Dave Aronberg (3:20)

Yeah, that's that one.

Defense Attorney Katherine Nestor (3:22)

And nothing. In all the hundred and some thousand pages that you reviewed, did you ever see any statement by Corey Richards written down to anyone, to any of our investors, to anybody saying, I know I'm going to fix this problem, I'm going to kill my husband and then I'll have plenty of money?

Judge (3:45)

Objection, your honor.

Defense Attorney Katherine Nestor (3:46)

Did you ever see any of that?

Judge (3:47)

Overruled.

Dave Aronberg (3:48)

Ms. Carrington, you can answer the question.

Defense Attorney Katherine Nestor (3:52)

There's an email between her and Mount Strong where she talks about the inconvenience of being married. Okay, that's. So does that answer the question I just asked you? You, you've asked. I, I'm, I'm not trying to create anything. But you said, is there anything that indicated anything? And you know I don't talk like that,

Phil Holloway (4:19)

Bill. Yeah, I mean, Dave, look, we've, we've, look, I've been there. I mean, I've asked questions that I wish I could take back. As soon as it comes out of my mouth I'm like, oops, can I just get that back? And you're just praying that the witness doesn't hit it out of the park like that witness did. It was a little non responsive to the question, to be fair to Attorney Nestor, but still the judge let it come in and it's just not the kind of thing you want coming out in what's really the defense case, which is what cross examination is about.

Dave Aronberg (4:51)

Yeah. Never ask a question you don't know the answer to. And sometimes you get witnesses that'll surprise you. But it is not a death blow. I mean, she didn't say there's no other course. I've got to kill him. She's talking about the inconvenience of marriage. There are a lot of people who feel that way and they get divorces or they try to stick it out. They don't try to kill their spouse. Of course, even though I say this, I'm still a big believer in core richness and guilt. I just don't think that that moment was the death knell for the defense. I think there's a lot of other reasons to think the defense is in trouble. That one, yeah, you know, that's just. That can even play their narrative. Yeah, she was unhappy. She had a boyfriend, but she didn't try to kill him.

Phil Holloway (5:34)

Well, there's certainly no denying that she was unhappy and she wanted out of that marriage. That part has been conclusively established beyond all doubt, in my view, on this case. Dave, I got a question for you though. Right. So you, you've been, you were a prosecutor for a long time. Did you ever have a defense lawyer object that you were making faces to the jury when you were questioning a witness? Did that ever happen to you?

Dave Aronberg (6:00)

No, but the defense lawyers will throw just about anything against the wall to see if it will stick as they should. Spoken like a good defense lawyer here. The prosecutor denied that she was making faces, and the judge said, you know, I have a good view of this. I didn't see any faces being made. So the judge took the state side on that. But this is typical. The defense has a lot lower tolerance for pain than the prosecution does. Because the defense would love to jump and say mistrial, mistrial at any possible opportunity. And in fact, the defense did try to call for mistrial.

Phil Holloway (6:41)

The housekeeper, she was the one who said that she got the. The drugs, the fentanyl for Corey Richards that was, you know, used to kill him, was the murder weapon. Essentially, she testified previously in the case. Anytime you have a witness that's on the stand, their credibility is an issue. And if, if they've been convicted of a felony or they got problems, or in this case, if they have legal, criminal legal problems in the jurisdiction where they're testifying, you have a lot of leeway to cross examine them because the idea is that they might have some tendency to shade their testimony in favor of the prosecution, to curry favor with the prosecution. Right. So there was some idea, the allegation was that she had messed up in her drug court program. And drug court is one of these treatment courts that, say, an accountability court. It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but essentially it's a rehabilitative effort. Right. And so if you have a drug court sanction or violation, typically it can be addressed with Like a short trip to jail here and there, but without completely revoking your bond or your probation. So there was some idea that maybe the. The state had not turned everything over or the witness had not been truthful. So they, they're saying that that amounts to a due process violation. They filed a written motion on that. The judge says he's going to take it under advise because he's allowing the trial to proceed. That tells me, Dave, that he's probably going to say that's a minor or non intentional alleged violation of the due process rights of the defendant. But, but back to the faces, right? Yes, I want to. We. I was just told that we have, we actually have some sound and some video. This is SOT too, if we can call for that. This is defense attorney Katherine Nestor saying the prosecutor is making faces.

Defense Attorney Katherine Nestor (8:34)

I know that it is always tradition that the state gets to sit closest to the jury. And every trial I've ever been in, that's the case, and we actually prefer it that way. But we are getting reports from individuals who are watching this, this matter on television that particularly yesterday, but also previously to yesterday, that members of the prosecution team are making faces at the jury during our cross examinations. And we would ask that with respect,

Dave Aronberg (9:06)

I have a better view of this than any of the cameras. I haven't seen anything like that.

Defense Attorney Katherine Nestor (9:10)

Okay, well, we've asked for the timestamps and we're going to try to provide it to the court. But all I'm asking is just gentle admonishment that that's not appropriate and to try to refrain from doing that to the extent that is happening.

Dave Aronberg (9:22)

I'm not going to admonish any buddy for anything that isn't happening. The only faces I've seen are counsel at me. And so I think we're well within the proper bounds of appropriate conduct from what I can see from here.

Phil Holloway (9:38)

Okay, he's not wrong. The lawyers on both sides have been making some strange faces at the judge based on the rulings. I've seen that. And that's just, you know, I guess maybe to be expected. But anyway, the judge is making his own record in case there's an appeal. He wants to make his finding that there was no such conduct by the prosecutor.

Dave Aronberg (9:58)

The judge is trying to control the court too. And just for the audience, these arguments are being made outside of the jury's presence. So they're not trying to prejudice a jury by saying, look how terrible the prosecution is. They're juvenile. Now this is to the judge. So they said this because they really did believe that this was going on. And they, they're trying to get a sanction, trying to get a chit with a judge or maybe even the mistrial. But you know what happens, Phil, Whether it's about faces being made or about testimony, statements that come in that they're not prepared for, they didn't know about, like Ms. Lewis, the defense is trying just to get a mistrial or to delay this further. They want to keep at it because they know that the evidence is pretty substantial against their clients. So any chance they can get to just have a do over and meet, meanwhile, the judge is aware of this and the judge does not want to have to do it all over again because it's not. If you get a mistrial, that means everything stops. You have to go ahead, set it out months in advance again, pick a jury again, the whole thing. And the trial has already been underway for a significant period of time. We're talking about day eight already that we're talking about now. And so no, there's gotta be a lot to declare. Mistrial, like literally something that shocks the conscience, not going to do it because the prosecution is making faces. So now this thing is going on.

Phil Holloway (11:24)

Yeah, it is. And speaking of day eight or day nine, which is I think, where we are right now on the 5th of March, as we're recording this show, there's a lot of stuff that happened today that is, is, is really worth talking about, but backing up a day or so. We had, did you see we had a witness, Crystal Bowman Carter, the estate planning attorney, who said that, you know, Eric, the victim in the case, alleged victim, I guess, did not want to communicate with this estate planning lawyer because he was making big changes financially. I mean, big changes like cutting her out of the will and everything. He didn't want to communicate with his lawyer by email because he was afraid that his wife was reading his email. Did you catch that one?

Dave Aronberg (12:10)

I did. And in fact, we have a sod on that side.

Defense Attorney Katherine Nestor (12:14)

Three, we can play that meeting with Eric Richens. Was there something unique to you or something that you did for the first time in preparing his estate plan? Yeah, there were a few things. What were those?

Phil Holloway (12:28)

So

Defense Attorney Katherine Nestor (12:32)

one, he didn't want us to communicate with him by email. That happened a little bit later, but because he was worried that Corey would be reading his emails. Two, he, he left every, he wanted to leave everything to his kids if possible.

Phil Holloway (12:50)

I had a client one time who had a shared email with his spouse and I didn't feel like I could really communicate Very well with a client because, you know, I don't want a third party sort of looking over my shoulder, so to speak, because it can actually destroy attorney client privilege. And it's debatable about how much privilege applies to emails anyway. But I didn't really want a third party involved in it. And I don't blame, you know, Eric for not wanting, you know, his spouse, particularly if you're looking at maybe ending the marriage or if it's not going well. But to think that you're being spied on, I mean, it really is something to say. Has a lot to say about the status of this marriage. And I think it goes to motive.

Dave Aronberg (13:34)

Absolutely. Remember, jurors always want to know the why. They don't have to. I mean, it's not an element of the crime. But they want to know why a loving wife, this sweet woman sitting next to them, who just seems so angelic, would commit this. Well, there are a lot of motives. The boyfriend, the fact that she hated her spouse, wanted out. It was inconvenient. But then there's the financial motive. And she's not just being charged with murder, she's being charged with financial crimes. I mean, when she realized is that her name wasn't on the documents, she tried to make sure her name was on the documents, allegedly. So she was in financial straits. We saw testimony already about that that she was millions of dollars in debt, she was trying to buy that new mansion that she was going to refurbish, she needed cash, and here's the way to get it. And after her husband's death, I guess people mourn in different ways. She seemed to be very euphoric about the money she was getting. So, yes, this all fits the narrative. And I just think the prosecution has done a really good job building up the motive because this case has a motive that is as easy to understand as any case I've seen, which is the motive. That you hate your husband, you're in love with someone else, and you want money. Duh. I mean, that's easy to get.

Phil Holloway (14:54)

Spoken like a career prosecutor. Day long time. You know, you do it so well. Speaking of your time as prosecutor, you've been a prosecutor more recently than I have. And so let me ask you about this. How often did you have the opportunity or your colleagues who work for you in your office, how long did you guys. Or how often did you have the opportunity to use recorded jail calls, where defendants are speaking on a recorded line and talking about their case foolishly and create lots of damning Evidence for you to use. Did that happen a lot?

Dave Aronberg (15:28)

Jail calls are prosecutor's best friend and we love them. In fact, we would listen to hours of it and it was a labor of love because you knew that you're going to likely get something. And it is kind of interesting, the eavesdropping. You know, you listen to people who don't realize they're being recorded. And I know what you're saying. I know what you're saying. Hey, don't they alert the inmates that their calls are being recorded? Yes, yes.

Phil Holloway (15:52)

It's writing and it's usually an audible. This call is recorded and all this kind of. You get a. You get plenty of opportunity to not talk about the case. You do.

Dave Aronberg (16:01)

They even like remind you throughout the call sometimes, like this call is being recorded. There's even a sign up where you're making a call to calls me recording. And yet in their mind, somehow it doesn't seep through. That's why if it's not for stupid criminals, prosecutors would have a much tougher time in our job. So yes, we love listening to them because there's always some good stuff on it. And here is no different.

VRBO Care Announcer (16:27)

At vrbo, we understand that even the best of plans sometimes need a little support. So we plan for the plot twists. Every booking is automatically backed by our VRBO care guarantee, giving you confidence from the very start. Whenever you need help, it's ready before your stay, through the moments in between and after your trip. Because a great trip starts with peace of mind. And maybe a good playlist, but we've got the peace of mind part covered.

Dave Aronberg (16:54)

Look at him eating whatever he wants, never gaining a pound. Well, I'm stuck with the boring special and can't lose an ounce.

Phil Holloway (17:01)

How's your lunch, man?

Dave Aronberg (17:02)

Amazing. Yours?

Phil Holloway (17:04)

So good.

Dave Aronberg (17:05)

Oh, I'm so happy for you. Cool, buddy.

Mochi Health Announcer (17:08)

Weight loss isn't fair. But Mochi health is the affordable glp. One source that can fix your frustration with food.

Phil Holloway (17:15)

So same time next week?

Dave Aronberg (17:16)

No, Definitely.

Mochi Health Announcer (17:18)

And your friends learn more@joinmoji.com Mochi members have access to licensed physicians and nutritionists. Results may vary. Home security can feel overwhelming, but Simplisafe makes it simple. Many people are choosing it for the peace of mind it provides. With over 4 million homes already protected with no long term contracts and an anti theft guarantee, it's easy to see why so many feel safer having Simplisafe in their lives. With 20 years of experience in home security, Simplisafe has consistently been recognized for excellence. They were named the best home security system of 2026 by U.S. news World Report. And their customer service has been ranked the best in the industry. That's why so many homeowners feel safer and more secure with SimpliSafe in their lives right now. You can get 50% off their new SimpliSafe system at SimpliSafe.com Megan that's SimpliSafe.com Megan there's no safe like SimpliSafe.

Phil Holloway (18:14)

Well, here at MK True Crime, we're live streaming every minute of this trial. And I was actually watching some this morning on Thursday, March 5, and I was in the chat room with the other folks watching. And there was quite the kerfuffle where people were sort of surprised that people would be basically saying these incriminating things. In fact, let's go ahead and fast forward to we got SOT3A. This is a witness named Becky Lloyd. And so she was a former employee of CNE Stone Masonry. This was the family business. She was hired as an admin in February of 2021. On December 17th of 2021, Corey Richards and Lloyd were wrapping gifts as part of a Secret Santa project. Lloyd herself had divorced previously a few months before. And so she and Corey were talking about their marriages and Corey and Eric had had a fight that day. And let's take a listen to slot 3A and see what Becky Lloyd says that Corey Richards said.

Defense Attorney Katherine Nestor (19:15)

What else did Corey say during that conversation about her marriage with Eric? She talked about how she was feeling trapped. She was feeling like there wasn't an easy way forward out of the marriage. She felt like she was worried about her kids. She was worried that she was going to lose them and that Eric was going to take the kids from her and, and that his family was going to turn the community against her. And she said that in many ways it would be better if he were dead. What was the tone of Corey's voice during that conversation? It was serious. She definitely had a very serious tone. We weren't really joking. It was a very honest conversation and a very heartfelt conversation. You could tell from her body language that, you know, she was frustrated and she was struggling with where she was at. That was serious tone.

Phil Holloway (20:18)

Wow. You know, that obviously wasn't a recorded jail call, but it stands for the like the proposition there is, you know, your words can, can and will be used against you. It doesn't have to be a response to police questioning. Dave.

Dave Aronberg (20:31)

Yeah, well, it's tough because that's how you know you're telling the truth is when you don't think anyone is paying attention, and you're gabbing with your friend. Now, of course, if you're wondering if this is hearsay, there is an exception. Well, it's not even hearsay if it's a statement by a party opponent. Since the statement was made by the defendant, it comes in. It's not your typical hearsay. But the defense did try to lessen the blow here because this. This was pretty bad for the defense. But they try to lessen the blow by saying, you know, you had a faulty memory. Right. You didn't speak up on this right away, did you? I mean, you were not 100 sure that she said what she said, did you?

Phil Holloway (21:12)

Yeah, like. And look, I've. I've been critical at times somewhat of sort of the advocacy on both sides here. And this was an opera. This was an example, though, I think, of where the defense was able to. I do a pretty good job with this witness because what we just played there, that is very damning evidence if the jury believes it. But the defense, I think, did a good job here of giving the jury a reason perhaps not to believe it. So we have sought 3B, which is the same witness being confronted with a prior inconsistent statement.

Defense Attorney Katherine Nestor (21:49)

And this part, I. I swear she said it, but I also feel like if you put me on a stand, I would not be confident enough to actually truly know if she said it. But I. I swear she said in many ways it would be better if he just died.

Phil Holloway (22:06)

The defense was aware that she had made this statement where she wasn't really sure, and they did a good job being able to get right to it. In fact, I think that it shows the jury that this witness hasn't always been as certain about her testimony as she is telling them that she is here today on the stand. What do you think?

Dave Aronberg (22:28)

No, I think that's right. And I think they. That was one of the few parts where I think they did score some points. They wanted to undermine this very important witness by saying that, well, you didn't come out and say this at the beginning. You came out later and told this story. And then you said that you weren't sure. You could 100% say under oath that Corey said what she said. And then later she said that, well, I'm 90% sure she said the comment about him being better dead. So, you know, 90% could be reasonable doubt. So that's where I think the defense scored some points. But in the end, there's still plenty of evidence whether this witness is believed or not. But it does add to the narrative that clearly Cory was very unhappy in her marriage. Whether you believe her that she'd be better off if her husband were dead, she was still so despondent about the marriage that. Could you envision that someone who had a financial motive, who had a personal motive would commit this kind of crime? Yeah, I do.

Phil Holloway (23:37)

Well, you know, this is also what we have. This is a good example. And look here at MK True Crime, we like to educate folks when we can. And so if you've never been part of a trial or seen things like this, this is why we have something called revolution. Direct examination, where once the defense gets in there on cross examination, they make their blows. You know, the prosecutor gets to. Gets to have another crack at the. At the apple, so to speak, another bite at it. And here we have SOT3C, which is the witness trying to redeem herself.

Defense Attorney Katherine Nestor (24:09)

It is very difficult to say such a thing when someone that you care deeply about has been leveled with such charges. It is very difficult. So that is why it didn't come up in the first interview. It is a very difficult position to be here on the stand saying things like this. I don't want to be here. No one has supplied my testimony to me. No one has made me say anything about that. No one has supplied words to me. I know that that happened, and it is unfortunate that it happened, because I don't want to be here saying it, but I know that that is what

Phil Holloway (24:43)

was said, and that's about all you can do with that on. On redirect. But I thought. Dave, you tell me what you think. But I thought the witness did a pretty good job of saying, look, when. When she made this statement to me about. I'm paraphrasing. Everyone would be better off or if he were dead. You know, that's the kind of thing where if you've heard somebody say that and then their spouse turns up dead and she's alleged to have done it, and you're, I guess, recounting this conversation to investigators, I can see where you might be like, oh, shit, she actually said that. And you might just kind of momentarily question your memory and might leave it out. That's sort of my takeaway from what she said about her initial reluctance to come forward with that.

Dave Aronberg (25:33)

Yeah, well, the defense, Lord Nestor, did ask about this witness's conversations and who else she told about this statement that Corey allegedly made. And that would be a really good. Gotcha. I haven't told anyone else. It's the first time I've Talked about it. Nope. But that's not what she said. She said she did tell her partner, her friend Katie, the private investigator. So there were multiple people that she told. So that lends credibility that perhaps this is real, this happened. And then the prosecutor did get up and I thought did a good job asking, well, were you guys drinking? Because that's another thing you could say, well, you know, they were drinking, they didn't know what they were saying. And Lloyd, the witness said that she had one drink and so they were not really drinking a lot. And they said, were you guys joking? Was this a joke? And Lloyd said she did not believe that Corey Richards was joking. So in the end, overall, good witness, not great, but good enough for the prosecution.

Phil Holloway (26:38)

You know, sometimes it's better to stop asking questions and to let the witness get down, particularly when they're, when they're giving evidence that's really, you know, sort of aimed at your client and can actually send them to prison for life. So maybe it's not a good idea to ask a lot of follow up sometimes, particularly if you don't ask leading questions. But this whole thing about the other people that are involved in this case, particularly you got the sister who obviously is really pissed off about it, very hurt. She's a, she was a very aggressive witness, you know, for the prosecutor. But there's this whole thing about the sister and Eric's family also hiring a private investigator. This is a theme that we've seen from the beginning. And the defense, I would imagine they might bring, come back to this in their case and maybe certainly in their closing to try to make the point to the jury that the victim's family is really pushing this, really sort of driving this prosecution train. And they are people that have an ax to grind. They have an emotional investment in it which prosecutors are not supposed to have, but the family obviously does. So I expect we'll see more about that, Dave, as this case goes forward.

Dave Aronberg (27:50)

Yeah, this family has been victimized already and they're going to be taken through the ringer again by the defense because that's what they do. They're going to try to put the family and the victim on trial. I don't think it's going to work, but yeah, we'll keep following and hearing MK True Crime. Phil. Next, Maureen Callahan, journalist and host of the fellow MK Media show the Nerve with Maureen Callahan. She's going to join us, so stay tuned.

Phil Holloway (28:19)

You know what they say, early bird gets the ultimate vacation home. Book early and save over $120 with VRBO because early gets you closer to the action, whether it's waves lapping at the shore or snoozing in a hammock that overlooks. Well, whatever you want it to so you can all enjoy the payoff come summer with VRBO's early booking deals. Rise and shine. Average savings $141 select homes only.

Mochi Health Announcer (28:49)

Take the exit. Turn right into the drive thru.

Dave Aronberg (28:52)

Nope, I'm making dinner tonight. You don't have time.

Mochi Health Announcer (28:54)

Josh has practice.

Phil Holloway (28:56)

Oh, that's right.

Dave Aronberg (28:56)

I'll just get a salad and fries. No, just the salad.

Mochi Health Announcer (29:00)

But salad cancels.

Phil Holloway (29:01)

Fries.

Dave Aronberg (29:01)

Salad only. Fries. Salad, fries.

Mochi Health Announcer (29:04)

Food noise isn't fair, but Mochi Health is the affordable GLP one source that puts you on the road to successful weight loss.

Dave Aronberg (29:11)

Hey, can I get the fries?

Phil Holloway (29:12)

Salad?

Dave Aronberg (29:13)

Sorry.

Mochi Health Announcer (29:13)

Learn more@joinmochi.com Mochi members have access to licensed physicians and nutritionists. Results may vary.

Dave Aronberg (29:19)

Waking up, sneezing and congested every morning isn't just frustrating. Trust me, I know about that personally. It may be a sign that the air inside your home isn't as clean as it should be. Even with regular cleaning, dust, odors and invisible pollutants can linger in the air. That's the air that you breathe every single day. Air Doctor is a powerful air purifier designed to remove those hidden contaminants. Its advanced stage filtration system captures particles about 100 times smaller than what typical air purifiers can remove. And that includes dust and pollen, mold, spores, pet dander. I got a lot of that with my beagle. Wildfire smoke, bacteria, viruses, odors, smoke, ozone and harmful things that you don't want circulating indoors. So Air Doctor runs whisper quiet so it won't disrupt sleep or daily routines. The Auto Mode feature monitors air quality 24,7 to maintain optimal performance. And built in filter change reminders take away the guesswork. It's also backed by strong credibility. 98% of customers say their home air feels cleaner, safer and healthier. Over 93% notice fewer allergy symptoms. Plus Air Doctor One Newsweek Reader's Choice Award for Best Air Purifier. So head to airdoctorpro.com and use promo code True Crime to get up to $300 off. Today. Air Doctor comes with a 30 day money back guarantee plus a three year warranty. An $84 value. That's free, so get this exclusive podcast only offer now@airdoctorpro.com a I r d O C T O r p r o.com using promo code true crime

Phil Holloway (31:17)

welcome back to MK True Crime. I'm Phil Holloway along with my co host today, Dave Ehrenberg. We're very pleased to be joined by Maureen Callahan, journalist and host of the Nerve with Maureen Callahan. Maureen, thanks so much for being here. I know you've been following and talking about this Corey Richards case on your show and just right out of the gate I'm going to do what lawyers on cross examination should not do. And I'm going to ask you an open ended question. And here it is. What are your thoughts about this trial so far before we get into the details?

Maureen Callahan (31:51)

Well, I have to be honest, I haven't been following it with the day to day granularity that you guys probably have, but I am very, very familiar with it. I am struck by her comportment and self presentation in the courtroom, which to me evokes no one so much as Casey Anthony. Now I know Casey got off, but it's not a good thing I think if I'm in that jury box and I'm looking at this woman who is wearing no makeup, is wearing sort of doe eyes like who me? How'd I get on trial for murder? I mean, you know, the black and white jacket, as you guys noted right before we went to air, evokes nothing so much as like a jailhouse rock scenario. And I also wonder, I mean, how they found a jury that has really no familiarity with this case. She was really well known as the quote unquote children's grief author who wrote this book in the aftermath of her husband's untimely death. The husband had complained to a friend that he was pretty sure his wife had tried to poison him after he ate a sandwich that made him so sick he thought he was going to die. And in the aftermath of that, she allegedly went to her supplier slash friend and said, you know what, I think I need a little more fentanyl.

Phil Holloway (33:11)

Yeah, well, you know, there was some testimony today and of course this is March 5th. This show will drop on March 6th. But there was some testimony today about whether or not she might have tried to even poison the boyfriend. Right. By serving him some food products that made him black out for several hours and lose time. The whole thing is crazy. But you mentioned her, her comportment. I love that word because she's sitting in court. And you know, the lawyers I think need to be cautious with this because actually the lawyers have some input. The defendants themselves don't always have the ability to decide what they're going to wear. But putting on and we'll show it Here on the screen. Right. This picture of her with black and white stripes on it. It sort of makes you think about the sort of the old school prisoners in their black and white jumpsuits. Just not a good look. If you're on trial for murder, it's not.

Maureen Callahan (34:10)

And I wonder, Phil, so if you're trying somebody as high profile as this, do you call in like a stylist, a wardrobe expert, someone who can really say like, listen, this is exactly what you want to communicate to a jury. This is what you don't want to communicate to a jury. It also makes me think of binary black and white thinking like you're either completely innocent or you're completely guilty. It's a strange, it's a strange ensemble.

Dave Aronberg (34:41)

I think it makes her look like she's working on the Chang gang. Right. And maybe she will one day.

Maureen Callahan (34:48)

Exactly.

Phil Holloway (34:49)

Dave, in your, where you practiced and where you prosecuted there in Palm beach county, did the defense lawyers there have the ability to sort of decide what defendants are going to wear? Are they kind of, Are they sort of up. Is it up to the jailer or the sheriff, I guess, whoever's holding her, Is it up to them, that person or that agency to sort of decide what kind of clothes they get to wear?

Dave Aronberg (35:10)

The defense lawyers have a big say in it. In fact, I've seen defense lawyers give their own clothes to the defendant who doesn't have the right clothes to wear. So they'll dress them up. In fact, they'll even take makeup on their own to cover up their face tattoos. I mean, so defense lawyers have a lot of sway when it comes to this kind of stuff. Sometimes the inmate would just be like, forget it. Like in the case of the, the, the Devil Killer, the one in southwest Florida, what's his name, who was a double murderer. And he had the worst face tattoos. Eventually it was like, yeah, you know, after like three days of wearing makeup, he just said, forget it. So that sort of undoes everything.

Maureen Callahan (35:49)

Let his natural beauty show.

Dave Aronberg (35:51)

Right, Right. Yeah, I'll come up with a guy's name before the end of the show. But yeah, even though I should never mention his name again. He's a ruthless, disgusting killer.

Phil Holloway (36:01)

Speaking of guys names, Maureen, let's talk about Grossman, Robert Josh Grossman, the boyfriend that we didn't know if they were going to be able to find him because there were reports that he was living out of a van down by the river or something at some point and they weren't sure if they could get him, but they got him and he testified. Did you catch any of that?

Maureen Callahan (36:21)

I did not, but I've been reading about his testimony and God, if this guy doesn't look like a sad sack, you know, just yet another mark for what looks like a true black widow, you know, and how dumb to be eating any food she serves him. Just out of an abundance of caution, maybe, you know.

Phil Holloway (36:45)

So here's how they little backstory here. So he apparently says he's known her for a year, excuse me, a ten years, a decade. They met in South Carolina, she was flipping a house and he answered a help wanted ad. But now Fast forward to 2020 and so forth, and they're in love. And we have sought four, which is Grossman telling us how much he loves Corey. During that time that you were romantically involved with Ms. Richins, did you love her? Yes. During that time, did you feel that she loved you?

Judge (37:28)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I have a tendency of going head over heels, though, probably more than most. So, you know, I think she did.

Phil Holloway (37:44)

Maureen, this is how, according to the text messages presented in court, it looks like he had her saved in the context as K, babe. K babe. And there's text messages, you know, where he's saying how draining it is to love her and that he really just, he says, I don't want to avoid things with people I love, but he says has to avoid things with her. I guess it's because the. Her marriage, I guess, got in the way.

Maureen Callahan (38:14)

Yeah, that will be an obstacle for sure. I find it interesting. He's on the stand and he's being asked, do you think that she loved you? Do you believe that she loved you? And he's squirming and he's looking down and away and it's all qualified. And that is one of those questions where if it is not a full throated yes, the answer is a no, you know, And I think he clearly realizes deep down that he was just a useful idiot for her.

Dave Aronberg (38:42)

Yeah, he is a sad sack and came across as credible because he just was so sappy. And I actually believe through the text messages that she really did want to live with him. She wanted to marry him. She loved him and was going to kill her husband to help to be with him. But really, as Phil said earlier, this wasn't about Grossman. This was about Corey Richards. This is about Corey wanting to help Corey. And Grossman was a useful idiot. But it does make his testimony pretty compelling and in my mind, pretty credible.

Maureen Callahan (39:14)

Dave and Phil, what is the prosecution's theory of not just the case but the motive. Why did she need her husband dead? Was it the money? I mean, I read that she was having real financial problems. He was very suspicious of what she was up to. She wound up taking out, like, a $500,000 life insurance policy on him. Forged his signature, allegedly. Was it really that simple?

Dave Aronberg (39:40)

Yes. Yeah, it's money. Also, she really hated her husband. She hated his family. And this was, to her, the most convenient way to get through it all. And also, she just obviously, well, allegedly is a very sick individual who poisons people pretty easily. I mean, we saw that this wasn't the first time that he was poisoned. The victim, allegedly, there was a previous attempt. And now when we heard about the Hush Puppies that he was eating that Corey Ventures made from talking about Grossman, we're like, wow, this is just something that, you know. She wants you out of her life. She's not going to go break up with you over the phone. She's not going to call the divorce lawyer. She's going to put her notice in a baked good or a Moscow mule.

Maureen Callahan (40:24)

You know what? If I'm a. If I'm a juror on this case, what's also going to sway me is, is the methodology, right? Women prefer things like poisoning when it comes to either homicide or suicide. They tend not to go for firearms or anything really bloody or penetrative. So, you know, the pattern of behavior, it's very compelling.

Phil Holloway (40:46)

You know, I learned that as a criminal justice major, which is my almost useless undergraduate degree, but that's one of the things in studying criminology. Yeah, you're right. And we're not trying to generalize, but it is not unheard of, the idea, it's actually taught that sometimes women will resort to poison. I think in history, if you look back on the cases that have really been big ones over all the history of criminal justice, the poisoning does tend to apply in cases involving female killers. But speaking of the boyfriend, our producer Natasha asked a great question, and I want to run a sot. Maureen, then ask you to answer this question, if you don't mind. And the question is this. Did the defense cross backfire on them, and was this dangerous questioning? Here we have SOT5. We have defense attorney Lewis asking Grossman why he told prosecutors that Corey asked if he had ever killed anyone. Did there come a time during that

Dave Aronberg (41:49)

discussion that Corey Wrist.

Phil Holloway (41:52)

Corey Richards, asked you about killing?

Judge (42:00)

Do you want me to contextualize it?

Phil Holloway (42:02)

Please.

Judge (42:04)

So, yeah, you know, we sat there and talked for quite a while, you know, and I'd never Seen her that way. Obviously, it was a heavy conversation, And I'm not used to that with her. She's not used to being open like that.

Phil Holloway (42:35)

Maureen being open and asking him if he's ever killed anyone. Why would she ask that question?

Maureen Callahan (42:43)

I'm loving this for the prosecution. Loving it. He's so. You know, listen, this guy's not a hero either. Obviously. He was difficult to track down. He's squirming on the stand. He's like, yeah, she asked me if I was ever, you know, if I had ever killed somebody. And, like, I didn't just say, why are you asking me that? Or what are we leading towards? What are you trying to make me comfortable with? You know, like, the guy kind of knew she tried to poison him, too. I. I think I. I agree with you. I think this is. This. If I. Again, if I'm sitting in that jury box, I'm thinking this is a win for the prosecution that cross. At least that part of it.

Phil Holloway (43:19)

So we also have. We also have another bit of his testimony that I want to talk to you about. This is basically Grossman saying, you know, why he. Some people are saying he turned on her, right? But this is why he's cooperating, why he's testifying for the prosecution. We have Sock six, maybe.

Judge (43:37)

I did some research on my phone and saw that she had just been arrested or either she just got arrested, I don't know, days later, a week later.

Phil Holloway (43:47)

Okay.

Judge (43:48)

After I found that out, I was overwhelmed with, you know, guilt, sorrow over my wrongdoings, you know, infidelity. And that's when I called. I was trying to get a hold of Eric's sister to tell her I don't think she was home. I spoke with her husband instead, told him what I told him, and he told me. I forget the guy's name, but he said, I think there's somebody that would like to talk to you. And it was the Richen's family private investigator. He told me that Corey had done it, you know, that she was guilty. He couldn't tell me why, but she. She. And that. That changed everything for me. You know, I was blown away. And then I'm, like, looking at. Looking at every. Everything in our past with a different set of goggles on through different lenses. And I was trying to figure out if she did it and I could help. That's what I was gonna do.

Phil Holloway (45:05)

He has different goggles, Maureen.

Maureen Callahan (45:08)

Yeah. I mean, listen, he's not a wordsmith, but he does. He seems credible, you know, if otherwise he's the world's greatest actor, just how uncomfortable he seems on that stand. The way in which he still is clearly wrestling with a woman he did once love and probably in some ways still does. You know, coming to this very almost unthinkable conclusion that, yeah, she's a killer, she's a killer. The private investigator says to him, she did it. I can't tell you how. Now, most people who have an intimate partner, who would want to think, no way, no way would say, well, unless you tell me how you know, why should I believe you? But this guy says, I took it as absolutely true, which means deep in his heart of hearts, he knew what she was capable of by that point.

Phil Holloway (45:55)

Yeah, Dave, to her, to Maureen's point, do you think he might have known something in his heart of hearts because of the Hush Puppies that our friend Bob Motta was posting about on X? Who's Bob being? Having been obviously a guest on this show before, do you think it's because he maybe thought that he was poisoned by. By Hush Puppies?

Dave Aronberg (46:17)

Yeah, I think that's part of the reason why he can't even say that she loved him. I think that if you would have asked that question pre attempted poisoning, then he would have given you a different answer. But he feels like he was used. And maybe part of him wants to believe that there was something to her statement, said she wasn't totally using him, but, you know, he's over her and that's a good witness for the prosecution to have.

Phil Holloway (46:44)

So for those of our audience who are listening on podcast or on Sirius XM and you can't see this image of this text message. I just want to read it for a second before we get into Nancy Guthrie with Maureen. And this is a text message from Josh to Kay Babe. And what it says is this. Hey, cutie. Yeah, everything is good. My body disagreed with my mind. Yesterday before I went to work, I sat down to eat that hush puppy thing and that's all I recall until about 11pm Sounds like the fire department experience was not a disappointment with a couple of exclamation marks. Call me if you get a chance today. Hope your talk with Matt went good. And so that's all we know, Maureen, about this hush puppy business and do we know.

Maureen Callahan (47:30)

I see there's part of that message that's redacted. But how long after her husband's death, was it before or after that she allegedly attempted to poison him with the Hush Puppies?

Phil Holloway (47:42)

Well, Defense diaries, who, which is our friend Bob answers that he says I'm still trying to figure out how no one asked any follow up questions regarding this message which was sent to Corey Richards on 3222 from Robert Grossman. It seems evident that Corey, Corey has knowledge about what he's talking about in regards to, quote, that hush puppy thing which caused him to blackout or lose time until 11pm this is the day before Eric drinks the Moscow Mule.

Defense Attorney Katherine Nestor (48:11)

Yes.

Maureen Callahan (48:12)

Yes. So the three or four year anniversary of Eric's death was yesterday, March 4th.

Phil Holloway (48:19)

Yeah.

Maureen Callahan (48:20)

And she attempted allegedly to poison the boyfriend a day or two before that.

Phil Holloway (48:25)

That's the implication.

Maureen Callahan (48:27)

If this is true, this woman is a psychopathic. What is the. I should know this because I wrote a book about a serial killer. But what is the official designation of a serial killer? Is it two or more?

Phil Holloway (48:39)

Dave, you know the answer to that. I think it might be a bit.

Dave Aronberg (48:41)

Well, I've always thought it was two or more.

Maureen Callahan (48:42)

Yeah. So she would be a serial, an attempted serial. At least she, if that's true, she's a true danger to society. They should lock her up and throw away the key. Again, if true.

Phil Holloway (48:53)

Speaking of serial killers, I want to move to Nancy Guthrie. And I've always kind of wondered, deep down, is, is Nancy Guthrie a victim of a serial killer? Because the sheriff tells us, Maureen, that he's, he's getting definitely closer.

Maureen Callahan (49:09)

Your thoughts, Sheriff Nanos?

Phil Holloway (49:12)

Yeah, he says, he says that he insists that investigators are quote, definitely closer to nabbing a suspect.

Maureen Callahan (49:18)

I believe everything Barney Fife says. He never contradicts himself. He never says things that he should be keeping close to his vest. You know, initially, in the immediate aftermath of her disappearance, it was most definitely a homicide. And then like two weeks later, he said he definitely believed she was alive. I mean, I just, I really wish that the Guthrie family had been able to just fully expunge him from this case and hand it over to the FBI and leave it with them. It would be extremely rare if this were the work of a serial killer. I did think about Israel Keys, who I wrote about extensively in American Predator, because he did a crime like this where he took two elderly people from their beds in the dead of night. And this case, that case was cold for years until he confessed to it. But I think it's so rare, Phil and Dave, because the effort involved in moving a very sickly 84 year old woman from place to place, alive or dead, is so dangerous, it exposes you to being caught at any given time. I'm sort of of the belief that it's the statistical likelihood that it Was somebody very close to her or who was known to her, who did it?

Phil Holloway (50:33)

Well, most, most murders are, Dave. I mean, you know, that's. We, we all the. Sometimes it's not as complicated as sometimes people's imaginations can make it out to be.

Dave Aronberg (50:44)

Yeah. You know, I think it's been so frustrating for all of us that with all of our technology that we still aren't that close to making an arrest. I know that there's some information about the DNA and the gloves, but with our technology, you would think it would have happened sooner. And that's where the CEO of Ring comes in, because he generated controversy because he was saying if there were cameras everywhere, if they had more video, we would have perhaps caught the guy by now. And yet all these folks on Reddit who jumped down his throat saying, oh, really, if only we had universal mass surveillance. But what do you expect the Ring CEO to say? He's the CEO of a company that provides surveillance. And so, yeah, that's like, duh, like if Coca Cola said anyone, if everyone just had a Coke and a smile, we'd be a better world. Yes. That's what you're supposed to do. You're the CEO of that company. You're living your gimmick. So I actually think, and by the way, he's right, you would have to give up a lot of privacy. But if there were cameras everywhere, we would catch criminals. But we decided not to go that far. It's a trade off in our world.

Maureen Callahan (51:51)

Well, you know, to your point about how with all of this technology, they're still this far away, it seems, from apprehending a suspect. The thing that's interesting and unique about the topography there, and it's pitch black at night. I understand. Phil, you can speak to this better than I. You were there for a week. There are no streetlights in Nancy's neighborhood. It is under the COVID of darkness. But most Americans do live In a post 9 11, the equivalent of a surveillance state. Many criminals are apprehended based on facial recognition. That that is something that we all got very comfortable with after 9 11. So I think it's the. That's why I think that this had to be somebody known to Nancy because only somebody of that area would know that stuff, would know. Well, even if the nearest neighbor, who's maybe an acre away has security cams, they're not really going to pick me up in the dead of night. Nobody's really got enough illumination in the dead of night. And also that some of those ransom notes were sent to local television stations, not national ones. Again, you have to think, well, who knows what the local affiliates are. Only a local.

Phil Holloway (53:08)

You know, that's right. And by the way, you talk about the darkness. It is pitch black out there at night. There's, there's. There's ordinances and laws that deal with light pollution. Right. That are aimed at. At keeping it dark out there. And of course, this is the downside to such a law or regulation is that it may make crimes more difficult to solve. But today's point, I, you know, I get where the CEO of Ring is wanting people to buy more surveillance video equipment. I get that. But I also understand that we can't. I guess we can't make that final leap because we have so much surveillance already that, you know, it just seems to like to come across as a little bit unseemly for him to be saying that we need to go into a such a dramatic surveillance type state. But before we move on from Nancy Guthrie, while we've got you here, did you notice that Savannah Guthrie has made an appearance back at the Today show now? We have video of her, by the way, that we can play while we talk about it, which is Savannah back at the Today show. Did you hear about that?

Maureen Callahan (54:19)

Yes, actually, we are talking about it on today's episode of the Nerve. We've been covering a lot of the goings on at Studio 1A, and this I think. So she showed up back at the studio on Thursday morning. She did not return to air, but she went to the studio. She was in hair and makeup, which I think is a healthy sign. I think she is beginning to make it known that she's sort of setting her own pace. But she will probably be coming back to her chair, which I think everybody in America would be very, very happy to see. Life must go on. It seems to me also an indication that Savannah has been told by law enforcement we are, we are not close to making an arrest. You know, you can stay here if you like, but it's not going to do any good. She's got young kids. She's got to return to life as best she can. And I think this is a very interesting development because what it's going to also kick up just in terms of, like, what's the power plays over at Studio 1A. You know, they're all wearing their yellow ribbons for Nancy, and they're all expressing their, like, very gooey emotion about it. But really, you know, they've been jockeying for Hoda's chair. There were we talked about this on the Nerve and I talked about it in a column for the Daily Mail. We had reporting from inside 30 Rock that the minute Savannah got on a plane that Sunday, that it was reported her mother had gone missing. Her colleagues were taking closed door meetings saying, you know what, it's really unprofessional that Savannah's left and that we don't know when she's coming back. You should hire me and put me in that chair. It's another crime scene over at the Today show.

Dave Aronberg (56:11)

You know that that's sad because obviously for so many reasons, but also that publicly everyone has been so supportive of her and to think that behind the scenes they're jockeying for her seat is just really unseemly, I feel.

Maureen Callahan (56:24)

Oh, Dave, if you think that's bad, the Dateline producers were going to the higher up saying how, how soon is too soon? Can we get a crew out there now? A dateline on Nancy and Savannah Guthrie. That would be historic numbers.

Phil Holloway (56:38)

That's crazy. Yeah, it's too soon. I'm going to go on record that it is too soon. And look this, by the way, this is why Maureen's such a great journalist, because she's got, she's so well plugged into all this. It's, it's too soon. But I do think that Savannah going back to New York is a good thing. And I think that Savannah being back in New York tells us a lot. The sheriff isn't telling us anything. He's not telling us anything except the glove that they got some DNA results back. It had nothing to do with the case that apparently was a restaurant worker somewhere nearby. And it's unrelated to the case. But he's not really telling us anything else. He's telling us that he, he might be close to moving the case forward, but we don't know anything. Meanwhile, Savannah is going back to New York. They tell the victims families in these cases things they don't tell the public. So putting two and two together, I can do the math. I think that she knows that the case might be sadly on the verge of growing cold. But look, we have to leave it there with Maureen. We want to say thank you very much for joining us and taking the time to be with us. I know it's not your first time on this show. First time with me. And I've been on your show and we just, we love talking with you. Tell our audience here at MK True Crime where they can find you. Maureen.

Maureen Callahan (57:50)

Oh, thank you, Phil and I feel the same way. Thank you and Dave so much for having me. I love your show. I love MK True Crime. I can be found over at the Nerve with Maureen callahan on our YouTube channel or all podcast platforms. And you can find me columning over at the Daily Mail.

Phil Holloway (58:11)

All right, we'll leave it right there with Maureen. Thank you very much for being here with us. Next, we have our closing arguments and your questions from the Mailbag. Stay tuned.

Defense Attorney Katherine Nestor (58:23)

A Mochi Moment from Mark, who writes I just want to thank you for making GLP1s affordable. What would have been over $1,000 a

Maureen Callahan (58:32)

month is just $99 a month with mochi. Money shouldn't be a barrier to healthy weight. Three months in and I have smaller jeans and a bigger wallet. You're the best. Thanks, Mark. I'm Mayra Amit, founder of Mochi Health. To find your mochi moment, visit joinmochi.com

Mochi Health Announcer (58:49)

Mochi members have access to licensed physicians and nutritionists and are compensated for their stories.

National Debt Relief Announcer (58:54)

Results may vary Confronting high credit card debt can feel scary. But the good news is if you owe $10,000 or more in credit card debt, financial relief options are now available. National Debt Relief is currently offering debt relief designed to reduce what you owe, fast tracking your way to being debt free. If you qualify for debt relief, you may be able to pay back significantly less than what you owe and save thousands of dollars. Imagine only paying one low monthly program payment you can afford and saving money as you become debt free. National Debt Relief has already helped bring debt relief to over 550,000 US consumers, earning thousands of five star reviews and an A rating with the Better Business Bureau. You're stronger than your credit card debt. Take the first step and visit nationaldebtrelief.com to see what debt relief you may qualify for. That's national debt relief.com if you're looking

Phil Holloway (59:46)

to make smarter choices for your health this year, Riverbend Ranch is a great place to start. Riverbend Ranch steaks are not only delicious, they also contain real high quality protein that helps fuel your body. Beef is a complete protein and it contains all nine essential amino acids your body needs to function. It also helps you feel fuller for longer, reducing cravings and snacking. It's one of the most nutrient dense foods you can eat, packed with protein, iron, zinc and B vitamins that help your body support energy, strength and overall health. But here's the key. Not all beef is created equal. The quality of beef depends entirely on how it is raised and where it comes from. That's where Riverbend Ranch stands apart. For more than 35 years, Riverbend Ranch has been building an elite Black Angus herd, carefully selecting cattle for exceptional flavor and tenderness. They use Only the top 1 to 2% of the entire population for breeding, which is why their beef tastes noticeably better than average Black Angus beef. All Riverbend Ranch cattle are born and raised right here in the usa. They never use growth hormones or antibiotics and the beef is processed right at the ranch in their award winning USD inspected facility. Each steak is aged 21 days to enhance flavor and tenderness. It's a difference you will notice with your very first succulent bite. No shortcuts, no middlemen, just incredible, healthy and flavorable beef shipped directly to your home. Order today@riverbendranch.com and use promo code Megan for $20 off your first order.

Dave Aronberg (61:32)

Welcome back to MK True Crime. We'll get to our closing argument, but first we have a question from Kelly. Let me start by saying that this has become my absolute favorite podcast. Thank you Kelly. I love the perspective of both prosecutors and defense attorneys on current and past true crime cases. It's a brilliant and unique format that is truly enthralling. Thank you so much for your support, Kelly. My two part question for the group pertains to the Corey Richards case. Does Utah have the Son of Sam law and if so, could it be applied here? Let me take the first crack at it before I turn over to Phil. Utah does have a Son of Sam law. In fact, the Supreme Court had overturned a lot of them because they were too broad, including New York's. So states like Utah have to limit theirs and now it's done through first notification. So an entity like a publisher that enters into a contract with someone like Corey Richards, someone who would be convicted of a notorious crime, must notify the Crime Victim Reparations office and then the profits from any deal would then go into escrow and then the funds are held to see if the victims or their families would file a civil lawsuit and win a civil lawsuit against a perpetrator and that money would be sent to the victim's families. That way it is constitutional. It's not a prohibition on your First Amendment right to speak out. It just means that you won't be able to profit from it. So it would apply here. Phil, your thoughts?

Phil Holloway (63:02)

Well, look, you did a great job with that. I don't have a whole lot to add other than to say thank you Kelly, by the way, for that nice compliment that was embedded in her question. Thanks to all of you. By the way, who Write in. We love hearing from our listeners. The questions are always so thoughtful. Son of Sam laws make perfectly good sense to me. I agree that people should not be allowed to profit off of these things. There's always going to be ways that they try to get around them. I mean, they're going to have family members, friends, people like that, that try to do things sort of as a surrogate. But I think that we need to do everything we can to try to stop people from profiting once they've been convicted of a crime like that. But yeah, absolutely.

Dave Aronberg (63:46)

Yeah. Well, Phil, it's time for our favorite segment, Closing Arguments. Now, I want to let you take the first crack. So just. This is probably the highest rated part of our show, Phil, and so there's a lot of pressure riding on you. So let's see what you got.

Phil Holloway (64:04)

Well, today, Dave, I decided to treat it like pretend it really was a closing argument. Okay, so. And we developed a lot of themes that we've been talking about, particularly with respect to the Richens trial. And we've learned a lot about trial advocacy. Some things that work and some things that don't work. So here we go. Here's the closing. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, imagine you're in a courtroom. It's a battlefield where every word is used as a weapon. As a lawyer cross examining a witness, we can wield leading questions like a precision guided munition, if it is done correctly. Now, why is this important? Well, the answer to me is simple. It is about control. A leading question is one that suggests the answer within it. For example, isn't it true that you saw the defendant leave at 10pm asking the question that way? It reigns in the witness. It controls them. It prevents them from rambling or spinning tales that could muddy the waters. It also keeps the narrative tight. It keeps the narrative focused on facts that bolster our presentation and our case and the themes that we're trying to develop. It exposes inconsistencies without giving the witness free reign to elaborate or to evade, some of which we've seen already in the Richens case. Leading questions aren't just allowed on cross examination, though, they're essential. It's the right way to do things. It's how we're taught and how we're trained. And it's because they can be used to dismantle the opposition story brick by brick. But there's one golden rule that absolutely, in my opinion, must always be followed or you risk losing your case, blowing it. And you should never, ever ask a question that you don't already know the answer to. Very important. Why is that? It's because surprises are a lawyer's worst nightmare. An unexpected response. And another thing we've seen in this Richens case, unexpected responses could unleash very damaging information and in turn torpedo your strategy or hand the other side a verdict wrapped in a bow. So by knowing the answer in advance through discovery, through the discovery process, through depositions, reading police reports, doing your homework, talking to witnesses, you maintain the upper hand. You turn a cross examination into a scripted demolition rather than a risky gamble. In the end, it's about precision, not improvisation. Master these and you command the courtroom, Dave.

Dave Aronberg (66:45)

Well said, Phil. That was a good primer for those of us who took evidence and trial advocacy workshop in law school. That was good stuff. So for my closing statement, I want to talk about something different. So a lot of us thought about those Ray Ban Meta glasses. Remember those things? Like they were really supposed to be cool. It's cool tech. But it turns out that the intelligence in these glasses is really just a bunch of traumatized contractors in a dark room. Yes, most users are blissfully unaware that Meta is shipping their private glasses off to data annotators whose entire job is to label your life to train AI. Yes, the footage from the glasses goes to some workers who probably are not thrilled that they've got to watch certain things about you that you didn't think anyone else would see. Like this is the ultimate read the terms and conditions horror story. It's about like that south park episode where Stan clicks agree and ends up as part of a human experiment that forever changed the way I think about vanilla paste and cuttlefish. I'll let you watch the episode for yourself. Honestly, at least Stan had the dignity of a medical procedure. Now we're just giving Mark Zuckerberg a front row seat to our bathroom breaks. If you think your job is bad, how would you like to be the person forced to watch a first person three hour POV marathon of someone at a gas station trying to pass a kidney stone. Somehow Zuckerberg took the excitement out of surveillance. It used to be spy versus Spy. Shadowy government with vans and high stakes espionage. Now it's just an underpaid intern watching you eat a breakfast burritos that you didn't microwave enough so it's still cold on the inside. It's not Big Brother anymore. It's just you're really disappointed, younger brother. And since we're all true crime fans, those high tech glasses can be wearable subpoenas with A WI fi connection. So take the glasses off, people. Stop being the involuntary star of a data entry snuff film. Your family, your lawyer, and the poor soul on the other end of that feed will thank you for it. And that's my closing statement, Phil. I promise you a name of that ruthless killer in southwest Florida. And remember, this is the guy who. There's a video, a show about him called Handsome Devil. The guy's name is Wade Wilson. And there's. It's currently airing. And it's. It's brutal. And by the way, I'm in it. Yes, I. Because it's a Florida case. Because everything relates to Florida.

Phil Holloway (69:31)

They.

Dave Aronberg (69:31)

They quoted me. The Florida lawman, so.

Phil Holloway (69:33)

The Florida lawman. 100%.

Dave Aronberg (69:35)

Yes. Yes. So, Phil, thank you. I really always enjoy doing this with you. And thank you to all of our audience who's out there watching us, and to our guest, Maureen Callahan. We appreciate you joining us here at MK True Crime. Have a great weekend

VRBO Care Announcer (69:54)

with Verbocare. Help is always ready before, during, and after your stay. We've planned for the plot twists, so support is always available because a great trip starts with peace of mind.

Dave Aronberg (70:08)

If you've never tried mochi ice cream, it's time to tempt your taste buds with Mymochi. My mochi ice cream is rich premium ice cream wrapped in sweet, soft dough with delicious flavors like strawberry and mango. It's creamy on the inside and chewy on the outside, like an ice cream dumpling. Don't miss out on the joyfully chill sensation of my mochi ice cream. Grab a purple box of my mochi today and taste the amazing flavor yourself.