E16: Dee Dee Blanchard Murder Trial Prosecution Closing Argument

E16: Dee Dee Blanchard Murder Trial Prosecution Closing Argument

Episode Transcript

(00:01):
May please accord, yes, sir, Although this is the state versus Nicholas
Gashan, we knew that there's beenanother obvious presence here throughout this trial,
and had started Thursday when you camein for jury selection, right, This

(00:22):
other presence that we knew had kindof this overarching narrative, and that's Gypsy.
Gypsy Blanchard is absolutely a part ofthis case. And she does have
this narrative that many of you mayhave anticipated would be really a part of

(00:45):
the trial, and it is.And she does have a story about her
childhood and about how her relationship withher mom and how her mom abused her.
But if we're not careful, therecan be a tendency to let Gypsy's
narrative overshadow what we're really here todecide. Because all along, flying under

(01:11):
the radar, coolly deliberately was thedefendant, Nicholas Goadjan. And while you're
considering the evidence, Gypsy is absolutelya part of the facts. But when
it comes to your legal determination ofthe defendants guild, which you were given

(01:36):
in instruction number six, she's not. And because she has such a presence,
because she has such a story whenyou look at how simple murdering the
first degree is. It appears asthough something's missing. It feels like there
should be more, and there couldbe again that tendency to want to take

(02:00):
some of the drama, some ofthe other things that have made this paste
interesting back with you when you're decidingthe defendant's guilt. But it doesn't go.
If you look up at the instructions, there is nothing there that references
whether or not Gypsy helped plan orwhether or not Gypsy asked the defendants guilt.

(02:23):
It's not there, not because weforgot it. It's not missing.
It's because when it comes to thedefendant guild, it doesn't matter. There
may be a tendency to consider thevictim, Claudine, and how she was
and the things she did and howshe abused Gypsy. But then again,
look at instruction number six, isthere anything there that references her character?

(02:51):
We didn't forget it. It's notmissing. It's that when it comes to
the defendant's guilt, it doesn't matter. All what matters is what the defendant
did on June tenth of two thousandand fifteen. And absolutely you heard as
part of the facts that Gypsy didn'thave a role. She was the one

(03:15):
to ask the defendant to kill hermom. But we have to be careful
and separate out what is collaboration versusmanipulation, because there could be this sense
that because Gypsy was the one thatasked the defendant, somehow she manipulated the

(03:38):
defendant into killing her mom. Let'sthink about that for a minute. Think
about manipulation. It requires some kindof deception. I want to steal a
car, so I tell you,hey, see that car over there?
The owner said I could have it'sokay, could you just go get it
for me. That's manipulation because we'redeceiving versus, Hey, that car over

(04:02):
there, I want to steal it. Do you want to do it for
me? That's not manipulation, sheasked him, But he said yes.
And if you think about it ina way, Gypsy asked in the least
manipulative way because she didn't lie atall. She put it all out there.

(04:23):
She didn't try to do it throughinnuendo, she didn't make up things.
She just said, this is what'shappening to me, will you kill
my mom? There's no manipulation there, because ultimately it was the defendant's decision.
Nothing was held back from him.And if anything was evident from the

(04:45):
dynamic of their relationship that you sawin the Facebook and the text messages,
in the interview and in Gypsy's testimony, Nicholas Boudijon was not made to ever
do anything Nicholas Baudijean did not wantto do. And what you saw from
the beginning of that request was actuallythe defendant not only agreeing to this murder,

(05:15):
but really getting into this murder.Remember, he's the one that told
her, talking himself up that he'sthis assassin, and you saw through the
text messages how he talks about howdon't underestimate his need for killing, how
he's getting excited. That's not manipulation. Yes, he was asked to do

(05:36):
it, but from that he tookit from there and he got into it
and he enjoyed it. Now,the issue that you do have to decide
now that we see that, no, there's nothing missing. Although this is
a big dramatic story, that thiscase that you are here to decide is
quite narrow. We know that,we know that's not disputed, we know

(06:01):
he was trying to kill her.But the real issue is deliberation, right,
and whether or not the defendant hadthe capacity to do so. At
this point, there really shouldn't evenbe any question that the defendant deliberated because
he did. There are psychological thingswe can look at, and those are

(06:26):
important to consider, But at theend of the day, if you're wondering
if somebody has the ability to doX, the best evidence is did they
do X? And in this casethat's what happened. Do we wonder does
the defendant have the ability to deliberate? We can think of the psychology,

(06:48):
but then put that in context withwhat did he do? He did it
all the way along for a wholeyear. Not only that he described it,
and he actually described it quite vividlyin that last interview you saw when
he's describing sort of his final deliberation, the culmination of the year, and

(07:15):
he describes literally what the deliberation is, using symbols the angel and the devil,
and he talks about considering both andthat at the end it was his
decision. The bitch is dead hiswords. Now no amount of mild autism

(07:38):
level one as Burgers changes the factthat you heard him describe it in his
own words, that he shows thebitch is dead and so when looking at
your decision, which is to decidehis capacity to deliberate the moment he murders

(08:03):
Claudine, start from that moment andlet's think how did we get there?
And you saw a lot of differentevidence beating up, but it goes back
over a year. Remember this Facebookmessage with his friend from May sixteen,
that is over a year or rightat the year before the defendant murdered Claudine.

(08:31):
And as you see here his responsewhen he talks about how Jitsey changed
her mind about killing her mom.Yes, she said she wants to see
how our original plan goes first withme, media and her mom and such.
I guess she wanted to only doit as a last resort. Taking

(08:52):
that apart. In that moment Maysixteen, twenty fourteen, the defendant knows
that killing Claudine is a plan,that it's in the worst He also knows
he's the one doing it, becausethat was clear from the very beginning he
was going to be the one tophysically do it. And he is demonstrating
right here reflection because he's recognizing onethat murdering is the worst option, it's

(09:20):
the heaviest option, it has themost risk, it's the most final,
so he even recognizes that that isa last resort, but also he recognizes
that they have the alternative plans.He's reflecting on what the ultimate goal is
to be with Gypsy, and notonly does he mention the alternatives, he

(09:46):
did them. So when you wantto talk about capacity, he did that.
You heard both in his interview andin Gypsy's They tried it in March
of twoenty fifteen. That was goingto be the first plan, try to
get Mom to Liken. Well,not surprisingly, Mom seeing a twenty six

(10:11):
year old guy at a Disney movieby himself. That didn't go over break.
So plan one didn't work, butit was still an alternative he can
considered. Then you also remember someof the Skype messages from March where the
other plan was to get her pregnant, again, considering another alternative to the

(10:35):
last resort. Then we move forwardonce we get to May of twenty fifteen,
hour about a month before the murder. Here's what we know. We
know that of all the planning Gypsydid, the defendant was given how and

(10:56):
it was his choice to stab.It was his choice to use a knife.
We know that. We also knowthat he wanted tape. He wanted
bondage tape. You saw that inthe text messages, but more importantly you
heard Gypsy testify to that yesterday,that that was his idea and that he

(11:20):
wanted to do it to muffle Claudine. So, again going back to capacity
to deliberate, he clearly recognizes thatif you stab someone to death, that's
going to cause noise. Causing noisemeans you could get caught. Using tape
to muffle helps prevent you getting caught. No amount of Asperger's optism, whether

(11:48):
you're on the high side of theIQ or the low side, doesn't make
that concept any better. He thoughtof it, and he considered it,
and clearly he was doing it.Then when we get to the nineteenth where
we see he's considering his tool,the tool that he has chosen to do

(12:09):
this, and again he knows hewants to stabber, and he's thinking,
he's reflecting, because you see he'seven looking at different categories tactical knives,
seals, the knife, jungle primitiveknife, cold steel, trailmaster knife.

(12:31):
He's looking at different knives, consideringwhich one of these is going to work
best. He's reflecting upon that andyou actually heard, although there was a
big deal made of it in opening, the fact that it was Gypsy that
gave the defendant the knife. Itwas his idea to use it, and

(12:52):
he told her to get it,and if you recall, he actually told
her first to get a machete.Now we can only somewhat speculate what he
planned to do with the machete,but we can probably it's probably safe to
say it wasn't going to be anybetter for Claudine than what he did with

(13:13):
that small or n But that washis choice that he's doing on May nineteenth,
as he thinks about what he's goingto do. Then we get to
the twenty eight You remember the otherthing from the text messages and the testimony
of Gypsy is that it was thedefendant's idea to use a taser. He
wanted to use a taser, andshe actually testified that at one point she

(13:37):
apologized to him for not getting it. And remember what she said why.
He wanted it to keep her fromfighting. So let's go back to his
ability, his capacity. He wantsto murder Claudine. He knows a victim
that's not fighting back is easier tokill, so he wants to use a

(14:00):
taser. He could have a geniusIQ and there's not going to be any
better deliberation on that than what yousee. He considered a way to make
the murder easier for himself. OnMay twenty eighth, he also, as
you heard, have the capacity torealize they may get caught, and if

(14:24):
we get caught, we should probablyhave a story. And you saw both
from the testimony of Gypsy. Buteven here in these text messages, you
see they're starting on the right.Dear. Please go with the story I
told my mom and stepdad, andthen you see Gypsy responding, please let
me know what story, and thenthe defendant. I'll tell you in person,

(14:48):
dear, because I'll be able toexplain it better. Then. That
was his story, his deliberation onwhat would happen if they got caught,
and you heard it in his interview. That was the first story he told
when he said, I came uphere because Gypsy got kicked out of her
house, so I just came onthe greyhounds and brought her back. That's

(15:11):
their story. But he came upwith it because he had the capacity to
think ahead of what might happen afterthe murder. On June ninth, as
he's sitting at the day's end,he sends this text message here, should

(15:31):
I ask you this before he hasto? Is your mom a light or
a deep sleeper? Again, thatdidn't come from Gypsy. That's not her
words. That is the defendant havingthe capacity to think, if I'm going
to a victim who's sleeping, alight sleeper may awake, may create more

(15:54):
of a fight versus a deep sleeper. He's thinking about it, he's considering
it well before him and then afterhe's told that she's a light sleeper.
Again, he's in his role thathe has taken on willingly and saying that
he's excited. Then you have alittle bit later he asks Gypsy does her

(16:18):
floor squeak? He has the capacityto know that when you are creeping up
on a sleeping victim, especially alight sleeper, that he just found out
something like the floor squeaking could wakeher up. That's going to make the
murder more difficult. That's all him, all the defendant. You heard about

(16:45):
his outfit. You see here whereGypsy asks what will you be wearing?
On his words, his part ofthe plan, his choice. He says
something that will terrify her. It'sall black, my evil side, pick
the full out. He had thecapacity to know one that something scary would

(17:11):
be a clown t shirt with evilclowns on it. He was thinking ahead
that when I'm sitting on top ofher, straddling her all black with my
black shirt and my black hoodie,what's something that's going to freak her out?
How about some scary looking clowns?And he was pretty spot on.

(17:33):
As we're getting even closer now itis June tenth, about one eleven am,
he is now making sure he hasthe right address. He has the
capacity to know. He does notgo to the right address, that's going
to delay and that could cause problemsin the plan. He's given the address,

(17:56):
and then just to make sure aupon reflection, he looks it up
on Google Maps. He sees howmuch it's going to cost for the tech
the gloves. Another thing that wasbrought up by the defense in opening was
that, well it was Gipsy thathanded him the gloves. Well, it

(18:19):
was the defendant's decision to put themon. And actually, as you remember
from the text messages, even Gipsytexted him there on the right you may
not need to put on the glovesbecause we will sink it. And she
told you she meant sinking the knife, and the defendant, not Gipsy.
It was the defendant's decision. No, he's still going to put the gloves

(18:42):
on. And you remember his interview, both of his interviews, the one
with Maholey, Detective Maholy and theone from jail with the reporter. He
was proud of the fact that youwouldn't find fingerprints. He said that multiple
times, and he said you won'tfind fingerprints because I was wearing gloves.

(19:03):
He had the capacity to know wearinggloves is going to lessen the chance of
finger And then we have probably themost cryptic, which is he's there at
the door and this is the plan. She's going to come get him,

(19:25):
and then Gipsy's going to go tothe bathroom and he's going to go do
what he's going to do. Andtypically in a situation like that, when
you picture the defendant standing there knowingwhat he's about to do, right,
we may have to sort of useinference to determine his deliberation, but we

(19:51):
don't because that's the moment that thedefendant talked about where he thought, angel
devil, the bitch is dead.It's at this moment. Then he says
that even as he stands outside thebedroom, he waits another minute. So
another way, I know you've heardme say deliberate, and you're probably getting

(20:12):
tired of it, so I'll picka new word. The opposite of deliberate
would be impulse. Right, impulse. There is not one part of this
murder, of this plan going backhere, that is impulsive. And even
in the final moment where you wouldthink under emotion, under passion, someone

(20:33):
would finally make an impulsive decision standingoutside the bedroom door the person you're about
to go stab, then the defendantcan't act impulsively. Even then he deliberates
before doing it. That's what thiscase is. And all of the things

(20:56):
we've just looked at, all thetexts, all the way, can you
tell from any of that that hehas high functioning autism. He's not doing
anything different than someone else who's planninga murder, taking steps to incapacitate the
victim, taking steps in case you'recaught, to have a story. His

(21:21):
mild autism not changes nothing about anyof the deliberation that you just saw.
And even his description of the murderand how he actually stabbed. He even
did that deliberately. Initially you thinkseventeen stab wounds, that must be some
kind of frenzy, especially considering howdeep the cut to the neck is.

(21:44):
But he even talked about that waspurposeful. He did that purposely so she
would bleed more. He cut theback of her neck so she would bleed
more and die quickly. Even thatpart was delivered. So when you look
at it all, there really isno way to see this as anything other

(22:07):
than cool reflection and the fact thathe does have mild autism. It doesn't
when you go back to where westarted these simple three elements, it doesn't
change. And even the things youheard about about plotting how she mistreated Gypsy,

(22:30):
I anticipate you'll hear that he hadthis moment like you heard an opening
where he sees the wheelchair, seesshe can walk. That's no moment of
passion. He knew a long timebefore that she could walk. So was
Gypsy mistreated? Absolutely is the defendantsome night that's coming in to save her.

(22:53):
Let's be real. You heard hisinterview. How many times did you
hear the mentioned oh, I wasrescuing her. I was saving her,
I was freeing her. I cantell you zero. In the text messages
leading up, how many times didyou see him make any reference to I'm

(23:15):
coming to get you. Just hangin there, right, You're going to
be free soon. I can dothis. How many times did you see
it? Zero? Instead, yousee, I expect you to be wearing
something specific red lipstick when I getthere, and when I come get you
from the bathroom after I murder yourmom, you'd better be naked. The

(23:37):
defendant had his very clear own reasonsfor doing this, So to make this
seem like he came in here tosave her is completely contrary to everything else
you saw. Thank you. There'sno question that Claudine mistreated you see,

(24:00):
and that she deserved to be heldaccountable for that, absolutely, But she
deserved to be held accountable in here, in here with twelve people like you,
judging fairly impartially, that's how sheshould have been held accountable. All

(24:22):
the same rights that the defendant had, all the rights that he has sits
there when he stabs somebody seven timesseventeen times. The defendant didn't get to
hold court himself in the bedroom attwo in the morning, straddling her as
she's sleeping, literally stabbing her inthe back. He didn't get to hold

(24:47):
court that way or hold her accountablethat way. That's not how we do
it. As I said in thebeginning, no doubt Gypsy was a part
of this. She bought him thetickets for the greyhound bus. But without
Nicholas Godejean, nobody's getting on thatbus. Her money helped pay through the

(25:14):
days in hotel room. Without NicholasGodejean, nobody is sitting in that hotel
room, texting, getting excited andpreparing for murder. She came to the
door without Nicholas Godejean, nobody's walkingthrough that door. She handed him bluffs
without Nicholas Godojeon, nobody's wearing thosegloves, and she handed him a knife.

(25:41):
But without Nicholas Godejean, nobody isholding that knife and stabbing Claudine to
death. Just as you can't imaginethis crying without Gypsy, It's not happening
without Nicholas Godejeon, which is why, after consider the evidence, there's just
no other decision than he is guiltyof first degree murder in argrew Latch