Nancy Brophy murder trial: Day 25, afternoon session | Live stream
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 май 2022
- The afternoon session of Day 25 of the ongoing trial of romance novelist Nancy Crampton Brophy is underway.
Crampton Brophy was arrested in September 2018 in the shooting death of her husband Daniel Brophy.
Daniel Brophy, 63, was killed as he prepped for work at the Oregon Culinary Institute in southwest Portland on June 2, 2018.
Read more: www.kgw.com/article/news/crim...
Subscribe: / kgwnews8
Watch the latest KGW newscast: www.kgw.com/watch
Get the KGW app: kgw.com/appredirect 
Развлечения
I have never seen a trial where they take so many breaks and have so many excuses as to why things and people are not prepared. The defense hovers over the keyboard, laughs about making mistakes and missing things. Amazing. The state does not have this issue. The state is on task.
I’ve never seen a case that was so long, with so many witnesses. Most of the poor preparation is in the rebuttal phase, is it not? That part of the trial is improvised as the trial is proceeding.
@@GH-oi2jf Defense wasn't ready from the get go. Then they lucked out and got a week off while the state had COVID. Several times, they didn't have witnesses ready and the day had to end early. The judge admonished them.
Yes, striking contrast between the state and defense. The state's operation is smooth and orderly. Defense table is a jumble of frantic, chaotic activity, loud whispering, laughing. Organized v disheveled.
@@barbaragrove6097 I don't know if this behavior is a "Portland Old Lady" thing, but this might be the most unlikeable group of women I've ever seen. Giggling and kibbitzing and aw'shucks-ing and trying to play up Nancy's "kooky but oh so creative" personality during a literal murder trial. Who on earth acts like this??
Some of the breaks, I believe, have to do with Oregon labor law. Between the judge and the attorneys, who are high on the totem pole, it's easy to forget that there are staff who are entitled to work breaks (e.g. the clerk and security). On an 8-9 hour day shift, these are a morning 15 on the clock, an afternoon 15 on the clock, and 1/2 hour lunch off the clock. AFAIK
How is this not murder in the 1st degree?
It is, but state was a not going for one life sentence
I have to commend this jury for their patience, well done!
Omg you guys! 🤩 Bittersweet news! Closing arguments will be Monday! So that means there should be a verdict definitely before Friday👍 but it also means a 3 hour close by the defense (nails on a chalk board👎)
I am worried . . .
@@barbaragrove6097 This should have been done on Wednesday and Jury instructions today. What a drawn-out trial! You think we'll get a verdict by next Friday?
@@barbaragrove6097 me too… if she gets off innocent, does she get to cash out? The insurance money?
@@willowv1220 She's got a mm dollar civil suit her SIL brought against her so, she'll be free but broke.
And, of course, a cloud over her head for life. Unless, she becomes an infamous published author with her next book.
I've been trying to figure out how Nancy got away with her toxicity all these years: her gaslighting, sneering, narcissism, laziness, funneling money, lying, various cons (e.g. that she's a "writer," and using the Brophy name when she wasn't married)..... No one seems to have challenged her. I guess Nancy concealed her toxicity with Dan's cooking; if you were getting fed well, you 'd be disarmed.
I've really been wondering that too, she seems like a hideous person inside and out. She's snipey and snarky and squawks like one of the chickens she hated so much. A lot of her supporters/friends seemed like very doormat/people-pleasing types, I bet she targeted these types of meek and non-confrontational folks who were willing put up with her antics.
For one thing, Dan was concentrating on his work and related activities. I suppose he was just not paying close attention to the finances.
There's a lot of people like that. They "get away" with it because they don't shoot their partner and try to pretend they didn't do it. As deceptive as she is, her plan to get away with murder took a big hit when she failed to think about neighborhood cameras. If not for that, what evidence would there be?
@Clem Fandango I believe it's not illegal to use any name (provided it's not obscene). You can change your name at any time; I have friends who have done so in OR.
BUT in this case, taking the Brophy name furthered the sham that Nancy was married to Dan.
@Clem Fandango Another tidbit on the marriage issue. Nancy says on her "professional" site (it's not at all professional, trust me) that it took her 4 1/2 years to convince Dan to marry her. As is obvious, it actually took him over 20.
AJ is not lying IMHO. This old woman defence is really on my last nerve.
I’d be into having Nancy work in the garden at Coffee Creek medium security, working in the dirt and raising vegetables. She abhored Dan’s gardening. Let her have every day a reminder.
I also love the idea of her having to drink decaf Nescafe 'til the end of time. Lukewarm, too, I bet. I don't know about OR, but at least some states don't allow caffeine.
And I hope the only tea flavor they have in the commissary is powdered Lapsang Souchong.
@@sleuththewild it’s for sure decafe they don’t allow caffeine in jail or prison in oregon lol
@@shopmycloset4273 That's what I was thinking: no caffeine. I'll see if I can find the commissary list.
@@sleuththewild I want the rubbery (fake) scrambled eggs and questionable meat she'll get for breakfast. I think that is Karma.
@@tourdedogue4952 Oh, yeah, good one! 25 years to life with the prison "chefs". I still want to have Nancy put in charge of the prison chickens. That would be karma, as you say!
I'm holding significant comments on closing (Monday) until after defense closing. I may, however, comment on Nancy's hairstyle.
The route NB took to OCI on June 2 was surely not her regular one, as it involved turning onto a street with a dead end. She was on a different mission that day.
I"m re-listening to Maxfield cross Det. Merrill, and she's setting up the amnesia scam. One by one she confirms with Merrill the answers NB gave to some of the questions Det Posey asked about what happened the morning of June 2. She cherry picked the questions that fit the SCAM. Posey asked NB what Dan did that morning. Apparently NB's answers were not real answers, per Maxfield at cross. They were reconstructions of what Dan normally did. That is not what she was asked! Retrograde LYING. Lying is required to defend a liar.
sadly, a liar is a liar who lies. Good call Barbara but what do you mean she cherry-picked questions? It seemed her whole testimony was so aggressive (during defense) and defensive and mean and her face totally changed from her jovial entrance.
Good observation, but of course cherry-picking is normal. Any defense attorney would want to talk only about the things that help her case, and skip over the parts that don’t.
@@GH-oi2jf The answers she picked to vindicate NB are the ones that incriminate her. NB couldn't be precise about what happened that morning because she wasn't home as she had previously lied that she was.
@@barbaragrove6097 - Maxfield is at a big disadvantage on the facts, so what can she do? She does not have documentation to refute the most incriminating facts against her client, so she just has to try to talk her way around them.
I like hearing the discussion of jury instructions. I didn’t expect this would be in the coverage.
Yikes - I wasn't going to listen. What ARE jury instructions? I thought they were all routine..
This is truly truly inconsequential. But the shocking nature of the murder itself is not inconsequential to me. There’s just no way around the lies to the police, the video, and the missing gun part.
I find all this excess testimony about a rebuttal witness is really trying the jurors. It seem extraneous and useless. I believed her - the defense is making too big a deal out of her crimes to have a full on trial w/o the jury.
I sure hope that Overstreet cuts out all the “kinda”,, “sort of” and “stuff” words in closing. It qualifies his statements as if he doesn’t really believe what he’s saying. After all the endless witnesses, it will be a kindness to the jury to be succinct on both sides.
@@hoppy6141 I agree, and I also hope he gets fucking angry as hell! Maybe the lady prosecutor would be better at this - far better. She seems more emotional than Overstreet. I like her and hope she goes for it. Like Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men. This woman needs to be creamed for this murder and a hung jury cannot be an option. Or a retrial.
@@hoppy6141 Well put! I also feel, although I feel that the prosecution had a strong case and presented it fairly well, the prosecutor has a way of changing direction mid-sentence, and losing the impact of his points. A no nonsense straight narrative of the motive, planning, and execution of this murder is crucial for the jury’s understanding of this case, I think. The trial wandered off into the weeds by the defense so many times with marginally relevant witnesses. This was a horrific murder, purely for financial gain, and I hope the prosecution proved that no one had the motive or opportunity to do it except for Nancy Brophy.
I think Overstreet will do a great job, and I"m looking forward to it. Defense will do their best to divert, distract, obfuscate, and create doubt, same as they've done the whole trial. No telling who the jury will believe. I can see it going either way.
Andrea isn’t on trial. They are trying to take away from NB.
It almost got confusing who was on trial....Nancy or Andrea.
@@adrienneleighton7379 This trial within a trial was the worst example of a defense team spending far too much money on paid experts and dragging in AJ and a whole bunch of attorneys to debate it. I'm appalled - is the older defense lawyer trying to prove her worth before she retires? Who determines how much money a public defender can spend debating the value of blackberry bushes?
Why is Andrae Jocobs on Trial here? Is she an accomplice of Nancy Brophy or is Andrae Jacobs an Alias for Nancy Brophy?
@@karstensbran1751 She is a jail-house inmate of NBs. She did not want to testify for the prosecution and did so under subpoena under threat of being a jail-house snitch, which brought her death threats. She gave a bit of icing on the cake about how Nancy had been dealing with things. The defense spent so much time doing a long 3 day trial within a trial that I think the jury, like most of us spectators was, they were trying far too hard to discredit her. Her testimony was that Nancy told her She (oops) IT was >>>>>this
Mandatory sentence for second degree murder in OR is life. 25 year minimum behind the barbed wire. As far as I can tell. There’s no mitigation.
The rest of her pathetic life.
One thing I'll be listening for in closing arguments is whether defense says that Nancy didn't do it. Someone was saying that if her attorneys know she did it, they can't state that she is not guilty, they can only argue that the prosecution did not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? I'm wondering if that's why they are declining to offer any alternate theories of the murder or even attempting to explain the video evidence or provide an alibi.
A narcissist usually won't admit guilt but in this case it wouldn't surprise me if she does a plea deal at the last minute before the jury takes the case. That's if the prosecutors would agree.
@@kayleiasierra2251 I would hope the prosecutors would not agree. This is about as airtight a case as I've ever seen, I want the satisfaction of hearing the verdict!
@@kayleiasierra2251 - I don’t see what kind of deal could be made at this point.
@@GH-oi2jf I honestly don't either but I have seen it happen right before the jury gets the case. Doubt it will happen but you never know with a true narcissist that enjoys reaking havoc after nearly a month of a dragging trial. Just saying NOTHING would surprise me when it comes to her, & her unprofessional defense team.
@@kayleiasierra2251 - In a state where first degree can be bargained down to a second degree plea, that could happen. It doesn’t apply here.
What do you guys think defense will say in closing statements? Will it be a rehash of opening where we hear a word salad of banalities about the power of love? Will they devote half of it to ranting about Andrea Jacobs and her bankruptcy trial? Or do you think they'll try to address any of the actual evidence in this case?
The problem is, they have already given up on refuting the most important incriminating evidence. They admit she drove into the vicinity of OCI but have not explained why she was there or why she lied about it, and they admit she bought a second slide and barrel for her handgun, but can’t explain why it was purchased or where it is.
Their marriage was perfect, they were each others' cheerleader, they compromised perfectly on everything, she never had a bad word to say about Dan, their financial difficulty had been perfectly corrected when Dan died, she has no memory of June 2 but she knows she did not kill Dan. Jacobs, on the other hand, is a convicted liar serving time, whose testimony cannot be trusted. Doesn't sound convincing to me, so I'm sure this isn't what it'll be.
yes. I think so.
I just reviewed the testimony - in much better detail than the first time - about the routes and times of NB's van on video June 2nd. I pulled up a map and followed it. It's chilling and creepy that she was circling around during that time, and where the van went. She was right there at OCI when Dan arrived. I wonder what he thought when she left home before he did. I wonder if that was unusual. The van = real direct (compelling) circumstantial evidence.
Yes, the presence of her van at the scene is key. The prosecution documented it so well that defense didn’t even try to refute the identification. I don’t think it would have been difficult for her to make up an excuse for leaving early, but I’m wondering how she got into the building. Did Dan leave the door unlocked? Did she have a key? Did he let her in?
I think I’ll try your map idea.
@@sleuththewild Det Merrill goes over the times and the route Day 6 morning session. It's creepy and 1000% incriminating .
So, you think she actually left the house before him! I may have to watch that again. This jury sure has a hard job ahead.
@@GH-oi2jf Yes, she would have been waiting until Dan unlocked the door or the opened the garage. Creepy, laying in waiting.
I wonder if the jury grasps exactly what AJ testified to since it was so important to brand her a liar by the HR dentist.
All of today's "she is a liar" witnesses were pretty inconsequential. They already got in her convictions for fraud. That's a crime of dishonesty by definition, so the point had already been made. But people get convicted based in part on jailhouse snitch testimony every day. I guess that's why the defense is running so scared.
She was a convicted embezzler.
@@tourdedogue4952 Yes, they may have finally figured that out with the ex-fed process for.
You saw it here first.....
Defense has a habit of reading these comments on the livestream and making adjustments....I think y'all have pretty much figured this out. The latest thing was Nancy sporting Dan Wilke's man bun, and then making adjustments in a break to a George Washington look (thank you to whoever described it this way).
One of the details we discussed here early on in the trial was the number of people whose lives Nancy destroyed with Dan's murder, and not just Dan's. We talked about the students, police officer, colleagues, son, parents....
This seems to have rankled Nancy. (Yeah!)
Voilà, a major defense theme. Nancy makes a central point in her case that everyone got on with their lives and weren't hurt by the whole experience of Dan's murder. She dwells at length on this during cross. We even have her sneering and doubling down on this topic from the jailhouse when talking to Sarah. I'm sure this has been fairly typical for her since Day 1.
I hope that theme is the one that puts all the nails in her coffin. I have never seen treachery like this.
The toxicity of this woman..... Her family, too.
"everyone got on with their lives and weren't hurt by the whole experience of Dan's murder." This is projection. Nancy, of everyone, is the one who not only got on with her life, she did it without missing a beat.
@@barbaragrove6097 Totally true. And she's defending herself on this whole topic, I believe, because we were talking about the collateral damage on about Day 2- . I guess we pushed her buttons!
Her sneering rants about how nobody else had experienced a real trauma and everyone else was faking their tears, I think that might have been the most damning part of her testimony. Her real personality shone through so clearly at that moment. Defense has spent hours claiming how sweet and charming she is, but when she got on the stand there was no way she could mask the seething resentment, the narcissism, the spiteful hatred for those who tried to help Dan, the core belief that anyone who was traumatized by the murder was just trying to steal HER rightful attention as the grieving widow.
@@workingmemory So well put! It was indeed a toxic diatribe. But also, I'm not sure Nancy would have gone there if we hadn't been waving the flag about all the other victims in this case. This makes me pleased.
@Sleuth the Wild you seem very knowledgeable about the case. I really want to know about the 2 marriages and what trial day was it mentioned so I can watch. Does the jury know? Thanks
The defense was in way over their heads when it came to understanding science and technology, but not knowledgeable enough to recognize their ineptitude. It was a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
After all this testimony in the past week - huh? can anybody tell me why the Defense spent SO MUCH BLOODY TIME on Blackberry bushes?
Good question! THEY probably think it's important for some reason. My guess is that there was suspicion or rumours that money had been paid to one of Nancy's supporters as hush money. Maybe they are trying to prove that the large payment was legit. Or a less nuts possibility is they are trying to say that Dan knew the house was being prepped to be sold and that it wasn't Nancy operating on her own
Obfuscation, their specialty in this case.
Sure spending a lot of time discussing and discrediting Ms Jacobs.
Yes.
Apparently the defense is hoping the judge’s instructions on circumstantial evidence will be so narrow that if followed by the jury would result in reasonable doubt and require a not guilty verdict. I think that’s the only hope they have now.
I'm worried . . .
There are standard instructions for most things, including circumstantial evidence. I haven’t been able to find the one for Oregon, but I expect it is typical. Generally, it would require not only that a reasonable interpretation of the evidence is consistent with guilt, but that no reasonable interpretation is consistent with innocence.
@@GH-oi2jf the defense submitted a reworded version of the standard instruction for that...they quoted some previous case that they said also used this wording. The judge said he was going to read the case (and a case the prosecution brought up in their objection to anything but the standard instruction) This is a time they have to be super careful...giving the "wrong" jury instructions is one of the reasons an appeal might be granted...NOBODY wants that🙄
Maxfield: "This is a case that is almost exclusively circumstantial. And we have circumstances in which the state is asking the jury to infer murder based on things that it repeatedly said were possible. For example, that it was possible that a slide was swapped, it was possible that she'd bought bullets, it was possible that she'd gone to a shooting range. We have inference after inference after inference."
How will that argument go over with the jury? I'm on the edge of my seat.
@@barbaragrove6097 - The operative word is “reasonable,” not “possible.” I doubt the defense will get an instruction which makes conviction impossible.
I messed up a comment I can’t find. The Brophy marriage is likely to have been in Washington County, not Multnomah.
Can anyone access those records? Then we can get a date. I hit a paywall when I try.
Article in today's Oregonian says that they filed the legal paperwork June 14, 2016, according to a Washington County clerk.
@@barbaragrove6097 Oooh, thanks. So the moment he married her, she started planning for real to murder him?
@@barbaragrove6097 Those counties are pretty much neighbors. Does it matter?
What county they married in only matters insofar as where to find the registry and get the date.
The date was in the Oregonian today, so we’re all set!
Weak judge
Since we're having a continuation of this inconsequential trial within a trial....zzzzzzz!
Can anybody remind me why there was no blood spatter when Dan had been shot in the back. I believe that shell went through his body and the 2nd one remained in his body. Wouldn't that have created some kind of blood force? Thanks.
Both bullets were still in his body at the autopsy. So no blood splatter except for the transfer during CPR.
@@CrimeAuditors Both front and back bullets did not exit the skin.
@@hoppy6141 You know, that says to me that she did in fact switch the barrels. We know she didn't put the original back correctly, so she probably didn't put the lost barrel on correctly either. If you take a properly assembled gun and shoot someone at arms-length range, the bullets should have enough power to go thru the body. If both bullets failed to exit the body, l would think something wasn't working perfectly with the gun.
@@hoppy6141 Thank you! I missed that. Jeesh, how close was her aim and how could that happen??
@@saharaussery6799 Oh wow - what an irony. She improperly loads the gun and it turns out, both bullets enter without evidence of blood splatter. Indeed.
Off topic ...Did you notice that 2 of the defense witnesses licked their fingers to turn pages ? Yikes! And then the papers go back to the defense. Also that Houser (sp) attorney said "yep" for her oath and many answers were yeah... not yes ! Just saying... 😆
I did notice “yep.” Seems too casual for the occasion.
NB answered her questions constantly as “mmhmm and uhuh “. Surprised that was allowed
Was that the attorney with the pink jacket and the blond bob? She didn't want to be there at all. I think that's where the tone in "yep" came from. She was royally ticked to be in the middle of it all. The first time she testified, she even said how uncomfortable she was.
I liked that Herser (sp) attorney. She’s a no-nonsense, down-to-earth type I’d want on my side. The judge seemed familiar enough with her to tell her to “come on up” in a Bob Barker kinda way.
I noticed the finger licking thing ESPECIALLY because few people do this since COVID. The worst is wanting to lick your finger to open a flimsy plastic bag in the vegetable department of the grocery store, and no longer…..
The inmate that gave evidence she has being up for fraud how can anybody believe her she's not honest
A juror might judge the reliability of her testimony on factors other than her criminal record. Whether she appears to have anything to gain would be one factor, but there are others. In any case, one can just disregard her testimony entirely, yet reach a conclusion of “guilty” rather easily.
Sounds just like NB. She lied about being married for years on her taxes.
Anyone might believe AJ over Nancy because Nancy’s fraud is so much larger, her lies for 24+ years, she lies compulsively, AND she murdered her husband.
AJ had no history of fraud until the last 10 years or so, didn’t want to spill the beans, had no demonstrable motive in snitching on Nancy, caught defense in a bunch of misrepresentations, and her story was exactly the kind of thing Nancy would say, and reflects Nancy’s inability to keep her mouth shut.
In addition, the defendant has also lied. The big one was saying she had been home in bed at the critical time.
Lets hold the ship together...just sit down lady
Special defence “statement”. I believe that inmate 💯 % Sure put defence in a twist, specifically that order lawyer.
Where was that said? I missed that part.
Too much grasping at straws going on
I believe NB did do it. I went through some parts of this trial. They really don’t have outstanding evidence that NB is guilty, just a bunch of what if scenarios. I would be surprised if she was found guilty.
I mean, all the evidence points to her, and there is no other reasonable scenario. Circumstantial evidence is still extremely powerful evidence. She bought the guns, she bought the 10 life insurance policies and sometimes even paid them despite not paying the mortgage, she is caught on video coming and going from the murder scene. The defense hasn't even attempted to offer another scenario or really even argue that she isn't guilty, the only thing they have been arguing is that she can't remember. Even if they had put on a convincing argument that she can't remember (which they haven't because Nancy remembers plenty of things during the time she was supposedly having amnesia), the defense isn't even TRYING to argue that she didn't do it. I think at this point all they are hoping is that the jury will take pity on an old lady with dementia and that her "not remembering" might help mitigate her sentence.
Yep, I'm worried. NB couldn't be guiltier, but who knows how things will be twisted to confuse/manipulate the jury. I'm sure hope the jury will see the truth in the overwhelming circumstantial evidence.
@@workingmemory Evidently, there's no sentence mitigation for 2nd degree murder in OR. It's mandatory life, 25 years with no kind of release whatever.
@@sleuththewild I'm not familiar with the OR statutes but I'm surprised the state didn't try for first degree murder. It seems like the defense has been focused on trying to prove that she did not remember and therefore lacked intentionality or premeditation, but for 2nd degree that usually doesn't even matter.
@@workingmemory It's clearly intentional, even premeditated! The trial run to OCI 2 weeks prior (she said/lied that she was meeting a Medicare client around 7AM on Saturday, which fell through so she used OCI bathroom, it's faster than McDonald's). She left her phone at home June 2. You'd have to deem NB credible - which is impossible - to believe that her gun purchases, removing ebay acct after purchasing the slide/barrel, the missing s/b, and more were not part of her plan. Too much evidence that it was PLANNED.
The prosecutor talks as if he doubts it's Mrs.Brophy ..He really needs to fix his direction in his grammar. Sheeesh
NBrophy will not be convicted. The prosecution is too wishy-washy, as is the judge.
The jury will rely on the evidence. My experience is that jurors usually take their responsibilities seriously. They do not decide on the basis of the personalities of the attornies or judge.
@@GH-oi2jf you would hope not for nancy sake that's for sure.. i see more complaints about defense more lol
of feeble character? I think the judge is extremely fair, don’t see what your saying.
Hahaha you lose. Was a great prosecution. Nancy's constant lying did her in. She never learned to keep her big trap shut lol
welp, she was. Her own testimony made sure of that.