Nancy Brophy murder trial: Day 24, morning session | Live stream
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 май 2022
- The morning session of Day 24 of the ongoing trial of romance novelist Nancy Crampton Brophy. The defense rested on Day 23 and the state began to call rebuttal witnesses.
Full story: www.kgw.com/article/news/crim...
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.
Subscribe: / kgwnews8
Watch the latest KGW newscast: www.kgw.com/watch
Get the KGW app: kgw.com/appredirect 
Развлечения
![Oscar Maydon x Junior H - Volver Al Futuro [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sa52xabMSB8/mqdefault.jpg)
One of the things I LOVED about this psychologist.... She took all those glowing affirmations from Defense's psychologist that seemed extremely unlikely:-"creative, thoughtful, articulate, cognitive, normal, no trauma history, great childhood, super family, supportive bevvy of friends......"-and turned them into reasons why Nancy would be very unlikely to suffer dissociation or have poor trauma coping skills like fight or flight when she got bad news. ALL of the characteristics Nancy and her cabal LOVE to claim undermined the notion that she had a pathological reaction in the lead up or after news of Dan's death.
Back fired !!
Exactly!
It was brilliant!
That's the difference between somebody who _"thinks"_ they are smart, versus somebody who's _actually_ intelligent.
YES!
Why do defence lawyers think acting like an ass will help their client 🤷♀️
That defence lawyer is so rude! She’s disgraceful the way she treats the witnesses so disrespectfully and this witness was so balanced and calm and informed she made her look stupid without trying to, she was just honest.,
Well, her job is to make the jury question the prosecution’s case, and this involves undermining the prosecution’s witnesses. And, to be fair, she has a hell of a task on her hands trying to make Nancy look innocent!
@@GradKatyou never ever need to be rude. Everyone understands the role of a defense attorney. She comes across condescending and angry. The way that she has been throughout the trial.
Ever wondered what happens when a defense attorney tries to memorize an Intro to Neuroscience textbook the night before cross-examining an actual psychologist? Well, this is what you get, LMAO
I loved that the psychologist had never heard of the text book and it didn't matter in the least to her.
@@sleuththewild Dr. Gazzaniga's textbooks are very popular in college courses, but the witness was a clinical therapist, not a college professor. There is no reason she would be familiar with any particular textbook or its contents. The line of questioning was bizarre. Also if defense thought she was gonna score some random point by namedropping Gazzaniga, she PROBABLY should have at least learned how to pronounce his name /facepalm
"Would you expect somebody who's lying about not being at the scene of a murder to lie about being somewhere else, instead?"
"Yes. Absolutely."
💯✅
I lost my son 5 days after he turned 15. He committed impulsive suicide.
I was 20 minutes from home helping my parents , that day. I met the ambulance at the hospital. My husband and our youngest daughter & two youngest sons , had to stay home with law enforcement ( they were awesome as was the coroner)
I could not have been more shocked or stressed , but I remember my day up till and after I was told my son had died.
That’s just me , but it’s hard not to compare that to Nancy’s first talk with the detectives, she never asked to go be with him, she accepted his death , even before they told her it was Dan.
I know everyone is different, but I remember so much of that day.
I also recall not accepting that he was dead and not being able to leave his side in the ER once they knew he was definitely dead.
It took me a long time to accept he wasn’t able to come back. I mean days, weeks, months.
Plz no condolences 💕
💕
My mom and I discussed that about traumatic events - and I’m so very sorry for your loss - but we have found that our memory is greatly enhanced - more details remembered I mean, when something horrible happens and I’ve found that to be true for so many. This amnesia response seems rare and the the few specifics she lost.. just .. nope.
Just Another Smith,
I couldn't agree more...
I will _NEVER_ forget the night my Mother called me when I was 20 years old, and told me that my father had just passed from a sudden heart attack. I remember everything before and ask the details afterward, even the weather that night. It's a memory that's forever etched in my brain.
Thank you for sharing your personal experience, so others who haven't been thru it, know what people go through/remember.
Take Care
❤️
@GoinRogue
I'm so sorry...
I know exactly what you mean. I still remember the night my Father passed from a sudden heart attack, and it was almost 21 years ago. Unfortunately, I feel it's something that is forever etched in our brains.
With time, the emotional aspect of it gets better, but I don't think we will ever forget all the details.
Sending you lots of hugs & prayers
💞🙏💞🙏💞🙏💞
Thank you for sharing- what got me was that she remembers in detail all sorts of thing except leaving the house - then she apparently does remember that but has no memory of what she did other than she knows she thinking about her book.
It's BRILLIANT to see 'Tweedle-dee' completely lose the plot!! This pair of defence lawyers (Tweedle-dee and Tweedledum) are so out of their depth.
Tweedledum and Tweedledee! 😂😂😂
I can't stand those 2 tikes
this psych is a class act when dealing with the embarrassing cross from defense
This cross examination is like listening to a flat earther talk with a geologist.
Ha ha brilliant comment 👏👏👏
"Was the school you graduated from a for-profit school?" WTF is that question? Ms Maxfield had better explain how her client shot the breeze with the boys in the police van for 16 minutes before she asked a single question about whether the man she loved so much was alive or dead and what happened to him.
I lol'ed at that question. And also her trying to pop-quiz the expert on random obscure terms that she'd pulled out of a textbook.
@@workingmemory Yeah, Maxfield has been trying so hard to discredit her and the psychologist has been trying so hard not to be condescending or insulting towards Maxfield.
@@StellaFl Both today's psychologist and the financial expert were struggling to remain professional and not be condescending or insulting in the face of Maxfield's repeatedly inane questions. I'm just waiting for Maxfield to get frustrated enough to start crying in court again (see last Friday afternoon session). New defense strategy: if all else fails, cry?
Yeah, that 16 minutes says a lot!!
I wonder what kind of people the defense attorneys are when they are not at work because they sure seem nasty and rude.
I really wonder how Friday is going to go with defense
Do I have to listen to her lawyers again?
@@CrimeAuditors but they’re really making their money. I’ve seen other trials with indefensible clients that barely say anything.
@@GrizzlyUrsusArctos Yep defense is taking as much of "Dan Brody's" money as they possibly can before they give up , & begin the closing arguments.Perhaps Defense attys, & narcissist novel writer of how to murder your husband will become pen pals. Three peas in a pod.
@@GrizzlyUrsusArctos or worst someone that might be innocent but there poor so the lawyer doesn’t give a shit
There was a second mortgage? Ay..... There was so much debt here.
Seems so. First time I've heard that. WOW
The only question for the forensic psychologist is, would a person suffering from dissociative memory loss, give a very full , detailed description of what they did that very morning , covering a few hours leading up to meeting with the detectives mid-morning, if they truly had memory loss from the shock of her husband’s death and their description is not what actually happened?
I have a dissociative disorder so I can answer this. First of all, the psychologist is right about something REALLY IMPORTANT that’s missing. Yes… technically you could remember every detail from before the start of the dissociative episode, and I typically do, but the impact of realizing you just lost 3 hours is, as the doctor said, “distressing,” and you fairly frantically search for anything that will make that period come back.
So, I don’t know if this makes sense, but when you’re trying to trace back for the last thing you can remember, it’s not easy to retrieve. First of all, if you have a dissociative disorder (or conditions that heavily feature dissociative episodes, like CPTSD), you baseline experience of memories is not like a chronological narrative. In fact, before I started treatment, I believed that people who could write autobiographies and memoirs were geniuses, but now I am aware that most people sense their personal history happening in chronological order, almost on a timeline.
So, generally, you desperately want to know what happened during the time you lost (which doesn’t feel like anything- my Apple Watch taps me once an hour, which is a setting my doctor recommended for grounding, and there are times when I feel two taps consecutively and notice that an hour went by in a few seconds) but are very disoriented.
The best analogy I can give for what that early morning’s memories are like (if you lost 3 hours in late morning) would be like if you had a flip-book of images from the early morning. You can force your mind to flip it and animate the scenes, but it’s clunky and the wrong pace. You can stop the book on scenes or images and remember them perfectly in great detail, but the snapshots aren’t well oriented in time.
Anyway, the mistake Nancy made in faking memory loss is she is not curious about what happened in the lost time. It’s not a small deal to lose a few hours, and you know it pretty immediately. The fact that your mind has fallen out of time is an issue that is difficult to set aside, and you certainly wouldn’t be like “Who knows, I can’t remember.”
@@Rae_777 Wow! Thank you for the explanation. It must be so frustrating to live with this disorder for a variety if reasons.
You made it make sense , so thank you.
So...Ms. Maxfield, which is it? Nancy doesn't have the memory because it didn't get created (didn't consolidate)? Or is it that she has the memory but her brain won't let her access it (dissociation)? Or is it that she didn't form the memory because she didn't pay attention? You can't have it three ways...?
But more importantly...are they really trying to say that Nancy should go free because she doesn't "remember" killing Dan? When you clear away all the unnecessary witnesses/info and verbal diarrhea, what the defense is NOT saying is that she didn't do it. I guess that's why distraction is the main defense tactic....
Very interesting observation. IF you'r attorney knows you did it-say you blurted it out during a meeting/conference with your attorney, as an officer of the court-that attorney is barred from stating that you didn't do it -Great observation that neither of her attorneys have stated she didn't do it. As officers of the court, they can't if they know or if NB told them she did it. Hmmmmmm, I will be listening very closely to their closing.
But Nancy did say repeatedly that she KNOWS for sure she didn’t kill Dan even though she forgot only the critical points. She was clear to keep repeating that one. She’s guilty btw imo.
Oh, gosh, you’re right! Defense can’t say explicitly that Nancy didn’t do it, because they know that’s a lie.
@@laradesautel3013 she wants it both ways. Delusional, illogical, irrational Nancy.
@@mairelocwudu922 There was a point that the state and defense were bickering over something(a motion, I think) and defense said something to the effect "when Mrs. Brophy shot Dan......" When I heard that, I knew she had done it and all defense is trying to do at this point is giving possible doubt to the Jury to get their client off.
The Defense attorney is completely out of her depth on financials and so eager to believe the off-the-wall assumptions her accountant made before pushing "print" on her spreadsheets. Assumptions are everything in projections, and she didn't check them, but instead went with fantasy numbers. All you have to do is look at the pattern of spending, and you know the Defense's accountant was WAY off somewhere.
Nancy and Dan were going to be in deep debt within a month of June 2, and they had no plan to stop the hermorrhaging. Nancy was spending spending spending and doing ZERO work.
She also pretended to not know what “discretionary spending” was. I believe it’s all for show and she knows exactly what he means.
@@catherinearmstrong388 wow!
LOL the Defense accountant revised her figures after seeing the Prosecution's, and even though she REDUCED the Brophys' expenses (for no apparent reason), she had them in the red by the end of 2018.
My God...if the defense asked for the moon, stars and a million dollars, I believe the judge would give it to her,!
This defense is so rude
Ia the defence trying to imply that Nancy "independent" life style allowed her to independently spend money she didn't make. Independent woman makes independent decisions to be independent financial as well.
Is the defense attorney trying to confuse the witness or is she really that confused herself?
Yes
@@barbaragrove6097 ha ha ha
Both?
The defence lawyer is losing her grasp, or more precisely loosening it even more.
At this point she is just making it up as she goes along, because she doesn't even know what she's arguing. Early in the case they were saying Nancy had a dissociation while writing her book. When ALL the experts explained that no, being "lost in thought" is NOT a dissociative state and would not generate amnesia, it seems they are now fishing for some other kind of neurobiological explanation that would fit with Nancy's batshit behavior and her "memory hole" defense. The problem is, they know nothing about neurobiology. So you get this ridiculous word salad we have seen today lol
Sooooo..if she has a memory hole.. how does she know she didn't shoot her husband?? And then forgot? Or conveniently forgot? That Trauma could have caused her mind to forget because of trauma and shock?? It is something she could talk herself into intentionally forgetting also..because the Internal dialogue of her being an "Actual killer".. she would not want to believe that Truth.. see how convoluted a Writer can Make sh*t up??
Right, that works both ways. Doesn't absolve her.
If memory loss was going to be her defence she should have accepted the possibility that she might have killed her husband beginning of the trial. Because their logic doesn’t make sense the way they are trying to convince anyone with a brain at all. I don’t know why they think people will accept their nonsense theory if they insist on it .
She's used to filling in plot holes. Filling in a "memory hole" should be easy.
She’s guilty
Running out of money before the end of 2018.
Oh God spare us ALL!, frustrated psychologists, who end up, below par defence attorneys! 😖😖…and WHY, oh WHY, is the prosecutor allowing this expert to be exposed to, compound questioning, & repeatedly, NOT being allowed, to complete her answers, time & time again? Full frontal dereliction of duty on his part! So ridiculous for this inept defence attorney, to attempt to match wits, w this expert witness!..Brother!…😫 …Furthermore! Please Google source monitoring, cuz it’s not what the defence has stated it is!…yikes!…✌🏼🇨🇦
34:07 This is hands-down the rudest thing I have ever seen a defense attorney do to an expert witness, especially considering exactly how much torture the defense put the jury through with their train wreck psychologist.
I agree. They are so condescending. According to defense all the experts for the prosecution are wrong. Or don’t know their stuff. Defense is trying so hard to make new rules, new terms, it’s like they are trying to change the rotation of the earth. It’s painful to listen to.
I was going to type this. I understand being aggressive or almost confrontational as you try to undermine an opponent for your client’s sake but she’s just outright rude and unprofessional
Exactly. She’s a narcissist. Don’t you dare tell her she’s wrong, because she’s never wrong. If the judge rules against her, she throws a little hissy fit. She flips her notebook, jerks her glasses off and tosses them down on the desk. Makes snide little demeaning, inappropriate, comments to the witnesses, the prosecution, the air. Shes very unprofessional. She’s a train wreck! Time to retire sweetheart. You’re no longer effective and you’re a disgrace to your profession.
This trial will never end.
It is almost time for closing argument.
It's creeping to its end.
Just found the trial. Are they already done for the day?
@@kayleiasierra2251 Will resume soon. Lunch right now.
@@barbaragrove6097 Are they done for the day already? Good Lord.
All this memory loss - NB opened the door and threw that memory in and locked it up - voila, I can't remember what I was doing. But I KNOW I didn't shoot my husband. What a big pile of chicken s*&t
She also recalled her thoughts when she was circling around OCI. She testified that she knows she didn't park in front of OCI because she would have gone in if she had. Overstreet asked if she's sure she didn't enter the building. She replied that she thought Dan was working so she didn't go in. Overstreet said that didn't stop her two weeks prior. She had her usual on-the-spot snappy comebacks. She's fast with verbal self defense, even if what she's saying is absurd and contradicts something she'd just said.
@@barbaragrove6097 She certainly has recall of everything except that 6 minutes between 7:22 and 7:28 am, doesn't she? I'd say she went in under the guise of using the restroom if she was caught by someone (student or pastry instructor). It's amazing she wasn't seen by a student, neighbor, transient etc that morning.
She jumped into that chicken s*&t with both bare feet ,and we know how she feels about chickens!! 🐓
@@hoppy6141 her previous bathroom visit was a drill I guess
@@user-vr6io5xb9e I’ve been wondering if she attempted this prior to 6/2 and that was the day the garage door was left open…
This trial was the weirdest I've ever seen, Lawyers constantly unprepared, witnesses unprepared, witnesses that cannot recall their own information, constantly sending the jury out for next to nothing.
I honestly think if Nancy had not been so arrogant and not taken the stand she'd have gotten a not guilty.
With this brain dead judge, it's more than possible.
This prosecution expert shines the light brightly on the defense doctor-fully showing the defense is in over their heads and grasping at straws. I guess this is all they can do in an attempt to defend the indefensible.
Did she just use the term guru in a court of law?
She thinks she's using it in the court of psychology.
I’m suffering vicarious embarrassment due to Ms. Maxfield’s ridiculous and unsuccessful efforts to get Dr. Best to endorse her bullsh*t theory of why Nancy has a “memory hole.” If I had any respect for Ms. Maxfield I might actually feel sympathy for her, but after watching her antics during this trial it’s safe to say that any respect I had for her is long gone.
Given Nancy's self absorbed personality, it really seems to me that the whole "I write books in my head" schtik is her way of ignoring and not having to deal with others.
I think she hit menopause, her mortality hit her in the face, and she was finally completely fed up with “Dan’s mess”. She wanted a pretty, not messy life in an exotic location and she knew Dan would never give up his projects and tinkering.
I keep wondering if Nancy killed her -ex, too.
@@sleuththewild how did her -ex die?
And money was fast running out. Killing Dan = income to live her unrealistic fairy tale life.
@@barbaragrove6097 He might still be alive, I dunno, but he's been conspicuously absent in this trial. However, during cross, Overstreet pinned Nancy down on something she did with her -ex. He was a police officer, but Nancy was so opposed to guns, she wouldn't allow him to bring his weapon into the house. I would assume this meant a detective had interviewed the -ex. Unless nancy said this in direct?
I think Nancy had been engaged in fraud for years, since her marriage didn’t exist until shortly before she murdered Dan and she’d been filing taxes as married. She even took his name!
She also had been planning murder for years, in my opinion. Dan had suspicious wounds on him when he died, there was the cruise, excessive life insurance policies, many other opportunities.
Defense is getting annoyed
This witness never heard Ms Brophy say I “normally” or Dan “normally” ( or something similar to that ) would do this that or another ? Ms. Brophy made an emphatic and somewhat extended point about this very thing... how could this professional testifying for the prosecution overlook that ?
Is it just me, or is Maxfield starting to sound like a Texan?
🤣🤣🤣
Everyone in the comments angry that the defense team is DOING THEIR JOBS. 😂😂😂
Memory expert on the stand. But can't remember anything...geez
I agree up to a point.
Where did NB find Frick and Frack?? They are the worst. Maxfield attacked Andrea Jacobs for no reason other than she was an inmate, and now she's jumping all over the psychologist. Hammering the prosecution's witnesses isn't change the fact that NB can be placed at the scene of the crime, and that she continually recalled details while she was supposed to be in a dissociative state. If there was any doubt in a juror's mind about NB's guilt, her own testimony resolved any of that. She should've plead guilty instead of wasting everyone's time, and putting Dan's loved ones through the trauma of reliving his murder...but why would NB think of anyone else but herself.
The Court of Justice Should appoint a Trial Jester🃏
1:33:26
This is reverting 😮
OMGGGG......This is like a TV show....This is huge....This cross is just amazing.!!!
1:35:10
Omggggggg
Edit 1:35:53 OMGGGGG The W2😮
Just wow..... I don't understand how any lawyer who lies openly in court....I hope that every single person who participated in trying to help Nancy get away with never has a good night sleep until they close there eyes forever.
All of them need to ask forgiveness for the evil deed they have done 🥺😤😒
#ChefLoveAlways
Rest In Heavenly Peace Dan💙
Heaven is where we live our perfect lives 😊 I truly believe that.
May your mushrooms bloom and your heart be light❤ Bolo Tie and all 🥰
The questions Overstreet asked Best were garbled beyond belief. It's stunning how. Inarticulate he was. Combined with bests inability to remember a thing about Nancy's case, the state really wasted the resource of this witness.
Maxfield doesn't know how to pronounce the name of her defense theory. 22:00. Brilliant !
Damn what came 1st the chicken or the egg
Question for Dr Best….Isn’t it true that if someone plotted a murder, then carried that out, that they would be in extreme stress? That they would then feign amnesia to try to avoid being caught? Answer: Yes. Question: Even if the person they murdered was disposable? Answer: Yes.
Is anybody here, also watching the Depp vs Heard trial?
This forensic psychologists is very similar to Dr Curry; Specializes in PTSD, and knows when people are feigning their symptoms.
The prosecutions accountant should have brought his spreadsheet with him. It would look better if he could actually rebut the defense's arguments with numbers. However, since the defense's own accountant followed suit and changed their numbers accordingly, I assume he's right
Ummmmm..... he did? That was the prosecution accountant's spreadsheet that was being discussed.
@@sleuththewild Nope, he didn't. Not the one he volunteered to go print out, the one with the exact numbers he used to make his projections.
@@StellaFl it wouldn't have mattered, in fact it would have been even more confusing if Maxfield did have that spreadsheet to read strings of numbers off of. It was painfully obvious that Maxfield has absolutely no understanding that a forecast is a prediction (not set in stone). Also her brain cannot absorb the concept of seasonal fluctuations in income...she kept asking about the high numbers during the first half of the year and ignoring the low numbers in the second half. That fact was even more shocking when it came to light that the defense already knew their expert had changed her numbers in anticipation...kinda blows her credibility out of the water.
@@saharaussery6799 I agree with you, however, all the defense is trying to do is create doubt in one juror's mind. So it is best not to allow that :)
Funny how he uses (I can't remember )all the time he can't cover his lies.
This witness is tripping all over her testamonie cause she doesn't know a dam thing.
This witness is trying to cover his lies his first testimonies
Wow they need to throw out all this women's testimonies .she can't remember dates ,names of her own job .she does not even the education to even discuss anything about a mind disorder.
Are you a member of Nancy’s family? If so…how’s she doing in prison?
You can talk with 100 physicians and you can get millions of interpretations.