Speaker 1: In twenty twenty two, a woman in Utah lost her
Speaker 1: husband suddenly, leaving her to try and find a way
Speaker 1: to explain that kind of loss to her three young sons.
Speaker 1: In the months that followed, she spoke openly about grief
Speaker 1: and the difficulty of helping her children try and understand
Speaker 1: what happened. About a year later, she went on to
Speaker 1: write a children's book centered around loss and grief, something
Speaker 1: she hoped would bring them comfort. But as investigators began
Speaker 1: to take a closer look at her husband's death, a
Speaker 1: very different story started to emerge, one that would turn
Speaker 1: a story about grief into a case of murder. This
Speaker 1: is the story of Corey Richins.
Speaker 2: My name's Ben, I'm Nicole, and you're listening to Wicked
Speaker 2: and Grim, a true crime podcast.
Speaker 1: Following podcast material intended audience.
Speaker 3: Listener discretion, Happy birthday, Thank you, thank It was yesterday,
Speaker 3: But it was yesterday but pretty much today.
Speaker 1: You know, which is why this episode isn't getting posted
Speaker 1: like first thing today when it normally does. It's uh, yeah,
Speaker 1: just had some birthday celebrations that put work off a
Speaker 1: little bit.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we didn't work yesterday. We're living our life.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it was a good day.
Speaker 2: We did a lot of things.
Speaker 1: We ate some good food, drink some good drinks, and
Speaker 1: when we're driving range for some some golf stuff. It
Speaker 1: was fun watched.
Speaker 2: I think we probably watched it about four or five
Speaker 2: hours of hockey in the evening too.
Speaker 1: Yep, we did watch our local w n WHL team
Speaker 1: and our NHL team and yeah, they.
Speaker 2: Both lost, so that I guess. Wasn't the icing on
Speaker 2: the cake for the day, was it?
Speaker 1: No? Definitely not. And did you mean the icing joke
Speaker 1: because hockey icing?
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 1: Did you mean that? Pun?
Speaker 2: I meant like icing, No on the cake, but not
Speaker 2: the icing with the hockey.
Speaker 1: That's perfect. There's like a double entendre there. I was
Speaker 1: wondering if you meant that or no. Damn.
Speaker 2: I'd like to say I did, but I didn't.
Speaker 1: Well, just okay, I'll ask you again, pretend that you did,
Speaker 1: and we'll go with that. Okay. Did you mean to
Speaker 1: do that joke with the icing?
Speaker 2: Absolutely?
Speaker 1: Yeah, Okay. I figured that was a good one. Good,
Speaker 1: well done, well done. I five. Yeah. I got an
Speaker 1: interesting case today. It's a very recent one in fact, yes,
Speaker 1: very recent, and in the news the conclusion was only
Speaker 1: a couple of weeks ago. It's that recent.
Speaker 2: That's wild.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it's it's one that's kind of been blowing
Speaker 1: up on the internet. And I would imagine so in
Speaker 1: the months to come, you're going to see a lot
Speaker 1: more people discussing this case because who there's some stuff
Speaker 1: there to unpack.
Speaker 2: It seems. So. I, honestly though, haven't really dove into
Speaker 2: it because I knew you were going to. Yeah, I
Speaker 2: am intrigued and I guess you could say excited to
Speaker 2: hear about it.
Speaker 1: Well you should be, because it's a good one. There's
Speaker 1: a special on the ABC twenty twenty you know that
Speaker 1: they covered it. Yeah, Unfortunately those are never available in Canada. However,
Speaker 1: someone out there posted it on YouTube, so I managed
Speaker 1: to watch it on YouTube perfect. Yeah, so I was
Speaker 1: super happy. So thank you to whoever that that soul was,
Speaker 1: who's probably gonna, you know, get a copyright infringement on
Speaker 1: their account very soon, but thank you you allowed me
Speaker 1: to watch it. I appreciate it. I should probably get
Speaker 1: a VPN specifically to change our area here soon so
Speaker 1: we can be like, hey, you know, we actually are
Speaker 1: in the States, let us watch this stuff.
Speaker 2: Is that illegal? Though?
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: I have no idea.
Speaker 1: I mean, like VPN covered just one thing and everything,
Speaker 1: but like we should actually change it up. So it's
Speaker 1: over to the States and see if we can. I
Speaker 1: don't know. People do it all the time, that's all
Speaker 1: I know.
Speaker 2: I think it might not be legal, but I'm okay, we.
Speaker 1: Will have to look into the legality of actually changing
Speaker 1: you know, we.
Speaker 2: Won't read doing that.
Speaker 1: Side note side We're definitely not going to do that.
Speaker 1: Don't do that. Don't do it.
Speaker 2: Okay, let's dive into okuess.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about this case. So in the early hours
Speaker 1: of March fourth in twenty twenty two, while most people
Speaker 1: were still asleep, a call came into emergency services from
Speaker 1: a home in Commas, Utah. I think you might have
Speaker 1: said that weird, it's Commas. Anyways, it's in the USA,
Speaker 1: and it was just after three twenty am in the morning.
Speaker 1: On the other end of the line was a woman
Speaker 1: named Corey Richins. She sounded urgent and told the dispatcher
Speaker 1: that her husband wasn't breathing and that she just found
Speaker 1: him there in bed. She explained that she had fallen
Speaker 1: asleep in one of their children's room earlier that night see,
Speaker 1: one of their sons had been dealing with night terrors,
Speaker 1: and she said she stayed with him until she ended
Speaker 1: up drifting off herself. Then at some point in the
Speaker 1: early morning hours, she woke up and returned to their
Speaker 1: master bedroom, crawled back into bed, and when she did so,
Speaker 1: she reached over towards her husband and immediately knew something
Speaker 1: wasn't right. He wasn't just unresponsive. In fact, his skin
Speaker 1: felt cold to the touch. Now later she even described
Speaker 1: that moment as if she were putting her arm over
Speaker 1: a cement brick. There was no warmth, there was no movement. Now.
Speaker 1: During this nine to one one call, the dispatcher tried
Speaker 1: to guide her through CPR, but there was a bit
Speaker 1: of a delay. She seemed to panic and tried to
Speaker 1: deal with the situation in the in the sense of
Speaker 1: what everything was going on, and several minutes actually passed
Speaker 1: before compressions began, and the dispatcher soon counted out over
Speaker 1: the phone, keeping her in rhythm one two three four
Speaker 1: one two three four going through the compressions of CPR.
Speaker 1: As emergency responders made their way to the home, Corey
Speaker 1: was still on the phone trying to follow these instructions
Speaker 1: and trying to explain what she was seeing and what
Speaker 1: was happening. But all anyone knew at that moment was
Speaker 1: that thirty nine year old man was lying unresponsive in
Speaker 1: his bed and his wife was a wreck while trying
Speaker 1: to ask for help and save the situation.
Speaker 2: He's only thirty nine, that is young.
Speaker 1: Now, as emergency responders got to the scene and took
Speaker 1: over inside this bedroom of their home, they found Eric Richins,
Speaker 1: that's his name, lying in bed, exactly where Corey said
Speaker 1: he would be. But the moment made contact with him,
Speaker 1: it became clear this wasn't a typical medical emergency. His body,
Speaker 1: as Corey had said, was already stone cold. Now it's
Speaker 1: just not like it's slightly cool. I want to make
Speaker 1: that clear, cold in a way that suggests he had
Speaker 1: been gone for like some time. There was even stiffness
Speaker 1: in him, as rigamortis had clearly already begun to set in.
Speaker 2: Okay, so the CPR wasn't going to be doing anything.
Speaker 1: No, definitely, not officially. He's not dead, but he very
Speaker 1: much so was already. Yes, it was like the kind
Speaker 1: of physical state that he hadn't just stopped breathing, moments earlier.
Speaker 1: He'd stop breathing a long time ago. Still, though they
Speaker 1: moved quickly. CPR was taken over from Corey and they
Speaker 1: followed that standard life saving procedure. You know, you do
Speaker 1: the CPR even if it's a grim situation. Now, even
Speaker 1: if survival is unlikely. The thing is, you don't stop.
Speaker 1: But as the clock ticked away in the minutes past,
Speaker 1: the first responders were getting no response. There was no
Speaker 1: sign of recovery. There was nothing. And it's very important
Speaker 1: to note that first responders also look for something called
Speaker 1: mechanism of injury, which is it essentially means how their
Speaker 1: patient got injured or came into the state that they
Speaker 1: are in. For example, if there are lacerations or an
Speaker 1: indication of physical harm, did they get hit by a car,
Speaker 1: or they're empty bottles of pills next to them on
Speaker 1: the nightstand, potentially things that indicate what happened, so they can,
Speaker 1: you know, treat accordingly. However, in this case, there was
Speaker 1: no visible trauma. There was no immediate indication of what
Speaker 1: had caused this. There was no overturned furniture, no signs
Speaker 1: of a struggle, no drugs nearby, no nothing obvious in
Speaker 1: the room. That explained why a healthy thirty nine year
Speaker 1: old man wouldn't suddenly be unresponsive in his own bed
Speaker 1: in the middle of the night. Now, because of this,
Speaker 1: the possibility of a natural cause was considered. It must
Speaker 1: have been something sudden and internal, and even first responders
Speaker 1: mentioned a suspected aneurysm as there was some blood coming
Speaker 1: out of his mouth and nose as they began their
Speaker 1: CPR compressions. This would have explained the lack of external
Speaker 1: signs a sudden collapse maybe, and confusions around the situation,
Speaker 1: but even that didn't fully account for what they were seeing. Still, though,
Speaker 1: despite their efforts, despite their initial preliminary investigation for this
Speaker 1: mechanism of injury, Eric was officially pronounced dead at three
Speaker 1: point fifty eight. AM.
Speaker 2: Okay, Well, he could have been in there alone for
Speaker 2: five or so hours.
Speaker 1: Really, it could have been a long while.
Speaker 2: Yees, So it makes sense. I guess that he could
Speaker 2: be that cold.
Speaker 1: I suppose. I don't know how sure.
Speaker 2: How quickly everything sets in, but well.
Speaker 1: It does set in relatively fast, and we don't know
Speaker 1: exactly how long he was sitting there for, but clearly
Speaker 1: it was an extended period. Now, before all of this happened.
Speaker 1: Eric Richards was just a man living his life like
Speaker 1: anybody else. He was born on May thirteenth, nineteen eighty two,
Speaker 1: and he was raised in Utah. He grew up around
Speaker 1: hard work, and his background wasn't flashy or complicated. Instead,
Speaker 1: it was steady, the kind of upbringing where responsibilities come
Speaker 1: early and they stick. Eric was also raised as a
Speaker 1: religious individual in a religious household, specifically within the Church
Speaker 1: of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, and at one
Speaker 1: point he spent time on a mission in Mexico, which
Speaker 1: left him fluent in Spanish and shaped a lot of
Speaker 1: how people later described him. All around. He was very disciplined.
Speaker 1: He was grounded, dependable, not someone who chased any sort
Speaker 1: of chaos or lived reckless. Now, this sort of character
Speaker 1: that he had did well for him as an adult.
Speaker 1: As soon as he built a stonemasonry business from the
Speaker 1: ground up, it did immediately well. I mean, it was
Speaker 1: physical work, it was constant work, and to top it
Speaker 1: all off, though he was good at it, he was
Speaker 1: a man who showed up, who handled what needed to
Speaker 1: be done. And that same steadiness carried into his personal
Speaker 1: life too, not just his career he was a husband
Speaker 1: and more importantly, a father to three young boys. People
Speaker 1: close to him described him as someone who took that
Speaker 1: role very seriously. He was involved and focused on providing
Speaker 1: a stable life for him and his family. But most
Speaker 1: importantly for this story, there's something else that stands out
Speaker 1: when you look at Eric and who he was, especially
Speaker 1: in the context of what would later happen to him. See,
Speaker 1: he had no history of drug use. There was no
Speaker 1: pattern of any sort of risky behavior at all, no
Speaker 1: indication that he was experimenting with substances or living in
Speaker 1: a way that would lead to a path like that.
Speaker 1: For all intents and purposes, he was living a life
Speaker 1: that was, as you might say, straight as an arrow. Now,
Speaker 1: Corey Richins was someone who seemed to have built a
Speaker 1: pretty full life too. She worked in real estate, specifically
Speaker 1: flipping houses. There were a lot of big properties that
Speaker 1: she dealt with, ones that had fast turnarounds, large dollar
Speaker 1: figures being thrown around, all that sort of thing, and
Speaker 1: she and Eric had been married for years at this point,
Speaker 1: raising their three young boys. By all accounts, it was
Speaker 1: a very busy, stable life, work, kids, projects, the kind
Speaker 1: of day to day routine most families do fall into Now,
Speaker 1: after Eric's death, that image only seemed to solidify around Corey.
Speaker 1: But in the beginning of their life together, life was
Speaker 1: a bit tougher, and neither of them were working the
Speaker 1: multi million dollar businesses that they would eventually look after.
Speaker 1: They instead had a bit more regular of jobs. And
Speaker 1: when Corey and Eric met, she was working as a
Speaker 1: cashier at home Depot and Eric came through the till
Speaker 1: line purchasing some supplies for his company that had just
Speaker 1: been in its infancy stage. Now, Eric wasn't someone who
Speaker 1: put himself out there very easily. It actually took a
Speaker 1: bit of encouraging from people around him to go back
Speaker 1: to Home Depot and talk to that pretty girl at
Speaker 1: the checkout till. But when he did, well, things took
Speaker 1: off from there and they moved quickly.
Speaker 2: Oh my goodness, that is just the cutest way ever
Speaker 2: of meetings, isn't it.
Speaker 1: It's adorable. Yes, So they connected, They started spending time together,
Speaker 1: and before long they were dating and building that life
Speaker 1: side by side. Eventually, they got married on June fifteenth,
Speaker 1: in twenty thirteen, in a backyard ceremony in Utah, and
Speaker 1: by that point they had already started their family. One
Speaker 1: of their sons had been born before the wedding, and
Speaker 1: over the next few years they would go on to
Speaker 1: have two more boys. They had their home, they had
Speaker 1: their three kids. Eric had his business that was growing significantly,
Speaker 1: and Corey now had her work that she started in
Speaker 1: real estate. Now, before they got married, Corey and Eric
Speaker 1: put up a prenuptial agreement, so on paper it was
Speaker 1: fairly straightforward. Both of them agreed that what they brought
Speaker 1: into the marriage and what they had built individually would
Speaker 1: remain separate. There wouldn't be any shared ownership of each
Speaker 1: other's income, property, or assets. This was extremely important, primarily
Speaker 1: for Eric because his company was taking off due to
Speaker 1: all that hard work that he had poured into it.
Speaker 1: Now there was one exception on paper, though, if either
Speaker 1: of them died while they were still married, the situation changed.
Speaker 1: So if Eric had passed away, his business and assets
Speaker 1: would transfer to Corey. The agreement essentially shifted from separation
Speaker 1: to full access under that one specific condition.
Speaker 2: Oh okay, so if they had gotten a divorce or something,
Speaker 2: it would be much different than if one of.
Speaker 1: Them passed Yeah, exactly, So like that way, you can't
Speaker 1: just divorce me and take half my business that I've
Speaker 1: been building for years.
Speaker 2: Yeah, prenups are so interesting to me.
Speaker 1: They are interesting and like it's honestly, it's mostly a formality.
Speaker 1: It's just a way to protect themselves, you know, in
Speaker 1: case something goes wrong with you know, relationships. Maybe this
Speaker 1: person might eventually leave me or who knows what. It's
Speaker 1: just a matter of protecting things and keeping it clean.
Speaker 1: It's very practical, and I understand some people not liking it,
Speaker 1: but when it comes to businesses, it keeps a lot
Speaker 1: of things clean.
Speaker 2: I get them, but I also don't get them. It
Speaker 2: seems like a touchy, kind of sticky subject.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think you're right. But either way, they had
Speaker 1: this prenup and for years that document just sat there
Speaker 1: in the background, untouched and filed away. Now from there,
Speaker 1: their married life and everything seemed to follow that steady,
Speaker 1: everyday rhythm. Eric's work was consistent, the business was growing,
Speaker 1: and it of course wasn't flashy work, and it required
Speaker 1: long hours and physical effort, but it provided stability and
Speaker 1: the kind of life they were after. Corey's work in
Speaker 1: real estate was a bit different. She focused on flipping
Speaker 1: those homes which looked very successful, especially when dealers deals sorry,
Speaker 1: are moving between properties, with this property going out and
Speaker 1: this one being sold and this one being bought. It's
Speaker 1: all this chaos basically going and that kind of business
Speaker 1: depends heavily on borrowing, timing, and while a lot of
Speaker 1: risk involved. So when things go well well, they can
Speaker 1: be very profitable. But if they don't, financial pressure can
Speaker 1: build quickly and that's where a lot of things go wrong.
Speaker 1: And for Corey, at some point that pressure started to
Speaker 1: grow on her. Her business began taking on more and
Speaker 1: more projects, and with that came more and more borrowing.
Speaker 1: Loans were taken out to finance certain deals. Credit was
Speaker 1: used to keep projects going, and overall the amount of
Speaker 1: money that was tied up in these properties just kept increasing.
Speaker 1: On its own, that might not have been in a
Speaker 1: big issue, you know, someone just working in real estate.
Speaker 1: It's not unusual for that sort of thing to occur,
Speaker 1: but it was happening in a way that began to
Speaker 1: create a lot of problems. And one of the most
Speaker 1: significant issues involving a home was on an equity line
Speaker 1: of credit taken out against Eric's property. Ooh, now, this
Speaker 1: line of credit that was taken out against the property
Speaker 1: was an amount of around two hundred and fifty thousand dollars,
Speaker 1: and it was something that Eric had not even knowingly approved,
Speaker 1: and it was alleged later on that the document had
Speaker 1: even been forged.
Speaker 2: Holy okay, this is uh, this is setting up for
Speaker 2: some bad, bad news.
Speaker 1: Yeah, definitely. Now, from that line of credit, large sums
Speaker 1: of money were withdrawn, and at the same time, additional
Speaker 1: credit cards were opened up and more debt was added
Speaker 1: on top, and these transactions were already well into the
Speaker 1: hundreds of thousands of dollars, and that still wasn't the
Speaker 1: full price, because beyond that, there were other loans, on
Speaker 1: going expenses tied to properties that hadn't been sold, and
Speaker 1: financial commitments that continue to stack up one after the other.
Speaker 1: And by the early time in twenty twenty two, estimates
Speaker 1: of that total debt connected to Corey's real estate activity
Speaker 1: reached into the millions.
Speaker 2: Oh my gosh, okay, this is just spiraling.
Speaker 1: Spiraling for sure. Now here's the thing, you know, the
Speaker 1: old saying you need to spend money to make money. Yes,
Speaker 1: that's definitely the application for her business model. If you're
Speaker 1: going to acquire a property, you're going to renovate it,
Speaker 1: and you're wanting to flip it to sell it for
Speaker 1: a profit. You need to invest.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but this is getting to be a bit much.
Speaker 2: I think it's too much.
Speaker 1: That's the thing. It got too much. You too many properties,
Speaker 1: too many ones, not going through, too many ones, not
Speaker 1: selling too high of value, going into the flip and
Speaker 1: not getting your return of investment is what you wanted.
Speaker 1: Quite like, it got messy.
Speaker 2: Fast, growing at a rate that is not sustainable.
Speaker 1: Definitely, of this debt was obvious. Their life still looked great.
Speaker 1: It was intact, and they lived and ate very well.
Speaker 1: Eric's successful company provided very comfortable lives at this point.
Speaker 1: But inside the marriage the situation had already changed. This
Speaker 1: wasn't just business risk anymore. It was money tied directly
Speaker 1: to their home. That line of credit taken out against
Speaker 1: the property. But I mean Eric didn't know that yet,
Speaker 1: but there was involving their future and everything they'd built together. Now,
Speaker 1: at some point the financial situation stopped being something they
Speaker 1: could have just sit in the background, and Eric actually
Speaker 1: became aware that something wasn't right. He found that money
Speaker 1: had been taken out in ways he hadn't approved of.
Speaker 1: That accounts existed that he had not ever agreed to,
Speaker 1: and the scale of all of this was much larger
Speaker 1: than something that could be explained in simple misunderstandings or
Speaker 1: bad decisions. It was too much, and it was all
Speaker 1: something that directly involved his name, his property, and his
Speaker 1: financial standings, things he didn't sign for. In October of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty, he took a step that made it clear
Speaker 1: how serious he was viewing the situation. He met with
Speaker 1: an estate planning attorney. During that meeting, he explained that
Speaker 1: he had discovered what he believed was ongoing misuse of
Speaker 1: his finances, not a one time issue, but something that
Speaker 1: happened continuously over a period of time. And from there
Speaker 1: he began to make some changes. He removed Corey as
Speaker 1: the beneficiary in his life insurance policy, he took control
Speaker 1: of his assets and how they would be handled moving forward,
Speaker 1: and most importantly, he created a trust, and that trust
Speaker 1: placed his estate, including his business and everything that he owned,
Speaker 1: under the control of his sister.
Speaker 2: Okay, and I'm also assuming here that Corey is not
Speaker 2: aware of this.
Speaker 1: No, not as far as my understanding.
Speaker 2: This is so interesting, how there's just so much going
Speaker 2: on in behind the scenes of this marriage.
Speaker 1: Really it's messy.
Speaker 2: I literally can't hide a thing from you. So I'm
Speaker 2: having almost trouble them doing this sort of thing and
Speaker 2: being able to relate. You know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, if I if I go and get a beer
Speaker 1: with friends or something like that, You're like you're texting me.
Speaker 1: You're like you're drinking beer right now, and I'm like,
Speaker 1: oh shit, yes, I how do you know? Well, I
Speaker 1: look at the bank statement. Damn it. We weren't supposed
Speaker 1: to know I was going out for a beer. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's I don't know how people hide hundreds of thousands,
Speaker 1: let alone millions of dollars and have all this complicated
Speaker 1: stuff when I can't hide five bucks. Well yeah, not
Speaker 1: that I want to hide five bucks, you know what
Speaker 1: I mean?
Speaker 2: Way on, It would weigh on a person so much too,
Speaker 2: I just I can't. It would like eat you up.
Speaker 1: I think, I think so. Now. The intention of what
Speaker 1: Eric was doing, taking this trust and putting it under
Speaker 1: the control of his sister was that if something were
Speaker 1: to happen to him, the money and assets would then
Speaker 1: be able to go directly to his children and not
Speaker 1: directly to Corey, because it was clear she couldn't be
Speaker 1: trusted with the finances if she's doing all this sort
Speaker 1: of stuff, trying to make sure if he were to
Speaker 1: pass away, there's still a life for his.
Speaker 2: Voice, which, honestly, it makes sense.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Now, there's also indications that he started exploring some
Speaker 1: other options as well. Conversations with the divorce attorney showed up,
Speaker 1: and they suggested that he may have been considering ending
Speaker 1: the marriage altogether.
Speaker 2: Over this well fair enough really, like gosh, I couldn't
Speaker 2: imagine finding this shit out.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Now, whether he made that final decision or not
Speaker 1: isn't entirely clear, but that was the direction he was
Speaker 1: moving in. Now. Around that same time, another part of
Speaker 1: Corey's life had already begun to shift to see in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty, she reconnected with a man that she had
Speaker 1: known in the past. It was something that started off,
Speaker 1: you know, just chatting between two people who'd already had
Speaker 1: a bit of a history. But it didn't stay casual
Speaker 1: for long and that relationship became a lot more personal
Speaker 1: and eventually it turned into, as you can guess, I'm sure,
Speaker 1: a romantic one. From that point on, there were two
Speaker 1: separate realities to developing at the same time. One on
Speaker 1: one side, there was, you know, with Corey in her
Speaker 1: life and home, right that marriage that at least on
Speaker 1: the outside, still appeared intact with three young kids in
Speaker 1: the shared household. And on the other side, there was
Speaker 1: a new relationship with conversations that weren't tied to her
Speaker 1: role as a wife or mother at all, one that
Speaker 1: didn't carry that same pressure complications that were going on
Speaker 1: in their life. Inside that new and exciting relationship, there
Speaker 1: were conversations about the future, what life could look like
Speaker 1: under different circumstances. Now, those conversations went further than just
Speaker 1: general speculation or romantic daydreaming. There were moments where she
Speaker 1: talked about actually wanting to leave her husband Eric and
Speaker 1: about imagining a life where that relationship was no longer
Speaker 1: part of the picture. In one text exchange, she even
Speaker 1: asked Duress directly about the possibility of marriage, framing it
Speaker 1: as if something that could happen one day if they
Speaker 1: were no longer Eric in the picture.
Speaker 4: Okay, she seems like a terrible person, And in another
Speaker 4: she full out described a version of a version of
Speaker 4: her life where everything would be better if you were
Speaker 4: just simply gone.
Speaker 2: Okay, Well, I'm hoping that the three children that she
Speaker 2: has is also involved in this new plan of hers.
Speaker 1: Well, I didn't go too deep into these texts that
Speaker 1: she was sending. They were clearly ominous and inappropriate. So
Speaker 1: I'm not sure if there was any conversations with the boys,
Speaker 1: but the sense around it was certainly wanting to move
Speaker 1: on with this partner and put Eric in the past
Speaker 1: one way or another. Now, what makes this part of
Speaker 1: the story so important isn't just the existence of that
Speaker 1: relationship though, it's the affairs happen in many situations and
Speaker 1: on their own, they don't necessarily point to anything beyond,
Speaker 1: you know, bad personal choices or relationship breakdowns. Yeah, affairs
Speaker 1: are bad, but it's not murderous or anything.
Speaker 2: You know what, It's not gonna make you go.
Speaker 1: To jail exactly. In this case, however, the timing was huge.
Speaker 1: The relationship was developing at the same time the financial
Speaker 1: pressure was increasing, at the same time that the marriage
Speaker 1: was even becoming strained, and at that same period of time,
Speaker 1: Eric was taking steps to separate himself financially and legally. Literally,
Speaker 1: everything was drifting apart in this situation, and because of
Speaker 1: all that, by the time twenty twenty one, came around,
Speaker 1: there were already a few different pressures building inside the relationship.
Speaker 1: Corey and Eric soon took a trip to Greece. They
Speaker 1: were getting away for a bit, spending time somewhere completely
Speaker 1: removed from their normal routine in businesses. But during that
Speaker 1: trip something happened that would take on a very different
Speaker 1: meaning later on. At one point, Eric became suddenly and
Speaker 1: severely ill. It wasn't a gradual illness that came on
Speaker 1: with a little bit of you know, sneezing, coughing. Oh,
Speaker 1: my stomach kind of hurts a bit. No, it was
Speaker 1: something that didn't need to evolve. It was on set
Speaker 1: very fast, and the reaction was intense enough that it
Speaker 1: stood out in their memory. It was as sick that
Speaker 1: also didn't seem to match anything obvious like food poisoning
Speaker 1: or exhaustion. The details around exactly what caused it weren't
Speaker 1: clear at the time. There wasn't an immediate explanation or
Speaker 1: any sort of diagnoses. It was treated as one of
Speaker 1: those situations where someone goes traveling and gets sick and
Speaker 1: things pass. But Eric, though he didn't completely brush it off. Afterwards,
Speaker 1: he spoke to his sister about it and During that conversation,
Speaker 1: he expressed something that at the time may have sounded unusual,
Speaker 1: but in hindsight carries so much weight because he told
Speaker 1: his sister he believed he may have been poisoned. Now,
Speaker 1: it wasn't something he had investigated or gone down a
Speaker 1: rabbit hole or anything like that, and at that point
Speaker 1: there wasn't anything to confirm anything. So there was no evidence,
Speaker 1: no pattern, there was nothing to support that claim. So
Speaker 1: it stayed there a serious accusation, and that was that.
Speaker 2: But it's also very much just showing just how little
Speaker 2: of trust he has in I'm assuming he thinks it's
Speaker 2: his wife, Corey who poisoned him.
Speaker 1: I think so there's no real confirmation that I could
Speaker 1: find on who he said if there was a name specifically,
Speaker 1: but he knew that there was a chance or at
Speaker 1: least a suspicion that he was poisoned, probably yes, by Corey,
Speaker 1: but I couldn't find him specifically saying her name. For
Speaker 1: that situation.
Speaker 2: Oh, this man needs to just I don't know if
Speaker 2: his money is being like kind of taken and like
Speaker 2: his signature's being forged and now he's potentially being poisoned.
Speaker 2: I feel like he just needs to freaking run for
Speaker 2: the hills.
Speaker 1: Probably, you're probably right with that. Now, by late twenty
Speaker 1: twenty one, there was a noticeable change in how things
Speaker 1: were unfolding. Up until this point, most of what had
Speaker 1: happened could still be explained, you know, in pieces you
Speaker 1: find financial issues, strain in a relationship, suspicion. After that
Speaker 1: trip to Greece, none of it on its own clearly
Speaker 1: pointed to anything. But around this time something more specific
Speaker 1: began to take shape. Corey started reaching out to someone
Speaker 1: she knew through her work. That person was a woman
Speaker 1: named Carmen, who was a housekeeper who had in the
Speaker 1: past been connected to individuals involved in drug related activity. Now,
Speaker 1: the messages between them were normal at first, but at
Speaker 1: some point the nature of their communication started to change,
Speaker 1: and Corey began asking about obtaining prescription pain medication. Now
Speaker 1: the requests that she were sending were for drugs like hydrocodin,
Speaker 1: which is a potent semisynthetic opioid, analgesic which is used
Speaker 1: to treat severe chronic pain. Then, over more time, the
Speaker 1: conversations shifted once again. She began asking for something stronger,
Speaker 1: not just general pain medication. This time, though, but something
Speaker 1: much more potent. In one exchange, she referred to it
Speaker 1: in a way that stood out, asking for what she
Speaker 1: described as the Michael Jackson stuff quote unquote, which was
Speaker 1: a reference commonly associated with powerful drugs that had been
Speaker 1: linked to his death. Now that was a clear step
Speaker 1: beyond what she'd just been asking for before. From this
Speaker 1: point on, basically the focus moved towards asking for fentanyl.
Speaker 2: Oh okay, this is really frickin' alarming, Yeah it is.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 1: The transactions that followed were arranged through this connection. Through
Speaker 1: this Carmen, payments were made, sometimes in cash, sometimes through
Speaker 1: other means, and the drugs were obtained in multiple instances
Speaker 1: over the course of several weeks. By the time Valentine's
Speaker 1: Day came around in February of twenty twenty two, Corey, Eric,
Speaker 1: and their kids were all home together and at some
Speaker 1: point during the night, Corey prepared food for Eric, and
Speaker 1: not long after he ate it well, he fell ill.
Speaker 1: The reaction came quickly, just like when it was in Greece.
Speaker 1: He developed this sickness fast, but this time he developed
Speaker 1: hives and his body began reacting in ways that suggested
Speaker 1: something more serious than a mild allergic reaction. His breathing
Speaker 1: became difficult, and the situation escalated to the point where
Speaker 1: he had to actually do something about it himself. He
Speaker 1: used an EpiPen and took benadryl in an attempt to
Speaker 1: manage what was happening. Now those measures appeared to help,
Speaker 1: and soon the immediate danger started to pass. He never
Speaker 1: lost consciousness and he did not end up going to
Speaker 1: the hospital that night, but the severity of what had
Speaker 1: happened while it left a lot of massive red flags.
Speaker 2: I feel like he maybe should have gone to the
Speaker 2: hospital that night.
Speaker 1: Probably should have in hindsight. Yes. Now, afterwards he spoke
Speaker 1: to people close to him about this and what happened.
Speaker 1: In messages sent shortly after the incident, he told a
Speaker 1: friend that he believed his wife had tried to poison him,
Speaker 1: which marked the second time he believed this had happened. So, yes,
Speaker 1: he should be going to the hospital, Yes he should
Speaker 1: be getting it investigated. But whether it was doubts or
Speaker 1: the kind heart that he had inside of him, nothing
Speaker 1: formal came of it. Once again, no report, no investigation,
Speaker 1: and still no clear evidence that could confirm what he
Speaker 1: was suggesting. In the weeks that followed Valentine's Day, life
Speaker 1: simply continued on. There were still responsibilities to handle, there
Speaker 1: were still children to take care of, and ongoing work
Speaker 1: tied to both of their careers and their day to
Speaker 1: day routine pushed forward. But behind the scenes, Corey's communication
Speaker 1: related to obtaining drugs continued, and at one point in
Speaker 1: those conversations there was an indication that what had previously
Speaker 1: been acquired was not strong enough, suggesting that the earlier
Speaker 1: usages of the drugs had not achieved the desired results.
Speaker 2: My gosh, so she had she originally well, I guess
Speaker 2: second time, wanting to do this on Valentine's Day.
Speaker 1: Yeah, she did that on Valentine's Day.
Speaker 2: That is just pure evil.
Speaker 1: Now, Towards the end of February, another transaction took place.
Speaker 1: A second batch of fentanyl was obtained, and based on
Speaker 1: communications surrounding it, it was expected to be more potent
Speaker 1: than the first, which brings us to the evening of
Speaker 1: March third, twenty twenty two. Corey and Eric were at
Speaker 1: home together and that night there was something they were
Speaker 1: planning to celebrate. See, there was a real estate deal
Speaker 1: tied to one of Corey's projects, that had just closed.
Speaker 1: She had just purchased a very significant property. It was
Speaker 1: a mansion priced at two point one million dollars. Now
Speaker 1: some reports suggest that it could have even been higher
Speaker 1: than that, at three point one but either way, it
Speaker 1: was a massive mansion and if everything went as planned,
Speaker 1: they were going to flip this property and it had
Speaker 1: the potential of bringing in a substantial return on its investment.
Speaker 1: But it was a big business move and they were celebrating. Now.
Speaker 1: At some point that evening, Corey prepared a drink for Eric.
Speaker 1: It was a Moscow mule, a mixed typically of vodka,
Speaker 1: ginger beer, and lime. It's usually served in like a
Speaker 1: copper cup, and it's a common drink. It's something that
Speaker 1: fit naturally to the idea of them celebrating the occasion
Speaker 1: at home. They were in their bedroom when he had it,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure they did a little cheers before even
Speaker 1: drinking it, and not long after the night began to
Speaker 1: settle into its normal rhythm. Remember, they weren't partiers or anything,
Speaker 1: so they're celebrating was pretty minimal. Around nine thirty pm,
Speaker 1: Corey left the master bedroom, where she said she went
Speaker 1: to one of their son's room because he was experiencing
Speaker 1: a night terror, and she stayed with him for a
Speaker 1: bit before falling asleep in there herself. From that point forward,
Speaker 1: her account was that she remained there with her son
Speaker 1: for several hours. However, contrary to what she claimed about
Speaker 1: her sleeping, her phone data would later show that she
Speaker 1: was seen on her phone and it was active during
Speaker 1: that time when she was supposedly asleep, So her phone
Speaker 1: was unlocked multiple times in that period leading to the
Speaker 1: early morning, and that detail would become part of this
Speaker 1: investigation going forward, raising questions about what really happened in
Speaker 1: those hours. Now, sometime after three am, that's when she
Speaker 1: returned to the master bedroom, and that's when she said
Speaker 1: she reached towards Eric and realized something was wrong. He
Speaker 1: wasn't moving, there was no response, and she touched him
Speaker 1: and he was already cold. What followed was that nine
Speaker 1: one one call that had brought everything into motion. But
Speaker 1: by the time she made that call, whatever had happened
Speaker 1: to him had already occurred and he was dead.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and she damn well knew he was dead too.
Speaker 1: There were no signs of a struggle in the room,
Speaker 1: no visibility of anything out of place, no immediate indication
Speaker 1: what had caused this, just a man lying in bed, unresponsive,
Speaker 1: in a house that otherwise appeared quiet and undisturbed. To
Speaker 1: the first responders who would soon arrive at the scene,
Speaker 1: it looked like a sudden, unexplained death. But when you
Speaker 1: place it along everything that had happened in the weeks
Speaker 1: and the months leading up to that night, the request
Speaker 1: for the drugs, the earlier incidents, growing tension begins to
Speaker 1: feel a lot less isolated, less like a single event,
Speaker 1: and more like a final point in a sequence that
Speaker 1: had already been set in motion. Now, in the immediate
Speaker 1: aftermath of Eric's death, there wasn't a clear answer for
Speaker 1: what had happened to him. From the perspective of first responders,
Speaker 1: there was no visible signs of trauma. The scene didn't
Speaker 1: suggest a struggle or anything external that could cause this,
Speaker 1: given how suddenly it occurred. One of the earliest possibilities
Speaker 1: was possibly an aneurysm, but there was still no sure sign.
Speaker 1: It accounted for the lack of visible injuries and the
Speaker 1: speed at which everything had unfolded, but that assumption didn't
Speaker 1: hold up for long. As part of the standard process
Speaker 1: for someone as young and healthy as Eric, an autopsy
Speaker 1: was conducted to determine his cause of death, and when
Speaker 1: the findings came back, the toxicology reports showed Eric had
Speaker 1: a significant amount of fentanyl in his system. In fact,
Speaker 1: he had more than five times the lethal dose.
Speaker 2: Holy crap, this was all in his beverage allegedly, yeah,
Speaker 2: huh okay.
Speaker 1: So this clearly wasn't a small trace amount and not
Speaker 1: something that could easily be explained by any sort of
Speaker 1: accidental exposure. But ultimately Eric's cause of death was officially
Speaker 1: determined to be a fentanyl overdose. Now, I want to
Speaker 1: remind you something that I said in regards to Eric.
Speaker 1: He had no known history of drug use whatsoever. There
Speaker 1: wasn't even a prescription that could account for this that
Speaker 1: he had. There was no evidence inside the home that
Speaker 1: suggested he had access to fentanyl on his own, and
Speaker 1: the presence of that substance in that quantity did not
Speaker 1: fit anything previously known about him, and that possibility of
Speaker 1: the unknown method on how fentanyl ended up in his
Speaker 1: system became the central question moving forward in this case,
Speaker 1: and importantly so because a fentanyl overdose, especially one of
Speaker 1: that level, isn't something that typically occurs without a clear source.
Speaker 1: So investigators who were now entering the picture needed to
Speaker 1: determine where it came from and how it was ingested,
Speaker 1: and whether Eric had any connection known to it before. Now.
Speaker 1: Those who knew him very well, in fact, were very
Speaker 1: consistent in what they all said regarding this. Eric did
Speaker 1: not use drugs. He wasn't involved in anything that would
Speaker 1: have put him in contact with fentanyl whatsoever, and there
Speaker 1: was nothing in his life that pointed in that direction.
Speaker 1: The idea that he had somehow overdosed on this on
Speaker 1: his own didn't align at all. Now, that alone didn't
Speaker 1: prove anything. People lead secret lives all the time, However,
Speaker 1: it didn't make the situation any easier to explain. So
Speaker 1: digging into what happened, investigators began working through the timeline
Speaker 1: surrounding his death. They looked at the hours leading up
Speaker 1: to it, the people who he had been in contact with,
Speaker 1: and anything that might explain how fentanyl could have entered
Speaker 1: his system, And as they did that certain details stood out.
Speaker 1: The events on Valentine's Day were one of the first
Speaker 1: that came back into focus all of a sudden. The
Speaker 1: earlier illnesses, the severity of the reaction, and the way
Speaker 1: that Eric had described it. Afterwards all began to carry
Speaker 1: a hell of a lot more weight, and the same
Speaker 1: was true for that trip to Greece. At the time,
Speaker 1: it was an unexplained illness with a bit of suspicion,
Speaker 1: but now it was another moment that didn't quite fit,
Speaker 1: like the idea of a sudden accidental overdose. Investigators also
Speaker 1: began examining Corey's statements a lot more closely. Her account
Speaker 1: of the night remained consistent in some areas, but there
Speaker 1: were elements that raised some questions. The timeline she provided
Speaker 1: didn't fully align with the data from her phone, as
Speaker 1: I mentioned, which showed activity during the period when she
Speaker 1: said she was asleep. From there, the investigation expanded into
Speaker 1: viewing more phone records, and they were analyzed too, things
Speaker 1: like communication history, search activity, and deleted data, which had
Speaker 1: all become part of the process, and as more information
Speaker 1: was gathered, more was coming to the surface. For example,
Speaker 1: they found significant amounts of that deleted data, messages that
Speaker 1: had been removed, conversation that were no longer visible to
Speaker 1: normal view and when that data was recovered it was
Speaker 1: jaw dropping stuff. They were messages related to obtaining drugs,
Speaker 1: and those messages traced back to the same connection that
Speaker 1: had been identified earlier, the housekeeper who had access to
Speaker 1: people involving drug distribution. There were those initial requests for
Speaker 1: pain meds than ones followed by a shift towards something stronger.
Speaker 1: References to fentanyl were there as well. Investigators also examined
Speaker 1: Internet search history from her phone, and among searches were
Speaker 1: questions about lethal doses of fentanyl, how long does it
Speaker 1: take for drugs to take effect, and what happens on
Speaker 1: a death certificate in a case involving poisoning. There were
Speaker 1: also searches related to deleting data and information about life
Speaker 1: insurance payouts. It was all extremely damning digital evidence that
Speaker 1: had Corey firmly under the microscope of investigators, and as
Speaker 1: such they kept looking into her. Statements made after Eric's
Speaker 1: death were soon reviewed. In early conversations with authorities, Corey
Speaker 1: herself had said that Eric did not have a history
Speaker 1: of drug use, which aligned with what others had said
Speaker 1: about him, though I should note at this point there
Speaker 1: is evidence that Eric would occasionally take THHC gummies for
Speaker 1: sleep purposes, but the doses were minor and the purchases
Speaker 1: were from federally regulated retail sources regardless. Later, as the
Speaker 1: case developed, there were some suggestions from Corey that he
Speaker 1: may have been using other drugs regularly. Now, in the
Speaker 1: days and weeks following Eric's death, life didn't stop. There
Speaker 1: were immediate responsibilities to handle, including funeral arrangements and three
Speaker 1: young children who had just lost their father, and it
Speaker 1: was tough for them. They were young, they just experienced
Speaker 1: a massive and unexpected loss. There were conversations about what
Speaker 1: had happened, explanations given by people in their lives, and
Speaker 1: an effort to maintain some sense of normalcy for the family.
Speaker 1: But alongside all of that, there were decisions and actions
Speaker 1: that also began to draw attenson. One of the most
Speaker 1: notable moments came almost immediately the big real estate deal
Speaker 1: that was being celebrated the night before Eric died. It
Speaker 1: didn't disappear. Instead, it moved forward on schedule. The property closed,
Speaker 1: and Corey finalized the transaction shortly after his death. Now,
Speaker 1: that can be explained as part of an ongoing business process,
Speaker 1: something that had already been in motion and couldn't easily
Speaker 1: be paused. Sure, but still there were also attempts by
Speaker 1: Corey to access a safe that belonged to Eric. It
Speaker 1: was something that led to tension within the family, particularly
Speaker 1: between Corey and Eric's sister, who, as I mentioned earlier,
Speaker 1: was the one Eric left his finances too. Well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he really trusted the sister and I bet she doesn't.
Speaker 1: Trust Corey exactly, and this is where Corey's finding out
Speaker 1: that those changes were made. Now, at one point the
Speaker 1: situation even escalated into confrontation, and it was later reported
Speaker 1: that it became physical. Now, it may be no surprise
Speaker 1: to say that Eric's family struggled to accept the idea
Speaker 1: that his death had been natural or even an accident.
Speaker 1: At the same time, though, Corey's family stood firmly on
Speaker 1: the other side and saying that it was a natural
Speaker 1: or accidental death. From their perspective, she was a grieving
Speaker 1: wife who just lost her husband unexpectedly. The idea that
Speaker 1: she could have been involved and his death didn't align
Speaker 1: with anything they knew about her or the situation. To them,
Speaker 1: the focus was on supporting her and the children, not
Speaker 1: questioning what had happened. The divide existed very early on,
Speaker 1: right after Eric passed away, and it remained that way consistently.
Speaker 1: The two completely different interpretations of the same event, held
Speaker 1: by two different sides of people who were all looking
Speaker 1: at the same loss but coming from very different conclusions. Now,
Speaker 1: at around ten or eleven months after Eric's death, Corey
Speaker 1: also began presenting a different version of herself Publicly. She
Speaker 1: was a grieving widow dealing with three children who did
Speaker 1: not understand the death of their father, or at least
Speaker 1: understand how to process it. She said she looked all
Speaker 1: over and could not find any resources or children's books
Speaker 1: on dealing with grief, and since she couldn't find one,
Speaker 1: she decided she was going to write and publish a
Speaker 1: children's book herself. Now, as far as reports go, the
Speaker 1: book was written with the help of a ghostwriter, meaning
Speaker 1: she didn't actually write it herself, but nonetheless it was
Speaker 1: written to help their son's cope with the loss of
Speaker 1: their father. The title of the book is are You
Speaker 1: with Me? And it reads from the perspective of a
Speaker 1: child asking their father if he's still with them after death,
Speaker 1: and then shortly through the book it changes to the
Speaker 1: father's perspective, saying he is always there with them, even
Speaker 1: when they can't see him. The interviews that she was
Speaker 1: in she spoke about wanting something that she could read
Speaker 1: to them at night that could help explain what had
Speaker 1: happened in a way that they couldn't understand. The book
Speaker 1: was meant to bring comfort not just to her own family,
Speaker 1: but to others going through something similar, and it also
Speaker 1: reinforced the image of a grieving wife trying to hold
Speaker 1: things together. It wasn't until later, as the investigation became
Speaker 1: public that the contrast between that image that she was
Speaker 1: betraying and the allegations against her became impossible to ignore.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is this just gives you a really lucky feeling.
Speaker 1: Definitely. Now, as the investigation continued, the pieces that had
Speaker 1: been building in the background were no longer being looked
Speaker 1: at individually. By this point, investigators had built a timeline,
Speaker 1: a pattern of behavior, and a growing body of evidence
Speaker 1: that connected events across several months, and in May of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three, more than a year after Eric's death,
Speaker 1: that work led to a decision. Corey Richins was arrested
Speaker 1: and formally charged with aggravated murder, tied to the allegations
Speaker 1: that she had intentionally administered a lethal dose of fentanyl
Speaker 1: to her ex husband Eric.
Speaker 2: I'm honestly a bit surprised it took them that long.
Speaker 2: I mean, I know, like stuff takes time and stuff,
Speaker 2: but it seemed I mean, sitting here listening to you
Speaker 2: present everything, it seems almost obvious.
Speaker 1: But in hindsight, yes, yeah.
Speaker 2: It wouldn't you know, probably have been no one. The
Speaker 2: majority of people did not expect that she would have
Speaker 2: killed her husband, so it took time to dive into
Speaker 2: this and figure it out.
Speaker 1: I guess for sure, you got to build your case right,
Speaker 1: and you don't want it too fast now. Alongside that
Speaker 1: were additional charges as well, including attempted murder related to
Speaker 1: the Valandine's Day incident, as well as multiple counts of
Speaker 1: fraud connected to life insurance policies and financial activity. After
Speaker 1: Eric's death. Brutal See investigators found that multiple life insurance
Speaker 1: policies had been taken out on him, with a combined
Speaker 1: value in the millions, and steps were taken by Corey
Speaker 1: to access those funds he died. At the same time,
Speaker 1: there were efforts to gain control over assets connected to
Speaker 1: his state that we already know, right, but Eric had
Speaker 1: of course already changed them. Corey wasn't the beneficiary. It
Speaker 1: was over to his sister.
Speaker 2: I could imagine how shocking that would have been to her.
Speaker 1: Yeah, she probably would have had her job on the
Speaker 1: floor as a result. Some of the financial actions taken
Speaker 1: after his death became a very key part in the
Speaker 1: case and were presented as fraudulent. Corey, however, maintained her
Speaker 1: position that she was an innocent, grieving widow who lost
Speaker 1: her husband to an unexpected event, and she pleaded not
Speaker 1: guilty to all charges. So now the case moved through
Speaker 1: the legal system and towards a trial, and another piece
Speaker 1: of information had surfaced as well. See while Corey was
Speaker 1: in custody, a handwritten letter was discovered. It was located
Speaker 1: inside the jail in her cell, hidden within a book.
Speaker 1: The pages were labeled, organized and written in a way
Speaker 1: that suggested it had been thought through careful, and at
Speaker 1: the top of the pages, the phrase walk the dog
Speaker 1: appeared repeatedly, and the content of the letter laid out
Speaker 1: a series of instructions. It described a version of events
Speaker 1: in which Eric had been obtaining drugs himself, specifically fentanyl,
Speaker 1: from outside sources. This letter suggested that he had been
Speaker 1: using those substances regularly and that his death could have
Speaker 1: been a result of his own actions rather than anything
Speaker 1: that was done to him. The structure of the letter, however,
Speaker 1: stood out massively as well. See it wasn't written as
Speaker 1: a personal reflection or a casual explanation. Now, this letter
Speaker 1: was clearly written by Corey herself and outlined how this
Speaker 1: version of events could be communicated. It referenced specific people,
Speaker 1: including family members, and it described how information could be
Speaker 1: passed along, moving from one person to another, eventually reaching
Speaker 1: legal representation. From the perspective of prosecutors, this was interpreted
Speaker 1: as an attempt to influence testimony. Basically, this letter, prosecutors believed,
Speaker 1: was Corey trying to get people to tell a specific
Speaker 1: version of events in their testimony during court one which
Speaker 1: Eric was using drugs himself and that the death wasn't
Speaker 1: her fault. Prosecutors basically believed she is fabricating a tale,
Speaker 1: trying to pass it along to people who will appear
Speaker 1: in court and have that fabricated story be presented as fact.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, she's grasping here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, she was hoping to get this letter to someone
Speaker 1: and they could spread it to all the people necessary,
Speaker 1: and in doing so, she could create that false narrative
Speaker 1: to protect herself. But the defense, however, they saw this
Speaker 1: letter very differently. They argued that the letter was not
Speaker 1: intended to be sent or used in that way at all. No,
Speaker 1: of course not, of course not. They instead said it
Speaker 1: was described as a form of personal writing, something more
Speaker 1: like notes or maybe even a diary journal. Yeah, not
Speaker 1: a set of instructions meant to actually be acted on,
Speaker 1: of course not. Why would she do that? Right, So,
Speaker 1: in that context they maintained that she should that this
Speaker 1: should not be treated as evidence of manipulation whatsoever. Now,
Speaker 1: arguments were made in courts about whether this letter should
Speaker 1: be considered relevant or not and what it actually represented,
Speaker 1: But ultimately, while it did not result in additional charges
Speaker 1: related to witness tampering, it remained part of the broader
Speaker 1: discussion surrounding the case.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 1: The trial began on February twenty third, twenty twenty six,
Speaker 1: and over the course of several weeks, the courtroom became
Speaker 1: the place where everything that had been gathered, every timeline message,
Speaker 1: and every piece of evidence was all presented, examined, and challenged.
Speaker 1: The prosecution's case was built around a sequence there was
Speaker 1: no smoking gun to say, at the least to prove
Speaker 1: it all, but it was the culmination of all the
Speaker 1: events that they relied on, and so they didn't argue
Speaker 1: that Eric's death was a single, isolated act. Instead, they
Speaker 1: framed it as a final step in a pattern that
Speaker 1: had been developing over time. They pointed to the earlier incidents,
Speaker 1: the illness in Greece, the reaction of Valentine's Day, and
Speaker 1: placed them alongside the drug acquisition timeline and the events
Speaker 1: of March third and fourth. From their point of view,
Speaker 1: those pieces formed a very clear progression. They presented evidence
Speaker 1: showing that Corey had sought out increasingly stronger substances, eventually
Speaker 1: obtaining fentanyl. They tied that to the toxicology results, which
Speaker 1: showed the concentration in Eric's system that far exceeded a
Speaker 1: lethal amount. They also introduced the digital evidence, including the
Speaker 1: search history deleted messages, all to support the idea that
Speaker 1: this had been planned and was not accidental. Financial pressure
Speaker 1: was also another key part of their argument. They outlined
Speaker 1: that the extent of the debt connected to the real
Speaker 1: estate activity was there, as well as the existence of
Speaker 1: life insurance policies, and it would have all provided a
Speaker 1: financial benefit to her, but only after Eric's death while
Speaker 1: they were still married because of that prenuptial agreement.
Speaker 2: I know, I'm sitting here wondering if she would have
Speaker 2: done all this if she knew that the life insurance
Speaker 2: stuff had changed.
Speaker 1: Yeah, hard to say, huh so interesting now. Alongside that,
Speaker 1: they presented evidence of the relationship outside the marriage, suggesting
Speaker 1: that there was both financial and personal motivation taken together.
Speaker 1: The prosecution's position was that the evidence pointed in one
Speaker 1: and only one direction. Eric's death was intentional. When it
Speaker 1: came time for the defense, rather than trying to explain
Speaker 1: every detail presented by the prosecution, they focused on what
Speaker 1: they argued was missing. They pointed out that there was
Speaker 1: no direct evidence whatsoever showing that Corey had physically administered
Speaker 1: fentanyl to Eric, no recording, no witness, no single piece
Speaker 1: of proof that clearly established that moment, and no other
Speaker 1: proof that could indicate he ingested it from another source.
Speaker 1: They also challenged the reliability of certain parts of the
Speaker 1: investigation too. The connection to the drug source was questioned,
Speaker 1: including inconsistencies and testimony and circumstances under which statements had
Speaker 1: been made. They raised the possibility that Eric may have
Speaker 1: had access to the substances on his own, and that
Speaker 1: the death could have been a result of something other
Speaker 1: than intentional poisoning. In their view, the case relied too
Speaker 1: heavily on interpretation and circumstantial evidence to prove anything but
Speaker 1: above all that happened on the trial, one of the
Speaker 1: most notable aspects was how it ended. See, the prosecution
Speaker 1: had called more than forty witnesses to the stand. They questioned,
Speaker 1: you know, her boyfriend behind the scenes, right, They questioned
Speaker 1: that Carmen person, the one where she got drugs from
Speaker 1: family members, friends, All these people, they examined them in depth,
Speaker 1: and when it came time for the defense to call
Speaker 1: a witness to the stand. When it was their turn,
Speaker 1: they didn't call a single witness to testify.
Speaker 2: Really, okay, that seems kind of rare.
Speaker 1: They waived their right to call any witness. Corey herself
Speaker 1: didn't even take the stand on her own behalf.
Speaker 2: Wow, Okay, I wonder, I don't know. I guess maybe
Speaker 2: they just didn't have anyone to call.
Speaker 1: My interpretation is any more people on the stand would
Speaker 1: only be more damning evidence against them.
Speaker 2: Huh. That's bad.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So, with that shocking move, and after weeks of testimony,
Speaker 1: evidence and arguments. The case was then simply handed over
Speaker 1: to the jury and deliberations began. And trust me when
Speaker 1: I say it didn't take long. After just under three hours,
Speaker 1: the jury returned with a verdict. Corey Richins was found
Speaker 1: guilty on all counts. The convictions included aggravated murder, attempted
Speaker 1: murder related to the Valentine's Day incident, and multiple counts
Speaker 1: of fraud tied to financial activity and insurance claims after
Speaker 1: Eric's death.
Speaker 2: Who that's hefty.
Speaker 1: Eric's family, who had spent the past few years waiting
Speaker 1: for the case to reach that point, expressed a sense
Speaker 1: of relief for them. They knew it was They knew
Speaker 1: what was done to Eric. It was just a matter
Speaker 1: of proving it in court. Corey remained composed as the
Speaker 1: verdict was read. The judge made it clear to everyone
Speaker 1: in the room to hold their composure no matter what
Speaker 1: the verdict was, and if they needed to do anything
Speaker 1: when it was read aloud, they were to simply hang
Speaker 1: their head, look down, and nothing more. So. There was
Speaker 1: little outward reaction from Corey as guilty was read aloud
Speaker 1: in the court. She did as instructed as each count
Speaker 1: was confirmed she hung her head in defeat and in shame,
Speaker 1: but outside the legal outcome, there was still another reality
Speaker 1: to consider. Sentencing has been scheduled for May thirteenth, twenty
Speaker 1: twenty six, which means, as of recording this podcast, Corey
Speaker 1: has yet to be sentenced for her crimes. Also, the
Speaker 1: day of the sentencing when its scheduled, May thirteenth, also
Speaker 1: happens to be Eric's birthday. That day, he would have
Speaker 1: been turning forty four years old if you were still
Speaker 1: in this world now. Even though we don't know the
Speaker 1: sentence just yet, we do know that the aggravated murder
Speaker 1: conviction alone carries a sentence with a possibility of twenty
Speaker 1: five years to life in prison, so it is likely
Speaker 1: Corey will receive a lot of years since she has
Speaker 1: many charges on top of that one. Now, when everything
Speaker 1: is laid out from the beginning to the end, the
Speaker 1: story doesn't feel like a single moment. Feels like a
Speaker 1: very convoluted series of decisions and small actions and changes
Speaker 1: that built over time. And that's because it's exactly what
Speaker 1: it is. It started with a normal life with a
Speaker 1: relationship and a family that were growing businesses in a
Speaker 1: wealthy lifestyle. But there wasn't a clear dividing line where
Speaker 1: everything suddenly changed. No, that shift happened gradually through financial strain,
Speaker 1: personal decisions, and moments that took one person down a
Speaker 1: very dark path that destroyed a home and left one
Speaker 1: man dead and three sons without a father. Eric was
Speaker 1: their father. He was someone who showed up for them,
Speaker 1: someone who built a life for them, and who was
Speaker 1: supposed to be there to watch them grow up. That's
Speaker 1: the part that doesn't get to be replaced no matter
Speaker 1: what the outcome of this case is. And that's the
Speaker 1: story of Eric Riches.
Speaker 2: What a just terrible sad way of him dying. He
Speaker 2: would have just been in bed alone.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're right, he would have been. And there's a
Speaker 1: chance there is a chance she could have been awake
Speaker 1: and she could have heard him, and she did nothing
Speaker 1: and just waited for time to pass by until she
Speaker 1: to go in and do what just.
Speaker 2: Scroll on Facebook periodically, like waiting until she should go
Speaker 2: back in.
Speaker 1: Yeah, like, oh.
Speaker 2: My goodness, gracious, are you kidding me?
Speaker 1: But here we are. That's the case. And Eric likely
Speaker 1: knew this was coming in some shape or form, but
Speaker 1: I don't think he wanted to believe it because he
Speaker 1: had two suspicions of being poisoned already, and he did
Speaker 1: not go to the police. He did not seek investigation.
Speaker 2: I know, which honestly makes it even more heart wrenching
Speaker 2: that he didn't want to that he didn't want to
Speaker 2: believe that his wife could be capable of this kind
Speaker 2: of cruelty.
Speaker 1: He just thought that she was financially unresponsible.
Speaker 2: Yeah, frick I mean one like little silver lining I
Speaker 2: suppose is I feel like he probably did set his
Speaker 2: sons up for a fairly decent life moving forward, you know,
Speaker 2: and he was able to do that even with it
Speaker 2: like in a with them being young, right, So yeah,
Speaker 2: so that is I guess kind of good and they
Speaker 2: get to live on knowing that.
Speaker 1: But Frank, we got to stop with these these fucking.
Speaker 2: Podcasts where those supposes just keep murdering each other.
Speaker 1: I know. That's I'm finding so many of those cases recently,
Speaker 1: and I'm going to try and switch it up here
Speaker 1: for the next case. Trust me, I've got a few
Speaker 1: serial killer cases that are on my mind. But some
Speaker 1: of these ones where it's just a spouse for whatever reason,
Speaker 1: wants to separate, so they do something drastic. It blows
Speaker 1: my mind how many of them are out there.
Speaker 2: Should I be worried you seem to be gravitating to
Speaker 2: them recently.
Speaker 1: No, No, you should not be worried. I don't know
Speaker 1: why I'm gravitating. I think that they're just I think
Speaker 1: the algorithms online are starting to feed them to me.
Speaker 1: You know, yeah, because I scroll Facebook, Instagram, I scroll YouTube,
Speaker 1: I scroll all these social media platforms looking for different
Speaker 1: cases to cover. I go down rabbit holes and on
Speaker 1: Reddit and Google all these sorts of things, and I think, yeah,
Speaker 1: some of those social platforms are starting to push these
Speaker 1: ones to me a bit more. So maybe I should
Speaker 1: start looking for the serial killer ones or some different ones.
Speaker 1: I think we are also overdue for a survivor case
Speaker 1: as well.
Speaker 2: Also, maybe this is just happening more. Maybe right, Like
Speaker 2: I don't know, people instead of getting divorced, they just think, hey,
Speaker 2: I'm just going to murder my spouse. I think that
Speaker 2: sounds much easier.
Speaker 1: Well, you can't exactly say that this isn't a recent
Speaker 1: one either, so that deligns with what you're saying. Because
Speaker 1: she was found guilty March sixteenth, twenty twenty six, less
Speaker 1: than a month ago she was found guilty.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm curious too. I'm hoping that her book, I
Speaker 2: don't even know if I want to talk about this,
Speaker 2: but I'm hoping her book is not is no longer available.
Speaker 1: Well, it was a self published book, so I don't
Speaker 1: know to the extent of where it was available. She
Speaker 1: likely had all the copies herself.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: I did go online and do a I didn't dive
Speaker 1: too deep, but I did do a quick look to
Speaker 1: see if you could purchase them. I could not find
Speaker 1: one out there to purchase, so that is good.
Speaker 2: Okay, so it's probably, yeah, just like a small, little,
Speaker 2: little kind of hobby project book that she maybe had.
Speaker 1: I don't know, potentially, it's hard to say, but yeah,
Speaker 1: I could not find one to purchase, and that's good.
Speaker 1: I hope that all those copies just get burned.
Speaker 2: How the hell could you just sit there, though, and
Speaker 2: write that and read that to your children for their
Speaker 2: bedtime story when you know that you're a complete monster.
Speaker 1: Yeah, now, I will say this. I was able to
Speaker 1: find online a digital transcript of the book. What I
Speaker 1: am going to do because I am curious on this
Speaker 1: writing as well, and I'm sure many people are. I'm
Speaker 1: going to go on Patreon and I'm going to do
Speaker 1: a reading of her book for our Patreon listeners. So
Speaker 1: if you want to hear that, you can go ahead
Speaker 1: and sign up. That will be getting posted here in
Speaker 1: the next day or so, so you can hear what
Speaker 1: this book is about and what she had to say,
Speaker 1: what this convicted murderer had to say about dealing with grief.
Speaker 2: You almost have to feel bad for that ghost writer too,
Speaker 2: because she did she heave them they did not sign
Speaker 2: up for this.
Speaker 1: No, definitely not right.
Speaker 2: Can you imagine writing this for someone and then later
Speaker 2: realizing that they were actually the murderer? Like, woof, Yeah,
Speaker 2: I don't know if I would trust another soul.
Speaker 1: In my entire life. No kidding, Yeah, I'm never going
Speaker 1: to ghost write for anyone again. Yeah, she just write
Speaker 1: my own shit now, but kidding. Anyways, thank you guys
Speaker 1: for being here. We really appreciate you. If you want
Speaker 1: to see some of our links and check it out,
Speaker 1: like if you want to sign up for Patreon links
Speaker 1: in the description of this podcast, you can find our
Speaker 1: website or social media's all that good stuff. We are
Speaker 1: an independent podcast. We will forever be an independent podcast,
Speaker 1: and we get to keep doing this because you support us.
Speaker 1: You're still here at the end and that means a lot,
Speaker 1: so thank you very much, and of course until next time,
Speaker 1: stay wicked and oh