Prosecution rests in romance novelist Nancy Brophy murder trial | Day 12 morning session
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2024
- Nancy Brophy is an Oregon romance novelist accused of shooting and killing her husband Daniel Brophy in June 2018 at the Oregon Culinary Institute Institute in Portland. She was not arrested until September 2018. She has pleaded not guilty to all charges. The prosecution rested its case Thursday morning on April 22, 2022.
The trial is set to resume Wednesday, April 27 and the defense will present their case.
Read more on the trial here: www.kgw.com/ar...
Subscribe: / kgwnews8
Watch the latest KGW newscast: www.kgw.com/watch
Get the KGW app: kgw.com/appred...
Things that point to her guilt:
1. They were together over 25 years and didn't marry until soon before his death. His son didn’t even know they had married.
2. She lied about being in the area when he was murdered and she knew he would be alone.
3. She was spending a ridiculous amount of money on life insurance for her husband, given their financial troubles.
4. She was tired of their lifestyle in the country with chickens, etc. She wanted to move into a condo by the water. That would not be the lifestyle for him.
5. The large amount of research she did on buying a gun and her lying to police about the reason for having a gun. And she had bought two guns.
6. Her lack of emotion throughout the day of her husband’s death.
💯 exactly
Actually, his son testified that he had no idea they WEREN'T married all those years.
@@sleuththewild
That would shock me if I were the son. Amazing the amount of details that come out in a court case.
Imho the most important piece of circumstantial evidence is the missing barrel and slide. Had she produced that, the case would have been over one way or another. I'm looking forward to seeing whether she will testify and how she will explain her presence around the crime scene and the missing parts.
@Stella F
AGREED!
It will be interesting to see what she says About the missing barrel, when she testifies. They said she's planning to testify, but I'm curious to see if she still will.
The State is doing a good job, this lady thought she could outsmart the police and get away with murdering him so she can travel and not have to deal with him being messy. Her body language says it all. He was so well appreciated, talented and gave so much to the people in his life. A good man who many people will miss. Sad. God rest his soul.
Was she trying to find the hunk of her dreams/books in one of her trips. He would take her in his strong arms and to a sensorial paradise but not a senior center. What a piece of work, ms. Brophy is!
Instead of borrowing from Dan's pension they could have saved by stopping paying ridiculous amounts for his life insurance. But I guess someone decided he wouldn't be needing his pension.
Did the defense really argue that the available limit on your credit card is virtually the same as having money in the bank? I wish prosecution had highlighted this absurdity more, but I doubt anyone in the jury imagines their credit limit is the same as savings lol.
If she was truly in distress, are you arguing murder was easier than maxing out a credit credit limit? Sounds absurd, and what’s why they didn’t argue it.
It’s about liquidity. Which the state expert did not examine. Not to mention equity in the house, or their retirement accounts.
Sleuth, the defense tried to downplay the whole thing as they should but failed imho. What I understood as a person of average intelligence is that they borrowed to pay past debts- created by the fact they spent beyond their means to pay for Dan's insurance - as well as support their current lifestyle (including guns and parts "they never intended to use"). There was no extra income foreseen, no savings and no changes in their lifestyle. If that doesn't spell financial distress, I don't know what does. :/
@@StellaFl 100%! Train wreck in the making.
@@StellaFl Yes, exactly this. But I couldn't believe defense tried to imply having money left in your credit limit is the same as having cash.
@@kyletevis to some it sounds absurd, no telling how Nancy viewed things.
LMAO Defense isn't ready for their case. They cite "availability of witnesses". Right-y-ho!
Prosecutor: smartest guy in the room.
The financial investigator mentioned a cruise in 2017 when he was talking about "non-essential expenses"? That must have been the mystery writers' cruise. I'll bet Crampton Brophy had "murder by cruise" in the lineup, since, in her own words: "The draw back is the police aren't stupid. They are looking at you first. So you have to be organized, ruthless and very clever. Husbands have disappeared from cruise ships before. Why not yours?"
OMG I DIDN'T EVEN THINK OF THAT YOU ARE SO RIGHT!!!!!
The fact they were in financial distress on its own does not prove one is a murderer. But! Combined with the fact she was in the area at the time of the murder and lied about it (opportunity), had bought an extra barrel for the gun which has vanished (means), the financial picture could be motive. What struck me as particularly telling was the fact that when she was taken in the van by the detectives who wanted to do the death notification, she spent 16 whole minutes laughing and joking with them before asking what had happened to her husband.
I didn't realize that about the laughing and joking.
As the financial investigator mentioned, a big part of their "financial distress" was misplaced priorities. The top priority was paying for insurance on Dan's life. The payments for that were always current.
@@sleuththewild Her demeanor was chilling but then I'm only basing my reaction on how I would react, other people might do it differently. And you're right about the reasons of the distress, it was a choice on her/their part.
@@sleuththewild cough and hum
This forensic accountant is brilliant ! Great witness. He’s very clever and I think the defence is punching, trying to trip him up - no chance ! On what planet is using savings to live not financial distress ?!! Ffs 🤦♀️ He was talking a lot initially to be helpful, he was never irrelevant. He had a point to everything he said. After being told about it, he’s done an amazing job. It’s not easy being a witness. He’s a super intelligent guy.
Agree!
Where is a competent Judge when you need one ? This judge is “cheerleading” for the Novelist writer. Many other Judges would of “squashed” the repeated questioning, these Trump wanta-be lawyers, are doing. He needs to be removed from the Bench. Hopefully, her lawyers take her for all her money, assets & future income (for their horrible work for her)….imo
The female prosecutor would do well to have some public speaking coaching. Saying “UM” every third word does her no favors.
After I heard Ms Brophy let her mortgage get 4 months behind and paid over $800 a month in life insurance, 🤔 she had a retirement plan for herself.
Not just $800. It was $800 just on DAN. As I recall, she had $1200 per month of life insurance premiums, almost enough to pay the mortgage. But Nancy chose not to pay the mortgage. She also didn't cut back on her Starbucks purchases, every day, as the financial investigator pointed out. He didn't have to say she was doing the spending, because we already know that Dan had a favorite cup with his own brew. It was even left right inside the entrance to the OCI after he unlocked the door. It was there when he was killed.
So, yeah, as the finance analyst pointed out (and his chart shows brilliantly) the insurance payments continued without a blip.
@Dave Richard G boys aren't welcome here.
@Clem Fandango She could have asked Nathaniel if she was doing research on guns. He loves guns and has many. He builds guns, too. He testified to it. He's her stepson, and saw her often. As he said, he would have been more than glad to help her. This "research" excuse is so bogus.
@Clem Fandango I'd give you 3 thumbs up for this reply if the system allowed it!
Defense had better be careful what they wish for when the bring up the fact that the finance investigator didn't peruse Dan and Nancy's taxes. They filed as a married couple for years, though they weren't married. They didn't get married until shortly before his death. Questioning along this line would presumably open Nancy to a fraud charge.
Money = root of all evil. RIP sweet darling Dan. 💔💕 He seemed like such a sweet man, the betrayal from Mrs Crampton-Brophy is unreal. Disgusting 🤡 she is to say the least.
I agree. But it is "The Love of money is the root of all evil" Nancy is guilty IMO
@@scarlett4534 right!! The "love of money"!!
Christy K it is The Love of Money is The Root of All Evil"!!
No one on the prosecution side has charisma, including the witnesses as well as the professionals. I'm thinking this might actually play to prosecution's advantage. All those witnesses are just regular folks, and the non-experts are so worthy of sympathy. You'd even have to have some compassion for the insurance specialist-who'd evidently never seen the inside of a court room, and only knew he had to write a report the day before it was due-and the SAIF investigator whom the defense was bullying. Not having charisma conveys they are just regular folks. I'll bet the jury can identify with that.
Can you KGW please turn on chat during live trial? Would love to see people's opinion on this.
Justice for Dan Brophy. I hope jury will think critically the case is very clear to me. Guns, her car, insurance paid even when mortgage wasn't.. all points to her.
No. Live chat is a nuisance. Nearly everything posted in live chat is useless blather, and it is deifficult to read through live chat to find the few substantive remarks. KGW has been doing this right, except for missing day two.
Absolutely ! I have to turn the volume all the way up, and much of their speech, isn’t legible…imo
Websleuths is a lot easier than live chat.
Crampton Brophy couldn't handle living on Social Security through retirement, like half the US has to. And until just before she killed Dan, she wasn't married, she wasn't on the deed for the house, so, clearly she had ZERO if she left the partnership. All the assets and most of the income were his.
Crampton Brophy would have had to leave Portland-it's too expensive-and find somewhere super-cheap to live. She would have had to buckle down and work at Walmart like all the other seniors who are broke. I guess she decided this was beneath her.
From what I've seen so far I can't see how the defense can explain away all of the evidence brought by the prosecution. The two big ones. The purchase of the ghost gun and the extra barrel. Her being recorded in the vicinity of the crime and denying she left the house that morning saying she was in bed when it happened.
I don't think they can. Unless she comes up with the missing barrel which I doubt.
The best thing the defense has going for them is that the none of the guns they found in her possession were the ones that killed Dan Brophy. The state is alleging that the barrel she got off eBay is the one she used to kill Dan but they never actually found it. So they don’t actually have a murder weapon.
They also can’t really prove that it was her in that van or that it was her van. The surveillance video is blurry
AND the fact that she had roughly 750k on Dan for life insurance but had the tiniest amount on herself!
@@KL-pd7cr It's plenty clear enough. Nancy was identified in the video by her mother-in-law. And the van was identified as the one that used to belong to her mother-in-law (she gave it to Nancy). It still has the church sticker that was for MIL's church. So, no doubt the surveillance video shows Nancy's van.
It's amazing listening to the defense team as it becomes clear that neither of them bothered to even rudimentary knowledge of the gun involved, nothing about finance (essential v. discretionary) duh. They're as sharp as their client.
I pushed the wrong key and TH-cam swallowed up a half-finished comment. This platform is a DOG to have any chat on. Let me know if you find it, so I can finish the sentence.
When does this trial actually resume? I've tried to get an answer since day 12.
@@kayleiasierra2251 It has been delayed because someone in the trial has COVID. It was supposed to resume today, but postponed again. COVID is the reason given, but keep in mind defense wasn't ready to present their case on Day 12.
I thought the judges comment to have Mr. Azor answer questions with basically a yes or no is ludicrous . Nancy never answered a question posed to her without going into a 4 or 5 minute answer. This judge is awful and out of touch . Maybe he should have told Mr Azor there is water for you but don’t drink too much . Judge u just lost my respect .
Agreed
To the Creator of this Channel?… Did u record Trial day 13??? This past Wednesday. I have looked & on this video it says their gonna have 1 day of Trial this wk on Wednesday it’s now Friday & I can not find where u recorded it. I know trial starts back up again May 2nd … hope u are gonna start back up recording it then. Love to have a response to my questions. Thanx
Ridiculous that the defence is not ready .these situatiins inconvenience maybe deluberately but actually foolishly EVERYINE particually the Jury
No, scheduling for a long trial is difficult. A few days off is not a big deal. Some jurors may welcome a break.
@@GH-oi2jf maybe BUT not me , arranging 4 duty can be incredibly hard itbISCthose lawyersvresoinsibiility to organise for trial
Have kniwn many fine lawyers & some others than are NOT & the fees (& yes understand about office overheads etc etc BUT they charge by the mailing sto on top.if hourly rates ) So no excuses this is not a .speeding fine they have had Mitchigan ample time
Does anyone know why court will only be in session next Wednesday, and then be back May 2.
Defense isn't ready. This has happened several times already, plus endless irrelevant questions to keep stalling. They've already once complained that prosecution needed to wait overnight to bring on a witness (ya, right) because they weren't ready. They've also complained that they couldn't get a response from a subpoena to a private corporation: they didn't follow up; on the other hand, the state followed up and got what they needed. This evidently caused defense to harangue a witness in the hallway. And then there were the loony questions like the percentage of women vs. men at the shooting range.
I thinks it is so disrespectful of jury to make them wait so long because defence didn't do their job on time .
Well today is May 2nd, & still no trial. About done with live streams . No updates.
@@kayleiasierra2251 exactly. KGW could at least release short news report on what's going on. I remember trial should be on 2nd May too.
Looks like resuming May 3 th-cam.com/video/H_JxPhO8GCA/w-d-xo.html
It doesn't look like Nancy was making anything (maybe just $300 or so commissions in 2016?), and there's no sign of her social security check. I wonder if she was putting the SS check into a secret account for her own use?
Dan's income was a "barely getting by" amount even if it was just for one person. He was only taking home something like $2500/mo, including both jobs. His mortgage was $1555/mo.
Boy, there should be a lot of asked and answered objections by the defense. Surprising.
Not great defense attorneys or this witness and his wishful thinking accounting fantasies would be toast.
@@kelleylynch4490 he was simply spelling out how 2 and 2 = 4. It's math 101. Not rocket science.
Im super late to this case and trial. I am blown away by all of it...just wow
Why hasn't the trial been on since this???
Are you asking why it got delayed for a couple of years? That actually isn't very unusual for a major first degree murder case, and COVID has delayed many things. Also, defense might not have been ready (they still aren't).
Unfortunately, the prosecution consists of no direct evidence, but only circumstantial evidence and innuendo. Will be a tough one for the jury. Hard to understand how an individual who may not spend money the one may like creates a logical conclusion that one must be a murderer.
There is no evidence whatsoever in this case. The financial detective sounds like an idiot.
The fact she was in the area at the time of the murder and said she was home in bed, then remembered (when they got the van on cctv) she’d been out for a coffee that morning, the fact she bought a gun and two replacement barrels she never intended to use 🤔 and one barrel is missing, the fact she had more life insurance on Dan than you could shake a stick at and cashed in his 401k to keep paying it, the fact she told officers on the same morning he was murdered that he’d cut his finger that week when all the glass in the shower somehow mysteriously shattered and then laughed whilst commenting, “he’s not having a good week is he”, then caught herself by saying that doesn’t sound right does it or appropriate or something like that. The fact she visited a gun range, on a few random trips to the coast by herself, the complete lack of emotion, the disparity between what she saw for their future and what Dan saw, the marriage shortly before the murder, the money they borrowed running out, the trip to that area at the same time in the weeks before. 🤷♀️
@@Debs440606 I missed her alibi for her alibi: that she *was not* in bed the morning of the murder, that she had made a quick trip for coffee right where and when Dan was murdered. Getting weirder.
@@barbaragrove6097 I missed it too but I’ve read it in several comments 🤷♀️ yes it’s all very weird.
@@barbaragrove6097 right! When any other days or most every other days she didn't get out of bed but had Dan bring her coffee!!
Leading! Testifying. Object, for God's sake!
Honest to God.
A poster asked what gun Crampton Brophy used for practice. I think this was a great question, but I lost the comment. Are we thinking she used the parts she killed Dan with? Or maybe there was yet another gun in a witness who got suppressed (there evidently was a a gun dealer whose testimony wasn't allowed).
Last witness was excellent.
@Dave Richard STOP harassing people
@@M_Phil It appears Dave is lonely. 😂😂
@Dave Richard No one cares where you are from and we know your name.
@@lukewarme9121 🤣
This witness (Azorr) started right off doing what the judge said he had a tendency to do. He answered a yes or no question with a soliloquy. Some people just like to hear the sound of their own voice, I suppose.
Please reserve judgement until defense experts testify. As someone in finance, it’s obvious the state expert did not examine some important financial aspects. And defense is calling several experts.
Maybe they had more retirement accounts from which to borrow? Dan's parents were their safety net? I'll be interested to hear the defense's experts. Wonder why Nancy wanted to downsize, sell the house, and move.
Ummmm.... defense was bringing up the topic of the Brophy taxes. A VERY bad idea, since they were filing as married but weren't married. For 20 years or so. FRAUD. So, yeah, the finance thing is a disastrously sharp double-edged sword.
@@barbaragrove6097 Nancy's idea of "downsizing" was going to cost more than their mortgage. The finance investigator brought this up.
Law enforcement presumably has access to all of the Brophys accounts, including any retirement accounts.
He can only examine what he’s given. If they weren’t in financial distress why were they in mortgage arrears and borrowing money from his 401k? 🤔 hmm … I think Nancy likes to spend and Dan had put the brakes on, plus she’s running out of funds to plunder by the time of his murder.
This guy seems to think that folks should live like Trappist monks, rather than live to enjoy life.
He's distinguishing was required for survival (i.e. essential) versus things that might be for enjoyment or unnecessary for survival (i.e. non essential). There is no content about not enjoying life. And most of us don't get the fun stuff unless we can pay for it. The Brophys couldn't afford the nonessentials they wanted.
He's talking about living within your means, which Brophy "management" was not accomplishing. If the cost of enjoying life = accumulating debt and having your house foreclosed on, go for it.
People should live within their means. If you borrow money, you be responsible, reduce your expenses and payback the loans, you don't continue to overspend wrecklessly.
“There is treasure to be desired and oil in the dwelling of the wise; but a foolish man spendeth it up.” - Proverbs 21:20 (KJV)
It's absurd.
I wouldn't say this couple was in financial distress and find the prosecution's accounting arguments preposterous.
They were in a disastrous state, and waaaay overspending their funds on non-essentials. This was not sustainable by several thousand dollars a month.