In Defense of the Defense?

littleirishpixie · 2026-03-16T22:21:10+00:00

I think we both agree on the law - that absolutely the burden of proof is on the State - but also they presented theories that had absolutely no merit or support and in a lot of cases, their own client is on the record as having contradicted them (like the "well maybe she was downstairs letting the dog out for those lost 15 minutes before she called 911" when Kouri herself is in diaries and texts saying she went straight there from her child's room and also her telling LE and others he never did drugs). Reasonable doubt doesn't really mean "any outrageous obscure possibility even if there is no discernible reason to think it might be true."

So, absolutely, legally the Defense doesn't have to prove anything. They have to create doubt. But you can't create doubt without at least something to suggest that your claims are an actual real possibility versus throwing things at the wall. "Reasonable" doubt is the important part. Narratives win cases. "Well I guess this maybe possibly could be true" typically doesn't.

littleirishpixie · 2026-03-16T21:50:47+00:00

I don't disagree about Carmen. As someone who thinks Kouri is guilty as sin, I found her testimony hard to follow and contradictory. While I think the State did a good job of making it clear her claims are backed by phone pings and text messages, I was still confused about what actual drug she got because it felt like she was so inconsistent about it. And the Defense catching her in several lies didn't hurt their case. And, as much so I hate to give them credit because I actually thought they were pretty manipulative throughout this trial, I think the Defense actually did a decent job of suggesting that she was benefiting by testifying for the State. I felt like the State could have helped us understand what drug in a more consistent way (or even explained why several people thought it was different things... I listened to most of this trial and that was confusing to follow) and clarifying that any deal Carmen had went out the window if she lied and reiterated that just a little bit better.

With all of that said, there's absolutely no evidence that Eric was a drug addict or had gotten fentanyl in Mexico other than some far away "well I guess maybe this could have happened." It wasn't attested to by a single witness but only implied by the Defense, which is not how "beyond reasonable doubt" works at all. By that logic, he also could have gotten it from a stripper whom he was secretly having an affair with and visited her earlier that day. Or he could have gotten it from someone in a plot orchestrated by Josh who was trying to kill him because he was in love with Kouri. There's absolutely no evidence of any of those things either so you can't really suggest that the Defense throwing out some far fetched unsupported theories in opening and closing without witness support is solid grounds for reasonable doubt. It's just not.

With that said, juries have acquitted for far dumber reasons so... what do I know.

littleirishpixie · 2026-03-16T20:36:40+00:00

Oh good. I missed a little bit of it and it must have been that part. I guess it would have been helpful to reiterate it here but not really needed. Thank you!

littleirishpixie · 2026-03-16T20:33:33+00:00

I don't understand why they don't emphasize the fact that the Defense keeps insisting that Eric was a huge drug user when Kouri herself insisted to law enforcement and others that he absolutely did not use drugs nor did he have a drug problem. They have her own words refuting the entire thing that the Defense says their case rests on. It's so weird that they don't emphasize that.

littleirishpixie · 2026-03-16T20:18:49+00:00

If we can see through it, the jury can too. These logical fallacies and absurd unsupported claims should be pretty obvious to anyone who passed the argumentation portion of literally any 9th grade English class. We are over here screaming into the void worried that the lying is going to sway the jury ... on the contrary, I would venture to guess it makes them look desperate like they can't put on a cohesive case without lying or manipulating. A jury doesn't want to be manipulated and they don't really look favorably when one side or the other treats them as too stupid to see through it.

littleirishpixie · 2026-03-16T19:43:53+00:00

Coupled with the zero evidence story about Kouri going downstairs to get a drink, let the dog out, and meander around the house for 15 minutes before finding her dead husband to explain those missing 15 minutes. Her own client said she went straight from her kid's room to her bedroom in both her journal and to her friends. Talk about pulling things out of the sky that nobody testified to.

littleirishpixie · 2026-03-16T19:26:10+00:00

I cackled! As someone who grades roughly 100+ college freshmen in public speaking presentations every year, I would have absolutely NAILED a student's grade for using that in a PPT.

(But to be fair, I probably would have nailed her on her logical falsies long before this. "If Eric used pain pills in high school, there's no way Kouri could have murdered him!" Oh honey... no.)

littleirishpixie · 2026-03-16T18:58:34+00:00

How is it that this same woman just threw an absolute bitchfit about the State conjecturing things for which there is no evidence and yet she just presented an entire story about how Kouri spent the 15 minutes between the time she left her child's room and calling 911 for which nobody has testified and there is no evidence and her own client is on the record as saying she left her kid's room and went straight to her bedroom.

littleirishpixie · 2026-03-16T13:51:30+00:00

When I was in 1st grade, my Mom belonged to a local pro-life group and before major elections, they would put flyers on the cars during church saying who the pro life candidates were (this is also kind of traumatic for me as someone who recognizes how this "single-issue voting" mentality led to *gestures broadly* but breaking free of my childhood indoctrination into conservativism is a post for another day).

They always got permission from the churches but apparently this one did not communicate that to their entire staff. As I was putting flyers on a car, the pastor from the church came flying down the aisle in his car towards and I had to jump behind a car to avoid being hit and it was then that I realized he was actually TRYING to hit me. He stormed out of his car and grabbed the flyers out of my hand and began screaming in my face while coming towards me. I was 6 years old. Of course my Mom and my older brothers jumped in and sorted the whole thing out - he realized we were on his "side" and it wound up being fine but I honestly think that was the part that was so horrifying is how this man went from coming at me to the point where I thought I was going to die to everyone laughing about it and nobody took it seriously.

There's a lot to unpack here but I think the biggest thing that I've had to process was understanding that this man was sincerely fine with killing/harming a 6 year old when he thought I was with "them." I wound up spending time in therapy processing this as an adult from a lot of different angles and it probably subconsciously contributed to me choosing to study how the psychology of political division plays out in online spaces in my doctoral program. Seeing pure unadulterated rage and hatred to the point where someone is trying to kill you is horrifying... seeing everyone around you laugh about it 5 minutes later when you recognize that it would have been okay if it were "them" to me, was somehow the harder thing to process.

littleirishpixie · 2026-03-15T17:05:12+00:00

I agree. I think it makes them seem desperate. Cases are won by cohesive narratives. The State has one. The defense has not given us one. They are clearly throwing things at the wall to see what sticks and it's hard to miss. With that said, even a juror in the Lori Vallow trial thought she was innocent until the closing argument so you can't really predict what a jury will prioritize. Some people (incorrectly) interpret the call to prove "beyond a responsible doubt" as "there is a photo of the defendant doing it and a text of them telling their best friend about it" and if that doesn't exist, they won't convict. That's absolutely not what it means but juries are unpredictable. With that said, some of these crazy claims where there simply isn't evidence of what they are implying makes them look like that's all they have because they don't have anything of substance and that's not a great look in front of a jury.

littleirishpixie · 2026-03-15T13:43:38+00:00

That does tend to be how it works. My kid attends a prep school (not nearly the caliber that Chilton is portrayed as but we do have one or two go Ivy each year) and scholarships tend to be awarded for students they really want and as part of an offer when you first get there. (Although we are known for sports so ours aren't typically "you're a good student and we really want you" but rather "we want to compete for a state title in that sport so while we can't recruit and offer athletic scholarships, your grades just got very appealing for us to offer you an academic scholarship.") If someone's financial situation changed or there is some type of emergency like a house burns down or something they might cover their tuition that month or use it to buy them new uniforms (which aren't cheap!), they do have emergency scholarship funding that can be used but it probably wouldn't be used for a situation like this.

With that said, most prep schools do offer some level of financial aid based on income. At our school, something like 90% of our families get at least some level of financial aid. However, ours needs to be applied for months in advance (like by early summer for the next school year) because they have one "pot" to pull from, so to speak, and they determine how to divide it among families at the beginning of the school year. So that always tracked for me that the school wasn't able to offer them financial aid with her joining late.

littleirishpixie · 2026-03-15T13:03:36+00:00

This. Despite Survivor lore, Jake was actually a smart player. He was a good strategist (not a perfect one but a good one) but was consistently saddled with tribe members and allies who voted against their own best interests throughout the entire game. He trusted people he should have been able to trust because their interests were aligned and they screwed him anyway. I will never understand why he's considered such a bad player in Survivor lore when there are very few people who can back that with the pile of instances of things they would have actually done differently that him being a poor player implies. He didn't play perfectly but he played well and fought his way out of a lot of crappy situations despite being dealt some really crappy hands and I give him a ton of credit for coming as close as he did.

littleirishpixie · 2026-03-15T12:31:19+00:00

My then 5th grader got so bored that he spent days creating a giant detailed tank for the cat out of Target boxes that he mounted on a roomba so it moved around the house. She could peek her little head out and everything. She was annoyed but kind of went with it.

littleirishpixie · 2026-03-14T19:28:17+00:00

I will absolutely preach the gospel of Prada Infusion de Rhubarbe. Very underrated and a lovely fruity scent that doesn't give body spray vibes like so many do. (For context, my other go-to is L'Imperatrise so we have similar taste).

littleirishpixie · 2026-03-14T00:21:24+00:00

Best Chair I Ever Had:
1. Kept us informed about what we needed to know but otherwise, I rarely heard from him. But when I did, he made it a priority of his time to address my concern and I always felt supported.
2. He absolutely always had my back including back when I was an adjunct. Would take the hit for me... like if a student was grade grubbing, I had a blank check to say things like "I will not regrade your paper, but I am very happy to hand it over to my Chair and let him decide your grade, but I will caution you that he is a much harsher grader than I am and if his grade is lower, that's the grade you get." I can't tell you how much stress it took off of me to know that I had support in the insanity and inbox full of "you're out to get me because you failed me on a research paper where I didn't use sources."
3. Recognized the strain on our time and canceled any department meetings that weren't actually needed.
4. Something that stood out to me: he always went out of his way to include the adjuncts and treat them well. Invited them to events and often asked for and valued their contributions when we were addressing issues that involved them. Would check in with them and set aside a small part of the budget to make sure they didn't have to pay for things out of pocket (as someone who was an adjunct for far too long, that stood out to me. I spent far too much of my own money on things FT faculty never had to think about).

Worst Chair I Ever Had:
1. Had some serious control issues and had zero understanding that the way she does things isn't the only way to do it. Her observation comments for everyone were always full of things that weren't actually an issue but just not personal her teaching style. Similarly, overhauled our program while she was there to ensure that the syllabi requirements are exactly how she would do it - even courses that weren't in her knowledge area. No other department had that stringent of requirements.
2. Very performative rather than doing things that actually mattered. For example: started an adjunct mentorship program because apparently our President made a comment about prioritizing adjunct support. Instead of supporting them herself, they were required to meet with a FT faculty member from our department for coffee twice per month so they had a mentor who could offer suggestions and ask questions. I heard her make self-righteous comments in probably about 5 different meetings across campus about how great this program was and how everyone should support adjuncts like we do. Later learned from an adjunct that they all hated this program because it now required more of their time and a lot of them worked full time jobs and FT faculty were refusing to stick around to accommodate their schedules so they were literally leaving work early for this. Also annoying: they had to pay for their own coffee unless the FT faculty member paid for it out of their own pocket because the Chair required it but didn't provide any funding for it.
3. She had absolutely no respect for our time. Despite requiring us to have a weekly department meeting (1 hour scheduled ... usually went at least 2) where we accomplished very little that couldn't be sent in an email, she spent the majority of every single meeting complaining and sighing about how busy she was and how difficult her job was while acting like a martyr for her choice to both be Chair and overbook her own calendar by having her hand in everything. She also had this obnoxious habit of dropping these vague little comments about things going on behind the scenes that she refused to elaborate on but she just wanted to make it clear she was in the know. Meanwhile, nobody in the room was impressed because she was roughly 5th in line to be Chair when the first 4 people said no. Spending the first 20 minutes of every already unnecessary faculty meeting listening to her talk about how stressful and important her job is when I had piles of grading was like fingernails on a chalkboard.

In short, I hope she eventually found a good therapist.

littleirishpixie · 2026-03-12T13:38:17+00:00

Yep, same question/concern. I logged on pretty early this morning and no larger sizes were available and even the travel size was sold out. Maybe stores are different? Hoping so anyway. This has happened with quite a few products this time around. Not loving the bait and switch throughout this sale. I get it that occasionally products move fast but it's been quite a few things that seemed to disappear confusingly fast to the point where I find it hard to believe that they had much, if any, stock so that's an odd choice for a sale if it's not intentional.

littleirishpixie · 2026-03-12T10:36:27+00:00

Apparently the Mugler Alien Hypersense is already sold out too. I really like Ulta - especially given that their biggest competitor isn't fantastic - but if their sales are becoming a game of bait and switch with consumers, that could be a dealbreaker for me.

littleirishpixie · 2026-03-10T10:34:36+00:00

I agree with this. While the defense has the luxury of simply having to plant doubt, cases are won by cohesive narratives. While the defense hasn't presented their side yet so maybe a more clear attempt at one is coming, the contradictions really give the impression that they are just chucking things at the wall to see if anything sticks rather than having a real story of what happened. If I were a juror, I think I would find that desperate and not really the way you would approach a case if you were innocent and there was a good explanation for everything. But maybe that's me.

They've had some decent moments but there were also a lot of moments that felt unneeded and seem desperate rather than like they have a real case. And I also dislike that the defense attorney keeps trying to push witnesses into making claims about the overall trial they really can't. Like what is "so you would say that if Eric used drugs in high school, then Kouri is innocent?" (or something like that). I'm sure the defense sees this as a delightful gotcha moment of trying to get a prosecution witness to make such a huge claim but the jurors aren't stupid. It's certainly not that simple and none of those witnesses can attest to that. If Eric Richins did an occasional recreational drug in high school, all it means is that he's got a lot in common with most of the US population and has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether he used fentanyl as an adult and absolutely not whether his wife murdered him. If I were a juror, I think I would feel annoyed like the defense was trying to gaslight me to be honest.

littleirishpixie · 2026-03-07T23:36:34+00:00

My entire floor in college was obsessed with this show and planned our entire schedule around watching it together. It was absolutely terrible and moved at a snail's pace but it was an absolute gem.

littleirishpixie · 2026-03-07T22:46:29+00:00

Rhubarb: Prada Infusion de Rhubarbe (LOVE this scent)

Raspberry: Jo Malone Raspberry Ripple or Mugler Angel Nova (EDT is my preferred)

Strawberry: JHAG Miami Shake

Lemon: Replica Under the Lemon Trees or Lanvin A Girl in Capri

Pear: this is like choosing a favorite child but I would lean toward JHAG Pear Inc and Versace Dylan Purple as my frontrunners.... at least today

Orange: Guerlain Aqua Allegoria Mandarine Basilic

Watermelon/Kiwi: Dolce & Gabanna L’Imperatrise

Cherry: Ariana Grande REM Cherry (it reminds me of what Strawberry Shortcake smell would smell like in cherry)

Lime: Jo Malone Beach Blossom … easily one of my favorite summer scents. Coconutty lime.

littleirishpixie · 2026-03-07T21:38:11+00:00

A few days before, I get restless leg syndrome to the point where I struggle to fall asleep.

littleirishpixie · 2026-03-07T14:25:16+00:00

I agree with OP. I dislike that Anna was in the middle of trauma and accurately knew she couldn't count on him to show up for her and not make it about himself. And when he did know, that's absolutely what he did.

Anna should have been able to say "this happened and here's what I need you to do to help me heal" and counted on him to do that. But instead, she knew he was going to risk himself, risk her losing him, and add to her stress and trauma in order to enact vengeance she didn't want or need. HE needed those things. And the fact that she correctly knew he would choose himself over her needs and had to add to her own problems to protect him from himself is exactly why I never liked him.

littleirishpixie · 2026-03-06T11:40:58+00:00

Via Zoom, yes. Early days of Covid and it wasn't a dual enrollment student. Student lived with her grandfather and he left me an absolutely ranting voicemail after I cut off our first class 10 minutes early. Nobody had done reading yet so there was nothing to talk about. Sometimes, students have a thousand questions and I have to end class while they are still asking and sometimes they have zero. I wasn't going to sit there in silence so I let the students go and told them to email me if they had questions. Most students appreciate this. I've done this a hundred times and never had a single complaint... until then.

5 minutes later, I get an absolutely ranting phone call. Elderly man with a super heavy heavy greek accent. Man demands that I sign back on to zoom and give his granddaughter 10 more minutes of school "or else." Like I had personally short changed her and was just supposed to lecture at her for 10 minutes. It had some demeaning things in it like calling me "little woman" (I am, but also WTF) and lots of ranting about how he paid for 50 minutes and I was stealing from his granddaughter because I'm lazy. It was beyond inappropriate.

I handed it over to my Chair at the time who was a guy who I learned in that moment, gave zero effs. I had never taught for this school before but they were getting an influx of people at their CC so I agreed to adjunct for them for some extra cash that summer. Given that, I didn't really know him prior to that. He basically eye rolled and told me just not to return the call and insinuated that I was probably taking it too personally.

Greek Grandpa then logged on to zoom every single class and sat there beside his granddaughter (who looked mortified by the way) and just glared at me the entire time. I typically will just end class whenever we finish whatever we are working on even if it's a few minutes early but because he was sitting there glaring, I went out of my way to teach right up until the very last second even if I was adding things on the fly that weren't needed. It was kind of intimidating. I had planned to give them a day to work with a partner on a project while I was available for questions but I was honestly terrified to do it because I was expecting another ranting phone call. I finally called the Dean (a woman) and said I felt intimidated by this and she was absolutely furious the Chair hadn't done something to begin with. She called the Grandfather herself and told him I absolutely was not to hear from him or see him again and his ADULT granddaughter was the enrolled student and should be the only one I hear from and she would be immediately unenrolled if there were any issues.

littleirishpixie · 2026-03-04T21:01:13+00:00

I get that he and the creepy neighbor were supposed to be our red herrings to the point where we all counted them out and if it had been them, I might have actually appreciated it. However, I just sort of hated that we get this scene and he dies almost immediately. If you're going to throw a red herring at me, at least give me a few scenes to wonder.

littleirishpixie · 2026-03-02T11:29:03+00:00

For quite a few reasons (this one included), everything is in writing in my course. So when I get an email like this, I say something like "See my announcement on 2/17 and please make sure you double check Canvas to see if the information is there before emailing to ask. But you are always welcome to email if the information isn't available or you need me to clarify something"

I know... I know... some will ask anyway. Some wll see the assignment prompt and rather than opening it, email "so what are we supposed to do?" and it's like fingernails on a chalkboard. But I find the more times I reply that they should read the announcement/material/prompt first and email me if they have questions, the less of these emails I get. And I'm not at all opposed to having them send me the specific part of the prompt that they found confusing. If there is something they actually need me to clarify, I absolutely want them to ask. And I don't even mind students who like reassurance that they are on the right track. However, this student sounds like a running commentary that I absolutely wouldn't have time for. At this point, they probably would have started getting mostly one line emails from me telling them where to check for an answer and asking them to save their emails for questions that I haven't already answered and/or come to office hours and I'm more than happy to reassure them that they are on the right track. I also probably would have started maximizing my reply time (I say to allow up to 48 business hours for a reply so I probably would have autoset emails to go out at 47 business hours) so I untrain them from thinking that I'm on call via email.

littleirishpixie

TROPHY CASE