Nancy Brophy murder trial: Day 16, morning session | Live stream
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 май 2022
- Defense attorneys call more witnesses to the stand during the morning session of Day 16 of the Nancy Brophy murder trial.
Nancy 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
Notice how her niece never says "to be honest" during direct, but says it repeatedly during cross.
To be fair, the nature & tone of the questions during cross would evoke a totally different style of answers, which would cause more defensive terminology.
It's one of the most overused expressions in the English language. It implies the speaker isn't being honest the rest of the time. People should be capable of expressing their thoughts w/o using the silly phrase.
@@isabellind1292 since it IS so overused, it's something people say without even realizing they're saying it. It doesn't mean they're being dishonest, it means they're impressionable and repeat what they hear.
@@AliceA333 I didn't say it makes them dishonest, I'm just commenting to the general consensus over the use of the phrase. And it's overkill to continue to pad your statements w/the phrase to make it sound more important.
Your statements should be enough to stand up on their own. Same w/"This is my truth", lol. Wtf does that mean, haha!
@@isabellind1292 yeah I def get what you mean there!
I thought since you were saying that it implies they're dishonest the rest of the time, you took that to be true. Some folks actually believe that when a person says "to be honest" it TRULY means they're a dishonest individual, I wish more ppl knew that isn't really concrete evidence (or even any evidence whatsoever) of a person's trustability.
I have noticed that when somebody offers MANY details of a story (or explaination) of something they need you to believe, it turns out to be lies more often than not. Also not an exact science, just something I noticed.
According to these defense witnesses, Dan and Nancy had a fantastic relationship. Yup, right up until the early morning that she shot him to death. RIP, Dan
It seems, she would have been plotting this methodically for a very long time, thinking she was so clever; maybe write a novel for a movie with Sharon Stone in it...What was he feeling during these 2 or 3 years she was planning it? Over the top affection? Ignore him at bedtime? Or, maybe really excite him to throw him off the track...there are so many scenarios of the WHY and how she could have imagined this. He was so focused on his work and she was SO innocent.
@@tourdedogue4952
EXACTLY!
She's guilty for sure! She wanted to move and travel the world, and he wasn't ready to do that.
@@goose7574 Looks that way to me. He was happily rooted where they were, and Nancy wasn't.
U know some of them are lying , Nancy would complain an bitch to close friends now her writing friends she would lie to sound like she’s perfect .
But that makes no sense. They adored each other and got along for 25 years and then she murdered him? That makes NO sense.
So weird how several of these defense witnesses use many of the same words and phrases. Almost like they’ve rehearsed it or something 🤨
Totally
Don't find the niece to be credible at all !!
She is fake and has definitely been coached.
So glad the judge denied that book of text messages to prove the love between the couple. Total waste of time. Good call judge.
Defense was all about distractions and red herring
Holy cow!!
The niece just revealed to the jury that Nancy has been held in jail for the last FOUR YEARS, and not out on bond.
She also inferred that they avoided subjects that could incriminate Nancy because the jail calls are recorded.
That’s a lot of damage to the defense.
It kind of undermines all the testimony of friends and family who’ve described their relationship as a cohesive loving couple.
Yeah, the state did a great job of making her blurt all this out.....the thought that they could say something incriminating if they talked to Nancy in jail. This point didn't slide by, either: she made it worse by trying to correct it.
Did the jury not know that Nancy has been in jail? They'd know from the papers....
Yes !!!! That was fantastic cross examination by Overstreet ... he is awesome .. fast on his feet
Nancy was arrested. Dan was murdered not died. During the trial defence keep trying to use the word 'died' as if Dan had just passed away, a natural death.
Yes .. they have done that several times... avoided the words killed, murdered .. he died or passed away.
Nancy's lawyer reminded of her. Like a doppelganger
This might not apply to this trial (Nancy's defense team isn't exactly good at what they do), but lawyers will sometimes lessen the crimes when a family member of the deceased is on the stand as a courtesy so as not to upset them. I mention this because I'm pretty sure Mr. Overstreet used less-harsh words as well when Dan's son was on the stand.
What has this got to do with the murder ???? Nonsense questions again - just wasting time
The 2 nieces to me are educated ,articulate, rehearsed liars .
True. Nancy used exact phrases from Sarah’s testimony. The fake crying was so obvious.
I'm wondering if the defense had the two nieces mixed up. They kept asking the "insurance-niece" about Nancy being like a mother to her, and she never acknowledged that, it was more like "um.. no? Or yeaah, sure?". While this one actually says something like that herself. The way defense seems to be struggling with the simplest things I wouldn't be surprised.
The mystery of the waffle iron- feel like it needs it’s own trial
😂
Dan needed to make 'an extra buck' because certainly Nancy did not make much of a contribution to the house-hold. Dan works all of the hours he could and she lies in bed 'thinking' everyday.
And spending £2000 plus a year on daily Starbucks
I cannot imagine how thrilled I would be to find a Dan, marry a chef and live in freaking Oregon. Perfect. She never knew how good she had it..or maybe she does now. Rot in jail Nance.
Why do all these witnesses say “you know” constantly! I fixate on it and it drives me crazy 😂
It's because they were coached on what to say...and when you can't remember your next line, or you get asked a question on cross that you didn't prepare for, you say "you know" and "uumm" and "okay well" and other filler type phrases to give you time to think. Also you can tell when they get asked something off-script because of the long awkward silent pauses when they're really stumped.
Uhm uhms kill me!!!
Although a filler, it’s a sign of Nancy’s family toxicity. They are gaslighters. They want to make it seem as though what they’re saying is obvious to everyone; however, they are lying.
it's a filler word to give their minds time to "catch up". rather than sitting for a few seconds to gather their thoughts, they us this phrase to fill the empty space. it's unconscious.
@@saharaussery6799 they were most definitely coached. not one bad or even minor criticism has been uttered re: Dan. I can guarantee you that he was not the full on saint that he is being portrayed as. No one is a saint. We all have our side that is selfish and unconscious.
Spouses especially experience the "dark sides" of each other . right off the bat I have to believe that the backyard mess, the messes (chickens,!! OMG...) Dan created and spending up their savings to work on all his various hobbies had to be driving her and the neighbors crazy.
As a juror, it would be hard for me to believe the saintly descriptions over and over again.
But they are pretty much stuck with the over flowery script because how bad would it be to start criticizing him..
As someone who deals with a spouse who sounds like Dan, I can attest that I get the brunt of his anger, frustrations and cruelty. No one would believe it. Only my therapist understands what I am dealing with. I have no plans on killing my husband but have imagined how simple life would be without his controlling behavior. it's a helpless feeling. it can make you feel desperate and cornered.
Nancy did not murder Dan in the heat of the moment. She had been planning for a looooong time. She left a trail of bread crumbs that cannot ever be explained away.
I think being financially invested in the relationship put her into an impossible situation in her mind. along with his status as an amazing man...she would take a hit socially and financially.
She was toast right from the start. should have just tried for a plea deal. her attorneys are very unqualified for this kind of murder case.
nauseating
I'm watching niece Sarah and I'm trying to keep an open mind but I get the sensation she's reciting her testimony and is relishing being the centre of attention, if it wasn't for the "you knows", I would be very impressed with her memory and intonation, you know.
Nancy drove me crazy with the "you knows". Guess that particular obnoxious trait runs in the family.
She sucks
The second last woman to testify (the retired OSU/"Director of Gerontology") was so sweet. She was so pleasant & presented herself so well. 🌺😊
The only 'witch' she should write is about herself.
And the lawyer sitting directly next to her
What’s wrong with witches?
Janet Brown “I’m going to take a minute to orient myself…” …..ffs this is court, not a tarot card reading 🙄
😂😂😂😂😂
I was laughing when she said that. That was a first...haven't ever seen a witness say that!
LOL!!
Strange and staged …
Orienting oneself if a pretty common movement. And phrase.
This is my niece, this is my cousin, this is my niece’s husband, this is my gardener, this is my house keeper this is my therapist blah blah blah... and none of them can create a reasonable doubt . Insurance, gun, camera recording and her lying are enough to prove her quilt beyond reasonable doubt. Looks like she gonna write her next novel in the prison
Btw I didn’t know this is her second marriage. Has anyone known what happened to her first husband?
WELL SAID
Bwahahaha! Good one!
Her past is VERY murky. She also lied about her marriage to Dan. She even took his name. But they weren’t married until right before she killed him…all part of the murder plot so she’d inherit.
@@judithengle7875 so it’s premeditated. She’s very calculated greedy woman. I mean she buys seven life insurance on her husband and her niece is witness on all of them. Crazy stuff
@Harping Ark Angel as prosecutor said; lots of red herrings
A lot of questions by the defense with absolutely no relevance to the murder. Seems like they are determined to pin this murder on a homeless person with no robbery or altercation. I hope the jury is not swayed by this nonsense.
They are putting some distance between the prosecution case and the closing remarks.
@@GH-oi2jf Prosecution has a rebuttal case.
Well, as public prosecutors, they have to come up with something!
I'd be really pissed off if I were on the jury simply because Maxwell is wasting so much time. "let me find exhibit XYZ * crickets * ah here it is! Is this an evaluation form for your instructors?" "Yes, it is" and then NOTHING, no follow up, nada. again and again she asks irrelevant questions that lead nowhere.
@@StellaFl Well, if you watch today's testimony with just ONE witness of very dry testimony but I think it worked more for the state. They won't let you comment on that video.
Oh come on. How messy could this man be? He was a grown man with a career and was respected by the community. He may have collected a lot but I don't believe for a second he left his home so messy that it woukd warrant this amount of conversation about him being messy.
my last name is the same as yours...funny because its an unusual name.
Right? And he was working 7 days a week while Nancy sat at home. She had plenty of time to clean.
@@leeprimeau7912also we know she the spender most likely most the crap was hers . The man didn't have time to relax an enjoy hobbies anymore
I guess you have never watched “Hoarders.”
1st witness: feel free to skip! Other than "did you tell the police Dan and Nancy had a close relationship", the entirety of the defense's questions are a waste of jury time as they lead absolutely nowhere.
I need a palate cleanser after the Nancy clones, Susan and Sarah and relatives. I feel like they've been spooning up oil. I like truth and straightforwardness, reliability, sincerity. Bring me back the lovely Brophys: Karen, Jack, Nathaniel.
"Am I cleared for take-off your majesty?" That was a brilliant, Ally McBeal worthy court moment.
Whats the time stamp on that?!
@@5eba 32:37 I’d like to see him try that with Judge Newman (who presided over the Murdaugh murder trial in South Carolina). I don’t think it would be very well-received. Maybe it’s a Portland thing - everything has been pretty casual/less formal in this case. Defense counsel interrupting the Judge, not requesting permission to approach the court or witnesses, not asking the judge for a moment to confer with co-counsel when the court is waiting for the state or defense to do something, the “folksy” way defense counsel has made completely unnecessary small talk with witnesses, etc. Seems disrespectful all around IMO.
I see where the defense is going now. They are going to paint a picture that, after she was told Dan had been shot, she was in such a 'fog' after learning of it that when she told the cops she was in bed that morning, she made a big mistake. Yes, she had actually been downtown that morning - after all! She had just forgot because she was so confused and she had just dropped off his waffle iron or something he needed. And, her personality, apparently, is so glowing from the defense, no way a jury is going to convict this 'astonishing' woman.
Yeah, what was the deal with the waffle iron? That was supposed to be a big defense point and it got nuked when the administrator identified it for certain belonging to someone else.
@@sleuththewild Well, this is why she had to deliver Dan's special waffle iron. The one there was not his and he didn't like how it worked. So, she delivered. In a fog, before her Starbucks. Like, if I was a lawyer...she has to explain why she was down there that morning at the approx time.
@@tourdedogue4952 Then also please explain why she didn't have her cell phone on her .... there has been plenty of testimony that Nancy always had her phone, she was the Cruise Director, Management etc. then also explain why the defense spent so much time trying to discredit the videos that she / her vehicle appeared in. You have to plan your defense. But Nancy thought she was super smart and could get away with this ... everything she did was to try to get away with this.
@@Sueprises hmmm...good point. Since her phone was cracked, it was unusable? In such a hurry to take Dan what he needed?
@@tourdedogue4952 Well she had been using the cracked phone and had it at the kids birthday party ... interested in knowing how it was broken ... did she throw it in anger during a disagreement? But you still have to get passed her on the spot statement that she was in bed writing and got a phone call .. so phone was OK. So not only was she confused in that moment but continued to be consistently confused and tell everyone that same story of how she found out about something happening at the school. They are desperately grasping at straws that are out of reach.
Her nieces testimony is a bit too polished and rehearsed. She comes off as a very high maintenance individual. Too much information attached to every answer, but beneficial for the prosecution.
What a waste of time - nonsense questions
My goodness those blackberries gets mentioned again. Did Sarah not have a go to clear them too?
Haha haaaaa! 🎯
2.49:19 the witness says “Am I clear for take off YOUR MAJESTY”
How did he get away with saying that?
What a hoot🎉😂
Both of the nieces have been given instructions how to perform on the witness box. All very staged.
you got that right,, diversion,,
Bingo...
Obvious AF they are in-genuine
2 Photos showing coffee station etc. If the 'so called' killer shot Dan he did not touch any of the food. What is the point of 'waffle iron' question? Defence clutching at straws. Bye bye Nancy.
Does anyone know someone who says 'you know' amongst all their words in a conversation?
Sarah spins a good story. Moving somewhere else with good soil - please why is the judge not stopping this story telling and tell the witnesses it should be a yes or a no reply.
This is the first trial I have watched and I asked myself the same things sometimes. This storytelling thing seems to play such a big part to get the jury "to know" the people that this is around, but these answers are taking far too long I think haha
The niece saying Nancy always has her phone on her was really bad for the the defense
The witness Tom Bethel I am deaf in one ear but refused assistance - why? As he is a defence witness he may be deaf to the truth about Nancy.
he 100% helped the state by saying the waffle iron was Chef White's. I miss her
I totally get not wanting to believe that a loved one could do something like this. I really do. But after seeing and hearing some of this evidence, how can they still not think she is guilty.
Great idea having ol Nancy be executor of the brothers estate. She's not a saver. Or a planner. Yall
Ummmmm. And ummmmm.
Sarah and Nancy are supposed to be close but Nancy never talked about life ins and how much she expected. Hmmm
You can tell Sarah, Susan, and Nancy are all from the same family. Not only do the faces look similar, but the word salad they throw at you is the same, a cloud of verbiage. They go on and on and on, throwing words on words. I feel like I'm walking on an oil slick when they're talking, and very suspicious about what they're saying.
'Walking on an oil slick', good one!
I disagree completely. It's obvious they are well educated, articulate people. I did not notice word salad of the witness (niece) today. She was very clear. Why would you bombard the entire testimony of the defense when it is apparent the witness take their oath seriously. I really doubt one of these defense witnesses want to lie under oath. Would you? On the Bible?? I do fear God!
@@tourdedogue4952 yea, but they Did come off well coached and I think mostly all defense witnesses have helped state with crucial parts while only serving to show she has a family on her side.
@@tourdedogue4952yes word salad . Rehearsed liars can be educated and articulate .
Is there no afternoon session today?
I actually went through the entire convoluted menu of the coverage of the trial (26 days/a.m./p.m.) and compiled it in order so I can watch it in full and in order. Anyway, here's the link to Day 16 (aft.) if you didn't see it. ⚖ ruclips.net/video/oqSRIpGbPb8/видео.html
Her lawyers seem to have been talking to Nancy's relatives, which seem to me a rather serious thing to be doing, especially as they were being called as witness.
Nancy's family of lawyers is watching on webex. Sometimes when the screen is first starting up, you can see the boxes with their names and it was mentioned in open court because one of the witnesses that was being called had access to webex the entire morning of her testimony. Being that NB attorneys are barred from from coaching witnesses about previous testimony---this wouldn't apply to Nany's family working behind the scenes. This coupled with the dirty trick of bring in the surprise wheelchair chair guy at the who has been getting info abut the trial is nothing more that a bag of dirty tricks by the defense team and the bar association should look closely at their conduct.
@@mairelocwudu922 that’s freaking wild…. I met Nancy in person.
The lady in blue, the first cousin, act like she was in some kind of interview. Laughing and smiling like something is funny. It’s very weird and off putting to me.
If they actually could fine any of those other people at the gathering where the Brophys determined they were the only couple without a gun and they were concerned with recent shootings ... at least they can justify the purchase of the gun ... maybe not the gun kit / ghost gun ... but so far none of these 'witnesses' are helpful to Nancy. In fact some are doing more harm than good.
It seems that "we're the only ones who don't have a gun" event never happened, since no one remembers it except Nancy.
Good call. I agree. She was obviously (and Dan) very very private about purchasing the guns and bullets, of which, Dan probably didn't have a clue. Or, just went along with it. But, why wouldn't Dan not bring it up with his son who was a fan of guns?
@@tourdedogue4952 I don't think Dan knew about the guns at all. At least one was held at the PO for pickup.
@@sleuththewild Right, I think he may have signed for it, but in his mind, he didn't think much about what was inside. After all, it was just Nancy.
@@sleuththewild They need to try a different tactic because this life insurance angle isn't helping ... it keeps highlighting they were overpaying for insurance when they couldn't afford to .... reasonable people would have done that math and said, lets save some money and revise our policys to not be the biggest monthly expense ....
This niece is numb. Has had a horrible childhood, hates her parents and has no ability to have an unbiased perspective on Nancy.
Nancy's nieces are so sneaky and transparent. They are either blinded by love or don't care about Dan or justice at all
her name was all over those insurance policies.
Oh dude, of all the people testifying in this trial, the one here desperately trying to look and sound exactly like Elizabeth Holmes is where I top out. I don't want to be "that" person, but, like, you would think that Dan would have had the sense not to date this lady in the first place when EVERY SINGLE FAMILY MEMBER is a lawyer or trying to be!
Everything Sarah says sounds coached. Same with Susan. They even say the same stuff, same vocabulary, same sentences. It's rehearsed lines. Prosecutor caught her good on the coaching! And then she lied about not being coached, lied about interacting with either defense attorneys or her own family, and he got her on that, too. Her whole family is attorneys.
And one or some of her coaches have watched the whole trial.
@@barbaragrove6097 Great point. They are reading here, too.
@@sleuththewild I thought this niece was very well spoken and articulate. As a juror, I was actually fascinated with her testimony and how clear it was. I also saw her eyes look up to the left every time she said something emotional so I believed her entire testimony. Yep, it was the same story with each niece and most of these defense witnesses, but also the prosecution witnesses, so, I'm sure it's probably good to assume Nancy was a giving, fun, sociable, extroverted self-produced author, held down many jobs, and kept a sparkling house. At this point, I just don't know what to believe. Call me gullible! Oh yeah, their love sounds so so great. My ex-husband I could cook like that together too after 36 yrs.
Also, all of Nancy's siblings were attorneys'. Why would he pick his sister is a pretty good question; was she manipulative because of her insurance 'background' and possibly 'handling estates'. It seems absurd to me anybody would pick an uneducated woman who liked to spend money over the more qualified brothers he had. Or even his daughters.
@@tourdedogue4952 LMAO
Gee, good thing Nancy’s cousin told us that “Texas is huge” because who would know that?! 🙄
Sarah is uh very dramatic uh uses all of her big words.
Why isn't prosecution calling out his baloney about Dan and Nancy being "married"? They weren't.
was it common law marriage?
@@barbaragrove6097 AFAIK they were just plain not married. Nancy has an "origin story" where she says it took her 4 1/2 years to convince Dan to marry her, but actually, he never did until shortly before he died.
This is so KEY. They filed taxes as though married for 20+ years: big fraud. Nancy couldn't divorce him and walk away with 1/2 the assets, because she wasn't married. She also would not be an immediate beneficiary of the estate if he died: AFAIK the estate would have gone to his blood relative, namely Nathaniel.
Nancy HAD to get married to him and then kill him for her scheme to work.
But prosecution is allowing "wife" and "married" over and over again in the questioning by defense, and it keeps getting reinforced.
Karen Brophy testified they weren't married, but that's been a while ago....
Common-law marriage. C’mon, man. It’s Oregon, for God’s sake. The Land of Tantrums,No Accountability, and The Menstrual Dignity Act.
Yeah, common-law for sure, but I think she wanted to get it really legal, just in case, as she was plotting. So, it's a non-issue in this case.
@@barbaragrove6097 - Oregon does not recognize common-law marriage.
Good cross of the niece Sarah by the prosecutor! Brought out a lot of damaging facts against Nancy Brody.
1:57:00
Her demeanor drastically changes when he starts asking her about the gun _"stuff,"_ and her blind rate goes through the roof.
1:58:30
Wait? She says that she wasn't told anything about the gun, but then she says later she was told about it, before it was to come out in the media...
🤔
2:01:01
Hmmmm....
🤔
Unless you think the person is guilty, why wouldn't you ask them? That's pretty damming to say that.
2:09:05
"I thought it didn't matter...I thought I didn't care."
Huh? Why on earth wouldn't you care? This is legally RIGHT AFTER HIS DEATH! Wow! That's crazy!
2:11:45
I think what she says right here is pretty interesting...
It has been some time since the verdict but I was wondering if his son has received any compensation from the estate?
I don't think so. She had the insurance fixed so that the son couldn't inherit anything.
@@PinkyakaAyannaj May she rot in that prison cell.
You know,,,,
What a fake, POOR acting job. This poor niece! She too was manipulated
As a lawyer, I offer this trial as an exhibit as to how difficult it is to examine or cross-examine a female witness. Nancy said “she wanted to see more of Dan.” Translation: “That asshole is neglecting me.”
Well. Except, they want you to believe it was because she loved him SO much.
She made him work 2 jobs.....She coulda worked the Abamer job. so they'd potentially have more time together. But maybe Dan wanted to do that second job himself, so he didn't have to be around Nancy.
@@sleuththewild I don't think she made him work two jobs. He did want to escape, I believe. He enjoyed his time away from her more than with her, unless he was aware of the finances, which I don't think he was.
@@tourdedogue4952 I think you are SO right. He didn't want to be with her. He had about 1000 things going so he didn't have to be.
@@tourdedogue4952 I bet he wasn't even aware of the massive tax fraud Nancy was perpetuating with the marriage lie. That might have been a jail-able offense right there, but certainly hundreds of thousands of $$$ in taxes, interest, and penalties.
2:01:17; …riddle me this mini mook!, 💁🏼♀️ so what if you’re talking on a line, monitored by police, if you’re innocent, & telling the truth Nan? Not sure why the prosecutor didn’t aske her that. 🤔
She doesn’t like “guns”, the niece.
Who is “guns” and when did he testify?
Yknow I mean, yknow. I mean yknow.
That witness often got in 7 to 8 I mean you knows in the course of ONE short sentence. Many of her sentences consisted of only you know you know I mean to be honest with you.
You know, you think the defence would endeavour to pronounce the VICTIMS name properly, wouldn’t you? 😳🙄😳
A lot of character witnesses, but nothing so far to refute the incriminating evidence, is there?
Stellar character = doubt that she would or could kill her husband in cold blood. Cognitive dissonance.
The "character" witnesses are all the same kind of "character". They all speak fiction-babble. Must run in the family.
@@barbaragrove6097 Agree there!
1:02:57 This is exactly the opposite of what her husband said during his testimony yesterday. Hmmmmm I wonder who’s lying . . .
when someone cook for you , work for you outside the house ,even inside the house to make money and you doing nothing , isn't fair IF he is messy you should clean after him ????!
What a selfish B...!
I cook and I messy as well but my partner clean after me, and don't get me wrong she moans but she always saying cleaning after him worth the good food ..!
I mean she appreciates my work as I appreciate her !
Can anyone say what these witness the defendant bring clear any problems ??
They all saying their life story !!🤔
Especially the niece what she add from questions of defendant ?
She cried more than Nancy over less.
“ good pork” 😂
I really like this prosecutor & his style, but it's rude to say "yeah you mentioned that" multiple x if a piece of info is touched on again. He's used to all this, but it isn't easy getting up there.
I guess talking a lot and laughing while testifying in a murder trial is something that runs in this family since Nancy and her cousin both do that during this trial 🙄😒
Sarah's ex (Matt) seems so much more "what you see is what you get" than Sarah's (and Susan's and blue-shirt lady's) fantasy word salad, straight out of a romance novel. How great the relationship was, despite little disagreements here and there for totally minor reasons..... Her mouth is getting very dry... Anyway, Matt seemed real and honest. I'm thinking he wasn't coached like these women were, with their same, same vocabulary, key points, and verbatim sentences.
So I guess from all the testimonies we can assume that Dan and Nancy were hoarders. Nancy was clearly extremely lazy. Never cooked a meal in 24 years. Didn’t clean, laid around and got fat while being waited on hand and foot so she could write trash.
This is pure acting all her comments are scripted - her words don’t seem genuine
A lot of purgery
Not necessarily. I haven’t heard anyone say they saw her at home during the critical time, for example.
My opinion
And I thought captain Kirk overacted. LMAO 🤣
Great witnesses for the prosecution.🤓
Sarah gitchell acting her heart out
I wonder how many romance novelist live in Oregon. There is Alien World Romance, Invasion of Outer Space Romances, Historical Romance, Goonies Romance, The Dead Walking Romance & The Vampire Diaries Romance. And they are all going to testify to knowing Nancy and being published. No accounting for taste. This Defense team is in trouble.
Within first few sentences overstreet made the true Gitchell come out - she is Minnie Nancy.
This woman is a consummate chameleon, constructing a persona, an image of what she wanted others to see and think about her and Dan, their relationship etc. As in the idea that they had a good marriage, they talked over big issues together , the truth being the exact opposite .
A liar , who practiced deception all day everyday. Wow I dislike her I am of the opinion that she is a psychopath, that why people have talked about her starring at people on the stand ect . She doesn't know this looks odd to others also she has absolutely no self awareness. Laughing at inappropriate times etc , how she can laugh then stop all in one movement her emotions switching on and off. She is a very very scary woman poor Dan did not see this coming because her deceit was so natural...
...so help you God?
It’s beyond annoying listening to this rehearsed dribble from NBs niece. It’s sooo obvious that she’s been coached and most likely has written out her testimony and then it was edited and rewritten with input from the defense attorneys. The cry on queue doesn’t fool me and I’m sure the jury wants to roll their eyes throughout her testimony. I especially noticed it when she did her “screw up your cry face and try to get a tear out” act at the end of the defense questioning and immediately went into defense attitude with the first question the State asked. 🙄🙄🙄🙄🤢
Bang on…you can’t slip a lie through the prosecutor. He is sharp.
Did they ever find the gun that killed Dan Brophy? Link it to Nancy?
Out of all the gun parts she bought, the gun barrel from ebay has never been found. But the whole gun she bought at the gun show was found with it's barrel not properly situated (and not safe to fire, so the gun dealer would never have sold it like that). So she couldn't figure out how to build the ghost gun, then bought the whole gun. Then she bought the other barrel, switched them out, shot Dan, and got rid of that barrel. Only problem, all of that is easy to piece together because she didn't put the original barrel back on properly...and, "mysteriously" the ebay barrel is nowhere to be found.
@@saharaussery6799 Thank you for that. So much you can miss.
@@saharaussery6799 This sounds very bad for Naughty Nancy. Sounds like she thought she was very smart and, at trial here, sitting in her unemotional chair of freezer burn, she has zero tears when people talk about the amazing Dan and welling up. Nancy does not. They smile, their mouths widen, their eyes, in sheer delight as they describe what a wonderful man he was. This story makes me so sick if it it true what they accuse her of. Many witnesses have made me well up.
@@saharaussery6799 just curious because all the gun info confused me, what gun are you saying she didn’t put back together correctly? The ghost gun? Because they sure made a point about zip ties still being on the other gun showing it couldn’t have been used (although seems like a person could take a pic or whatever use the gun and just replace the zip tie - but that point was never made so maybe it’s because it couldn’t ever be proven either way or it was impossible). And was it just the gun with the zip ties that was the same caliber but not the ghost gun? Was the barrel missing a part that would or could match the ballistics? And is there actual proof she definitely bought a second barrel that’s never been found or is that speculation? Wasn’t the ghost gun found in an unlikely place like she was hiding it? And.. did defense ever try to explain why that gun was found where it was and why she’d buy two different guns and an extra barrel - or did defense ever try to say she didn’t buy a second barrel? If anyone can clarify any of these points I’d be super grateful and if not - sorry for the confusing ramblings. I should really re-watch in order and not while doing so many different things..
@@laradesautel3013 She couldn't figure out how to build the ghost gun, so she did nothing with that. Then she bought a whole gun at the gun show. But she thought she was so clever to buy the extra barrel on ebay. Then she switched that extra barrel for the original one on the whole gun (without taking the zip tie off of it). So then you just kill your husband with that extra barrel and get rid of it afterwards. Then you take the rest of the gun home and put the original barrel back on. Only problem is the zip tie was in the way of getting the barrel to be properly seated back in place. If someone had tried to fire it in the condition police found it in, it would blow up in your face. That's why the gun dealer said there's no way they sold it like that. That's how they know she switched out the barrels. She killed him with the ebay barrel...that's why it's the only part that can't be accounted for now...she had to get rid of it do they couldn't do forensics on it.
Did the state conclusively prove it was her car, and her driving it in the OCI area during the time of the murder?
I don't think it's conclusive.
The car... no doubt at all. It had specific identifying marks, including the church sticker (belonging to Jack Brophy), and that weird back quarter panel damage. Detectives also took photos of that van within, like, a couple of hours of the shooting. A detective also testified that it was his job to research ALL that van style registered in OR at that time. The Brophy one was the only one with a color match. The Brophy van also has a wheel match. AND they have a partial of the license plate in the videos.
Nancy has been ID'ed as the driver in the Bellagio's videos by Dan's parents. I believe the one at 7:28 am. Bellagio's is opposite OCI. Also, her neighbor evidently encountered her IN the van right after the shooting. She said she was looking for her dogs. Yup, cliché excuse.
Since Dan only turned off the alarm at 7:22 am, Nancy is in the car driving by within 6 minutes of him punching in. She likely had already killed him at this point.
@@sleuththewild The video clips are not good quality, and things aren't matched 100%. From what I've heard.
@@sleuththewild hmmm. thanks for the detailed reply. I hope the jury wasn't as confused as I was by all the 'evidence' the state presented.
The jurors will decide for themselves whether it was proven to be her car. My opinion is that it was proven.
A lot of courts allow attorneys to remove masks whilst questioning I wonder why they cannot?
And, how about the judge! C'mon. Everybody's mask are off in Oregon.
There was a terse moment last week when one of the defense lawyers got upset when the prosecutor got too close to her, saying that not to get near her with his “covid symptoms.” (Prosecutor had recently had covid, part of the reason the trial was delayed, but said that he just had allergies now and thank you for announcing this to the court.)
@@tourdedogue4952 not trying to be rude but Nancy and her defense team are all older (so high risk)...and maybe some of them refuse to vaccinate? I don't know what the covid rates are in Oregon right now...or if there are outbreaks in the jail...? I mean, some people can't wait to be done with masks...but some people choose to keep wearing them. That's freedom of choice too...
Court was off a week because someone got COVID. They also had to excuse a juror for COVID. The alternate was put in place.
@@arwenfarrey Note the hypocrisy, since they allowed nancy to go maskless for several days at the beginning of the trial, even though they had petitioned for bond (release) because of Nancy's certain likelihood of death by COVID if she stayed in jail.
The first niece is so articulate. And I really think she was being honest.
I think this lady who’s Nancys Niece is a very likeable witness. She comes across as very very honest to me. She’s everything you’d want in a witness when, ultimately, the truth is what you’re trying to fathom. Much respect to this lady.
Defense attorneys suck!
Why do these defense lawyers ask questions that they do not know the answers beforehand. They act like it is a coffee klatch, not a trial in a court of law. Same for the prosecutor who I think is a woman, but I am not a biologist.
The Male Prosecutor? That's funny.. NB Attorneys.. they all dress like guys.. LoL
Well, gosh, I've never seen his face but he looks and sounds like a man. I thought you were referring to the defense lawyers.
@@shamukek4805 Yanno? I don't think that's such a hot idea. Not these days. It is just fine and professional to look like a woman, like the female Prosecutor does. But, I think she's wearing pants too. Nancy looks like a nice female with hair. (from the back)
They have to wear suits in a courtroom. Pants are sensible. The other option would be a skirt and pantyhose… eeeeeek
Poor jury having to have their time wasted
You know I’m full of myself, you know, you know I’m full of beans., know🤢🤮🤥🥀👀👀🥱🥱