this one big giant mush and I'd have to like separate all the ingredients again to figure this out. But you're right. One of the most compelling and heartbreaking piece of evidence for me, you're right, is the letter he wrote his daughter while behind bars that he and then he had his daughter bail this witness out. give her this letter and say make a deep fake of your mother. That was awful. That was awful. It was shocking.

And then, of course, because of that, his daughter had to testify, you know, and share that it happened. And she had to turn her own dad in. So, yes. I mean, I think that seeing the poison and opening the poisons and, you know, seeing her sick. but you're right, what he did after just sort of sealed the deal. Yeah. Yeah. It's just, yeah, I feel like psychologically jurors can go, you know, maybe they,

maybe the defense gets them with some of these arguments and, you know, like you said, the police didn't collect everything, the police rushed to judgment, the police ignored stuff. They weren't thoroughly investigating this. They had their suspect and they didn't consider anything else. but boy, does that ring shallow when you start to, like you said, the daughter with the letter of creating the deep fake and I'll pay money for every witness will testify and now I'm going to try to kill the lead detective. I mean, I tell you what he sounds like. He sounds like an absolute psychopath or sociopath.

I don't know what I don't know what those terms really mean. Your husband probably knows better. But it sounds like the same type of person who. would go about killing their wife by poisoning them to death over 10 days. That's what it sounds like to me. Right. If you're willing to ask your teenage daughter to make a deep fake on the dark web of her mother after her mother had died. Right. And get this deceased mother of yours teenage daughter, who I love to say she wanted to hurt herself. Yeah, that is the same type of person. That's more than just being a cheater. It's more of just being a dirtbag husband. That's, as you point,

out someone that would poison his wife of 23 years and also pretend that he still loves her and wants to make the marriage work. Exactly. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah, that just like takes it a whole other, you know, there's no question he's a dirtbag husband, but you just, yeah, threw yourself into, oh, you did do this. Yeah, you definitely did this.

Yeah. At my bank, I was literally getting pennies using wallfronts. Chuching, there's this much that I'm getting an interest and I didn't have to do anything. clients like Angela earn up to 4.2% APY on their cash with the Wealthfront cash account. Get started at Wealthfront.com. Client was paid $1,000 for their testimonial, creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary. 3.3% base APII-1%%%%%%%%%%. You know, I wonder this too. Just to talk about this, you know, one of the heroes I think in this case, and fund an investing account for a 0.25% increase. Cash account offered by Wealthfront Brokerage LLC, member FINRA, SIPC, not a bank. You know, I wonder this too. Just to talk about this, you know, one of the heroes, I think, in this case, I've thought about this a lot. This woman that opened up the invoice, right?

She opened up the invoice and saw that he had ordered potassium cyanide. And I think to myself, what if she hadn't? I know. Like, was this just, I mean, I, I'm a little frustrated. The hospital never thought, hey, let's check for poisons.

I know. She wasn't going to do an autopsy, probably would have cremated her. Makes me wonder too, you know? Yeah, it's scary. I don't,

I don't know enough about medicine to know, like, can they screen for this stuff while somebody's being, being treated? I imagine they can, right? I don't know why they wouldn't be able to,

like, do a blood draw and test her, her blood. I know that, I know, I know that you can't just take someone's blood and put it into a machine and go, tell me what's in this. You have to like screen for specific things. So if you're looking for poisons, you have to be looking for poisons.

It's not going to come up on kind of like a normal blood test. But I wonder why they hadn't done that. When you have this woman who's obviously something's going on with her and you don't know what it is, no one thought maybe this woman's being poisoned and we just don't know it. I don't that that was strange to me and also scary to think that he may he he he could potentially have been very close to getting away with it um but yeah the the whatever whatever you want to call it the the serendipity of that um it was one of his staff right staff members at the at the dentistry uh practice yeah and and there and good for them too of not being like well not my place not

you know, this isn't my business. This is a package for him. I saw the invoice, but I'm going to let him handle that. I don't know, you know, she did something about it and good for her. Yeah, exactly. And then, and as she said, she said, forgive me, guys. I'm sending my husband a text. There we go.

Said, I'm not going to be home for a while. I'm hanging out with Josh. Um, what Caitlin did. So it was Caitlin Romero and she just was taking care of things and she wanted to make sure that the personal package remained personal and then sent it to his office, but then thought, I need to make sure this isn't an office invoice. She wasn't even suspicious. Let me just make sure this isn't what I think it is, opened it, kept the package closed, but opened the invoice. We all thought she opened the package.

The package was opened, the box, but the silver package was kept. shut and it didn't say anything what it was on the out. But she thought, let me just make sure. Saw potassium cyanide. And then it took her days, though, because as she said on the stand, I couldn't imagine that another human could poison another human, that a human could poison another human. She didn't even say her boss that she admired. Just a human could do this to another human.

And I've thought a lot about that. And I've also thought about things like, you know, if somebody is young and passes away, usually an autopsy is sort of mandatory unless you know you're tammy daybell and but i think things have changed in east idaho now but um and they they have to but if if someone dies in the hospital yeah is that is that i can't imagine they would not have want some sort of examination done of her some sort of at the very least some sort of toxicology full exam done of her because yeah i mean i my experience is that this was be declared a death under at least suspicious, you know, unexplained circumstances and they would

want to get to the bottom of it. I mean, even if they're not trying to investigate a crime, they would want to know, has she been exposed to something that's lethal that other people in the home might potentially be exposed to? Does she have some sort of disease that we need to worry about? I mean, they need to get to the bottom of these things, even if they're not necessarily investigating a crime. And I just cannot see it being a situation where, where she would have died and he would have said, you know, I want her cremated and no autopsy done and they would have, they would have followed that.

So maybe this would have been unearthed at some point anyways, but, but let's let's just be very thankful that the, that that assistant was brave enough to say something. Yeah, absolutely. By the way, John wrote back. He says, hi, Josh. Oh, good.

Dr. John. Hi, Josh. Ether Bunny says, Josh, I understand everyone deserves a defense, But do you think these defense attorneys really think he is innocent? No. I don't. I mean, you know, I think that defense attorneys and being one, I feel like I can speak to this, you know, I think they are logical people and they're not brainwashed. And they realize that the evidence looks incredibly damaging for their client, but they also realize they have a job.

And they're the only ones who can do that job. And that job is to do their best to mount a defense on behalf of the. their client and make the arguments where they can. And even if those arguments are a little bit ridiculous, you got to stand up and say something and hold the government accountable and just make sure that this isn't some sort of, you know, a charade of a legal process that they got to, you know, they got, we live in an adversarial process. You've got to have two sides and they got to be going up against each other for justice to be done the right way. And they're doing their best. But if, if they were honest enough to have a private conversation over drinks with me,

I'm sure they would say, yeah, he did it. Okay, okay. A question, here's a question somebody sent. How important, this is an interesting question. How important do you think the testimony was from the mistresses? And you've actually made me think about this. I thought they were actually really important at first, but now I'm wondering if the snitches are more important.

Maybe all they did is give a motive. I don't know. I don't know. I think that they, I think they were very important. One of the things that, I don't want to say that the prosecution struggled with, but one of the things that I think the prosecution didn't have the firmest concrete theory on was motive. You know, motive is not an element of the crime.

They don't have to prove motive. But in a case like this, you're going to have to give the jurors something to hang their hats on. They're just not going to be able to handle why would a man, married 23 years, like you said, leader in his church, six children, why would he do this? You've got to give them some reason that would compel a person like that to do this. So they went with money. They said that's part of it. They went with, you talked about this earlier in your stream, what those three were. They went with money.

They went with he's got, you know, all of these other women, these affairs that he's trying to. to pursue. And then this game of the game of chicken, I wasn't quite sure where they were going with that. I think it was the idea of she's trying to take her own life. And he's maybe, I didn't, that one you're going to have to help me out with it.

Right. That's what he claimed that it was a game of chicken to his friend, Ryan Rebfer, like, oh, this is just a game of chicken. Like she's claiming she's going to self harm. And I'm going to say,

oh, you know, maybe you should, but not really, but don't, like a game of chicken like this back. for sort of a thing. Very strange. But yeah, financially, there was life insurance $4 million.

And then there was small, that's not a small, that's not an insignificant sum. Yeah, not at all. And then there were mistresses and other women and a particular woman, Karen King, that he had met recently and was flying her out. And yeah, just, I think those were the two main motives that they laid out, compelling, you know. I think too, they were helpful in explaining how desperate this man was. I mean, he really had a lot going on if you think about it.

Like he was, his life sounds exhausting, quite frankly. I mean, he's running around trying to pursue these other women. He's got the financial issues, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the addictions to pornography and gambling and everything else. And then he's, then he's this last woman, the, um,

uh, Cain, right? Her in Cain. Yeah, she's, I think very important because it seemed, in my view, and I think the prosecution even made this argument,

that it was like he had to make this happen now in order to keep her. It was like he brought, he's bringing her out here. His wife is on her death. bed. If she doesn't die now, that'll really mess up his plans with this new woman and this new life he had imagined for himself. And I think that that probably is the motive behind all of this, is that he, he had to, you know, I mean, the fact that he, they allege he went in there with a syringe

to kind of make it to finalize the whole thing just shows you how incredibly desperate he was to make this happen right now, which is, by the way, one of the most. diabolical, cold-hearted things I've ever heard of. Right. And can I say this, too? I mean, let's just talk. Let's talk this out. It's heartbreaking. And I'm sure that this is maybe crossing the jurors' minds because I think some things that are unsaid in court are what the jurors, you know, think about or the jurors think about. And, you know, I've certainly thought about it. So he goes in there. He's only in there for 60 seconds. He's visiting his wife who's probably doing a little bit better. And he goes in there with a syringe.

And 60 seconds later, he walks out. And I wonder. Did he just pull that out right in front of her? Wow. And did she know at the very end what he was about to do to her, you know? But it happened so fast. It was 60 seconds because he knew he was giving that fatal dose. And it's just there's just something so. Could be.

He's so diabolical and evil. Could be. Yeah. I mean, you know, I mean, it really, it really makes. you wonder, you know, this guy lived a fairly normal life before all of this. Like he, you know, he's one of those who walks amongst us. He'd had a career. He had a, had it, you know, he had a practice. People went and saw him to have their teeth worked on. And, you know, it's one thing to find out, oh, the guy's a compulsive, a cheater and, and serial adulterer and everything else.

but then to find out that he is just this evil that he's searching for, you know, plants that he could feed to his wife to kill her and how to get his hand on poisons. It just, it really is scary to think that that type of a person is, you know, there's people like that just walking amongst us. If you were having trouble staying awake tonight,

I just gave you a reason. No, I know. As you point out, It's the psychopath. Dr. John would say antisocial. He has some antisocial qualities. I'm not diagnosing. He said, I'm not diagnosing,

but he seems to have some antisocial. Seems a bit mild. He's not here. I'll be him. I'm not diagnosing, I'm not diagnosing, but the research shows, and I'll read from this book,

that it looks like he has some antisocial qualities. There you guys. Sounds good. Heidi asks, do you think he was worried divorce would reveal debt he was trying to hide? I do. I think he didn't want to split his money either.

I think. Divorce me, you know, six kids, right? Like, yeah, I think absolutely. I think he was thinking about the money. I think he was thinking about the difficulty of it of the six kids. He just, it was inconvenient to him. I don't know, and I'm curious to hear your thought. Some people leaned into this idea, or at least the media did,

that it was like a religious thing, that there was this kind of social stigma. I don't know if I buy that all that much. I mean, I think that a lot of people are very heavily religious and it's just sometimes unfortunately happens. I don't think it moves them to murder. But I think it was more this, what Heidi points out here. It was more about debt and the difficulty of divorce. Yeah.

Yeah, I agree. You know, as someone that, you know, has an LDS background and has covered LDS crimes, I certainly see that there was a religious aspect with Chad Deba. I think that Chad didn't want the stigma in his religious community of getting divorced. He was going to lead the 144,000 to the New Jerusalem, and he simply just could not be divorced. I do think that that was Chad DeBel's thing. You know what I mean? And his motive, which is wild, but it was.

I don't see that with James Craig, although they shared the same religion. It's not a religious thing to me. I think this was debt. I think this was the idea of having to split the money, child support, because a lot of people say, well, six kids, he's ready to take care of six kids. Well, first off, there were only two that really needed taking care of. And there were older children that probably would have stepped in and family. And I think, yes, I think more important than that was, I'm going to have to split this money,

pay child support, fighting court. I think it was his, I do think he cared about his reputation, but not strictly in the religious setting. I just think when it came to women and being a good guy in general. Those are my thoughts, my opinions. I agree with you. And I think he's probably sick enough that he enjoyed the idea of being a widower and how sad. And oh, he had to go through that that horrible experience of his wife dying prematurely. And oh, now he's a single father raising these kids. And what an admirable man. And, you know, I'm sure his sick mind probably fantasized about that life of embracing that kind of victimhood, you know, sort of a persona. Yes, right. I completely agree. Like,

this is a guy that I think, I seem as sort of this covert narcissist or, you know, there's this thing called pity play that a lot of sociopaths do. Like, if, if you want to know, it was Dr. Martha Stout in the sociopath next door. She said, people always always. is ask her what's the number one cue. People think it's going to be some sinister thing. But it's that they appeal to your sympathy. That's what a psychopath or a sociopath does and appeal to your sympathy. So in other words, what better way than to present himself to all the women he wants to date as you're right, as a widower? You know, someone who lost his wife and the father, a single father of six children who lost his wife. Yeah. It works well for him.

What a great guy. Look at him. How does he put one foot in front of the other? What a hero that he's able to, you know, his wife tragically died. But look at him. He carries on. Takes care of those kids. Yeah.

Yeah. So he is, yeah, he's, you know, he, both John and I have been surprised at this case hadn't gotten more attention. I think a lot of it is because the family's been private. The court's been private. Again, so it was important to me that, you know, I did these. recaps every day, but I'm so glad you've been following it too because I do feel like he is, he's just someone to study for those that are fascinated and interested in true crime, that this is the type of person that's in your neighborhood that you like,

that you're like, this is a great guy. You know what I mean? This is the guy that no one has to worry about. And here we are today, right? This is the type of person, you know, that you're just like, are you sure? It was unfortunate that they, I don't know why the judge, Judge was so reluctant to televise it and this idea that you couldn't even, they weren't even allowing certain outlets to stream it. It is, it's so frustrating. I don't know, I'm sure you feel

the same way that in this day and age that we're still dealing with this, but it is a case that I thought was important and I do feel it didn't get enough attention because of that. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Someone just said that's why he was the doting husband during it all, justice for Angela. Absolutely. Yeah. Well, and tell me, you know, so you've been covering, what else about this case? It's like, call your eye or anything else. Why do you find it interesting? I mean, we've been talking about it for 45 minutes, so I, you know, I have an idea. But anything else I missed. I think, too, you know, it's sad, but a lot of the cases that we, you and I both cover, it has to do with people killing loved ones over incredibly selfish reasons and stuff like this.

And it always does fascinate me to see kind of how long a person meditated on it and how long they thought about it. In some cases, you see it happen in spur of the moment. Somebody pulls a gun, kills the other person. It's a tragedy. But this person really, you know, how long was he searching for, you know, okay, he's got to find, first he wants to find a plant, right? he was looking for flowers or plants or something that he could give her. And the idea that he, you know, for for weeks maybe before he even started to do that, who knows how long he had been meditating on this, that kind of fascinates me that somebody can just be so,

it's one thing to have these, what do you call them, intrusive thoughts that come into your head, that you go, oh, that's horrible. I can't believe I even ever thought that. And this guy just lived in that world and thought about it. and then absolutely went about doing it. And then doing it in such a way that, you know, obviously he didn't love his wife anymore, but did he really hate this woman that much

or hate his life that much that he was willing to see her suffer for 10 days and die this horrible, horrible death? That kind of stuff is rare. As common as these types of cases are, I feel like his conduct is incredibly rare. Yeah, I agree. I agree. And as Kim says, Kim, thank you for this comment.

Never stay with someone who is not content with you, period. I agree. My heart breaks for Angela. I hope that she has justice. And I wish she would have been able to leave. She was an incredible woman by all accounts. What we've learned about her has touched me. She was an amazing mother, an amazing sister, an amazing friend, an amazing wife.

You know? So it's so heartbreaking. Yeah. So thank you. Josh, we're so grateful to have you. Tell us what's going on on your channel, what you're covering next. And let all of our wonderful hidden gems know where they can find you. I've seen a lot of people already follow you and like you, but there's a few people here. They're like, oh, tell me more. So tell us where we can find you and what you're working on over on courtroom confidential. Oh, you're so kind. I did see a few people in the comments that I recognize the name. So thank you, everybody who showed up. Yeah, go to courtroom confidential.

we've got tomorrow night we're going to go live with joseph scott morgan he's fantastic he's a brilliant brilliant uh death investigator i like that title and he uh also has one of the best voices in all of radio television and podcasting he's a fantastic dude so he'll be on tomorrow night we're talking we're still kind of talking about some of this coburger stuff the recently released uh documents that have come out some of the new evidence there's been a lot of interviews now done with the prosecutors and investigators that are kind of enlightening. So we're still talking a lot about that. So I would, yeah, please thank you so much for the opportunity to come on here and talk to

everybody on your channel. And I appreciate being able to chat with you. And I invite everybody to head on over and subscribe. We'd love to have you. Absolutely. We're glad to have you in this true crime community with your expertise and knowledge. And yeah, we're grateful for you. So thank you.

we're looking forward to having you on again and thank you for coming on and yeah may justice be served with this case we'll be watching we'll be watching tomorrow and so fingers crossed will it be tomorrow just tell us like what what's your I don't my thing I'll tell you my thing I can't predict a jury to tell us do you think it'll be tomorrow like what do you think I think tomorrow's a pretty good bet but if I think it doesn't happen tomorrow going to worry. I think that it will then definitely happen the next day. But if it if it doesn't and we start to get questions, if we hear nothing from them, that's a good sign. If we start getting questions, then we can start to get worried. But I think they're doing fine. They're

working. They're back there working. They're getting to know each other. They're filling out documents. They're reading papers. There's a lot for them to go through. True. True. All right, everyone. Thank you so much for joining us tonight. Thank you, Josh, for being with us. And we'll see you next time. Bye-bye. At my bank, I was literally getting pennies using Wellfront. Checking. Meet Angela, a wealthfront cash account client since 2023. He lost my job, not having something else lined up yet. I was pregnant with my second. We had to think about how do we make our money work for us. Every month there's this much that I'm getting an interest in. I didn't have to do anything. My money is working hard on its own and I can trust Welfront is taking care of me.

With a wealthfront cash account earn up to 4.2% APY on your your cash. No account fees, no minimums, and no strings attached. Plus, free instant withdrawals to eligible accounts. Get started at wealthfront.com. Client was paid $1,000 for their testimonial, creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary. 3.3% base API why 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. Instant withdrawal subject to conditions, fees and eligibility requirements

apply to certain checking features of the cash account. Before I switched to Wealthfront, 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 Wellfront was a clear winner. There are no petty fees. Every month, there's this much that I'm getting an interest in. 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 why as of January 30th, 2026, is representative variable and earned on funds swept to program bank. 6.65% 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. eligibility requirements may apply to certain checking features of the cash account.