Nancy Brophy - Prosecution closing arguments, Part 1

[00:00:00] Speaker 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 lawyer's 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 and hear, 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 to prove any fact in dispute. You are 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 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 witness's 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 witness's opinion about the credibility of that statement. You are the sole arbiters of facts in this case, and thus must disregard any other witness's 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 were 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. Subcategory 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. Defendant statements. 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 that 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. 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: 1. Did the defendant make the statement, and if so, did she clearly express what she intended to say? 2. Did the witness correctly hear and understand what the defendant said? 3. Did the witness correctly remember and relate what the defendant said? 4. 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, 5. 5. 6. 6. [00:08:48] Speaker ?: 7. [00:08:49] Speaker 1: 7. 8. 8. [00:09:15] Speaker ?: 8. [00:09:15] Speaker 1: 9. [00:09:16] Speaker ?: 9. [00:09:44] Speaker 1: 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 reached 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 caused 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 2, 2018, the Oregon Culinary Institute alarm was disabled by Daniel Brophy at 7.22 a.m. and 30 seconds. This means they both agree 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. 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. One, the act occurred on or about June 2, 2018. And two, 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. [00:12:44] Speaker ?: And with that, we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. [00:13:24] Speaker 2: And we will go to the court. We will go to the court. And we will go to the court. [00:13:35] Speaker ?: And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. [00:13:38] Speaker 2: And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. [00:13:43] Speaker ?: And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. [00:13:45] Speaker 2: And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. We will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. [00:13:58] Speaker 1: And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. [00:14:02] Speaker ?: And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. [00:14:05] Speaker 2: And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. [00:14:11] Speaker ?: And we will go to the court. [00:14:12] Speaker 2: And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. [00:14:19] Speaker ?: And we will go to the court. [00:14:20] Speaker 2: And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. [00:14:26] Speaker ?: And we will go to the court. [00:14:27] Speaker 2: And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. [00:14:29] Speaker ?: And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. [00:14:31] Speaker 2: And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. [00:14:35] Speaker ?: And we will go to the court. [00:14:36] Speaker 2: And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. [00:14:54] Speaker ?: And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. [00:14:56] Speaker 2: And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. [00:14:59] Speaker ?: And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. [00:15:01] Speaker 2: And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. [00:15:22] Speaker ?: And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. [00:15:24] Speaker 2: And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. [00:15:29] Speaker ?: And we will go to the court. [00:15:30] Speaker 2: And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. [00:15:54] Speaker ?: And we will go to the court. [00:15:55] Speaker 2: And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. [00:16:20] Speaker ?: And we will go to the court. [00:16:21] Speaker 2: And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. [00:16:23] Speaker ?: And we will go to the court. [00:16:24] Speaker 2: And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. [00:16:27] Speaker ?: And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. [00:16:29] Speaker 2: And we will go to the court. [00:16:30] Speaker ?: And we will go to the court. [00:16:31] Speaker 2: And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. [00:16:36] Speaker ?: And we will go to the court. [00:16:37] Speaker 2: And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. [00:17:21] Speaker ?: And we will go to the court. [00:17:22] Speaker 2: And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. [00:17:30] Speaker ?: And we will go to the court. [00:17:31] Speaker 2: And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. And we will go to the court. What if we would have heard this? What if we would have heard that? What if we would have seen that? You are now speculating. You are 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. Any time 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 is 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 is 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, and the interest of the witness. By way of an example here, what we're talking about is look at Nancy Brophy's own testimony. First, what's her motive for testifying? 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, answered 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 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 2nd, when she spoke with the detectives. [00:24:07] Speaker 3: So this morning, did you wake up at the same time, or after him, or how'd that go? I didn't sleep well. [00:24:14] Speaker 4: And I don't know why I didn't sleep well, but I'm too bad to that age. So I woke up when he came up for a shower. So that would have been, eh, 6:50, 6:45. [00:24:27] Speaker 3: And you said because he was getting a shower, that's when you woke up? Okay. [00:24:31] Speaker 4: And he used to shower downstairs, but last week, you'll see stitches on his hand? I don't know which hand. Because last week in the shower, our shower door shutters. He's not having a good week. I don't know. [00:24:46] Speaker 3: When did you see him after that? Did you have breakfast with him? You know, I mean, what happened after that? [00:24:51] Speaker 4: I didn't get out of bed. [00:24:52] Speaker 3: Oh, you just kind of woke up and you were alert in bed? Right. [00:24:55] Speaker 4: Yeah, and we have -- our bedroom is an attic, was an attic, and so the bathroom's right here. And so, you know, he got dressed and left. [00:25:06] Speaker 3: Did he say -- did you guys talk before he left or anything like that? [00:25:10] Speaker 4: About the -- about the water leak. Oh. I discovered it yesterday when I was cleaning out from under the sink. And so he asked me where all the wet claws were in the sink, and that was when I remembered it. And so he went down to get -- he went down to get something to put under the sink so it was still leaking, that it wasn't -- you know, it wouldn't ruin it. Okay. [00:25:40] Speaker 3: And so then you think he left like around 7 or 10 maybe, something like that? 7 or 5, 7 or 10, yeah. 7 or 5, 7 or 10, yeah. 7 or 5, 7 or 10, okay. And then -- [00:25:49] Speaker 2: So, 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. Well, 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 then 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 to 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 already 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 on. 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 a murderer. 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. But why are they telling you that in 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 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 don't 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. 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, at every critical point in turn in this case, she 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 have memory issues because you can't commit that memory to long-term memory. And 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? Probably around the time of the text message that went unanswered. One, how is that trauma? It's not. And two, how are you getting your timeline? And then how does that mean you just forgot the past three hours? 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. Reisberg 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 Ms. 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 talked to Dr. Warford. 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 and 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 that have seen 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. And 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 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 dissociate to the degree that 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. They just didn't do any of the testing. So when we look at what's going on on June 2nd, see 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, be 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 on to 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 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 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 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. [00:37:24] Speaker ?: There 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 another map as well. [00:37:25] Speaker 2: But there's nowhere to go. There's no outlet. [00:37:27] Speaker ?: It's not really a dead end. There's no outlet. 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 to this map. There's no outlet. 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 things. There's nowhere to go. There's nowhere to go. There's no outlet. [00:37:41] Speaker 2: 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'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 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 heard 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 7:05 or 7:10. 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 head out 18th. And you'll see that on the video here momentarily. Now, one of the things you heard Nancy say is she's familiar with this area. There's no reason to think that she's lost. Since she's familiar with the Goose Hollow 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, like I said, the KGW video. And this is motion activated. So you'll see that she just pops. She just appears there at 7:03. 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 7:07. 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 at the Culinary Institute. And as you saw in that Affinity video, and again you'll be able to watch this 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 on to 17th. Because Dan would obviously see her there. So she continues around. Passes the 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. There she goes completing the roundabout. This is a PG camera that's very hard to see. It's far back. That camera's all the way back here. And it's looking this way up Columbia. But what you'll see is there she is driving down Columbia. 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 until the... Yeah. So, now that we should know she's in this area. Like I said, she's probably getting nervous. Dan's not there yet. Dan's not there yet. It's now 7:09. 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's Dan's 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 17th. Parking lot. Building. Remember Potluck in the Park? The 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. Now, 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 roll-up door. Navigate the building. Find Dan in the back room. And shoot him. Now, I'm sorry, are we moving on to the next video? 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'm sorry. I don't want to lose my place. Which slide are we going to? [00:46:29] Speaker 1: Not the video. It's the way out. Right, okay. [00:46:32] Speaker 2: So, at 7:28, you see Nancy Brophy. Nancy Brophy, as we said, and you've seen the video already. Of Nancy turning off a 17th onto 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, I guess, I don't want to jump too far, I'm sorry. Again, this is that exhibit that was created for you by Kelsey Gwe. Just to show you with the animation, one, this first vehicle, not involved. As I said, you can see the 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 17th 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 Borgerding. She not only remembers the phone call from Maxine Borgerding. She remembers what Maxine Borgerding told her. She tells the police what Maxine Borgerding told her. She told you about that conversation. Maxine Borgerding 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. 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 Borgerding 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, "You need to go downtown." And she says, "Oh, 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 was 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, or 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 is 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, that 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. Best told you that type of person is not somebody who stands idly by. They ask questions. [00:52:34] Speaker ?: What's going on? [00:52:35] Speaker 2: Where is he? Is he okay? Somebody tell me something. [00:52:41] Speaker ?: Nothing. [00:52:42] Speaker 2: Didn't ask a single question. Didn't ask anybody. Is Dan okay? Where is he? And why? She doesn't need that information. She already knows. She knows. She knows he's dead. She knows exactly where he is. She doesn't need that information. So 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, if 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. [00:54:32] Speaker ?: Not a suspect. [00:54:33] Speaker 2: 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. [00:54:47] Speaker 4: And so what does she say about that? [00:55:04] Speaker 2: 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 and 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 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. I figured. Now, does she need to burst out and cry? No. Everybody responds to trauma differently. You all probably individually respond differently. But, oh, I figured. That's it. And to her questions. Again, no questions until over 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? [00:56:50] Speaker ?: And that's it. [00:56:51] Speaker 2: The only other question she has was, was he shot with an AR-15? No indication as to 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 that's all she needed to know. Nancy is the only person who could have committed this crime. As you saw in 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. To 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 have 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 ten minutes to drive to work. Something that she also later experienced with the detectives when they drove back. That this was a ten 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. And 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, here in court, 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. Now, 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 say, 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 timeframe. But it certainly could have been a dry run. She doesn't go to the Culinary Institute at 7:30 in the morning. It 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, if 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 let 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. [01:02:21] Speaker ?: Yeah, I do. [01:02:23] Speaker 2: The custodian only comes in on Sunday. And as you saw, discussion of the alarm panel. Yeah, I do 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, when we're looking at what she would have seen when she comes in that roll-up door. Remember, we talked about the Culinary Institute. 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. Just to be clear, looking at the roll-up 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 this 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 head 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 and 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 his back to her and go back to what he was doing. There's no risk for Nancy disturbing Dan and having this go wrong. [01:04:58] Speaker ?: Okay. [01:05:02] Speaker 2: 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 knows 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 a 16th. I'm sorry, the 9th or the 16th. [01:05:54] Speaker ?: That's it. [01:05:55] Speaker 2: So why choose the 2nd? 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 a fluke or luck. [01:06:14] Speaker ?: It was intentional. [01:06:15] Speaker 2: It was all part of her 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 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 Dan? Is it physically possible? [01:06:45] Speaker ?: Yes. [01:06:48] Speaker 2: You have to think about what reasonable doubt means though. [01:06:51] Speaker ?: Reasonable. [01:06:52] Speaker 2: 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. [01:07:32] Speaker ?: Think about that. [01:07:33] Speaker 2: Had Dan just turned 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. [01:08:04] Speaker ?: Random person. [01:08:06] Speaker 2: 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 spend a great deal of time talking about a gentleman named Oscar Taylor. So is it Oscar Taylor? Well Oscar Taylor's in the area. [01:08:30] Speaker ?: Yeah. [01:08:32] Speaker 2: 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 decides to shoot Dan. 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 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 canning. 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 said, well, but this is a criminal. This guy, he, he commits robberies. So Detective Merrill says, well, yes, he has committed robberies before, never uses a gun. The type of robberies he commits is when he steals a candy and pushes the clerk. [01:10:35] Speaker ?: Robbery. [01:10:36] Speaker 2: 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. And 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. And 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 slide and barrel is put back on correctly? Should look like this. Slide and 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. [01:12:56] Speaker ?: It was heavy. [01:12:58] Speaker 2: It was ugly. She realized that they didn't want it. 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. [01:13:10] Speaker ?: This scary gun. [01:13:12] Speaker 2: 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. 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 slide and barrel off. Hold on. First time we're hearing about this. You didn't tell the police that you took the slide and barrel off. You didn't tell your friends that you've manipulated this gun for research or for whatever. Now you take the slide and barrel off? Well, yeah, of course. The 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 I didn't handle it," because that doesn't make any sense. So she has to come up with a story. "Oh, no, I did actually take off the slide and barrel." Now, one thing I'll give her, that's true. She did take off the slide and barrel. She took off the slide and barrel in order to put on the slide and 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 slide and barrels back, she makes a mistake. In her haste to get that original slide and barrel back on, she fails to fully seat the gun. And that's why it goes to the police that way. [01:14:50] Speaker ?: But again, it's a new story. [01:14:50] Speaker 2: So knowing Nancy has the capability of 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. [01:15:11] Speaker ?: Somebody who thinks things through. She talks about, Ms. Brophy talks herself about how she does research for her books. How she plans out whole books in her head. How she plans out whole books in her head. [01:15:12] Speaker 2: And how she does research for her books. How she plans out whole books in her head. How she does research for her books. How she does research for her books. How she does research for her books. How she plans out whole books in her head. [01:15:18] Speaker ?: But then she got on the stand and she took this position of, "I don't plan. [01:15:18] Speaker 2: I don't plan." [01:15:19] Speaker ?: 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. [01:15:21] Speaker 2: I don't plan things. Dan, I'm not a planner. [01:15:23] Speaker ?: I just roll with it." [01:15:24] Speaker 2: And then she got on the stand and she took this position of, "I don't plan. [01:15:28] Speaker ?: I don't plan things. [01:15:29] Speaker 2: Dan, I'm not a planner. I just roll with it." And she said, "I don't plan things. [01:15:32] Speaker ?: Dan, I'm not a planner. [01:15:33] Speaker 2: I just roll with it." And she said, "I don't plan things. Dan, I'm not a planner. I just roll with it." And she said, "I don't plan things. I don't plan things. Dan, I'm not a planner. [01:15:40] Speaker ?: I just roll with it." [01:15:41] Speaker 2: And she said, "I don't plan things. I don't plan things. Dan, 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 going to tell me somebody who's running a catering company doesn't plan? Don't plan for how much food you're going to need? Plan your staff? Plan the times? Plan everything you're going to need? 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. Do you want us to find a place to break? We can probably do that in a few minutes. Sure. [01:16:56] Speaker ?: Okay. [01:16:57] Speaker 1: Actually, probably now would be better. All right. Why don't we take our morning break and let's be back on the record at 5 after 11. [01:17:06] Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. Thank you.