Romance novelist Nancy Brophy murder trial, Day 14, morning session | Live Stream

The murder trial of romance novelist Nancy Crampton Brophy resumes Wednesday, May 4, 2022, with Crampton Brophy's defense team calling more witnesses. Crampton Brophy was arrested in September 2018 in the shooting death of her husband Daniel Brophy.
Daniel Brophy, 63, was killed as he prepped for work at the Oregon Culinary Institute in Southwest Portland on June 2, 2018.
More coverage of the Nancy Brophy trial: www.kgw.com/ar...
Subscribe: / kgwnews8
Watch the latest KGW newscast: www.kgw.com/watch
Get the KGW app: kgw.com/appred...

[@jenny_b_]

In a financially sound situation, a 401K is reserved for RETIREMENT, not to pay 3 months of mortgage arrears or outstanding taxes…is this woman for real?!?!

[@sleuththewild]

Most of the jury will lol at how far-fetched it is to say $700k is a normal amount of insurance. I'll bet most of the jury has no life insurance except through work, and maybe a term policy while the kids are little.

[@michelleharrison12]

She can try to witchcraft the numbers as much as she wants but it still doesn't make sense! She never even addressed the fact that they'd pulled half Dan's 401k.

[@sleuththewild]

Prosecution needs to emphasize that Nancy's idea of "downsizing" is much more expensive than keeping the house. Dan had a bargain with the mortgage at about $1500. A condo was going to cost WAAAAAY more, plus HOA fees, which can run more than mortgage payments (they do around here).

[@MrAllysonn]

Yes spot one!!!

[@laradesautel3013]

Do I hear defense making snarky noises as prosecution makes a point ?

[@justanothersmith6012]

It’s clear they were spending more than they were bringing in and had financial stress. I have to believe the jurors eyes are glazing over at this point.

[@isabellind1292]

Lol! 🥱 My heart breaks for the financial burdens Nancy put poor Daniel through. I think there was a lot going on we'll never know about but I'm sure she was a nightmare to live with. She's one lazy, greedy, POS. And I wonder about that fire they had at their home (at some point) which she briefly referenced. 🏃‍♀ 🔥🏡🧍‍♂🐕🐓🐓🐓🐓I wouldn't put it past her. I was impressed however by the way these financial "experts" squared off - it was way over my head. The police forensic accountant who testified on the state's behalf was a real math wiz. 📉🧙‍♂📈

[@iveliserojas612]

I think she was spending as you heard he’s mom he wasn’t flashy and he’s car wasn’t expensive it was her spending she messed up mortgage and etc no him he hardly went anywhere

[@sleuththewild]

Nancy coulda worked at Walmart to help with income, just like many folks on social security. She could have been making extra money to pay for the Starbucks habit and the luxe insurance she says she had in her plan. She could also have taken that second cook's job instead of foisting it on poor Dan. Instead, she's getting shooting practice while pretending to be on task selling insurance.

[@ashleykane4951]

Bingo!!!!!

[@ashleykane4951]

This tax lady can make all these points, but does not change that you spent so much on the yard, also again I have never heard of any authors going out and buying a ghost gun and practice shooting it just so they can write a book. Please she was not that great of a writer , another cover-up.

[@sleuththewild]

@@ashleykane4951 Not only that, her step son is an expert on guns, knows how to build them, expert shooter, etc. Nancy never asked him for input. He testified he would have been more than happy to teach her whatever she needed to know about weapons. She certainly had access to his multiple guns if she wanted to get a good look. But she never asked him.

[@trishbrennan9452]

@@ashleykane4951 and never breathing a word about the gun purchases and practice to anyone

[@ashleykane4951]

@@sleuththewild -exactly!!!! I don’t understand why and how she thought this made up story is going to work.

[@Debs440606]

I didn’t like the defence expert, I thought she was arrogant and I wasn’t buying what she tried to say about them being ok and starting to pay their mortgage and debts etc, yes out of a loan from Dan’s 401 k ! Which, as I understand it is like a pension ? She came across as totally biased to me.

[@alycialee4048]

No honestly - how could she not see borrowing from a 401k as financial stress? She kept pointing out the lump sums they were paying their debts down with, but neglected the fact that that money went right back out due to spending too. Sooooo how is it normal or sustainable? Definitely biased.

[@isabellind1292]

The defense "expert" might as well have brought along a crystal ball and rubbed it while she testified what they "planned" to do w/their finances.🔮It was preposterously irrelevant.

[@Hifive91]

I believe witnesses are inherently biased in one way or the other. When the oppositie side questions them they immediately become short or argumentative

[@PinkyakaAyannaj]

​@@Hifive91I disagree. The Dr. For The Prosecution during the Depp trial was professional on both direct and cross. This lady sucks and is lying her head off

[@IzzyMariel]

This witness is obnoxious

[@kimmann8074]

All I want to know is how they're going to explain away her van with obvious identifying factors in that area at the time of the shooting.

[@GH-oi2jf]

So far, they haven’t tried. If Nancy takes the stand, it will be interesting to see if she tries to explain it. If she does, the prosecutor will have a field day picking apart her story. If she doesn’t try to explain it, then he will point out in his closing argument that she had no explanation.

[@starrlove2060]

She going say she was looking for the dog

[@sleuththewild]

Not only that, but the van used to belong to Dan’s parents. They already identified it on the witness stand. Nancy was visibly the driver, too.

[@jenniferwaddell552]

Defense can’t argue the van . I’m pretty sure in the beginning they stipulated both sides it was her van. Stipulated means both sides agree to say it was her van.

[@isabellind1292]

If I'd been a juror, I'd have had to suspend disbelief that she had no knowledge she was driving around the scene of the crime and then claim that even though she lost her memory, she couldn't have committed the crime because she loved him. She'd better be careful what she wishes for. I'm sure prison is a hell of a place when you're old and gradually losing all your faculties.

[@goose7574]

All this financial "stuff" is great, but let's be real... Mrs. Brophy was literally RIGHT where the school was that morning. Not only that, but she LIED about being there. I understand shock and what it does to the body (I've been there with a sudden horrible death), but... you DON'T forget that you were right by his work, just a few hours later. Plus, if you loved your hubby so much, why not stop by his work, since he hadn't started his class yet? Not only that, but since they'd gotten themselves in a better situation financially, Mrs. Brophy was in a perfect place, to finally follow through with killing him and be able to move and so what SHE wanted to do. This is such a heart-breaking trial. Mr. Brophy was loved & liked by so many people. 💔

[@sleuththewild]

As a couple, they were in a worse situation financially than they had ever been, since they'd blown through such a huge chunk of savings paying old bills, Starbucks, vacation, and life insurance. They still owed the Brophys another $50k. They were hemorrhaging money. Dan was only bringing home $2.5k or so net a month. The life insurance was $1600/mo. However, Nancy was in a perfect place financially in 2017-8, because she'd pressured Dan into the marriage license (they weren't married until then) and she got on the house deed. She could kill him and rack up. Before 2017, she would have had no financial benefit at all; she couldn't even "divorce" him and get 1/2 the assets, because they weren't married.

[@janeg8274]

@@sleuththewild wow thank you for putting that in that they were not married until 2017!! You are totally correct she would have been out on the streets if she had divorced him !! Maybe you also know what her step son said after the verdict about “ years of fraud with her businesses??” Anyway thank you that is a big piece of the puzzle that they had only been married a year!

[@sleuththewild]

@@janeg8274 Imagine if they split BEFORE she was actually married to Dan. She could potentially have got nothing at all. At least with divorce, there's a sharing of assets. With an unmarried split? Not so much. And there was also the hinky stuff regarding Dan's will (which no one seemed to be able to find); wanna bet she wrote it, signed it with his name, and hid it in some weird place, as though Dan had hidden it. It was eventually found in the garage (Dan's domain)...maybe when no one could find it, she moved it to somewhere obvious.

[@jborrego2406]

She the type u hire to commit tax fraud

[@NotReally365]

Cat lady’s of the defense team really had delusional goals Mission accomplished 😂

[@alicemorton9145]

They had a house cleaner! That would of been costly!

[@rck5349]

Seems to me that defense witnesses are not creating that much of an impact. Gun, car at the scene is extremely damaging.

[@cynthiameyer3255]

This woman is full of herself

[@justanothersmith6012]

She estimated their debt ( Sears card balance, etc) and she estimated the value of their assets. Creative economics .

[@sleuththewild]

She also never mentioned the $50k loan from Dan's parents that they never paid back. Dan's parents also gave them the van.

[@johanericsson2403]

If other jobs took as many breaks as courts do, they'd take as long to get anything done as courts do.

[@virginiabrister8642]

The prosecutions financial expert evidence made more sense to me. Pointing out that money came out of Dan's retirememt account to explain a decrease in debts and that a continuation of current spending and borrowing habits would only result in a continuation of the problem with the families financial health.

[@sleuththewild]

Yes, there is exactly ZERO sense in having insurance policies when you can't afford the mortgage. Also, no one is even mentioning that in order to get that insurance, you have to keep paying the premiums. So, the argument is for some kind of crazy, long-term, expensive plan, but no house? Go figure.

[@kyletevis]

You get insurance to supplement the lost income in the event of a spouses death… so that you can continue paying the mortgage. Both your logic is backwards.

[@sleuththewild]

@@kyletevis You seem to be not familiar with the essential financial planning tenet of living within your income. Furthermore, if you're not paying what is currently due on the mortgage, there won't be a house payment to worry about in the event of potential death. The Brophys had ongoing unpaid debt, were living waaaay over their income, and were in danger of foreclosure. You must have missed many days of trial if this doesn't sound familiar?

[@sleuththewild]

@@kyletevis The whole original mortgage (from early 2000s) was about $250k and would have been paid off in about 10 years. That doesn't call for $700k of life insurance that prevents you from paying your monthly basics bills.

[@sleuththewild]

These defense experts are like nails on a chalkboard. I can't stand to watch. This is TORTURE. I feel so sorry for the jury that has to put up with these gosh awful witnesses.

[@nycat1485]

I bet she had intention of buying a condo...it was just to throw everybody off the scent...she wanted to travel..she probably would have gone to South America somewhere and bought something there, .for cheap and would be on her way seeing the world...she did this, she knows she did it and just didn't want to hang around in the states....guilty as sin...

[@catherinearmstrong388]

The defense continues to ruminate over the life insurance, rather than redirect jury to a more viable defense. No one at their income level would purchase those policies over what they get from their employer. Move on.

[@barbaragrove6097]

Indicates lack of viable defense

[@michelleharrison12]

Defense is too whiney!

[@debidriscoll8108]

I think the defense Financial expert is making the Brody's finances look better than they actually are. She is assuming if they cashed out the equity in the house, if they took more money from his 401k Etc that they're actually in a very good Financial place. What she is not saying is that all that money needs to be paid back which adds extra expense to what they already have. I personally think she did not look at the picture the same way the prosecutions financial expert did. She is saying nothing about the fact that there are incidentals that could have been taken away to put them in a better Financial place. She is not coming up with the fact the mortgage was 4 months late and facing foreclosure. She is not acknowledging the true financial bind that they are in. There's a lot of assumptions on their finances, using assets in the home etc. instead of a realistic financial place they were in.

[@isabellind1292]

I don't think any expert who's testifying should come across as defensive when being cross examined about their findings. They should be objective. And there's no relevance to discussing what Nancy & Daniel "planned". She can say it all she likes but it holds no water. That's like saying Nancy "planned" to use the three separate firearm purchases for research for her novels. And we know how well that plan worked out. She should remain on an even keel if she's confident in her work & her findings instead of making it known when she doesn't like to be challenged. It's unprofessional. As a juror I would find her to be biased based on her testimony.

[@markschindler172]

This chick is confrontational .

[@mrmtoad]

Which chick? The video was full of them.

[@sleuththewild]

Prosecution needs to get more in there about the marriage sham. It’s a major detail in motive.

[@MissesCakes]

The poor accountant couldn’t afford shampoo.

[@93Ingvild]

Can the different witnesses hear each other’s testimony? How does that normally work?

[@mrmtoad]

Usually No.

[@maryb6672]

Normally, only experts & the victims family are allowed to listen to other witnesses testimony.

[@markbaxtrem4045]

Why do some members of the fairer sex from Oregon sound like crows? They even periodically "caw" - it's most off-putting!

[@PinkyakaAyannaj]

😅😂😅 Oh man, thanks so much for this comment. I know it 2 years later but I needed this laugh due to the true reason this trial is taking place. So thank you 💙🤍🙏🏽

[@momo_the_kiwi121]

Can you imagine being on the jury and listening to these two women talk about figures like this. This is so irrelevant 😴

[@ld-zj1bn]

This woman is a fool. Life insurance is not something you should plan to use for future income. What if you both live until your 90s like both my parents have? You dont assume you have have to kill your partner for future income??? They should have been paying that insurance premium into investment accounts as superranuation accounts. Just get cheap term life insurance to cover immediate mortgage requirement if one person dies.

[@luckewoman0348]

Oh my...the simplified version presented of the Brophy's wealth by the defense's financial forensics examiner is obvious. The prosecution's expert witness was much more in tune with the purpose of living comfortably in the long term without having to make Dan work 2 jobs and spend his retirement on Starbucks. I think Dan stopped working in the yard because he was exhausted. I can't imagine he enjoyed doing all of that on his own....it helps to have a partner that is a teammate....not looking to off you at your job so they get worker's comp added in.

[@marcweeks9178]

What I don't understand is, if you liquidate all your assets, sure, you have a lot of money, but now you don't have a place to live, cars to drive, jewelry to wear, etc.

[@PinkyakaAyannaj]

That part. The state's financial expert pointed that out to the detriment of the defense.

[@nicolewilliams5593]

Where’s afternoon session?

[@rck5349]

No court on?

[@QueenStarrLove]

It's in now on this channel

[@saharaussery6799]

Is there an afternoon session today?

[@QueenStarrLove]

No it's on now on this channel

[@iveliserojas612]

That defense is just putting anyone just to lie lol

[@mariamartinez-tm8ew]

thou shall not kill ! ( period ) hell is awaiting , Dan is in Heavens; clean heart and mind

[@iveliserojas612]

It true state attorney said it right you don’t no if it was a loan not they’re income

[@sam_vp]

Wow she is unlikable

[@iveliserojas612]

Omg state attorney are so good caught her lies she thought the state didn’t do her homework they not like defense who put liars wow ever witness defense put got kick in the B

[@iveliserojas612]

Defense has a nasty attitude when state want to know who are the ppl she keeps adding but don’t tell nothing but the state had he’s witnesses in he’s discovery the was on point defense are not

[@iveliserojas612]

He parents made those payments to her it what is parents even said it they gave many times money to her so state is right you don’t no if she had any income

[@sleuththewild]

This guy needs to look more "Wall Street" if he wants to be convincing. If you want to be a good money witness, it's gotta look like you have some. Nice haircut, well-fitting suit. The slump doesn't help, either. I didn't listen to all his testimony, but I'd never let him analyze my finances; he just looks kinda sleazy.

[@kyletevis]

You are clearly not a financial expert by reading your comments. I hope somebody on the jury has a bit of a financial base… because the defense is right.

[@sleuththewild]

@@kyletevis You are incorrect in your assumptions.

[@PinkyakaAyannaj]

​@@kyletevis😅😂😅 let me guess??? You know Nancy 😊

[@sheilroadsfinest7834]

Flock the dury

[@QueenStarrLove]

Afternoon session. kzbin.info/www/bejne/garIoaptrNp8mdk

[@StellaFl]

That's actually the afternoon session of Day 8 :(

[@iveliserojas612]

Defense has a nasty attitude when state want to know who are the ppl she keeps adding but don’t tell nothing but the state had he’s witnesses in he’s discovery the was on point defense are not