Found Deceased MO - Clauddinnea 'Dee Dee' Blancharde, 48, Springfield, 10 June 2015 - #2 *Arrests*

[gitana1]

Thanks!

Sorry! I was stupid! I didn't think that would work!!!

 

[Lilibet]

Thank you! It is clear to me now. I wasn't sure if you'd feel differently about other cases thinking it different if the abuser wasn't family. You are consistent. I have to respect that.

Thanks Gitana! I'm glad it's clear. I didn't realize you wanted to know if I'd feel differently if the abuser wasn't family. This case has scrambled my brain, so I missed that. But yes, I'm consistent about my personal beliefs and what I personally would not do in an abusive situation. I don't expect others to agree. It's clear that this is a complex and polarizing case, and I think we can all agree to disagree respectfully, as you have. Thanks for persistently getting me to exercise my brain.

 

[watergirl62]

Great post kshultz. Your mom sounds like DH's ex. I cannot even wrap my head around manipulating and using other people, INCLUDING YOUR OWN CHILDREN, to achieve selfish and nefarious goals, while compromising your victims future, self-esteem and functionality. UGH.

Hopefully all the attention that was generated by DB's scam will serve to get Gypsy the help she truly needs. For some reason I am thinking about "the land of misfit toys." Gypsy needs a special place like that.

 

[Writerofwrongs]

This case has to be one of the most curious, complex and literally unbelievable things I have ever read about. I cannot begin to comprehend what was going on behind closed doors and how this affected the individuals involved. I, very fortunately, have never experienced abuse myself or in my family so I am not able to comment on how GB should of, would of, could of, acted or behaved. I do know, as many others have said, that she surely could not help but pick up some major manipulation skills from her mother. I also have to remember that the other person involved is dead, and therefore cannot provide probable motives or reasoning - however unlikely others may think it will be. Regardless of what I think, DD had a story as well - even if it boiled down to malicious greed or something less sinister and we will never get to hear it. We can only assume!! (and lets face it, it is dang hard not to assume she was a master abuser etc)

A couple of things that stick out to me - which others maybe able to explain or elaborate is

1) GB tried to physically escape her mother a few times but DD always brought her back. This gives the impression she had her beadies on her at all times, ensuring she didn't escape to reveal their secrets. Yet, she had seemingly unseen and regular access to the Internet. So much that she spoke to or made a female friend? and joined a dating site and met potential suitors (online anyway). Surely DD would not risk not only the chance that GB could tell someone via the web about her abusive lifestyle but also get information too. Someone paid the Internet bill.....so it wasn't secret Internet access. Why would she stop her going out, yet leave her to - basically have the whole world to talk too. And how did GB know about Christian dating sites etc? that info is strange to me - I would be interested to see how detailed her dating profile was.

2) GB had the foresight, instinct whatever you call it to realise that getting another person to kill her mother would mean less trouble for her. She had more reason on the face of it than anyone to kill her mother (I finally snapped! I was so sick of being controlled etc). Yet she still manipulated another person - a weaker person almost - to do the crime for her. She was also the one who knew where DD kept her money - the guy didn't. I know this is probably a case of the manipulated becoming the manipulator but I don't know - even with him being as smitten and easy lead as he was, GB must of spent sometime convincing him HE needed to do it FOR her. That is less rage and more planned - which again takes balls and a little something about the person.

3)Why are her legal term trying to sever the cases? HE is up for murder as a direct result of meeting GB, whether he made a stupid choice or not. Had they not met - he wouldn't of murdered so how are they NOT linked? Confusing?

Just so I am clear, as I said at the beginning, I cannot even begin to get my head around this case to start understanding so I don't want anyone thinking I am trying to say GB should have found it easier to get out. I just can't help but feel she wasn't quite as helpless as she makes out.

 

[pepelepolecat]

1) GB tried to physically escape her mother a few times but DD always brought her back. This gives the impression she had her beadies on her at all times, ensuring she didn't escape to reveal their secrets. Yet, she had seemingly unseen and regular access to the Internet. So much that she spoke to or made a female friend? and joined a dating site and met potential suitors (online anyway). Surely DD would not risk not only the chance that GB could tell someone via the web about her abusive lifestyle but also get information too. Someone paid the Internet bill.....so it wasn't secret Internet access. Why would she stop her going out, yet leave her to - basically have the whole world to talk too. And how did GB know about Christian dating sites etc? that info is strange to me - I would be interested to see how detailed her dating profile was.

A kid/young adult who is determined can find an awful lot of ways to get around the rules. DD may have had her doing some kind of Internet school work, or maybe she managed to get her hands on some kind of prepaid cell phone. Or maybe she was allowed to use the Internet with supervision (but managed to figure out the password and used it on her own as well). I grew up in an extremely restrictive household, and while there were certainly limits to what I could (or was brave enough to) do, I absolutely found ways to do the things I really wanted to do (mostly read non-parent-approved books, but also sometimes to talk to boys, too, lol).

2) GB had the foresight, instinct whatever you call it to realise that getting another person to kill her mother would mean less trouble for her. She had more reason on the face of it than anyone to kill her mother (I finally snapped! I was so sick of being controlled etc). Yet she still manipulated another person - a weaker person almost - to do the crime for her. She was also the one who knew where DD kept her money - the guy didn't. I know this is probably a case of the manipulated becoming the manipulator but I don't know - even with him being as smitten and easy lead as he was, GB must of spent sometime convincing him HE needed to do it FOR her. That is less rage and more planned - which again takes balls and a little something about the person.

I keep coming back to him wanting to rape DB, and that keeps me from seeing him as a manipulated little mouse. It's quite possible that GB spent a lot of time telling him about how her mom used her, venting or for more insidious purposes. NG wanted to protect her, be her knight in shining armor. I don't necessarily think she had to've deliberately manipulated him, but she certainly could have. That said, he still wanted to rape her. No matter how much GB hated her mother and wanted her dead, I can't see any way in the world she'd want her boyfriend to rape her mother (or her mother's body because that part wasn't at all clear).

3)Why are her legal term trying to sever the cases? HE is up for murder as a direct result of meeting GB, whether he made a stupid choice or not. Had they not met - he wouldn't of murdered so how are they NOT linked? Confusing?

Just so I am clear, as I said at the beginning, I cannot even begin to get my head around this case to start understanding so I don't want anyone thinking I am trying to say GB should have found it easier to get out. I just can't help but feel she wasn't quite as helpless as she makes out.

I'd assume they're wanting to separate in order to protect her from anything that comes out at NG's trial?

 

[watergirl62]

This case has to be one of the most curious, complex and literally unbelievable things I have ever read about. I cannot begin to comprehend what was going on behind closed doors and how this affected the individuals involved. I, very fortunately, have never experienced abuse myself or in my family so I am not able to comment on how GB should of, would of, could of, acted or behaved. I do know, as many others have said, that she surely could not help but pick up some major manipulation skills from her mother. I also have to remember that the other person involved is dead, and therefore cannot provide probable motives or reasoning - however unlikely others may think it will be. Regardless of what I think, DD had a story as well - even if it boiled down to malicious greed or something less sinister and we will never get to hear it. We can only assume!! (and lets face it, it is dang hard not to assume she was a master abuser etc)

A couple of things that stick out to me - which others maybe able to explain or elaborate is

1) GB tried to physically escape her mother a few times but DD always brought her back. This gives the impression she had her beadies on her at all times, ensuring she didn't escape to reveal their secrets. Yet, she had seemingly unseen and regular access to the Internet. So much that she spoke to or made a female friend? and joined a dating site and met potential suitors (online anyway). Surely DD would not risk not only the chance that GB could tell someone via the web about her abusive lifestyle but also get information too. Someone paid the Internet bill.....so it wasn't secret Internet access. Why would she stop her going out, yet leave her to - basically have the whole world to talk too. And how did GB know about Christian dating sites etc? that info is strange to me - I would be interested to see how detailed her dating profile was.

2) GB had the foresight, instinct whatever you call it to realise that getting another person to kill her mother would mean less trouble for her. She had more reason on the face of it than anyone to kill her mother (I finally snapped! I was so sick of being controlled etc). Yet she still manipulated another person - a weaker person almost - to do the crime for her. She was also the one who knew where DD kept her money - the guy didn't. I know this is probably a case of the manipulated becoming the manipulator but I don't know - even with him being as smitten and easy lead as he was, GB must of spent sometime convincing him HE needed to do it FOR her. That is less rage and more planned - which again takes balls and a little something about the person.

3)Why are her legal term trying to sever the cases? HE is up for murder as a direct result of meeting GB, whether he made a stupid choice or not. Had they not met - he wouldn't of murdered so how are they NOT linked? Confusing?

Just so I am clear, as I said at the beginning, I cannot even begin to get my head around this case to start understanding so I don't want anyone thinking I am trying to say GB should have found it easier to get out. I just can't help but feel she wasn't quite as helpless as she makes out.

I would like to add that we need to remember the here-and-now short-term thinking of teens (Gypsy is very likely emotionally stunted and hopefully we can all agree on that). Not a blanket statement, so please don't any of you bright young posters be offended, I mean that relative to where one is on their life path. Long-term ramifications don't necessarily weigh in as heavily as the short-term factors needed to alleviate one's pain, suffering and oppression. Plus it takes some level of maturity to logically assess potential impacts beyond the crisis of the moment. Add the 800-lb gorilla to the mix: intense desperation skews everything. It must have all seemed like the perfect solution for deliverance. I hope that some day in the future she can look back and wonder wth was I thinking? but then again her new prison may be preferable to the one she grew up in. No telling.

That being said, she was well-schooled in the art of manipulation, as she obviously learned all of her life skills from a master/monster. I do have some sympathy here for NG as well. She sure played him.

:whipper:

 

[bluesneakers]

[snip]

I'd assume they're wanting to separate in order to protect her from anything that comes out at NG's trial?

I was wondering about this too. Could it be something incriminating her that would prejudice the jury? Or maybe they want to be separated if he's blaming her and she's pleading not responsible.

I'm not familiar with it outside of Law & Order reruns.

 

[Eileen730]

Im beginning to believe Gypsy knew exactly what she was doing.

 

[jjenny]

I think it's obvious that Gypsy wanted to escape from her mother. This was a nearly 24 year old woman, treated as a little girl. Mother had her pretending she was disabled, and retarded. I am also guessing mother subjected Gypsy to numerous unnecessary and painful medical procedures. Her hair was shaved, she had to wear huge glasses and grandma clothes, and stay in a wheelchair while in public. She did not go to school, so she had no skills to make it on her own. She tried to run away but mother found her and brought her back. Mother had multiple birthdays for Gypsy, so mother could always claim Gypsy was still a minor in order to get Gypsy back if Gypsy tried to run away again.
At some point, it was going to become enough. Since Gypsy couldn't make it on her own, she had to find a man to "rescue" her.
Considering mother sometimes dressed Gypsy in princess gowns and wigs, this whole scenario fits with the fairy tail, where a princess has to be rescued from her "tower."
I can see why her lawyer wants to have her case separated. They might want to plead insanity, which would make it a completely different case.

 

[human]

I think Gypsy probably didnot want to see the carnage. I hate rats and mice and never ever feel anything but revulsion when I see one. They are the source of so much disease the destruction. But I can never physically kill them or even remove them when dead. I am squeamish.

I am sure incredibly selfish Deedee needed her beauty sleep, So while resting, Gypsy had opportunities. Deedee may not be that skilled on the net and Gypsy may have learned how to cover jer tracks. She can read and write so she did get those skills.

Her BF is not playing with a full deck either. Masturbating to at Mc Donald's?

 

[Sutton]

I want to know this too! I had a friend I suspect has Munchausen's (or something similar) and she went from one specialist to another but never got an exact diagnosis. I think she lied about dizziness, headaches, cramps, etc., because those were symptoms you can't really confirm with any tests. Maybe that's what happened to Gypsy, or at least it's a possibility. DD either made her sick or told her what to say and somehow convinced the doctors to keep treating and testing her. Maybe she even lied about the diagnoses? If no doctor ever came out and said "Gypsy has MS" DD could just keep saying she did. My friend lied about a brain tumour for two years and no one would ever dare argue or say "You have to show me the MRIs."

DD was a con-artist who spent decades perfecting her work.

eta: fixed a word

Are you still friends with this person? Has she ever acknowledged her deceit in anyway? Is she still perpetuating the façade?

There was discussion on this board about Munchhausen's vs. malingering vs. just just being a grifter and which one(s) DeeDee had (or had by proxy). What do you think your friend's primary motivation was--sympathy? Did your friend ever attempt any monetary benefit?

Just curious--hope these aren't too personal.

 

[MsMarple]

A Greene County Sheriff's Department investigator told a judge that he found Facebook user names of Nicholas Godejohn, Nicholas Bella Rose, Snowgypsy Blanchard, Gypsy's Trip, Bella Rose, and Gypsy Rose. The investigation also identified Facebook accounts connected with several email addresses.
...
The documents say Godejohn said he and Gypsy communicated on the various Facebook accounts about needing to kill Dee Dee so they could be together, because Dee Dee disapproved of her daughter having a boyfriend. The search warrant application says Godejohn told detectives that Gypsy used so many different Facebook accounts that he couldn't remember them all.

http://www.ky3.com/news/local/searc...cate-with-nicholas-godejohn/21048998_33975494

Like many of you, I can't make my way around this most confusing case. We have some information but given the scope and the number of years that DD's scam went on it's just a drop in the bucket IMO.

Right now most of my sympathy lies with Gypsy but I do have some questions that are nagging at me. But I don't know if the answers would shed any light on Gypsy's motive or not; hopefully things will become clearer as more info is released. In the meantime though...

How did Gypsy manage to open DD's safe? If it had a combination then how would she know it? If it was keyed then how would she know where DD kept the key? IMO DD was all about the grift and money so I can't imagine she'd share access to the safe with Gypsy.

The FB posts. According to msm Gypsy posted them so LE would find DD's body quicker. Why? And why the choice of words, especially the second post.

*I <censored> SLASHED THAT FAT PIG AND RAPED HER SWEET INNOCENT DAUGHTER...HER SCREAM WAS SOOOO <censored> LOUD LOL

It was filled with rage IMO. And adding the (assumed) voluntary statement from NG that he thought about raping DD, it seems like a lot more than some shout out to LE.

Again, let me be clear – I'm in the same boat as many of you and am nowhere near to having an opinion about what Gypsy and NG did. I have a lot of sympathy for Gypsy and what she was put through but without more information I can't yet conclude that DD's murder was justified.

 

[bluesneakers]

Are you still friends with this person? Has she ever acknowledged her deceit in anyway? Is she still perpetuating the façade?

There was discussion on this board about Munchhausen's vs. malingering vs. just just being a grifter and which one(s) DeeDee had (or had by proxy). What do you think your friend's primary motivation was--sympathy? Did your friend ever attempt any monetary benefit?

Just curious--hope these aren't too personal.

I'm not friends with her anymore. It was just too hard on me because I kept getting pulled in thinking "What if it's real this time?" She wanted sympathy and attention and maybe to be admired for her strength in dealing with her illnesses. She often compared herself to famous people, like Michael J. Fox was getting all this attention and could afford the best treatment but she was stuck on her own. When she talked about her doctors it was always a fight - like every doctor she saw was incompetent.

She would constantly ask for rides and babysitters but mostly she would just want to talk for hours about her latest affliction. She never acknowledged anything and would get VERY defensive if anyone hinted at having doubts. I once caught her in a lie (I didn't attack her or anything) and she quickly backtracked, changed her story and went off on me saying I hadn't paid attention and didn't understand.

It was all so weird. For a long time I thought it just wasn't possible. It's something that happens in movies on TV.

The last time I looked at her Facebook her timeline was filled with people offering prayers, positive thoughts, words of encouragement, etc., so I assume she hasn't stopped.

eta: She also claimed to have illnesses like PTSD, agoraphobia, and anxiety. Again no way to know for sure if she did. And she said her kids had ADHD, autism, and dyslexia.

 

[Eileen730]

Food for thought Peeps!

We do NOT know how gypsy acted with her mother!
they could have been mother and daughter living and scamming together.
It all could have been an act! Nothing more!


I have not seen ONE Dr., Lawyer or LE official say she had mental problems.

 

[Eileen730]

I wonder if they ever got dressed up and went out as normal ppl maybe to another town,
I have to admit I would not recognize gypsy I was shocked as to what she really looked like!

 

[jjenny]

Food for thought Peeps!

We do NOT know how gypsy acted with her mother!
they could have been mother and daughter living and scamming together.
It all could have been an act! Nothing more!


I have not seen ONE Dr., Lawyer or LE official say she had mental problems.

Gypsy was a little girl when mother started putting her in wheelchair.
I hope you are not suggesting that Gypsy as a child is responsible for her mother's behavior.

 

[Eileen730]

Gypsy was a little girl when mother started putting her in wheelchair.
I hope you are not suggesting that Gypsy as a child is responsible for her mother's behavior.

We do not really know what Gypsy is or is not responsible for.
At first I saw an abused child and im not so sure anymore.
that's all im suggesting.

What DeeDee did was wrong but I am not so sure Gypsy wasn't aware it was wrong and I think she knew exactly what was going on and went along with Mother Dearest.
Heck maybe they had a plan to quit when they reached a certain dollar amount.
No one counted n a Boyfriend.

there are so many ways to look at this case.

Kids don't have to abused or mentally damaged to follow along with mom.
JMO

 

[bluesneakers]

We do not really know what Gypsy is or is not responsible for.
At first I saw an abused child and im not so sure anymore.
that's all im suggesting.

What DeeDee did was wrong but I am not so sure Gypsy wasn't aware it was wrong and I think she knew exactly what was going on and went along with Mother Dearest.
Heck maybe they had a plan to quit when they reached a certain dollar amount.
No one counted n a Boyfriend.

there are so many ways to look at this case.

Kids don't have to abused or mentally damaged to follow along with mom.
JMO

How would she have learned it was wrong though? I agree it's possible but I don't know how she would get there, especially since it seems her mother controlled her and kept her isolated.

 

[gitana1]

This case has to be one of the most curious, complex and literally unbelievable things I have ever read about. I cannot begin to comprehend what was going on behind closed doors and how this affected the individuals involved. I, very fortunately, have never experienced abuse myself or in my family so I am not able to comment on how GB should of, would of, could of, acted or behaved. I do know, as many others have said, that she surely could not help but pick up some major manipulation skills from her mother. I also have to remember that the other person involved is dead, and therefore cannot provide probable motives or reasoning - however unlikely others may think it will be. Regardless of what I think, DD had a story as well - even if it boiled down to malicious greed or something less sinister and we will never get to hear it. We can only assume!! (and lets face it, it is dang hard not to assume she was a master abuser etc)

A couple of things that stick out to me - which others maybe able to explain or elaborate is

1) GB tried to physically escape her mother a few times but DD always brought her back. This gives the impression she had her beadies on her at all times, ensuring she didn't escape to reveal their secrets. Yet, she had seemingly unseen and regular access to the Internet. So much that she spoke to or made a female friend? and joined a dating site and met potential suitors (online anyway). Surely DD would not risk not only the chance that GB could tell someone via the web about her abusive lifestyle but also get information too. Someone paid the Internet bill.....so it wasn't secret Internet access. Why would she stop her going out, yet leave her to - basically have the whole world to talk too. And how did GB know about Christian dating sites etc? that info is strange to me - I would be interested to see how detailed her dating profile was.

2) GB had the foresight, instinct whatever you call it to realise that getting another person to kill her mother would mean less trouble for her. She had more reason on the face of it than anyone to kill her mother (I finally snapped! I was so sick of being controlled etc). Yet she still manipulated another person - a weaker person almost - to do the crime for her. She was also the one who knew where DD kept her money - the guy didn't. I know this is probably a case of the manipulated becoming the manipulator but I don't know - even with him being as smitten and easy lead as he was, GB must of spent sometime convincing him HE needed to do it FOR her. That is less rage and more planned - which again takes balls and a little something about the person.

3)Why are her legal term trying to sever the cases? HE is up for murder as a direct result of meeting GB, whether he made a stupid choice or not. Had they not met - he wouldn't of murdered so how are they NOT linked? Confusing?

Just so I am clear, as I said at the beginning, I cannot even begin to get my head around this case to start understanding so I don't want anyone thinking I am trying to say GB should have found it easier to get out. I just can't help but feel she wasn't quite as helpless as she makes out.

Thanks for posting here!

A couple comments: One, it has been assumed on here that Gypsy manipulated her boyfriend to do the killing. But no facts have come out yet to suggest that the man who liked to masturbate in public and confessed to debating raping the mother as he killed her, was manipulated into doing what he did. (He said she asked him to do it, but maybe that's after he suggested it and even if she asked, that does not mean he was "manipulated").

It is certainly possible, given that it is apparent Gypsy grew up isolated with a highly manipulative mother who defrauded people, but we haven't seen the messages back and forth. It is possible that murder was first suggested by the boyfriend. Who knows?

Two, as to separating the trials, and the speculation from everyone about that, judges typically have great discretion as to whether they will try co-defendants together or not. In some states they can actually have the same trial, with different juries, however - so that two juries are in the courtroom and deliberate separately, and sometimes one jury will be excused and not hear certain evidence that is presented to the other jury. So that is a means of protecting the defendants.

This case is properly joined as the crimes they are being charged with stem from the same set of facts. However, one side is able to have their case severed if they can prove that prejudice to one defendant would arise and far outweigh the judicial economy of trying the
defendants together.

For example, what if Goodejohn wants to plead the fifth but Gypsy wants to testify like mad? Now all the incriminating facts may come out against the BF, by Gypsy. Of course, as I stated, some states can have two juries who don't hear the same testimony. But I don't see that as allowable in MO. I can;t find anything stating they have that system there.

In this case, I believe the cases will be severed.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-defendants-joint-trials.html

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=CrsWaBoNkcvu-TSue_C3Rg&bvm=bv.96952980,d.cGU

 

[DexterMorgan]

Since bf thought about raping moms;Than bf has his own sexualized thoughts and fantasies that were not brought on by Gypsy.

Gypsy orchestrated out of insane anger which was built up by moms doing.

Now since it seems like Gypsy had a true Stockholm syndrome for 20 years; Than a good lawyer has a chance because there was proven reasoning on Gypsy's Stockholm thoughts.

Now the bf may be slow. But he would have killed at the request of any girl that he liked who gave him a sob story.

So he is dangerous on that note. Jmo. Gypsy needs mental help but not a full blown maximum prison for life.

Maybe 10 years mental rehabilitation.