Housekeeper testifies at Utah mom murder trial. Sister seeks answers in shootout. Plus, photo lineups.

Let's go ahead and jump in.

You're listening to the Dateline story meeting.

What was she charged with?

Our producers are catching up on breaking crime news.

She was like filing reports and reports,

fall backdrop with a fire department.

It's kind of interesting.

She's starting to believe in her father's guilt.

Welcome to Dateline True Crime Weekly.

I'm Lester Holt.

It's March 5th, and here's what's on our docket.

In South Carolina, two and a half years

after a man was shot dead on a country road,

a judge listens to witness testimony, body cam video,

and 911 calls to figure out what happened.

Hey, I've got a guy's point.

I'm doing a meat driving.

In Dateline Roundup, closing arguments

are set to begin at the murder trial

of Michigan farmer, Dale Warner.

And in Miami, the trial of the former college football player

accused of gunning down his teammate 20 years ago

comes to a surprising end.

The Padda family, they've been very emotional

throughout the proceedings.

They seem like they were in disbelief.

Plus, it's a tool we see investigators use a lot

to zero in on a suspect, photo lineups.

A retired police chief tells us how it's done.

Even subtle cues you're breathing, posture, ton of voice,

can influence the witness's choice.

Before all that, we're heading back to Utah,

where Corey Richens, the mom of three accused

of fatally poisoning her husband,

came face to face with the prosecution star witness,

her former housekeeper.

It's week two at the murder trial of Corey Richens,

the woman who wrote a children's book about grief

after her husband, Eric's mysterious death,

only to be charged with his murder.

Prosecutors say Corey poisoned Eric in March 2022

so that she could cash in on his life insurance

and start life over with her lover.

She says, that's not true and has pleaded not guilty.

So far in the trial, we've heard from Eric's family members

about the couple's relationship

and the devastating impact of his death.

Eric was one of the most likeable people.

I'm sorry, guys, it's the worst in my life, I'm sorry.

Now prosecutors are telling the jury how they think

Corey went about poisoning him.

Calling to the stand, Corey's 54-year-old former housekeeper,

Carmen Lover, the person they say

purchased the fentanyl that killed Eric.

Here to bring us the latest is Dateline producer

Karen Israel.

Thanks for coming back on the podcast, Karen.

Thanks for having me.

So let's get straight to this important testimony.

Remind us why Carmen Lover is such a key prosecution witness.

Sure, so Eric's cause of death,

according to the medical examiner,

was a fentanyl overdose.

The defense doesn't dispute that Eric

died from a fentanyl overdose.

They argue that Eric could have gotten it himself

or accidentally ingested it.

So the prosecutors need to be able to make the connection

between Corey and the fentanyl.

Carmen does that for them.

And it was a big moment when Carmen took the stand,

what was your impression of her?

Did she see nervous?

Did she look at Eric's family?

Because she's basically testifying

about procuring an illegal drug

that may have resulted in his death.

She stayed pretty calm and seemed confident,

but she was also emotional at several points

and clearly seemed disturbed by the possibility

that she may have played a role in Eric's death

by purchasing the fentanyl.

The investigators told you that Eric had died.

I already knew Eric had passed away,

but when they had mentioned that it was from an overdose,

that hit hard only for the fact that that's what happened.

I needed to step up and take accountability of my part

in this that happened.

The prosecutor revealed right out of the gate

that Carmen was testifying subject to an immunity agreement.

Why do you think he did that?

This was a way to deal head on with the defense saying

that Carmen's testimony might be less credible

because she was working with prosecutors.

The prosecutor made it clear Carmen had to testify truthfully

to meet the terms of that agreement.

So what did you learn about who Carmen was when this all happened?

So Carmen told the jury about her long history

of substance abuse on top of a criminal drug history.

She testified that she's sober now

and has been for some time.

Cory Richens and runs a housekeeping business

and Carmen used to work for her.

She cleaned Cory's house about every other week for years

and she said she discussed her drug use with Cory.

Then she said in early 2022,

the nature of their conversations changed.

She reached out and asked if I could do her favor

and I said, yeah, probably what is it?

And then she called me and asked me

if I could reach out to somebody for some pay meds

for an investor that she knew

and I told her I could see what I could do.

Carmen said she bought some opiates from a friend,

but then Cory asked her for something stronger.

What then did you do?

I text Cory back and told her that I hadn't a friend

that could get them, but they were fentanyl pills.

How did Cory Richens respond?

She said, okay, go ahead and get.

She said she bought pills from a friend of a friend

named Robert Crozier, who was a drug dealer.

And Carmen testified that she got those pills

to Cory a number of different ways.

One time she handed her a bag of pills in person,

another time she hid them at a property Cory was flipping.

Did she tell you what she wanted you to do with those pills?

She responded back with take them over to the midway house,

put them in a shed.

I didn't feel comfortable leaving them in the shed

and I felt new and so I went to the fire pit

and kind of dug a little hole

and put the gravel back on top of it

and they kind of turned a bridge to the side

to kind of cover it up.

And then what do we know about the dates

of these drug purchases for context?

Eric Richens was found in almost four years ago,

exactly on March 4th, 2022.

Carmen couldn't give exact dates for any of the purchases,

but the prosecutors showed the jury a Facebook message.

Carmen sent to the person.

And she said connected her to Robert Crozier,

the drug dealer.

That was in February of 2022.

And she testified about buying drugs for Cory

a few days after Eric's death.

So the drug buys are roughly the month around his death.

All right, then it was time for the defense.

How did they attack Carmen's credibility as a witness?

They kind of had a two pronged approach.

They went after her memory and her relationship

with prosecutors.

They said she'd regularly been using drugs at that time

when she made these alleged purchases.

So her memory couldn't be trusted.

In fact, they pointed out that she told investigators herself

when she was first talking to them

that she couldn't remember stuff.

They're trying to help you pin down a date,

but you just, I really, you told them multiple times.

I really don't know.

There was no on the ground.

It really wasn't absolutely correct on the dates now.

The defense read snippets of Carmen's various interview

transcripts to the jury and pointed out

that there were some inconsistencies

between her testimony and what she initially told investigators.

That's right.

Perhaps the biggest difference being

that Carmen initially denied buying fentanyl for Cory.

The defense suggested that the detectives were the ones

to plant this idea that Carmen had bought fentanyl for Cory.

The only person up to this point

was put the word fentanyl in your head

are these detectives, correct?

Ooh.

Miss Lover, you're on the stand.

At that point, they are the ones

that told you it was fentanyl.

They're the ones that told me that Eric passed away

from fentanyl.

They're the ones that put the word fentanyl in your head.

They're the ones that told me that that's where it passed away from.

OK.

The defense also challenged Carmen on her immunity agreement.

And you are willing to do whatever it takes

to save yourself from getting kicked out

or going to prison, correct?

I'm willing to go forward with the truth, yes.

One of the next witnesses, the prosecution called,

was Robert Crozier, the man she says

she purchased the fentanyl from for Cory.

Give us the rundown of his testimony.

Something important to know about Crozier

is that when he first spoke to investigators years ago,

he corroborated Carmen's story that he sold her fentanyl

and signed in affidavit.

But he is since recanted and said

he didn't start selling fentanyl until late 2022,

month after the alleged drug purchases.

I'm curious how the prosecution handled that.

They told the jury about his signed affidavit.

And they said, even if he didn't know he was selling fentanyl,

other drugs can be laced with fentanyl

without the user or dealer's knowledge.

That was a, how weren't the pills

that you sold the Carmen harbor of passage?

Um, they were sent back.

And you got that bag from your plug, right?

Correct.

You did not get that bag from a pharmacy, correct?

No, thank you.

Did any other witnesses get your attention this week?

We heard more about the state of Eric

and Cory's marriage from the wife of Eric's

former business partner, Alison Wright.

She said that years before Eric's death in 2019,

Cory told her they were having trouble.

And she felt trapped because of their pre-nuptual agreement

we've also heard from a forensic accountant

who was describing how deeply in debt Cory was

in the months leading up to Eric's death.

All right, well, Karen, thanks for bringing us

these updates.

It's great.

Thanks, Lester.

We have our own quick update for you

about this trial on Wednesday afternoon

after I taped my conversation with Karen.

The prosecution called Robert Josh Grossman to the stand.

The man prosecutors say was Cory Richie's lover

at the time of Eric's murder

and the man they say fueled her murder plot.

We'll tell you all about his testimony next week.

Coming up after a man was shot dead on a country road,

no criminal charges were filed.

Now, the man's sister is fighting to change that.

For our next story, we're headed to a stretch of country road

in South Carolina, two and a half years ago,

a 33-year-old man by the name of Scott Spivey

was shot dead there.

Oh my God, hey, what happened, man?

What happened?

The man who shot him, Weldon Boyd and Kenneth Bradley

Williams told police they were acting in self-defense

and the state's top prosecutor believe them.

They have never faced criminal charges,

but Spivey's sister, Jennifer Foley,

refused to let it go.

While my family has ever asked for was a fear

and honest investigation.

And after filing a wrongful death suit,

she uncovered phone calls, 911 calls and other material.

She says proof Spivey was killed in cold blood

and local police officers may have helped cover it up.

At a recent four-day hearing,

a civil court judge got to take a look at all that material,

date line producer Carol Gabel was there.

Carol, good to have you.

Thanks for being with us.

Thanks, Lester, it's good to be here.

So first off, tell us a little bit

about the man Scott Spivey who was killed in all this.

Well, he was 33 years old, an insurance adjuster,

and apparently on September 9th,

he was at a local bar watching football

and drinking for several hours

before getting behind the wheel of his Chevy Silverado.

And witnesses saw him drive very radically

down US Highway 9.

Sometimes he would wave his gun out the window,

sometimes according to some witnesses at them,

but most times just waving it in the air.

I am on Highway number nine.

There is a guy that is waving a gun in front of me.

He's all over the road.

And I have his oxygen plate number.

That's when he crossed paths with Weldon Boyd

and his passenger, Bradley Williams.

Where were they coming from?

Well, they had been running errands all day.

They were going up Highway 9 as well.

OK, so walk us through how this escalates.

The clearest sort of window into Weldon's thinking

is the 911 call, because he calls 911

and it leaves them on speakerphone.

The whole time this is happening.

Hey, I've got a guy's point of driving.

And he's describing how Scott's Bobby continues

to weave in and out.

And in fact, at one point, Scott's Bobby

drives Weldon Boyd off the road into the grass median.

And he basically said several times

on this 911 tape that if this guy does not slow down

and stop, that he would put him down.

Welcome.

They're still shooting me.

We're going to put him down.

Sort of like you talk about putting a rabid dog down.

According to some witnesses, Weldon Boyd was behind Scott's

Bobby.

And both of them were driving at rates of speed

more than 100 miles an hour at times.

Finally, they come to an intersection of Camp Swamp Road.

So instead of moving forward to his destination,

Weldon Boyd is still going after Scott's Bobby.

People were still calling 911, which

is why we know what was happening.

So Scott's Bobby eventually comes

to a stop at Camp Swamp Road in his black truck.

Weldon Boyd and Bradley Williams

are on a white truck behind him.

Take us through what happens next.

So by now, Scott's Bobby has jumped out of his truck.

And he has a gun by several reports

is down by his side.

And he's yelling a stop following me.

He told the guy, do not follow me anymore.

The guy in the white truck had his gun drawn pointed at him.

And the guy in the black truck kind of like moving pistol.

And as he turns to go back to his truck,

he shot in the back.

So the guy in the white truck has unloaded

a complete magazine of the guy.

Shot through his back window, and I think you might have hit him.

Now, there is also testimony that Scott's

Bobby fired around that went into the dirt.

But he climbs back into the cab of his car,

and he's mortally wounded.

So let me ask you about the attorney general

who declined to prosecute the men,

saying it was a clear cut example of self-defense

under the Stand Your Ground law.

Explain exactly what it allows you to do.

What Stand Your Ground in South Carolina is supposed to do

is protect you and give you civil and criminal immunity.

If someone is attacking you or threatening you

with deadly force in a place, you have a right to be.

Scott's family didn't accept the Stand Your Ground

explanation.

They did not, and chief among those

would be Scott's sister, Jennifer,

very, very close siblings, peas and a pod.

So she decides to file a wrongful death

suit against these two guys.

Chief finds buried within the discovery

more than 90 phone calls that Weldon Boyd had made.

How is it that all these recordings exist?

Well, Weldon Boyd had a girlfriend,

and she got pregnant, and they broke up.

So he started trying to get custody.

So he flipped a switch on his phone

that meant all of his phone calls were recorded all the time

because he thought he might catch her in some incriminating

statement or something that would help in his case.

What did they reveal those phone calls?

After the shooting that kills Scott's bivy,

he says things like, to his mother,

I had a blast.

To someone else.

I had a good time.

So it didn't necessarily paint the picture

of someone who was fearing for their life

at that particular moment.

Some of these calls that raised eyebrows

were ones that Boyd exchanged with local police officers.

Oh, yes, the first one when he calls his friend

on the forest who's a high-up person

and says, I just shot somebody.

I had to shoot them and he's told,

Well, I got the wrong thing.

I got the people coming to me to go.

And then there's another moment in body camera tape

when another officer walks up to Weldon with a piece

of paper, a pad in his hand that says, act like a victim.

After the calls became public Boyd's friend

on the police force resigned, although his attorney told us

he denies any wrongdoing and had nothing to do

with the investigation into the shooting.

And the police officer who wrote the message,

act like a victim, was fired.

The way the shooting was investigated

is now under review by a grand jury.

And Carol, that's not all.

This seemed to shake loose how prosecutors were thinking

about the criminal side of things.

After this happened, the attorney general appointed

a sort of special prosecutor to have another look at this case.

So take us to the hearing that concluded just a few days ago.

What was it about?

It was significant because Jennifer's quest

to sue Weldon Boyd and Bradley Williams

in civil court for wrongful death

depended on the two of them being stripped

of their stanger ground privilege.

So this was a four day hearing geared to a party of one,

because the judge was the one who had to make that decision.

This was the first time we heard Weldon Boyd

tell his story under oath.

Let's take a listen to some of it.

Did you and Tia didn't hurt that name?

Did you have fire in it enough by me?

No, I didn't give you any chance.

I eat it.

I mean, it just got back to the truck.

Weldon started his testimony sobbing and extraordinarily

upset.

But then he just stuck by his story

that he didn't have a choice but to shoot Scott's body.

So what did the judge decide?

He said he was basically stunned and shocked

at Weldon Boyd's behavior, that it didn't seem

like stanger ground at all.

It's not credible.

It seems that driving over 100 miles an hour

trying to keep up the guy with the gun is foolish.

I find that there's a boy's request for communities to not.

The net net was Weldon Boyd can be sued civilly,

and there's a possibility that AG's special prosecutor

may in fact get charges levied against him criminally.

So what did the judge decide about the other person

who was in that vehicle, Mr. Williams?

Well, the judge wanted to take a little more time

to make that decision, and he has asked both sides

the defense and the plaintiffs to submit briefs for him

to look at.

And I believe there's going to be due in the next week or so,

and then he will come back and make that decision.

After the judge gave his ruling,

Jennifer spoke outside court.

Let's take a listen.

It's been a lot of nose in the last two and a half years,

and this is the first test.

This is just a start on the road.

They're trying to get justice going.

OK, fascinating case Carol.

It'll be interesting to see what happens.

Coming up, it's time for Dateline Roundup.

We'll bring you the latest from the murder trial

of former college football player, Rashan Jones,

and the one-time MLB pitcher Dan Seraphini

convicted of shooting his in-laws finally learns his fate.

Plus, the dos and don'ts of photo lineups,

a retired police chief shares his tips.

Welcome back.

Joining us for this week's Roundup

is Dateline Field Producer Alex Lowray.

Hi, Alex.

Hey, Lester.

First, we are going to head back to Miami,

Florida, with the latest in the murder trial of Rashan Jones.

The University of Miami football player

accused of killing his fellow teammate, Brian Pada.

He's pleaded not guilty.

And Alex, you've been in Miami covering this one.

And on Monday, there was huge news from inside the courtroom

before we get to that.

Remind us where we left off in this case.

Yeah, sure.

So we left off right as closing arguments

were getting underway.

The prosecutors told the jury that Rashan Jones

killed Brian Pada out of envy and jealousy.

They leaned hard on the videotaped testimony

of an eyewitness who identified Rashan

from a photo lineup as the person

that he saw at the scene that night.

As for the defense, they said there

wasn't any evidence connecting Rashan to the crime.

The eyewitness wasn't even 100% sure of his ID.

And deliberations began last Thursday.

On Monday, the jurors sent a note to the judge.

What did they say?

Yeah, they said that they were deadlocked.

The judge encouraged them to keep trying.

But after another hour of deliberations,

the jurors again said that they would not

be able to render a verdict.

And so the judge declared a mistrial.

At this time, I will declare a mistrial in a home jury.

You were there in the courtroom for that moment.

What was it like?

Yeah, so obviously the Pada family,

they've been there every single day.

They seemed like they were in disbelief.

Outside of the courthouse, after everything was over,

Brian's brother Edwin spoke to the media.

And he said that he's convinced now more than ever

that Jones is guilty.

Let's listen to Edwin's interview

with our affiliate NBC6 South Florida.

Like, there's some things that I heard throughout this trial

that I've never even heard of.

And that gave us more confidence

that he's the guy he's actual killer.

And we're confident with that.

And we're going to stay with that.

He knows that he did that.

Alex, you were able to speak with one of the jurors afterwards.

What insight did the juror give you into deliberations?

Many of the jurors had questions about the eyewitness.

And for this juror, the motive didn't really make sense.

Did this juror share the breakdown

of how the jurors were divided?

They did.

By the end of the first day of deliberations,

which was last Thursday, it was five to one to acquit.

They went away over the weekend and returned Monday.

And the holdout juror wouldn't change their mind.

And that's what led to the mistrial.

And prosecutors announced Wednesday

that they will retry the case against Rashan Jones.

His retrial is scheduled to begin May 18th.

And of course, we'll be watching it closely.

Next up, we're turning to a Michigan courthouse,

where a trial we've been watching closely is winding down.

Dale Warner is charged with murdering his wife, Dee, in 2021,

and concealing her body inside a fertilizer tank

on his Lenaway County farm.

He has pleaded not guilty.

Alex, what's happening in court at this stage?

A lot.

The prosecution and the defense both had big moments.

The prosecution took the jurors on a sight visit.

So they didn't just hear about the Warner farm.

They walked it, giving jurors a first-hand look

at the property where Dee's body was found.

And Alex, the prosecution rested on Tuesday.

So the jury also got to hear from some defense witnesses.

What were the highlights there?

The main witness the defense called

was Dee's brother, Greg Hardy.

The defense challenged Greg about a text that he'd sent.

You indicated that you have potential liability

if the prosecutor is not successful in getting

a conviction against Mr. Warner, correct?

That's what the text says.

And you wrote that text, right?

I did.

The defense was suggesting that this was suspicious behavior.

And after that, the defense rested.

We'll have an update next week.

And finally, we're off to California,

where former Major League Baseball pitcher Dan Seraphini

learned his fate this week.

He was found guilty back in July for the murder

of his father-in-law, Gary Spore,

and the attempted murder of his mother-in-law, Wendy Wood.

Alex, first remind listeners about this case.

Sure, so prosecutors say back in 2021,

Seraphini ambushed his in-laws

at their Lake Tahoe home, shooting both of them.

Prosecutor said Seraphini plotted to kill his in-laws

over money so that he'd have access

to a multi-million dollar inheritance.

Seraphini made several attempts to win himself

a new trial since he was convicted back in July.

That's right.

All those attempts, however, were denied by a judge

and Seraphini sentencing moved forward last Friday.

The court hereby sentencing you

to life without the possibility of parole.

Victim impact statements immediately

followed Adrian Spore.

The victim's daughter had this to say about Dan Seraphini.

He is a monster that knows no moral boundaries

and has zero reservations about taking lives

to benefit himself.

She even asked the judge to put Seraphini

in solitary confinement because she's afraid

he will conspire with fellow inmates to have her killed.

Then Seraphini himself got to say a few words.

In this court, I was called Herodin, Mendidium, and Elijah.

I accept my families, but I'm never heard.

The judge wasn't too keen on what Seraphini had to say

about himself.

But I heard from you was all about you

and not enough about the victims that died in this case.

Some of the jurors who convicted Seraphini

returned to court for his sentencing.

They talked to our affiliate KCRA

outside the courthouse afterwards.

I think it's a moment for closure for all of us.

We really wanted to be here in support of the family.

It was a tragedy and these are real people and realized

and just to hear the devastation caused by these murders,

it's awful.

Well, Alex, so much from jurors this week.

Thanks for bringing us these updates.

Thanks for having me, Lester.

For our final story this week, we're talking about something

that got our attention while we've been covering the trial

of Rashan Jones over the past few weeks.

Photo line-ups, as we just talked about and round up,

the prosecution star witness was an eyewitness

who picked Jones out of a photo lineup.

But the defense had questions about his identification.

It made us curious about how detectives conduct a photo lineup

in the first place and the obstacles

that exist to getting a solid ID.

My next guest, Ken Walentine, is a retired chief

of the West Jordan, Utah Police Department

with over four decades of experience in law enforcement.

Welcome to the show, Ken, great to have you with us.

Thank you.

Ken, we've all seen photo line-ups done in movies

and we've heard about them on certainly on deadline episodes,

but walk us through what the procedure is actually

like in real life.

You know, the first thing in a photo lineup

is we want to start outright.

Typically, you'll see a minimum of six photographs,

sometimes a few more.

I hope, nevertheless, and typically that's one suspect,

one person we believe might be the perpetrator

and at least five, what we call fillers.

In other words, people who are similar in appearance,

not to the suspect, but similar in appearance

to the description given by the witness.

We want the witness to be told, you know,

the perpetrator may or may not be present in the photo lineup.

We assure the witness that the investigation

will continue regardless of their identification

or inability to make an identification.

We caution them not to look to the detective

or whoever's administering the photo lineup for any guidance

and then one final thing in administering

is that best practice today, I believe,

is a blind administration.

And what do I mean by that?

It's a blind administration where the photo ID lineup

administrator doesn't know the suspect's identity.

And the purpose of that is to eliminate either intentional

or unconscious queuing because even subtle queues

from the administrator and breathing, posture, ton of voice

can influence the witness's memory

and also the witness's choice.

You've been in law enforcement for four decades,

a police chief or two of them.

How is the process of police lineups

evolved over the years?

Oh my gosh.

So we go back in my family to 1869 in law enforcement.

And when my grandfather was doing identification,

they were still doing live lineups.

We typically don't do those anymore.

Photo lineups became fairly popular in the late 1950s,

the late 1960s when we started really collecting photographs,

mug shots, if you will, and making them available.

In the 1960s, there was very limited training

on how to administer an eyewitness identification

procedure.

The detective who was the investigator

took the photographs, put them in front of people,

might have even pointed to photographs

as she or he moved along.

And then when I became a cop in the late 1970s,

really about the beginning of the 1980s,

there was a scientific awakening.

And so in the 80s and 90s, we move from assuming memory

works like a video recording to understanding

that it's reconstructive and vulnerable to suggestions.

Finally, in the last, even less than decade,

we have seen courts and legislatures

drive best practices as they're embedded into evidentiary

rules and evidentiary laws.

What I'm hearing is that this is a useful technique,

but one that has to be handled very carefully

because of just human reaction and how we process information.

So with that in mind, how common is it

for police to use a photo lineup?

Well, you wouldn't see a photo lineup used, for example,

in a shoplifting at a convenience store, typically.

Certainly in serious felony cases, aggravated assault,

sexual assaults, people who may witness a homicide.

In those kind of cases, all stops are pulled,

all hands on deck, and we'll do everything we can

to identify the perpetrator.

And very often, if we have an eyewitness,

that will involve a photographic lineup procedure.

All right, I was struck by this one figure

according to the National Institute of Justice.

Mistaken eyewitness identifications have played a role

in 75% of wrongful convictions.

That's a pretty alarming high number.

Can what could make an eyewitness pick the wrong person?

One thing is that they haven't been given proper instructions.

They go into the procedure believing,

and it's a little logical, I think, to believe,

that one of those six people is the perpetrator.

And they also feel like they have an obligation

to identify someone.

And luster, we all inflate our confidence in our memories.

And when you couple that with the pressure

or the direction to identify a suspect,

maybe you think it's your civic duty,

maybe you're anxious to see justice done for a crime

that was perpetrated against you, that's a dangerous combination.

Once a witness or victim has made an identification,

how does that impact the investigation?

Is there anything the police should

or shouldn't do afterward?

Really good detectives will consider

that eyewitness identification,

and then they will balance it

with the other information that they have,

and they will pursue any other leads they can.

We don't want officers,

we don't want investigators to be overconfident.

Eyewitness testimony can be powerful.

It can also be vulnerable.

So I would hope luster that once a identification is made,

that's simply another brick in the wall,

that's simply another step taken,

but not conclusive,

and not a terminal point for the investigation.

OK, and you've been great on all this.

Thanks so much for spending some time with us.

Thank you.

That's it for this episode of Deadline True Crime Weekly.

Make sure to check out Josh's brand new

original podcast series, Trace of Suspicion.

After a marine dies unexpectedly,

investigators suspect his widow had something to do with it,

setting off a criminal case that takes a stunning turn.

This case started because of the breast implants.

Think about it.

If she had a nose job,

would we even be talking about it?

On March 10th, you can listen to the first two episodes

completely free or subscribe to Deadline Premium

to start listening now,

add free with early access to subsequent episodes.

And if that's not enough Josh for you coming up this Friday

on NBC, he has a brand new Deadline episode for you.

After a beloved professor is found murdered at home,

the prime suspect is just with an investigator's reach,

but not for long.

He said to bring my Kevlar.

Bring your Kevlar because Mexico's an dangerous place

or he's going to shoot you.

Right, I'm not sure.

Watch the professor and the poet, Friday,

at nine, eight central on NBC.

Thanks for listening everyone.

Deadline True Crime Weekly is produced by Carson Cummins,

Carolyn Casey, and Keanu Reed.

Our associate producers are Ellery Glantstone Groth

and Aria Young.

Our senior producer is Liz Brown-Kurloff.

Production and fact-checking help by Audrey Abrahams.

Veronica Mosaicup is our digital producer.

Rick Kwan is our sound designer,

original music by Jesse McGinty.

Paul Ryan is executive producer

and Liz Cole is senior executive producer of Deadline.

All right, thanks.

Bye-bye.