Kouri Richins Husband Murder Trial BEGINS, Forensic Poisoning Facts, and Nick Reiner Pleads Not Guilty, with Joseph Scott Morgan

Welcome to MK True Crime. I'm Dave Arenberg. I'm the former state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, and current managing partner of Dave Arenberg Law. Here's what's on the MK True Crime docket today. After four years, the murder trial of Corey Richens is finally underway this week. We're covering every second of the trial here on MK True Crime. It's on our YouTube channel. check it out. We'll bring you the highlights. Nick Reiner has officially entered a not guilty plea in the murder of his parents, Rob and Michelle Reiner. And as of this taping on Tuesday, February 24th, Nancy Guthrie, 84-year-old mother of Today Show host Savannah Guthrie, is still missing. Savannah Guthrie announced a $1 million award for Nancy's recovery. We'll bring you the details. And later, we'll be joined by death investigator Joseph Scott Morgan, host of the Body Bags podcast. That's quite a morbid name. He'll share his unique knowledge of poisoning deaths and his thoughts on the Richens case. You won't want to miss that. I'm joined today by co-host Jonna Spilber, criminal defense attorney and founding attorney of Jonna Spilber Law. I'm so glad to have Jonna here because Jonna is a real New Yorker. You know, I'm usually joined by the Georgia team, Phil and Ashley. So it's good to get some straight talk from Jonna. You know, you, Mark Iglars and Arthur I. Dollar are hard at work on their own on your own show debuting soon. It's why we haven't seen a lot of you. So, Jonna, we can't wait for your new show. And we want to talk to you first about the Corey Richens murder case, because that's officially underway. Just a reminder, Corey Richens is charged with aggravated murder, attempted criminal homicide, and financial crimes in the death of her husband, Eric Richens, who died from a lethal dose of fentanyl. And this happened in 2022, and it's only going to trial finally now. Prosecutors say that Corey added the drug to a Moscow mule that she gave Eric to drink. Corey has pleaded not guilty to all charges. Jonna, let's take a look at the major players in this case. Well, first, Dave, let me say I love being here with you. It feels like it's been a minute. As you correctly told our audience, I am working on another podcast with Arthur and Mark. But this feels like the band is back together. So I'm very happy to be here with you. And yeah, let's take a look at this case because this is a case where do we have reasonable doubt? or is this wife slash mother slash author guilty as she appears to me? We're going to dig into that and find out. Do you want to talk about, you want to set the scene and tell everybody what her case is about? Let's talk about this case about because I've been following this from the beginning. Here's this Utah mom and she had this idyllic marriage, supposedly with her kids. And then her husband just ends up dead one morning. And she has such grief that she writes a book about it, about grief. And she goes on TV to promote the book. The book has been on Amazon. And it would be very sad, just heartfelt tale, except it looks like it was all contrived. It looks like she was the one who murdered her husband. She had previously attempted it. At least she's being charged with attempted murder. And then she accomplished her goal weeks later. She had a boyfriend the whole time. She was dreaming of being with him. She couldn't wait to get out of her situation. And the whole thing is just collapsing like a house of cards. So reasonable doubt? I think there's no doubt in my mind that she is guilty. They've got the right person. Can she do crocodile tears there in the courtroom or just maybe find one juror who will just feel sympathy for this sweet woman who just is very different when the cameras are not on her? I don't know. But, Jonna, I think let's I'd love to first start with the video that we had the site of Corey Richens first with the police officer who came to her home where she first reports what happened to her husband. She said that she had called 911 right away. By the way, she didn't call 911 right away. But let's show that site. It's not one. What's your first name? Yeah, let's let me. Let them do their work. working there. So what happened today? He was just fine. We were fine. When you say we were fine, what time did you see him when he was alert? We had a drink together at 9 to celebrate something at work tomorrow. Okay. We went to bed. I went to bed He went to bed with my kids. He went to bed in our bed. What time did you guys go to bed? 9.30. 9.30? 9.45. And then what allured you to him today, right now? I just woke up. When I sleep with my kids, I was wake up and I go back in my own bed. I just crawled over on his side. And he was laying in bed? Does he have any medical conditions or anything like that? He has Lyme's disease. Lyme's disease? I mean, but, I mean, nothing major, like. Okay. So no heart problems or anything like that? No, I mean, he just said his chest was hurting when he went to bed, but that's, I mean, not, I mean, does he drink enough water? A crocodile tears, John? Oh, you know what? I don't know how quickly the jury got to see that or will see that. But if she's not lying. Okay, Dave. Now, fortunately, we have not experienced what it's like to roll over and have a dead body in our bed, right? It's safe to assume that's never happened to you. Well, the dead body was in another room, right? She went upstairs to go to bed and then woke up and then came down and he was dead. What happened? Right, but in a bed. Now, you would be so, I'm going to assume, you would be so shocked and so distraught that your husband, the father of your children, you're all happy to celebrate is, you know, cold, right? Stone cold, dead in your bed. And the first thing you say to the cops when they come investigate is, well, we had a drink together to celebrate. No, you're going to be wailing. Like, you can't believe, like, oh, my God, what on earth could have caused my husband's death? Heart attack, stroke, ambulance, what? Well, we had a drink together to celebrate. Bullshit already. I wonder if the prosecution's going to call some sort of, like, body image expert, you know, just somebody who can tell that she's lying just from her posture. Or is it me? Is it me? Am I crazy? I thought she was lying from the beginning. You know, by the way, that before she went to bed that night, on the night of her husband's poisoning death, she texted her boyfriend, yes, her lover, I love you. So, yeah, and then a few hours later, oh, damsel in distress. You know what I noticed, Jonna? Was that she was in those pajamas, which were, like, covered from head to toe, looking very, you know, innocent. And her hair seemed to be really nice. And it just seemed like she was ready for her close-up. Like she was ready for the body cameras. And I wasn't the only one who thought that because the victim's sister noticed it as well. Let's play SOT 7. She was there when you arrived. Sorry, guys. This was the worst in my life. I'm sorry. I don't know. When I got there, there was a bunch of emergency personnel, police officers, and Cory and her mom, Lisa, were there. And I saw Cory standing on the other side of the staircase. She just shook her head at me. Sorry, guys. Bear with me. I apologize. And I knew right that my brother was gone. And I fell to the floor. she stayed over there I observed that she was she was not how she normally was when we would go on overnights she was very well put together she had a matching pajama-esque outfit on her hair was all done up she wasn't crying like I was she wasn't hysterical just stood there and shook her head no at me that's important it is that is you know think about it dave this woman his sister is testifying four years after this man's death and she's got more emotion four years later on the stand in front of a room full of strangers than cory richens had the night her husband dropped dead in front of the cops. And yeah, you know, is she wearing matchy, matchy pajamas? If she didn't always wear matchy, matchy pajamas, that is a signal. Whether she was, you know, having a little, whatever, FaceTime with her boyfriend, you know, after she offed her husband or whether she knew the cops were going to have body cam. You should see, you know what I wear to, you would be, I'm ashamed to even admit, I got sweatpants that don't match. I got, you know, parts of me hanging out that shouldn't be hanging out. I wouldn't have changed my clothes if something happened to, you know, my boyfriend or husband and I had to call the police, I'd still be doing chest compressions when they got there. Let's put it that way. You know, it's a great point. And I'm sure the prosecutors will hammer on it, but they've got a lot of evidence. I mean, they've got Corey's text to her boyfriend before the murder saying that she just wishes she could just snuggle and watch murder docs. And she just wants Eric to go away. And, you know, we got these text messages, despite the fact, I know this is going to shock you, Jonna, that Corey Richens tried deleting all of them as innocent widows do, right? You can delete all the text messages around the time of your husband's death, right? Yeah, yeah. It takes up too much space. So you have to delete the texts that are like a few days before and a few days after. When are people going to realize, this is a little sidebar, but when are criminals going to realize that you can never erase your digital footprint. You can't erase your Googles. No matter how much you try to scrub that stuff, it always ends up coming back in the digital footprint. And jurors look at that as evidence of guilt. When you try to cover up a crime, that is evidence of guilt. So the jury is going to have a lot to play with in this case. Trust me. Oh, yeah. She even had a meme on her phone the morning of March 4th of President Trump saying, I'm really rich. Well, I guess people grieve in their own ways, right? I guess. And this was the motivation here was not just she wanted to be with her boyfriend. The motivation was that she wanted money. She was in financial difficulties. She was flipping houses and she needed to spend millions of dollars to rehab this mansion. And she had no money left to her name, but there was a life insurance policy that she was not entitled to. And then that's why she's being charged with financial fraud because afterwards she tried to get access to it. But also, you know, I think it's good to see what the prosecutor, who I did think did a good job. I mean, he was speaking without notes and I thought that he was real smooth and gave some really powerful evidence in the opening statement. I think we should play the SOT. SOT 3, let's check out some of the stuff he said. It's pretty damning stuff. Three weeks before Eric's death, 15 days before Eric's death, one day before the charge attempted murder, Corey Richens text messaged Josh Grossman, if I was divorced right now and asked you to marry me tomorrow, you would? I just want to lay on the couch and cover you. Watch a murder documentary and snuggle. Five days after the charged attempted murder and 11 days before the charged murder, Corey Richens text messaged Josh Grossman, babe, I miss you. I want you today, every day. Not just sexually, but physically, mentally, every day when I wake up. I do want a future together. I do want you to figure life out together. If he could just go away, and you could just be here, life would be so perfect. I love you. I don't know what my deal is today. I'm sorry. I mean, this is powerful stuff. Plus, there's also evidence about her searches. That's another thing criminals don't understand. There are searches on Google, like how long does it take for messages to disappear, stuff like that. She was asking about prison and about poisoning. Poisoning, okay. Why are you asking about that? So there's a lot of stuff out there. I don't see a path forward for her as a defendant unless there's some jury nullification because someone on the jury thinks that they've got a shot with her. maybe in the afterlife. I don't know. Well, hang on a second, because this case, a lot of what the prosecution is going to present is means, motive and opportunity. Right. And we know that motive is never really an element of any crime. But jurors love that, too, because they want to know the why. Don't we all want to know the why? We want to know when something happens. We want to know the why they're going to have plenty of this motive evidence, even though technically isn't a part of any crime. But let's look at the other side for a second, because she's got a great defense attorney, right? I believe it's the same defense attorney who's defending Tyler Robinson. It is the guy who allegedly killed Charlie Kirk. Yeah, right. So she's, you know, she's no stranger to the courtroom. And it appears that this defense attorney's angle is going to be, look, we have a death. We know how this death happened. It was by poisoning. But what we don't know is how that poison, that fentanyl, that drug got into the decedent's body. And that's the lane that is going to give this attorney and Corey Richens this reasonable doubt, like a strict, reasonable doubt defense. And one of the things that attorney Nestor brought up in her opening statement, I believe, is the 911 call, which is SOT 4. Can't see anything without my glasses. It's SOT 4. SOT 4. Why don't we play that? 911 address of the emergency. My address is not breathing. It's cold. Okay, what's the address? 282 Willow Court. 282 Willow Court? Uh-huh. Okay, what's the good phone number in case we get disconnected? 435-671-4987. Okay, is this going to be in Francis? I don't know. Okay, tell me exactly what happened. I don't know. I was sleeping with my kids. Okay, I can understand you. I need you to take a deep breath. What's going on? I don't know. I was sleeping in with my kids. I just came in the bed, in our bed, and I turned over and he just cold He just cold Who cold My husband I took the light off And he not breathing No. He's not breathing? No. I need you to confirm it for me. Is he not breathing? No. Okay, we're gonna... Can you do CPR? No. I don't know. I don't know. you don't know i'm gonna tell you how to are you willing to do cpr yeah okay those were the sounds of a wife becoming a widow oh okay so first off they're trying to victimize the victim twice first by killing him and secondly by resmirching his name, I'm labeling him as a drug addict. Like he was taking fentanyl on his own. And that could play perhaps because there are only two people there that night adults and one of them is dead. But on the other hand, there's no evidence that the victim was ever a drug user. There's no evidence inside the home that there were drugs there. And also there is plenty of evidence that Corey Richens reached out to her housekeeper who had some issues with drugs and criminal past to get fentanyl. There's evidence she asked her for fentanyl. In fact, when the first attempted poisoning, alleged, didn't work because he ate a sandwich that made him sick and he wanted to go to the hospital. And she was like, yeah, no, you don't have to go to the hospital. Just lay down. He survives it. And then she goes back to the housekeeper slash drug dealer and says, I need something stronger. So except for that, maybe you can say maybe he wanted to have Spendel in his Moscow mule. But my gosh. No. See, and that's it. You know, Corey has some friends in low places. So what we're talking about here is circumstantial evidence, right? We've got a piece here. We've got a piece here. We've got a piece here. The jury's going to have to put them all together. But getting back to what her seasoned defense attorney is going to say, she's basically saying, look, the very same evidence that the prosecution is going to present to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is evidence that I am going to present to you in a different way. So I'm not giving you new evidence, not really giving you different evidence, but I'm going to give you a different way to look at the evidence. And this attorney had kind of a unique way to demonstrate her intention to this jury. And that is contained in Sot 5. Let's take a little look-see at that. So look at this picture of a young woman in a fur coat. See it? Now look again. Do you see a witch? Nose. Mouth. There's going to be times in this case where the state is going to discuss facts with certain witnesses. And they're going to show you the witch. and I'm going to take those same facts and those same witnesses and I'm going to show you a widow. At the end of the trial, if you can still see both faces, that's reasonable doubt. The judge has instructed you that the burden of proof in this case lies with this table. Katie, can you put up slide 13? Can you make it a little bigger, please? the law presumes the defendant is not guilty of the crime charge she's innocent right now and you have to accept that to do your job the presumption persists unless the prosecution's evidence convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty that's true that's true evidence but it's it's true yeah the burdens on the prosecution normally see that kind of discourse in the closing argument not so much in your opening statement right your opening statement you're talking more about facts that's so telling because they don't have a lot of facts on their side so if you don't have a lot of that right they're leaning into the reasonable doubt i couldn't i squinted in that meme i really i couldn't see a person or a witch Did I, I never told you this story, but one time I did, I had a colleague who did something similar in her, I don't know if it was opening or closing, but it doesn't really matter because I thought it was stupid either way. And what she did was, I guess there is nail polish that women can put on that when it's one temperature, it's one color. And if you make it cold, it'll change color. And so I watched. She was given an opening, closing, doesn't matter. She was trying to explain to the jury that things are not always like they seem. So she was arguing, you know, moving her hands in front of the jury. Let's say it's red nail polish. And then she stuffed her hands in her pocket where she had ice. And then she pulled her hands out and she's like, ta-da, like I no longer have red nail polish. I have black nail polish or whatever it was. it fell flat with the jury. And I think these types of demonstrative, kind of tricky sort of things don't usually fly with the jury. This meme, not flying with me. Yeah, I bet they don't have much else. But I'm with you, Jonna. It reminds me of Job, the character from Arrested Development, one of my favorite shows, who is always butchering his magic trick. Ta-da! And there'd be like a dead bird. That's how I feel about what happened there. Yeah. Not effective. Not effective. No, no. We'll be following in here on MK True Crime and check out our YouTube channel where we're showing the trial. Does your home still feel dusty and heavy even after cleaning all the time? Most people do not realize that poor air quality can affect sleep, focus, and overall health. This is why you need the Air Doctor, a powerful air purifier that can help you breathing in the clean air all you need. Air Doctor says you will spend each day at home with fewer odors and reduced allergy triggers, important with allergy season around the corner. We often take for granted that the air we breathe is clean, but is it really? Maybe you work from home in the same room day in and day out or a basement or your kid's playroom. That's how this show was born, in my children's playroom. Consider making sure that the air is clean with Air Doctor. The Air Doctor was named Newsweek's Reader's Choice Award for Best Air Purifier, with so many saying they notice the difference. Head to airdoctorpro.com. Use the promo code TRUECRIME to get up to $300 off today. Air Doctor comes with a 30-day money-back guarantee plus a three-year warranty. That's an $84 value free. Get this exclusive offer now at airdoctorpro.com or A-I-R-D-O-C-T-O-R-P-R-O.com using promo code TRUECRIME. Nick Reiner pled not guilty today formally in court. But I believe our good friend Mark Garagos is predicting, number one, that this case is not going to trial. And number two, you can correct me if I'm wrong, Dave, that there might be some competency issue that his attorneys might be presenting. Did you hear that, too? Well, yeah, I think that's why he's been in court so many times already. I mean, it's like enough already. We know you've been in court. This is like, what, the third time he finally had his arraignment because, remember, his lawyer, Alan Jackson, And all of a sudden, quickly and surprisingly withdrew. And then there were the competency questions. I agree with Mark in that when you have competency questions, you get an unlimited amount of time to be brought back to competency. And this is different than an insanity offense. This is just a threshold to stand trial. This is whether you understand the charges in front of you and can assist in your defense. And if the answer is no, you get sent up to a mental house where you get pumped full of drugs and get sent back to where you're found competent again. But if that doesn't happen, things get delayed, delayed, delayed until you could possibly at the end be set free if you can't stand trial. So I agree with Mark that there won't be a trial anytime soon, although I think eventually there probably will be. I agree with that, too. And I think questioning the competency of Nick Reiner in this case is a brilliant move. I'm not saying that it's not accurate, that it's not factually supported, but it is a brilliant move because any distance that a defense attorney can put between the horrendous crime against at least one of the parents that we know, Rob Reiner, right? Everybody knows him, loved him. If you can put a lot of distance between the heinousness of this act and finally standing trial when the waters have calmed, you are in a better position to get a deal. Like right now, there wouldn't be any deal. So and as you mentioned, you can get as long as you want. You can be incompetent for a long ass time. Right. And it's kind of hard to prove that you're malingering in those instances, even though you have experts that'll say, no, he's definitely incompetent. And you might have another expert to say, nah, he really is competent. The judges want to be very careful when it comes to competency arguments. And this, I think, will end up helping Nick Reiner in the long run. And Jonna used a magic legal term, the word malingering. Malingering is when you fake it. View lawyers always have to find unusual, sophisticated or not so sophisticated words to use Latin words just to confuse people, but malingering means he's faking it. So that's something that prosecutors will say, well, your honor, the defendant is not really mentally ill. He's malingering. Just say faking it. Why can't you just say that? That reminds me of my favorite Seinfeld episode. Fake, fake, fake, fake. You remember that episode? No, which one was that? I am a Seinfeld fan. Which one is that? It's when they were so Jerry and Elaine are talking about, how do I say this delicately? Oh, this was, yes. I remember that was the challenge, the test, the challenge. Yes, it was that episode. Are you the master of your domain? Yes. So it was not the puffy shirt episode, but it's a classic. And this is why we have the best true crime channel. You just got Seinfeld and Arrested Development all in one segment. And we're not done. Nowhere else. Nowhere else. We're not done because we want to touch upon the missing person's case of Nancy Guthrie. It's so tragic. It's entering its fourth week. She's still missing. And now we saw there was a video that was shown of the person who was involved. I'm not even going to say alleged. I mean, you don't wear a mask and have a gun and show up at the door. But apparently this person possibly was there before. And there's a controversy online because the sheriff put out a statement saying, well, there's no evidence that that person was there before. And Brian Enten, who's with News Nation, said, no, I stand by my sources. This is a video of someone, the same guy who had shown up to her door previously. And I want to get your thoughts on that. But before we do, let's play SOT 2, which is Savannah Guthrie's latest appeal to all of us. Hi there. I'm coming on to say it is day 24 since our mom was taken in the dark of night from her bed. And every hour and minute and second and every long night has been agony since then of worrying about her and fearing for her aching for her and most of all just missing her just missing her we also know that she may be lost she may already be gone She may have already gone home to the Lord that she loves. We need to know where she is. We need her to come home. For that reason, we are offering a family reward of up to $1 million. For any information that leads us to her recovery. That is just heart-wrenching. I mean, that is, I mean, beyond. I mean, when she said that she, we know that she could already be lost. No one wants to have to confront that, but here we are. Spana Guthrie understandably looks like she hasn't had a wink of sleep in 24 days. The stress is evident on her face. Her heart, you can see, is just broken. and it breaks mine to hear that. I am happy that she increased this reward. If people stick around to the end of this show, my closing argument touches on this very subject. It's about Nancy Guthrie. And I just got to say, I don't know Savannah personally. Met her, met her years ago, Court TV, but I am just, my heart just aches for her. It truly does. And John, what do you think about this controversy about the person, the kidnapper, or whoever this person is who's been at the house possibly beforehand, before the day of the incident? I mean, it would make sense, I suppose, given what little we truly know about this crime, Dave. And I'm going to tell you something. I don't even know if I believe the story that Nancy Guthrie came home when they say she came. Like, we don't really have independent evidence of that. I think the boots on the ground, meaning the reporters, are trying to dig up what they can. And maybe they're getting some information that the sheriff has been so closed lipped about. I have some criticism for the local sheriff there, too. So I don't know. We just don't know. But it would make sense if somebody is casing the joint before they, sad to say, either kill somebody or kidnap somebody or both. Yeah, fair enough. And you know what? Let's leave it there for this segment because we're just hopeful that there's some good news at some point. It just all just seems so terrible in this case. So thank you, Jonna. And next, the death investigator, Joseph Scott Morgan, joins us. Stay tuned. If you're looking to make smarter choices for your health this year, Riverbend Ranch is a great place to start. Riverbend Ranch steaks not only are delicious, they also contain real high-quality protein that helps fuel your body. Beef is a complete protein that contains all nine essential amino acids your body needs to function. It also keeps you fuller for longer, reducing cravings and snacking. It's one of the most nutrient-dense foods that you can eat, packed with protein, iron, zinc, and B vitamins that help support energy, strength, and overall health. But here's the key. Not all beef is created equal. The quality of the beef depends entirely on how it's 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 only use 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 USDA-inspected facility. Each steak is aged 21 days to enhance flavor and tenderness. It's a difference you will notice with your first succulent bite. My mouth is watering already. There are no shortcuts here. There's no middlemen, just incredible, healthy, and flavorful beef shipped directly to your home. Order today at riverbendranch.com and use promo code MEGAN, M-E-G-Y-N, for $20 off your first order. I'll be doing that as well. Welcome back to MK True Crime. Joining us now is one of our regular and favorite guests He is death investigator and host of the Body Bags podcast Joseph Scott Morgan Welcome back to the show Joseph Hey, thanks for having me back. I'm very honored that you would consider having me on air with you. So cool to be here. Well, we have actually a great case to talk to you about because we're going to discuss the Corey Richens trial, which is going on right now. And you are actually, this is fascinating to me, but you are going to tell us about what happens to a person when they are poisoned by fentanyl and some other aspects of this case. So I never had stopped to think about that. And here's the sad thing. You know, we know that so many people in this country are dying from drug overdoses and fentanyl overdose, especially, and we don't think about what happens to the human body when that is happening. We just know that a small amount can do the trick. So wanted to walk us through that. What actually happens? What happened, do you think, to Eric Richens in this case when he was poisoned by fentanyl? Well, yeah, it's an excellent question. You know, and when I think about Eric Richens and what he went through and had been going through, apparently, for if we believe what what the prosecutors and investigators are saying, this is not, let's just say, the first time down the road with this drug. It's first off fentanyl is just absolutely insidious I see this drug all the time in cases that I cover now It's everywhere and apparently And if the Richens case is any indication easily accessible And the more insidious level to this is that it's virtually undetectable Regarding the individual that is ingesting it Okay. So it's very stealthy. Wait a minute. What do you mean by that? Because it's odorless and tasteless. It's odorless and tasteless. So it can be applied. It can be applied with little or no warning. And going back to what he would have been experiencing at that particular time, it's akin to an opiate overdose because it is a synthetic opiate. You think about morphine and then heroin, morphine being an underpinning of heroin, if you will. There's a sleepiness that sets in And then it progresses to the point where they're individual Particularly if it's a lethal level And remember, in the Richens case They're saying that this is five times the lethal level The sleepiness is then followed by a comatose state It's fascinating to me The dynamics of this case How it could be applied You know, we've heard a lot about the cocktail, the Moscow mule. How was it applied in that medium to get into his body? And then how soon after he ingested this drink did the comatose state follow? There's a lot of evidence here. Sorry, Joseph. Can I ask you about that? No, please go ahead. So let's say, so just taking it out of this trial for a second. if you're in a bar right and you you take your eyes off your drink and somebody puts fentanyl in your drink how soon after taking a sip would you know that you're going to die or that something well i don't know that you would it's an excellent question i don't know how um how soon afterwards you would have an inkling that you're in trouble and a lot of that is dependent upon the dosage Let me give you kind of a framework for this. If folks at home will go to your kitchen and get a salt shaker, okay, and then put about three grains of salt in your hand, all right, that could be, depending upon the size of the individual, those three grains could be a lethal level of fentanyl representative of it, okay? And that's a very minuscule amount. Now, they're saying that this is five times that level. The DEA says that fentanyl, a dangerous level or a lethal level of fentanyl is really two milligrams. Okay. So you multiply that by a factor of five and you're looking at only 10 milligrams here to push him completely over the edge. With your scenario, if you just put one or two grains and it's dissolved into a drink and they get to the point where they can ingest it, it's not in a liquefied state. It can't come that way. you would feel this kind of soupy, you know, kind of mellow feeling that would come over you, much as if you had taken some kind of pain medication for your back. You think about oxys and those sorts of things. And then all of a sudden, before you slip off, you're going to feel labored breathing. And that's because all of these opiates are system depressant. So it's driving your system down like this. And the individual becomes labored in breathing. The lungs are literally becoming congested. And here's an interesting piece in this case. When he was found, and you think about the EMTs, what they saw there, they saw what we refer to as a frothy edematous cone. It kind of looks like the head of a beer. Remember, they're doing compressions on him. This thing is presenting. You know, this is a common telltale sign when we're out on scenes as death investigators that we look for in opiate-related deaths. You also see them in drownings, of all things. But what it comes down to is that you know the lungs are being attacked at this point. And I don't like to use terms like, you know, he drowned in his own fluids and all that sort of thing. What it comes down to is the lungs become progressively more heavy over a period of time. And it's a very laborious kind of thing. He would have been in an unconscious state when he would have passed on. How much time does a person have between the ingestion and how long does that process take between the ingestion and the death? Is it hours? Is it minutes? Is it how long? Well, OK, that depends on a couple of factors. It can, first off, depend upon the dosage. You're talking about five times the lethal level. At least that's what they're saying. So that would accelerate the process. Then you have to think about, well, what level of resistance does this person have? Have they ever taken it in the past? Do they have a tolerance that's built up to it? Because, yes, a tolerance can be built up to it. Very dangerous stuff, even more dangerous than heroin. And then you have to think about the composition of their body. All right. So if you've got somebody that's really tiny and you give them, say, you know, the equivalent amount to what this gentleman was plied with, they're not going to be long for this world. He might take a bit longer. He's male. He's more robust. He's active, that sort of thing. So if you're wanting me to actually place a time limit on this, I think that within, I would imagine, within about a 20-minute to 30-minute window, he's going to be off this mortal coil, as the bard would say, gone. And he's beyond salvation at that point in time as far as his physical body is concerned. that's pretty sure and because the question that's coming up for me and i don't know if it will come out in this trial is is it possible to pinpoint when the ingestion occurred because i think her story could fall apart right if she poisoned him at three o'clock in the morning they're not having a celebratory drink at 3 a.m right that just doesn't make sense but if they had a celebratory drink at nine o'clock and he was dead at 9 30 but we know that she didn't call nine went well i you know he could have been dead for a while because she was in another room so there that gets a little fuzzy factually for me it does yeah and this is this is one of the fascinating pieces to this um in medical legal death investigation one of the things that we intensely rely on is what's referred to as pmi postmortem interval and you know you you see all the television shows and all that sort of thing but it's very serious stuff you know we measure body temperature, which goes to core body temperature, rigidity in the body, and even fixation of the settling of blood, postmortem lividity. And was that assessed at that particular time? You know, you think about the EMTs. The EMTs are not necessarily there to assess that. What do EMTs do? You know, well, there are friends. They want to save a life. They're not there to investigate this. So it's going to be key to find out in their notes, the EMTs, and I would imagine they're going to make an appearance in this case. And they're going to be asked questions like, well, when you touched his body, how did he feel? Was he cool to the touch? Was he cold to the touch? Was there any level of rigidity there? Was he stiff? That sort of thing. So that's going to be very, very important when you're trying to suss all of this out. It's interesting because, you know, according to what we've heard, he was actually found in bed. So is it plausible that he could have been taken to bed and placed in bed after having been plied with this lethal dosage and left there? There's a lot to try to figure out here. Also, had there been sufficient amount of time for the drug to have begun to metabolize in his system? I'd also like to know, I think a lot of us would, what was taken, for instance, one of the things we do at autopsy, they know that we, many people know that we do things like blood draws and urine draws and even vitreous draws, which come from the eyes. I think one of the things that can be key here is also what was his, what were his gastric content? What was that made up of? Because once you, the action, the peristalsis that takes place when food is moving through our system. Well, once you die, that ceases, right? And so it's kind of frozen. That moment is frozen in time. So we would collect that content out of his stomach and see how much of this alcohol mixture was in his stomach along with any foodstuffs. And also in that gastric content, was there any trace evidence of fentanyl? And that'll give you an idea perhaps about uptake into the system. Well, I'm glad you brought that up because one of the issues that will be raised by the defense in this case is the manner of his death, which I think the defense is saying is inconclusive. And I want to place that nine and then get your take on it. Yes, ma'am. He ingested a fatal dose of fentanyl. What you will never hear after four years of investigation, where as recently as two weeks ago, they were back searching that house after four years of investigation and five weeks of this trial you know what you're never going to hear is how that fentanyl got inside of him because there is zero evidence of that to this day slide 11 please you're gonna see that his death certificate reads but the manner of his death is still unknown to this day you're gonna hear testimony that a medical examiner has the ability to declare the manner of someone's death it It can be homicide. It can be suicide. It can be accidental overdose. It can be murder. It can be anything. To this day, the medical examiner, the professional that's the head of declaring how people die in the state of Utah has never been able to determine the manner of Eric Richen's death. She didn't want to say that murder part. She hesitated on that one. Yeah, she didn't want to say that. But I don't know. Does she have a good point? What do you think? Well, yeah, it does. You know, the beauty of being in the medical legal world is that unlike, you know, our friends in the legal world is we're very narrow in our scope, right? We only have five manners of death to choose from. We don't have a huge canon of law, you know, to refer to. And so when you have an ME, and I know you guys have come across this before, when you have an ME, their investigation has to be coupled with the circumstantial information. And apparently, and this is going to be a real trouble, I think, for the prosecution, it'll present a hurdle at least. They're going to stand before that jury, and in that courtroom, they're going to say, Even this degreed forensic pathologist who has all of this training could not come to a conclusion as to the manner of death. Well, that happens with some frequency because, you know, what we're talking about here, if prosecution is going forward with this idea that this drug, fentanyl, has been weaponized and it's been weaponized against this man, the ME doesn't feel comfortable with you know classifying this as a homicide even though it very well could be so therefore your default position I think from the prosecutorial standpoint is going to have to be all the surrounding witness testimony all the circumstantial information that they have you know we have the evidence here numerically you know it's been quantified you know, we qualified it, we said it's there, we quantified it, we talked about how much is there. Then that brings us to the Moscow mule, you know, that this drink along with fentanyl was weaponized is like, you know, a gun, if you will. But he's the one, the victim is the one that put it to his lips. All right. So you get into this gray area here. What I'm going to be interested in, I think, And, you know, kind of as a forensic nerd, you know, I'm sitting here trial watching. I'm thinking, and for those that are interested in watching trials, too, that really dig forensics, I think one of the interesting things here is going to be to watch what we do, what the forensic toxicologist does. So you think about the state crime lab. You know, they're going to have their forensic toxicologist that's on the stand that's going to talk about the mechanism of fentanyl. they're going to talk about dosages the level of lethality all these sorts of things the curious thing is is the defense going to parry with their own forensic toxicologist that's going to get on the stand and you know kind of begin to break this down and talk about the dynamics of this drug um circumstantially are they going to try to point finger at at the decedent here and say well you You know, he's got a history of this. We found substances in the house that, you know, he could have ingested. It doesn't necessarily mean that the defendant here is guilty of anything at all. So this is, I think, for me at least, this is the slippery slope of this trial. It's going to be fascinating to watch. I agree with that. I have a question about that. You mentioned about the foaming stuff coming out of his mouth because he had ingested fentanyl. But wouldn't that totally undermine her claim, Corey Richens' claim, that she administered CPR? She said she did. Sort of makes me doubt that she did if they found him with the foam coming out of his mouth. Yeah, that's an excellent point. I have yet to have anybody that said that to me. I'm glad you brought that up. First off, if she was doing chest compressions, all right, because what are chest compressions? Well, you're pressing on the lungs, right? And we even see this at autopsy. I'm not trying to be too graphic here, you know, gross anybody out. But it's one of the things that we see when we examine lungs at autopsy. One of the things we do is we're doing the dissection. We can actually press on the lungs, and you'll see this kind of frothy exudate that comes out there. So if she's doing compressions on him, you can continue to produce this, even though it's not just like a one and done. If you guys reflect back to the Tammy Daybell case with Chad Daybell, one of the things that happened in that case is that if you guys remember one of the kids that was there in the room they made note of the fact that Tammy you know had this frothy edematous cone We seen it with other cases as well And I still hold to this day that Tammy was impacted by some kind of opiate-based drug in that circumstance, but that's neither here nor there. When they speak to her and she says, did in fact you do compressions where you try and CPR, are, did she make note of the frothy edematous cone at that moment in time? Because it's a dead giveaway. And if she's going mouth to mouth on him, she's going to have to clear that area or be aware of it at least. It's going to be something that'll be on her face, you know, she's doing it. So it's certainly an interesting road to go down. You see this with drownings as well. It's one of the creepiest things you'll ever see if you're in medical legal death investigation. When you, if you think about a body that's, you know, doing kind of the classic dead man's float, when you roll them over, pull them out of the water, the cone is not there, right? The water has washed it away. It's not being produced. But if you sit there and you stand there and you look at the body, suddenly this cone begins to appear like the head of a beer. And was it there when she got there? Did she make note of it? Did she allude to it in any way? or what are the EMTs saying? You know, was it there when they got there? My understanding is they're saying that it was, that the area had not been cleared, but that doesn't mean that she may have been doing it and it was still continuing to present itself. Joseph, before we have to let you go, can I ask you the stupidest question you will ever get in your entire life? I teach 18 and 19-year-olds. There are no stupid questions as far as you guys are concerned. You're going to remember this as the stupidest question you ever got, but I'm going to ask it because now I'm very curious. Okay. Okay. If somebody really did ingest fentanyl, whether they were dying and they had that oxidative foam that you talk about, or let's say, let's say they just ingested it, period. And you make contact with their saliva, you're, you're kissing them. You're giving them CPR mouth to mouth. Could you also poison yourself? By the way, that's not a dumb question at all. No, I don't think it's a dumb question. Oh, my goodness. I've heard so many worse than that. That was a good one. But, you know, to that question, I think that the action of the metabolism within the system is keeping that contained. Okay? That barrier is there. What you're seeing is a physical production, a result of this being congested in the lungs or being produced as a result of the congestion in the lungs. It's an action-reaction. You're not going to get a transfer of the drug into your mouth. Now, there might be other people out there that would argue otherwise, but I think that it would still be safe, you know, to do chest compressions, to try to save somebody's life in a sense, even doing mouth-to-mouth. But even mouth-to-mouth, when you're talking about a dosage that is this high, man, you're on the losing team. It's just, unless you've got somebody that can show up like the PD or EMS that has some kind of substance like Narcan that can counteract this substance, it's a lost cause at that moment. Particularly, again, going back to the size of the bolus they're saying that he received. It's, you're on a real slippery slope, if you will, from a physiological standpoint. point. I got to say, I learned something, no, not just something. I learned some things new every time I'm on air with you. And this was no different. So you, and I said this before, you make blood and guts, you know, sexy. So where can people, where can our audience find your show body bags? Well, I'm, I'm happy to announce actually on this episode that we have just started for the first time our YouTube channel. So we've always been on Apple and Spotify and iHeart, of course, but we're now on YouTube. So it's just Body Bags with Joseph Scott Morgan. You can find me on YouTube and I'm on all the social media platforms. I don't understand all of them, but I'm on there. And thank God I've got young people around me to kind of help me with that, just kind of, you know, helping the old guy through it. But yeah, I'm out there and up here regularly on a multitude of platforms, but I'm always at you guys' disposal. So we just broke the news. We broke the YouTube news. You heard it here first on MK True Crime on this episode with me and Dave Ehrenberg. And I really appreciate that. So as we let you go, we are having our closing arguments next. And stay tuned because we're going to be doing a dramatic reading of Corey Rich's children's book. Stay tuned. Hey folks, let's talk about something we all want. Real peace of mind. For me, that starts with knowing my home and my family are truly safe no matter what. That's where SimpliSafe comes in. It's the security system millions of Americans rely on to protect what matters most. Traditional alarms, they only react after a burglar's already inside. Too late. SimpliSafe's Active Guard Outdoor Protection changes that. AI-powered cameras with live professional monitoring agents watch your property 24-7. If someone's lurking or acting suspicious, those agents spot it, speak to them in real time, blast spotlights, and call police before they ever get near your front door. No long-term contracts, no cancellation fees. Monitoring starts at about $1 a day, plus a 60-day money-back guarantee. It's been named Best Home Security System by U.S. News five years running and number one in customer service by Newsweek and USA Today. So why wait? Protect your home today and enjoy 50% off a new SimpliSafe system with professional monitoring at simplisafe.com slash Megan. That's simplisafe.com slash M-E-G-Y-N. That's simplisafe.com slash Megan. There's no safe like SimpliSafe. Welcome back to MK True Crime. We'll get to our closing arguments soon, but first we're going to do something we've never before done on this show. We're going to read from a children's book, yes? Because after Corey Richens' husband died, she wrote a book called Are You With Me? It's about a father who watches over his son as an angel after his death. It was intended to help her children cope with grief. John and I will now perform a dramatic reading of an excerpt from the book. And you can tell a little bit of sarcasm because the writer of the book was a bit insincere. But, John, I think. Okay. Okay. So we'll do this. And you got to keep in mind, jury might be hearing excerpts from this so-called book. All right. Are You With Me by Corey D. Richens. Dedicated to my amazing husband and a wonderful father always on our minds, forever in our hearts. Are you in the clouds when I look up to see you, to tell you about my day and ask about yours and tell you that I love you. Are you at my soccer game when I scored that goal for you? I looked for you in the crowd, but you weren't there. Did you see it? Are you with me on my birthday to blow out my candles, to celebrate another year and watch me grow, teach me new things and watch me make mistakes? Are you with me on my first day of school when I'm scared, nervous, and have the butterflies? Will I make friends? Will the teachers be kind? Will you walk the halls with me that day? Are you with me on Christmas when Santa delivers my presents? When I rip through them as fast as I can because I can't wait to see what's next. So sad, actually. Really sad for the kids. Did you see what I got from Santa? And are you with me when I'm sad because I miss you when I'm thinking about you? This is like torture for these children. And wondering what we would be playing today if mommy didn't kill you. Oh, I'm sorry. What we would be playing today if you were here. Are you with me when I'm happy when something exciting has happened? Can you see me smiling and my heart so full? Are you happy with me? Well, his wife wasn't. His wife was wishing she was with Grossman. That's right. Are you with me when I'm in danger and I'm scared when my palms are sweaty, like when she's trying to plot a murder, when my heart rapidly beating and I need you, are you there with me to make sure I'm safe? She's a sick individual. Like, she's a sick individual. She tried to make money off this, profit off it. I know. She was on TV selling the book. that is really that adds a whole different element to the whole thing i wonder how many five-star reviews she has on amazon um okay so enough with the dramatic reading that's that's pretty upsetting stuff especially if this woman is found guilty we won't know that for probably several weeks but back to my favorite part of the show always is closing arguments mainly because you guys let me ramble on for way too long. And today is going to be no difference because I'm back, baby, I'm back. All right. I need to begin with a disclaimer, though, lest anyone conclude I am some sort of heartless lawyer with barely a two-week tolerance of missing persons coverage. Yes, I am talking about the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, the mother of Today Show host Savannah Guthrie, who was living a nice, light, pollutionless life in the community of Tucson, Arizona, until she went missing on her about January 31st, allegedly. My heart absolutely breaks for this family and for Nancy herself as my cynical mind zips right past glass half full and plummets straight into worst case scenario. The disclaimer, though, is this. Like the rest of the world, I was riveted to the nonstop coverage. And while I hope the case would quickly be cracked, it was evidence evident from the jump that this investigation was being handled like a group project where nobody actually read the assignment. But I'm not here today to criticize the local sheriff, although he deserves it. Nor am I here to bash the FBI. If it weren't for the feds, we'd still be completely clueless as opposed to the slightly less clueless that we are at this point. And please don't get me started about the handling of the initial reward for which the bidding began at a measly $25,000. That never made sense, guys. You think anyone with helpful information or worse, a role in this serious case, is getting out of bed for a check that someone in Savannah's tax bracket would consider couch cushion dough? Sidebar. As I was preparing this closing argument, news broke that the Guthrie family is upping the reward to seven figures. Finally, a smart and necessary move. And one, I predict, will get the job done. You'll see. But this does not change what I want to bitch about today. And that is TMZ. Because TMZ inserted itself in this case in a way that got in the way. Now, listen, I enjoy TMZ from time to time. I also appreciate its creator, Harvey Levin. Harvey is a smart guy. This show is fun. But this case was not one that lent itself to the let's follow some celeb around LAX until they sneer at us blueprint. This is a serious, evolving investigation. And somehow TMZ ends up center stage with like, what? Four ransom style emails from crackpots? And instead of quietly forwarding that information to the authorities and letting the professionals work, we got a lot of unhelpful noise. Every time TMZ got on camera with one more bullshit, give me money email addressed to them, as opposed to the FBI, TMZ encouraged more copycat nerd basement bullshit. Why does it bother me? Because all it did was create more haystack as opposed to creating larger needles. What should TMZ have done instead? Any email purporting to have information germane to this crime should have been quietly forwarded to law enforcement. That's how you help the investigation and not yourself. Would TMZ have gotten views and clicks and airtime that way? No. But I dare say it would have gotten likes. Not the kind of likes that raise revenue per se, and not the kind of likes that come from social media sharing, but instead real likes, genuine likes, meaning the kind that come from the hearts of those of us who care deeply about what happens to innocent 84-year-olds and other human beings. When lives are on the line, aren't these the kind of likes that matter most of all? Yes. Yes, they are. Well said, Donna. Thank you. It's great to have you back. We love your closing statements. And, you know, yours was heavy and important, and mine's going to be less so. Okay. I like that balance. All right. All right. Well, a legal case of huge importance that we have not been following here on MK True Crime is the lawsuit filed against Buffalo Wild Wings for false advertising. Because their boneless wings are actually just chicken nuggets. The plaintiff essentially claimed he was a victim of a high stakes culinary bait and switch. Well, the judge threw the case out, ruling that boneless wing is a marketing term, not a biological one. And he's right. It's common sense. I mean, none of us order chicken fingers and expect to find delicious finger meat in the breading. If we start litigating every menu metaphor, the courts will never be empty. We'll be suing over baby back ribs because they're not made from real baby or filing a lawsuit over the fact that Vladimir Putin is nowhere to be found when you order a white Russian at your favorite watering hole. There's a lesson here. sometimes it's better to just tip your cap to some creative marketing patois rather than run to the courthouse now to credit the judge's logic he effectively told the plaintiff that he didn't have a leg to stand on like let alone a drumstick that was his line not mine but this is a win for sanity we all know that boneless isn't a description of anatomy it's just a polite way of saying I don't want to work for my dinner. That's it. That, and hey, there's no buffalo in buffalo wings either, for that matter. It's in their title, buffalo wild wings. You're going to sue them for boneless wings. No one thinks you're going to have a wing that you take out the bones. It can be a slop, you know? It's a chicken finger. Yeah, it's a nugget. It's a strip. Whatever. I know the best line is there's no actual baby and baby becker you had me at that I was done after that Dave that that was genius and very entertaining thank you very much I'm so happy to have enjoyed that with you thank you well you should have heard my Pilates rant from last week but I'm gonna tune in I'm gonna get it I'm gonna listen great well thank you it's it's been great being on with you it's always a pleasure here on MK True Crime I'm Dave Ehrenberg I want to say Thank you to our guests, Joseph Scott Morgan, and to my co-host, Johnna Spilboer. And thank you for joining us here today. Have a great week.