Daniel Brophy - 612
01:09:19 Share

Wondery Plus subscribers can listen to Generation Y ad-free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app or Apple Podcasts.

Right.

Rakuten is the smartest way to save money when you shop because you earn cash back at over 3,500 stores, fashion, beauty, electronics, home essentials, travel, dining, concert tickets, and even more. Your favorite stores like Ulta, Walmart, or even Lowe's pay Rakuten to send them shoppers, and Rakuten then passes on a part of that payment to its members as cash back.

I know I get a lot of my groceries and home essentials from Walmart, and I've saved like $20 in cash back already. Cash back is deposited directly into your PayPal account, or Rakuten can send you a check. You can even maximize your savings by stacking cash back on top of deals like store sales and coupons. You're already shopping at your favorite stores. Why not save while you're doing it? It's a no-brainer. Membership is free, and it's easy to sign up.

Get the Rakuten app now and join the 17 million members who are already saving. Cashback rates change daily. See Rakuten.com for details. That's Rakuten, R-A-K-U-T-E-N. Your cashback really adds up. It's a matter of saving.

How are you doing tonight, Aaron? I'm doing good, Justin. But how are you? I'm doing all right. For anyone that's in Albuquerque, New Mexico, or is planning on traveling there, I will be there March 15th at the Beyond Crime Convention. If you go out to beyondcrimeconvention.com, get your tickets. Tickets are really inexpensive here. They start at $35 and go up to $65. So, you know, that's like giving them away. Please

Please check it out, beyondcrimeconvention.com, and I'll see you there. Also, I'm going to be at AdvocacyCon. That's going to be in Indianapolis, Indiana, March 28th through the 30th. So check out advocacycon.com and use code GENY10. All right, Aaron, we're going on a cruise.

Exhibit C is going to do a true crime cruise. It's happening January 26th through the 30th, 2026. It's leaving out of Miami, Florida to Nassau in the Bahamas. Wondery's exclusive voyage offers fans unprecedented access to their favorite podcast hosts, true crime experts, and interactive workshops. Oh.

But make sure you sign up for the presale before March 3rd to secure your spot and get the best choice of cabin. Go to ExhibitCCruise.com for all the details. But if you're a Wondery Plus subscriber and you're listening to us on Wondery Plus right now, you can get special perks on board. Wow. So go out to ExhibitCCruise.com and sign up today.

Now, Aaron, you know, I don't like conspiracies. I don't like all the stuff I see online where people just call anything and everything a conspiracy. And for a while, we had these large, what looked like military-style drones flying around New Jersey. And the conspiracies went from Iranian military drones to aliens.

Well, come on. Aliens, right? We all see that guy in our head that was on the History Channel. I'm not saying it was aliens, but it was aliens. And everybody was talking about this for, I don't know, about a week on the internet, because that's how long their attention spans are. If this actually was an alien invasion or another country invading us, I'm a little saddened that it only got a week's worth of conspiracy theorists talking about it.

But the White House just put out that they were flown by the FAA.

That's kind of boring though, Justin. That's not aliens. And of course, that doesn't go viral. That doesn't get reported on everywhere. And then I'm wondering if people are going to be mad that either A, the previous administration didn't say that, or B, that the current administration is covering something up. However they're going to spin it, I don't even know. And I just look at this and go, yeah, they were drones that were being flown. They were large. They were not

available to the public. They were mostly flown at night along shorelines, and I personally thought that they were belonging to a private company that didn't want to bother people. They flew them at night along shorelines, so that's sort of away from most neighborhoods and whatnot, and a safe distance, so if they did crash, they wouldn't land on somebody. But apparently it was approved by the FAA. Not sure who was actually flying them, but yeah.

Nothing to see here as usual. But some people believe that it was a way to divert attention from a guy named Luigi. Well, Luigi won that battle because we're still talking about him when we're not talking about the drones. Yeah, I don't know if I'm just not paying enough attention or what, but I haven't really seen anything on Luigi in a while. But he had dominated the news for a number of days. Feels like it's kind of slipped away. Maybe by design? I don't know.

I just know that we had gotten some messages and emails about Luigi and man, it really brought a lot of passion up. People were really on one side or the other. And it seemed like from what we got, most people were on Luigi's side, even if they couldn't fully get behind exactly what he did. It was more of the, hey, I get it. So anyways, we have an interesting case tonight.

I always sort of chuckle, Aaron, when a rapper raps about a crime he's committed and then gets caught. I always chuckle when I see somebody on social media making a video of them doing something illegal and then they post it to social media or YouTube or something and they get caught. So that's sort of the theme we're going with tonight. So what are we talking about?

Yeah, tonight we're talking about the murder of Daniel Craig Brophy in Portland, Oregon on June 2nd, 2018. And interestingly enough, his wife was an amateur romance novelist. Her name was Nancy Brophy. And at some point she wrote a blog post titled How to Murder Your Husband.

Now, before we get rolling here, how many times, Justin, have you been at a meetup or at a crime con or wherever and you hear from somebody, I know so much, my husband or slash wife really is worried that I could get away with murder.

It's a conversation that people have, you know, how to get away with the perfect murder, or I know enough where I could clean up the evidence. But it's always a joke. It's always, you know, in jest. It's never a serious conversation. And if you do see an article like that out there, it's usually just that. I don't know if it's appropriate or not, but people have those conversations all the time.

Haven't they asked you, do you think you could get away with murder? Well, my answer is because I know the way the system works. You just hit them with your car and then say it was an accident.

Yeah. And you know what? You have one of the best answers I've ever heard. I always just answer, there's no way to account for everything. And so if you're planning a murder that involves a knife or a gun, you're going to leave evidence behind in some way that you can't even think about. They could catch you. It really comes down to the detectives. And we cover great detectives on our show. And sometimes we cover people who, you know, they get tunnel vision or they're just a little too green. But.

You're right. I think most of the time these conversations are just, wow, I spent a lot of time thinking about murder. How much do I know? Well, let's get into this case and talk about who Daniel Craig Brophy and Nancy Brophy were. Right off the bat, as you would say, Justin, this man's name is Daniel Craig Brophy. I'm immediately thinking about James Bond now.

Daniel Craig was born to Karen and Jack Brophy June 27th, 1954 in Valley City, North Dakota. He was the oldest of three sons, and though his parents tried, he never mastered the art of organization, I guess. His parents could tell where Dan had been because of the debris left in his wake. Sounds like me, really. He was very handy and liked to work with tools.

But Jack stated he was interested in tools, but he spent his life looking for them. It sounds like he has ADHD. I'm loving Daniel. Karen described him as a bookworm. Even as a child, she said, you rarely saw Dan without a book. He was studious and rather reserved.

As he grew into adulthood, he loved to cook and garden, and he particularly liked to mushroom hunt. And he earned a degree in marine biology, but his passion for cooking turned into a lifelong career spanning more than 40 years. And I guess he started as a dishwasher in Kansas City, Aaron. Didn't we start that way too? Well, that's how we met, and that's really where this show came from, you could say.

But I'm still caught up on this, how he earned a degree in marine biology, but his love of cooking is really what took him into his real career. And I'm sure a lot of people out there can relate to that, where you think, okay, this is what I'm going to do for my career. And then the other thing that you are passionate about, which probably should have been your career, you didn't think of as a career. It was more like a hobby or you do it for the love of it. And then

Pretty soon you find, no, that's what you were meant to do.

I just assumed that all of us wanted to be a marine biologist at some point in our lives. So Dan, he started, well, he got a job cooking at an overnight 24-hour restaurant. I'm assuming Waffle House or something amazing like that. He enrolled in culinary school and trained under very strict chefs who could be very harsh. You just said something about Waffle House. And, you know, sometimes in the past you mentioned places people don't know what you mean.

So aren't you someone that's been to a few Waffle Houses in your life? Yes, I've been to Awful House. I mean, Waffle House. You don't pick fights with the employees there. They know how to fight. No, Waffle House is an American staple. And if you have any friends that are visiting from overseas, that's where you take them. You take them to a Waffle House. It is absolutely...

As American as you can get, FEMA and other natural disaster agencies use Waffle House as sort of a guide of how bad a hurricane or something is, some natural disaster is, by how often they're closing their restaurants. Because Waffle House doesn't close, Aaron. They keep going.

So there's a lot to love about Waffle House. Not a sponsor, by the way. Not at all. So Dan was hired as an instructor when the Oregon Culinary Institute opened in 2006, and he was employed there for 12 years until June of 2018. He was well-known in the Oregon culinary scene. He was loved by his many students. He took the class on field trips to harvest fresh vegetables and discussed different foods you can find in nature, like...

like wild mushrooms, one of the things he loved. His students learned about honey from his hobby of beekeeping. It's said that Dan carried some of that old school training into his instruction style. Think about Gordon Ramsay. Some found him difficult to get along with, but once they got to know him, they realized that he was very generous and kind. And I feel like this is a chef thing. I think the

The Gordon Ramsay shows really embody that kind of, it's like this almost military style yet you're sort of trying to break someone down and then build them back up.

He was known for his quirkiness and dry sense of humor. His friends and students talked of brophyisms like, how do you fix a stiff chicken? With a shovel. Or you can eat an exotic mushroom once. So, you know, a stiff chicken, you just got to bury it. There's no fixing that. But he was very dedicated to his community and helped out anywhere he could.

In the early 1990s, Dan met a culinary student named Nancy Crampton. Now, he was married at the time, but a friend of Nancy's recalled her saying, it won't last. Dan was married to Perla Stillwater, and they had a son together named Nathaniel. Now, when Nathaniel was about 13 years old, his parents divorced, and he stayed with his mother.

Now, Nancy and Dan were friends, but this relationship turned intimate after Dan's divorce. They dated for a few years, and then they got married in 1997. And Dan and Nathaniel, they were estranged after his divorce from Nathaniel's mother until about the time Nathaniel turned 21 years old. As for Dan and Nancy, they never had kids together.

I just wonder that comment Nancy made, it won't last. It's just like, ooh, is that I'm going to get him? Or is it I don't think I don't have any respect for their marriage? I don't know. It's just a foreboding comment that she would make like that. Having an elevated style doesn't mean you have to break your bank.

With Quince, I can get high-end, versatile pieces at prices I can actually afford that sync with my vibe and my wallet. Quince has must-haves like Mongolian cashmere sweaters for $50, iconic 100% leather jackets, and comfortable pants for every occasion. I myself own one of those pairs of pants. Very nice.

The best part, Quince items are priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands by partnering directly with top factories. Quince can cut out the cost of the middleman and pass the savings on to us. Also, Quince only works with factories that are safe, ethical, with responsible manufacturing practices, along with premium fabrics and finishes. We love them all.

My personal favorite is their home and bedding section. I love their duvet covers. They're some of the top quality ones I've ever had, and they're so soft. So indulge in affordable luxury. Go to quince.com slash gen y for free shipping on all your orders and 365-day returns. That's quince, q-u-i-n-c-e dot com slash gen y to get free shipping and 365-day returns. quince.com slash gen y.

Don't miss the Hulu original docuseries, Devil in the Family, The Follow Ruby Frankie. My wife created a YouTube channel. Thumbs up, subscribe. But only what we wanted to show. I'm stupid! A three-part series event. She said the children were demonically possessed. Get out! That blew the powder keg. Ruby crossed the line to psychotic. Nine, I'm on emergency. Open the door! Oh, she's sleeping.

Hulu's Devil in the Family, The Fall of Ruby Frankie. All episodes now streaming on Hulu. Daniel settled into his culinary career and often worked multiple jobs instructing and cooking.

Recently, Dan worked with Tanya Medlin, Nancy's best friend of 30 years, at an assisted living facility. Tanya created the facility's menu and Dan cooked for the residents anytime they needed help. So this is, you have a professional chef coming in and cooking really good meals for a nursing home. Like this is, this is some good stuff, right? I mean, normally they complain about the food there. So, yeah.

According to Nancy, the arrangement worked well and Dan enjoyed the chance to cook food for others. Dan also helped his parents and their church feed the homeless population in their area. He assisted with the meals and provided food for the church from students and staff donations at the OCI. So he's just doing everything he can everywhere. And it just shows not only is his career amazing,

Making him money and paying the bills, but it is his passion and he's leveraging it to help the world.

And Nancy worked different jobs throughout the years. She graduated from culinary school and opened up a catering company. She had about 25 employees, which at times included Nathaniel. He worked for Nancy on and off for six years. At some point, Nancy also opened a sandwich shop with a $50,000 loan from Dan's parents. Now, her sandwich shop wasn't as successful as she had hoped. It

It would be, and she could no longer keep up with the physical demands of the catering company. So she decided to switch things up and she pivoted to a new career selling insurance. So she sold life insurance and Medicare and started writing mystery romance novels. Her self-published works included the titles The Wrong Brother, The Wrong Lover, and Hell on the Heart.

She has an Amazon biography which reads, her stories are about pretty men and strong women, about families that don't always work, and about the joy of finding love and the difficulty of making it stay.

Family and friends, they all described Dan and Nancy's relationship as loving and supportive. Many thought it was the ideal marriage. They rarely saw the two argue. They lived in their Beaverton, Oregon home for over 20 years. And like most couples, the duo had a routine. Dan woke up early in the morning to walk the dog and feed the chickens and then left for work. Nancy spent her days selling insurance or working on her novels.

Those who knew the couple said they were happy with their lives and planning to retire together. They began to fix the home and yard to prepare the house for sale so they can downsize for their retirement. And that's just the common what you do thing. Once your kids are out and everything, you think, do we need all this land, all this space? We should downsize and

We're going to start collecting our social security and our fixed income. We don't need all this. Let's make it last.

On June 2, 2018, at 8.24 in the morning, students of the Oregon Culinary Institute walked in and expected just a typical day. The culinary school provided education and functioned as a restaurant. The students prepared three-course meals to practice the skills they acquired in class. But, unusually, the door they normally entered was locked. So an instructor let the students in, and they went into the student lounge.

Now, they're trickling in, and then they start going to their respective classrooms. This is a large facility. Kalinda Perez, a culinary student, entered a classroom and went to refill her water bottle. When she reached the station, there was no water or coffee brewing. This was not normal, because normally Dan's already been there, and he has this stuff going.

So Kalinda's walking around. She goes to kitchen one to fill up her water bottle. And when she got in there, the lights were on and water from one of the large industrial sinks was running. So she walks in further and she sees Dan lying on the floor on his back in front of the large sink. So she immediately yells, call 911. And she starts giving Dan CPR.

This is not what they're expecting. They know there's something off here and the door is locked. So whoever did this, they planned it or they planned the cover up. So it's kind of suspicious here. It's like obvious there's something wrong. This is just going to feed into how everyone thinks about this case later.

Kathleen Dooley, a pastry student, called 911 and reported a collapsed person in one of the kitchens.

Now they continued CPR and soon realized Dan was bleeding from his chest. So the operator is hearing a lot of crying and yelling on the call and Kalinda thought she had broken a rib and caused the bleeding. And, you know, if you're doing CPR right, you actually are going to break a rib or two, but she thinks she's hurting Dan even more.

But if you have a gunshot wound, sometimes CPR isn't the best thing to do because you might be pumping blood out of the wound. But I'm not a medical professional, so it just depends on where the gunshot wound is. And do not take anything I say as advice on how to treat a gunshot wound victim. Anyways. No, and I just think it's amazing that Kalinda started CPR. She's really doing her best to try and help Dan out.

You have to understand, she doesn't know what's happened to him. She just knows he's suddenly bleeding and she's worried she's hurting him, but she's doing what she thinks is the best step. And I think that's great. But, you know, despite all of her efforts, Dan never gained consciousness again. And emergency services arrived on the scene within minutes at 8.27 a.m. and took over. And a first responder moved Dan's arm to begin an IV and a shell casing rolled out from underneath his body.

Kalinda knelt by a nearby stove and heard one of the paramedics declare a gunshot wound. The paramedics called dispatch for an urgent police response and asked all the students to wait in the student lounge and place their hands on the tables.

This sounds like they know how to handle this scene. They took charge right away, and they're going to start testing people for gunshot residue. So officers arrived moments later and immediately enacted a lockdown of the building in fear of an active shooter. Police quickly cleared the building and started to process the scene and canvas the area. Detectives Anthony Merrill and Darren Posey of the Portland Police Bureau arrived about an hour after Dan was discovered.

Now they go through Dan's pockets. They find his wallet. It's in his front shirt pocket. It contained his credit cards and approximately $17 in cash. His keys hung from a belt loop and he had a watch on his wrist.

Also, investigators found his phone at the scene in his front left pants pocket. Dan had an IOU to Joseph Taylor and $60 in cash. So if this was robbery, well, they didn't take anything. Dan's just been shot.

In the sink, they found two large buckets the size of Gatorade coolers used at sporting events. On the floor nearby was a large ice scoop, and it was apparent to officers that Dan was shot in the back while standing at the sink. He fell and dropped the ice scoop.

Another bullet entered Dan's chest, and investigators believe the person fired the second shot as they stood over Dan. So he was standing by the ice machine. They shot him once. He fell down, and then they gave him a final shot as he lay on the floor. Police on the scene questioned the students who were in the building that day. Unfortunately, not every student enrolled was present, and so detectives made a note to follow up with those not in attendance.

The suspect pool quickly expanded as students revealed that transients frequented the area by the school, and one reported finding needles in the bushes near the smoking area. A student had notified the police a few months before that someone had broken one of the windows to the school. The student claimed nothing was taken, but incidents in the downtown area where the school was located were common. The

The day that students discovered Dan's body, a student reported a man standing down the street. She stated that he looked in the trash bins, looked into the parking lot, and then walked away. Another witness indicated the rolling door, the size of a small garage door for loading supplies, was open that morning, which was abnormal. The door was rarely left unattended when open. Witnesses also stated the door students used to enter the building was locked when they arrived, which was also unusual.

This is just prior things they've come across because where this is located, there is some crime. But where Dan was standing, it's like if you think he unlocked the door and went in and someone followed him in, he would have known that and that's where the altercation happened. So they're trying to figure out like, how did this person get into the building? Because Dan was already in there doing stuff and then they came up behind him and sort of ambushed him from behind.

Around 10 a.m., Nancy received a call from Maxine Borchering, a longtime friend and previous colleague of Dan's. Maxine informed Nancy that someone was shot at OCI, and Nancy mentioned she might go to the school. With little information, the call was brief. Nancy called Dan's mom, Karen, at 10.16 a.m. and informed her there was trouble at OCI. Karen asked if Nancy was going to the school, and Nancy said she wasn't because there would be too many cops and people. The call ended.

And Karen talked to Jack. Karen called Nancy back and encouraged her to go to the school. Nancy agreed and arrived on the scene at 1028 a.m. And she was quickly ushered into a police command post. People respond differently to things, but you'll get to know Nancy's personality here pretty soon. She is an over-explainer.

So it's one of those deals where if you just say, I don't know if I should go there because I just might get in the way, as opposed to, I don't know if I should go there because it's going to be swarming with cops. That's two different ways of saying something. And Nancy tends to always say it the wrong way. Let me just put it that way. She just never uses her words. Being a writer, you would think that she would be better at that, but she's not.

Her initial interview with detectives started at 10.47 a.m. Detective Posey asked about Dan's routine and activities that morning. Nancy stated Dan left at around 7 a.m., like he did most mornings. He woke up at around 4.30 a.m. most days. He walked the dogs, fed the chickens, and would take a shower upstairs.

The week before Dan was killed, the glass shower door in the downstairs bathroom had shattered and he had to get stitches for that. She stated normally he showered downstairs to keep from waking her, but that morning he showered upstairs.

Throughout the interview, Nancy offered additional information without the police prompting her. Let me tell you, this interview could have been half the time, but she just talks about shower doors and how some guy tried to fix it, but they couldn't fix it. So Dan had to go shower upstairs instead of downstairs. And it's painful to listen to. A lot to say.

Seven minutes into the interview, Detective Posey informed Nancy that Dan was deceased. Nancy's response was, yeah, I kind of got that when everybody gave me the sad sack look. Nancy then asked what happened, and Detective Posey told her he had been shot. Nancy responded, with an AR-15?

She stated those guns were used in school shootings now. Before detectives formally notified her of Dan's death, Nancy never asked about Dan's well-being. And during the interview, Nancy informed the detectives that she and Dan owned a semi-automatic Glock gun. Officers asked if Nancy would turn that over to them, and she eagerly agreed. She stated they bought the gun for protection after another school shooting had occurred, and she was scared for their safety. How

However, after they purchased the gun, Nancy said she had wanted nothing to do with it. I'm not going to say they're an older couple, but it's just interesting. Oh, they're school shootings. We need to own a gun. I don't know how that connects to you at your home, but up until this point, her and Dan have been against gun ownership. Up until this point, they did not like guns. So this is sort of a big change in their behavior to purchase a weapon.

Towards the end of the interview, Nancy asked, what am I going to do without him? She broke down and claimed she didn't care who shot Dan, she just wanted Dan back. Nancy answered basic questions from the detectives about Dan's normal routine, what he wore, and if he had any conflicts with anyone. Nancy claimed the sanitation worker for the school named Yadu may have arrived before Dan. According to Nancy, Dan wasn't talkative and she doubted he had issues with anyone.

He never held grudges or spoke poorly about students. Nancy wasn't sure who would want to kill Dan. Investigators offered Nancy an escort home and concluded the interview at 1139 in the morning. Detectives walked her to her car and two other detectives drove her home. One drove the van with Nancy and another followed behind. So they get her back home. They've spoken with her. They've gotten whatever information they need to kick off this investigation.

Once Nancy's home, Dan's mother, Karen, called her for an update. Nancy informed her that Dan was the one shot and killed at OCI. So obviously heartbroken, Karen called Nathaniel and told him his father was killed.

Nathaniel was devastated, and nobody in the family could really understand who would want to kill Dan. This is just out of left field for them. So investigators continued to process the scene after Nancy left. The detectives walked the surrounding area looking for surveillance cameras. OCI did not have security cameras inside or outside the building, but nearby businesses might. So

Bellagio's Pizza near OCI had cameras inside the restaurant that pointed towards the building and captured moments on the street. So investigators viewed the footage from that morning and noted at 7.08 a.m. a gray van that matched the general appearance of Nancy's van passed by the window of this pizza shop.

And at 7.20 a.m., surveillance footage showed Dan's 2010 white Toyota Tacoma pass by. And then at 7.22 a.m., Dan disabled the alarm and entered the building. At 7.28 a.m., the same gray van from 20 minutes ago was captured again, leaving the area.

So this kind of a big lead here, right, Aaron? We have her van or what appears to be her van passing in front of this pizza shop. Then we have Dan driving by in his Toyota Tacoma. We have the alarm system being disabled. And then less than, I don't know, six minutes after that, we have the gray van driving back in the same route that it had taken to get there.

Yeah, this footage is amazing. Anytime you can get footage showing which vehicles are entering or leaving an area at a critical time, it's huge for the detectives. So Detective Murrell contacted one of the detectives who had escorted Nancy home and asked him to take photos of Nancy's van for comparison because they literally just are dropping her off. So they're like, hey, while you're doing that, take some pictures of her van.

And detectives soon realized that Nancy's van had similar scrapings and other unique identifiers as the van caught on the security footage.

Detectives at Nancy's home also collected the Glock 17 handgun Nancy had reported during the interview. The gun was in a case in a white bag along with the receipt of the purchase. The handgun had a zip tie down the barrel and the slide was not in alignment. According to Detective Posey, this caught his attention because the slide should have been pushed slightly backwards because of the zip tie instead of slightly forward as they found it in the case.

This means that it might have been used or disabled, disassembled.

Detectives also gained access to the OCI door codes, and no one was at the school the evening before June 2nd or arrived before Dan that morning, which indicated there was no one present prior to Dan's murder. Despite the concern about Nancy's van, detectives continued to follow as many leads as possible because they're trying to see, like, was there someone else in the area? This area is known for crime, whatever it is. Could somebody have snuck in, used a code?

And investigators discovered at 6.51 a.m. on June 2nd, surveillance video showed a man walking with a recycle bin and walking around collecting bottles and cans, and a witness saw this. So a man was previously tried for stealing in the past, but investigators believed he didn't have the means or motive to murder Dan. So there is somebody in the area that had stolen things, had broken in, had

Had caused problems, but they saw him just picking up cans and recycling. And they were just thinking that's probably not our guy. But what it does do for sure is it just says, okay, well, we had a witness telling us this. We now have video of that person and we definitely think they're not involved in this murder.

So according to Detective Merrill, they spent days in the OCI area talking to witnesses and attempting to identify people from the surveillance cameras. They found the man, as we said, collecting cans, and they found his name to be Oscar Taylor. Oscar had a lengthy history of felonies for robbery and theft, and so the police were well familiar with him. Again, they don't feel like he's even a person of interest in this case.

Now, less than a week after the murder, Nancy called detectives and asked them to write a letter and clarify that she was no longer a suspect for one of the insurance companies Dan had a life insurance policy under. In an interview with Dateline, Secrets Uncovered, detectives stated they didn't have a suspect at that point in time. Detective Posey answered and recorded the call. He asked why Nancy needed this letter. Nancy's response was,

because they don't want to pay if it turns out that I secretly went down to the school and shot my husband. Are you kidding me? I know. I can only imagine what everyone's thinking right now hearing that. I know what we're thinking. Sorry, go on. I didn't mean to interrupt. Detective Posey stated he had never heard of such a policy from an insurance company. I wonder why. Nancy continued and said, This is such a stupid little policy. I can't believe they're making me jump through hoops like this.

This is only $40,000. She went on to state that her sister said that insurance companies only did this for people insured for millions, and Nancy claimed they weren't insured for millions. So she couldn't understand why the insurance company was having her do this. But then again, most of us are thinking, yeah, they probably haven't asked you for that. It doesn't matter if it's $40. An insurance company is going to look for a way to deny the claim. But anyways, yeah.

So the police are going to continue their investigation. They contacted every student who attended OCI, even if they weren't on the campus that day. They spoke to potential witnesses in the area and gathered up all of this additional surveillance from surrounding businesses. As the detectives observed this surveillance footage, all of the evidence really showed this gray van that allegedly was being driven by Nancy.

And it became clear that this is Nancy's van because they were able to see marks and scrapes and different things on Nancy's gray 2005 Toyota Sienna minivan. I know if you look for a car or you buy a car and then all of a sudden you see everyone else on the road is driving that same car, it's because you focus in on it. But this is a very specific car with very specific damage to it. And it

It would be almost impossible for someone else to have this same exact color and make and model with similar damage. They're just thinking, this is Nancy. She drove there. She did this. And that would also show how she would be able to walk up to him without him thinking he was in danger if he even knew that she was standing behind him when the trigger was pulled.

While police were investigating this case, Nancy prepared to sell her home of 22 years and collect life insurance policy funds. She and Dan discussed selling the home and downsizing as part of the retirement plan, as we had talked about, and they'd even hired people to come in and help fix the lawn, and Dan was repairing small things around the house. Friends and family gathered to help Nancy prepare it. She was not on the mortgage after Dan refinanced it in 2004, but she was on the deed.

Nancy also contacted several life insurance companies where she and Dan paid premiums to collect the payout on the plans. She also filed a workers' compensation claim because Dan was killed at work. If Nancy received payment from all of these policies, it would total about $1.5 million. We call that motive. And the workman's comp claim, wow, I wouldn't have expected that one.

Hey, I know you want to get healthy and lose weight, so I've got two questions for you, and you can say no thanks, or you can decide right now you want to do this. I'm Carl, the CEO of Body. That's Body with an I. First question, if I showed you what workout to do and how to eat day by day, plus gave you a super healthy shake so you absolutely knew you could lose the weight and improve your strength and energy as fast as possible, would you be interested if it was super affordable, yes or no?

Question two, would you be willing to give it a try for at least a month? And if you don't lose up to 10 to 15 pounds, I'll give you your money back. Does that sound fair? We call this the total solution with Shakeology. We get you fast results step by step. And if you're really serious about it this time, I'm inviting you to start now with this $500 value for just $129.95 with free shipping. Just go to body.com. That's

body with an I. Get signed up and we'll start your plan next Monday. Go to body.com and let's get you started. That's body with an I dot com.

So it's September 5th of 2018, three months after Dan's death. Officers arrest Nancy at her home and execute a search warrant. They found a gray HP laptop in Nancy's closet and another computer by her bed. They obtained another search warrant to search a storage unit and executed the search on September 8th of 2018. In that storage unit, investigators discovered a ghost gun kit

packed in a box with scarves and purses. Ghost guns, as we know, are untraceable. They come in many forms, most of which are just they do not have serial numbers and they were not obtained legally in any manner. So there is no record of them. Some people are building them with 3D printers. They come in a kit or separate pieces and they need to be assembled. This gun kit was not assembled and

And the gun was unusable in its current state. But she had purchased a Glock 17, and this ghost gun kit was essentially a Glock variant, if you will.

So detectives Marilyn Posey, they get another search warrant for the computers and they discovered interesting searches from the computer found in the closet. Under the username Nancy, they recovered a search for ghost guns from November 2017. A Glock 19 ghost gun build kit was purchased on the internet on December 24, 2017.

In the first few months of 2018, the same user account searched for kickback with Glock, gun safety classes, gun shops in Portland, how much does a Glock 17 cost, Glock 17 slide for sale, Glock 17 Gen 4 eBay, and Glock 19 slide. Justin, this reminds me of other cases where it's obvious that someone was searching for stuff related to a crime of which they're accused.

And all we can do is sit back and go, wow, let's leave a trail. That's it. So it's February 17th, 2018. Nancy went to a gun show and purchased a 9mm Glock 17. She created an eBay account two days later on February 19th.

And on February 23rd, she bought a slide and barrel for a Glock 17 on eBay, and it was delivered February 28th. Slide and barrel are the parts of the gun responsible for the distinct markings on the bullet once it's fired. If it is switched out, those markings left on the bullet will change. So how do you get away with murder? Well, you can shoot somebody with a gun, and then you can take the slide and the barrel off and put on a new one, and

And now that gun will no longer appear to be the murder weapon. Well, that's at least what seems to be the intent here. But when you do all this searching, you kind of leave that trail where detectives can follow it and say, oh, you thought you were sneaky.

So Nancy's blog was just as interesting as her internet searches and purchases. There was a post published in 2011 titled, How to Murder Your Husband. It caught the attention of investigators. Nancy listed motives for murder, financial, crime of passion, falling in love with someone else. When she discussed means, she labeled the section, Options to Consider. She discussed guns, knives, garrots, random heavy pieces of equipment, as well as poison.

She ended the blog post with, I find it easier to wish people dead than to actually kill them. But the thing I know about murder is that every one of us has it in him or herself when pushed far enough. So this blog post, How to Murder Your Husband, this becomes pretty key to this case. So Nancy's going to trial.

Obviously. I mean, regardless of the blog post, we have her gray van on video at the scene of the crime. And she has told investigators that she was at home or she wasn't anywhere close to there. And they know better. So this trial began on April 4th, 2022, after long delays due to COVID-19 and shutdowns and backlogs. Outside the presence of the jury, the judge ruled Nancy's household

How to murder your husband blog as inadmissible. It couldn't be used in trial because the bias outweighed the probative value. And the judge stated, any minimum probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issue.

That's interesting, Aaron, because there are multiple hip-hop and rap stars that have had their songs used against them. There are many people that have had other evidence of things they've said in the past used against them. So either she had a really good lawyer or this judge is like, there's nothing specific in this blog post that is connected to this murder. So it's more of a general thing and you guys can't use it.

I think it's very prejudicial. And I understand how juicy this must look for a prosecutor. This is the fruit. You grab it and it's the answer to all your problems. But it's a little too easy. And again, they have other evidence. They don't really need this. But man, it would have been powerful in court.

The judge, I think, made the right call. But regardless of the judge saying it's inadmissible, during the trial, they're going to ask her about a lot of these internet searches. They're going to ask her about her behaviors. And most of her answers are, well, I'm researching from my book.

This is the research I do. So even though this specific blog post isn't mentioned by name, it is danced around during this entire trial. And she's the one that brings it up.

Yeah, it becomes key. It really does. Even though it's not there, you're right. It's there in spirit. So you do what you can. But Nancy, as you stated early on, she can't help herself. She likes to talk. But I'm reminded of all the people we've talked to say, you know, oh, man, if anybody looked up my search history, I'd be in trouble.

So throughout this 27-day trial, the jury heard from family, friends, staff, and students, and numerous experts in medical, financial, forensic, and firearm professions. The prosecution, led by Multnomah County Deputy D.A. Sean Overstreet, argued there were too many coincidences on the morning of June 2, 2018. Nancy Brophy was downtown before, and just moments after Dan was killed.

They theorized Nancy waited for Dan to arrive, entered through the open roll-up loading door, and shot Dan in the back. She then shot him again in the chest and left. Why? Because she would gain about $1.5 million from his death and could lead the lifestyle she wanted. The prosecution claimed Dan was happy with a simple lifestyle, but Nancy wanted more. They struggled with finances and had credit card debt. Though they were months behind on their mortgage, they continued to pay their life insurance premiums.

And the prosecution stated that Nancy paid over $16,000 in insurance premiums in 2017 while the Brofis fell over $6,000 behind in mortgage payments that same year. They claimed only Nancy had the knowledge, opportunity, and motive to kill Dan. And I must say, that part about paying your insurance premiums while ignoring your mortgage payments, that's damning.

That's the only answer I can come up with is you're paying your insurance premiums because you know you're going to get a payout and you don't care if you lose the house. I don't know any other explanation there besides, well, I don't care about my credit report anymore, so I'll lose the house. But did she really want her son or stepson Nathaniel to get all this money? If she wasn't a murderer, she wasn't doing this, that's who would get the money. So I guess she really cared about directives.

their child. Dr. Michelle Stauffenberg performed Dan's autopsy. Dan was shot in the middle of the chest and once in the back. Both bullets remained in his body until removed at the autopsy. The bullet shot from behind went through Dan's spinal cord, heart, and left lung. And Dr. Stauffenberg testified the injury to the spinal cord would have rendered Dan paralyzed from the entry point down. Dan wasn't able to run from his assailant after that shot.

and the gunshot wound from the front also pierced Anne's heart and resulted in a mass amount of blood loss. Dr. Stauffenberg could not determine which wound occurred first.

Then they had a firearms expert testify the two bullets from the scene did not match the Glock 17. He also tested the slide and barrel from the Glock 19 gun kit, and the bullets were not a match. The slide and barrel purchased on eBay for the Glock 17 handgun were never found.

So the barrel that came with the Glock 17, not a match. The ghost gun kit, not a match. But we know she purchased another barrel and slide, but those things were gone. So he couldn't determine if the slide was used on the Glock 17 to kill Dan. The bullets were never tested for DNA and Nancy's hands were not swabbed for gunshot residue because again, she wasn't around. It was almost an hour later. She could have washed them.

Detective Merrill explained Nancy was not a suspect when they learned of the gun and at the time they did not have reason to swab her hands. It was just way too late in the game for that. But we have a missing piece here. We have a gun part that they've never been able to recover, which would have fit the gun that she possibly could have used.

85-year-old Jack Brophy, Dan's father, testified about his son's personality and his work ethic. He stated he loaned Nancy and Dan $50,000 for Nancy to open a sandwich shop. According to Jack, Dan's involvement was limited and the funds were basically just for Nancy. Jack claimed it was a verbal agreement, but Dan and Nancy only paid back about a quarter of the money they borrowed.

One evening at dinner, Jack and Karen told them not to worry about paying the rest back. Just loving parents.

Nancy had driven a Prius for some time, but when it needed to be replaced, Jack gave Dan and Nancy his 2005 Toyota Sienna minivan. He used the church's vehicle because he assisted with feeding the homeless. When asked to identify the van captured in the surveillance footage, Jack agreed it looked like the one he gave to Nancy and Dan. He also verified he'd placed a First Baptist church sticker on

On the driver's side upper corner of the windshield, when he owned it to park in the parking lot of the church, the van also had a two to three foot scrape on the driver's side from an incident with a trash truck. The paint was damaged and eventually it rusted.

In the videos and photos of the van passing by the pizza shop, those same marks are very visible. Jack testified that Dan slept in a downstairs bedroom instead of the upstairs room. He stated that the downstairs room was messy and had Dan's clothing strewn about. The prosecutor's line of questioning implied Dan and Nancy slept in separate bedrooms, but it was never confirmed by Nancy. Jack also went to...

OCI the day Dan died at Karen's suggestion, but he wasn't told his son was dead. He never saw Nancy at the crime scene and eventually returned home. But I guess this is, they didn't sleep in the same bedroom, so possibly they weren't getting along. I don't know. It's just an inconsistency, I guess, in Nancy's story about him getting up and showering, doing something when in actuality he slept downstairs.

Karen testified a second time and stated Dan and Nancy spoke about retirement and their plans for the future. Closer to Dan's death, Karen stated that Nancy spoke more often about selling the house. However, Karen didn't remember her son fixing up his home for sale. She also claimed Nancy told her she was in bed all morning on June 2nd. Multiple friends testified that Nancy claimed to be at home that morning. She never told anyone that she was downtown until, of course, later when she

He did an alibi. So Nancy took the stand on the 20th day of her trial, and her testimony lasted for two days. According to Nancy, she purchased a ghost gun for her research on her next novel. She'd informed multiple people she wanted to buy a gun for her research, and multiple witnesses testified and confirmed this statement. She claimed she purchased the Glock 17 gun after the Parkland High School shooting on February 14, 2018.

And I tried to watch a lot of her testimony, Aaron. It's brutal. It's very brutal. I'll go into it later. But yeah, she over explains everything.

To clarify the timeline, Nancy claimed she told Karen on a phone call at 10.44 a.m. before detectives informed her Dan was shot and killed. Nancy stated she knew it was Dan because she couldn't see him outside with everyone else. His students and co-workers avoided eye contact, and a police officer hugged her. This is just her talking about the morning.

Nancy remembered speaking with Dan earlier that morning, but did not remember what she did from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. So gap in her memory here. According to Nancy, Dan got her coffee from Starbucks every morning, but didn't that morning because it was live fire. The day students were tested on their skills, they'd learned.

She didn't remember going to get coffee, but then remembered getting dressed and driving around downtown for about an hour thinking about her novel and writing down notes. Driving around to plan her stories was par for the course, but Nancy claimed she wrote her stories until they were mostly complete in her head before she put them on paper.

So first it was, I was home. I didn't go anywhere. Now it's, oh yeah, I was driving around because I was brainstorming for my novel. On cross-examination from the prosecution, Nancy's testimony seemed to fall apart.

Prosecutor Overstreet questioned why Nancy bought a slide and barrel for the Glock 17 gun when she had a slide and barrel from the gun kit. Nancy claimed it was for research, and he again questioned why she needed to purchase it. Why was the slide and barrel from the ghost gun not enough for her research? He also questioned why she placed the ghost gun kit in a box with scarves and purses and labeled the box clearly for the other items, but GK for the ghost gun kit.

She claimed she labeled it with shorthand in case police later needed to know about the kit. Her reasoning fell apart as he pressured her to explain why she didn't tell the authorities about the kit if she felt it was something they may need to know. She claimed the detectives never asked her about the kit and she never offered because she wasn't interviewed a second time.

But again, if you already have a gun with a barrel and slide, and then you get another gun, a ghost gun, and it has a barrel and slide, why do you yet buy another barrel and slide? This is the line of questioning here.

And during this line of questioning, Aaron, I watched this. It takes almost half an hour of questioning her and getting her to answer questions in a coherent manner. Just for what you summed up in the last 20 seconds, she labeled this box as GK because the police might've needed it later. And then the prosecution's like, why didn't you just give it to them when they came and got your other gun?

And this goes around and around and around for like 20 or 30 minutes. Yeah, it just doesn't ring true. Like she's being evasive for a person who loves to explain things too. And I could only imagine being on that jury because you would be so bored and so frustrated because personally, I actually put a little bit of the blame on the prosecution here. He could have just said yes or no answers only please. But instead he lets her go.

Now, I get it. That is a little bit of a tactic here. Hey, she's going to over-explain and I'm going to catch her while she trips up. But the point is almost lost because it takes so long to get to the point. Yeah, I mean, I get it. There was a little bit of that during the Murdoch trial, but in the end, the prosecutors were able to really put together a solid case there. And I know it's tough on the juries and you don't know how they're going to respond, but if they are interested, if they are paying attention, this does add up, I think.

As cross-examination continued regarding the gun purchases, Nancy revealed she had removed the slide and barrel from the Glock 17 gun found in her closet. This was surprising to the prosecutor.

In her conversation with detectives, she stated she barely handled the gun and didn't want it. Now, for the first time, she's talking about how she did handle the gun, as did Dan, and knew how to remove the slide and barrel and had done so. Nancy stumbled through a response and Overstreet asked where the missing slide and barrel purchase from eBay was. Nancy said she didn't know and Overstreet pointed out the unusual coincidence.

The only gun evidence missing was the slide and barrel purchased on eBay, and it was the only piece of the gun that changed the pattern or markings on the bullets. When questioned, Nancy said she found nothing about this case ironic or funny.

Which, no, nobody does. We're trying to get to the bottom of where this piece of your gun, which was allegedly used in this crime, went. And she labels a ghost gun kit, knows exactly where that is, but she doesn't know where the slide and barrel are? I mean, come on.

So the DA asked Nancy how she could remember she got dressed, left the house, drove around downtown for an hour, but before claimed she didn't remember and initially claimed she was at home in bed.

DA Overstreet asked her if she might have entered the school that morning, as she's done hundreds of times before. Nancy answered no, and Overstreet asked how she could be certain if she didn't remember that morning of all the other things she claimed. Nancy asserted she knew she didn't enter the school and knew for certain she didn't kill Dan. When pressured, she stated she pieced together memories as evidence became known to her. She

She found it difficult to decipher what was her actual memory verse assumptions based on a typical morning verse filling in the blanks from what she'd learned through the evidence. This is, I remember everything about everything except for these three hours of that morning. So I'm doing my best to remember for you based on what I'm hearing and what I remember.

That sounds very evasive. And again, Eric, it takes like 20 minutes of questioning to get this far with her. It's brutal. Well, it is brutal. And you know what? After this cross-examination, Nancy's defense team then has to try and figure out, how do we go from here? Because she's looking bad. You know, Nancy's their witness. They have a chance to question her again after this cross-examination. Yeah.

And so Nancy tries to explain any misconceptions and talk her way out of what was a damning cross-examination. Yet her testimony changed multiple times and she ended up contradicting herself. So she had to go back and clarify or rationalize the answers she had given. She stated she didn't remember what happened that morning, but continued to claim what she did or didn't do. One of the only parts of Nancy's two-day testimony that did not change was her assertion that

that she was innocent. After her testimony, we go on to closing arguments. And of course, the prosecution reiterated the gaps in memory and changing testimony. He ensured the jury remember that Nancy claimed she didn't handle the gun and then revealed during her testimony that she did, in fact, handle the gun and knew how to remove the slide and barrel. She also claimed she became obsessed with guns for her research.

but previously claimed she didn't know much about guns. He made sure to highlight the slide and barrel of the Glock 17 were slightly off when officers retrieved it. The missing slide and barrel purchased on eBay, obviously, which is probably what was used, which happened to fit the only functional gun Nancy owned. He called into question the defense's argument that a transient in the area, Oscar Taylor, could have killed Dan. The

The DA over street claimed Oscar didn't have knowledge of the OCI building's layout, which was confusing and contained multiple hallways, and there was no proof that Oscar had ever owned or used a gun in any of his previous crimes. Nancy, however, by her own admission, had been to OCI hundreds of times and did own a gun.

So the defense, they argue that Nancy didn't kill Dan and they're still pointing the finger at Oscar Taylor or saying another person in the area may have killed Dan.

They did say that it was impossible to know nothing about the building was missing or stolen despite inventory completed by OCI staff. In other words, they say nothing was stolen, but how do we really know? I'm sure this is something the jury could put together just based on there was cash on Dan's person. You know, that wasn't taken.

Dan always had a red bag with him, according to Nancy. That was never found. That's one of the things they argue was, well, if he always had this red bag, where was it then? Because we didn't find it. As for her changing memory, they argued Nancy couldn't remember exactly what she did that morning because she was disassociated due to trauma.

Moreover, the prosecution lacked physical evidence that directly tied Nancy to the crime. The bullets did not match the gun or gun kit that had been collected by investigators, and it's impossible to know if the missing slide and barrel match because it couldn't be tested.

Nancy's hands weren't tested for gun residue, and her purchase of the ghost gun was used for research. On her next book, the gun purchases weren't a secret, and she told multiple people about them, and several testified to that fact. So the prosecution, the state, always has a chance to kind of rebut, and they clarified that there wasn't any evidence pointing towards Oscar Taylor, despite the defense's best effort to make the jury think

Officers had tunnel vision on Nancy and didn't investigate all other leads.

The truth was that leads and evidence all pointed to Nancy. Nancy owned a gun, owned a missing slide and barrel that fit that gun, was downtown around the OCI area when Dan was killed, and stood to gain over a million and a half in life insurance and workers' compensation. So I will say this, Aaron, that these closing statements by both prosecution and defense were hours long.

And based on what I'm hearing, you think that wasn't necessary. I think some things get lost when you talk for two to three hours about it. I know they want to address every single thing and you want to fight for your client or you want to show concisely why someone's guilty. But I feel like they both needed editors. I would say the prosecution did a better job being a little bit more cohesive and concise. But yeah, hours.

Yeah, I think there's probably a way to cut it down some, but really you're trying to tie it all together and not leave any doubt. That's where the problem comes in. In this case, it's pretty obvious that the prosecution has a lot to work with. I don't know how good of an offense it is when you say our client may have purchased a barrel and slide on eBay, but it's not here anymore. So it wasn't tested. They can't show that it was used in this murder.

It's the only thing missing that has any relation to the actual killing here. And for her to say, yeah, I don't know where it is, that's real convenient. And for her to be like, oh, here, you're doing a search warrant on my house. You found this gun, but you didn't find the ghost gun. So I'm going to label it just in case it's of interest to you. But I'm not going to label the slide and barrel that I bought just a couple days after I bought this gun. I'm just going to lose that piece.

It's like she took the time to label the ghost gun kit for the police just in case they came back. But at no point did she ever offer any of this up. It's just, again, it doesn't look good for her. After 27 days of trial, the jury deliberated. And they deliberated for, I don't know, about eight hours. On May 25th, 2022, the jury found Nancy Brophy guilty of second-degree murder.

A few weeks later, on June 13, 2022, she was sentenced to life in prison with parole eligibility for 25 years, and at that time, she'll be 93 years old.

So that's a life sentence, I would say. Of course, her defense team is filing an appeal. They did that in June of 2024. The appeal alleges multiple issues during trial, but one in particular the defense believes calls for a reversal. During cross-examination, Prosecutor Overstreet stated, My last question to you, Ms. Brophy, is if there's one thing that you know about murder, is that anyone is capable of doing it.

Maybe an attorney can tell us why that's important. I'm hearing that, and I think he's just using her own words against her. She's trying to portray herself as someone who couldn't be a killer, but she writes a lot about murder, and he's even saying, you've pointed out that anyone could do it.

I don't see the problem there, but anyway. So obviously the takeaway here is Nancy did herself no favors. She has a tendency to overexplain and talk too much. And it's obvious when she doesn't have an answer. And it's probably for a good reason. I took some notes while watching the cross-examination and closing statements, Aaron. Nancy is verbose and a pedantic person.

She can just say yes or no, but instead she will state something just on and on and on. I got 30 minutes into the closing statements with the defense attorney. They spent a lot of time talking about how she didn't have time to go to the gun range to learn how to fire a gun. I mean, it's like, what? Talk about how she didn't have time to go to the school and commit this murder.

There's this whole, she didn't know how to use the gun. So we're going to spend 20 minutes about how she didn't have time to do that. Didn't she drive around for an hour? Yeah, I don't know. Priorities people. So they spent a lot of time on that. I really felt their arguments could have been used way more efficiently than trying to get through the most basic principles with their closing arguments. I literally lost interest and I can only imagine how the jury must have felt.

As far as the cross-examination, it was hours long. And I got through one hour of it, and they kind of skirted around the book and what she was writing about and the blog post. The blog post obviously was deemed inadmissible because it was too prejudicial. But when they were questioning her about guns, she's talking about research. So it's like, well, you don't want to talk about this blog post, but

Once she starts talking about how she is buying these weapons for research, I think the blog post is now fair game. I kind of disagree a little bit with the whole blog post not being admissible because essentially they found a loophole in that or she stepped in it herself.

I don't think just because somebody's annoying or over explains things doesn't mean that they're guilty. The investigation, it's kind of weird because let's just assume for a second that she hadn't been convicted. She wasn't guilty of this murder. She would have come off very bad, really poorly. And the prosecution again would ask her yes or no questions. She would go on for several minutes. The prosecution,

The prosecution would then come back and say, you didn't answer my question, yes or no. And then her response would be, yes, but with a caveat, or no, with a caveat. She would literally say that. She would never give a straight answer during her testimony. It was laughable to me. And I just don't know how she must have come off to the jury. I mean, she'd contradict herself literally mid-sentence trying to answer a question and

And they drag out and drag out. I felt like the prosecution was more organized than the defense here. But Nancy's testimony would throw the prosecution off even because, again, she was so verbose with her answers that they would have to take notes while she's talking and then come back with like, okay, you said this. Let's unpack all of this. I think that if they would have just tried to keep her to more of a yes, no, it might

Might have been, I guess, more understandable for the jury, but they were able to catch her in a lot of contradictions because they let her talk.

I hate to be critical of the prosecution and the defense here because, you know, people criticize our podcast every day. But in this case, you know, it's just like this whole trial just didn't come off well for me, but she was all over the place. And, you know, I just think like there's always a tell if you're playing poker or something. It's like, oh, this guy is always cool, calm and collected. And then he gets a good hand. And then all of a sudden you kind of see him shift in his chair and that's his tell.

It's hard to find her tell because she is just saying things all the time and just won't stop talking. She even is self-aware and says, this is how I speak and if you don't like it, then I don't know what to say.

I couldn't imagine being on that jury for hours and for days watching this. I think they did come to the right decision. I think they were able to figure out and sort through all of the things that were said. But even in the comfort of my own home watching this on YouTube, I had to skip around and turn it off and come back to it because it was very painful to watch her questioning. Well, my two takeaways were the prosecution was thorough.

And I'd rather they be thorough than try to cut it down and maybe miss something for the jury. And then also, this is why people don't get put on the stand typically. Because no matter how smart you think you are, no matter how many answers you think you have, you're going up against people who are literally experienced in how to work the answers out of you to make you look bad. So, you know, again, people think too highly of themselves.

And a prosecutor can definitely, at least for the rest of us, expose you. And that's where I give this prosecutor credit because for him to be able to take one of her answers and then refer back to it 20 minutes later and show how she contradicted herself, I wouldn't have wanted to do that.

That is an incredible job he did to be able to point to every single contradiction. But it just got so overwhelming. I'm like, I don't even know where we're at anymore. You know, it's like when somebody just says so many crazy things after a while, you're just like, where do you start? Where do you even start with trying to show that this person's lying and is given contradictory statements or isn't coming through with their promises?

Yeah, this is where I would call this case a very obvious, highly effective circumstantial case done at trial. But for the audience, what do you think? If you follow this or if you've looked it up since hearing the episode, how do you feel about this trial? And what was your takeaway? Let us know. Respond to our posts on social media, on Instagram, or follow us on Patreon and respond to us there.

Hey, Prime members. You can listen to Generation Y ad-free on Amazon Music. Download the app today.

Hey everybody, we have some exciting news that we want to share. If you want to go on an adventure with Generation Y, we'd love for you to join us. January 26th through the 30th, 2026, we'll be sailing from Miami to the Bahamas on Wondery's first ever true crime cruise aboard the Norwegian Joy.

Aaron and I will be there to chat, hang out, dive into all things true crime, and we're thrilled to be joined by some familiar voices in the true crime podcasting world. Surti and Hannah from Red Handed, Sashi and Sarah from Scamfluencers, and Carl Miller from Kill List.

Super excited to hang out with them too. We've got some cool activities, interactive mysteries we can solve, testing our forensic skills with a blood spatter expert, and so much more. So for some sun, fun, and just the right amount of mystery solving, come join us. If you'd like to know more and secure your spot, visit exhibitccruise.com for pre-sale information.