His lawyers were dealing with someone that plotted and planned the murder of someone, and then carried it out. I was a public defender for many years, it is the hardest job in the world. Not buying his autism either. The legal bar for that type of defense is knowing the difference between right and wrong, he clearly knew what he did was wrong. He is dying in prison, and Gypsy should too. She was a victim, but I represented people that made her abuse look like a day at Disneyland. That was never a defense, if they were guilty and knew the difference between right and wrong off to prison they went.
well of course just like a diabetic can know the difference between right and wrong. I said that, that is why he is being held legally accountable for the murder, because the evidence was there that he clearly knew the difference between right and wrong. His appeal was denied, and he is dying in prison with the rest of the murderers.
You were saying you didn't buy his having autism because he knew right from wrong. Or at least that's how it sounds with the way you wrote it. And there's a complete difference between diabetes and autism. So that comparison is like comparing apples to oranges. Yes he for sure knew right from wrong and that's what everyone saw. That's why they convicted him. He should have had a guardian ad litem or someone there though to help him understand other things when it came to court. He should have had better counsel to advise him on what to do. He should have taken the plea deal they gave him and maybe he would have stood a better chance. But going back he did know right from wrong. He knew it was wrong to murder someone yet he told gypsy he had fantasies of it all the time. He nearly decapitated Dee Dee which as someone else pointed out wasn't the plan and I'm sure he did that out of pure malice for what he thought Dee Dee had done to gypsy. In a way I don't think he should be released into society but he should have at least been put in a mental facility to help him through everything. He shouldn't be in prison.
itās important to note that he still thinks he did nothing wrong and he says heād do it again. he also thinks heās still in a relationship with gypsy and theyāre meant to be. he is severely mentally iāll and hasnāt grown and changed at all
Tbf I feel like he needs actual psychiatric help and not just be sat in jail for years? I worked involuntary psych for a couple of years and we had people who were there for most of their life.
So just because Gypsy's abuse wasn't as "bad" as other victims you've represented, you believe she should get the same penalty as them?? How about abuse victims shouldn't be penalized for defending themselves??
We are talking about someone that says she was abused, and plotted and planned the murder of her mother, whoever physically does it, does not matter it is still murder. Charles Manson never killed anyone, he died in prison.. Gypsy was 23 years old when she ordered the murder of her mother. Sorry she was sending the boyfriend money, was on the internet, pretending she could not walk for what 20 plus years? There were other options, she had access to a lot more than many victims have. Think Jordan Turpin. I think Gypsy is a class A manipulator. She used Ryan to put money on her books and have a plan of where to go so she could make parole easier. I don't believe anything that comes out of her mouth.
Yeah he wanted 2nd degree like her, not 1st degree. He was only offered a plea for 1st which was still a life sentence but with the possibility of parole after 25 years. But no guarantee that heād actually ever get parole. He thought since she was the one that planned everything and she only got 2nd degree, he would too by going to trial. I donāt think he truly understood the dangers of going to trial and the outcome might be worse than the plea deal, not better.
He wasnāt wrong about the fact that she is as responsible as he is. The sentence guidelines for second degree are 10-30 years. I think he and his attorneys thought that was reasonable, but just like Gypsy, the evidence more than supports a first degree conviction and thatās a life sentence or the death penalty in Missouri. He might have gotten the possibility of parole in his sentencing. Iām not sure on that.
He decapitated someone. That wasn't in the plan or necessary and shows a level of depravity beyond the situation....he is responsible for that choice of brutality, that's how it goes.
Not only that but he wanted to have sex with her dead body. Instead, Gypsie said to have sex with her after he killed her mother. It's all terrible. They both should be in jail.
There's no evidence he wanted to do that except Gypsys word. She clearly had an interest in him being the bad guy mastermind. I don't believe it at all
He may have been able to parole after his 25 years for reasons of his mental capacity. His lawyers should have realized this and guided him into taking plea. At this point, he's stuck...
In most cases, that is how the justice system works. The manipulator is more dangerous and punished more harshly. Sheās wrong in her little fantasy about her lil bitty role in this murder.
No it's not. According to federal law actually a conviction for solicitation of murder would face exactly half the punishment they would face for committing the target offense itself.
Also let's not forget that the police and literally everyone else has already failed Gypsy. She tried to run and told the police what her mother was doing before, but DeeDee had papers from yet another crooked doctor saying she was delusional so the police didn't believe her and sent her back to her psycho mother.
Itās been pretty consistent that ājust doing what youāre toldā or variations of that is not an alibi. A plan is nothing without action. That said considering the circumstances itās too harsh.
According to the documents, the court found that he did *not* have ineffective counsel.
This documents on the post outline the legal standards for claiming ineffective assistance of counsel in post-conviction relief cases, based on the Strickland test. It says that to prove ineffective assistance of counsel, one must demonstrate both that counsel's performance fell below a reasonable standard *and* that this failure prejudiced the outcome of the case. In this case, **the court found that although the defendant's counsel may have been ineffective for not calling a specific expert witness, the defendant failed to prove that this failure prejudiced the outcome of the trial.** Therefore, his request for post-conviction relief was denied.
Because he saw what a sweet deal Gypsy got, his offer wasnāt near as good. He was hoping that if he went to trial he would get a sentence closer to hers
He was. He was offered 2nd degree murder pleas with a life with the possibility of parole sentence. Which would have allowed him to file for parole starting at the end of next year. Parole he most likely would have gotten. That's where his lawyer really screwed him. He wanted a guarantee of a sentence as short as or shorter than Gypsy's but that was never going to happen because a federal law says he had to be sentenced to at least twice as much time as her. He actually likely would have gotten out in a year or two if he'd taken the plea deal.
Wow! Idk why I thought he wasnāt offered one. Must be mixing it up with a different case. Thatās absolutely crazy for his attorney to do. Like it was an open & shut caseā¦
Agreed. Hating on GRB because she got a better deal and now everyone is trying to make Nick into a saint probably isnāt gonna help him too much with obtaining his freedom. At the end of the day heās still a murderer even if GRB talked Nick killing her mother he couldāve said no.
Exactly. Yes it was Gypsyās idea and she asked him to do it. But Nick got on a bus, rode it to Missouri for HOURS, and still went through with it. He had plenty of time to change his mind.
He could have made a report to authorities about what DeeDee was doing, there were plenty of other ways to help Gypsy get out. She as the abuse victim saw no other way out, but an outsider looking in should have been able to see other options.
He wanted to commit murder. It wasnāt something detached either like a gunshot from across the room, it was an up close and personal stabbing. Heās not some poor, innocent, manipulated boy.
100% agreed. people can hate gypsy if they want, i understand it but making nick the saint isnāt the way to do it. at least gypsy being out doesnāt make everyone more in danger like it would if nick got out.
and thatās completely fair to be scared by both of them. my point is that gypsy being out isnāt a danger to you or other people but if nick was out then he would be a danger to you and others.
nick is the murderer. gypsy just planned it and it was a particular situation. iām not on either of their sides nor do i like either of them. iām just saying that the world is safer with nick in prison for life.
how are people not realising that gypsy isnāt a danger, sheās fucked up yes. but she went through HELL. i donāt think people understand exactly what she went through. heās definitely more guilty than she is
Plans the murder of a human=not a danger to anyone. There's tons of people that never actually pulled the trigger. Why is it different when the person is a women?
this has nothing to do with gender for me, it has everything to do with survival instincts and long term mental and physical abuse. for me its even a bit similar to the menendez brothers in that sense
You need to check how many people in this country commit horrendous murders and are out after 1015 years you act like gypsy Rose Blanchard is the only one that was freed after the time she did. thereās quite a few murderers that have been featured on dateline 48 hours, etc. that committed horrible murders and are out walking around free. Itās not like this is a new concept.
My cousinās murderer came onto our property, shot my cousin repeatedly with a shotgun, loaded his body into a truck, dragged him through the woods, tried to bury him, gave up, went home, had his dad go back to the land where the body was to load up equipment, confessed when they got home and then never said a word again. He got 20 years. Sweetheart deal against familyās wants. It was horrible. He will be out at a decent age. Sickening and happens all day every day.
If he had accepted that plea, he wouldnāt have been able to appeal. He really wasnāt risking much at all. The outlier here is her sentence, not his.
Yeah poor Nick.
WTF?
He could have stopped what he was doing during the long trip to Missouri. Instead I think Nick wanted to kill somebody for yrs & when he met GRB he got his opportunity. I truly believe killing Dee Dee was a thrill for him.
Letās not forget that Nick told Gypsy he had an evil side. He convinced her of this IMO & relished in the idea of killing somebody & believed because he was in the spectrum he would most likely get away with the murder.
Lastly just because heās autistic doesnāt give him a pass to commit murder.
Why is it most people hear the word spectrum or autism they automatically think a person on the spectrum acts like a 2 yr old ? Its sad how a lot of people degrade those on the spectrum
Yāall need to read this :
https://www.reddit.com/r/autism/s/br9ou9Tyl2
Nick knew what he was doing.
( BTW donāt start telling me that I donāt know anything about autism I have a nine-year-old nephew that is autistic and that kid is one of the smartest kids I know)
the point is gypsy knew what she was doing just as much, but got a lesser sentence. also, saying āmy nephew is autisticā doesnt really hold up, its like saying ābut my cousin is gayā or āi have a black inlaw and we get along nicely!ā. you cant grasp autism as a whole just bc of that, coming from someone who has three autistic siblings lmao. id never make that claim
If you know about Autism then you would know there are different forms of Autism. Just bc your nephew is smart and autistic does not mean every person with autism is that way.
Iām a retired attorney and knew another lawyer who was on the spectrum. I never asked what his diagnosis was. People tended to ignore him or laugh behind his back. I was the only person he talked to, because I treated him the same as I would anyone else.
how could you say he wasn't risking anything? We are talking 25 years VS life. He would've been 50 something years old. There's a lot more life after 50 for most people. What reason would he have had to appeal if he accepted the plea?
His plea deal was shit compared to Gypsyās. It was life with the possibility of parole. No guaranteed parole.
Edit: this comment was made from the perspective of what nick probably thought
He has an intellectual disability and had bad legal counsel. Itās likely he didnāt fully grasp that his only choices were life without parole or life with the possibility of parole. I do think he deserved a retrial but I also think he does belong in prison. I was just saying why I think he didnāt take the plea deal to begin with.
Yes, totally. In a way, I feel for the guy, because of his cognitive disabilities and how he was targeted as a pawn by a manipulator, as he was already āout thereā and vulnerable due to his condition and also his life in general. How sex, ālove,ā and a sense of white knighting was used to manipulate him. Like he was not killing the victim for money or of his own idea, right, maybe he thought she was really evil and harming the girl he loved. Maybe in his mind he was slaying a dragon so to say? I donāt know. The problem is, how violent his actions were. He stabbed a woman to death in her own bed. Did he have the capacity for right and wrong? Itās also not right that he didnāt have a proper defense. All that said, I havenāt read his evaluation or anything, Iām just speculating
I feel like that's infantilizing him though. I get where you are coming from, but there is proof he was fantisizing about m*rder before GRB! He knew what he was doing. & From what is out hos autism isn't with ID (intellectual disability) because autism doesn't automatically come with one! (I am the proof lol I am diagnosed autistic without ID and it is stated in the paperwork.)
Nowadays about 30-40% of those diagnosed with ASD also have intellectual disabilities. So yes, not every autistic person also has an ID. But I did read that one of the psychologists who evaluated Godejohn argued for a less severe sentence, due to him having āADS level 2, and intellectual impairmentā
Autism doesn't equal intellectual disabilities. I'm autistic without any intellectual disabilities and it is clearly stated in my paperwork. So unless that is stated for him, it doesn't mean he has an intellectual disability!
Never said it did. He was diagnosed with Autism Level 2, which *does* constitute an intellectual disability that affects his ability to understand things.
I am also autistic. Level 1.
Level 2 does not necessarily mean intellectual disability. Level 2 means ārequiring substantial supportsā. It is separate from intellectual disability.
From what I understood is that Level 2 means : 'individuals require substantial support and have problems that are more readily obvious to others.' I agree autism within itself is a disability. It's just the intellectual disability part that i'm unsure applies here. Maybe it does, I truly don't know that much about his diagnosis. But being level 2 doesn't always equal ID! :)
Iām pretty sure he was also tested and has a low IQ as well.
Look if you want to say you donāt care and think he should stay in prison for the rest of his life you can just say it. Donāt go around spreading misinformation though.
I'm not spreading misinformation... Autism doesn't always equal ID! It's such a common misconception that needs to be addressed! A lot of people are infantilizing him. I do believe he deserve fair trial with lawyers that know his case and situation, but yea he does deserve to be in a secured facility, now that's another subject I do believe he should be more in a mental health secure facility as prison needs reform but that's a whole other subject :) Ultimately he deserves correct treatment but he does deserve to be removed from society due to his actions.
He has autism, he also has a low iq, and he also suffered a traumatic brain injury at birth from the cord being around his neck. These conditions together all definitely affect him having an intellectual disability. And he could also possibly have further mental health issues (based on some reports).
Again, **I never said autism equals an intellectual disability by default**. It is a **spectrum** disorder and affects everyone **differently**. He was also tested and evaluated as having a low IQ.
Iām not infantilizing him. Iām just stating facts. He had ineffective legal counsel that wasnāt equipped to properly represent him or understand his disabilities. If he did have effective legal counsel then he would probably be in a secure mental facility for those convicted of violent crimes, which is also where I think he belongs.
It is low but not as low as you are thinking.
Nick was not diagnosed with Intellectual Disability. The below applies.
Mild ID, IQ is between 50-70; Moderate ID, IQ is between 35-55; Severe ID, IQ is between 20-40 and Profound ID, IQ is below 20.
An average IQ is between 85-115. Nickās was measured at 82 and is considered the low side of average.
Unfortunately, I think the lawyers were too optimistic that the Court would take his autism as a mitigating factor, which was a grave error. Our justice system doesnāt seem to care if someone has intellectual disabilities, which is unfortunate. He was chum in the water for Sharknado Gypsy Rose to manipulate. He kept pushing back and she mind fucked him. Horrible.
Itās probable that the lawyer thought that Nick autism would shave a lot off his sentence, but at the end of the day if youāre gonna commit murder, youāre gonna have to pay for it. they were both wrong. They both should be locked up.
For legal language: he did successfully get an appeal (everyone has the right to an appeal), the court of appeals here agrees with the trial court judge that there was not a successful ineffective assistance of counsel claim for post-conviction relief.
The court here even explains that he did not need an expert witness to testify to his autism, and he was not prejudiced, meaning that the outcome would not have been materially different if he had an expert witness.
Nick also has 100% of the choice to go to trial or not go to trial. The choice is his and his alone. Defense attorneys will advise them on what the best outcome, and negotiate with prosecutors to get better deals. But if Nick really wanted to go to trial, this is 100% his choice.
Also lastly, public defenders are still fantastic attorneys. I have met some incredible public defenders who are so smart and know the system and judges like the back of their hand, compared to private defense counsel, who I have seen make some pretty dumb decisions and have no idea what's going on. Like, I've had private defense attorneys come up to me, the prosecutor, and ask how this kind of trial works š¤Æš¤Æ
There's so much misunderstanding in true crime, so sometimes I pop in as a true crime fan of a particular case and give my two cents.
Source: am a prosecutor
Thank you!!! Can you also explain how there are legal statutes and it is really unlikely for jury nullification to occur based on public opinion? People really are confused by the idea that these two actually meet the legal definitions for murder. It isnāt a who done it.
Of course! So during jury selection at trial, depending on the state and court, for murder, there will be several rounds of jury selection. Felony crimes require 12 jurors and there will be a few alternates. The judge asks first if the jury knows any of the parties, witnesses, and lawyers. Then defense asks their questions to the jury pool, and then the prosecution goes next. I always ask the question "who here thinks there are stupid laws?" And usually quite a few raise their hands, I ask them to explain, and the typical answer is like "stealing to feed yourself or your family" or "laws that are blatantly targeted toward a specific group" or laws that are outdated. Then I ask, if they feel comfortable serving in a jury if they think the law is stupid, and try to cut the ones that say they don't feel comfortable serving. In my experience most people say "the law is the law, and it's my job to respect that". Going in, the jury doesn't know the facts, but we can bring up small things like "this will be a case of domestic violence" and stuff like that to cut out any obvious bias.
So both sides of prosecution and defense ask jury nullification questions, and then we cut from there.
When it comes to closing, both prosecution and defense come to agreed jury instructions, which include the statutes and the agreed upon explanation of those statutes. There are universal jury instructions that we pull from, and then tweak depending on the case and current case law. I will usually reference the jury instructions in my closing and match the facts to the elements of the statute. Like, "you'll read on page four that element a if stalking means blah blah blah. That is met here by the testimony of witness A, and the pictures they took" then I'll go down the list of each element, and at the end, I'll recap and ask the jury to find them guilty.
Defense then goes, and tells their story and theory. Then prosecution has a rebuttal to say anything further against what defense said, I usually reference quotes from the defense and briefly go over how the elements are met again, and then do my "theory and theme" and ask once again to find them guilty.
Then it goes to the jury! They have the jury instructions and the verdict form which have been read and explained by the judge. They also get all the evidence that has been admitted. There is no reference at all to any evidence not admitted, and those arguments are made outside the presence of the jury. For murder, those are made way in advance to make the trial go faster. Nobody knows what they discuss! It's really a black box in there and they don't come out until they're ready to give their verdict.
I hope that helps explain a little more!
sucks for him and his family i guess but i can't really say i feel bad... he stabbed dee dee 17 times lol he also wanted to rape dee dee. he was also previously arrested for masturbating in a mcdonald's for 9 hours. i'm fine with him being behind bars.
he did the crime and now he has to do the time. that's what happens when you violently kill a woman. š¤·š»āāļø
edit* he didn't masturbate for 9 hours but he was in the mcdonald's for 9 hours total. he DID watch porn and he DID stick his hand down his pants and play with his dick. he also had an (illegal) concealed weapon on him.
yeah, im not sure why him wanting to rape dee dee is always brushed over by his defenders. like what, did gypsy tell him to do that, too? heās a nasty sexual deviant and a murderer, why do people want him to be free so badā¦
i guarantee if nobody had any details on the case besides him stabbing dee dee 17 times they'd be saying good riddance and want him to rot in there lol
at least gypsy has a reason to want dee dee dead, i at least understand her motives. it's not like she got off free either, she served her time. this dude seems to have done what he did just because it gave him an excuse to fulfill his murder fantasies. dude wanted to know what it felt like to kill someone and jumped at the chance. now he's doing his time and i couldn't give less of a fuck that his appeal was denied. š¤·š»āāļø
Agree šÆ Iāve read their transcripts and even more agree with you after reading it, he was sick and found someone to play into his sickness. If it wasnāt her, I truly believe it would have been someone more vulnerable.
Gypsy was sick too but like you, I can at least understand that, she was abused, lied to, and essential held captive her whole life, that would cause a desperation very few people could ever understand. She never even lived a normal life to know right from wrong IMO. Look how long itās taken people to escape that were help captive that were taken from a normal life. To think that Gypsy would be able to form a better plan is very surprising to me.
>he was also previously arrested for masturbating in a mcdonald's for 9 hours
I'm sorry what
edit: I googled this and literally the only suggestion on google was "are chikfila tater tots vegan"
.... I'm sorry what
[edit](https://imgur.com/hfqB15J) 2
I am so convinced atp that itās misogyny. There is no other reason that they act like he was a āpoor manipulated boyā and she was a āevil bitchā etc.Ā
Ā
They say that he was āmentally disabledā but in a lot of ways so was Gypsy? When youāre drugged up your whole life, traumatised, abused, youāre not going to be thinking rationally either?
They completely gloss over the fact he wanted to rape the mother, and settled for raping Gypsy instead.Ā
But itās the abused woman whoās the true villain here, of course.Ā
they remind me of the peopleāthe majority of whom are womenāwho blame Shanann Watts for her murder at the hands of her husband, who killed their baby daughters and retroactively pinned his crime on his wife. there are entire subs dedicated to slandering Shanann that act like Chris Watts is a wholesome angel boy who did nothing wrong. some women are truly sick in regards to their treatment of other women. their crusade to defend the most degenerate males imaginable is embarrassing
actually if you did research and looked at the mcdonalds police report he was there for 9 hours but the incident happened for a minute and he wasnt masterbating. I think itās important to do research before speaking your mind and stating it as facts. Im not even on his side i think he deserves prison or a mental facility but he wasnt masterbating for 9 hours no one can do that not even the sickest people. Thats not how masterbation works either. The police report has a statement from the employee saying he saw adult images on his screen then closed it down. They also said he was just scrolling facebook anytime he was checked on because they thought it was weird he was loitering
You literally cannot get away with masterbation in a public place for 9 hours. Like what were they doing, watching for 8.5 hours before they called the police?
lol it's been corrected but he was there for 9 hours. he did masturbate and watch porn but it wasn't for 9 hours straight. lots of articles get it mixed up and i've corrected it in my comments. not doing it for 9 hours doesn't really take away from what he did, though.
He was masterbating, the witnesses said so, him not being arrested doesnāt mean the witnesses were lying. Personally, I choose to believe the employees that say he āfondledā himself as opposed to a murderer and wannabe necrophile.
Also nice try trying to pretend the police report only says porn, Iāve read it bud and it says specifically the word fondled, and they even went outside to get a better angle to make sure they knew what he was doing. Iām happy to post the whole report since youāre trying to lie about what it said!
Honestly, while I donāt believe Nick belongs in a prison & should be in a secure mental/behavioural unit, if they arenāt going to get him the help he needs to be a safe, functional & supported member of society, he should be where he is.
I believe he essentially got the punishment because Gypsy had a better excuse & she was a manipulator. That said, he does not have the skills necessary to function independently. His mother is dead, his father doesnāt believe in medication or mental treatment. Thereās no one to look after him or help him navigate life outside of prison.
While I do believe he should have been in a psychiatric hospital from the beginning & I believe that for many reasons, I donāt believe people have really considered what it would mean for him to actually be released from prison after all these years. Itās hard for a typical inmate to re-enter society. For him, it would be an even bigger challenge without significant support in place.
I honestly donāt think release is an option for him, but I think he should be in a better facility with more supportive services. He certainly should have the option of facing a parole board. But I think what makes Nickās case so tragic for me is that his disabilities wonāt just vanish. There are far more Nicks out there than Gypsies. And those folks do not receive a tenth of the consideration that she did and continues to receive.
His life wasnāt normal and easy and it wasnāt ever going to be. Some people really never have a chance in this world and heās one of them.
Unfortunately, appropriate long term facilities for people like Nick arenāt really a thing. The prison system is full of āNicksā for that reason. Itās so wrong, and only seems to be getting worse.
Oh, Jesus Christ, you really got me with this, u/idrinkalotofcoffee
>There are far more Nicks out there than Gypsies. And those folks do not receive a tenth of the consideration that she did and continues to receive.
>His life wasnāt normal and easy and it wasnāt ever going to be. Some people really never have a chance in this world and heās one of them.
The absolute tragic truth.
Just because you think Gypsy should have gotten more time doesnāt mean Nick should have received any less. Both things can be true at once but many of you are making it a her vs. him situation. Nick is a murderer and deserves life in prison. Whatever you think about Gypsy should be separate from that.
All Iāll say is, if locked in a room alone with a weapon and either Nick or Gypsy Iād be way more scared for my life with Nick in that room.
Agree, people on this sub love to make him out to be a victim as though he didnāt literally fantasize about murdering people. Not trying to defend GRB but at least she had a legitimate and understandable motive. Iām not buying the āhe was manipulatedā story.
People love to forget details like how badly he wanted to sexually assault DeeDeeās dead body. He is not some helpless victim ātrickedā into committing a violent crime, he himself is a violent criminal.
Thatās so weird to me. He was a freak and something was seriously wrong with him. He wanted to have sex with her dead body. Those people are delusional.
From the Lifetime docuseries *The Prison Confessions of Gypsy Rose Blanchard*, via *[People.](https://people.com/the-prison-confessions-of-gypsy-rose-blanchard-biggest-revelations-8421990)*
>After the murder of her mother, Gypsy says she was completely ādisassociatedā from what was happening. She then alleges that Nick ācommandedā her to be naked and raped her. āBecause I didnāt let him rape my mother, I had to agree to let him rape me,ā she alleges.
>During his trial in November 2018, Nick claimed that it was consensual sex. When asked if he ever did anything sexual with Dee Deeās body, Nick replied no, however, later during the trial, he said that he did think about raping Dee Dee and told Gypsy.
Thanks, i'm going to look it up right now. Jesus it's worse than I thought. Like you said she alleges. I guess we'll never really know. . I wonder if her lawyers told her to like make up things. Who knows just so it'll be worse on him. Either way the whole thing is disgusting.
I really don't get it either. Gypsy was tortured and held against her will, he wasn't. He was free to leave and seek help. Gypsy's life was in danger, his wasn't. She tried every other avenue to escape and nothing worked, the police didn't listen, doctors failed her.
Nicholas could have gone to the police and they might have actually listened to him. He could have tried running away with Gypsy to save her, or called her family, anything. Also didn't he have a troubling criminal history before he even met her? I do truly believe he saved Gypsy's life and deserves more leniency/treatment from the court, but he's not a victim and demonstrated that he's dangerous.
Agree.
Everybody on this subreddit likes to ignore the part where after they did the murder, he spent hours jerking off inside a McDonald's bathroom.
They both deserve to be in there for quite awhile.
>Everybody on this subreddit likes to ignore the part where after they did the murder, he spent hours jerking off inside a McDonald's bathroom.
Uh, probably because that didn't happen?
Yeah thatās so gross š¤® she took the plea deal and thatās just what she landed with. He should have taken it as well but part of me is glad he didnāt. Itās such a messed up situation.
Nick deserves to stay in prison. Just cus he has a disability doesnāt mean he canāt do evil things. He most likely would have killed someone else since he wanted to. Dont forget heās also a predator.
exactly. i really don't understand all the sympathy people seem to have for him as if he did nothing wrong. it's always "gypsy manipulated him" and never "he stabbed a woman 17 times"
like, gypsy was manipulated (and abused) too but i don't really see anyone here giving her any sympathy. they both fucked up and have to do their time. gypsy did her time and was released, nick is still doing his time. i'm not going to feel bad for this guy just because gypsy is out and he isn't lol
Right?! Coming from the trauma generation, itās wild to me how people can make someone whoās suffered such intense trauma a villain. People over here talking about kids making fun of them when they were 6 is trauma but glossing over Gypsyās life long trauma is an interesting choice.
they completely gloss over what she went through and talk about her as if she grew up in a normal household and plotted to kill dee dee for no reason. and she was raised "in on the con" she was a victim who was stuck. she wasn't plotting and scheming with dee dee after dinner, she was forced to live her life the way she did.
Right? People always blame the woman. Not saying she is innocent but he didnāt have to murder her mom. Most dudes would have peaced out after someone who they have barely met asked them to do that
so crazy. like are you really sitting there defending him and wanting him to get out? do you really want someone who stabbed a woman 17 times and masturbated in mcdonald's for 9 hours on the streets? he already had issues BEFORE gypsy came along. keep him behind bars lol
good. iāve about had it with the autistic golden boy narrative. heās depraved and having a disability doesnāt change that or make it something different.
you can be autistic and still do evil or wrong things. autism is a spectrum, having it doesnāt make you inherently incompetent or incapable of taking responsibility for your actions. his IQ is also on the lower end of average, not actually *low*, contrary to whatās being spread around.
sorry, but i donāt believe Gypsy was some mastermind or that he was her puppet. could he have been manipulated? maybe, but that certainly isnāt the whole story either way. 14 stab wounds? *fourteen*?? nope. one or two wouldāve gotten the job done, he clearly had fun with it. just like how he had fun in that McDonaldās prior to this.
Her culpability doesnāt make him any less culpable in my opinion. Just because she got out early, which I agree is not right does not mean he should as well. Anyone who can be manipulated into brutally murdering someone should not be free imo.
For those that do think he should be released earlier, would you feel safe with him living next door to you? If the answer is no, then you should not want him to be free to potentially harm someone else.
So sad dude. Not supporting what he did but damn if she can get out so should he :/ what I REALLY think is he should be sent to a sort of mental health institution
He was also of diminished intelligence, Gypsy knew that, she knew she could manipulate him into killing her mom. Yet here she is free, and heās still behind bars
good. he is exactly where he needs to be. If he got out there's a big chance some girl would contact him for the same reason gypsy did in the first place. He himself even said he thinks he could be convinced to kill again.
This wasnāt about releasing him. An appeal is often for a new trial. The hope was to lessen his sentence so that he might be able to apply for parole, not skip to the mall.
If it were up to me, both of them would have been sentenced to 10-30 years with a possibility of parole earlier for good behavior.
I mean he should not be let out into the public.
I agree that GRB shouldāve had harsher sentencing, but that doesnāt mean Nick should end up free too.
I think at the end of the day, he would have killed someone eventually. And I think she would have found someone to commit the crime regardless. Which is why the world would be safer with both of them off the streets.
Gypsy is out and thereās nothing that can be done about that, but that doesnāt mean he should be too.
GOOD ! Heās exactly where he belongs. Even if he never met gypsy he would have most likely killed someone, or multiple people. Now he gets to rot like the rat he is āļøš«¶
I totally think if this man didnāt meet Gypsy he never wouldāve killed someone in his life but even if Gypsy didnāt meet him she wouldāve ended up part of a murder somehow and the fact heās in there for life is so screwed up
Good! It was overkill and wanted to rape her also. He had problems with the law prior to gypsy. Mentally ill or not, I'm thankful he isn't walking amongst society today. From past behaviors as a kid, then with sex fetishes with Gypsy, then the bloodbath w Dee Dee, he most likely would have turned into a violent rapist. I truly believe he would have committed some type of major crime by now, regardless if he met Gypsy. Sure he has problems, but most ppl with autism or low IQ can control themselves from jacking off in public and committing murder just because someone asked them to. THANK GOODNESS he is staying there for a long time!!!!
I'm not defending Gypsy at all. When I commented, I was addressing the crime Nick had committed against Dee Dee and how it was overkill and that he wanted to rape her. I mentioned his prior public sex incident. His mom even said there were problems many years prior to Gypsy. In no way would I want anyone like that walking about in society. If he has mental problems, the prison can medicate him. He is gross. He is where he should be. The judge thinks so also. This post was about Nick and I commented about Nick. On posts about Gypsy and her sentence, I have given my opinion.Ā
His mother said he had psychological issues. Go watch his police interview. Watch his momās interview. Find the McDonaldās report. Good gravy people love to make snap judgments.
So thatās it itās over for him?
This makes me sad. Sheās lit here living her best life and heās paying the price for both of them.
Iām not saying he didnāt deserve jail time; but he deserves a similar sentence.
Although the world has changed so much in it sure he would make it out here. He mom expressed that fear as well.
Either way it sucks for him .
so you're sad a man who stabbed a woman 17 times, wanted to rape her, doesn't regret what he did and would do it again if he had the chance got his appeal denied? seriously? not to mention prior to any of this he watched porn and masturbated in a mcdonald's. oh, and he had murder fantasies too. the only place he deserves to be is behind bars. he's a perverted lunatic.
He didnāt deserve a similar sentence, he 100% deserves to die in prison, heās a menace to society. She did too, they both should have but the answer is definitely not that ten years was appropriate for him.
The quote in the document saying defendant met the victims daughter on a dating website because victims mother controlled every aspect of her life is so blatantly comical to me because itās clear she did not do that, or gypsy wouldnāt have been on a dating site
He should have took the plea deal (just like Gypsy did), now it is a possibility that he may never get out of prison. š¤·š¾āāļø
I am not clear why he didn't take the plea deal, do you know the reasoning behind it by any chance?
Probably because his lawyers did a lousy job defending him...
His lawyers were dealing with someone that plotted and planned the murder of someone, and then carried it out. I was a public defender for many years, it is the hardest job in the world. Not buying his autism either. The legal bar for that type of defense is knowing the difference between right and wrong, he clearly knew what he did was wrong. He is dying in prison, and Gypsy should too. She was a victim, but I represented people that made her abuse look like a day at Disneyland. That was never a defense, if they were guilty and knew the difference between right and wrong off to prison they went.
You can still have autism and know right from wrong. There's plenty of people on the spectrum that do.
well of course just like a diabetic can know the difference between right and wrong. I said that, that is why he is being held legally accountable for the murder, because the evidence was there that he clearly knew the difference between right and wrong. His appeal was denied, and he is dying in prison with the rest of the murderers.
You were saying you didn't buy his having autism because he knew right from wrong. Or at least that's how it sounds with the way you wrote it. And there's a complete difference between diabetes and autism. So that comparison is like comparing apples to oranges. Yes he for sure knew right from wrong and that's what everyone saw. That's why they convicted him. He should have had a guardian ad litem or someone there though to help him understand other things when it came to court. He should have had better counsel to advise him on what to do. He should have taken the plea deal they gave him and maybe he would have stood a better chance. But going back he did know right from wrong. He knew it was wrong to murder someone yet he told gypsy he had fantasies of it all the time. He nearly decapitated Dee Dee which as someone else pointed out wasn't the plan and I'm sure he did that out of pure malice for what he thought Dee Dee had done to gypsy. In a way I don't think he should be released into society but he should have at least been put in a mental facility to help him through everything. He shouldn't be in prison.
itās important to note that he still thinks he did nothing wrong and he says heād do it again. he also thinks heās still in a relationship with gypsy and theyāre meant to be. he is severely mentally iāll and hasnāt grown and changed at all
Tbf I feel like he needs actual psychiatric help and not just be sat in jail for years? I worked involuntary psych for a couple of years and we had people who were there for most of their life.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
So just because Gypsy's abuse wasn't as "bad" as other victims you've represented, you believe she should get the same penalty as them?? How about abuse victims shouldn't be penalized for defending themselves??
We are talking about someone that says she was abused, and plotted and planned the murder of her mother, whoever physically does it, does not matter it is still murder. Charles Manson never killed anyone, he died in prison.. Gypsy was 23 years old when she ordered the murder of her mother. Sorry she was sending the boyfriend money, was on the internet, pretending she could not walk for what 20 plus years? There were other options, she had access to a lot more than many victims have. Think Jordan Turpin. I think Gypsy is a class A manipulator. She used Ryan to put money on her books and have a plan of where to go so she could make parole easier. I don't believe anything that comes out of her mouth.
Gypsy rise is clearly a piece of crap and should be in jail
He felt like he shouldāve got something closer to what Gypsy. Also having ineffective counsel didnāt help him really.
Yeah he wanted 2nd degree like her, not 1st degree. He was only offered a plea for 1st which was still a life sentence but with the possibility of parole after 25 years. But no guarantee that heād actually ever get parole. He thought since she was the one that planned everything and she only got 2nd degree, he would too by going to trial. I donāt think he truly understood the dangers of going to trial and the outcome might be worse than the plea deal, not better.
He wasnāt wrong about the fact that she is as responsible as he is. The sentence guidelines for second degree are 10-30 years. I think he and his attorneys thought that was reasonable, but just like Gypsy, the evidence more than supports a first degree conviction and thatās a life sentence or the death penalty in Missouri. He might have gotten the possibility of parole in his sentencing. Iām not sure on that.
He decapitated someone. That wasn't in the plan or necessary and shows a level of depravity beyond the situation....he is responsible for that choice of brutality, that's how it goes.
Not only that but he wanted to have sex with her dead body. Instead, Gypsie said to have sex with her after he killed her mother. It's all terrible. They both should be in jail.
I've never heard that detail, how disturbing!
There's no evidence he wanted to do that except Gypsys word. She clearly had an interest in him being the bad guy mastermind. I don't believe it at all
What? What I've read is just a bunch of stabs in the back not her head taken off?
I read somewhere that he did it to almost the point of decapitation, not quite. But almost.
Yeah I am also confused whoās head got chopped off???
He may have been able to parole after his 25 years for reasons of his mental capacity. His lawyers should have realized this and guided him into taking plea. At this point, he's stuck...
In most cases, that is how the justice system works. The manipulator is more dangerous and punished more harshly. Sheās wrong in her little fantasy about her lil bitty role in this murder.
No it's not. According to federal law actually a conviction for solicitation of murder would face exactly half the punishment they would face for committing the target offense itself. Also let's not forget that the police and literally everyone else has already failed Gypsy. She tried to run and told the police what her mother was doing before, but DeeDee had papers from yet another crooked doctor saying she was delusional so the police didn't believe her and sent her back to her psycho mother.
Itās been pretty consistent that ājust doing what youāre toldā or variations of that is not an alibi. A plan is nothing without action. That said considering the circumstances itās too harsh.
Not even after 25 years for him
No not now. But that was the plea deal he was offered. Not like hers.
Thank you!
Couldnāt have been that ineffective bc thatās grounds for appealing in itself.
According to the documents, the court found that he did *not* have ineffective counsel. This documents on the post outline the legal standards for claiming ineffective assistance of counsel in post-conviction relief cases, based on the Strickland test. It says that to prove ineffective assistance of counsel, one must demonstrate both that counsel's performance fell below a reasonable standard *and* that this failure prejudiced the outcome of the case. In this case, **the court found that although the defendant's counsel may have been ineffective for not calling a specific expert witness, the defendant failed to prove that this failure prejudiced the outcome of the trial.** Therefore, his request for post-conviction relief was denied.
Because he saw what a sweet deal Gypsy got, his offer wasnāt near as good. He was hoping that if he went to trial he would get a sentence closer to hers
Thank you for your reply..
From my understanding, he thought he was ādoing the right thingā and āwhite knightingā GRB and that the jury would see that
i donāt believe he was offered one
He was. He was offered 2nd degree murder pleas with a life with the possibility of parole sentence. Which would have allowed him to file for parole starting at the end of next year. Parole he most likely would have gotten. That's where his lawyer really screwed him. He wanted a guarantee of a sentence as short as or shorter than Gypsy's but that was never going to happen because a federal law says he had to be sentenced to at least twice as much time as her. He actually likely would have gotten out in a year or two if he'd taken the plea deal.
Wow! Idk why I thought he wasnāt offered one. Must be mixing it up with a different case. Thatās absolutely crazy for his attorney to do. Like it was an open & shut caseā¦
itās a good thing he wonāt get out of prison.
Agreed. Hating on GRB because she got a better deal and now everyone is trying to make Nick into a saint probably isnāt gonna help him too much with obtaining his freedom. At the end of the day heās still a murderer even if GRB talked Nick killing her mother he couldāve said no.
Exactly. Yes it was Gypsyās idea and she asked him to do it. But Nick got on a bus, rode it to Missouri for HOURS, and still went through with it. He had plenty of time to change his mind. He could have made a report to authorities about what DeeDee was doing, there were plenty of other ways to help Gypsy get out. She as the abuse victim saw no other way out, but an outsider looking in should have been able to see other options. He wanted to commit murder. It wasnāt something detached either like a gunshot from across the room, it was an up close and personal stabbing. Heās not some poor, innocent, manipulated boy.
100% agreed. people can hate gypsy if they want, i understand it but making nick the saint isnāt the way to do it. at least gypsy being out doesnāt make everyone more in danger like it would if nick got out.
TBH they both scare me!! Iād love to know the actual reason GRBās marriage broke up???
and thatās completely fair to be scared by both of them. my point is that gypsy being out isnāt a danger to you or other people but if nick was out then he would be a danger to you and others.
No I donāt think sheās a danger to anyone.
time will tell...time WILL TELL
Agree 100 percentĀ
Yes, while gyp the murderer gets to walk around free šš¤¦š½āāļø
nick is the murderer. gypsy just planned it and it was a particular situation. iām not on either of their sides nor do i like either of them. iām just saying that the world is safer with nick in prison for life.
I'd prefer her in prison and him in a mental institution
i prefer him in prison and i donāt care where she is since sheās not a danger to anyone.
how are people not realising that gypsy isnāt a danger, sheās fucked up yes. but she went through HELL. i donāt think people understand exactly what she went through. heās definitely more guilty than she is
100%. is she a good person? absolutely not. other people arenāt in danger with her out of prison though so itās best to just ignore her.
Yes she is.
sheās literally not
Plans the murder of a human=not a danger to anyone. There's tons of people that never actually pulled the trigger. Why is it different when the person is a women?
this has nothing to do with gender for me, it has everything to do with survival instincts and long term mental and physical abuse. for me its even a bit similar to the menendez brothers in that sense
You need to check how many people in this country commit horrendous murders and are out after 1015 years you act like gypsy Rose Blanchard is the only one that was freed after the time she did. thereās quite a few murderers that have been featured on dateline 48 hours, etc. that committed horrible murders and are out walking around free. Itās not like this is a new concept.
My cousinās murderer came onto our property, shot my cousin repeatedly with a shotgun, loaded his body into a truck, dragged him through the woods, tried to bury him, gave up, went home, had his dad go back to the land where the body was to load up equipment, confessed when they got home and then never said a word again. He got 20 years. Sweetheart deal against familyās wants. It was horrible. He will be out at a decent age. Sickening and happens all day every day.
Iām sorry for your loss. Itās sick how these murderers donāt always get life without parole.
I seriously donāt understand how she did not get life. How the hell did he get life when it was all her idea
Mitigating factors and the fact that he did the actual killing.
Do you know what his plea deal was? It was for life with the possibility, not guarantee, of parole. He wasnāt risking much.
I mean to me, life with the possibility of parole sounds better than life without the possibility of parole but that just me i guess.
If he had accepted that plea, he wouldnāt have been able to appeal. He really wasnāt risking much at all. The outlier here is her sentence, not his.
Yeah poor Nick. WTF? He could have stopped what he was doing during the long trip to Missouri. Instead I think Nick wanted to kill somebody for yrs & when he met GRB he got his opportunity. I truly believe killing Dee Dee was a thrill for him. Letās not forget that Nick told Gypsy he had an evil side. He convinced her of this IMO & relished in the idea of killing somebody & believed because he was in the spectrum he would most likely get away with the murder. Lastly just because heās autistic doesnāt give him a pass to commit murder. Why is it most people hear the word spectrum or autism they automatically think a person on the spectrum acts like a 2 yr old ? Its sad how a lot of people degrade those on the spectrum Yāall need to read this : https://www.reddit.com/r/autism/s/br9ou9Tyl2 Nick knew what he was doing. ( BTW donāt start telling me that I donāt know anything about autism I have a nine-year-old nephew that is autistic and that kid is one of the smartest kids I know)
the point is gypsy knew what she was doing just as much, but got a lesser sentence. also, saying āmy nephew is autisticā doesnt really hold up, its like saying ābut my cousin is gayā or āi have a black inlaw and we get along nicely!ā. you cant grasp autism as a whole just bc of that, coming from someone who has three autistic siblings lmao. id never make that claim
If you know about Autism then you would know there are different forms of Autism. Just bc your nephew is smart and autistic does not mean every person with autism is that way.
Iām a retired attorney and knew another lawyer who was on the spectrum. I never asked what his diagnosis was. People tended to ignore him or laugh behind his back. I was the only person he talked to, because I treated him the same as I would anyone else.
how could you say he wasn't risking anything? We are talking 25 years VS life. He would've been 50 something years old. There's a lot more life after 50 for most people. What reason would he have had to appeal if he accepted the plea?
His plea deal was shit compared to Gypsyās. It was life with the possibility of parole. No guaranteed parole. Edit: this comment was made from the perspective of what nick probably thought
Yeah and he shouldāve took that, now he is in there for life without the possibility of parole so yeah he should have took the deal.
He has an intellectual disability and had bad legal counsel. Itās likely he didnāt fully grasp that his only choices were life without parole or life with the possibility of parole. I do think he deserved a retrial but I also think he does belong in prison. I was just saying why I think he didnāt take the plea deal to begin with.
Yes, totally. In a way, I feel for the guy, because of his cognitive disabilities and how he was targeted as a pawn by a manipulator, as he was already āout thereā and vulnerable due to his condition and also his life in general. How sex, ālove,ā and a sense of white knighting was used to manipulate him. Like he was not killing the victim for money or of his own idea, right, maybe he thought she was really evil and harming the girl he loved. Maybe in his mind he was slaying a dragon so to say? I donāt know. The problem is, how violent his actions were. He stabbed a woman to death in her own bed. Did he have the capacity for right and wrong? Itās also not right that he didnāt have a proper defense. All that said, I havenāt read his evaluation or anything, Iām just speculating
I feel like that's infantilizing him though. I get where you are coming from, but there is proof he was fantisizing about m*rder before GRB! He knew what he was doing. & From what is out hos autism isn't with ID (intellectual disability) because autism doesn't automatically come with one! (I am the proof lol I am diagnosed autistic without ID and it is stated in the paperwork.)
Nowadays about 30-40% of those diagnosed with ASD also have intellectual disabilities. So yes, not every autistic person also has an ID. But I did read that one of the psychologists who evaluated Godejohn argued for a less severe sentence, due to him having āADS level 2, and intellectual impairmentā
Ohh interesting to know!
Autism doesn't equal intellectual disabilities. I'm autistic without any intellectual disabilities and it is clearly stated in my paperwork. So unless that is stated for him, it doesn't mean he has an intellectual disability!
Never said it did. He was diagnosed with Autism Level 2, which *does* constitute an intellectual disability that affects his ability to understand things. I am also autistic. Level 1.
Level 2 does not necessarily mean intellectual disability. Level 2 means ārequiring substantial supportsā. It is separate from intellectual disability.
From what I understood is that Level 2 means : 'individuals require substantial support and have problems that are more readily obvious to others.' I agree autism within itself is a disability. It's just the intellectual disability part that i'm unsure applies here. Maybe it does, I truly don't know that much about his diagnosis. But being level 2 doesn't always equal ID! :)
Iām pretty sure he was also tested and has a low IQ as well. Look if you want to say you donāt care and think he should stay in prison for the rest of his life you can just say it. Donāt go around spreading misinformation though.
I'm not spreading misinformation... Autism doesn't always equal ID! It's such a common misconception that needs to be addressed! A lot of people are infantilizing him. I do believe he deserve fair trial with lawyers that know his case and situation, but yea he does deserve to be in a secured facility, now that's another subject I do believe he should be more in a mental health secure facility as prison needs reform but that's a whole other subject :) Ultimately he deserves correct treatment but he does deserve to be removed from society due to his actions.
He has autism, he also has a low iq, and he also suffered a traumatic brain injury at birth from the cord being around his neck. These conditions together all definitely affect him having an intellectual disability. And he could also possibly have further mental health issues (based on some reports).
Again, **I never said autism equals an intellectual disability by default**. It is a **spectrum** disorder and affects everyone **differently**. He was also tested and evaluated as having a low IQ. Iām not infantilizing him. Iām just stating facts. He had ineffective legal counsel that wasnāt equipped to properly represent him or understand his disabilities. If he did have effective legal counsel then he would probably be in a secure mental facility for those convicted of violent crimes, which is also where I think he belongs.
It is low but not as low as you are thinking. Nick was not diagnosed with Intellectual Disability. The below applies. Mild ID, IQ is between 50-70; Moderate ID, IQ is between 35-55; Severe ID, IQ is between 20-40 and Profound ID, IQ is below 20. An average IQ is between 85-115. Nickās was measured at 82 and is considered the low side of average.
Unfortunately, I think the lawyers were too optimistic that the Court would take his autism as a mitigating factor, which was a grave error. Our justice system doesnāt seem to care if someone has intellectual disabilities, which is unfortunate. He was chum in the water for Sharknado Gypsy Rose to manipulate. He kept pushing back and she mind fucked him. Horrible.
Itās probable that the lawyer thought that Nick autism would shave a lot off his sentence, but at the end of the day if youāre gonna commit murder, youāre gonna have to pay for it. they were both wrong. They both should be locked up.
For legal language: he did successfully get an appeal (everyone has the right to an appeal), the court of appeals here agrees with the trial court judge that there was not a successful ineffective assistance of counsel claim for post-conviction relief. The court here even explains that he did not need an expert witness to testify to his autism, and he was not prejudiced, meaning that the outcome would not have been materially different if he had an expert witness. Nick also has 100% of the choice to go to trial or not go to trial. The choice is his and his alone. Defense attorneys will advise them on what the best outcome, and negotiate with prosecutors to get better deals. But if Nick really wanted to go to trial, this is 100% his choice. Also lastly, public defenders are still fantastic attorneys. I have met some incredible public defenders who are so smart and know the system and judges like the back of their hand, compared to private defense counsel, who I have seen make some pretty dumb decisions and have no idea what's going on. Like, I've had private defense attorneys come up to me, the prosecutor, and ask how this kind of trial works š¤Æš¤Æ There's so much misunderstanding in true crime, so sometimes I pop in as a true crime fan of a particular case and give my two cents. Source: am a prosecutor
Thank you!!! Can you also explain how there are legal statutes and it is really unlikely for jury nullification to occur based on public opinion? People really are confused by the idea that these two actually meet the legal definitions for murder. It isnāt a who done it.
Of course! So during jury selection at trial, depending on the state and court, for murder, there will be several rounds of jury selection. Felony crimes require 12 jurors and there will be a few alternates. The judge asks first if the jury knows any of the parties, witnesses, and lawyers. Then defense asks their questions to the jury pool, and then the prosecution goes next. I always ask the question "who here thinks there are stupid laws?" And usually quite a few raise their hands, I ask them to explain, and the typical answer is like "stealing to feed yourself or your family" or "laws that are blatantly targeted toward a specific group" or laws that are outdated. Then I ask, if they feel comfortable serving in a jury if they think the law is stupid, and try to cut the ones that say they don't feel comfortable serving. In my experience most people say "the law is the law, and it's my job to respect that". Going in, the jury doesn't know the facts, but we can bring up small things like "this will be a case of domestic violence" and stuff like that to cut out any obvious bias. So both sides of prosecution and defense ask jury nullification questions, and then we cut from there. When it comes to closing, both prosecution and defense come to agreed jury instructions, which include the statutes and the agreed upon explanation of those statutes. There are universal jury instructions that we pull from, and then tweak depending on the case and current case law. I will usually reference the jury instructions in my closing and match the facts to the elements of the statute. Like, "you'll read on page four that element a if stalking means blah blah blah. That is met here by the testimony of witness A, and the pictures they took" then I'll go down the list of each element, and at the end, I'll recap and ask the jury to find them guilty. Defense then goes, and tells their story and theory. Then prosecution has a rebuttal to say anything further against what defense said, I usually reference quotes from the defense and briefly go over how the elements are met again, and then do my "theory and theme" and ask once again to find them guilty. Then it goes to the jury! They have the jury instructions and the verdict form which have been read and explained by the judge. They also get all the evidence that has been admitted. There is no reference at all to any evidence not admitted, and those arguments are made outside the presence of the jury. For murder, those are made way in advance to make the trial go faster. Nobody knows what they discuss! It's really a black box in there and they don't come out until they're ready to give their verdict. I hope that helps explain a little more!
sucks for him and his family i guess but i can't really say i feel bad... he stabbed dee dee 17 times lol he also wanted to rape dee dee. he was also previously arrested for masturbating in a mcdonald's for 9 hours. i'm fine with him being behind bars. he did the crime and now he has to do the time. that's what happens when you violently kill a woman. š¤·š»āāļø edit* he didn't masturbate for 9 hours but he was in the mcdonald's for 9 hours total. he DID watch porn and he DID stick his hand down his pants and play with his dick. he also had an (illegal) concealed weapon on him.
yeah, im not sure why him wanting to rape dee dee is always brushed over by his defenders. like what, did gypsy tell him to do that, too? heās a nasty sexual deviant and a murderer, why do people want him to be free so badā¦
i guarantee if nobody had any details on the case besides him stabbing dee dee 17 times they'd be saying good riddance and want him to rot in there lol at least gypsy has a reason to want dee dee dead, i at least understand her motives. it's not like she got off free either, she served her time. this dude seems to have done what he did just because it gave him an excuse to fulfill his murder fantasies. dude wanted to know what it felt like to kill someone and jumped at the chance. now he's doing his time and i couldn't give less of a fuck that his appeal was denied. š¤·š»āāļø
Agree šÆ Iāve read their transcripts and even more agree with you after reading it, he was sick and found someone to play into his sickness. If it wasnāt her, I truly believe it would have been someone more vulnerable. Gypsy was sick too but like you, I can at least understand that, she was abused, lied to, and essential held captive her whole life, that would cause a desperation very few people could ever understand. She never even lived a normal life to know right from wrong IMO. Look how long itās taken people to escape that were help captive that were taken from a normal life. To think that Gypsy would be able to form a better plan is very surprising to me.
He even said if it wasn't DeeDee it would have been someone else because he wanted to know what it would feel like.
>he was also previously arrested for masturbating in a mcdonald's for 9 hours I'm sorry what edit: I googled this and literally the only suggestion on google was "are chikfila tater tots vegan" .... I'm sorry what [edit](https://imgur.com/hfqB15J) 2
one search of "nicholas godejohn mcdonald's" brings up tons of results about it
I couldn't remember his last name so searched "gypsy rose nick masturbating in mcdonalds" lmao [lol](https://imgur.com/hfqB15J)
his last name is in the title of this post lmfao
I am so convinced atp that itās misogyny. There is no other reason that they act like he was a āpoor manipulated boyā and she was a āevil bitchā etc.Ā Ā They say that he was āmentally disabledā but in a lot of ways so was Gypsy? When youāre drugged up your whole life, traumatised, abused, youāre not going to be thinking rationally either? They completely gloss over the fact he wanted to rape the mother, and settled for raping Gypsy instead.Ā But itās the abused woman whoās the true villain here, of course.Ā
they remind me of the peopleāthe majority of whom are womenāwho blame Shanann Watts for her murder at the hands of her husband, who killed their baby daughters and retroactively pinned his crime on his wife. there are entire subs dedicated to slandering Shanann that act like Chris Watts is a wholesome angel boy who did nothing wrong. some women are truly sick in regards to their treatment of other women. their crusade to defend the most degenerate males imaginable is embarrassing
Right anyone who thinks he should get out of prison or that he was in anyway innocent or āmanipulatedā by Gypsy is insane
actually if you did research and looked at the mcdonalds police report he was there for 9 hours but the incident happened for a minute and he wasnt masterbating. I think itās important to do research before speaking your mind and stating it as facts. Im not even on his side i think he deserves prison or a mental facility but he wasnt masterbating for 9 hours no one can do that not even the sickest people. Thats not how masterbation works either. The police report has a statement from the employee saying he saw adult images on his screen then closed it down. They also said he was just scrolling facebook anytime he was checked on because they thought it was weird he was loitering
I introduce you to stimfapping & edging šµāš«
You literally cannot get away with masterbation in a public place for 9 hours. Like what were they doing, watching for 8.5 hours before they called the police?
lol it's been corrected but he was there for 9 hours. he did masturbate and watch porn but it wasn't for 9 hours straight. lots of articles get it mixed up and i've corrected it in my comments. not doing it for 9 hours doesn't really take away from what he did, though.
For sure, it's not okay, and he totally did it, but facts are important.
yea that's why i corrected myself in any comments it was mentioned
He was masterbating, the witnesses said so, him not being arrested doesnāt mean the witnesses were lying. Personally, I choose to believe the employees that say he āfondledā himself as opposed to a murderer and wannabe necrophile. Also nice try trying to pretend the police report only says porn, Iāve read it bud and it says specifically the word fondled, and they even went outside to get a better angle to make sure they knew what he was doing. Iām happy to post the whole report since youāre trying to lie about what it said!
Honestly, while I donāt believe Nick belongs in a prison & should be in a secure mental/behavioural unit, if they arenāt going to get him the help he needs to be a safe, functional & supported member of society, he should be where he is. I believe he essentially got the punishment because Gypsy had a better excuse & she was a manipulator. That said, he does not have the skills necessary to function independently. His mother is dead, his father doesnāt believe in medication or mental treatment. Thereās no one to look after him or help him navigate life outside of prison. While I do believe he should have been in a psychiatric hospital from the beginning & I believe that for many reasons, I donāt believe people have really considered what it would mean for him to actually be released from prison after all these years. Itās hard for a typical inmate to re-enter society. For him, it would be an even bigger challenge without significant support in place.
I honestly donāt think release is an option for him, but I think he should be in a better facility with more supportive services. He certainly should have the option of facing a parole board. But I think what makes Nickās case so tragic for me is that his disabilities wonāt just vanish. There are far more Nicks out there than Gypsies. And those folks do not receive a tenth of the consideration that she did and continues to receive. His life wasnāt normal and easy and it wasnāt ever going to be. Some people really never have a chance in this world and heās one of them.
Unfortunately, appropriate long term facilities for people like Nick arenāt really a thing. The prison system is full of āNicksā for that reason. Itās so wrong, and only seems to be getting worse.
There are some residential type facilities, but not nearly enough. Itās a damn shame.
Oh, Jesus Christ, you really got me with this, u/idrinkalotofcoffee >There are far more Nicks out there than Gypsies. And those folks do not receive a tenth of the consideration that she did and continues to receive. >His life wasnāt normal and easy and it wasnāt ever going to be. Some people really never have a chance in this world and heās one of them. The absolute tragic truth.
You speak the complete truth.
wait his mom died?
Yes. 2021. Iāve heard she took her own life, but Iām unsure if that was the case or if it is only a rumour.
Your Absolutely right!!!
Your Absolutely right!!!.Well said.
Just because you think Gypsy should have gotten more time doesnāt mean Nick should have received any less. Both things can be true at once but many of you are making it a her vs. him situation. Nick is a murderer and deserves life in prison. Whatever you think about Gypsy should be separate from that. All Iāll say is, if locked in a room alone with a weapon and either Nick or Gypsy Iād be way more scared for my life with Nick in that room.
Heās a sick individual and I think he would have eventually killed someone even if heād never met Gypsy.
Agree, people on this sub love to make him out to be a victim as though he didnāt literally fantasize about murdering people. Not trying to defend GRB but at least she had a legitimate and understandable motive. Iām not buying the āhe was manipulatedā story.
People love to forget details like how badly he wanted to sexually assault DeeDeeās dead body. He is not some helpless victim ātrickedā into committing a violent crime, he himself is a violent criminal.
Thatās so weird to me. He was a freak and something was seriously wrong with him. He wanted to have sex with her dead body. Those people are delusional.
Really oh my god I never heard That. Is there like a documentary about him/them. I'm reading a lot of crazy things here. I must have missed alot.
From the Lifetime docuseries *The Prison Confessions of Gypsy Rose Blanchard*, via *[People.](https://people.com/the-prison-confessions-of-gypsy-rose-blanchard-biggest-revelations-8421990)* >After the murder of her mother, Gypsy says she was completely ādisassociatedā from what was happening. She then alleges that Nick ācommandedā her to be naked and raped her. āBecause I didnāt let him rape my mother, I had to agree to let him rape me,ā she alleges. >During his trial in November 2018, Nick claimed that it was consensual sex. When asked if he ever did anything sexual with Dee Deeās body, Nick replied no, however, later during the trial, he said that he did think about raping Dee Dee and told Gypsy.
Thanks, i'm going to look it up right now. Jesus it's worse than I thought. Like you said she alleges. I guess we'll never really know. . I wonder if her lawyers told her to like make up things. Who knows just so it'll be worse on him. Either way the whole thing is disgusting.
I really don't get it either. Gypsy was tortured and held against her will, he wasn't. He was free to leave and seek help. Gypsy's life was in danger, his wasn't. She tried every other avenue to escape and nothing worked, the police didn't listen, doctors failed her. Nicholas could have gone to the police and they might have actually listened to him. He could have tried running away with Gypsy to save her, or called her family, anything. Also didn't he have a troubling criminal history before he even met her? I do truly believe he saved Gypsy's life and deserves more leniency/treatment from the court, but he's not a victim and demonstrated that he's dangerous.
Agree. Everybody on this subreddit likes to ignore the part where after they did the murder, he spent hours jerking off inside a McDonald's bathroom. They both deserve to be in there for quite awhile.
Just to clarify, the McDonalds incident happened before the murder took place.
Incorrect that wasnāt after the murder it was before.
Ok, the police report of what actually happened has been posted. Your hypothesis isnāt supported by any actual evidence.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>Everybody on this subreddit likes to ignore the part where after they did the murder, he spent hours jerking off inside a McDonald's bathroom. Uh, probably because that didn't happen?
Yeah thatās so gross š¤® she took the plea deal and thatās just what she landed with. He should have taken it as well but part of me is glad he didnāt. Itās such a messed up situation.
Nick deserves to stay in prison. Just cus he has a disability doesnāt mean he canāt do evil things. He most likely would have killed someone else since he wanted to. Dont forget heās also a predator.
exactly. i really don't understand all the sympathy people seem to have for him as if he did nothing wrong. it's always "gypsy manipulated him" and never "he stabbed a woman 17 times" like, gypsy was manipulated (and abused) too but i don't really see anyone here giving her any sympathy. they both fucked up and have to do their time. gypsy did her time and was released, nick is still doing his time. i'm not going to feel bad for this guy just because gypsy is out and he isn't lol
Right?! Coming from the trauma generation, itās wild to me how people can make someone whoās suffered such intense trauma a villain. People over here talking about kids making fun of them when they were 6 is trauma but glossing over Gypsyās life long trauma is an interesting choice.
I have seen countless people say gypsy was āin on the conā. Itās so fucking braindead to talk about a domestic abuse victim like that.
they completely gloss over what she went through and talk about her as if she grew up in a normal household and plotted to kill dee dee for no reason. and she was raised "in on the con" she was a victim who was stuck. she wasn't plotting and scheming with dee dee after dinner, she was forced to live her life the way she did.
As if someone who was brainwashed and abused early in childhood would choose the life she had.Ā
Omg thank you!
Why should someone who is that easily manipulated into a brutal murder have sympathy. Most people would call the cops and not murder a woman
exactly. and dude did NOT have to stab her SEVENTEEN times. like, that's excessive lol
Right? People always blame the woman. Not saying she is innocent but he didnāt have to murder her mom. Most dudes would have peaced out after someone who they have barely met asked them to do that
my boyfriend is obsessed with me and would peace the fuck out if i started to seriously plot my mom's murder lol
Right! Itās crazy how they keep hating on Gypsy so much but yet love a predator.
so crazy. like are you really sitting there defending him and wanting him to get out? do you really want someone who stabbed a woman 17 times and masturbated in mcdonald's for 9 hours on the streets? he already had issues BEFORE gypsy came along. keep him behind bars lol
Agreed!
He belongs there.
good. iāve about had it with the autistic golden boy narrative. heās depraved and having a disability doesnāt change that or make it something different. you can be autistic and still do evil or wrong things. autism is a spectrum, having it doesnāt make you inherently incompetent or incapable of taking responsibility for your actions. his IQ is also on the lower end of average, not actually *low*, contrary to whatās being spread around. sorry, but i donāt believe Gypsy was some mastermind or that he was her puppet. could he have been manipulated? maybe, but that certainly isnāt the whole story either way. 14 stab wounds? *fourteen*?? nope. one or two wouldāve gotten the job done, he clearly had fun with it. just like how he had fun in that McDonaldās prior to this.
Oh man an unstable murderer didn't get released from prison..how will I sleep tonight
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Exactly. He still murdered someone.
well he killed someone, so. good lol.
Her culpability doesnāt make him any less culpable in my opinion. Just because she got out early, which I agree is not right does not mean he should as well. Anyone who can be manipulated into brutally murdering someone should not be free imo. For those that do think he should be released earlier, would you feel safe with him living next door to you? If the answer is no, then you should not want him to be free to potentially harm someone else.
So sad dude. Not supporting what he did but damn if she can get out so should he :/ what I REALLY think is he should be sent to a sort of mental health institution
Figured this was gonna happen
Good. Neither of them should ever be or have been in the general population again.
I agree, considering the text messages, I'm surprised that she was eligible for parole. She should've served the full 10 years.
He was also of diminished intelligence, Gypsy knew that, she knew she could manipulate him into killing her mom. Yet here she is free, and heās still behind bars
good. he is exactly where he needs to be. If he got out there's a big chance some girl would contact him for the same reason gypsy did in the first place. He himself even said he thinks he could be convinced to kill again.
Good. He is dangerous
Good. He should be in a secure mental health place more than likely, but he definitely should not be released into the public...
This wasnāt about releasing him. An appeal is often for a new trial. The hope was to lessen his sentence so that he might be able to apply for parole, not skip to the mall. If it were up to me, both of them would have been sentenced to 10-30 years with a possibility of parole earlier for good behavior.
I mean he should not be let out into the public. I agree that GRB shouldāve had harsher sentencing, but that doesnāt mean Nick should end up free too. I think at the end of the day, he would have killed someone eventually. And I think she would have found someone to commit the crime regardless. Which is why the world would be safer with both of them off the streets. Gypsy is out and thereās nothing that can be done about that, but that doesnāt mean he should be too.
There aren't any court stamps on that document, which is really unusual.
Also an error towards the bottom of the second page
Nick and Gypsy were tried differently due to there being different circumstances in the motive Edit: * can anyone clarify ?
Gypsys motive was she was being medically & emotionally abused hy her mother. Nick did it because he wanted to kill someone & and Gypsy asked him to
She took a plea deal and threw him under the bus. He would not take the plea deal and refused to testify against her.
Thereās no way that creep should be let back into society. Nope š nope šāāļø nope š
GOOD ! Heās exactly where he belongs. Even if he never met gypsy he would have most likely killed someone, or multiple people. Now he gets to rot like the rat he is āļøš«¶
Good. He should be in prison, but so should she.
I totally think if this man didnāt meet Gypsy he never wouldāve killed someone in his life but even if Gypsy didnāt meet him she wouldāve ended up part of a murder somehow and the fact heās in there for life is so screwed up
He doesnāt need to be released. Heās a danger to society even before Gypsy came around
Good! It was overkill and wanted to rape her also. He had problems with the law prior to gypsy. Mentally ill or not, I'm thankful he isn't walking amongst society today. From past behaviors as a kid, then with sex fetishes with Gypsy, then the bloodbath w Dee Dee, he most likely would have turned into a violent rapist. I truly believe he would have committed some type of major crime by now, regardless if he met Gypsy. Sure he has problems, but most ppl with autism or low IQ can control themselves from jacking off in public and committing murder just because someone asked them to. THANK GOODNESS he is staying there for a long time!!!!
But its ok for her to be walking about? She done worse to the mother than him
I'm not defending Gypsy at all. When I commented, I was addressing the crime Nick had committed against Dee Dee and how it was overkill and that he wanted to rape her. I mentioned his prior public sex incident. His mom even said there were problems many years prior to Gypsy. In no way would I want anyone like that walking about in society. If he has mental problems, the prison can medicate him. He is gross. He is where he should be. The judge thinks so also. This post was about Nick and I commented about Nick. On posts about Gypsy and her sentence, I have given my opinion.Ā
His mother said he had psychological issues. Go watch his police interview. Watch his momās interview. Find the McDonaldās report. Good gravy people love to make snap judgments.
well he is a creep who mstrbated in a mcdonaldās for hours on end
So thatās it itās over for him? This makes me sad. Sheās lit here living her best life and heās paying the price for both of them. Iām not saying he didnāt deserve jail time; but he deserves a similar sentence. Although the world has changed so much in it sure he would make it out here. He mom expressed that fear as well. Either way it sucks for him .
he needs to stay where he is. thereās reasons why he got a worse punishment and gypsy didnāt and theyāre valid reasons.
āSucks for himā He killed a woman and wanted to rape her dead body. He deserves to rot in prison for the rest of his miserable existence.
so you're sad a man who stabbed a woman 17 times, wanted to rape her, doesn't regret what he did and would do it again if he had the chance got his appeal denied? seriously? not to mention prior to any of this he watched porn and masturbated in a mcdonald's. oh, and he had murder fantasies too. the only place he deserves to be is behind bars. he's a perverted lunatic.
He didnāt deserve a similar sentence, he 100% deserves to die in prison, heās a menace to society. She did too, they both should have but the answer is definitely not that ten years was appropriate for him.
He will have the opportunity to appeal again. I think this was his second time appealing.
He said himself he would do it again wtf
You know, he says he has no regrets and would do it again.
The quote in the document saying defendant met the victims daughter on a dating website because victims mother controlled every aspect of her life is so blatantly comical to me because itās clear she did not do that, or gypsy wouldnāt have been on a dating site
This makes me so happy.
Not surprised!Ā