Were Kouri's Kids Coached? Analyzing the Richins Boys' Victim Impact Statements

Added: 2026-05-25

[00:00:06]On May 13th of this year, in a Park City courtroom, three therapists stood at a podium and read aloud the words of three boys. The boys are 9, 12, and 13. They had written their words separately, working with separate counselors in separate rooms. And what they wrote about their mother helped send her to prison for the rest of her life.

[00:00:28]Hey everybody, it's Chris from Guilty Words where we unravel crime one word at a time. Today we're looking at a key consideration about the Richens boys testimonies about their mother, Corey.

[00:00:41]Is it possible that the Richens boys were coached? Let's take a look at what they had to say and how we evaluate that together.

[00:00:51]The boys had written impact statements about their mother's abuse, neglect, and the murder of their father. Their mother, Corey Richens, listened to the words as they were spoken aloud. And when it was her turn to speak, she said this. As much as you've been influenced into thinking that dad was murdered and I took your dad from you, that is completely wrong. An absolute lie.

[00:01:18]Corey Richens wasn't the only one to question the story in court. During a 20inut plea for leniency, her lawyer Wendy Lewis had this to say. I don't know why they're saying these things.

[00:01:32]That's part of a longer quote with more context, and we'll get into it. But it is fair to have questions about the impact statements. So today, we're going to unravel this mystery and answer the question, why are they saying these things?

[00:01:48]Let's get into the context of the statements. May 13, 2026, 3rd District Court, Park City, Utah. Corey Richens is about to be sentenced for the aggravated murder of her husband, Eric, found dead in their home in March of 2022 with five times a lethal dose of fentinyl in his system. It took the jury three hours to deliver the guilty verdict.

[00:02:12]The sentencing is scheduled on what would have been Eric's 44th birthday.

[00:02:17]In the courtroom, three children's therapists step up to the podium. Each one is going to read a statement written by one of the Richens boys. The boys themselves are not present at the sentencing, but they've had a long time to think about what they want to say.

[00:02:33]Jessica Black, one of the therapists, tells the court, and I'm quoting her directly here, "Our roles are to read their words exactly as they wrote. The boys want the court and the world to hear their side.

[00:02:50]That's a vitally important sentence.

[00:02:53]Read their words exactly as they wrote.

[00:02:59]There have been no embellishments or editorials. The therapists are there to relay the boy's words, not to provide their own. This context is necessary and clarifying. It preemptably undermines the argument that Corey's defense is about to make. Corey's defense attorney, Wendy Lewis, stands up and gives a 20inut plea for leniency. She provides a list of other Utah prisoners who have been sentenced to life whose crime she deems worse than Corey's. She claims that of all the convicted clients she's represented, Corey is the only one she truly believes is innocent. She reminds the judge that multiple witnesses for the defense said that Corey was a wonderful mother and had a loving relationship with Eric.

[00:03:47]Then she pauses. There's one gigantic hole in her defense and she knows it. In fact, she acknowledges it outright.

[00:03:56]She says, "I don't minimize what Corey's boys are saying today. I understand it's contradictory to what other people are saying regarding Corey as a mother.

[00:04:08]That's true. It's hard to argue that Corey was a loving mother when every single one of her children has turned against her. The only other person who might have seen enough to judge was Eric, the boy's father, and Corey killed him. The other witnesses for the defense saw what Corey wanted them to see. It's very common for abusive parents to play a loving role in public and then act cruel behind closed doors.

[00:04:36]Corey's team knows that there's no reasonable defense if the boys are telling the truth. And they know it's a bad idea to openly say the children are lying. So, Miss Lewis takes a slightly different approach.

[00:04:49]She says, "I understand it's contradictory."

[00:04:54]And then she says this, "I don't minimize what Cory's boys are saying today. I understand it's contradictory to what other people are saying regarding Corey as a mother.

[00:05:09]I don't know. I don't know why they're saying these things, but what they think and feel today, they are allowed to think and feel those things. They should be. Their feelings are valid and it's okay.

[00:05:21]And I think Corey will say this too, but she wants those her boys to know it's okay.

[00:05:27]That's an interesting framing. Miss Lewis walks a very careful line here.

[00:05:33]She doesn't want to say that the boys are lying, especially when the details of their stories match so well, but she also doesn't want to legitimize the claims. So, what does she do? She validates their feelings, or at least she says she validates their feelings.

[00:05:52]In practice, the goal is the opposite.

[00:05:55]There's an unspoken subtext to this statement. Your feelings are valid even though they're wrong. And if we take this a step further, the sentence serves another purpose. Miss Lewis is also saying, "Look how reasonable Corey is being. Even though her children are saying such mean things. A good mother would accept her children's feelings even when those children are wrong.

[00:06:21]She's accepting her children's feelings.

[00:06:24]Therefore, she's a good mother."

[00:06:27]Try and follow that logic.

[00:06:29]But let's go back to that earlier quote.

[00:06:32]I don't know why they're saying these things.

[00:06:36]There's an implicit assumption in those words. What Miss Lewis implies is these things aren't true, so I don't know why the boys are saying them.

[00:06:47]Like we said, she won't outright accuse them of lying, but she'll let her confusion do the talking for her. If the boys have no reason to say these things, then why would they? It can't be because they have bad intentions or because they want attention. Otherwise, Miss Lewis wouldn't have said their feelings are valid. So, there must be a reason outside of them.

[00:07:14]Miss Lewis is not outright stating that somebody else put the words in this boy's mouths, but she's leaving the door open for that. Corey herself is far less subtle.

[00:07:26]>> And as much as you've been influenced into thinking that dad was murdered, that I took your dad from you, >> that is completely wrong and an absolute lie.

[00:07:37]And the thought of that is still as absurd today as it was four years ago.

[00:07:43]>> That word influenced is written in the passive voice, the children have been influenced by whom? who did the influencing.

[00:07:54]Corey's statement doesn't name names, but everyone in that courtroom knows who Corey is pointing at. The boys live with Eric's sister and her husband. Eric's family, the people who lost their brother. Eric's family made it clear both during the trial and in their own victim impact statements that they believe Corey is guilty. So even though nobody has made an explicit allegation, the implication is still in the room.

[00:08:24]Now here's the thing. On its face, that allegation is not unreasonable. Children who live in a household for four years absorb that household's understanding of the world. Of course they do. That's not any kind of coaching or manipulation.

[00:08:40]That's just how being a kid works. It's a natural part of child development.

[00:08:46]If the question is, is influence possible? The answer is yes. Influence is always possible, even for adults.

[00:08:54]People naturally reflect the environment in which they live. It's part of being a social species.

[00:09:01]But there's a different question we should be asking, and it's one with a fascinating legal history behind it. Is there a way to tell based on words on the page whether a child wrote a statement themselves or whether another person wrote it for them? Turns out there is. The law has actually worked on this precise problem for decades. To explain how the law thinks about this, I have to take you to New Jersey 1985.

[00:09:31]Many of you may remember this case. A 22-year-old preschool teacher named Margaret Kelly Michaels is accused of abusing dozens of children at the We Care Day Nursery. After a 9-month trial, she's convicted on 115 counts and sentenced to 47 years. And then the convictions get reversed.

[00:09:54]Not because the appellet court decided the abuse didn't happen. The court is very careful about that. They reversed the decision because the investigators used coercive interrogation techniques.

[00:10:07]So there was no way to validate the testimony of the children. The New Jersey Supreme Court goes through the interrogation transcripts and finds, and I'm quoting their language, most if not all of the practices that are disfavored or condemned by experts in the child witness interviews.

[00:10:26]Leading questions, repeated questioning until the child gives the answer. or the interviewer wants negative reinforcement when the child says the wrong thing.

[00:10:36]Positive reinforcement when they say the right thing. Vocabulary supplied by adults. Adult concepts in the mouths of preschoolers.

[00:10:45]The language in the interview paints a clear picture. A child being taught to say what an adult wants them to regardless of whether or not it's true.

[00:10:57]This becomes a landmark case because it introduces a new legal mechanism, the taint hearing.

[00:11:04]Now, before a child's testimony can be used against a defendant, a judge can hold a pre-trial hearing to look at how the testimony was obtained. Was the child interviewed in a way that planted answers? Were they free to speak their mind in an open-ended way? Were the words on the page actually the child's thoughts rather than someone else's?

[00:11:27]That precedent, State versus Michaels, is the modern legal standard for testing child speech. There are multiple ways to tell if a child's words were coerced based on the questions that were asked.

[00:11:40]Here's a list of features that show up when the children's words have been shaped by adults. Adult vocabulary, clean, perfectly edited pros. uniformity across multiple witnesses. Borrowed phrasing.

[00:11:55]There are also things that indicate an interviewer has been coercive. Leading questions, repeated questions looking for new answers. Confirmation bias.

[00:12:07]So, we have a checklist. We have three statements from three brothers, each produced individually.

[00:12:13]Let's see how they match up. We're going to look at how each of the boys statements was written. the structure, language, and the vocabulary they used, as well as the way their words may have been prompted.

[00:12:26]This will be one of the most important things we cover in this video. We do have an idea how the boys may have been prompted because CR left his prompts in.

[00:12:35]He answered questions like he was filling out a homework sheet, so we know exactly what was asked.

[00:12:42]My name and age now, my name and age I was at the time of the crime. what I would like to see happen if the perpetrator is convicted of this crime.

[00:12:52]My thoughts regarding an appropriate sentence for the person who is accused of this crime and if they are found guilty.

[00:13:00]The information I feel is important for the judge to be aware of in sentencing.

[00:13:05]My physical injuries as a result of this crime are as follows. My experienced emotional injury because of the crime is described as follows.

[00:13:15]I want the judge to know those are the headers you'd see in a standard victim impact statement template and CR left them in. He didn't strip them out. He didn't edit them and nor was he asked to. He answered them one after the other like a kid filling out the blanks of a school assignment because that's basically what he was doing. And this is where we have to make one of the most important distinctions in this whole episode.

[00:13:44]A prompted answer is not the same thing as a coached one. A prompt is a question. How did you feel? What did you want the judge to know? Those are guidelines. They help a kid who has no idea where to start figure out how to organize their thoughts. You'll find that the prompts in this template are open-ended rather than expecting a certain answer.

[00:14:09]For example, when asked for thoughts regarding an appropriate sentence, the respondent could just as easily say they want the perpetrator to be kept out of jail and make amends in some other way.

[00:14:20]When asked about emotional and physical injuries, they are not given examples of different types of potential injury.

[00:14:27]They're just told to write what happened to them.

[00:14:31]I want the judge to know is the most open-ended statement of all, allowing them to say anything they haven't yet covered, be it good or bad. Coaching is different. Coaching happens when an adult tells a child what to say, or an adult tells them what they remember, which can distort the real memories of what happened, or an adult rewards them when they say one thing and punishes them when they say another. So the child learns which response is expected. A manipulated statement hides its origin because the adult wants the words to look like the child's. They don't want anyone to know that the child was coerced.

[00:15:11]CR didn't hide anything. He wasn't told to hide anything. So he showed his work from start to finish. A manipulated child would not turn in a victim impact statement with the original prompt still attached to the top of each paragraph.

[00:15:27]This alone gives me confidence in how these impact statements were written, but there's more we can explore. Test two, converging accounts. The three boys wrote their statement separately. Three different counselors were involved. The therapists confirmed in court that the boys decided individually how to share what they wrote. They did not collaborate.

[00:15:50]So, if they made any of it up or somebody else did, you would expect one of two things. Either the stories would line up too perfectly, suggesting a shared script, or the stories would contradict each other, suggesting an unreliable witness.

[00:16:07]Instead, we get something that would be difficult to engineer. We get converging accounts.

[00:16:15]Example one, the locked room. AR, the middle brother, age 12, writes this. You would lock C in his room and I would have to go to the kitchen and bring him food.

[00:16:28]CR, the oldest, writes this independently in a different room with a different therapist. A mostly took care of me though because I was locked in my room. A would bring me food. It's the same arrangement described by both involved parties. AR reports himself bringing the food and CR reports himself receiving it. Neither of them uses the same phrasing or the exact same sentence structure, but they both recall the same event.

[00:16:57]If you wanted to coach that into two separate kids, you'd need them to agree on the fact that it isn't in the public record, namely that the lock was on the outside of CR's door, which CR says he is pretty sure about. And then you would need them to describe the fact in different words. And you need to coordinate all of that before they started the individual counseling sessions where they wrote their impact statements.

[00:17:23]Example two, the animals. CR and AR both detail multiple harrowing acts of animal abuse. AR's list. A kitten eaten by raccoons because Cory wouldn't let it be put in the garage at night. Chickens and bunnies frozen to death because she wouldn't use a heat lamp. A dog repeatedly struck on the head after peeing inside because it wasn't taken outside all day.

[00:17:47]CR's list. Chickens that starved because there was no food or water. A rabbit that died the same way. Goats fed moldy hay and denied water. A lizard Corey threatened to kill because she was angry at CR. Look at those lists. They overlap on the underlying pattern. Animals repeatedly dying through neglect and abuse. The kitten only appears in one.

[00:18:10]The lizard only appears in the other.

[00:18:12]The chickens and rabbits are referenced in both, but the manner of their deaths differ slightly.

[00:18:18]That's how independent memory works.

[00:18:21]People who live through the same event will typically agree on the big picture, but they may disagree on the smaller details. Certain details might loom larger in one person's memory than in the others, like the lizard for CR and the kitten for AR. Example three, medical neglect. AR mentions an incident where his brother CR was run over by a sidebyside vehicle and Cory made him go to a soccer game without seeing a doctor first.

[00:18:48]CR doesn't mention that incident, but he does describe a separate medical episode, a seizure event where, in his words, Bailey called the ambulance, not Corey. CR is very clear that Corey did not make the call. He says specifically, I think Corey had something to do with it because she didn't call the ambulance. And he also says when they got to the ER, Corey didn't want to have his blood drawn. Two different incidents, two different injuries, one consistent pattern. A mother who would not get her children medical attention when they needed it. I want to flag this for a second. We may come back to that seizure paragraph at the end. at some of the most striking writing in the entire proceeding. But for now, the converging accounts are clear. The boy stories line up exactly the way real memories line up. When we compare all three statements, one thing we might look for is unique narrative voice. When the same adult coaches multiple children, their language tends to flatten out. The vocabulary becomes very similar. you end up with three statements that sound like the exact same person wrote them because, well, the exact same person did.

[00:20:05]With authentic statements, you'll see the opposite. Each child will have their own writing style. Their vocabulary and sentence structure will be informed by their age, personality, and their general proficiency with language. They will have little idiosyncrasies that separate their narrative from that of another child. WR 9 years old, the youngest. His statement is written simply and clearly when talking about what happened the night his father died.

[00:20:33]His words included, "I felt confused. I had no control. And I felt helpless. I felt really overwhelmed."

[00:20:42]These are short declarative sentences.

[00:20:44]Each one names a specific feeling. This is exactly what the therapists call affect labeling, a fancy psychological term for putting feelings into words.

[00:20:54]This is what 9-year-olds produce when they're asked, "How did you feel about that?" by a counselor. Again, this is a situation where prompting is not the same as coaching. The therapist's job is to help the child identify what they feel rather than telling them what they feel. To that end, this statement reads like a developmentally appropriate exploration of WR's emotions. AR 12 years old, the middle brother. His impact statement is blistering from start to finish, including, "You took away my dad for no reason other than greed, and you only cared about yourself and your stupid boyfriends.

[00:21:36]You were not concerned about our health.

[00:21:38]When we got hurt, you didn't even care.

[00:21:41]You took away everything from me and my brothers. You were not playing the role as a real mother does. You were doing the opposite. You have never said sorry for anything you did to me or my brothers.

[00:21:54]AR is the only one writing in the second person. The only one writing directly to Corey, not the judge. His impact statement is scathing. Rather than focusing on his own feelings, he focuses on a list of the ways Corey wronged him and his brothers. The details are harrowing and they're much more difficult to dismiss than personal emotions.

[00:22:17]It's excellently written. AR wants to make a point and he does so brilliantly.

[00:22:23]Which may make me wonder, okay, if this writing is so good, how do we know he really wrote it? Let's look at some of the verbs and phrasing here. You took, you cared, you didn't care, you wouldn't, you were not concerned. All of these are simple phrases that fit the language of a typical 12-year-old. Even you were not playing the role as a real mother does uses simple words to make an effective point. This is a 12-year-old with a strong grasp of how to use language to express himself, not an adult secretly trying to push an agenda.

[00:23:00]CR, 13 years old, the oldest of the three. His statement addressed to the judge details multiple accounts of child abuse. As previously mentioned, he kept the template questions in his response.

[00:23:13]And when asked about the physical injuries, he talked about his seizure. I think Corey had something to do with it because she didn't call the ambulance.

[00:23:22]She called our nanny, Bailey, and Bailey called the ambulance. This is a different approach entirely. It doesn't focus on his internal feelings like WRs or Corey's wrongs like ARS. Instead, CR is building a case. He's connecting evidence. He says, "I think this is what happened." He uses the word because he's working through cause and effect. He explains what he experienced at the time and then juxtaposes it with what he learned later. I learned later that Cy bought more fentinel and had it in the house when this happened. Now, whether or not Corey did poison CR is unproven.

[00:24:07]Seizures can be caused by many different things. This part of his statement is hypothetical, but other parts are not. The fact that Cy didn't want him to have his blood drawn. the fact that Corey locked him in his room without food, as well as the ongoing animal abuse. Each of the statements reads like a different person wrote it. And each of the statements is developmentally appropriate for the child who wrote it. We can see how each of the boys approached this exercise differently and focused on different things in their stories. We can also see to a point how they were prompted to do so. And there are no overt signs of coercion. Here's a fourth aspect to analyze, adult vocabulary.

[00:24:51]I should note that as a general rule, children are much smarter than we give them credit for. And some children will develop a strong vocabulary very early in life, especially if they read a lot.

[00:25:03]But children are still children. One of the most telling signs of a coerced statement is when children use adult vocabulary. They choose phrases that are too clinical or too legalistic or too clean for their age. The words make it clear that they're repeating what an adult has said, often without understanding the context.

[00:25:24]Now, was anything like that present in the boy's statements? Let's look at the words they actually chose.

[00:25:32]A R stupid boyfriends. W places that smelled really bad. CR I have to tell the story about what happened 55 million times.

[00:25:44]These are not coerced repeated phrases.

[00:25:48]Nobody coached stupid boyfriends. That is the word a 12-year-old reaches for when he's furious, his vocabulary is limited, and he needs to express contempt without swearing in court. It's perfect. It's also unmistakably his.

[00:26:05]Nobody coached places that smelled really bad. That's a sensory memory. A 9-year-old reporting the most memorable detail of an experience. Most adults don't remember places by smell. If the smell is bad enough, 9-year-olds do. And nobody coached 55 million times. That is a 13-year-old being 13. That is the exasperation of a kid who is sick of telling his counselor the worst story of his life. It's sarcastic. It's hyperbolic. And it sounds exactly like it came from a young teenager. If you wanted to find an indicator that Boyd's words are their own, that line by itself would do it. Nobody else wrote these statements for them. There's another thing we can look for on the structural level. Is the text polished? Is it grammatically perfect? Most importantly, is it all crafted with laser focus on whatever an adult with an agenda might want?

[00:27:06]Let me say again, children are smarter than we give them credit for, and many are very talented writers. A polished piece of writing is not an indictment by itself. But when an adult is coaching a child's testimony, they tend to edit.

[00:27:22]They smooth the pros. They fix the grammar. They make the statement presentable and understandable in ways the child might not. This is part of why it's so important that the boy's therapists read their words exactly as written without any editing for the court.

[00:27:40]The statements are presentable, but they are not grammatically perfect. They contain unedited errors and unusual choices, all of which you'd expect from kids this age. WR. If she got out, I would be so scared, really mad, and I wouldn't want to go with her anywhere.

[00:27:57]There's nothing specifically wrong with this sentence, but the phrasing is a little clunky, but nobody tried to change it.

[00:28:05]AR AR's statement is the most polished of the three, but not in a way that strikes me as suspicious. It strikes me more as a statement that he thought hard about because he wanted it to have maximum impact. And there are still odd phrases here and there. For example, you were not caring and watching over me and my brothers. That might be edited to say, "You were not caring or watching over me and my brothers, but nobody tried to change it." CR Corey resisted to have my blood drawn. That's not standard syntax. It should be refused to allow or resisted having, but nobody tried to change it. C are again kids who usually have this kind of seizure is when they are a few months old to a year old. This reads like a child speaking aloud. For maximum clarity, the phrasing would be kids usually have this kind of seizure when they're a few months to a year old. But again, nobody tried to change it.

[00:29:09]These details are another sign that the statements were written independently without being suggested or fixed by the surrounding adults. Here's something else to consider. The names that Cory's boys used. This one is an analytical rule. It won't be applicable to the vast majority of cases, but it's worth a mention here because it's the single most charged word in any of these statements.

[00:29:36]WR and CR both refer to their mother as Corey. A R doesn't, but that's because his letter is written in second person, addressing his mother as you instead.

[00:29:48]Not mom, not mommy, not my mother.

[00:29:52]Corey. In a family, switching from mom to a first name is kind of a linguistic severance. It's a deliberate act of distance. It says, "I do not accept the role that this word would place upon us." In fact, AR states that explicitly.

[00:30:11]The only time the word mother is used in any of the three statements is when he says, "You were not playing the role as a real mother does."

[00:30:21]as a real mother does. What he's implying, Corey is not a real mother.

[00:30:28]Was that planned by a third party? It's a decent question, one I've seen play out in the comments section. But it's unusual for children to decide to stop referring to their parent as their parent. It's even more unusual for all three of them to do so independently.

[00:30:46]One could argue that maybe they were told it was better to refer to as Corey in court. One could argue maybe the prosecution knew how impactful that emotional distance would be and so somehow they communicated that to the kids.

[00:30:58]But I don't think so. In terms of pure speculation, it's more likely that the use of Corey started in therapy. Trauma therapists often teach survivors of abuse to desenter the person who hurt them and to remove the abusers's importance from their life. Corey becomes Corey because she has not earned the title of mom, which it's a tiny but devastating piece of evidence. It tells you that the boys had already in their own counseling sessions, in their own homes, and in their own minds demoted their mother from mom to Corey long before they ever picked up a pen. And they were right to do so.

[00:31:42]We've gone through each of the statements. We've compared and contrasted them. Each was clearly written by a different child. Each showcases a different viewpoint while still having details that corroborate the other stories. This testimony was not coerced through leading questions, negative reinforcement, or memory tampering. It was given honestly and framed with the help of therapists who could help the boys verbalize what they were feeling, but whose job was not to tell the boys what they were feeling.

[00:32:12]With all of that said, way back at the beginning of this long video, I mentioned the idea of influence because it's true that everybody is influenced by their environment, by the people around them, and by the stories they hear. Children are especially likely to be influenced by their environment as they're going through a constant developmental learning period.

[00:32:34]When a taint hearing is held, it focuses on the methods used to gather the witness testimony. It focuses on the behavior of the detectives, police officers, investigators, and behavioral specialists. When we analyze these statements, we're looking for signs that somebody has told the boys what to write.

[00:32:53]What we can't prove is how much influence the boy's environment may have had on their feelings.

[00:33:00]These kids live with Eric's family. They have lived with Eric's family for years.

[00:33:05]They have been to counseling for years.

[00:33:07]They know their mother was convicted of murder. They know how their aunt and uncle feel about Corey. All of these factors can shape the way they feel about her. So when Corey said the boys had been influenced in their thinking, that technically is possible. In fact, it's probable.

[00:33:25]But that influence is not necessarily a bad thing. The boys all reported serious abuse and negligence with details that match each other's accounts. They've also been working through the effects of that abuse in therapy. It is not bad for Eric's family to tell the boys that Corey's treatment of them was wrong.

[00:33:48]That's just a fact. It's good that they can express what happened and recognize how hurtful it was. It's good that they feel safer living with their aunt and uncle. This kind of support and recognition is essential for healing after a traumatic childhood. I do not believe that these boys were coached or coerced. I believes that it's possible their opinions were influenced because the boys were influenced into recognizing they deserved better. That's something to be celebrated, not condemned.

[00:34:20]Earlier, I mentioned that there are a few moments in CR's statement that I want to come back to. Let's take a look at them together.

[00:34:27]CR seizure paragraph. This is a 13-year-old building a chain of evidence about a potential poisoning.

[00:34:35]I was sleeping and then I went to get a drink of water then went back to bed and when I woke up shaking and Bailey called the ambulance and they came and I couldn't talk for a while. I think Corey had something to do with it because she didn't call the ambulance. She called Bailey and Bailey called the ambulance.

[00:34:56]At the ER, Corey resisted to have my blood drawn. And kids who usually have this kind of seizure is when they are a few months to a year old. I learned later that Corey bought more fentinyl and had it in the house when this happened.

[00:35:12]Corey has not been charged with trying to poison CR, but he's building a compelling case. He has identified intent. Corey didn't call an ambulance.

[00:35:22]He has identified obstruction. She resisted blood work. And he's identified the medical anomaly. Seizures of that type don't usually happen in his age range. And he has identified the physical evidence fentinel in the house.

[00:35:38]Was CR told that his mother tried to poison him or did he come to that conclusion on his own? The case he makes is compelling although it can't be corroborated with evidence. Perhaps more harrowing is the fact that he believes his mother is capable of hurting him like this. And given her other actions, I'm inclined to agree.

[00:36:00]Remember, all of the kids have life insurance policies on them taken out by Corey.

[00:36:09]That paragraph is one of the most horrifying pieces of writing produced by any witness in this entire case. So, what conclusions can we draw from all this?

[00:36:20]Three boys, three statements, three different therapists, three different rooms. The defense said they didn't know why they were saying these things, but their question had already been answered.

[00:36:34]The boys want the court and the world to hear their side.

[00:36:40]After years of waiting, after years of healing, after years of coming to terms with everything their mother has done, the Richens boys finally had a room full of people willing to listen and they used it.

[00:36:56]Thank you for joining me tonight. As always, I appreciate your time and I appreciate you sticking out another long video. I really felt like this one needed the time.

[00:37:08]And if you've enjoyed the content, you know the YouTube drill. Please give it a like, a thumbs up, share it, and leave comments below what you think of what the children had to say. I do read your comments, and I answer as many as I can.

[00:37:23]And until I see you in the next video, please use your words kindly, wisely, and well, take care.