But investigators discovered a video in the culinary institute neighborhood showing what Mrs. Brophy was apparently driving her old minivan into the area around the time of the murder. Mrs. Brophy stated that she had no recollection of that period, theorizing that she might have been making coffee and taking notes to write her book. She said her conversation with detectives came when she was overwhelmed by the news of her husband’s death.
In this week’s final arguments, prosecutors admitted his case was based on “all circumstantial evidence,” saying the jury had to put the pieces of “a puzzle together” together to come to a conclusion.
“Nancy is the only person who could have committed this crime,” Overstreet told the jury.
Defense attorneys also relied on neighborhood video surveillance, noting that there appeared to be homeless people in the area that morning. A man hid behind a wall and looked inside a bag when police arrived at the scene that morning. Investigators said they could not identify the man.
Although friends and family said the Brophys appeared to have a strong, collaborative relationship, which had lasted about 25 years, prosecutors said Ms. Brophy had a financial incentive to kill her husband, presenting evidence that the couple had been struggling financially and had moved to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of life insurance policies. They noted that she had asked the police for a letter saying she was not a suspect just days after her husband’s murder.
Prosecutors were barred from discussing Ms. Brophy’s blog post “How to Kill Your Husband” during the trial. But at the end of his interrogation of Ms. Brophy, covered some of the topics in the blog post, and concluded with a question that echoed some of his words: “If there’s one thing you know about murder, it’s that someone is capable of to do it? “
Ms Brophy said she believes it “absolutely”. He said people can kill if they are pushed into a corner, or to protect someone, or in a rage. And, he said, financial problems can be a major reason for the murder.
However, she and her lawyers stated that she did not have sufficient financial motivation to justify the murder, and pointed out that the couple’s insurance policies were not unusual and that she did not benefit from them all. He said a fictitious version of his case would not stand scrutiny.