Nancy Brophy - Prosecution closing arguments, Part 1

be seated all right for the jury i'm going to now read you the instructions before we have the closing arguments you will get a set of these when you go back to deliberate so it's not necessary to write down what i'm saying but i would ask you to pay careful attention since it will help you make sense of the closing arguments now it's your sole responsibility to make all the decisions about the facts in the case you must evaluate the evidence to determine how reliable or how believable the evidence is when you make your decision about the facts you must then apply the legal rules to those facts and reach your verdict remember however that your power to reach a verdict is not arbitrary when i tell you what the law is on a particular subject or tell you how to evaluate certain evidence you must follow these instructions don't allow anything i have said or done during the course of this trial to suggest that i have formed any opinion about the case keep in mind that a judge is required by law to give certain instructions in every criminal case and to read them to you when i have sustained objections to evidence or ordered the evidence be stricken or excluded from your consideration you must follow these rulings do not consider such matters during your deliberations base your verdict on the evidence and these instructions the lawyers statements and arguments are not evidence if your recollection of the evidence is different from the lawyer's recollection you must rely on your own memory now in deciding the case you're to consider all the evidence you find worthy of belief it is your duty to weigh the evidence calmly and dispassionately and to decide this case on its merits do not decide this case on guesswork conjecture or speculation you should make every effort to be aware of your biases including unconscious biases and what effect those may have on your decision making in your deliberations you must not be biased in favor or against any party witness or lawyer because of the person's disability gender gender identity race religion ethnicity sexual orientation age national origin or socioeconomic status we all have feelings assumptions perceptions fears and stereotypes about others some biases we are aware of and others we may not be fully aware of these hidden thoughts can affect what we see and hear how we remember what we see in here how we interact with others and how we make important decisions do not allow any personal feelings sympathy prejudice or bias whether conscious or unconscious to influence your decision making do not consider what sentence the court might impose if you define the defendant guilty generally the testimony of any witness whom you believe is sufficient whom you believe is sufficient to prove any fact and dispute you're not simply to count the witnesses but you are to weigh the evidence keep in mind that each party is entitled to the considered decision of each juror therefore you should not give undue weight to another juror's notes or memory if they conflict conflict with your recollection of the evidence the court will provide written instructions for your use when you use the instructions do not place undue emphasis on any particular instruction but rather view the instructions as a whole evaluating witness testimony the term witness includes every person who has testified under oath in this case every witness has taken an oath to tell the truth in evaluating each witness's testimony however you may consider such things as the manner in which the witness testifies the nature or quality of the witnesses testimony evidence that contradicts the testimony of the witness evidence concerning the bias motives or interests of the witness evidence concerning the character of the witness for truthfulness evidence that the witness has been convicted of a previous crime informant an informant is a witness who testifies in exchange for a benefit in their own criminal case a benefit can include an actual tangible benefit as well as the benefit the witness subjectively expects or hopes to receive whether or not these perceived benefits are grounded in reality if you determine that a witness was an informant you should consider their testimony with caution vouching it's for you and you alone to decide whether to believe a witness's testimony witnesses are not permitted to give opinions on whether another witness is or was being truthful in any given statement despite the court's efforts to prevent such testimony a witness's testimony occasionally can be interpreted as an opinion on another witness's truthfulness in regards to a particular statement if that occurs you should not give any weight to the witnesses opinion about the credibility of that statement you are the sole arbiters of facts in this case and thus must disregard any other witnesses opinion about the credibility of any account of the underlying events inferences in deciding this case you may draw inferences and reach conclusions from the evidence if your inferences and conclusions are reasonable and are based on your common sense and experience innocence of defendant proof beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant is innocent until and unless the state proves the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt the state has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt some of you may have served as jurors in civil cases where you are told that it's only necessary to prove that a fact is more likely true than not true in criminal cases the state's proof must be more convincing than that it must be beyond a reasonable doubt a reasonable doubt is an honest uncertainty as to the defendant's guilt proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant's guilt there are very few things in the world that we know with absolute certainty in criminal cases the law does not require proof that overcomes every possible doubt if based on your careful consideration of all of the evidence you are firmly convinced that the defendant is guilty of the crime charge you must return a verdict of guilty if on the other hand you think there is a reasonable possibility that the defendant is not guilty you must give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and return a verdict of not guilty sub category classification factors if you find the defendant guilty of murder in the second degree then you must consider the additional allegation that during the commission of the crime the defendant used or threatened the use of a firearm and that the defendant and the victim were family or household members at the time of the offense the state bears the burden to prove that allegation to be true beyond a reasonable doubt in order for the jury to return a finding of yes on that allegation all jurors must agree the state has proved that during the commission of the crime the defendant used or threatened the use of a firearm and the defendant and the victim were family or household members at the time of the offense defendant statements when a witness testifies about statements made by the defendant nancy lee crampton brophy you should consider such testimony with caution in reviewing such testimony you should consider among other things the following one did the defendant make the statement and if so did she clearly express what she intended to say two did the witness correctly hear and understand what the defendant said three did the witness correctly remember and relate what the defendant said four did the witness intentionally or mistakenly alter some of the defendant's words thereby changing the meaning of what was actually said if after weighing such factors you conclude that the defendant mrs crampton brophy said what she intended to say and that the witness to the statement correctly understood remembered and related to you what the defendant ms crampton brophy said then you're authorized to consider such statements for what you deem them to be worth correct and circumstantial evidence there are two types of evidence one is direct evidence such as the testimony of an eyewitness the other is circumstantial evidence the proof of a chain of circumstances pointing to the existence or non-existence of a certain fact you may base your verdict on direct evidence or on circumstantial evidence or on both non-expert opinion evidence although a witness may be allowed to state his or her opinion you're not required to accept that opinion to determine what value if any you'll give to a witness's opinion you should consider such things as the witnesses opportunity and ability to form the opinion the witness's believability and how the witness reached the opinion expert opinion evidence an expert witness is a person with special skills or education in a particular field even though expert witnesses may testify about their opinions you're not required to accept those opinions to determine the value if any you'll give to an expert's opinion you should consider such things as the expert's qualifications the expert's opportunity and ability to form the opinion the expert's believability and how the expert reach the opinion or conclusion intentionally and with intent a person acts intentionally or with intent when that person acts with a conscious objective to cause a particular result when used in the phrase intentionally cause the death of daniel brophy another human being intentionally or with intent means that a person acts with a conscious objective to cause the death of daniel brophy stipulation of fact the state and defense have agreed or stipulated that on june 2nd 2018 the oregon culinary institute alarm was disabled by daniel brophy at 7 22 minutes 7 22 a.m and 30 seconds this means they've both agreed that that is a fact you may therefore treat this fact as having been proved domestic violence domestic violence means abuse between family or household members abuse means attempting to cause or intentionally knowingly or recklessly causing physical injury intentionally knowingly or recklessly placing another in fear of imminent serious physical injury or committing sexual abuse in any degree family or household members mean any of the following spouses former spouses adult persons related by blood or marriage persons cohabiting with each other persons who have cohabited with each other or who have been involved in a sexually intimate relationship or unmarried parents of a minor child crime involving domestic violence at the time of the act daniel c brophy was the spouse of the defendant and was cohabitating with the defendant murder in the second degree oregon law provides that a person commits the crime of murder in the second degree if that person intentionally causes the death of another human being in this case to establish the crime of murder in the second degree the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following acts 1. the act occurred on or about june 2nd 2018 and 2 nancy lee crampton brophy intentionally caused the death of daniel c brophy another human being and with that we will go to the closing arguments of the party starting with the state you just wanna okay good morning uh before i get started i want to first uh thank you for all the time and uh the dedication that took to sit through such a long trial no matter how you view the evidence in this case there are some things that are obvious when dan was killed on june 2 2018 shortly after arriving at work that was done by somebody who wanted and needed dan dead and i'm sorry judge are we allowed to remove our masks we work for you i'm sorry for arguments both sides can't remove their mass thank you dan was executed on june 2nd this wasn't an accident clearly there was no struggle there was no robbery there was no interrupted burglary whoever went in to the culinary institute in that short six-minute window went in there to kill dan there's no other way to view that the person who went in there also was not just lucky a random attack they just happened to be at the exact same time that nancy brophy was at the culinary institute the exact same time and using the exact same weapon same make and model and caliber that nancy brophy happened to own it's too much of a coincidence there's too many coincidence nancy brophy however had all the knowledge that she needed to carry this out she knew everything about dan's routine she knew everything about that school down to the fact that they wouldn't have cameras she had the plan in place she had the opportunity to carry out this murder and she also had she's the only person who had the motive everybody loved dan nobody would want to hurt dan even nancy herself told that to detectives nobody would want to hurt dan so nobody else had motive but nancy did i want to first talk to you a little bit about the jury instructions um you you just heard what it is to be uh to convict somebody of murder you got the instruction and it's very simple if you look up at the screen on the upper left hand side there's two things that have to be proven most everything is not in dispute that the act occurred on june 2nd i don't think you're going to get any argument against that and that dan brophy was intentionally murdered that's not in dispute what is in dispute is the name that's on the screen nancy brophy that's the only thing about this crime that the parties disagree now there's a couple other things that are not in dispute and that is the questions that come after as the judge said if you find nancy brophy guilty of murder in the second degree there's two other questions you have to answer yes or no and they're very simple you're not going to have to struggle with these at all and nobody's going to argue against it the one first one is were they uh married were they spouses of course they were nobody's disputing that the second is was this crime was there a use or threatened use of a firearm of course there was we know dan brophy was shot and killed so again two questions very simple another instruction that you just received is beyond a reasonable doubt that's an instruction that the judge read to you now a couple of times again you'll have a copy of these i would urge you to read it again beyond a reasonable doubt has to be based in common sense and reason the judge just instructed you it's not beyond all doubt and the point here being if you find yourself back in the jury room saying well what if what if this what if we would have heard this what if we would have heard that what if we would have seen that you're now speculating you're now going beyond what it is that the reasonable doubt instruction is telling you to do and pay attention here this is exactly what the defense is going to stand up here and ask you to do they want you to ask the what if questions they don't want you to pay attention to the evidence that you heard here in the courtroom they want you to play the what if game and think that that's equal to reasonable doubt and it's not now what you do need to base your verdict on is the evidence so what is the evidence well it's not a couple of things one it's not speculation anytime you find yourself speculating that's not evidence but the judge just instructed you that direct and circumstantial evidence is evidence and the reason that's pointed out because direct evidence is clear right somebody says i saw this i saw it happen where circumstantial evidence is that chain of evidence that leads you to a fact it's well nancy brophy was downtown she's in front of the culinary institute that's circumstantial evidence that would suggest that nancy brophy committed this crime now this case is full of circumstantial evidence the state has not shied away from that it's all circumstantial evidence but what this instruction's telling you is that's evidence you can use that just as you would direct evidence as if somebody had actually seen nancy brophy pull the trigger now what you're also allowed to do you were just instructed on is consider inferences based on some of the information that you have you can make some inferences and just by way of an example real briefly is that the roll-up door was open that morning nobody saw nancy walk through that roll-up door but it seems reasonable to infer that if she entered the building that morning that she walked through the roll-up door it's a reasonable inference that you can make what also is evidence is the witnesses as the judge just instructed you you don't just count up how many witnesses were brought in here to tell you various things you have to take each witness individually what did they say how did they testify number four there considering their bias motives in the interest of the witness by way of an example here and what we're talking about is look at nancy brophy's own testimony first what's her motive for testimony well she's got to explain to you she felt the need to get up there on the stand and explain to you all of these issues right the state put on a case looks really bad for her so she needed to explain it now at the same time you're considering that what her motivation is to testify think about how she testified what did she do she got up there as the smartest person in the room she got up there very comfortably leaned back in that chair answer the questions of her attorney very comfortable as if she's waiting for that moment and it only got uncomfortable with her when i asked her questions she didn't like those questions she kept looking to her attorney she even asked her attorney a question during the middle of the cross-examination she looked over at her attorney and said did you say that she was thrown off many times and very uncomfortable then look what happened on redirect right back to nancy's old self very comfortable smartest person in the room including all of you she sat up there with the intent of manipulating all of you into believing the lies and make no mistake about it when i say the smartest person in the room i mean everyone she's manipulating every single person in this room just like she has all of her friends just like she has all of her family one of the things i want to point out before we move on to what the actual evidence is is in this section here what also is not evidence i want to urge you to pay attention to this point because what's not evidence is the lawyer's statements and their questions now defense asked a lot of questions a lot of leading questions of the state's witnesses what they asked is not evidence only the answers and the reason i'm pointing this out is because also the lawyer's statements in their opening statements which i know has been quite a while ago but if you recall the defense lawyer stood up and said nancy googled gun shops in portland on february 1st of 2018 because she just read a news article about the las vegas shooter that's why she was googling gun shops on february 1st 2018. i would urge you to go back in your memory and tell and and think about which witness sat up here and told you that i don't mean to spoil it but i can tell you the answer and that was no one no one said that not even nancy herself but the lawyer said it and there's numerous points in their closing i'm sorry their opening statements that they made assertions that you simply just didn't hear in this trial or you heard a different version of it so you have to consider what the witnesses actually said now the state actually brought you real evidence what is that evidence you go back to june 2nd and nancy brophy despite defense assertions and expert assertions had a very specific story for what she was doing and what dan was doing on the morning of june second when she spoke with the detectives so this morning uh did you wake up at the same time or after him or wow that could i didn't sleep well and i don't know why i didn't sleep well but i'm to them to that age so i woke up when he came up for a shower so that would have been yeah 6 50 6 45. and and he said because he was getting a shower that's when you woke up okay and he used to shower downstairs but i think you'll see stitches on his hand i don't know which hand uh because last week in the shower our shower door shuttered he's not having a good week when did you see him uh after that did you have breakfast with him you know i mean what happened after i didn't get out of bed oh you just kind of woke up and you were older right yeah and we have our we our bedroom is an attic was an addict and so the bathroom's right here and so you know he got dressed and left did he say uh did you guys talk before he left or anything like that about the about the uh water leak oh and i discovered it yesterday when i was uh cleaning out from under the sink and so he uh he asked me what all the wet claws were in the sink and that was when i remembered it and so he went down again he went down to get something to put under the sink so it was still leaking uh that uh it wasn't uh you know it wouldn't ruin it okay and so sydney you think you left like around seven or ten maybe something like that okay and then nancy brophy wasn't recalling what she normally does that morning she told the detectives exactly what she was doing that morning now we know that's not true because she's driving around downtown so it's a completely made-up story that she intentionally told the police she knew she had to have a story so you go with a simple one i was at home of course we look at her phone and it's at home so i was at home i was in bed never got out of bed and they talked about a leak that she discovered yesterday that's not somebody recalling facts about what they normally do she's trying to give the police a very specific story it's her alibi it's where is she at the time of the murder it's not i don't remember you'll have this full recording i would urge you to go back and listen to the whole thing all over again i know we played it for you earlier go back and listen the whole thing listen to the tone of the whole thing she's talking she's telling the detectives what she thinks they need to hear now she refused sorry this is referred to as a death notification nancy brophy doesn't feel like it's a death notification because she already knows first of all she knows he's dead what did she sit there on the stand and tell you she said it felt like an interrogation they just kept coming at her and piling on and piling off yeah she probably felt that way she probably felt like it was an interrogation because she had to make sure that she told the detectives a valid story a valid alibi so it was probably very stressful to be sitting in that van and talking to those detectives i'm sure it was but it was anything but the detectives did not suspect that she was a murderer at that point they testified and told you that they had no reason to believe that she was murdered they had not seen the bellagio's video yet they had no information to suspect that she was a murderer so why would nancy brophy feel that way when she's in the van now again in defense opening statements they said well she did what she did on every other morning she got up she drove to starbucks and then she got immersed in her story writing nancy brophy didn't tell you that on the stand why are they telling you that an opening statement that's not what she did it's hard to keep the lies straight when you spin a web of lies so great and you're cons and you have to tell the same story it's very difficult and she's not able to do it so she gets up on the stand and what does she say the ultimate alibi i don't remember i remember what i did that morning i got up i talked to dan he was carrying some towels downstairs i partially got dressed and that's it don't remember now that's going to be a common theme when you think about her testimony at every critical point of nancy brophy's testimony and every critical point in turn in this case just doesn't remember how convenient so if you want to try to believe well how is it possible that nancy brophy doesn't remember we heard a lot of conflicting expert testimony about how that works so you have to kind of look at well which one not considering the state's expert dr best just look at the defense experts that talked about memory and trauma dr warford with her complete mess of a testimony sat up here and said she would expect somebody with this type of trauma to to have memory issues because you can't commit that memory to long-term memory she didn't really know what she was talking about as you probably picked up on because she's a domestic violence expert she's not a memory expert she doesn't really know how this stuff works she wrote a report that had to be interpreted by others she doesn't know what she's talking about and she got very defensive instead of answering questions when you're considering how people testify instead of answering questions when being critical about how she came up with her opinion she got upset not just to answer the question she got upset she got defensive and when we tried to pin her down to what point was the trauma well probably around the time of the text message that went unanswered one how is that trauma it's not and two how are you how are you getting your timeline and then how does that mean you just forgot the past three hours so okay maybe you don't consider dr warford's testimony because you just don't know what it means and she clearly doesn't have the expertise in this field so what did dr reisberg say well first consider who dr reesberg is somebody who's never seen a patient in his life has no idea how this stuff actually applies and he just talks about studies studies that have been done okay so studies done on memory great well how does that apply to miss brophy we have no idea he did no analysis of ms brophy reviewed no evidence didn't look at dr warford's report i don't think talk to dr warford maybe maybe he said that i don't know but he has no idea how that would apply to nancy brophy what kind of person she is and how she would respond to trauma how that would affect her memory no idea the only person you heard from that could actually kind of put the pieces together was dr best somebody who actually sees clients actually sees people who suffer this very type of trauma she's even seen patients at seeing their loved ones be murdered she also claims not to be a memory expert but she knows how trauma affects memory that's her field that's why she got up here and told you the premise is all wrong the premise of well nancy brophy just you know she had this terrible trauma so therefore she just forgot everything but the premise is wrong that's what dr best was trying to tell you because nancy brophy even according to dr warford is this cognitive individual somebody who's a problem solver somebody who does well excuse me does well in the face of crisis that's somebody who would not respond this way that is not somebody who would respond by dissociating and not recalling a single thing because she told you it's a proxy for uh her emotion it's an emotional response and so somebody like nancy brophy doesn't do that she doesn't dissociate and just forget things who are people that dissociate who are the people that forget things those are people that are basically not functional those are not people that can work those are not people that can run a catering company those aren't even people that can drive a car those are the people that disassociate to the degree the defense is asking you to consider and it's simply not who nancy brophy is now what you heard a little bit of testimony on is well a lot of people in nancy brophy's situation claim amnesia claim to have forgotten a lot of people do that specifically in homicide cases and people who are intelligent have a higher level of intelligence have a better chance of going undetected in doing so their own expert testified to that but they didn't bother doing any testing to see if nancy brophy was malingering feigning that she didn't actually remember this didn't do any of the testing so when we look at what's going on on june 2nd see you up on our timeline here what is she doing that morning she's driving around downtown we know that despite what she told the police despite not remembering she's driving around downtown and apparently now on the stand she's willing to say yeah that's me now remember she didn't quite commit to that when she was talking to her defense attorneys when they were questioning her about her being downtown she said well i know that looked like me and i know that looked like my van but she never committed to it being her i had to ask her a few times are you willing to say that that is you she finally would admit that that's her driving around downtown so what is she doing well we know she's downtown at 6 39 it's the first time she's seen on that first video and we know that when she first does her first pass this is her path she comes into town she turns onto 20th and she drives up she's out of frame and you'll see this video here in a moment she's up there for a few minutes she comes back to 20th and i'll talk about what we believe she's doing at the time and then she comes towards that circle traffic circle and then she heads north out of frame on 18th and then she's gone for quite a while and she's seen again what is referred to as the second pass first on that kgw video and remember on that kgw video you see her drive into frame and then that second video that you see at kgw is a is a motion activated camera so she just kind of pops into frame and then she waits there we'll talk about what she's doing there in just a minute and then she drives up goes around and is on 17th avenue when she leaves the frame and what we'll talk about and what we talked about with detective merrill is when she enters into this area we know that she would have had to stay in this area when she's off camera because she can't head east on jefferson it's a one-way street the other way she doesn't go west on jefferson because she would have been seen on the cameras and had she gone out madison now it's possible she went all the way up here but we saw after at 7 28 that she's turning off of 17th onto jefferson so we know that she's in that area and we're going to look at the video it's exhibit 19 that you'll have back there and what this does it shows you the map of where the cameras are and then it goes cuts to each set of video and so what you'll see here in a moment is you'll see miss brophy's van driving into town at 6 39 here she comes so she turns up here there's a couple things about that road as you can see you'll see on this map and there's a another map as well but there's nowhere to go there's no outlet it's it's not really a dead end because you can go to these buildings but there's nowhere to go the only way back out is to come back out to jefferson and so a couple of things what is she doing well we know she's not going up there to write because one she doesn't remember that and even if she does she's not up there long enough she she's up there just a couple of minutes is it possible that she's looking for a vantage point of the culinary institute maybe it's kind of far away at that point culinary institute being here this being the road that she's on but nonetheless what could she be doing well she could be waiting for dan to drive into town assuming he takes jefferson if she's here on this road and jan dan drives in this way it's possible that's where she thinks that she could get a good look at dan coming into town now one thing to keep in mind why is she there so early why 6 40 well remember she knows that this is the live fire you're a lot of testimony about live fire and the preparation that goes into it she expected dan to be early that day she expected dan to be pretty early that day now she knows that he normally leaves at 705 or 710 that's what she said but she's expecting him to come down even earlier on this morning so once she gets the green light and she takes off she now turns down jefferson just to follow along with the camera angles just so you know what we're talking about she's coming down jefferson and then when she gets to this traffic circle there's another light there's quite a few lights around here and then she'll ultimately drive around the traffic circle past columbia and then how to 18th and you'll see that on the video here momentarily now one of the things you heard nancy say she's familiar with this area there's no reason to think that she's lost she said she's familiar with the goose holler area she's been down there a lot she's been to the culinary institute hundreds of times so obviously she's familiar with the area so you have to ask yourself what is she doing she knows the area one i don't know that there's a park right here where she's going to write i don't see one on the map and she doesn't remember so she can't really tell you that's what she was doing so what is she doing i would present to you that she's trying to find a place that she can get a good clear vantage point on when dan arrives and for her not to necessarily be seen so after some time passes when she's out of the frame she then comes up uh like i said the kgw video and this is uh motion activated so you'll see that she just pops she just appears there at 703. now she's there for several minutes so why is that and if our theory is that she's looking for a vantage point this is where kgw is this is that second camera facing out to jefferson she's sitting on jefferson you heard detective merrill say there's a slight slope to this road jefferson as it heads down to the culinary institute could she perhaps be sitting there thinking she would see when dan arrived at the culinary institute and maybe she was but i also presume that at this point nancy's getting kind of nervous it's now 707. she doesn't see dan she's thinking he's going to be early maybe that's not a good enough vantage point because what if he parks on 17th like he always does so nancy has to continue driving this is when she makes her first pass of the culinary institute and as you saw in that affinity video and again you'll be able to watch as many times as you want she appears to kind of slow down as she gets up to 17th but she can't just turn onto 17 because dan would obviously see her there so she continues around passes a culinary institute goes around the roundabout one more time and then you'll see here in a moment she heads down columbia this is a very hard angle but this is just her going through that roundabout [Music] there she goes completing the roundabout and then this is a pg camera that's very hard to see it's far back that camera is all the way back here and it's looking this way of columbia but what you'll see is there she is driving down colombia and she takes a left onto 17th and that's the last time she's seen until 7 28 and we can actually i'm sorry we'll wait till the so now that we should know she's in this area like i said she's probably getting nervous dan's not there yet it's now 709 she doesn't she knows she doesn't have a lot of time dan is then seen coming down jefferson at 7 19. he doesn't go straight to the culinary institute meaning he doesn't come down this way and go that route he does what he normally does where he turns up here comes down madison and parks right there like the detectives told you they look back at google maps over the years and there there's a dance truck creature of habit as you've heard now why is that important to where nancy's at well there's a big parking lot right here and a building i'm sorry if the podium's in the way big parking lot she's turned onto 17. parking lot building remember potluck in the park a building she's very familiar with in fact that's where she parks when she comes down later in the morning so either she stays back here and she has a nice clear vantage point to the southeast corner of the culinary institute where dan parks she would see the moment that he arrives now dan might not necessarily see her but she could sit there she could watch and once he arrives she could watch him for a moment now this is where that alarm becomes important 7 22 and 30 seconds we know we see her on camera again at 7 28 so we know she has less than six minutes now does she wait the whole six minutes no but she has to wait until dan is done going in and out of the school because remember he's bringing stuff to the school that day so she can watch and watch dan come in and out open that roll up door take items inside and then once she realizes that he's not coming back out again the coast is clear for her she then drives across jefferson to 17th and now she has the opportunity at this point we're probably down to just a few minute window because if she's watched dan do a couple of things we only have a few more minutes so she can walk into the school at that point walk through the uh roll up door navigate the building find dan in the back room and shoot him now i'm sorry we're moving on to the next video i didn't want to i didn't want to skip too far ahead there so you know it's a small window of time and we'll talk in a little bit about what that means if this is somebody other than nancy brophy but she has a small window of time now when we see dan arrive i don't want to lose my place which which slide are we going to right okay so at 7 28 you see nancy brophy as we said and you've seen the video already nancy turning off the 17th on to jefferson and that's a critical time and it's a critical place where she's at you know she's in front of the culinary institute and so once she admitted that she was the one that was driving i asked her well isn't it possible if you don't remember that you went into the building like you did a few weeks prior nope not possible well are you sure i mean you don't remember so isn't it possible i just wanted to see if she would acknowledge that she could go into the building nope not possible well how do you know you didn't go inside and kill him and you don't remember not possible i know it in my heart she can't remember anything but she knows in her heart that she couldn't have done it and what she does remember is later on that morning all the phone calls so after she leaves town after she leaves town i guess i don't want to jump too far sorry again this is that uh exhibit that was created for you from by kelsey way just to show you with the animation one this first vehicle not involved as was said you can see the uh headlights and what it appeared is that those headlights had a continuous track past 17th of jefferson and then what was noticed is that you can see the side of nancy brophy's van as it pulled off of 17 onto jefferson so what happens when she gets back home that morning now she doesn't remember being frantic and talking to her neighbors she doesn't remember that even though they had never seen her like that before she lost the dogs but nobody ever saw the dogs so what is she doing she's continuing to set up that alibi she needs people to see her home because if the police ever come knocking they're going to want to know from the neighbors did you see her yeah i saw her that morning so around eight o'clock she was very frantic but she was looking for her dogs as she normally does but nobody sees these dogs so she doesn't remember that but she does remember that first phone call from maxine borjadin she not only remembers the phone call from maxine borjadin she remembers what maxine borjadin told her she tells the police what maxine borgerding told her she told you about that conversation maxine borjadin told you about that conversation it all adds up she clearly remembers it but it's inconsequential right she can remember things like this now she's lost her memory and we'll talk about other things that she happens to remember that are inconsequential how is she remembering these things and it's because they don't matter so she gets this phone call she remembers calling dan that going unanswered she remembers texting dan that going unanswered she remembers calling maxine borjani back they have back and forth conversation a couple of times and then she remembers calling karen brophy and she remembers that conversation and she remembers that karen told her aren't you you need to go downtown and she says okay yeah okay i do need to go down there now why that's interesting is because here's some more lies by nancy brophy she said to the detectives that when that phone call and that text message was unanswered i knew something was wrong and so i left but that's not true she didn't get an unanswered text from dan jump in the car and drive downtown it's just not true it's quite a while before karen brophy insisted that she go down there and you remember nancy's response when karen first told her that she needed to go down there asked her if she was going to go down there nancy didn't want to go down there because there was going to be too much police activity so it's not until karen prompts her to go down there now what else does she remember she remembers getting dressed she remembers getting in her van she remembers driving downtown white knuckling on the way down there playing with the radio she remembers where she parked she remembers getting out of her car walking up to the police tape interacting with police officers being let in she remembers all that she remembers being hugged by the police officer she remembers interacting with the detectives she remembers getting into the police detective van and she remembers where the detectives were even sitting she remembers all of that because it's inconsequential now one thing else she told you that she remembered that before she got in that van she knows she was not told that dan brophy was dead at that moment she assumed is what she told you she assumed that based on how everyone was acting everyone was looking at her the dan must be dead now think about this for a moment she's this cognitive individual she's the thinker the planner the researcher dr bess told you that type of person is not somebody who stands idly by they ask questions what's going on where is he is he okay somebody tell me something nothing didn't ask a single question didn't ask anybody is dan okay where is he and why shouldn't need that information jordy knows she knows he's dead she knows exactly where he is she doesn't need that information so she gets in the before she gets in the van what else does she do that she remembers she calls karen or karen calls her i can't remember but she talks to karen and she tells karen it's dan dan's gone now she doesn't know with 100 certainty that dan is dead why in the world would you tell his mother that her son has been murdered because what if you're wrong nancy thought that was hilarious we would laugh about it for years it would be so funny sickening she's telling somebody that their child is dead but she doesn't really know now why can she make a statement like that because she knows she's very confident i can tell karen because i know there's no chance that they're going to come back and say actually there's been a mistake it's not dan so she can tell karen that with certainty and again i'll just reiterate at this point when she's going into that van what they're telling her they're treating her like a grieving widow at that point not a suspect they're treating her like a 67 year old woman who just lost her husband of 25 years in fact they take it so slow with her they don't even tell her that it's dan that's been killed until seven minutes into the interview and so what does she say about that yeah i kind of got that when everybody gave me this exactly so when they finally tell her remember no questions before this from her no questions in the first seven minutes you have two homicide detectives talking to you she doesn't have a single question so they finally tell her break it to her slow hey we think that it's dan dan's the one that's been killed oh i figured i kind of figured based on the the sad sack look from others that's her reaction she just found out supposedly her husband of 25 years who she adores who they spent their entire case trying to convince you that they loved each other so much and their relationship was so perfect that she couldn't fathom dan being gone she just finds out that this man is gone oh i figured now does she need to burst out and cry no everybody responds to trauma differently you all probably your individually responded differently but oh i figured that's it and to her questions again no questions until over 40 minutes into the interview 40 minutes into the interview she says where is he it's an interesting question i had to think about that one a lot why would she ask that well it's probably the only question she doesn't know the answer to at that point she doesn't know if they've moved him if he's gone out of the building she probably genuinely was curious where is he and that's it the only other question she has was was he shot with an ar-15 no indications of why you would ask a question like that but was he shot with an ar-15 that's it that's all she wanted to know it's because it's all she needed to know nancy is the only person who could have committed this crime as you saw on the opening slide it looked like a puzzle a puzzle that was put together mostly and appeared to look like a gun that's what this case is it's a puzzle there's a lot of pieces to it and as we move through this presentation we're going to talk about what those puzzle pieces are and when you put them all together you have that picture you can see that nancy brophy is the only one that could have done this start off like we talked about briefly she has all the knowledge in the world of dan's routine she knows his schedule in fact she emails it to the detectives later on we'll get to that in a second she knows his schedule she knows what days he's planning on being early she knows generally how he drives down to work she knows everything that she would need to know to carry this out now a lot of people knew that dan was very routine that's safe to say a lot of friends a lot of people that known them for years knew that dan carried a routine and he pretty much stuck to it but nancy knew everything she knew what he did when he got up in the morning now this is where she does recall something where she's talking about what normally happens she says he gets up early every morning he walks the dogs feeds the chickens that's just kind of his routine very normal stuff she also knows that it's going to take dan almost precisely 10 minutes to drive to work something that she also later experienced with the detectives when they drove back that this was a 10-minute drive and of course she knows that now what else does she know about dan she knows like we talked about it's an actual crime scene photo that dan parks right there he parks in front of the school on 17th she knows that she knows that he would enter that same door because that's where the alarm panel is and that he would unload things she also was very precise when she told the detectives that he would have this cup that he always carried this big cup filled with tea she knows him so well that she knows what he's drinking on any given day she also knew on this particular day like we talked about with the live fire that he would be bringing carts he had things that he needed to bring in so it stands to reason as you can see in an older google photo there's dan's truck he parks near the roll-up door sometimes because this is how he gets things in and out of the building she also would know that he's responsible as the first person there to set up the coffee station and water station now nancy clearly moving over to the second puzzle piece has knowledge of the culinary institute you've seen the map you've seen people talk about it so specifically i asked nancy well you know is there anywhere in this building you haven't been and all she could really say was i haven't really been in this area and these little store rooms it's kind of the only place she wasn't really familiar with she admittedly hirocourt knows this layout now even if she didn't have the knowledge of every nook and cranny of this building she was there three weeks prior she told the detectives that she told you that on the stand and what i'm presenting to you is that either i think this is less likely she went down there at 7 30 in the morning that morning to kill dan and was interrupted somebody was there so she had to just well i'm just here to use the bathroom i was meeting a client i'm leaving i think that's less likely given the time frame but it certainly could have been a dry run she doesn't go to the culinary institute at 7 30 in the morning just doesn't happen but that morning a few weeks before she commits the murder she's down there getting herself into the building getting herself into an area of a building where she could view what she needed to see now she's already familiar with the building why would she need to do that well she probably wants to double check and make sure there's no cameras what if they installed cameras recently and she didn't know that so that afforded her an opportunity to go inside that building which dan led her in if you recall and to go use the restrooms take a peek around make sure that when she comes back to kill dan that she is going to be fine that she's not going to be seen now what she also knows about the culinary institute is that nobody's going to be there on saturday dan's going to be the first one there nobody's going to be there yeah i do the the custodian only comes in on sunday and as you saw discussion of the alarm panel the idea was not there on saturday he did not come there and clean that morning so she knows dan's going to be there alone on saturday that's why she has to do it on a saturday so when we come back out and we look at did i skip over oh uh when we're looking at what she would have seen when she comes in that roll-up door remember we talked about the culinaries too we talked about it being a labyrinth it's very confusing look at what she would have seen when she walked in the roll-up door or what a stranger would have seen now you see on the left there you see the roll-up door and the right is a picture once you step inside that roll-up door and looking into the culinary institute so just to be clear looking at the world door and then on the right that's looking in it's not obvious where you would need to go to get into the rest of that building you can see up there there's a door on the left and then straight ahead clearly a cooler door but nonetheless another door but a door on the left but as you walk up towards those doors just to the left is a very narrow hallway this hallway right here which you heard some testimony of this door is usually closed because this is not an area that the students are really supposed to be in but nancy's familiar with this nancy knows that she can access the rest of the building by walking down that hallway to the main area and when she gets to this hallway she can get straight back this is that coffee station right here and that's the kitchen where dan is now when she goes into that kitchen presumably she doesn't want to disturb dan if he's standing at the kitchen sink preparing the ice in the water she doesn't want to disturb dan and clearly he's not disturbed it doesn't appear he turned around at all it doesn't appear that there was any interaction but think about this she knows that even if she got his attention he's not going to be disturbed by that he could very well have turned around and looked at nancy knows her loves her trusts her turn is back to her and go back to what he was doing there's no risk for nancy disturbing down and having this go wrong now when you look at what kind of opportunity nancy had this kind of builds on the last section what kind of opportunity did nancy have to actually carry out this murder she has the knowledge of his routine she has the knowledge of the culinary institute so what kind of opportunity did she actually have well again she note this is the email that she sent to detective posey laying out dan's schedule take a close look at the highlighted area there we know he's killed on saturday june 2nd dan only is going to be working two more weekends and then he's going back to days so she has a very narrow window she has to carry it out this weekend june 2nd where she only has the 16th i'm sorry the uh the ninth or the 16th that's it so why choose the second well one she has two more weekends in case something goes wrong but it's also her best chance to have the most time because it's the live fire and it's the time that dan's supposed to be there early picking june 2nd wasn't a mistake or fluke or luck it was intentional it was all part of plan now as the weekend class she knows the weekend classes are going to end so like i said she comes down there a few weeks earlier probably to do a little bit of recon make sure everything's in place and that she's going to be good so think about that when you talk about when we talk about opportunity is she the only person in the world that had an opportunity to kill dan could somebody have randomly walked in in that six minute window and shot down is it physically possible yes you have to think about what reasonable doubt means though reasonable is it reasonable that a random person over nancy brophy is the one who did this and had the opportunity to do it now just because somebody has the opportunity doesn't make them a killer of course but think about a random person in this scenario a random person who gets lucky in the six minute window they walk through the roll-up door they apparently have no intentions of stealing anything they walk through this door navigate their way this way head back find dan do not confront him do not startle him think about that had dan just turn and what is this person doing we'd have a much different crime scene there's no sign of a struggle there's no sign of a robbery nothing so this person would have had to get lucky enough to be able to walk into this kitchen not have dan even turn his head to be able to shoot him in the back then once dan is paralyzed and laying on his back staring at the ceiling walk over to him again and shoot him in the chest random person no motive that's what you'd have to believe and it's just simply not reasonable so what else is defense trying to get you to believe they spent a great deal of time talking about a gentleman named oscar taylor so is it oscar taylor well oscar taylor's in the area yeah again he has no knowledge of the interior of the culinary institute no evidence to suggest he knows dan in fact if he's wanting money or food dan's the type of guy that would give it to him very generous person who routinely is giving so it's not a confrontation in the sense of hey give me money or can you give me money or food and there's a confrontation and then oscar taylor just decided to shoot down no evidence of that that doesn't even make sense what's oscar taylor doing that morning he's canning he's a homeless guy who was sleeping in the area who gets up in his canning presumably to turn those cans in and get some money so he's walking around canning he goes into starbucks buys a cup of coffee leaves continues canning you'll see in the bellagio's video he stops at the corner he then crosses the street goes up to madison continues canning now what defense will have you believe here is at this point he sees dan arrive he follows dan in murders him doesn't take the 66 dollars from his pocket doesn't take his wallet doesn't take his phone doesn't take his car keys doesn't disturb anything in the school walks back out of the school and goes back to canon because miranda bernhard told you when she arrived at 7 29 and she came around the corner she saw somebody matching the description of oscar taylor on madison street canning now defense say well this is a criminal this guy he he commits robberies so detective meryl says well yes he has committed robbers before never uses a gun never uses a gun type of robberies he commits is when he steals a can candy and pushes the clerk robert and he gets caught all the time so that's his lengthy criminal history old man oscar taylor steals gets caught no evidence that this guy is carrying a gun no evidence that he has any beef with dan no evidence that he had any actual opportunity knowledge plan or motive to kill dan because all that belongs to nancy brophy now you were just instructed about fears and biases that you might have that you have to leave outside of the courtroom leave outside of your deliberations your fears and biases are exactly what the defense attorneys are asking you to do you should be offended they're asking you to consider the black guy in the neighborhood as the killer without any evidence they want you to consider the stereotypes that happen in this country about black people and guns that's what they're asking you to do and you should be offended one thing oscar taylor did do is acknowledge that he was in the area yeah i was there unlike nancy brophy so what else do we have in puzzle pieces we have nancy has the murder weapon when she gives this gun to the police what did the police tell you it's out of battery okay what does that mean well it means the slide wasn't put back on the right way what should that gun look like when it has a zip tie on and the sliding barrel is put back on correctly should look like this sliding barrel should be back off of the back of the frame it shouldn't look like that now why was that interesting to the police and why was it brought up here in this trial because nancy brophy told the police that she bought that gun it was heavy it was ugly she realized that they didn't want it so what did she do with it she puts it back in the case puts it back in the original bag this scary gun and she throws it in the closet where it still sits to this day on june 2nd that's what she told the police now if you're confused a little bit it's okay because she sat up here on the stand and said oh no no that's probably exaggerating um i played with it i handled it dan and i went back and forth for weeks about whether we wanted it or not i even took the sliding barrel off hold on first time we're hearing about this you didn't tell the police that you took the sliding bear off you didn't tell your friends that you've manipulated this gun for research or for whatever you now you take the sliding barrel off well yeah of course because by time she's here and she's sitting up there and she has to tell you that story to convince you that she's not guilty she has to have a reason why that gun is out of battery when she gives it to the police she knows she can't say i didn't touch it or didn't handle it because that doesn't make any sense so she has to come up with a story oh no i i did actually take off the slime barrel now one thing i'll give her that's true she did take off sliding barrel she took off the slide barrel in order to put on the side barrel from ebay to kill her husband and then when she gets back on the morning of the murder she's in such a hurry to switch these sliding barrels back she makes a mistake in her haste to get that original side barrel back on she fails to fully seat the gun and that's why it goes to the police that way but again it's a new story so knowing nancy has capability having the murder weapon how did we get here we need to go back and look at how the plan all started now just briefly i'll touch on this nancy brophy i think could be described as it was by dr warford an intelligent person uh somebody who thinks things through she talks about miss brophy talks herself about how she does research for her books how she plans out whole books in her head but then she got on the stand and she took this position of i don't plan i don't plan things damn i'm not a planner i just roll with it why would she tell you that it's such a bizarre thing to say when everything that we know about her would indicate that's exactly who she is but she can't sit up here and say that she's a planner to you because if she's not a planner then how could she plan a murder but she's lying to you she is a planner she ran a catering company you're gonna tell me somebody who's running a catering company doesn't plan don't plan for how much food you're gonna need plan your staff plan the times plan everything you're gonna she was the owner it's not like she just worked there she ran 25 employees i think half a million dollars in business but doesn't plan anything just doesn't make sense it's another one of nancy's lies judge i forgot to ask you i know do you want us to find a place to break uh i could probably do that in a few minutes sure okay actually probably now it would be better all right why don't we take our our morning break and let's be back on the record at 5 after 11.

Channel: KOIN 6

Views: 51,122

Keywords: default

Id: jizrvMMzkwI

Length: 77min 10sec (4630 seconds)

Published: Mon May 23 2022