Recently we've learnt from the eminent Canadian psychologist, Dr. Peterson, that that's exactly what modern day psychologists are indeed forced to do. Science of the mind is very interesting and necessary, but it's not as cut and dry as some of the other areas of science.
Because it's not that cut and dry as each patient is unique in how they cope or not to traumatic events. It's only been 4 years since her husband of 25 years was murdered and Nancy has been in jail most of that time but appears to be coping better than most. I'm waiting for her book on "Why i murdered my husband as a retirement plan". Nancy wanted to travel and be an expat and she could only do that if they sold the house. Dan needed a big house with land for all of his projects and side businesses. Dan was a gentleman's farmer v a traveler. I think Nancy was done with Dan's lifestyle and she was ready to begin her golden years as an expat traveling around Europe with her fellow wanna be literary friends who only need 1 book to make the best seller$ list and get the fame and respect they so desperately seek.
How did Nancy break her phone screen? Did she throw it in anger at realizing she messed up her perfect murder? I believe Nancy was sad and upset - not because Dan was dead but because she was going to get caught and not get away with murder because of so many mistakes (in no particular order): Mistake - not incorporating the witness neighbor seeing her leave the house (looking for dogs who normally are looked for on foot) Mistake - not disguising her cars unique characteristics Mistake - not positioning the slide properly on the gun Mistakes - not disguising herself Mistake - not being able to present one witness that can confirm the Brophys had a discussion with a group of other people and they were the only couple that didn't own a gun Mistake - hiring these lawyers
Great question about the phone screen. It happened before Nancy's niece's child's birthday party. How did she crack it? She threw it at something? The week of his murder, Dan also had to get stitches on his hand because "the shower door shattered". Nancy issued a vague excuse. I'm not buying it. IMO at least one of them was losing it, and it got physical.
@@sleuththewild Interesting ... have they provided witnesses that confirm the shower door shattered --- someone would need to replace that and there should be receipts if they purchased new door. Interesting also was the disclosure of the text message about him leaving the car unlocked - the terseness of that could be felt up here in Canada .... I think they had one image they projected in public and a totally different situation was going on behind the closed shattered shower door. I'd bet at least one of the members of Nancys romance novel writers group is going to make this into an even better book that this played out. Nancy first wrote about How to Kill your Husband many years ago ... I would bet that there is someone out there who can totally testify to the change in their relationship. You'd think that would have been a bit upsetting to Dan ... I bet he read that but too bad he didn't see her coming.
@@Sueprises Nancy brought up the shower door and Dan's stitches in the first police interview. I thought when I first heard it, she might have made it up as an explanation. Also in that interview, she mentioned that she had once run into OCI to use the bathroom. This would have meant she parked, she ran in, she ran out, and got the car. The bathrooms are through the student door and right near the kitchens. I think this was a rehearsal for her timing, and she volunteered the info to the detectives for the same reason she volunteered the info about the gun, namely to look innocent. Perhaps the same with the stitches.....
@@sleuththewild Oh very interesting indeed! I agree with you totally - she tried to head them off with those statements . Had she of gotten the gun properly reassembled they may never have suspected her. Epic fail. I totally agree about the washroom pitstop - was likely research just like you say .... how long will it take, will I be seen on the cameras, etc ... I'm surprised she didn't get caught on any camera but I'd assume she spend enough time researching the school cameras. I am so looking forward to them calling Nancy to the stand (her incompetent lawyers will not be able to properly prepare her for the attack of the tough questions .... Overstreet is very good on the fly and catching in progress lies/changes of statements etc .. so her cross examination should be exciting.... I'll have snacks and ice cold soda (yes) ready on hand for that !
@@sleuththewild I agree! I think that Nancy was more aggressive and controlling, as well. Being a survivor of DV & SA, I guess I have a tendency to look at things differently (especially the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial- but some would probably be surprised with who I think the _actual_ victim was/is). My ex was very abusive, but NOBODY... _EVER_ witnessed it, besides our daughter, who was 2 when we left. In public, things like _uhhhhhmazing._ And even my Facebook posts, made it look like things were great! 🙄 Nobody knows how Mrs Brophy was at home with Dan. I really think that Nancy wanted to not be tied down anymore. She wanted to move & travel, and Dan _clearly_ wasn't planning on doing that for at least a few more years.
It's like she has to teach the jury and the world her bit of knowledge. She is non sensical. She is like the psychologist in the Jodi Arias case years ago. Little bit on the 'nutty' side.
In my opinion, it seems like the forensic psychologist is trying to give full & complete answers & the prosecution doesn’t want that, they are asking for yes/no answers but that isn’t how most people are able to respond to things, especially when we’re talking about convicting someone of murder! Everyone that is complaining about the judge being biased for the defense, why would that be a problem?! In our country, criminal courts are always supposed to consider the defendant innocent & the prosecution has 100% the burden of proof. How many people are in jail currently, or how many people have served 10, 15, 20, 25yrs in jail for a crime they ABSOLUTELY DID NOT COMMIT!!! Many of those people wrongly convicted happened because of prosecutors who were given priority by judges, & by the jury. Anyone that is accused of a crime is ALWAYS supposed to be considered innocent unless the prosecution can without a doubt prove that they were responsible. I know it takes effort for most of us to remember that just because someone is arrested, or charged with something that DOES NOT MEAN they are guilty.
I feel like her paycheck is on the line and shes being very careful to not make Nancy look bad. But too bad .. Overstreet is a quick thinker and has good recall ... dont try to change your story mid stream ... he'll be all over ya .. cant wait for Nancy to take the stand... I hope they dont change their mind. But she thought she could get away with this ... she will not give up easily
@@MissAmanda616 I totally agree that the defendant needs to exhaust their options ... but that's also assuming a level of competence of the lawyers. I think these 2 ladies underestimated the impact of the damming evidence and overestimated the impact of their defense. They sensed that and now are trying different options ... they are also no whining a out not enough time and scrambling to meet target dates. No worries .. this judge will ensure they have nothing of the sort to complain about. And it truly breaks my heart for those who are convicted of and do time.for crimes they didnt commit .. in addition to their loss, the real criminal is still out there - that a shoddy police work. This case had a few LE fails .... but they came through with alot of evidence against Nancy and just didnt make sure they covered all the bases. Shame in that regard but I believe it was Nancy since the prosecution rested. I've heard nothing to counteract that. And nobody should be paying such a large percentage of net income towards insurance when they both have no major health issues on the horizon that one may pass away from. Looking forward to the defense resting and jury doing their job 🤗
The defense keeps bringing up: 1) Did she ever talk bad about Dan, 2) Did she ever talk finances? Both emphatic no's for every witness. Well, I was married 36 yrs and, 1) I never once talked bad about my husband and, 2) finances are just off limits for most couples to discuss with others. This is not strange. None of my family or friends do either. And, this super great angelic marriage ended after he had an affair for 3 years and threatened me once with his guns during the divorce. OH man, he was the nicest guy in the world, everybody said so......until, he wasn't. None of these witnesses resonate with me at all.
@@tourdedogue4952 I can’t even estimate how many times I’ve watched a trial/or documentary type show about a couple with the perfect marriage or the defendant was always the nicest guy/gal blah blah…they don’t go to trial when everyone and the dog saw it comin I guess:/
@@laradesautel3013 Yup!! Everybody is SO shocked! Including the spouse who suspected something wrong but knew, with a gut feeling, something had changed, drastically, like an axis shifting.
@@tourdedogue4952 I agree with you about everything. Nobody knew my daughter's father was abusing me, until after I finally got out with my daughter, because I kept _"hoping"_ things would change. I really wonder if Mrs Brophy was actually controlling. It seems to me, that Mr Brophy tried to go along with things and not stir the pot, but Mrs Brophy wanted to move, travel, etc. The Defense, trying to make things look perfect, is actually frustrating. The fact that Mrs Brophy bought the gun, the ghost kit, and the extra slide (which _IRONICALLY_ is missing now), speaks volumes to me about what Mrs Brophy did.
Prosecutor Sean Overstreet is excellent. He's right up there with Juan Martinez when he tore into all 3 therapists in the Jodi Arias case. If you know. You know.
Check out Creighton Waters, the Solicitor (prosecuting attorney) in the Alex Murdaugh double murder case in South Carolina earlier this year. His cross examination of Murdaugh was nothing short of *BRUTAL* . I realize that this is different from shredding an expert but it was a masterful performance and worth watching.
I can’t figure out why the defense attorneys voices are like nails on a blackboard for me? It can’t only be because they are defending a reprehensible human being. I find both of them so annoying that I fast forward frequently through their questions. Weird
@@merlewarren3459 OMG...you hit the nail on the head! I, too, was thinking that l must be annoyed by their voices because l can't stand Nancy. Trying to stay open minded, I have been trying to bend over backwards to try to listen fairly and give that side a chance. Now l realize why it has been so difficult...they sound sooo FAKE! I guess when you're trying to sell a lie though, it's hard to sound genuine.
Well I would be extremely sad if I realized I had made a major mistake in my murder plot and there was an actual witness to the fact that I wasn't at home that morning and yet I continued with that lie to the point of it becoming obvious that I was lying. She really should have come up with a better statement that aligned with the neighbors statement that she did get up and go out. Very sad when your plans don't work out - especially when they have been in the works for years and your future and freedom and fortune all come down to that morning.
I'm not crying about it. I'm glad she was incompetent. I'm glad she royally botched it and didn't even bother to try and disguise herself or her car. I'm glad she arrogantly thought she could outwit the prosecution. Cuz it all ended in her guilty verdict.
Am I the only one who finds it extremely annoying, juvenile and very unprofessional when Mr. Overstreet (prosecuting attorney) talks to the judge about some things -- the defense attorney(s) give a snarking "ha!* so loud that Mr. Overstreet turns to them? If Mr. Overstreet and you and I hear it -- does the jury not hear it? Does the judge not hear it? Why does the judge not reprimand them? They've done it in other days before. Also, if I was an "expert* witness ($$), whomever hired me would not have to apologize for me -- for whatever.
That is mostly Nancy doing those shrill noises not her lawyers. Court tv guy who as at the trial said that in a segment on court tv. She got away with it as she didn't do it when the jurors were in the room he said.
GH1618 You seem to answering everyone's comments, are you related to Judge?Defense Attorneys? Or trolling? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, not just yours.
I agree. This Judge seems to be biased towards the defense. He seems so "wishy-washy'. I'm glad the prosecution is finding a back bone and calling Judge and lame defense team out. Disgusting!
@@merlewarren3459 Wishy washy! Perfect description of this mild mannered judge! The defense team gets just about everything they want. He needs to take a refresher course in proper case law, in my opinion. Judges today are so fearful of appeals and reversals!
@@GH-oi2jf That's why he's bending over backwards trying to accommodate all the defense witnesses regardless of them having no consequential value. They spent so many hours with Insurance agents trying to show they weren't over insured yet we all know they were paying more than they could afford for insurance they really shouldn't have needed when money was tight. This trial is becoming a farce.
The grey haired defense attorney (I won’t mention her name) is so obnoxious with her snarky little comments and inappropriate comments. Both defense attorneys continually spew stupid comments that are intended to be funny. This is a murder trial. I don’t find anything funny about it, nor do I find anything funny about their stupid comments. I find them very unprofessional and disrespectful in their court room behavior.
Listening to that shrink is cruel and unusual punishment that traumatized the jurors BUT Warford’s testimony was a tremendous help getting Nasty Nancy convicted!
Several times during this trial I thought if I were on this jury, i’d be ready to vote as soon as deliberations began! The poor jury was shuffled in and out repeatedly then subjected to endless irrelevant conversation from the defense lawyers, it was infuriating at many times and the only relatable person was the prosecutor!
If I were prosecution would ask her, so if Nancy did shoot Dan, would that start the cortisol flooding and potentially affect her memory. I’d also ask if it was a psychopath would their memory be affected in the same way ?
As a psychologist, I can tell you that her consistent inability to look anyone in the eye when answering is dispositive for deception. Her insistence on staring down when there's nothing in the papers related to the q & a is to hide her growing panic at her wilder and wilder assertions.
This “expert” witness is so obviously trying to fit a narrative, (apart from also trying to showcase her knowledge at every opportunity- no matter how irrelevant) I can’t believe a word of it. Worst expert I’ve ever seen, just be honest !
OH MY GOD SHE'S STILL HERE. Jfc, this "doctor" is so utterly incompetent. I can't with this woman. Edit: _Uggghhhhh_ she even says "caveat"... /Headdesk
This "expert" is comical to watch. Almost EVERY question she's asked her response is "Not necessarily ...., could be this or could be that, might be, could be both:. I feel like yelling "Lady, you were paid for an opinion, give one".????????????????
This trial is a joke the judge is clearly bias he's letting the defense do whatever they want. Doesn't matter what anyone says about his good the marriage was, at the end of the day she slaughtered her husband in cold blood.
Well, that's a little off. Why are you watching a murder trial then? They're not all exciting like a Depp one, if anybody cared about it. If you've never done jury duty during a murder case, or ever gone through the process of becoming a juror, which can be arduous, there is a method to what attorney's do in court. If you are not an attorney, and you are not a judge or jury to say she slaughtered her husband in cold blood without hearing the full court trial, well - shit, I wouldn't want you to be on any jury with me! Be nice.
@@tourdedogue4952 it's not rocket science. A fool can tell already that she killed Dan in cold blood. Her being down there and then lying about it, her buying a slide and barrel so the bullets and gun cannot be traced back to her, her buying a gun build kit, her buying the glock proves exactly what she did. You can't pay your mortgage but your paying all his life insurance policies? Really
Perhaps you should take your own advice - be nice. He is entitled to his opinion and converse with the rest of us. I enjoy reading everyone's comments. Be open minded. (P.S. I have served on 3 jury trials, 1 was criminal). js🤔
@Harping Ark Angel I agree. I have never watched a trial where the defense got to do whatever they wanted. They called so many pointless and useless witnesses all to say how much Nancy loved Dan. It was all for show. Someone who cooks all your meals, does the laundry gets you coffee everyday, works 2 jobs while Nancy did absolutely nothing is really disturbing and disgusting to ever think she loved him. I really hope the judge let's her have it when he sentences her. She's an animal who showed no remorse at all. To think that Dan looked her in the eyes before she shot him in the heart makes my skin crawl. I hope she suffers many many years of nightmares for what she did.
This psychiatrist gives a 500 word answer when a few words would suffice. What she’s doing causes me (and I’m sure the jurors) to hear blah blah blah blah blah , yada, yada, yada…… Her testimony is totally useless. Who cares which doctor, who lived in this city, did this research, on this date…… Anytime someone feels the need to justify their answer without being asked to explain, raises a red flag. Please tell me we’re about get her out of this witness box soooooon!!!!!
I’m sick of this judge now. He’s so weak and wishy washy he can’t rule on hearsay without sending the jury out ! Has he not heard of a sidebar ! It’s ridiculous
I completely agree with you. He’s letting the defense counsel sneak in inadmissible evidence (hearsay or otherwise) by using leading questions - basically defense counsel is able to testify via their leading questions. Another issue I have with this judge is letting witnesses sit and listen while the attorneys argue about their testimony, thereby giving them the opportunity to tweak their testimony to maximize its admissibility. In other cases I’ve seen judges require the witness to leave the courtroom until the issue is resolved. And while I’m at it, I’ve come to believe that the rule against using leading questions during direct examination doesn’t exist in Oregon courts.
The fact that both the defense *and* the judge _thinks?_ that the witness has answered a question summons up this testimony quite well. She is rambling and the question are irrelevant.
If you want to secure an unassailable conviction, the safest way to do that is to allow the defendant to put on anything and everything they want to...as long as there is no legal reason not to allow something. That way, once she is convicted, Nancy won't have any grounds to put into an appeal. She won't be able to say "if only witness X had been allowed to testify, it would have changed things" or "l wasn't allowed to testify" or "my expert was disallowed" or whatever. After all this time, work, and money, you don't want it coming back for a whole new retrial because of "cutting corners" now. In the long run one trial done right takes less time than having to have a retrial.
It's soooo boring, but you are right. And hopefully her defence will give her enough rope to hang herself. The poor jury must be super heroes to stay awake through all this nonsense.
I agree - and I think it’s why the prosecutors have refrained from objecting thus far. They’re not only letting the defense dig themselves into a massive hole w their contradictions, but they’re also eliminating any room for any new information to come out. While the defense exhausts their entire case, the prosecutors have been allowed to build theirs up and use defense testimony to do it
50:19. As usual, the judge can't simply say "sustained," no, we once again have to clear the courtroom for a matter all other judges routinely dispatch with one word, sustained or overruled. The most inefficient jurist I've EVER seen, a big ninny, and chronically terrified of reversal.
No, he is not biased. He is letting each side call the witnesses as they desire. It seems to me you want him to be biased in favor of the prosecution. I see him as completely even-handed.
Yes, he seems like a genuinely good human - I am used to judges that wouldn’t allow much of this that seems superfluous, but this is Oregon, not Florida;)
Agree! It is because this defense has nothing so they try everything. Truth is hard to uncover, even with witnesses under oath, which makes justice illusive. This jury is going to have serious psychopathies when this is over!
All it takes is one juror to believe the whole memory loss "stuff," and she won't be convicted. I can understand why the Defense brought that lady in, but I feel that what they discussed, could've happened much quicker, if the Psychologist, hadn't been such a rambler. You could tell everybody was getting annoyed with how much she talked, even the Defense Attorney.
This expert is bizarrely sooooo much like Nancy Brophy. She tries to distract and redirect anytime she thinks she's giving an answer that isn't beneficial to the defense. She's not the right kind of person to be doing this work. And the "friend" who came next that conveniently remembered information the previous day and wants to be a new witness 😂 this is too much
So as far as temporary amnesia ... can someone ask her about why she forgot she was seen by the neighbor in her van saying she was going to look for missing dogs and showing their leashes to her when she was supposed to be in bed writing? You would think this was out of the ordinary and would have stood out in her recollection.
I forgot about that. I just know they have her on video driving by the school, and stopping long enough to kill him, and driving off again. Though she maintains she was at home in bed??? "Me thinks she is lying (and not in bed.😂😂)
@@merlewarren3459 but don’t forget- it’s not that she’s lying because defense admitted in opening she agrees she was seen- she just was in such a state of trauma- ugh!
@@laradesautel3013 Yeah... I firmly believe that Brophy is _ACTUALLY_ very good at manipulating people. I understand this "expert" has been doing forensic work for nearly 30 years, but... just like with the current Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial, where AH's hired forensic psychologist found that she "had PTSD," versus Depp's team's forensic psychologist who found AH _DIDN'T_ have PTSD (and she specialized in PTSD- working especially with Vets), but rather diagnosed AH as having Borderline Personality Disorder & Histrionic Personality Disorder (very evident in her current testimony & recordings- prior Deposition, etc), that if another Forensic Psychologist gave Mrs Brophy an eval, that they could find different findings. I feel like if/when an evaluation is going to take place, that both sides should do one, and then the courts should basically work as a "deal breaker," and have a third evaluation done thru the courts, to see what they say (if both sides find different findings). Just my thoughts on this...
@@merlewarren3459 I personally don't believe she _DIDN'T_ "remember," that she went to town. She seems to be highly intelligent, and likely is trying to find a way out of lying about being at/around the school. Also, didn't she get Starbucks at that time? If so, I'm curious if that's the closest Starbucks to their residence. And if that's the one either she or Dan would frequent at least once a day... 🤔
The simple fact is : we really don't know what is in the mind of anyone, no matter how well we know them, sorrow does not mean innocence, regret maybe, and money can turn good people into monsters......period.
I have seen a good number of expert witnesses testify over the last 20 years. I think the expert witness in this case has the worst credibility I’ve seen. I think she hurt her professional reputation.
This woman expert witness mumbles a lot. She also waffles a lot. It comes across as "if I can't impress the people I can baffle them with BS" . IMO I love that we are able to hear arguments between the defence and the prosecution and there are no side bars.
Her only defense is that she doesn’t remember leaving her house and returning. But somehow knows she definitely didn’t him shoot him. It’s a terrible defense strategy. The other stuff-that they had a perfect relationship and there’s no motive is full of Grand Canyon holes and just as not-believable. That said, the prosecution has also missed some opportunities to make those holes obvious.
@@gazXspace an ordinary middle aged woman who’s not pretending to be anything other than what she is, and certainly isn’t defending a batty murderer friend at her trial, which I found absolutely riveting for the personalities. Oh, in case you misunderstood, I wasn’t referring to her looks, it’s her acting and mannerisms that make her hilarious.
This Amazing prosecutor wasn't having it throughout the entire trial. the defense allegedly attempting to take the juries eyes overwhelming evidence by creating inconsistent false narratives and confusion could be seen by a blind person. I actually don't know how this "expert" can show her face on the stand in the future.. I think when defense drag in these highly paid experts who will find a way to confirm a lie, more often then not, will get exposed. He ripped a new one and exposed the charade for what it was. There was a second or two so embarrassed for her, but quickly remembered it was her choice to get up there and try to ram this garbage down a jury's throat. I can't quite put my finger on it, but there's a common thread between the two defense attorneys, This expert witness and the defendant. Maybe it's the caveat and rabbit hole defense that they decided to go with. Rest in peace, Chef Brophy they got her
And exactly how did the defense not know about this Witness when another one of their Witnesses told them how they came to know Dan was through this person??? I feel the defense just didn't feel it necessary to reach out to this person when they were told about him. Always fishy when someone approaches the attorneys after certain testimony has already been given. The prosecution didn't know about the woman in jail and what she reported Nancy said to her because her attorney did not reach out to the prosecutors to give them that information when she should have reached out to them with that. Not the prosecution's fault it was the failure of the woman's attorney
I have been straddling the fence on why she would have killed him. She is getting up in age(72) and a million $$$ to replace someone you loved during your remaing years. I would keep my husband for all the money in the world. Just doesn't make sense. And yet, they have video of her driving that time in the morning near the school though she is denying it. Why???
@@merlewarren3459 along with lying about being out, the multiple guns and the weird stories about them, and again- the money… I agree though, but I’m constantly shocked by people in their 50’s and 60’s being violent for seemingly the first time recently. I mean, I’m sure it’s always happened, but it seems like everyone would be like - yea, he/she’s been a ticking time bomb OR it would’ve happened when they were younger- 30’s/40’s makes more sense though none of it does so…;@
@@merlewarren3459 your comment is scaring me..I guessdefence line is working then to create doubts and questions. It is simple and clear. She wanted a nice luxurious life beyond everyday Starbucks coffee luxury to bed. The only way she could afford it is to collect life insurance money. That is why she made sure insurance money was paid and mortgage not so important. Thibk about getting up every morning and you know you are behind your payment and you could lose your house? Where would you put your money then - still life insurance?...
Prior to this trial, I had never heard of Nancy Bropy and certainly not as an author. I have been watching since Day 1 and wondered why she would kill her husband for money at this late stage in life. Thankfully, there are kind people on this site who have been able to explain their thoughts about it. I am enjoying reading all the comments. . js
This nonsense about “retrograde amnesia” reminds me of Alex Murdaugh’s claim of opiate abuse-induced paranoia as the cause of his persistent lying about being at the scene of the murder mere minutes before the murder occurred. In both of these situations the defendants had to come up with an excuse that explained their lies once they were presented with evidence that unequivocally proved that they were lying. At least Murdaugh didn’t stoop so low to present testimony of a hired “expert” who endorsed his bullsh*t excuse. (I imagine that no such expert could be found)
The friend on the stand,Smith I think is her name, the really heavy woman was lying so much. Was nice to see prosecution catching her out. Waiting for the jury and she is all smiles at Nancy , it's too bad the jury couldn't see that. I think their littl club they had for authors was nothing more then old ladies who think they are better then other people and this Smith proved that with her superior attitude. She is disgraceful. Hopefull she treks to the prison to see her poor lil friend Nancy so they can bitch about Mr Overstreet because those are the kind of old women they are lol I bet those lawyers handed all those witnesses scripts.
The 2 lady defense attorneys act as though they don't know how to present a case. One said to Judge I don't know how to get this in (when prosecution was calling her out on hearsay). Even, I know that much from watching trials (no law degree). This Judge needs to run a smoother court than what he is doing. Disgusting!
@@GH-oi2jf No he isn't. He is allowing them to go on and on about insurance and what nice people the Brophys were, and how Dan had a messy garden. Nothing to help Nancy or her defense generate reasonable doubt.
@@Sueprises prosecution says insurance is a motivation to kill Dan, so the defense attempted with all the insurance experts to diffuse that. Prosecution says that in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner, Nancy gunned down her husband. So the defense is bringing in every person who ever spoke to them to say their marriage was perfect...so therefore she would have no reason to kill him. The defense also keeps bringing in all the students and administrators from the school to talk about the "bad" neighborhood full of homeless people and the security procedures, students who are former military (so they might flip out from ptsd and shoot the place up), every repairman/electrician/plumber/gas man that ever stopped by, disgruntled students who were denied admission to the courses, anyone who even knew there was money in the piggy bank, etc. This is because Prosecution says Nancy did it, so the defense is implying any of those people could be the killer. The defense IS doing what they can to raise reasonable doubt. The reason you aren't seeing any doubt is because she's guilty as hell.
Give me a break. Her writing friends are definitely biased. Could the discription of Nancy's condition after the shooting not also have been do to the fact she shot her husband. As the first writing buddy described her demeanour. All I could picture is Nancy laying it on pretty thick. If I'm wrong and she's innocent. I'd apologize. It doesn't seem likely. I didn't hear the testimony about the vehicle and how it looked like Nancy's. Was it definitely her's? I heard about it travelling in the right direction. I'll have to go back.
I know this is kinda random but has anyone else noticed that in the majority of these trials the judges are constantly admonishing anyone sitting in the witness box to speak up and/or lean closer to the microphone? I get that a court reporter needs to hear them but they can't all be that soft spoken.we live in a highly technical world & one would think that any courthouse can be equipped with a decent Mike. Its done for entertainment venues all the time. I'm starting to think its deliberate - just a small reminder of who's the boss here. Kind of like how some corporate bigwigs make sure your chair is lower than theirs when you're sitting across the desk from them.
So her phone screen was broken before Dan was killed. So how many other phone screens did Nancy break and how did she break this one. Also, I missed a few sessions - I wasn't aware they weren't really married (I guess that's why she was concerned with where the will was for distribution of his assets other than the insurance policies) and I didn't know they slept in different beds. This psychologist seems to be extra motivated to defend Nancys' statements .... I wonder if she gets a bonus if her testimony helps get reasonable doubt .... an incentive ...
@@gala_pi Well the other experts must be better on the stand or more prepared because she is not as believable as she should be ... she's waffling :) RIP Dan Brophy
@@midnightrun2764 I didn't go looking, but I mainstream media lies and smooths things over like saying they were married when they weren't really married. They could have become common law over time but I don't recall any discussion about a formal wedding ... so if you're looking for the truth you probably have to go back to her testimony. Prison inmates like getting letters - I wonder if she would write back if she was asked.
There are lawyers and there are lawyers, these crappy Oregon lawyers on both sides are an embarrassment to the judicial system, and the judge is not any better. Laughable !
58:21 😅😂😅 58:42 😅😂😅 Backed fied on defense. There own witness exposed just how awful they are. They deliberately kept those documents from this "Dr"....I think that the jury disregarded everything that this "Expert" witness said. 1:16:24 This is awesome😅 This Expert is trying her darn hardest to clean up the destruction she did to her credibility with every answer that the defense ask. In doing so, she is helping the prosecution prove just how irrelevant her testimony is.😊
Coming from someone who has a psych degree (only a BS - I am not one of those people who calls themselves a psychologist in TH-cam comments with a bachelor's degree) but also as someone who does have the "gift" of hindsight with Nancy's testimony, even I do not agree with the people here saying this woman is a disgrace to her profession. The insults these comments are throwing at this psychologist are not deserved. She may not be a good witness, and Nancy may be very guilty, but she is not a "disgrace to her profession" and the comments indicating that only show the commenters' own lack of knowledge on the topics of discussion. Do you people prefer the insurance analysts? Probably cheering how wrong the defense one was and how right the prosecution's was even without diddly squat knowledge on the topic? Confirmation bias. Do BETTER. And Eric OVERSTREET IS NOT Juan Martinez, jesus christ. (Or JC)
Of course Mr Oversteert isn't Juan Martinez. Mr. Martinez was fired for misconduct while Mr. Oversteert went on to become DA of Multnomah County. And the psychologist does herself a disservice in attempting to legitimize Nancy Brophy's tall tales.
And you actually don't realize that any academic degree jury would unanimously disqualify this eval on the basis of incomplete and/or incompetent methodology?! WOW P.S. I don't know any undergraduate professor who would NOT give this a failing grade, but maybe you had one like that.
![เปิด อาณาจักร หมื่นล้าน "สาระตั้ม" l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3XE0nPF4YkQ/mqdefault.jpg)
The state attorney is ripping her to shreds. I’m embarrassed for her
This psychologist has dug so far into her position she’s unable to acknowledge simple facts that contradict the narrative she tells herself.
Another shrink that needs a shrink🤪
Recently we've learnt from the eminent Canadian psychologist, Dr. Peterson, that that's exactly what modern day psychologists are indeed forced to do.
Science of the mind is very interesting and necessary, but it's not as cut and dry as some of the other areas of science.
Because it's not that cut and dry as each patient is unique in how they cope or not to traumatic events. It's only been 4 years since her husband of 25 years was murdered and Nancy has been in jail most of that time but appears to be coping better than most. I'm waiting for her book on "Why i murdered my husband as a retirement plan". Nancy wanted to travel and be an expat and she could only do that if they sold the house. Dan needed a big house with land for all of his projects and side businesses. Dan was a gentleman's farmer v a traveler. I think Nancy was done with Dan's lifestyle and she was ready to begin her golden years as an expat traveling around Europe with her fellow wanna be literary friends who only need 1 book to make the best seller$ list and get the fame and respect they so desperately seek.
When your expert witness on memory loss starts to fall back on 'as far as I recall' you are toast.
How did Nancy break her phone screen?
Did she throw it in anger at realizing she messed up her perfect murder?
I believe Nancy was sad and upset - not because Dan was dead but because she was going to get caught and not get away with murder because of so many mistakes (in no particular order):
Mistake - not incorporating the witness neighbor seeing her leave the house (looking for dogs who normally are looked for on foot)
Mistake - not disguising her cars unique characteristics
Mistake - not positioning the slide properly on the gun
Mistakes - not disguising herself
Mistake - not being able to present one witness that can confirm the Brophys had a discussion with a group of other people and they were the only couple that didn't own a gun
Mistake - hiring these lawyers
Great question about the phone screen. It happened before Nancy's niece's child's birthday party. How did she crack it? She threw it at something?
The week of his murder, Dan also had to get stitches on his hand because "the shower door shattered". Nancy issued a vague excuse. I'm not buying it.
IMO at least one of them was losing it, and it got physical.
@@sleuththewild Interesting ... have they provided witnesses that confirm the shower door shattered --- someone would need to replace that and there should be receipts if they purchased new door. Interesting also was the disclosure of the text message about him leaving the car unlocked - the terseness of that could be felt up here in Canada .... I think they had one image they projected in public and a totally different situation was going on behind the closed shattered shower door.
I'd bet at least one of the members of Nancys romance novel writers group is going to make this into an even better book that this played out.
Nancy first wrote about How to Kill your Husband many years ago ... I would bet that there is someone out there who can totally testify to the change in their relationship. You'd think that would have been a bit upsetting to Dan ... I bet he read that but too bad he didn't see her coming.
@@Sueprises Nancy brought up the shower door and Dan's stitches in the first police interview. I thought when I first heard it, she might have made it up as an explanation.
Also in that interview, she mentioned that she had once run into OCI to use the bathroom. This would have meant she parked, she ran in, she ran out, and got the car. The bathrooms are through the student door and right near the kitchens. I think this was a rehearsal for her timing, and she volunteered the info to the detectives for the same reason she volunteered the info about the gun, namely to look innocent. Perhaps the same with the stitches.....
@@sleuththewild Oh very interesting indeed! I agree with you totally - she tried to head them off with those statements . Had she of gotten the gun properly reassembled they may never have suspected her. Epic fail. I totally agree about the washroom pitstop - was likely research just like you say .... how long will it take, will I be seen on the cameras, etc ... I'm surprised she didn't get caught on any camera but I'd assume she spend enough time researching the school cameras. I am so looking forward to them calling Nancy to the stand (her incompetent lawyers will not be able to properly prepare her for the attack of the tough questions .... Overstreet is very good on the fly and catching in progress lies/changes of statements etc .. so her cross examination should be exciting.... I'll have snacks and ice cold soda (yes) ready on hand for that !
@@sleuththewild
I agree! I think that Nancy was more aggressive and controlling, as well. Being a survivor of DV & SA, I guess I have a tendency to look at things differently (especially the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial- but some would probably be surprised with who I think the _actual_ victim was/is).
My ex was very abusive, but NOBODY... _EVER_ witnessed it, besides our daughter, who was 2 when we left. In public, things like _uhhhhhmazing._ And even my Facebook posts, made it look like things were great!
🙄
Nobody knows how Mrs Brophy was at home with Dan.
I really think that Nancy wanted to not be tied down anymore. She wanted to move & travel, and Dan _clearly_ wasn't planning on doing that for at least a few more years.
This “psychologist” can’t seem to manage to say a simple yes or no. Utter nonsense science in a billion words.
It's like she has to teach the jury and the world her bit of knowledge. She is non sensical. She is like the psychologist in the Jodi Arias case years ago. Little bit on the 'nutty' side.
In my opinion, it seems like the forensic psychologist is trying to give full & complete answers & the prosecution doesn’t want that, they are asking for yes/no answers but that isn’t how most people are able to respond to things, especially when we’re talking about convicting someone of murder! Everyone that is complaining about the judge being biased for the defense, why would that be a problem?! In our country, criminal courts are always supposed to consider the defendant innocent & the prosecution has 100% the burden of proof.
How many people are in jail currently, or how many people have served 10, 15, 20, 25yrs in jail for a crime they ABSOLUTELY DID NOT COMMIT!!! Many of those people wrongly convicted happened because of prosecutors who were given priority by judges, & by the jury. Anyone that is accused of a crime is ALWAYS supposed to be considered innocent unless the prosecution can without a doubt prove that they were responsible. I know it takes effort for most of us to remember that just because someone is arrested, or charged with something that DOES NOT MEAN they are guilty.
@@merlewarren3459 I totally agree she does reminds me of that weird dr in Jodi Arias case!
I feel like her paycheck is on the line and shes being very careful to not make Nancy look bad. But too bad .. Overstreet is a quick thinker and has good recall ... dont try to change your story mid stream ... he'll be all over ya .. cant wait for Nancy to take the stand... I hope they dont change their mind. But she thought she could get away with this ... she will not give up easily
@@MissAmanda616 I totally agree that the defendant needs to exhaust their options ... but that's also assuming a level of competence of the lawyers. I think these 2 ladies underestimated the impact of the damming evidence and overestimated the impact of their defense. They sensed that and now are trying different options ... they are also no whining a out not enough time and scrambling to meet target dates. No worries .. this judge will ensure they have nothing of the sort to complain about. And it truly breaks my heart for those who are convicted of and do time.for crimes they didnt commit .. in addition to their loss, the real criminal is still out there - that a shoddy police work. This case had a few LE fails .... but they came through with alot of evidence against Nancy and just didnt make sure they covered all the bases. Shame in that regard but I believe it was Nancy since the prosecution rested. I've heard nothing to counteract that. And nobody should be paying such a large percentage of net income towards insurance when they both have no major health issues on the horizon that one may pass away from. Looking forward to the defense resting and jury doing their job 🤗
The defense keeps bringing up: 1) Did she ever talk bad about Dan, 2) Did she ever talk finances? Both emphatic no's for every witness. Well, I was married 36 yrs and, 1) I never once talked bad about my husband and, 2) finances are just off limits for most couples to discuss with others. This is not strange. None of my family or friends do either. And, this super great angelic marriage ended after he had an affair for 3 years and threatened me once with his guns during the divorce. OH man, he was the nicest guy in the world, everybody said so......until, he wasn't. None of these witnesses resonate with me at all.
In fact, most people that we had a perfect marriage. Just like the Brophy's.
@@tourdedogue4952 I can’t even estimate how many times I’ve watched a trial/or documentary type show about a couple with the perfect marriage or the defendant was always the nicest guy/gal blah blah…they don’t go to trial when everyone and the dog saw it comin I guess:/
@@laradesautel3013 Yup!! Everybody is SO shocked! Including the spouse who suspected something wrong but knew, with a gut feeling, something had changed, drastically, like an axis shifting.
@@tourdedogue4952
I agree with you about everything. Nobody knew my daughter's father was abusing me, until after I finally got out with my daughter, because I kept _"hoping"_ things would change. I really wonder if Mrs Brophy was actually controlling. It seems to me, that Mr Brophy tried to go along with things and not stir the pot, but Mrs Brophy wanted to move, travel, etc. The Defense, trying to make things look perfect, is actually frustrating.
The fact that Mrs Brophy bought the gun, the ghost kit, and the extra slide (which _IRONICALLY_ is missing now), speaks volumes to me about what Mrs Brophy did.
Prosecutor Sean Overstreet is excellent.
He's right up there with Juan Martinez when he tore into all 3 therapists in the Jodi Arias case.
If you know. You know.
Thank you!!! He is the only lawyer who made sense in this case! Jodi was in another whole new level!
@@MrAllysonn indeed she was
Although I believe Leticia Stauch just replaced her.
Check out Creighton Waters, the Solicitor (prosecuting attorney) in the Alex Murdaugh double murder case in South Carolina earlier this year. His cross examination of Murdaugh was nothing short of *BRUTAL* . I realize that this is different from shredding an expert but it was a masterful performance and worth watching.
@@swedishgrrl7287
oh, yeah Creighton Waters was stellar! Nothing like a prosecutor serving justice with style and ferocity.
I can’t figure out why the defense attorneys voices are like nails on a blackboard for me? It can’t only be because they are defending a reprehensible human being. I find both of them so annoying that I fast forward frequently through their questions. Weird
I feel the same way. To me, they just seem so "fake". Yet, I like the lady prosecutor. She seems so much more on top of things and real.
I totally agree they drive me crazy
They annoy me too
Childish with all the whispering and so unprofessional. Hailed by Court tv presenters as highly regarded in Oregon
@@merlewarren3459 OMG...you hit the nail on the head! I, too, was thinking that l must be annoyed by their voices because l can't stand Nancy. Trying to stay open minded, I have been trying to bend over backwards to try to listen fairly and give that side a chance. Now l realize why it has been so difficult...they sound sooo FAKE! I guess when you're trying to sell a lie though, it's hard to sound genuine.
So she's saying nancy "forgot" she drove around the school twice to kill her husband because of the shock of finding out he's dead???? lol
Well I would be extremely sad if I realized I had made a major mistake in my murder plot and there was an actual witness to the fact that I wasn't at home that morning and yet I continued with that lie to the point of it becoming obvious that I was lying. She really should have come up with a better statement that aligned with the neighbors statement that she did get up and go out. Very sad when your plans don't work out - especially when they have been in the works for years and your future and freedom and fortune all come down to that morning.
I'm not crying about it. I'm glad she was incompetent. I'm glad she royally botched it and didn't even bother to try and disguise herself or her car. I'm glad she arrogantly thought she could outwit the prosecution. Cuz it all ended in her guilty verdict.
Am I the only one who finds it extremely annoying, juvenile and very unprofessional when Mr. Overstreet (prosecuting attorney) talks to the judge about some things -- the defense attorney(s) give a snarking "ha!* so loud that Mr. Overstreet turns to them? If Mr. Overstreet and you and I hear it -- does the jury not hear it? Does the judge not hear it? Why does the judge not reprimand them? They've done it in other days before. Also, if I was an "expert* witness ($$), whomever hired me would not have to apologize for me -- for whatever.
@Harping Ark Angel that was disgusting. I can’t imagine any judge I know allowing that. There’s be hell to pay !
Yeah! I actually heard an “Oh brother!” from the defence table, @ one point yesterday aft!…WTF!..🤷🏼♀️…✌🏼🇨🇦
That is mostly Nancy doing those shrill noises not her lawyers. Court tv guy who as at the trial said that in a segment on court tv. She got away with it as she didn't do it when the jurors were in the room he said.
This trial is like watching paint dry. Never seen one like it.
They have no duty to entertain you. Most of it is posted by KGW so it can be viewed in parts later. Just skip the boring parts.
GH1618 You seem to answering everyone's comments, are you related to Judge?Defense Attorneys? Or trolling? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, not just yours.
The judge needs to stop letting the defense continue to call these Liars to the stand. Defense doing nothing but wasting the jurors time.
I agree. This Judge seems to be biased towards the defense. He seems so "wishy-washy'. I'm glad the prosecution is finding a back bone and calling Judge and lame defense team out. Disgusting!
@@merlewarren3459 all these useless witnesses that ain't find nothing but wasting everyone's time
@@merlewarren3459 Wishy washy! Perfect description of this mild mannered judge! The defense team gets just about everything they want. He needs to take a refresher course in proper case law, in my opinion. Judges today are so fearful of appeals and reversals!
The only thing the judge needs is a properly conducted trial, so there will not be a retrial.
@@GH-oi2jf That's why he's bending over backwards trying to accommodate all the defense witnesses regardless of them having no consequential value. They spent so many hours with Insurance agents trying to show they weren't over insured yet we all know they were paying more than they could afford for insurance they really shouldn't have needed when money was tight. This trial is becoming a farce.
The grey haired defense attorney (I won’t mention her name) is so obnoxious with her snarky little comments and inappropriate comments. Both defense attorneys continually spew stupid comments that are intended to be funny. This is a murder trial. I don’t find anything funny about it, nor do I find anything funny about their stupid comments. I find them very unprofessional and disrespectful in their court room behavior.
No wonder some people don’t want to serve on a jury.
This is not a typical trial. Most are much shorter.
Listening to that shrink is cruel and unusual punishment that traumatized the jurors BUT Warford’s testimony was a tremendous help getting Nasty Nancy convicted!
Agreed. It's like the whole trial was on valium 👍
hahahahahaha
Several times during this trial I thought if I were on this jury, i’d be ready to vote as soon as deliberations began! The poor jury was shuffled in and out repeatedly then subjected to endless irrelevant conversation from the defense lawyers, it was infuriating at many times and the only relatable person was the prosecutor!
Dr Warford, how many people do you think attempted suicide while watching you testify?
I can confirm as far as I recall and to the best of my recollection i had such
Ideations
If I were prosecution would ask her, so if Nancy did shoot Dan, would that start the cortisol flooding and potentially affect her memory. I’d also ask if it was a psychopath would their memory be affected in the same way ?
Right! I was thinking I’d ask your question! Good catch you! 👌🏼…✌🏼🇨🇦
As a psychologist, I can tell you that her consistent inability to look anyone in the eye when answering is dispositive for deception.
Her insistence on staring down when there's nothing in the papers related to the q & a is to hide her growing panic at her wilder and wilder assertions.
This “expert” witness is so obviously trying to fit a narrative, (apart from also trying to showcase her knowledge at every opportunity- no matter how irrelevant) I can’t believe a word of it. Worst expert I’ve ever seen, just be honest !
This witness seems so happy to be there, she forgets she is there because Mr Brophy got killed.
This Dr. Wharton needs to be reigned in…she gets so lost in the weeds and this testimony has gone on far too long.
OH MY GOD SHE'S STILL HERE. Jfc, this "doctor" is so utterly incompetent. I can't with this woman.
Edit: _Uggghhhhh_ she even says "caveat"... /Headdesk
This "expert" is comical to watch. Almost EVERY question she's asked her response is "Not necessarily ...., could be this or could be that, might be, could be both:. I feel like yelling "Lady, you were paid for an opinion, give one".????????????????
This trial is a joke the judge is clearly bias he's letting the defense do whatever they want. Doesn't matter what anyone says about his good the marriage was, at the end of the day she slaughtered her husband in cold blood.
Well, that's a little off. Why are you watching a murder trial then? They're not all exciting like a Depp one, if anybody cared about it. If you've never done jury duty during a murder case, or ever gone through the process of becoming a juror, which can be arduous, there is a method to what attorney's do in court. If you are not an attorney, and you are not a judge or jury to say she slaughtered her husband in cold blood without hearing the full court trial, well - shit, I wouldn't want you to be on any jury with me! Be nice.
@@tourdedogue4952 it's not rocket science. A fool can tell already that she killed Dan in cold blood.
Her being down there and then lying about it, her buying a slide and barrel so the bullets and gun cannot be traced back to her, her buying a gun build kit, her buying the glock proves exactly what she did. You can't pay your mortgage but your paying all his life insurance policies? Really
Perhaps you should take your own advice - be nice. He is entitled to his opinion and converse with the rest of us. I enjoy reading everyone's comments. Be open minded. (P.S. I have served on 3 jury trials, 1 was criminal). js🤔
@Harping Ark Angel I agree. I have never watched a trial where the defense got to do whatever they wanted. They called so many pointless and useless witnesses all to say how much Nancy loved Dan. It was all for show. Someone who cooks all your meals, does the laundry gets you coffee everyday, works 2 jobs while Nancy did absolutely nothing is really disturbing and disgusting to ever think she loved him.
I really hope the judge let's her have it when he sentences her. She's an animal who showed no remorse at all. To think that Dan looked her in the eyes before she shot him in the heart makes my skin crawl. I hope she suffers many many years of nightmares for what she did.
@@tourdedogue4952You posted this comment on the18th day of a murderous trial 😮
At $200 an hour no wonder Dr would not said Nancy lied😀
I’ll say anything.. sure, skip tests n be bias just over 3 questions, with word vomit., for $200 an hour. Lol
@@willowv1220 Over $13k for that mess.
@@sleuththewild that’s like nearly 19 k to me from where I am
Amber heard's got 500 a hour
@@starrlove2060 Everything about Nancy is half-baked....
This psychiatrist gives a 500 word answer when a few words would suffice. What she’s doing causes me (and I’m sure the jurors) to hear blah blah blah blah blah , yada, yada, yada…… Her testimony is totally useless. Who cares which doctor, who lived in this city, did this research, on this date…… Anytime someone feels the need to justify their answer without being asked to explain, raises a red flag. Please tell me we’re about get her out of this witness box soooooon!!!!!
I’m sick of this judge now. He’s so weak and wishy washy he can’t rule on hearsay without sending the jury out ! Has he not heard of a sidebar ! It’s ridiculous
I completely agree with you. He’s letting the defense counsel sneak in inadmissible evidence (hearsay or otherwise) by using leading questions - basically defense counsel is able to testify via their leading questions.
Another issue I have with this judge is letting witnesses sit and listen while the attorneys argue about their testimony, thereby giving them the opportunity to tweak their testimony to maximize its admissibility. In other cases I’ve seen judges require the witness to leave the courtroom until the issue is resolved.
And while I’m at it, I’ve come to believe that the rule against using leading questions during direct examination doesn’t exist in Oregon courts.
The fact that both the defense *and* the judge _thinks?_ that the witness has answered a question summons up this testimony quite well. She is rambling and the question are irrelevant.
If you want to secure an unassailable conviction, the safest way to do that is to allow the defendant to put on anything and everything they want to...as long as there is no legal reason not to allow something. That way, once she is convicted, Nancy won't have any grounds to put into an appeal. She won't be able to say "if only witness X had been allowed to testify, it would have changed things" or "l wasn't allowed to testify" or "my expert was disallowed" or whatever. After all this time, work, and money, you don't want it coming back for a whole new retrial because of "cutting corners" now. In the long run one trial done right takes less time than having to have a retrial.
It's soooo boring, but you are right. And hopefully her defence will give her enough rope to hang herself. The poor jury must be super heroes to stay awake through all this nonsense.
Well said. This is what I think the judge's position is about, too. Making the case un-appealable.
I agree - and I think it’s why the prosecutors have refrained from objecting thus far. They’re not only letting the defense dig themselves into a massive hole w their contradictions, but they’re also eliminating any room for any new information to come out. While the defense exhausts their entire case, the prosecutors have been allowed to build theirs up and use defense testimony to do it
50:19. As usual, the judge can't simply say "sustained," no, we once again have to clear the courtroom for a matter all other judges routinely dispatch with one word, sustained or overruled.
The most inefficient jurist I've EVER seen, a big ninny, and chronically terrified of reversal.
Is the judge going to keep allowing the defense to call witnesses until Christmas? He appears biased, wishy-washy and weak.
These witnesses are testifying to her character, nothing more, it’s crazy, they bring no evidence to the trial.
No, he is not biased. He is letting each side call the witnesses as they desire. It seems to me you want him to be biased in favor of the prosecution. I see him as completely even-handed.
100% agree!
Yes, he seems like a genuinely good human - I am used to judges that wouldn’t allow much of this that seems superfluous, but this is Oregon, not Florida;)
Totally agree the Judge appears to be favouring the Defense
$13,000 for 1 1/2 weeks work. Frankly, the good doctor is overpaid.
52:00 You _WERE_ cherry picking the documents you gave to her, you nit!
This judge really annoys me. He's allowing the defense way too much leeway. I haven't heard one witness say anything relevant so far.
Agree! It is because this defense has nothing so they try everything. Truth is hard to uncover, even with witnesses under oath, which makes justice illusive. This jury is going to have serious psychopathies when this is over!
Defence witnesses are useless and far away from offer serious and real statements. It’s boring and wasting time.
All it takes is one juror to believe the whole memory loss "stuff," and she won't be convicted. I can understand why the Defense brought that lady in, but I feel that what they discussed, could've happened much quicker, if the Psychologist, hadn't been such a rambler. You could tell everybody was getting annoyed with how much she talked, even the Defense Attorney.
This expert is bizarrely sooooo much like Nancy Brophy. She tries to distract and redirect anytime she thinks she's giving an answer that isn't beneficial to the defense. She's not the right kind of person to be doing this work.
And the "friend" who came next that conveniently remembered information the previous day and wants to be a new witness 😂 this is too much
So as far as temporary amnesia ... can someone ask her about why she forgot she was seen by the neighbor in her van saying she was going to look for missing dogs and showing their leashes to her when she was supposed to be in bed writing? You would think this was out of the ordinary and would have stood out in her recollection.
I forgot about that. I just know they have her on video driving by the school, and stopping long enough to kill him, and driving off again. Though she maintains she was at home in bed??? "Me thinks she is lying (and not in bed.😂😂)
@@merlewarren3459 but don’t forget- it’s not that she’s lying because defense admitted in opening she agrees she was seen- she just was in such a state of trauma- ugh!
I would be traumetized too if I had just killed someone!
@@laradesautel3013
Yeah... I firmly believe that Brophy is _ACTUALLY_ very good at manipulating people. I understand this "expert" has been doing forensic work for nearly 30 years, but... just like with the current Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial, where AH's hired forensic psychologist found that she "had PTSD," versus Depp's team's forensic psychologist who found AH _DIDN'T_ have PTSD (and she specialized in PTSD- working especially with Vets), but rather diagnosed AH as having Borderline Personality Disorder & Histrionic Personality Disorder (very evident in her current testimony & recordings- prior Deposition, etc), that if another Forensic Psychologist gave Mrs Brophy an eval, that they could find different findings.
I feel like if/when an evaluation is going to take place, that both sides should do one, and then the courts should basically work as a "deal breaker," and have a third evaluation done thru the courts, to see what they say (if both sides find different findings).
Just my thoughts on this...
@@merlewarren3459
I personally don't believe she _DIDN'T_ "remember," that she went to town. She seems to be highly intelligent, and likely is trying to find a way out of lying about being at/around the school.
Also, didn't she get Starbucks at that time? If so, I'm curious if that's the closest Starbucks to their residence. And if that's the one either she or Dan would frequent at least once a day...
🤔
The simple fact is : we really don't know what is in the mind of anyone, no matter how well we know them, sorrow does not mean innocence, regret maybe, and money can turn good people into monsters......period.
It's a case about someone he worked with and knew and he's not following it???? Yah right. Again, why not come forward 3-4 years ago?
The trauma was of her own making-when she shot him.
I have seen a good number of expert witnesses testify over the last 20 years. I think the expert witness in this case has the worst credibility I’ve seen. I think she hurt her professional reputation.
This woman expert witness mumbles a lot. She also waffles a lot. It comes across as "if I can't impress the people I can baffle them with BS" . IMO
I love that we are able to hear arguments between the defence and the prosecution and there are no side bars.
She does talk A LOT, compared to most witnesses- especially expert witnesses.
I have never watched a trial where the judge is so bias. But the prosecutor is doing a great job!
Wondering why the prosecution didn't ask this friend when she was told about planning to purchase a ghost gun what the reason was for that
This woman is batshzz crazy she needs a new job good grief 🥺 beyond words
Her only defense is that she doesn’t remember leaving her house and returning. But somehow knows she definitely didn’t him shoot him. It’s a terrible defense strategy. The other stuff-that they had a perfect relationship and there’s no motive is full of Grand Canyon holes and just as not-believable. That said, the prosecution has also missed some opportunities to make those holes obvious.
Linda Smith seems to think she’s a sensuous dame from the 1800’s. Hilarious.
And what do you think you are Hels ? Don't throw shade at another woman's appearance.
@@gazXspace an ordinary middle aged woman who’s not pretending to be anything other than what she is, and certainly isn’t defending a batty murderer friend at her trial, which I found absolutely riveting for the personalities. Oh, in case you misunderstood, I wasn’t referring to her looks, it’s her acting and mannerisms that make her hilarious.
When will Nancy take the stand
This Amazing prosecutor wasn't having it throughout the entire trial. the defense allegedly attempting to take the juries eyes overwhelming evidence by creating inconsistent false narratives and confusion could be seen by a blind person. I actually don't know how this "expert" can show her face on the stand in the future.. I think when defense drag in these highly paid experts who will find a way to confirm a lie, more often then not, will get exposed. He ripped a new one and exposed the charade for what it was.
There was a second or two so embarrassed for her, but quickly remembered it was her choice to get up there and try to ram this garbage down a jury's throat. I can't quite put my finger on it, but there's a common thread between the two defense attorneys, This expert witness and the defendant. Maybe it's the caveat and rabbit hole defense that they decided to go with. Rest in peace, Chef Brophy they got her
This trial seems to be eternal!
There are judges and there are judges.. lol
And exactly how did the defense not know about this Witness when another one of their Witnesses told them how they came to know Dan was through this person??? I feel the defense just didn't feel it necessary to reach out to this person when they were told about him. Always fishy when someone approaches the attorneys after certain testimony has already been given. The prosecution didn't know about the woman in jail and what she reported Nancy said to her because her attorney did not reach out to the prosecutors to give them that information when she should have reached out to them with that. Not the prosecution's fault it was the failure of the woman's attorney
I just get more and more convinced she shot him, her entire personality points that way
I have been straddling the fence on why she would have killed him. She is getting up in age(72) and a million $$$ to replace someone you loved during your remaing years. I would keep my husband for all the money in the world. Just doesn't make sense. And yet, they have video of her driving that time in the morning near the school though she is denying it. Why???
@@merlewarren3459 along with lying about being out, the multiple guns and the weird stories about them, and again- the money… I agree though, but I’m constantly shocked by people in their 50’s and 60’s being violent for seemingly the first time recently. I mean, I’m sure it’s always happened, but it seems like everyone would be like - yea, he/she’s been a ticking time bomb OR it would’ve happened when they were younger- 30’s/40’s makes more sense though none of it does so…;@
@@merlewarren3459 Maybe Dan wanted to leave the relationship?
He also hid his will. I wonder what was in it?
@@merlewarren3459 your comment is scaring me..I guessdefence line is working then to create doubts and questions. It is simple and clear. She wanted a nice luxurious life beyond everyday Starbucks coffee luxury to bed. The only way she could afford it is to collect life insurance money. That is why she made sure insurance money was paid and mortgage not so important. Thibk about getting up every morning and you know you are behind your payment and you could lose your house? Where would you put your money then - still life insurance?...
Prior to this trial, I had never heard of Nancy Bropy and certainly not as an author. I have been watching since Day 1 and wondered why she would kill her husband for money at this late stage in life. Thankfully, there are kind people on this site who have been able to explain their thoughts about it. I am enjoying reading all the comments. . js
6:56 Pretty sure that's another classic Nancy scoff.
This doc's testimony is a complete dumpster fire.
This nonsense about “retrograde amnesia” reminds me of Alex Murdaugh’s claim of opiate abuse-induced paranoia as the cause of his persistent lying about being at the scene of the murder mere minutes before the murder occurred. In both of these situations the defendants had to come up with an excuse that explained their lies once they were presented with evidence that unequivocally proved that they were lying. At least Murdaugh didn’t stoop so low to present testimony of a hired “expert” who endorsed his bullsh*t excuse. (I imagine that no such expert could be found)
I don't disagree with regard to bias. I have seen way worse bias from a judge in the recent Husel trial. Now HE drove me nuts.
Thank God he was acquitted
OhhhKhayyyy
Yes he annoyed me to no end.
The friend on the stand,Smith I think is her name, the really heavy woman was lying so much. Was nice to see prosecution catching her out. Waiting for the jury and she is all smiles at Nancy , it's too bad the jury couldn't see that. I think their littl club they had for authors was nothing more then old ladies who think they are better then other people and this Smith proved that with her superior attitude. She is disgraceful. Hopefull she treks to the prison to see her poor lil friend Nancy so they can bitch about Mr Overstreet because those are the kind of old women they are lol I bet those lawyers handed all those witnesses scripts.
Undeveloped bunch of folks.. lets see what the outcome shall be..
2:02:29 Never once did she say anything specific about Nancy showing love and respect to Dan😢
Ms.Smith is another bizarre character.
What an odd woman.
Even the defense has a heard time keeping this chick on track 😂
The defense is leading the witnesses! Object, damn it!
This case has almost no objections from either side.
The 2 lady defense attorneys act as though they don't know how to present a case. One said to Judge I don't know how to get this in (when prosecution was calling her out on hearsay). Even, I know that much from watching trials (no law degree). This Judge needs to run a smoother court than what he is doing. Disgusting!
These are highly regarded defense attorneys! I do not know how…
The judge is handling things smoothly and efficiently, but he can’t tell the attorneys what to say.
@@GH-oi2jf No he isn't. He is allowing them to go on and on about insurance and what nice people the Brophys were, and how Dan had a messy garden. Nothing to help Nancy or her defense generate reasonable doubt.
@@Sueprises prosecution says insurance is a motivation to kill Dan, so the defense attempted with all the insurance experts to diffuse that. Prosecution says that in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner, Nancy gunned down her husband. So the defense is bringing in every person who ever spoke to them to say their marriage was perfect...so therefore she would have no reason to kill him. The defense also keeps bringing in all the students and administrators from the school to talk about the "bad" neighborhood full of homeless people and the security procedures, students who are former military (so they might flip out from ptsd and shoot the place up), every repairman/electrician/plumber/gas man that ever stopped by, disgruntled students who were denied admission to the courses, anyone who even knew there was money in the piggy bank, etc. This is because Prosecution says Nancy did it, so the defense is implying any of those people could be the killer. The defense IS doing what they can to raise reasonable doubt. The reason you aren't seeing any doubt is because she's guilty as hell.
@@Sueprises Don't forget the Blackberries : - )
1:15:00 You hesitated.
Give me a break. Her writing friends are definitely biased.
Could the discription of Nancy's condition after the shooting not also have been do to the fact she shot her husband.
As the first writing buddy described her demeanour. All I could picture is Nancy laying it on pretty thick.
If I'm wrong and she's innocent. I'd apologize. It doesn't seem likely.
I didn't hear the testimony about the vehicle and how it looked like Nancy's. Was it definitely her's? I heard about it travelling in the
right direction.
I'll have to go back.
Yes the vehicle was 100% hers, had the same sticker on the front glass and same scratch on the side.
@@Christy-. Thanks!
@@Gambler77713 also forgot to mention same number plates but you’re very welcome hun ! :)
2:42:33 She chocked on her lie
I know this is kinda random but has anyone else noticed that in the majority of these trials the judges are constantly admonishing anyone sitting in the witness box to speak up and/or lean closer to the microphone? I get that a court reporter needs to hear them but they can't all be that soft spoken.we live in a highly technical world & one would think that any courthouse can be equipped with a decent Mike. Its done for entertainment venues all the time. I'm starting to think its deliberate - just a small reminder of who's the boss here. Kind of like how some corporate bigwigs make sure your chair is lower than theirs when you're sitting across the desk from them.
Actually I haven't noticed that unless the trial is old
Cringe
@1:49:09 is this trial in a nutshell :D
So her phone screen was broken before Dan was killed. So how many other phone screens did Nancy break and how did she break this one.
Also, I missed a few sessions - I wasn't aware they weren't really married (I guess that's why she was concerned with where the will was for distribution of his assets other than the insurance policies) and I didn't know they slept in different beds. This psychologist seems to be extra motivated to defend Nancys' statements .... I wonder if she gets a bonus if her testimony helps get reasonable doubt .... an incentive ...
Typically defence experts get paid. So they do tend to lie to suit defence. Otherwise they wouldn't be hired.
@@gala_pi Well the other experts must be better on the stand or more prepared because she is not as believable as she should be ... she's waffling :) RIP Dan Brophy
Look at the first few days of the case. Karen Brophy and Nathaniel Stillwater stand out to me. Maybe days 4 and 5.
I googled it, & it says everywhere, that they were married, did you ever find anything different?
@@midnightrun2764 I didn't go looking, but I mainstream media lies and smooths things over like saying they were married when they weren't really married. They could have become common law over time but I don't recall any discussion about a formal wedding ... so if you're looking for the truth you probably have to go back to her testimony. Prison inmates like getting letters - I wonder if she would write back if she was asked.
There are lawyers and there are lawyers, these crappy Oregon lawyers on both sides are an embarrassment to the judicial system, and the judge is not any better. Laughable !
58:21 😅😂😅
58:42 😅😂😅
Backed fied on defense. There own witness exposed just how awful they are. They deliberately kept those documents from this "Dr"....I think that the jury disregarded everything that this "Expert" witness said.
1:16:24 This is awesome😅 This Expert is trying her darn hardest to clean up the destruction she did to her credibility with every answer that the defense ask. In doing so, she is helping the prosecution prove just how irrelevant her testimony is.😊
Coming from someone who has a psych degree (only a BS - I am not one of those people who calls themselves a psychologist in TH-cam comments with a bachelor's degree) but also as someone who does have the "gift" of hindsight with Nancy's testimony, even I do not agree with the people here saying this woman is a disgrace to her profession. The insults these comments are throwing at this psychologist are not deserved. She may not be a good witness, and Nancy may be very guilty, but she is not a "disgrace to her profession" and the comments indicating that only show the commenters' own lack of knowledge on the topics of discussion. Do you people prefer the insurance analysts? Probably cheering how wrong the defense one was and how right the prosecution's was even without diddly squat knowledge on the topic? Confirmation bias. Do BETTER. And Eric OVERSTREET IS NOT Juan Martinez, jesus christ. (Or JC)
Of course Mr Oversteert isn't Juan Martinez. Mr. Martinez was fired for misconduct while Mr. Oversteert went on to become DA of Multnomah County. And the psychologist does herself a disservice in attempting to legitimize Nancy Brophy's tall tales.
And you actually don't realize that any academic degree jury would unanimously disqualify this eval on the basis of incomplete and/or incompetent methodology?! WOW
P.S. I don't know any undergraduate professor who would NOT give this a failing grade, but maybe you had one like that.
Doesn't sound like the prosecutors have a case.
I wonder if you’ve seen it all then..
@@laradesautel3013 Well maybe not every second but I've watched a substantial amount. Why? I'm not entitled to an opinion if it isn't yours?
Is it possible you’re confusing the prosecution with the defense? Yes you are just as much entitled to your opinion as much as Patricia Warford!
@@Smokey66s I don't think so but you sound like a troll.
@@kelleylynch4490 well she was convicted, so turns out they did have a case.
The unending stream of menopausal women.. guzzling water….. in support of that murderous cow.
😂😅😂
Top comment here😊