Sincere thanks to Mr. Overstreet and everyone in law enforcement and the Prosecutor's office who have worked so hard for Dan Brophy.

That was the most brilliant and most powerfulest rebuttal argument I have ever heard. He just literally destroyed the whole defense. Great job Mr. Overstreet

I couldn’t turn away from this trial due to Overstreet’s brilliance and intolerance for BS. Masterful.

@mlee_wood3778

Жыл бұрын

I loved when he would play into her ego and then suddenly turn around and make her look like the idiot she is

Brilliant rebuttal by Mr. Overstreet. If I were on the defense team, I would have been so humiliated! He exposed them by proving over and over again how they lied their way through this trial. Just as he proved, Nancy Brophy lied about killing her husband. He simply stated the facts as proved by the evidence. All the defense team did was throw out "red herrings" and expected the jurors to believe them. Shame on them. Did they really believe the jurors would fall for their BS? The entire Prosecution team did an outstanding job.

@croach2194

Жыл бұрын

Is there no penalty for lawyers lying? Anyone know?

@susannormand7486

Жыл бұрын

@@croach2194 I don't know, but there definitely should be!

@concat9301

Жыл бұрын

@@croach2194 no, there whole job revolves around deceit and twisting the truth (depending on the position as defendant and/or prosecution respectfully

@MrAllysonn

Жыл бұрын

Yes yes!! I absolutely loved how he had del Miss Nicole on the stand. He was brilliantly done!

It was such a relief to see the prosecutor put his finger on why the defense attorney was so dodgy!

@WobblesandBean

4 ай бұрын

Did you watch her closing? God, she was insufferable! "Well maybe it was... actually I think it was like this....wait no, I meant..."

it's chilling to think that Dan saw her shooting him. i can't imagine how awful it would be to know someone you love is taking your life.

@iamskippy

Жыл бұрын

Exactly. The idea that _ANYONE_ could miss a human sized stationary target from six to 10 feet away … 😲 *I don’t own a gun and am not very coordinated… but I’m not sure anyone would miss 🎯 at that range.* _Even if she had a blindfold 🫣 you would think the first bang would do enough damage for her to be confident he wouldn’t have time to defend himself. If she or anyone else stood too close he might have turned and struggled._ 🤷🏼‍♂️

@tommymcdonnell6734

Жыл бұрын

@@iamskippy ,

@vernareed2692

Жыл бұрын

Wonder what nb said to Dan while she stood next to him,as she shot him??!! And as he fell facing her as she shot in the chest!!

@WobblesandBean

4 ай бұрын

​@@vernareed2692 Ugh, you just know she said SOMEthing, too. She never shuts up.

@gazXspace

16 күн бұрын

​@@vernareed2692 I doubt there was dialogue

Nathaniel is wearing Dan's bolo tie. The famous bolo tie with the huge turquoise medallion.

@daisyrafferty2204

2 жыл бұрын

He's lucky he has it..I don't think he got much else from his father's estate!

@sleuththewild

2 жыл бұрын

@@daisyrafferty2204 Nancy prolly dumped everything that belonged to Dan.

@dorishenderson499

2 жыл бұрын

See Nathaniel wearing Dan's bolo tie just made me cry. Dan would have wanted him to have so many of his treasures but I assume they was very little left after Nancy, her nieces and the coven of witches cleared out the house.

@WobblesandBean

4 ай бұрын

​@@dorishenderson499 Me too., 😭

@WobblesandBean

4 ай бұрын

​@@sleuththewild She certainly did. The first things to go were his beloved chickens. She didn't feed them or check on them, then she just got rid of them. I'm terrified to think where they went.

Shawn Overstreet’s rebuttal destroyed the arrogance of Nancy Brophy and her attorneys Lisa Maxfield and Kristen Winemiller.

The prosecutor's closing was a joy to watch. He delivered it with so much clarity and elegance. Nothing escapes him. The defence on the other hand...

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

I’m sure he had assistants listening to the closing defense argument noting the points which could be rebutted. Then, by getting it scheduled for the next morning, he had to time to prepare his remarks. It was a brilliant team effort.

@iamskippy

Жыл бұрын

I respect that they had to try to give her a good defense. *It’s not* _their fault_ *their client lied and covered up things that would obviously be exposed as lies later…* 🤷🏼‍♂️ I’m curious what other actual defense attorneys think they’d have done better or differently.

@dormiebasne3578

Жыл бұрын

He wrote the closing better than any of Nancy's books.

Dan’s son proudly wearing a bolo tie today….oh my heart😭❤️

@WobblesandBean

4 ай бұрын

I know 💔

@eilandwaynette

27 күн бұрын

Heartbreaking absolutely but also so honorable ° his father was no doubt smiling down from Heaven with extreme PRIDE and admiration at his one and only child ❤ i pray for Nathaniel and ALL those blessed enough to have known Chef Brophy 🙏 🙏 🙏

Excellent rebuttal. Mr. Overstreet did a masterful job prosecuting this absolutely wild case.

Overstreet is on fire!! Great rebuttal and no reading from notes. Kudos, sir!

@503Jessica

2 жыл бұрын

He looks like he's getting hives and can barely rebut.

@StellaFl

2 жыл бұрын

@@503Jessica I have a suspicion the jury will disagree with you :)

@WobblesandBean

4 ай бұрын

​@@StellaFl Lol this comment aged well

@StellaFl

4 ай бұрын

@@WobblesandBean 😁but why? He got her convicted, right?

This was masterful! Well done indeed, Mr. Overstreet!

Imagine being the supervisor who wrote the email to the juror, watching this livestream…major OOPS😅

@melodywilliams9124

Жыл бұрын

Exactly what I was thinking!

@TruCrimeQueen

Жыл бұрын

I missed that?!?!

@WobblesandBean

4 ай бұрын

​​​@@TruCrimeQueen 3:30 It's very early on. Her boss emailed her trying to get details of the case, going by contextual cues I think he was demanding case details as "proof" why she couldn't come back to work, and in doing so he got her in trouble. Sounds like a real conkwocket.

Bravo, Prosecutor! What an excellent rebuttal (NB looks defeated sitting there) because the prosecutors were "smarter" than NB! Thanks for rewriting NB's narrative - you unraveled all her storylines and lies. Justice for Dan❤

@tbull7879

2 жыл бұрын

Yes she looks very defeated.

I loved it when the desperate defense attorney tried to paint Overstreet as "aggressive" and irrationally arguing, "he has a gun." Those guns were unloaded and secured with zip ties as evidence to be used in court. What a low blow on her part. The Cramp deserved that defense team.

@Smokey66s

Жыл бұрын

One of the most imbecilic ignorant utterances in the history of jurisprudence! The only possible “ defense of the defense is that they realize they are incompetent, haven’t a clue what the hell they are doing and are setting up an appeal that Nancy Brophy can claim ineffective counsel. The two defense attorneys must be immune to embarrassment🤡🤡 as is Dr Strange Love, name dropper extraordinaire Patricia Warford.

@michelleharrison12

Жыл бұрын

I literally laughed out loud when she said that!😂😂 She was pathetic in her attempts to make him out to be the bad guy.

Brilliant rebuttal to the prosecutor he covered it all and laid it out very eloquently... Very smart man thank you... bless you 🙏😇💕

I love this prosecutor - very concise & spot on! JUSTICE FOR DAN!

I was sat punching the air and saying yes, yes throughout this rebuttal. Bloody brilliant. I loved some of the adjectives re the defence closing. Ridiculous, distracting, garbage 😆😂 Mr Overstreet, that’s the most satisfying close I’ve ever heard. The defence was ridiculous and it was so satisfying to hear someone brave enough to say it. So glad justice was achieved though I’ve not watched that part yet !

This lawyer is amazing. Reminds me of Camille Vasquez, but maybe even better. And it's ironic that they're both prosecuting the most ridiculous criminal who made their job easy without even knowing it, and yet they still knocked it out of the park just for good measure. Masterful performance.

If I'm not mistaken, the Culinary Institute closed down shortly after this happened. This woman ruined so many lives than just Dan's.

This prosecutor is Stellar!!!! Bravo young man

To watch and listen to a first rate legal mind like Mr. Overstreet's dismantle and defeat a lying murderer with her own lies is such a beautiful thing. Justice was served.⚖️

Top tier Prosecutor. He unraveled and cut down her lies with precision.

"Defense is clearly confused." 👍

Well done to the prosecution who rested ages ago. PLEASE GUILTY.

Excellent prosecutor, excellent closing. I was hoping he would add the recording of Nancy telling the cops about Dan having cut his hand on the broken shower door the day before the murder, “He’s had one bad week.” Or something similar. Ugh!

Excellent closing by prosecutor👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽

This guy is the epitome of organized. Amazing prosecutor and speaker.

After hearing Overstreet's rebuttal, I think that Nancy did exactly what she adamantly denied doing on cross. She DID park in front of OCI, out of view of the cameras. And she and Dan did say 'hello' to each other. She could do the job quicker that way than sneaking around. She'd just done the same thing several weeks prior, at the same time.

@hoppy6141

2 жыл бұрын

With water running, he may well have not heard her approach. Who knows? Only Nancy!

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

I think so, too. There was so little time, it would have worked best if he just let her in to use the rest room. She would then have left by the rollup door so as not to meet someone coming in.

@barbaragrove6097

2 жыл бұрын

@@GH-oi2jf You suggested it earlier, and I thought it was interesting.

@sleuththewild

Жыл бұрын

@Barbara Grove listening to this rebuttal now for the first time, I agree 100%. I never registered that she'd be this calculating, but of course she was. And yes, exactly 2 weeks prior, she got Dan to let her into OCI at the EXACT time she committed the crime. She pretended she had to use the rest room. I'll bet she timed it, so she'd know how long the murder would take.

@corlisslee7156

2 ай бұрын

I believe she was at OCI two weeks prior to the murder for more than 1 reason. Firstly, she wanted to confirm that there were no cameras. Secondly, she wanted to time how long it would take to commit the crime, and lastly, she wanted to have an excuse in case her DNA was found on the scene. I am so happy that Mr. Overstreet saw through all of her BS, and that the jury did as well!

@ Shawn Overstreet Fabulous , A+++ job.

Wow. That was a great rebuttal closing for Mr. Overstreet. You can tell that he, and his entire team, were so vested in getting justice for Dan Brophy and his family. Hopefully, Dan is now resting in peace or off doing a cooking class in some swanky part of heaven. Peace.

Beautiful closing argument from the prosecutor! Praying for just verdict! Justice for Dan Brophy! Also do not allow her to write book she could benefit from this murder...

@simaturna9765

2 жыл бұрын

@Mila I exactly agree with you

@trishbrennan9452

2 жыл бұрын

There are Son of Sam laws that prohibit criminals from profiting from books about their crimes but apparently some have been struck down for First Amendment rights. I’m ok with their telling their story, just not profiting from it.

@kayleiasierra2251

2 жыл бұрын

I said the same....No one found guilty of murderering should be allowed to benefit in any way whether SM, interviews, books/novels etc on the death or life of their victim.

@crackerdan8010

Жыл бұрын

Well she didn't benefit from any of her other books kzread.info/dash/bejne/rHecyqqQYpjAkso.html

I only hope that the jury is composed of intelligent and rational people that will deliver a swift guilty verdict to NB and justice to Dan's family.

Mr Overstreet barely even referred to his notes. He is brilliant, prepared, and on the side of truth ❤

Good job Overstreet 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾

Absolutely brilliant and masterful prosecutor.

NB helped the state win this case . I believe if she didn’t testify it would of been a hung jury or not guilty. But after she testified I knew she was guilty

I thought the rebuttal was excellent! Better than the closing argument.

The defense closing was a disaster.

@user-vr6io5xb9e

2 жыл бұрын

It’s a word salad as usual

@barbiekat6352

2 жыл бұрын

It was also deliberately unethical!

@barbaragrove6097

2 жыл бұрын

@@barbiekat6352 Right. How is that OK?

Why was it 2nd degree murder when she so obviously planned it? Overstreet's rebuttal was exactly what a rebuttal should be.

Wow, Prosecutor Overstreet just crushed the defense with that rebuttal.

Great job Mr Overstreet, I hope the jury see through all the smoke n mirrors.

A book she will write. The Wrong Defense. But how to publish it?

@NLHester

2 жыл бұрын

If it is Non-Fiction I'm going to buy it

@michaeladragon

2 жыл бұрын

@@NLHester but her entire story is fiction. A new genre "Fiction - forgotten"

@NLHester

2 жыл бұрын

Non-Fiction with all the details etc. If she is truly smart (Iwishful thinking) she can make a fortune and be infamous too.

@kayleiasierra2251

2 жыл бұрын

Actions of a narcissist. Will never support a murderer benefiting, & gloating about their victim's death. A book of lies of a narcissist. Inhumane

@IzzyMariel

2 жыл бұрын

If she's found guilty, she can't write a book. Oregon has a slayer statute.

Ya know, we got a lot of our points in in Overstreet's closing argument rebuttal! I'm listening to it for the first time now, and we scored! In our discussions, we highlighted so many points, and they were talking points in this rebuttal! I would guess the prosecution team used our comments to gauge how a jury might respond, and what might stand out for them. Almost all the "red herrings" were items we said were confusing (e.g. the waffle iron); Overstreet was heading off these items as "reasonable doubt". Brilliant. Of course, Defense likely picked up our confusion too, and made sure to try to bake it in during their closing, predicting the jury would respond as we did. Big fail. Then, there was the guy who was canning, and we mentioned repeatedly how abhorrent it was to make him a perp and how a majority of PDXers would likely be offended. There were several specific points posters mentioned, including a homeless guy would never be carrying a Glock, and how absurd the cabernet and candle detail was. Overstreet really worked how the jury would be offended at the stereotyping. I tell ya, for their case, we became mock jurors to prepare the real jurors for deliberations. We also discussed how the bunkie wasn't needed to prove the case and what a sympathetic character she was. Prosecution got this, too. This was very gratifying. I have a feeling our discussion really helped this case along.

@PinkyakaAyannaj

Ай бұрын

I know I'm late to the discussion but I wanted to say thanks for your summary. Very interesting I believe that the defense used these comments to write that horrible closing. I also believe that the State used the comments as a road map. This was a very intriguing trial. Needless to say Nancy wrote herself into a guilty verdict....but I'll say it anyway...Nancy wrote herself into a life of Tasters Choice and lukewarm showers. No more baths and Starbucks for the famous romance writer.

Verdict reached! In court at 11:40 am.

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

That is a quick verdict, all things considered.

@arwenfarrey

2 жыл бұрын

@@GH-oi2jf I agree. I think if it was hung, the judge would have sent them back to deliberate more so we’ll see.

He was so good as the prosecutor! This ending argument left me riveted for an hour+. Great job getting some measure of justice for Dan and his family! Nancy is an evil witch.

That sir was very well done !

Ms. Overstreet, we are very proud of you and your team. Great job, sir. Coverup and deception will always get you.

She’s taking so many notes. I bet a book is forthcoming. She probably won’t get it published if the past is an indicator.

@simaturna9765

2 жыл бұрын

@Jody Darby I hope not and when one is not guilty no need to take notes

@jodydarby

2 жыл бұрын

@@simaturna9765 Exactly. She’s trying to keep up with all of the lies. I’m surprised the jury is taking this long.

@sleuththewild

2 жыл бұрын

Nancy is seriously handicapped when it comes to writing a book for the simple reason that she's not a writer. She thinks she is. She styles herself as a writer. But writers actually write: Nancy has done very little of this in her life. In fact, she says she writes complete books in her head. That's not writing. Writing entails commitment to the page in front of you, not some kind of game that's all in your head. Nancy once had an essay published in 2005; that's it. All the rest is vanity publishing. Writers check for grammar, clean up typos, tidy up non sequiturs. Not Nancy, even though these days, all it takes is Grammarly and a spell checker. And if you've ever read her sloppy "professional" website and her breezy Amazon self-bio, it's obvious she's no contributor to the literary scene. I will reiterate what I've said before: almost every commenter in these forums on the live trial has greater writing skill than Nancy. The "writer" role is another of Nancy's self-aggrandizing, self-serving fantasies about herself. And it gave her the opportunity to manipulate people for decades. (And not do anything to bring money in, either, 'cos, well, she was "writing".)

@debbiejones4935

9 ай бұрын

She'll call it "The Wrong Verdict"

@Froghorn_

5 ай бұрын

😂

I say guilty as he11.

I read NB was doing illegal stuff in jail during trial, is this true ?

Wow! What a stellar rebuttal by Attorney Overstreet. Based on 100% facts, unlike the twisted tale that the defense spun. I didn’t think his closing argument could be out done, but it was in this rebuttal. Congratulations to your entire team and staff that took the time, efforts, and countless hours to bring the truth to the jurors. Nancy doesn’t deserve to carry the Brophy name. I hope the look of disbelief on Dan’s face, as he realized that the person he loved and trusted blew his life away, haunts her until she breaths her last breath. Of course it won’t, but I still hope that it will. RIP Chef Daniel Brophy. My heart goes out to you and your family and the many, many friends that lost you on that unspeakable day. Enjoy your retirement Nancy. Now you can lay in bed all day and do absolutely nothing. You’ll get your three square, carbohydrate ladened meals a day. You won’t have to cook for yourself, do your own laundry, or worry about those stupid blackberry bushes ever again.

Is it just me, or does anyone else find Ms Maxfield’s practice of standing, and addressing the trial judge with her hands in her trouser pockets disrespectful? I’m in the U.K., and that would not be tolerated here. It looks so unprofessional, and rude.

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

I think it’s nothing. The judge doesn’t seem to care.

@GrizzlyUrsusArctos

2 жыл бұрын

I find a lot of her mannerisms during trial inappropriate and unprofessional. It’s not just you.

@shamukek4805

2 жыл бұрын

The only thing Professional to me is her Suit and Pants get up.. otherwise.. the endless, useless, Bantering, and Babbling goes on and on.. she clearly loves to hear herself talk. Just like her client..smartest women in the room..so they think

@wessexwench6974

2 жыл бұрын

@@shamukek4805 Yes, I was glad to see the judge call her out as a witness left the stand, and she said ‘I was hoping you’d say that Nancy lit up Dan’s life’ - a comment she had obviously made to the defence team prior to testifying. It inserted that comment into the jury pool, despite never being said under oath by the witness. That’s playing dirty. (Defence - that’s how we spell it in the U.K., just so nobody thinks I’m illiterate! 🙂)

@markschindler172

10 ай бұрын

@wessexwench6974 I mentioned that at the beginning , watching Maxfield with what looked like a beer gut hanging over her belt ( at least Overstreet buttoned up his suit coat) and having her address the judge with her hands in her pockets , I thought how unprofessional is that? I was waiting for her to belch or rearrange her crotch while speaking . I believe a jury can be swayed by the appearance and delivery of an atty . There was NO CHANCE this was an option or a hope when it came to both Maxfield and Winemiller. I was waiting for an objection from defense during rebuttal. I guess you can’t defend against the truth. This may be a stupid question but do these attty ( NB’s) think she is innocent or are the just hired to be clever enough to get her off and there goal is to do so?

Prosecution caught the red herrings and gave it to the jury he did a great job. I predict guilty verdict by 3 pm Pacific time

@workingmemory

2 жыл бұрын

I agree 3pm pacific sounds right on! They'll deliberate a bit until lunch break from 12-1:30, come back and take a vote and take care of the paperwork. Over and done by the end of business day.

@barbaragrove6097

2 жыл бұрын

@@workingmemory unless there's one person who thinks they have reasonable doubt . . . concerns me . . .

@workingmemory

2 жыл бұрын

@@barbaragrove6097 I think prosecution did a good job of explaining the difference between "reasonable doubt" and "any doubt" but yeah, you never know.

@barbaragrove6097

2 жыл бұрын

@@workingmemory got some reasonable doubters commenting now

@starrlove2060

2 жыл бұрын

I think by lunch time on wed just to make it look good.

The last 2 days of this trial is the only time I have heard clearly and not muffled blah blah blah. No one ever pulled the microphone to them to talk not the lawyers on either side not the judge and not the witness nor were they instructed to.

If you see a stream with the verdict watch, could you please post here?

@bluovalgal

2 жыл бұрын

@@bunnyonly8816 There's Law&Crime Network, but they don't seem to be carrying this particular trial, which is a shame.

@sleuththewild

2 жыл бұрын

@@bunnyonly8816 Websleuths...by far the best place.

Are we on verdict watch here? Or are comments in a different location?

Guilty AF

@barbaragrove6097

2 жыл бұрын

to infinity and beyond

The prosecution did a phenomenal job. The case was as he said a complex puzzle and Mr. Overstreet an team not only had to breakdown the case details for the jury, he had to do so while trying to work around the defense desperately trying to throw in and distract as he put it, tossing in the kitchen sink for the majority of the trial .... while trying to keep up with the defendant, backed up by her counsel, the inconsistent stories and lies. I've read the defense attorneys are respected in their community. If that's true, this case couldn't have done much for there credibility. In my opinion they looked at ridiculous as Nancy Brophy did. While I realize we all have rights in this country, she was so clearly guilty, the mounds of evidence was overwhelming, if they took the case , they had no choice but to try and distract. Why a reputable attorney(s) would take a case with these circumstances I don't know. The three of them just look like the three stooges. It's not a laughing matter, although they seemed it was, she executed her husband a man who clearly was adored in his community, and did it thinking she would get away with it, and did it for money. As the mother of the victim said she doesn't know what her life will be like, but imagine it wouldn't be pleasant. For Nancy Brophy I certainly agree.

Somehow I missed this trial but if I had been the defense during the prosecution’s closing I would have been thinking …. “We Are So Sunk!! “ Yes you where… And she didn’t plan this murder out At All!!!

The way that Nancy Narcissist used to say ‘Mr Overstreet’ like she’s superior when she was on the stand…. Well welcome to rebuttal by Mr Overstreet… Chin up Nancy.

I wish we could see the defense table during this!

5:25 the juror’s supervisor joked about Carol Baskin 😅

I'm sure Nancy's attorney asked her not to take the stand. Huge mistake! Her "Memory Hole" just put her in the hole for life.

Now we wait ….

@kayleiasierra2251

2 жыл бұрын

Hope it's not a hung jury. I sure won't watch the next trial if so. One of the worse trials ever esp when it comes to the defense attys. Imo

The script Nancy wrote for this trial is a fail, although a best seller for a guilty verdict. Great rebuttal. Her lawyers were the worst I’ve ever seen. So many “red herrings”

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

The defense lawyers didn’t have any way to counter the incriminating facts.

Has there been a verdict? I see no verdict watch posted. Are they done for the day?

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

No verdict Tuesday.

Overstreet manages to have almost a folksy presentation, very effective, considering he's wearing a suit and tie, and must convey a lotta technical, legal information. Keeps the jury engaged. Well done.

Dang can we get s update or something

Can we also please give mr Overstreet some credit for his ability to rotate around his own hand at 24:35

@RachHerexD

9 ай бұрын

Perfect. Great spot hahaa.

@markschindler172

9 ай бұрын

Lol looked like a Michael Jackson dance move .

Guilty!!!!!

"What's suspicious about them; they're walking?"

Would have been nice to have a verdict watch

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

What does that even mean? The jury deliberates in private. There is nothing to do but wait. If you want to keep discussing the case, you can do it here.

@user-bc2jy7cp9g

2 жыл бұрын

@@GH-oi2jf do you watch trials on a regular bases? If you did you would understand

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-bc2jy7cp9g - I’ve served on a few juries and watched a few trials in addition, so I know how the process works. There is nothing to do now but wait for the verdict, or to chat about the possibilities if you are so inclined.

@sleuththewild

2 жыл бұрын

I think you’re not understanding “verdict watch”, no matter you’ve been on juries or watched trials.

Guilty!!!! I see LIVE.

I liked the bit Mr. Overstreet pointed out the defence tried to accuse Oscar as being the murderer. He just happened to know his way around the OCI and had the exact same gun as NB and only stole 1 bottle of wine and a candle. I think if it was him he would have 'filled his boots' with goodies and gone off to drink himself into oblivion. Nice try though!!

@catsfromjapan

2 жыл бұрын

I can't believe that the Defense wants us to believe that a person collecting cans (for 10 cents redemption each) would leave cash, phone, wallet behind in order to return to canning (presuming that the purpose of canning is to redeem them for money), but that they would snake their way through a confusing building in order to snag a bottle of wine on the way out. I hope he had his own corkscrew!

@mihaelameyer1297

2 жыл бұрын

What a disgracece

@starrlove2060

2 жыл бұрын

That blame it on the homeless black man didn't work this time

No verdict yet.

This Judge is super pro Defence - he is also painfully slow

@Gambler77713

2 жыл бұрын

I'd much rather have a Judge whose more cautious. Then one who isn't and has his case thrown out on appeal.

@elainefinn1641

2 жыл бұрын

Oh, yes it was so painful to watch this,I was also watching a murder trial in Georgia and they are finished and started after Nancy’s trial!

@user-bc2jy7cp9g

2 жыл бұрын

Yes he was He was kissing a murderous ass Even asking if she would like to sit in if a question is asked What was that???

@shopmycloset4273

2 жыл бұрын

@@elainefinn1641 each case and trial has its own timing some trials are longer then this.

@elainefinn1641

2 жыл бұрын

@@shopmycloset4273 Yes, but this is the worst trial I have watched they were never on time and the poor jury was like a jack in the box going in and out,I feel the defense was purposely slowing this trial down. The Judge was slow and did a lot of overthinking.

whens the sentencing

I fell in love with this prosecutor before I even saw how handsome he was - it was just from listening to his voice during cross ❤️

@heathernikki5734

7 ай бұрын

Same lol

The know it all imo didn’t factor surveillance into her murder plot.I don’t believe in coincidence.

1:40 Interrupting the judge, great strategy Ms Defense 🙄

Anyone guess how long jury will be out? I say less than 2 with lunch included.

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

Less than two what? If they ask to stay late, they will have the verdict tonight. Otherwise tomorrow (Thursday) morning.

@barbaragrove6097

2 жыл бұрын

@@GH-oi2jf Do you think it'll be GUILTY?

@moiragreen5850

2 жыл бұрын

They have been out 24 as of now

She bought the gun with an extra slide and she used that lost slide to murder Dan

@ddeuerme

2 жыл бұрын

I don’t think she waited until she got home to remove that slide. I think she stopped somewhere along the way to remove the used slide and tossed it at a Starbucks.

How can Nancy afford to pay all those lawyers?

@melissarobins7073

Жыл бұрын

sold their house

@KatJ3st

Жыл бұрын

@Melissa Robins I guess they got first dibs before her dead husband's family sue her for the rest.

@leapinglaura7343

4 ай бұрын

Maybe she paid them in Starbucks coupons.

No verdict yet...this makes me nervous.

@barbaragrove6097

2 жыл бұрын

I was nervous before it went to the jury.

@diedreware2412

2 жыл бұрын

Really, Barbara? I felt confident that within a few hours or first thing this morning that we would have a verdict - yikes! I wished the state would have mentioned that she didn't need to buy a gun to incorporate it in her story - she could have researched like most writers - and the description and parts (by name) would be listed - so that in itself explains why she wanted the "actual" gun - to commit murder. I have seen trials that seem to be a slam-dunk, but it goes the other way. I hope Dan's family finds some closure today with a guilty verdict❤

@barbaragrove6097

2 жыл бұрын

@@diedreware2412 She's guilty imo but no telling what the verdict will be. That's what makes me nervous. It needs to come back GUILTY, but it may not.

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

Perhaps you have never been on a jury. When the job is done properly, it takes some time just to work through the materials. Have you ever been on a committee with about a dozen members? How efficient was it? If they have a good foreman who can organize the process efficiently, I can see them returning a verdict this (Wednesday) evening, but in any case by Thursday noon. If they get to the weekend without a verdict, then they probably have a difficult juror.

@diedreware2412

2 жыл бұрын

@@GH-oi2jf I have been on a jury - sometimes it takes hours and sometimes not. And I understand and agree with you about the seriousness of court practices.

Do you need a number to go drinking? Why do they have bar numbers?

This judge is awful

@markschindler172

11 ай бұрын

Prob associated with the defense yahooos in some way or another .

@leapinglaura7343

6 ай бұрын

He's such a ninny!

If there are less than 10 votes not guilty is it a mistrial and has to be repeated? The judge said there had to be at least 10 to be not guilty and 12 for guilty .Does anyone know? This seems confusing. I hope we get 12 guilty.

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

Not necessarily. If there are zero “not guilty” votes, that would not be a mistrial.

Does anyone know what she gets when she’s found guilty?

@barbaragrove6097

2 жыл бұрын

If she's not found guilty does she get the money she killed Dan for?

@user-bc2jy7cp9g

2 жыл бұрын

@@barbaragrove6097 yes she does. All of it. I just can’t see her not found guilty

@barbaragrove6097

2 жыл бұрын

@Clem Fandango Why not the insurance?

@sleuththewild

2 жыл бұрын

@@barbaragrove6097 I think it's unlikely Nancy will get the insurance money. The insurance companies can file a civil suit for wrongful death. Same as Nathaniel.

@user-bc2jy7cp9g

2 жыл бұрын

@@sleuththewild guess it would be in litigation for years. But seriously where’s the slide!!!! She murdered Dan

Start 18:00

Poor husband when he shot in the back I bet he thought I hope my wife is safe ( unless she said something an he know it was her shooting him)

@crackerdan8010

Жыл бұрын

He was alive on his back when she shot him in the chest. He was looking at her

@jborrego2406

Жыл бұрын

@@crackerdan8010 oh :(

Brilliant rebuttal by the state. However, Mr Overstreet needs a better fitting suit

@devon6482

Жыл бұрын

You see that a lot with attorneys for some reason !

I hate this case, it has the longest discussions pre trial, blah blah blah

With juries so unpredictable these days even with the evidence overwhelming against Nancy in this case, I wouldn't be surprised with a hung jury or even a not guilty verdict. The prosecutor did a good job today. His closing arguments yesterday was rather confused and disjointed.

@barbaragrove6097

2 жыл бұрын

circumstantial evidence is problematic for some people, they don't know how to work it.

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

@Clem Fandango - The Malheur Refuge case? There were other factors in that case that made it unusual.

@barbaragrove6097

2 жыл бұрын

@GoinRogue and lack basic critical thinking skills

@kar6328

2 жыл бұрын

Most convictions have relied on circumstantial evidence, which is useful and valid.

I must be the only person out here who believes she's not guilty. I watched every minute of the trial with my husband, we're recently retired, not really knowing anything about this case. We both thought the defense did a stellar job, the prosecution not so much. Then I found all the comments on KZread and realized we are severely in the minority. We discussed how our opinion varies so greatly from everyone else maybe we are ignorant. Lol 😆 🤣🤣🤣 It will be interesting to hear the verdict. Now I have to find a new trial for us to follow!! 🙃

@Dawn_sunflower

2 жыл бұрын

I actually agree that I don't feel the state proved her guilt.

@lisasmith7

2 жыл бұрын

I agree with you.

@kabbystevens5167

2 жыл бұрын

It is interesting how different results can come from viewers. I found the trial of the pilot charged with murder (Kit was his name)…obviously not guilty, no doubt…prosecutor did not prove case. I was FLOORED, when the pilot was found guilty. Curious to see how this jury finds.

@lisasmith7

2 жыл бұрын

@@kabbystevens5167 Agreed.

@AK-47.762

2 жыл бұрын

You have to be joking. Every single piece of evidence points to her guilt. There's no one in the world who wanted Dan dead except that animal. Did you not hear about her book called how to murder your husband? There's absolutely no evidence to prove that she didn't slaughter Dan. It's totally opposite. No one would know how to navigate that building except Nancy.

This prosecuted is a lier all the way.

@markschindler172

5 ай бұрын

Nancy quit being a sore loser . You are guilty .

@markschindler172

5 ай бұрын

Not a liar when relying on “ Real Evidence” .

Not guilty.🙏🏻

I don't believe the Prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. She may have done it. I just don't believe they proved it to the level that is needed in US courts. I watched the entire trial. I couldn't convict her.

@hoppy6141

2 жыл бұрын

What’s your reasonable doubt?

@lisasmith7

2 жыл бұрын

@@hoppy6141 I believe there was ample opportunity for another person to go into the school and shoot him. They didn't prove to me she was the only person who could have. They can't put her inside the school.

@AK-47.762

2 жыл бұрын

Every ounce of evidence pointed to that animal. So miraculously the slide and barrel just disappeared? Absolutely not. She got rid of it cuz it weeks off tied her to the murder. The only important piece is missing.

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

For reasonable doubt, there needs to be a reasonable explanation of how some other person would get into OCI, shoot Dan, and get out in a short window of time. I’d like to hear your scenario.

@cynthiameyer3255

2 жыл бұрын

You cannot convict her ? She has fooled you too & the Dan all the family &all her friends. wow.

Not guilty. Not enough concrete evidence. I think her lawyers covered it well.

@GH-oi2jf

2 жыл бұрын

They don’t need concrete evidence, they need incriminating evidence. There is plenty of that.

@sleuththewild

2 жыл бұрын

Bot

@IzzyMariel

2 жыл бұрын

Must be the first trial you've ever watched. Concrete evidence isn't a thing

@CR10.07

2 жыл бұрын

@@IzzyMariel hahahaha. Good one

@IzzyMariel

2 жыл бұрын

​@@CR10.07 that's for sure. When there is concrete evidence there's a plea deal and no trial.