• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Gypsy and Nicholas Godejohn

paloftoon

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
I couldn't find this story mentioned in the forum. Figured I'd mentioned it because it's interesting even though sad.
I feel bad for Nicholas Godejohn. Yeah, he did murder Gypsy's mother, Dee Dee, but Dee Dee was also extremely abusive. I can't imagine what Gypsy went through.

It's sad that it feels like Gypsy doesn't love Nicholas now but she wants to maximize her own quality of life.
 
Hey, I remember this!

TL;DR: The mom kept her daughter sick and made her stay in a wheelchair and feign diseases so the mom could get accolades and free stuff for how strong she was as a mother of a disabled daughter. As the daughter got older she realized her mom was ruining her life, so the daughter got an autistic boyfriend and got him to kill her mom. The daughter owned up to all of it - it was all her idea. The daughter was 24 at the time.

It is epically triggering to think of the power the mom had over the daughter, since the mom had all of society on her side. I can see why the daughter though the only way out was to kill her mom. Tragic stuff.

I can also empathize with the autistic boyfriend, you know? Twenty-something autistic dude hears "I'll let you touch my boob if you kill my mom." Hard offer to turn down. He got life, though, while the daughter got a dime...seems like the daughter exploited the autist just like her mom exploited her. This isn't fair for anyone involved...except maybe the mom.
 
Free Gypsy Rose. As far as I'm concerned she never should have been charged. The fact that she faced any criminal persecution is just proof positive that our so-called justice system in this nation will invariably favor the abuser over the abused, the oppressor over the oppressed. There is some doubt as to whether Godejon's conduct toward her would count as grooming, but the truth is that even if so, he would've made for an infinitely more compassionate caregiver for someone so abjetly shelteted than Dee Dee was. I grew up with an egg donor (I will not grant her the undeserved dignity of calling her my "mother") whose approach toward parenting was vaguely similar to hers, and all my teenage years I cried out to the Heavens for a partner similar to Nicholas to come rescue me. At worst he was an accomplice in a most justified homicide.
 
It goes to show that somehow, we have to create our own escapes.
It's hard to know how and what to do.
Just mad hysteria all around ;(
 
To see Nicolas's intellectual ability in that video and his concern, it's sad he's in jail permanently. He doesn't deserve permanent and he is quite a catch actually- especially with his handsomeness on top of it. Too bad he isn't into guys to my knowledge. Waste of tax payer dollars. He deserves another chance to contribute properly to society and live a fuller life.
 
I find this comment very regrettable.
From my observation social people have part of their sex drive satisfied through social interaction. Merely getting affection or schmoozing, flirting, ego stroking, etc. goes a long way towards gratification and counts as some part of intercourse. Less social people aren't so much like that, seemingly either one of two extremes: asexual or repressed.

IMO in this case the mom manipulated the daughter, who became a practiced liar and subsequently manipulated this young dude into doing her bidding through affection and sex. I'm sure she did it purely for her own survival, and the guy knew murder was wrong...but if PMS is reason enough to acquit murder then raging, desperate wood is equally so.

Plus, Gypsy had practiced her reaction when the police delivered the news her mom was dead, and further she had her own story about her boyfriend killing her mom of his own volition and kidnapping her - all this on top of the story she coached the boyfriend to tell and the disguises she bought for them to travel cross country after the murder.

The more I talk about this the more I'm convinced the boyfriend serving life is a gross injustice.
 
To be honest, I'm not really into murder profiles as it's always seemed kind of exploitative to me (though no judgement towards those who are interested in that) so I don't really have an opinion regarding the case.

However, though I have no idea what PMS is:
...but if PMS is reason enough to acquit murder then raging, desperate wood is equally so.
Is a statement I very much disagree with.

To start with, "raging, desperate wood" is every rapist's excuse when they get caught. In fact, that's one of the excuses given for forcing women to cover up in many orthodox religious societies. I find this type of thinking demeaning both towards women (oh chucks. Guess you should have dressed differently/ you shouldn't have tempted him so) and men (ahh, he's such a simpleton. He just has no control or responsibility over his actions when he gets excited).

Finally, I don't know what PMS is, but even if it's something mild, I don't subscribe to the idea that just because something else is silly, that you should also let other silly ideas pass to maintain consistency. It's perfectly fine to be against PMS acquitting murder, and then also being against the idea that "desperate wood" should be enough for acquitment. I always got frustrated with this in school. "He started it" isn't any sort of justification in my books.
 
They were both deeply desperate teens who fed off of each other’s delusional reality. Abuse and rejection led them to work together to try to remove an evil that should not exist… child abuse.

Dig deeper into the facts of the case, and what will arise is a story much less superficial than teenage lust, female hormones, or the male sex drive.

There are three victims in this case. None are innocent. None are guilty.
 
However, though I have no idea what PMS is:
Is a statement I very much disagree with.

To start with, "raging, desperate wood" is every rapist's excuse when they get caught. In fact, that's one of the excuses given for forcing women to cover up in many orthodox religious societies.
You are correct. I'm playing on the double-standard at work in this case, which is guys are always predatory and women only commit crimes under extenuating circumstances. This double-standard is also violent towards women, as it forces a monolith of female experience.

Going even further, this double-standard enforces how society sees women as valuable and (poor) men as disposable. Gypsy no doubt internalized this, which is why she intuited using her boyfriend was an acceptable and efficient way to get what she needed. She doesn't love him, and it's arguable she's no better than her mom for destroying another person's life. Her decision to kill her mom was 100% justifiable homicide, but using another person as the instrument is unjustifiable. Not that she was in any position to reason logically, of course.

I want to emphasize that Gypsy stated in court the murder was her idea, plus she got the murder weapon and paid for their cross country escape.

Not judging, and you didn't do anything wrong, but not knowing what PMS is (technically or colloquially) and not taking a few seconds to google it, yet having the confidence to toss your philosophy into the thread is...fascinating.
 
Last edited:
First off, I'm not arguing anything about the case. As I mentioned, I don't care about true crime and don't think I am the right person to decide on the right judgement. I'm also not arguing about society's double standards when it comes to males and females. It could well be that it exists but I don't think it morally justifies anything so I'm staying out of that discussion. The only thing I am arguing since I do strongly disagree is your statement on libido excusing the guy's actions.

It could well be that he shouldn't be judged guilty due to being manipulated or mental retardation (in the medical sense) meaning he doesn't have a concept of right or wrong. It could also be that he was judged more harshly than he should have been because of double standards when it comes to gender, but neither of those are discussions I'm interested in.

The one excuse I won't take into consideration is that his strong libido or not having had much of a sex life excuses him, because I've seen that excuse used dozens of times by rapists and feel it takes agency away from the male and casts judgement on the female (it would also be the opposite were the genders reversed, but I have quite literally never seen this excuse be used by or about a woman). My observation has been that in societies where rape is punished, whether legally or societaly, cases of rape tend to decrease, while in societies where it is accepted, the frequency is higher, which indicates that abusers do what they can get away with rather than libido causing them to perform actions they have no control over, even though it would make for a convenient excuse. To prevent misunderstandings, I know he didn't rape anyone, but I disagree with the concept that libido somehow makes you unable to control your actions and is thus a valid excuse.

Not judging, and you didn't do anything wrong, but not knowing what PMS is (technically or colloquially) and not taking a few seconds to google it, yet having the confidence to toss your philosophy into the thread is...fascinating.
To begin with, if you aren't judging and don't think I did anything wrong, why include this part? It makes it look like you are judging even if it isn't your intention. Secondly, abbreviations are a peeve of mine. There can be loads of meanings for a single abbreviation so I prefer it if the person who first used it explains what they mean to prevent misunderstandings. Thirdly, what PMS means has absolutely no bearing on my argument. It's completely irrelevant. If it was relevant I would have asked what it means first, but in this case, my argument would be the same regardless so I didn't see the point.

PMS could mean "really need to pee" or "traumatic brain injury", yet it doesn't change my central point that just because you disagree with one thing excusing a crime, it doesn't automatically follow that another thing (in this case, high libido) does. Just like how seeing other kids bully someone doesn't mean you are justified in bullying the kid as well, since "they started it". It could also be that you agree on PMS being a legal excuse, but I still see it as irrelevant when it comes to the discussion of libido excusing crimes. Again, I'm not discussing manipulation, double standards or mental health (which could well have had an unfair bearing on the case).

It reminds me of an argument I had with someone who said I couldn't be a real atheist since I hadn't read the Bible. While reading it would no doubt be interesting from a historical perspective, my atheism does not stem from philosophical or moral disagreement with Christianity but rather from my disbelief in the supernatural, so unless the Bible would start levitating in my arms, nothing it has to say would have any relevance on my reason for not being religious. The same goes for the Quran and the three palms.
 
Her decision to kill her mom was 100% justifiable homicide

I think the problem with that is that taking the law into your own hands is illegal. That's why we have police. So if you asked the police, they would tell you that she should have called them, they would then have contacted child protective services and looked into it and it's not legal to kill people.
 
I think the problem with that is that taking the law into your own hands is illegal. That's why we have police. So if you asked the police, they would tell you that she should have called them, they would then have contacted child protective services and looked into it and it's not legal to kill people.
I was going to add all Gypsy had to do was get out of her wheelchair and walk around in front of a bunch of people to end her ordeal, but that's victim blaming and also inaccurate since she was totally dependent on her mom.

There are no good answers in this.

To begin with, if you aren't judging and don't think I did anything wrong, why include this part?
I wanted to make it clear I didn't intend to make you feel attacked, yet I was compelled to point out there was a big piece missing from consideration.
what PMS means has absolutely no bearing on my argument. It's completely irrelevant.

It reminds me of an argument I had with someone who said I couldn't be a real atheist since I hadn't read the Bible.
I was making a point based on social stereotypes, which requires both parties understanding the underlying causes to a minimal degree. Discarding from the discussion PMS, hormonal changes, postpartum depression, and the myriad of other complications a uterus owner may experience is irresponsible on many levels. PMS is an acronym so widely known I had no reason to think it needed further explanation.

And comparing the Bible is a false equivalency. The bible is essentially hearsay with any proofs disputable. Hormonal effects on the body and psyche are provable, measurable phenomenon. These are not the same things and cannot be compared or contrasted.

If I concede to your terms of ignoring this case and broad social standards, then I'm saying that hormonal aberrations or extremes explaining female behavior should be considered similarly in males for legal precedence. But, in this specific case, these things were not considered similarly due to broad social standards.
 
Last edited:
I don't think those things can be compared. It's two different things. A horny guy is just a horny guy. It can't really be used as an excuse for anything I think. It's not a hormonal aberration.

I get it, you know? As a dude I'm aware of how stupid thinking with the wrong head can get. But it's different for different people. Just as no two women have the same experience with baby fever (some don't get it, some get it bad enough to seek pregnancy at any cost), I don't think one dudes wood is equatable to all others' for any substantive comparison.

In this case, IMO the boyfriend's judgement was clouded by simple horniness of course, but also all the feelings of love, acceptance, and validation that come with a woman's favor. In his mind if he did not kill her mom then all of these euphoric feelings would disappear, and he would do anything to sustain them. Here, again, no two dudes are going to have the same need or susceptibility to a lover's affections. But this guy may have been in just the right place for Gypsy to use these things to her advantage, and it seems clear she did so as a means to an end.

Unrequited love is incredibly common for autistic males, and avoiding feelings of worthlessness, loneliness, and abandonment will drive some to extreme ends. However, not all will experience it the same way, so any other random dude may not have had the same outcome as here.
 
Last edited:
I've been watching this documentary about a straight couple from their teens into their twenties. The woman was abusing the man by cutting him off from his family, slashing him with knives, hitting him with hammers, and pouring boiling water on different parts of him. He took the constant abuse for years, blaming it on himself.

The thing I keep thinking is: if this man at any time had physically defended himself, he'd be in jail and vilified while she would be seen as the victim.

Double-standards are not fake or harmless.
 
Ultimately, I think this is just something we disagree on. However, I still don't think PMS matters when it comes to my opinion on whether libido should be taken into account. I'm not from the US, which is probably why I didn't recognize the term, and to be honest, I'm unsure if it's a valid excuse in my home country, so I'm not biased in favor to begin with. I wasn't comparing PMS with the bible in terms of content or meaning, but rather relevancy to my argument. PMS does not affect the mind in the exact same way libido does, and to be perfectly honest, I would be against PMS being taken into account in crime cases if it was. As it is, I don't have a strong opinion on whether PMS should be taken into account or not as I lack information on how it affects the brain/ judgement, but that doesn't change my opinion on how high libido shouldn't be taken into account.

I've been watching this documentary about a straight couple from their teens into their twenties. The woman was abusing the man by cutting him off from his family, slashing him with knives, hitting him with hammers, and pouring boiling water on different parts of him. He took the constant abuse for years, blaming it on himself.

The thing I keep thinking is: if this man at any time had physically defended himself, he'd be in jail and vilified while she would be seen as the victim.

Double-standards are not fake or harmless.
This is something I agree with you on, and also plays into why I don't think libido is a valid excuse. Abusers will always use the excuse most likely to work and provoke sympathy, so female abusers will play on the common trope that women are less violent than men (innocent victim females trope), while male abusers will play up the trope that libido or "wood" was affecting their judgement (dumb, horny males trope). Both those things are double standards, and in neither case should the excuse be taken into account, while sadly it often is. Again, I think that being manipulated or being mentally challenged are valid defenses, and both could be at play in the original case (I don't have an opinion on it myself), but I still strongly disagree with you on the libido excuse being valid and I think neither one of us will convince the other about that.
 
I still strongly disagree with you on the libido excuse being valid
I do want to be clear I'm not arguing for it, but for equal treatment. If one excuse is legit then the other is, if one isn't then the other is not. I think we're on the same page, but at different paragraphs.


------


I'm not interested in excusing r**e or exploitation for anyone. However, I believe those on the spectrum are more susceptible to manipulation, exploitation, and worse. Everyone agrees Gypsy was a victim of her mother. But I assert the boyfriend was just as much a victim of Gypsy - she manipulated him emotionally and se****ly. They met on a dating site and he traveled hundreds of miles to be with her. This crime was only made possible by their intimate relationship and the hope of continuing it. If they were just platonic friends all the motivation for his participation evaporates.

It's easy to say she could have called the police or told one of the many doctors she saw. But, before all this, the entire world thought Gypsy's mom was a saint. Would anyone believe her? If not, she was totally dependent on her mom and would be forced to go back to her mother's house. God only knows what her mom would be capable of behind closed doors if Gypsy had spilled the beans. She was in no position to reason clearly, ergo the murder plot. And then she roped a vulnerable dude in to be her prince charming, to rescue her < this was literally part of it, BTW.

It's all tragic and everyone sucks here, but they both should have gotten a couple years tops. These things have to have consequences to prevent copycats. But the justice system simply threw this guy away. Gypsy can move forward and have a family, a life, a future. But, this guy, nope - eff him he'll never amount to anything...I think this hits pretty close to home for a lot of spectrum folk who would do anything for love and acceptance.
 

New Threads

Top Bottom