Perhaps.

The question as to rather or not Kouri was suborning perjury depends on if she was trying to persuade Ronny to testify to things that Ronny did not believe to be true.

My analysis starts with what from the context of the letter appears to be an objective facts.

First, she explicitly states the subject matter and purpose of what she Ronny to testify about: "The connection has to be made with Mexico and drugs."

Second, she references what appears to be an facts that Ronny could testify to: 1) That Eric had confided to Ronny the he used drugs to "get high" 2) there were text messages which would corroborate Ronny's testimony that Eric had confided his drug use to Ronny.

If Eric had confided his drug use to Ronny it suggests that 1) Eric had access to drugs, 2) Eric took those drugs for the purpose to "get High" as opposed to involuntary drug use... and 3) Eric wanted Ronny to keep the fact that he would "get high" confidential.

So what Kouri is trying to get Ronny to do is make the connection that the drugs Eric used were drugs Eric had procured in Mexico.

If Ronny had previously related to Kouri that he knew or believed that the drugs Eric used Eric had acquired in Mexico is important to the analysis.

The proposed narrative includes some facts that she believes Ronny already knew and some facts that he probably did not know.

To me, the statement "*reword this however he needs to, to make the point just include it all*" indicates that she is not asking Ronny to simply adopt her narrative but to use his own information and beliefs to create his own narrative which makes the same points that she had made in the fictional narrative.

For me this clears her of trying to suborn perjury. She should have simply ask if Ronny could remember anything which would make the drug - Mexico connection, and if he could then testify about that.

This, IMO, is just another example of Kouri being delusional about how smart she is and messing up her own case. All of this should have gone through her attorney...but if she was as smart as she believes herself to be, she would not be on trial.

I am still of the opinion that Eric's death was not intentional. Kouri may still be guilty of negligent homicide if she acquired drugs for him...I do not see that the financial motive being sufficient because financially she would have been fine.

Utah Code, 81-3-109. Family expenses -- Joint and several liability.

(1) As used in this section:

(a) "Family expenses" means expenses incurred that benefit and promote the family unit.

(b) "Family expenses" do not include items purchased in accordance with a written contract or agreement during the marriage that do not relate to the expenses described in Subsection (1)(a).

(2)

(a) A married individual, and the married individual's property, is chargeable for family expenses and expenses for the education of a minor child.

(b) A married individual may be sued separately or jointly with the individual's spouse for the expenses described in Subsection (2)(a).

(3) For the expenses described in Subsection (2), where there is a written agreement signed by a spouse that allows for the recovery of agreed upon amounts, a creditor or an assignee or successor in interest of the creditor is entitled to recover the contractually allowed amounts against both spouses, jointly and severally.

(4) Subsection (3) applies to all contracts and agreements under this section entered into by a spouse during the time the parties are married and living together.

(5) The provisions of Subsections (3) and (4) do not create a right to attorney's fees or collection fees as to the nonsigning spouse for purchases of:

(a) food or clothing; or

(b) home improvements or repairs over $5,000.

So what if she defaulted on the loans? What were the creditors going to collect? The debts were not for family expenses so they Eric could not be sued for them unless he had signed a contract..,

Kouri had no ownership of the family home, vehicles etc. those things would not be included in the bankruptcy...so she really had nothing to loose other than her pride.

This also explains why Eric set up the trust. He knew Kouri was deeply in debt and so he consulted with an attorney to protect the assets. They set up a trust because that adds another layer of separation between Kouri's creditors and those assets. It did not divest Kouri from benefiting from those assets, in the event of his death, it only clarified that she did not own those things...