I was a juror on a murder trial. "My" trial was complex and both sides left no stone unturned. It took 14 days. THIS is now into day 20. The minutiae the defense is wading through is mind numbing. Is Nancy paying for this? How? Are these public defenders? Imagine how these jurors can't wait to get this over with. I really feel for them.
I’m shocked at the motions from the defense this morning! As one of the attorneys representing clients who were subpoenaed yesterday, clients ,who are attorneys, themselves, and the DOJ, I’m just gobsmacked at the audacity of Nancy’s defense team & seriously concerned that the judge is considering allowing some of it in the near future. If the defense team told the judge to jump , he’d ask how high 😠
It appears her family (not his) is paying as they are personal injury attorneys. I am unimpressed with this fumbling, unprepared and word salad pair of defense attorneys. The pace and content of the defense case is not well honed with endless, ad nauseam writer club witnesses with nothing new to add to the case and experts who are eviscerated by the prosecution. I’m looking forward to NB’s cross by who - Overstreet or Herman (?)?
That’s what I e said so many times. Usually the judge is pushing for the jury sake. He seems to just have never ending time to give them. It’s becoming very unfair for these people. My job, I doubt would allow for such long juror leave
Right? She is SO unprofessional! She's hiding things from the prosecution, obviously coaching multiple witnesses, cherry picking the documents she gives to the PAID defense "experts" and then spends _hours_ asking them pointless, long-winded questions, and calling all these witnesses who have absolutely nothing to add. She's wasting everyone's time, and I wouldn't be surprised if at least one juror voted guilty just out of sheer spite for that horrible defense lawyer.
Now a dentist wants to come to give evidence. Will we be informed how often she had her teeth cleaned. Or he can say that she is not lying through her teeth.
Right?? What the hell does a DENTIST have to do with this case?! I'm annoyed the judge didn't call the defense on her crap. The best we got was him telling that dreadful psychologist to hurry tf up cuz she'd blathered on about nothing for 45 minutes and STILL hadn't answered the State's first question!
After a gazillion defense witnesses, here are my unanswered questions so far in random order: Why did Nancy spend a large amount on guns and parts she claims she didn't use? Why buy an extra barrel? Where is it? Why is it missing? Why buy a second gun since she already had one? Why buy a ghost gun and not rent one (or more) to "do research"? Why did she lie about being near the scene of the murder? Why was she there in the first place? Why were they paying a ridiculous amount of insurance only for Dan and skipping mortgage payments to do so? When did she do any work that actually brought money to the household?
Instead of buying a shed load of guns and parts, her step son could have answered any question she had and seemingly a lot of her friends, family and acquaintances had guns... any one of them could have brought her guns to take apart and assemble. I also find it odd that Dan never once mentioned guns to anyone, even his own son who is a gun enthusiast but asked a random a question who also inserted themselves into the trial.
@@Horseymama1 100% what you said. She even contradicted herself when she said that she'd bought the gun for Dan to have for protection when mushroom hunting and "school shootings". At another point, she said that she bought that particular Glock because the seller at the gun show told her it was more suitable for a woman. I'm so glad the jury saw through her lies.
@@Horseymama1 Yeah, that surprise witness was super suspicious. Gets caught lying on the stand cuz he gave different answers to the detective, slips up and reveals he made contact with the defense a week prior to what the defense claimed, then when questioned by the judge, she made sure to give an explanation first, which after a deer in headlights look parrots her explanation nearly word for word. She coached him. No question about it.
@@StellaFl I mean, I don't think the glock being well suited for a woman had any bearing on it. Dan wouldn't have cared. But he clearly had no interest in carrying a gun, and Nancy had no reason to purchase not one, but TWO guns and an extra slide and barrel. It couldn't be more obvious that she's guilty.
@@WobblesandBean Indeed, we never saw any evidence he wanted a gun. The only reason that comment of hers becomes important is that it proves she lied when claiming she was buying it for him. If that were the case, why look for one suited for a woman? She contradicts herself which tells us she was not looking for a gun for a man (Dan).
Well, I guess if the defense is going to waste everyone’s time with these never-ending witnesses, I guess I’m glad that they all support the prosecution’s case.
I'm pissed! Where is the State's cross????? This defense team should've been sanctioned or something - for not being prepared, not foreclosing all witnesses, for screwing up the whole trial with their ineptitude!
The writers' clique all like Nancy because of Dan's cooking. That's almost all they could talk about, lol: their dinner get-togethers. Nancy was like a side dish to Dan's cooking. Nancy must have spent a fortune on the writers' clique. No wonder they were in debt. She coud've been making money instead of attending writers' conferences for vast sums. She could've gone to work at Barnes and Noble if Walmart was that far beneath her, but Dan was her gravy train.
Great analysis. “Nancy was a side dish to Dan’s cooking”made me chuckle. All the writers had such good memories of Dan’s cooking. but nothing said about Nancy so they loved that cooking and put up with Nancy to get it. All that food is expensive if you ‘re shopping at the high end stores. There’s always several reason why you have enough money but can’t pay the mtg. These defense attorneys haven’t realized that the parade of word salad is not having the effect they planned for.
I feel it"s like watching paint dry as they continue to parade romance authors and friends . Seem very redundant, If I didn"t believe the first 5 friend won"t believe the next with the same story. No Perry Mason moments here. ,
Ineffective assistance of counsel, #1 appeal grounds!! These bobsey twins are certainly laying the groundwork for that, on behalf of their guilty client. Perhaps prosecutor and judge are giving these gals a gentle carte blanche, and ample leash to run, to prevent those grounds?
As much as these defense attorneys get on my nerves with always creeping over the line of what is being allowed lol I definitely can say there is nothing here that would even hint at ineffective assistance of counsel. Lawyers have been drunk and defending clients and still considered "effective" by legal measures. The defense has done everything they can aside from marching in Nancy's kindergarten teacher to report on what kind of person Nancy is.
Yes, almost four years later ,the defense is discovering info on people they think might add doubt for the jurors. I cannot believe the judge is allowing it. These people are being informed by watching the trial , the media, or from people who are talking about the trial. There’s a reason witnesses are told they can’t follow the trial , talk to anyone about the trial ot their testimony. First , this guy who claims he discussed guns with Dan, and now some woman who is being investigated for something else. The defense wants to claim she got a plea deal from the state or the DOJ in return for info or testimony . The State says they did not and told the DOJ they wanted no part of it if they were pushing for info. I would not be surprised if there is an acquittal. I hope not , but would not be surprised . This judge is very lenient with the defense team.
They pretty much do have a deadline, but defense wasn’t prepared, keeps ending early, has more witnesses than they said, keeps adding hearings, etc…. IIRC the deadline was the 20th.
Dan used to bring Nancy Starbucks in bed every day, per Susan's glowing account. What happened the day of the murder? Where was the Starbucks? Too bad, the detectives didn't check for a Starbucks cup next to Nancy's bed....
The credit card or bank statement would answer that because it doesn’t look like he paid cash for their purchases from the part of the statement shown by Azor. I noticed 3 SB purchases on just that small part!
Why did they pay for another telephone expert to identify the towers where her phone was? Nothing new there that I heard. And another writing buddy who was the only one to talk about NB’s emotions. I’m not sure tomorrow’s hearing on the new witness for cross is going to finish up in the day…lots of activity we have seen the defense is ill-equipped to deal with as they’ve been unable to find simple pages in documents. Tune in tomorrow!!
I think they are trying to show that when she was doing that gun practice off HWY 26 she was actually at that writer friend’s property…the one who testified she had the Brophys out to their place…was it near Banks/Gaston/Timber, not doing shooting practice.
@@loricallister5836 Ahh, but if I didn’t get it I wonder how the jury did. Witnesses are to spell out what they’re saying!! Defense is not getting their points across well.
@@loricallister5836 Agree- I also think there’s an easier explanation to the brief time spent near the cell tower that likely services the outdoor public shooting range. If Nancy saw that others were also using the range that day , she may have left without ever getting out of her car. Nancy would stand out , all alone at a public shooting range. She wouldn’t want to take the chance of having witnesses. That just makes more sense to me than the theory that she only spent a few minutes shooting and quickly left.
I went back to listen to Nancy’s 1st interview they call the death notification. She claims she stayed in bed , yet she was telling Dan he had to get the leak under the kitchen sink fixed. If she’s in bed why would that subject come up? I realize it could , but it just seems odd since Dan was about to leave for work and would be gone all day. Had they been arguing over getting the house cleaned up (Dan’s things) and fixed so they could sell it? Was Dan opposed or just not working on it at the speed Nancy wanted? Did this issue set Nancy off so she put her plan in motion that morning?
She could have been up and gone back to bed. In any case, I don’t think her carrying out the plan was a spontaneous decision. It required careful planning of the timing.
@@GH-oi2jf I’m sure she had a plan . She said she didn’t get out of bed and Dan brought her coffee. I agree , this was not spontaneous, that morning . I believe it’s more likely the leaky sink is part of a larger disagreement. I wouldn’t be surprised if the leaky sink discussion happened the day before. Maybe it was even an ongoing discussion. I think Nancy is using it to make her morning story more believable. If they got along as well as all the witnesses have been describing, this might be the first time Nancy really wanted something that Dan did not. Maybe she wasn’t used to a conflict as big as this.
@@barbaragrove6097 - Yes, I think she would have had to leave first because of the narrow window of time when Dan was alone. Maybe Dan actually let her in with him. She might have had some ruse for being there.
@@GH-oi2jf Interesting re Dan maybe letting her in with him! I went back and listened to opening statements. 6:39AM - Nancy's van arrives in the area of OCI 7:20AM - Dan arrives in the area 7:22AM - Dan enters bldg, alarm is disabled, rolls up store room door 7:28AM - Nancy's van leaves the area
The defence bunch always sneak in comments that the prosecution has not given them something, but they bring in witnesses that only appeared last week, as weeks of him watching the trial online.
Its scary how many narcissist women come out to defend a narcissist woman. This sort of ganging up that we see in this trial happens in real life... scary.
I think defense is trying to sow confusion about the times Nancy did shooting practice and make it seem that maybe she was at her writer friends property…the one who has the chastity belt.
@@loricallister5836 Didn't a witness previously testify that she and Nancy went shooting together? The one who took that sheriff's class about firearms?
49:15 OMG THAT'S THE GLYPH SOUND EFFECT FROM ECCO THE DOLPHIN! Anyone here remember that game? Any time you received a key song from a glyph crystal, that's the sound you heard. To find it sampled here, of all places. That's nuts.
She should have gone the poison route. Just a half ounce of antifreeze in his coffee every morning would have done the trick. At his age and health, they very well may have chosen not to give the very specific screening required to test for it. You also want to have fewer policies with larger payouts. You also do not want to contact any of the insurance companies yourself until you know that the case is no longer open in all relevant offices. Once you decide to make money this way, there is quite a series of forensic rules one must follow regarding all digital, personal and business communications.
C’mon stop complaining about these witnesses m, we really need to hear about the menopausal sex 🙄🤦♀️🤦♀️ ! 😖also if she’s upset after Dan’s death, could that be because she shot him ? I actually liked this witness though, I’m just joking, she seems very empathic.
As I watch the defense do their job .,.and well! I can't help but wonder if they too felt that all their hard work was for nothing once Nancy took the stand 😭
That was fascinating, right? I think a deep dive into Andrea Jacobs would be quite the story. She’s a true narcissist who’s caused how much damage in her life? You know there are many, many victims beyond the doctor, dentist, attorney, IRS agent, boyfriend…
There's more than enough evidence that she was the killer. What more do you need after her van was seen in the surveillance video around the time her husband had been killed? But she was supposedly at home in bed, really? Don't think she was at home.
She’s the bunkie. Nancy told her she was “this close to Dan when she shot him”. When prosecution first mentioned this, there was a loud squeal from the defense table.
I was a juror on a murder trial. "My" trial was complex and both sides left no stone unturned. It took 14 days. THIS is now into day 20. The minutiae the defense is wading through is mind numbing. Is Nancy paying for this? How? Are these public defenders? Imagine how these jurors can't wait to get this over with. I really feel for them.
I’m shocked at the motions from the defense this morning!
As one of the attorneys representing clients who were subpoenaed yesterday, clients ,who are attorneys, themselves, and the DOJ, I’m just gobsmacked at the audacity of Nancy’s defense team & seriously concerned that the judge is considering allowing some of it in the near future.
If the defense team told the judge to jump , he’d ask how high 😠
It appears her family (not his) is paying as they are personal injury attorneys. I am unimpressed with this fumbling, unprepared and word salad pair of defense attorneys. The pace and content of the defense case is not well honed with endless, ad nauseam writer club witnesses with nothing new to add to the case and experts who are eviscerated by the prosecution. I’m looking forward to NB’s cross by who - Overstreet or Herman (?)?
That’s what I e said so many times. Usually the judge is pushing for the jury sake. He seems to just have never ending time to give them. It’s becoming very unfair for these people. My job, I doubt would allow for such long juror leave
Mind numbing is the word!!!
It's like everyone is walking through water...
Right? She is SO unprofessional! She's hiding things from the prosecution, obviously coaching multiple witnesses, cherry picking the documents she gives to the PAID defense "experts" and then spends _hours_ asking them pointless, long-winded questions, and calling all these witnesses who have absolutely nothing to add.
She's wasting everyone's time, and I wouldn't be surprised if at least one juror voted guilty just out of sheer spite for that horrible defense lawyer.
Now a dentist wants to come to give evidence. Will we be informed how often she had her teeth cleaned. Or he can say that she is not lying through her teeth.
😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂😂
Right?? What the hell does a DENTIST have to do with this case?! I'm annoyed the judge didn't call the defense on her crap. The best we got was him telling that dreadful psychologist to hurry tf up cuz she'd blathered on about nothing for 45 minutes and STILL hadn't answered the State's first question!
lol !!!😂😂😂😂😂
They had her hairstylist take the stand too
I am so very glad that Nancy has been in jail all these years.
I know this is old, but who knows who she could have harmed. I think Dan’s mother was next on her list
After a gazillion defense witnesses, here are my unanswered questions so far in random order:
Why did Nancy spend a large amount on guns and parts she claims she didn't use?
Why buy an extra barrel? Where is it? Why is it missing?
Why buy a second gun since she already had one?
Why buy a ghost gun and not rent one (or more) to "do research"?
Why did she lie about being near the scene of the murder? Why was she there in the first place?
Why were they paying a ridiculous amount of insurance only for Dan and skipping mortgage payments to do so?
When did she do any work that actually brought money to the household?
Instead of buying a shed load of guns and parts, her step son could have answered any question she had and seemingly a lot of her friends, family and acquaintances had guns... any one of them could have brought her guns to take apart and assemble. I also find it odd that Dan never once mentioned guns to anyone, even his own son who is a gun enthusiast but asked a random a question who also inserted themselves into the trial.
@@Horseymama1 100% what you said. She even contradicted herself when she said that she'd bought the gun for Dan to have for protection when mushroom hunting and "school shootings". At another point, she said that she bought that particular Glock because the seller at the gun show told her it was more suitable for a woman. I'm so glad the jury saw through her lies.
@@Horseymama1 Yeah, that surprise witness was super suspicious. Gets caught lying on the stand cuz he gave different answers to the detective, slips up and reveals he made contact with the defense a week prior to what the defense claimed, then when questioned by the judge, she made sure to give an explanation first, which after a deer in headlights look parrots her explanation nearly word for word.
She coached him. No question about it.
@@StellaFl I mean, I don't think the glock being well suited for a woman had any bearing on it. Dan wouldn't have cared.
But he clearly had no interest in carrying a gun, and Nancy had no reason to purchase not one, but TWO guns and an extra slide and barrel. It couldn't be more obvious that she's guilty.
@@WobblesandBean Indeed, we never saw any evidence he wanted a gun. The only reason that comment of hers becomes important is that it proves she lied when claiming she was buying it for him. If that were the case, why look for one suited for a woman? She contradicts herself which tells us she was not looking for a gun for a man (Dan).
What a waste of court time. Doesn't the defence has anything more substantial witnesses than these people?
Lots of fluff to confuse the jury about the facts
no
Well, I guess if the defense is going to waste everyone’s time with these never-ending witnesses, I guess I’m glad that they all support the prosecution’s case.
Dear God the defense witnesses are mind numbing.
The witness ‘didn’t know her as a writer.’ Haha neither did
Anyone else. Hahah
This judge needs to step it up -- does he even understand this case ????
The judge understands his job, which is to conduct an orderly trial. He is doing his job properly. This is not being done for anyone’s entertainment.
Do YOU? The judge is doing his job.
Defence helping Prosecution lol. JUSTICE FOR DAN!!! His aged parents & son
I'm pissed! Where is the State's cross????? This defense team should've been sanctioned or something - for not being prepared, not foreclosing all witnesses, for screwing up the whole trial with their ineptitude!
The writers' clique all like Nancy because of Dan's cooking. That's almost all they could talk about, lol: their dinner get-togethers. Nancy was like a side dish to Dan's cooking.
Nancy must have spent a fortune on the writers' clique. No wonder they were in debt. She coud've been making money instead of attending writers' conferences for vast sums. She could've gone to work at Barnes and Noble if Walmart was that far beneath her, but Dan was her gravy train.
Great analysis. “Nancy was a side dish to Dan’s cooking”made me chuckle. All the writers had such good memories of Dan’s cooking. but nothing said about Nancy so they loved that cooking and put up with Nancy to get it. All that food is expensive if you ‘re shopping at the high end stores. There’s always several reason why you have enough money but can’t pay the mtg. These defense attorneys haven’t realized that the parade of word salad is not having the effect they planned for.
I wouldn’t call Nancy a dish 😊
Love the defense implication that you have to be "familiar" with a video to be able to skip around in it to find what you're looking for lmao.
Yes Dan talks to her in jail. Prob asks you charlatan " why did you murder me"?
I feel it"s like watching paint dry as they continue to parade romance authors and friends . Seem very redundant, If I didn"t believe the first 5 friend won"t believe the next with the same story. No Perry Mason moments here.
,
LOL 😆 Your right and it's a poo 💩 colored paint , at that 🤣
Ineffective assistance of counsel, #1 appeal grounds!! These bobsey twins are certainly laying the groundwork for that, on behalf of their guilty client.
Perhaps prosecutor and judge are giving these gals a gentle carte blanche, and ample leash to run, to prevent those grounds?
That’s why the judge is giving the defense a long leash
As much as these defense attorneys get on my nerves with always creeping over the line of what is being allowed lol I definitely can say there is nothing here that would even hint at ineffective assistance of counsel. Lawyers have been drunk and defending clients and still considered "effective" by legal measures.
The defense has done everything they can aside from marching in Nancy's kindergarten teacher to report on what kind of person Nancy is.
Is defense adding more witnesses at this late date? Besides consistently not giving Prosecutors the information.
Yes, almost four years later ,the defense is discovering info on people they think might add doubt for the jurors. I cannot believe the judge is allowing it. These people are being informed by watching the trial , the media, or from people who are talking about the trial. There’s a reason witnesses are told they can’t follow the trial , talk to anyone about the trial ot their testimony.
First , this guy who claims he discussed guns with Dan, and now some woman who is being investigated for something else. The defense wants to claim she got a plea deal from the state or the DOJ in return for info or testimony . The State says they did not and told the DOJ they wanted no part of it if they were pushing for info.
I would not be surprised if there is an acquittal.
I hope not , but would not be surprised .
This judge is very lenient with the defense team.
January '18 she was already on youtube doing her homework. Lol defence proved she went sites on cleaning the glock gun.
Get done. Judge please give them a deadline or this will go on forever. They are delaying . OMG THEY CANT GIVE A LIST FISHING.
They pretty much do have a deadline, but defense wasn’t prepared, keeps ending early, has more witnesses than they said, keeps adding hearings, etc….
IIRC the deadline was the 20th.
I just noticed that the defense lawyer is pronouncing Brophy as Bro-pee.😅
Mrs. Bro-pee got the lawyers she deserved.😂😂😂
Dan used to bring Nancy Starbucks in bed every day, per Susan's glowing account. What happened the day of the murder? Where was the Starbucks?
Too bad, the detectives didn't check for a Starbucks cup next to Nancy's bed....
She likely took it with her in the van on her way to kill him? Or had she already left and was lying in wait for him?
I listened to some of Susan's testimony again. She said many or most mornings he brought her coffee.
The credit card or bank statement would answer that because it doesn’t look like he paid cash for their purchases from the part of the statement shown by Azor. I noticed 3 SB purchases on just that small part!
Why did they pay for another telephone expert to identify the towers where her phone was? Nothing new there that I heard. And another writing buddy who was the only one to talk about NB’s emotions. I’m not sure tomorrow’s hearing on the new witness for cross is going to finish up in the day…lots of activity we have seen the defense is ill-equipped to deal with as they’ve been unable to find simple pages in documents. Tune in tomorrow!!
I think they are trying to show that when she was doing that gun practice off HWY 26 she was actually at that writer friend’s property…the one who testified she had the Brophys out to their place…was it near Banks/Gaston/Timber, not doing shooting practice.
@@loricallister5836 Oh, I get it.
@@loricallister5836 Ahh, but if I didn’t get it I wonder how the jury did. Witnesses are to spell out what they’re saying!! Defense is not getting their points across well.
@@loricallister5836
Agree-
I also think there’s an easier explanation to the brief time spent near the cell tower that likely services the outdoor public shooting
range.
If Nancy
saw that others were also using the range that day , she may have left without ever getting out of her car.
Nancy would stand out , all alone at a public shooting range. She wouldn’t want to take the chance of having witnesses.
That just makes more sense to me than the theory that she only spent a few minutes shooting and quickly left.
I went back to listen to Nancy’s 1st interview they call the death notification.
She claims she stayed in bed , yet she was telling Dan he had to get the leak under the kitchen sink fixed.
If she’s in bed why would that subject come up?
I realize it could , but it just seems odd since Dan was about to leave for work and would be gone all day.
Had they been arguing over getting the house cleaned up (Dan’s things) and fixed so they could sell it?
Was Dan opposed or just not working on it at the speed Nancy wanted?
Did this issue set Nancy off so she put her plan in motion that morning?
She could have been up and gone back to bed. In any case, I don’t think her carrying out the plan was a spontaneous decision. It required careful planning of the timing.
@@GH-oi2jf
I’m sure she had a plan .
She said she didn’t get out of bed and Dan brought her coffee.
I agree , this was not spontaneous, that morning . I believe it’s more likely the leaky sink is part of a larger disagreement. I wouldn’t be surprised if the leaky sink discussion happened the day before. Maybe it was even an ongoing discussion. I think Nancy is using it to make her morning story more believable.
If they got along as well as all the witnesses have been describing, this might be the first time Nancy really wanted something that Dan did not.
Maybe she wasn’t used to a conflict as big as this.
Interesting how she gave details of something that didn't happen. Not that morning anyway. She was not home at the time she says Dan left.
@@barbaragrove6097 - Yes, I think she would have had to leave first because of the narrow window of time when Dan was alone. Maybe Dan actually let her in with him. She might have had some ruse for being there.
@@GH-oi2jf Interesting re Dan maybe letting her in with him! I went back and listened to opening statements.
6:39AM - Nancy's van arrives in the area of OCI
7:20AM - Dan arrives in the area
7:22AM - Dan enters bldg, alarm is disabled, rolls up store room door
7:28AM - Nancy's van leaves the area
The defence bunch always sneak in comments that the prosecution has not given them something, but they bring in witnesses that only appeared last week, as weeks of him watching the trial online.
Its scary how many narcissist women come out to defend a narcissist woman. This sort of ganging up that we see in this trial happens in real life... scary.
Yes it is.
Damit Judge!!!! Ugh
How do you think Nancy will do on witness stand?
I think the state is going to catch her in a lot of lies. He's good at that.
@@michellev71132 years later and your prediction was correct! 👌
@@ElechickYes it was😊
Creepy. The Glock video narrator talks like Nancy. Disorganized blather, ideas all over the place.
Will tomorrow’s hearing be broadcast.
The telephone expert confirmed the prosecution witness conclusions.
I would like to know too. More interesting than what has happened the last couple days.
I think defense is trying to sow confusion about the times Nancy did shooting practice and make it seem that maybe she was at her writer friends property…the one who has the chastity belt.
Is there court in session tomorrow? Broadcast?
@@nicolewilliams5593 - There have not been broadcasts of court sessions without the jury so far.
@@loricallister5836 Didn't a witness previously testify that she and Nancy went shooting together? The one who took that sheriff's class about firearms?
49:15 OMG THAT'S THE GLYPH SOUND EFFECT FROM ECCO THE DOLPHIN!
Anyone here remember that game? Any time you received a key song from a glyph crystal, that's the sound you heard. To find it sampled here, of all places. That's nuts.
I actually looked this up after reading your comment. I had never heard of the game but my wife had🙂
Is this the woman who wrote a book called "How to murder your husband"?
Yes, but it was an essay, not a book.
She should have gone the poison route. Just a half ounce of antifreeze in his coffee every morning would have done the trick. At his age and health, they very well may have chosen not to give the very specific screening required to test for it. You also want to have fewer policies with larger payouts. You also do not want to contact any of the insurance companies yourself until you know that the case is no longer open in all relevant offices. Once you decide to make money this way, there is quite a series of forensic rules one must follow regarding all digital, personal and business communications.
If all writers are this weird, please, Lord, keep them caged in their homes.
How is there anything of use from the defence team???😮
Romance writers are boring.. these retreats must have been like purgatory
WTF they have the emails & text messages now they got the expert to check metadata?
But the media dude-who is super duper definite-reaffirms the prosecution case. Defense did prosecution a huge favor with this witness.
I was embarrassed for the lady talking about post menopausal sex. My goodness!
Why would the defense show all the gun videos she watched? It's like they're saying Hello! 👋 She learned how to manipulate a gun! 🤷♀️
52:48 😮
Why in the world would the defense show these gun videos to the jury.
GUILTY GEEZ. get t o closing
C’mon stop complaining about these witnesses m, we really need to hear about the menopausal sex 🙄🤦♀️🤦♀️ ! 😖also if she’s upset after Dan’s death, could that be because she shot him ? I actually liked this witness though, I’m just joking, she seems very empathic.
lol🤣
As I watch the defense do their job .,.and well! I can't help but wonder if they too felt that all their hard work was for nothing once Nancy took the stand 😭
BORING 🙄 GET NANCY ON THE STAND 😁
“That’s the writer in me”😂
the defense "lawyer" is drowning in hyperbole ("anything else about that?? desperate plea)
HEY, Y'ALL, WE GET LIVE STREAM TODAY (Friday) FOR THE BUNKIE HEARINGS. DAY 20.
That was fascinating, right? I think a deep dive into Andrea Jacobs would be quite the story. She’s a true narcissist who’s caused how much damage in her life? You know there are many, many victims beyond the doctor, dentist, attorney, IRS agent, boyfriend…
Are defense witnesses was liar she liar her defense attorney are dumb
your are innocent until proven guilty
innocent?? bulls
There's more than enough evidence that she was the killer. What more do you need after her van was seen in the surveillance video around the time her husband had been killed? But she was supposedly at home in bed, really? Don't think she was at home.
To be precise, a defendant is to be presumed innocent until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. That is a rule for the jury.
Why are they talking so much about Susan jacobs?
She’s the bunkie. Nancy told her she was “this close to Dan when she shot him”.
When prosecution first mentioned this, there was a loud squeal from the defense table.
@@sleuththewild - When was that mentioned?