Nick is making a narcissist play here.
He is attempting to launder the worst of the concrete claims with some of the more speculative claims under the umbrella of “you didn’t see what you think you saw”. Which is classic abuser language by the way and it’s telling how quick he reaches for that particular tool in his toolbox.
The more concrete claims are themselves inexcusable:
1. The State of Minnesota has arrested and charged him with possession of a large amount of cocaine
2. There are dozens of hours of recordings in the past month of him acting obviously chemically altered to a severe degree (Anime Sucks, Cope and Sneed.)
3. He is a 42 year old father of five who is accused of participating in or allowing heavy drug use in his home.
4. His wife’s appearance has drastically changed over the past year and especially in the last month. She is also accused of drug possession.
5. The state is on record claiming that drugs, drug paraphernalia, and an unsecured firearm were all present in Nick’s master bedroom.
There are more speculative claims that have yet to be proven. I’m not making final judgment either way, although like most of you here I’m leaning towards at least some of these being true:
1. The house was in a state of neglect. (Until images or video come forward, I don’t think it’s possible to make the distinction between a hectic house with 5 children and one where the parents are failing basic upkeep)
2. The children were physically abused or severely neglected. (I pray to God that this is not the case. I do think that Kayla’s charge of “allowing physical abuse” is tied to Nicks charge of “endangering children through being around drug use”. They want to get her on neglect associated with allowing Nick to use in the home if there’s not enough evidence she used openly. As of yet, there is no evidence that Nick harmed his children beyond the obvious trauma and endangerment associated with having and using drugs in their home. The spaghettios anecdote from Aaron, while it makes my blood boil to think that a child would be desperate enough to approach a stranger in order to get a meal, can’t be confirmed, and Aaron has a bad track record for honesty in this so far.)
3. April was a live-in sexual partner to Nick and Kayla (The circumstantial evidence for this is through the roof, but it’s still plausible there was some other arrangement and no clarifying statements have been made yet.)
4. Nick discharged his firearm within the home. (The casing found and documented by the police was listed as a .22, likely meaning a .22LR which is tiny. As many users have stated, and I’ve seen myself, these can get caught in shirt pockets and pants cuffs when shooting outdoors and shaken out when you get home. The casing itself is not sufficient.)
5. Nick received sexual service during his livestream or pleasured himself (That section was weird as hell and I’d believe something was happening under the desk, but I’d just as soon believe that it was the erratic behavior of a man on cocaine.)
TLDR, there are enough softer claims that could plausibly be untrue for someone like Nick to be able to “cleverly” say “You didn’t see what you think you saw.” What he can’t deny is that he had coke and ketamine was using. He is literally on tape high out of his mind, staring straight at the camera, and the police have stated that they found drugs and drug paraphernalia. In his house. Where five children live. Even if all of the soft claims are untrue, Nick has already done inexcusable harm to himself and his family and deserves what has happened and more. I don’t even fault him for not admitting guilt currently given the ongoing criminal proceedings, but he’s an idiot if he thinks that people are going to buy the lie that he did not possess drugs and use them.
. Appellant sought review, contending that the district court abused its discretion by admitting testimony concerning appellant's statement regarding the difference between abuse and discipline, and permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine appellant about her skepticism concerning the son's diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Judgment was affirmed because appellant's statement did not constitute character evidence, it was relevant to prove an essential element of the State's case, and the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the statement's probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect, and any prejudice that resulted from permitting the State to cross-examine appellant regarding ADHD was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because of the sufficiency of the other evidence of guilt.
