"I'm Killing Her at 5"

There are moments in a trial when everything changes. When the evidence stops being abstract and becomes undeniable. When the jury stops wondering and starts knowing.

In the Texas v. Uriah Urick trial, that moment came when Detective Arturo Espinoza read the Instagram messages.

At 4:33 in the morning on February 5, 2025, Uriah Urick sent a message to his girlfriend Tara King: "I'm killing her at 5."

He was inside Tammy King's house. The 61-year-old grandmother had taken him in. She was asleep down the hall. And Uriah was texting his girlfriend about murdering her.

But here's what makes this even more chilling. At the exact same time Uriah was texting Tara about killing her grandmother, he was also texting Tammy directly. Playing nice. Asking about Tara going to school. Acting like everything was normal.

Tammy had no idea. She responded about school attendance, about getting Tara out of bed, about the daily frustrations of raising a teenager. She had no idea the teenager's boyfriend was in her house planning her murder.

The 4-Hour Gap

The messages between Uriah and Tara kept coming throughout the night. Planning. Coordinating. Discussing whether to "interrogate" or "blackmail" the grandmother. Talking about kidnapping. Talking about killing.

Then at 7:39 AM, the messages stopped.

When they resumed at 11:45 AM, everything had changed. Now they were talking about getting out. About rides. About "murder charges go through every state."

The prosecutor asked Detective Espinoza directly: "From your investigation during that 7 to 11 AM hour, is that when Tammy King was murdered?"

His answer: "Yes."

What the Defense Tried

Defense attorney Bill Aman tried to reframe everything. These were kids in a toxic environment. A grandmother who allegedly used meth and heroin. Drug dealers coming to the house. An unhealthy situation that two teenagers were desperate to escape.

It's the classic defense play: humanize the defendants, contextualize the crime, plant seeds of doubt about the environment that led to this moment.

But then the prosecutor dropped the toxicology report.

Tammy King's autopsy results showed ethanol, hydrocodone, and marijuana in her system. No meth. No heroin. The drugs the teenagers claimed justified their paranoia and fear? Not there. The meth dealers they said were coming to the house? No evidence of that either.

The prosecutor asked the detective one final question: "Even if what Tara and Uriah's paranoid beliefs were happening, is that an excuse for them to rob and murder Tammy King?"

"Absolutely not."

Why This Matters

We talk a lot on this channel about presumption of innocence. About the state's burden. About how allegations aren't convictions. All of that remains true.

But we also watch the evidence. We observe. We pay attention to what's presented and how.

These messages are devastating. Not because I'm saying Uriah Urick is guilty. That was for the jury to decide. But because this is what the jury saw. This is the evidence they had to weigh. This is what prosecutors put in front of twelve people and said: this is what happened.

"I'm killing her at 5."

That's not ambiguous. That's not subject to interpretation. That's a statement. And the jury had to decide what to do with it.

▶️ WATCH NOW "I'm Killing Her at 5" Teen's Chilling Text Before Grandmother's Murder

Uriah Urick was found guilty of capital murder. The text messages played a significant role in that verdict. When you watch the full testimony, you'll understand why.

This is why we watch trials. Not to root for one side or the other. But to see how the system processes evidence like this. To observe how juries weigh words against intent, planning against execution, claims against toxicology reports.

The system worked the way it was designed to work. Twelve people heard the evidence. Twelve people made a decision. That's the process.