The Rise and Fall of Gypsy Rose Blanchard, or: Her Inevitable Trial By Social Media
"POV: You just woke up with it snowing outside and Gypsy Rose is already being canceled."
For the uninitiated, Gypsy Rose Blanchard is an American woman who, in 2015, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in a case involving her mother, Dee Dee Blanchard. For much of Gypsy’s life, Dee Dee had claimed her daughter was incredibly ill: she had allegedly been diagnosed with leukemia, muscular dystrophy, and asthma, as well has having the mental capacity of a seven year old. In reality, Dee Dee had factitious disorder imposed on another, or as it’s more commonly known, Munchausen by proxy.
After meeting Nicholas Godejohn online, Gypsy and Nicholas came up with a plan to kill Dee Dee, which Godejohn eventually did in June 2015. Godejohn was subsequently convicted of first-degree murder and armed criminal action and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
Dr. Marc Feldman, a psychiatrist and expert on factitious disorders, described the case as unprecedented, telling the Springfield News-Leader in 2016 that it was the first case he’d seen in which a victim of Munchausen by proxy had murdered their parent.
Most people probably became familiar with the case thanks to Hulu’s 2019 miniseries, The Act, starring Joey King and Patricia Arquette. Gypsy has blamed the series for negatively impacting her life in prison, and revealed that she was not consulted or asked to participate, unlike the 2017 documentary Mommy Dead and Dearest. Others, meanwhile, have engaged with Gypsy’s case almost entirely through social media.
Phase I: Idealisation
In the lead up to Gypsy’s early release in late December 2023, eight years after she was imprisoned, pro-Gypsy Rose memes flooded TikTok. People jokingly called her “mother,” posted memes about picking Gypsy up from prison and counted down the days until her release.
Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
After her release on December 28, people waited with bated breath for her to make her first statement on social media post-release, only for her to break her silence with an Instagram comment to her husband stating that “the D is fire”, which in turn inspired even more memes praising her wacky personality.
Gypsy has since embarked on a comprehensive media tour, appearing on shows like Good Morning America and The View as well as CNN, and promoting a book about her story containing exclusive interviews alongside never-before-seen photos and illustrations done by Gypsy herself.
Phase II: Devaluation
While it seemed like Gypsy was riding a wave of public support and sympathy, like any saga we’ve seen play out on social media, it was too good to last. Quickly, the backlash began to build. A pair of videos posted by an investment account of all things sought to analyse her facial expressions and “childlike” voice, which they believe were proof of her cunning and manipulation of the media.
Meanwhile, one beauty influencer, who has since pivoted to almost exclusively posting about Gypsy, called Gypsy a fraud and a narcissist for declining to identify with the label of ‘murderer’ while applying it to Godejohn and said that she believes Gypsy will quickly reoffend.
Others have been less specific in their critiques, simply accusing Gypsy of having bad or off vibes because she’s seemingly been thriving in the public eye since her release. Much like Nina, Beth speculated that something might come out about Gypsy in the next few months that’s “not going to sit right with a lot of people.”
Lexi argued that being raised as a local celebrity in her small community by her mother primed Gypsy to embrace fame as an adult, and went on to argue that while she doesn’t want to diagnose anyone, Gypsy is “predisposed” to being a “manipulator and abusive person because that is how she was raised.”
Another creator asked Gypsy’s supporters if they would support Gypsy’s hypothetical child for growing up and murdering Gypsy if Gypsy ended up developing factitious disorder imposed on another and abusing her child the way Gypsy was abused, arguing that Dee Dee developed her own disorder because of trauma and being trapped in a cycle of abuse (Gypsy has alleged that her grandfather sexually abused both her and her mother).
The kind of commentary people feel entitled and compelled to publish about not only a stranger’s life and past actions, but hypothetical future actions and feelings, is fascinating - once we turn people into a product to be consumed, all bets are off when it comes to boundaries, it seems.
Phase III: Backlash to the backlash to the thing that’s just begun
Perhaps it’s trite to quote Bo Burnham’s Inside in 2024 - it feels like a perfect encapsulation of a specific moment in time that everyone would rather forget, and of course, it’s been referenced to death across social media - but in my defence, “the backlash to the backlash to the thing that’s just begun” is such an accurate description of how people engage online now that I just had to.
Responding to the backlash as it began to develop, others sought to inject nuance into the conversation. TikToker Jordan T. Alexander arguing that people should be wary of platforming Gypsy, who “knows how to perform” as her “entire life has been a performance” but who may snap because the public “expects her to be something that maybe she can’t do”. Alexander argues that people on TikTok quickly tire of people they’ve previously idolised and that this cycle cannot possibly be healthy for Gypsy, who is freshly out of prison and readjusting to normal life, let alone life in the public eye.
Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
Another creator, Lara, condemned people for giving Gypsy a platform only to throw her under the bus now that she’s no longer “performing the way you want her to.” “Sorry that a lifelong abuse victim that just got out of prison after eight years isn’t being the cunty girl-pop slay queen that you want her to be,” Lara concludes.
Others were simply baffled by the speed with which Gypsy had begun to be 'cancelled’, but you have to remember it’s January and most of the northern hemisphere is trapped inside their homes and bored out of their minds.
The cycle doesn’t usually play out this quickly, but perhaps Gypsy was destined to be particularly vulnerable to being pushed through it - someone released from prisoner after being convicted of second-degree murder is already a somewhat divisive figure, after all.
This cycle plays out again and again with popular figures like clockwork. In early January, Meg DeAngelis pre-empted the backlash in a video in which she asked everyone to make a pact “not to switch up on Gypsy Rose”, identifying the same pattern I discuss here where someone blows up, becomes beloved very quickly, only for people to inevitably switch up on that person and declare them persona non grata.
In Gypsy’s case, I think this toxic cycle is also intersecting with true crime culture in which people are comfortable armchair diagnosing cases of narcissism or identifying manipulation based on minimal, if any, expertise or personal experience - diagnoses made purely on vibes rather than anything of substance. The desire to follow, idolise and consume the content of someone who’s just been released from prison feels very true crime-adjacent to me; are we doing so because we support rehabilitation and believe that people have the power to change, or are we doing it to further gawk at the girl who has spent most of her life being viewed as an object of pity?
In researching this piece, I found Business Insider’s interview with Dr. Marc Feldman particularly illuminating. His commentary on Gypsy’s case is nuanced - he argues that Godejohn was a victim of Gypsy’s to some extent, and that his sentence is excessive, while also empathising with Gypsy as a victim of abuse - and he expresses concern that Gypsy’s mental wellbeing isn’t being prioritised. Instead, Gypsy is seeking financial security and to have her reputation redeemed, but Dr. Feldman worries that the sheer volume of media interest and engagement “may not necessarily be in her best interests at heart in the short or long term.”
Dr. Feldman was kind enough to answer a couple of questions I had as a sort of follow-up to the BI piece, focusing more on the backlash that has developed since the piece was published.
What kind of impact might this backlash have on Gypsy Rose's wellbeing? Do you think it was inevitable once she embraced the role of social media influencer, particularly considering the general lack of understanding of Munchausen by proxy/medical child abuse and the stigma around people who've committed crimes?
I am not an expert on social media in general but have published a lot on people who misuse the Internet to mislead others about their own health to get attention and sympathy. Gypsy’s story is so well known that there has never been a need for her to engage in such “Munchausen by Internet” or its offshoot, “Munchausen by Proxy by Internet.” She had emerged as a social media star even before she was actually released from prison. But she does seem to have embraced the role and emerged as an influencer, and I think this was deliberate—if not by her choice, then by the publicists whom I suspect are working to market her “brand,” including her book and documentary series. Blowback was inevitable from some people—it turns out, quite a lot of people.
I have felt sympathy for her and believed I understood why she did what she and Nick did, but now I’m not so sure. I think the biggest living victim is Nick Godejohn. While Gypsy is now free, he was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, despite his apparent autism and obvious suggestibility. Gypsy seems never to want to talk about him, and she even explicitly reserves the term “murderer” for him but not for herself. She has brought a lot of the backlash onto herself, sad to say.
Do you think it's possible to heal from everything Gypsy Rose has been through in public? How might enduring the repetitive cycle of public affection and alienation affect someone who's been a victim of Munchausen by proxy?
It is really difficult to offer a prognosis for Gypsy. She is obviously very intelligent, articulate, and poised during interviews, and I assume she is the same way in “real life.” Those are strengths for sure. But this case appears to be unprecedented in her having arranged for her mother to be murdered, and so I can’t draw on other cases to advise a particular course of treatment for her, or even offer a solid opinion about how a Munchausen by proxy survivor would and should react to such intense public scrutiny, whether it is positive or negative. Eventually, public interest in Gypsy will fade unless she chooses to continue her activities as a public person.
Is there anything social media users could be more mindful of when it comes to judging and/or condemning someone like Gypsy Rose?
Users need to ask themselves why they are so intensely interested in this case to the point that, in some cases, they spend hours a day reading her posts and other information about her, and then post themselves continually. Social media can be “addictive,” and users need to guard against excessive preoccupation with digital life and instead focus on activities that bring them satisfaction and joy.
Dr. Feldman’s final conclusion is one that resonates, as someone who spends a lot of time using and reporting on social media but feels weird about it, and someone who has seen just how obsessive people can become, particularly when the topic is even remotely connected to true crime.
When true crime is thrown into the mix, suddenly real people’s tragedies are fair game as fodder for entertainment. The worst day of someone’s life becomes a made-for-TV movie that we can enjoy on our day off, or a six-episode season of a podcast that we can listen to while cleaning the house or commuting to and from work.
Someone like Gypsy is the perfect influencer for a culture obsessed with true crime and internet fame but not genuinely interested in rehabilitation and restoration. We can pity her, revile her, or idolise her, but rarely can we bring ourselves to look at the situation with the nuance it deserves and consider what the best course of action might be. We certainly can’t bring ourselves to look away or stop engaging, because then how else would we entertain ourselves?
Elsewhere on the internet: