IA IA - Johnny Gosch, 12, W Des Moines, 5 Sept 1982 - What happened? - #3

I've been trying to find out where Paul Bonacci's "journal"/"notebooks"/"diaries" came from.

In discussing his book, DeCamp claims that " I took simply the diaries of Paul Bonacci and I printed a good portion of them in my book". However, in the so-called "debriefing" video made of Paul Bonacci, by Ted Gunderson, in 1993 - Bonacci repeatedly states that all of his notebooks had been taken away from him after his arrest, all except one.

http://www.jerrymcmullin.com/ritual.html

How does one notebook morph into "the dairies"? And, if Bonacci "kept meticulous notes" about everything that had happened to him since he was 8 years old, recorded allegedly as they happened over the years and not as recollection, how does all that information fit into one notebook? On top of that, if Bonacci had at one time many notebooks in which this material was recorded...how did it all end up in the one notebook that he was able to keep?

Here's another mystery. In that 1993 debriefing video, Bonacci claims that he has fully integrated all of his alleged multiple personalities. He even says that he no longer has multiple personalities. Gunderson asks him "how can I know that I'm talking to "Paul" and not one of your other personalities" and Bonacci says:
"there's no other personalities to come out or talk to" and "before I was integrated, the other personalities could just come out and tell you...like that...now I have to remember things like a normal person" [because he's no longer suffering MPD].

But in the 1998 testimoney, the lawsuit Bonacci vs King, the transcript records Bonacci supposedly becoming "possessed" by "an alternate personality", right in the middle of his testimony!

"Q. Do you still have multiple personalities?

A. Yes, I do. I will always probably have both the personalities. I mean, I can, it's easy to live with now because I don I have any traumatic things to cause me to switch personalities which would really do me a whole lot of harm. But I know that even with my affiliation with Larry King and stuff, I know for a fact now to myself that he knew about the MPD and also was in touch with and was one of my controllers.

Q. You've had three separate psychiatrists examine you, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And were each of these psychiatrists hired and paid for by the State of Nebraska or one of subdivisions of the State of Nebraska?

A. Yes.

Q. And were they hired to determine whether you really did or did not have multiple personalities?

A. The first psychiatrist was Dr. Beverley Mead and he first was involved when I first went to jail. Because at that time and stuff they said that I was probably under a lot of anxiety and stuff because of the charge and stuff. And he examined me and I don I even remember the first time he examined me, I don I remember until about the fourth or fifth time he examined me. Because every time he examined me until one time he had me just kind of relax and just, and it was the first time it came out while he was out, or I was out, the other personalities were not, he told me that I had MPD and stuff. This is like after he talked to me four or five times and stuff and said in talking to me and stuff, I came to that time I was shocked about where I was at. Because up until that point I hadn't even realized I was in jail as Paul, I was always another personality that had handled everything and stuff. This was like about three to four weeks after I'd been arrested and I didn't even, I hadn't gone, I mean, I had no idea about any of it. And, but, he was the one that first diagnosed me with the MPD. And

Q. Can you stop just a minute?

A. Yeah.

Q. I'm not talking to Paul, am I?

A. No.

Q. Who am I talking to?

A. I used to be known as Wesley but now I'm called Tony.

THE COURT: I'm sorry, you're who?

A. Used to be Wesley, now my name is Tony.

Q. (By Mr. DeCamp) Why is Wesley here?

A. Because I figure it's best if I tell it because lot of things Paul just doesn't want to have to go through a lot of times"

I must admit to not doing my "homework assignment" this weekend (documenting my claims of "kookiness" about Gunderson). When I had last looked at this forum before the weekend, it had been closed. I assumed that it was all over, so I didn't do the research. However, I saw on Monday that it had been reopened over the weekend, so I am unprepared. I will do that this week and post my findings.

As I have stated before, one of the most difficult things about debating the existence of the Franklin Conspiracy is how proponents generally view a lack of evidence as evidence proving the pervasivness of the conspiracy. Grand jury calls the conspiracy a hoax? Grand Jury is suspect. FAA finds no evidence of foul play in Caradori crash? FAA is part of the conspiracy. FBI finds no evidence of a conspiracy? There are in it too. Show that major players in promoting the conspiracy theory are also believers in other looney ideas? They are either disinfo agents or being setup as kooks by the conspirators. Witnesses/victims who recant their story? They were pressured by the conspirators under threat of death. Every bit of evidence that points toward the conspiracy as being a hoax can be turned around and used of proof of the conspiracy.

To believers in the conspiracy (and to people who, in particular, believe that Johnny Gosch was abducted by this conspiracy to be used as a sex slave): There is a undisputed subculture of people who prey upon children to be used as sex workers called pimps. They have absolutely no qualms about using children and young adults for their profit and pleasure. They prey upon their victims usually by locating runaways and throwaways and turning them into prostitutes because they have the least likely chance of having someone searching for them. So how come pimps are so much smarter than the poltical elite who you believe are behind the conspiracy? Why would the conspirators not use this same game plan (and use it exclusively)? Why kidnap a suburban white kid delivering papers in from a Main Street USA town like Des Moines when there are young boys who fit the same physical description who had run away from home the week before and can be easily found hanging out at the local Greyhound bus station. Sexual predators such as pimps have been using this technique successfully for decades.

Why would the conspirators draw attention to themselves by abducting the very sort of victims who would have a Noreen Gosch looking for her son 25 years later when much easier and less risky prey is readily available?

In order to totally dismiss the "conspiracy theory," a person would have to say everyone associated with it or believing in it is either crazy or kooky, a criminal or a liar. That would mean Paul Bonacci, Troy Boner, Alicia Owen, and Jimmy Gibson are all liars. and criminals too. Make Boner's lying (his thieving, prostituting, too) in the past-tense, cause he's dead. His brothers dead too. And Alicia Owen's brother too. Wow, bad luck must run in kooky families. All those corresponding places, people and dates they reported are made up. Its just pure luck they fit. How in the world Paul Bonacci was able to take America's Most Wanted producers to the house where he and Johnny, as well as other boys, were kept was pure coincidence or a lie. Therefore, John Walsh is a kook too. Oh yeah, he interviewed Jimmy Gibson for a couple episodes of his show....so John Walsh and everyone at AMW is crazy. That brand on Jimmy Gibson? We don't know how it got there but let's dismiss that as kookiness.

And Jimmy's testimony about Johnny? Its a lie. And that story about Johnny Gosch begging a woman to help him several months after his kidnapping? Its a lie....and that lady is crazy. The red nail polish that said "Johnny Gosch was Here?"...you know, in that bathroom. Well, several independent victims were able to tell about that before it ever became public knowledge....they must be crazy too.

John DeCamp? Yeah, he's crazy.... Noreen Gosch? Bless her heart but she's a kook. Jim Rothstein? Crazy. Ted Gunderson? Kook. Senator Loran Schmit? Crazy. William Colby? Crazy too (and dead)
Julie Walters? Must be kooky. Karen Sorenson? Crazy (and dead too).
Gary Caradori? Good guy but crazy...or kooky (but dead)

And the list goes on.....

This world is one crazy and kooky place.....and I'm right there in the middle of it.

What I can't comprehend in the little bit I have read is why someone would confess to all of this horrible stuff it weren't true, what's to gain???

christine2448 said:

What I can't comprehend in the little bit I have read is why someone would confess to all of this horrible stuff it weren't true, what's to gain???

Click to expand...

There are many possibilities.
Perhaps John M Karr could shed some light on that question, but I decline to attempt to ask him.

A very interesting article discussing some possible motivations for falsely confessing to horrible crimes, here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1687182/posts

Some others:
- greed
- attention
- status within a particular subculture (such as, conspiracy theorist radio & conference circuit)
- adulation (Bonacci, for example, holds the status of hero for some believers in his stories - despite the horrendous nature of acts he has confessed to committing)
- furtherance of an ideology or belief system. A famous example of this one are false evangelical "testimonials" such as Mike Warnke's "The Satan Seller". In some twisted way, false testimonial confessors may believe "the work of the Lord" is advanced by their fraudulent confessions.
Perhaps, by falsely confessing to participation in human trafficking or satanic cults or secret government hit squads they hope to bring their "issue" to the attention of the masses and rationalize that their own lies advance a greater good.

I'd say it's simpler to conceive that a handful of people (some of whom really do have criminal histories on top of convictions for perjury) could be liars, or conspiring together to perpetrate a hoax, than to conceive that hundreds of people with no proven criminal interests are all conspiring together to suppress a story that has (despite all their efforts) been published in books, talked about on mainstream TV like AMW and has hundreds of webpages dedicated to it.

More weird stuff. I just finished reading the transcript of an interview with John DeCamp in which he seems to be claiming that he was "hired to whitewash" (i.e., cover-up) the "true facts" of the Franklin investigation:

"AJ: Hold on. You were actually just out of senate and you were hired to go whitewash the operation because ya know this is ridiculous.
JD[John DeCamp]: That's what I was hired for.
AJ: Yeah.
JD: But I did the opposite."

Which just seems ludicrous. DeCamp was hired to be the
legal counsel to the Chairman of the State Senate Committee Sen. Loran Schmit. Loran Schmit was very supportive of the abuse complainants:
"State Sen. Loran Schmit of Bellwood testified Wednesday that he still finds credible the sexual-abuse allegations made by three young people to legislative investigator Gary Caradori in late 1989".
so DeCamp couldn't have been "hired to whitewash" on behalf of the person he actually worked for - Sen. Loran Schmit. Is he saying that he was secretly working for someone else, that his job as Schmit's legal counsel was a front under which he was supposed to sabotage the Franklin investigation? And how was he supposed to do that - he wasn't an investigator, he was just a Senator's personal legal counsel.

Sounds like self-aggrandizing nonsense, to me.

I'm going to snip a quote because I don't want to belabor the point by addressing everything raised in the posting. No offense, intended, shefner.

"How in the world Paul Bonacci was able to take America's Most Wanted producers to the house where he and Johnny, as well as other boys, were kept was pure coincidence or a lie."

The simplest explanation might be, that Bonacci had been in the house before at some point in his life. That doesn't prove that any allegations he made about what took place there are necessarily validated. For example, I could describe lots of buildings in Vancouver, BC, and even "lead someone" to them although I've never lived in that city. I could claim that I witnessed a murder in one of these buildings. The fact that I could accurately describe the building and take someone to it would in no way be proof that a murder took place there.

christine2448 said:

What I can't comprehend in the little bit I have read is why someone would confess to all of this horrible stuff it weren't true, what's to gain???

Click to expand...

Actually, it's part and parcel of the conspiracy mindset. And the majority of those claiming SRA/government MC include in their narratives instances of victimizing others (it's much more believable if you were "made" to do something nasty—you know, like killing someone, abusing a child, etcetera and etcetera). I have long referred to this as taking a trip down the rabbit hole. And, it's very hard to get out of Wonderland once you're there. I wrote an article about this very process some years ago. (click here)

One of the problems with this movement that, imho, is both dangerous and provocative is the heightened paranoia (ala Hotel California style—you can check out anytime you like but you can never leave). Or what some refer to as a "folie à deux" (shared delusions) wherein the therapists not only encourage the delusions but sometimes take them on as their own as well.

I know people whom, a couple of decades ago, were high-functioning, had successful careers, and all that goes with the American dream, who today, are agoraphobics, living in seclusion, believing they are survivors of an international network of Satanists. And that said network is actively monitoring them. Unlike some, I do not consider these people to be "kooks" bc the world in which they live is fraught with fear and self-loathing, and they are more often than not, walking down suicide alley. It's very sad, actually.

The enablers of such are another story altogether. Imho, of course.

Shadowraiths - your posting, and your linked article, were very informative. Thank you!

Roy Harrold said:

Perhaps John M Karr could shed some light on that question

Click to expand...

Imho, quite doubtful. I inclined to feel that people like him and Jack McClellan fall into the same group of paedophile predators and aren't even remotely like those caught up in the conspiracy stuff.

shadowraiths said:

. (click here)

Click to expand...

Shadow, SO much respect for you...you know I have 'followed' you and your 'workings'...what a incredible article.....being a survivor myself :blowkiss: I don't however, live in the hell described, Praise God.

I appreciate you posting this article.

Now, to read the rest of your post....I clicked before reading all

So, you really think these people could have been 'fooled' into saying they committed these horrible acts?

Hard to believe for me. But, I'm listenin.

Frankly, Christine, I don't believe that Paul Bonacci is the sole author of his "life's story". I strongly suspect the involvement of ghost writers, either of the fundamentalist David Balsiger variety or perhaps Larouchite "New World Order" paranoia propagandists.

christine2448 said:

So, you really think these people could have been 'fooled' into saying they committed these horrible acts?

Hard to believe for me. But, I'm listenin.

Click to expand...

It's hard to know, actually. While people have been known to make false confessions (i.e., Paul Ingram, Michael Crowe), the motivations behind such can be varied. False confessions have, of course, been a hallmark of high-profile crimes, which is one reason that LE withholds certain crime scene info (i.e., to weed out the so-called crackpots).

But that, imho, is very different than what I suspect likely has occurred in this case. That is, if these individuals confessions are indeed false. The thing that is esp tough about cases such as these is, that while there appears to be some truth to the allegations, over time, they become so embellished that the truth seems to get lost (in this case) in the conspiracy.

For example, iirc, Rusty Nelson mentions Project Monarch in his interview. And yet, Mark Phillips allegedly told someone that he "concocted the name 'Project Monarch,' just to see who would pick it up." (click here) Which I tend to think is exactly what occurred, since I have been following the Phillips & O'Brien saga from its infancy to the monstrosity that it has turned into today. Whatever the case, the people who have "circled their wagons" so to speak, around Noreen Gosch, admittedly trouble me. Esp considering some of the theories these people put forth (to include conspiracies of the alien reptile kind).

That being said, as I have previously stated, I do feel Johnny Gosch was kidnapped by a paedophile ring, just not necessarily the Franklin group. My main reasoning here has to do with the case of George Paul Bishop (a recently convicted and soon to be released child pornographer) and his showing up on the scene shortly after Johnny was abducted. (click here) Since this guy a) showed up well before the conspiracy vultures descended and b) I know someone who was abused by this guy, I am inclined to think he may very well hold the key to what happened to Johnny. Even so, that I know of, that angle has been explored by the FBI. But that is all that I know.

Still, he is but one example of the types of shady people that have and continue to show up around this tragic case. Hence, leaving questions that make one go, hmmmm...

Another great posting, Shadowraiths! You are very knowledgeable & current.

I've come across Mark Philips name before. That link was excellent, Philips and O'Brien embody everything that makes my skin crawl about conspiracy theory.

George Bishop - a case of a perpetrator worming his way into the investigation of his own crime? Like the murderers who volunteer for the search for their own victims, or just monitoring the investigation in your opinion?

Bishop suggested a pedophile ring to Noreen Gosch. Do you think that was just a sick, sadistic brazen-ness, or could he have been giving her misdirection away from specific individual suspects (like himself)?

Certainly, a viable suspect. Much better than "all of John DeCamp's social & political enemies, the elites of Omaha and Des Moines, the FBI, the CIA, half of the Congress, half of the Senate and every president since Jimmy Carter".

Dr. Doogie said:

As I have stated before, one of the most difficult things about debating the existence of the Franklin Conspiracy is how proponents generally view a lack of evidence as evidence proving the pervasivness of the conspiracy. Grand jury calls the conspiracy a hoax? Grand Jury is suspect. FAA finds no evidence of foul play in Caradori crash? FAA is part of the conspiracy. FBI finds no evidence of a conspiracy? There are in it too. Show that major players in promoting the conspiracy theory are also believers in other looney ideas? They are either disinfo agents or being setup as kooks by the conspirators. Witnesses/victims who recant their story? They were pressured by the conspirators under threat of death. Every bit of evidence that points toward the conspiracy as being a hoax can be turned around and used of proof of the conspiracy.

To believers in the conspiracy (and to people who, in particular, believe that Johnny Gosch was abducted by this conspiracy to be used as a sex slave): There is a undisputed subculture of people who prey upon children to be used as sex workers called pimps. They have absolutely no qualms about using children and young adults for their profit and pleasure. They prey upon their victims usually by locating runaways and throwaways and turning them into prostitutes because they have the least likely chance of having someone searching for them. So how come pimps are so much smarter than the poltical elite who you believe are behind the conspiracy? Why would the conspirators not use this same game plan (and use it exclusively)? Why kidnap a suburban white kid delivering papers in from a Main Street USA town like Des Moines when there are young boys who fit the same physical description who had run away from home the week before and can be easily found hanging out at the local Greyhound bus station. Sexual predators such as pimps have been using this technique successfully for decades.

Why would the conspirators draw attention to themselves by abducting the very sort of victims who would have a Noreen Gosch looking for her son 25 years later when much easier and less risky prey is readily available?

Click to expand...

Hi, Doc - I missed this before.
I think this is an insightful point.

christine2448 said:

So, you really think these people could have been 'fooled' into saying they committed these horrible acts?

Hard to believe for me. But, I'm listenin.

Click to expand...

Oh, it's very hard to believe. I think that's one of the main reasons SRA theories lasted as long as they did and did the damage they did. People can't fathom why somebody would confess to horrible crimes that either didn't happen or they weren't involved in.

At the time, the psychological world was largely to blame for this mess. Recovered memory therapy created people like the ones SW wrote about above. These people are not kooks, they are victims. Frankly, I think the psychological world abandoned them after the fanfare died down thus making them victims twice. I'm a psych major and I have no respect for the therapists who took part in this mess.

There are many cases in the whole SRA debacle of people confessing to crimes, horrible in nature, that never happened. There were others, Mike Warnke springs to mind, who captialized on the fear and panic associated with SRA and made very nice livings for themselves. The Dr. who co-authored "Michelle Remembers" springs to mind as well.

In my mind, one thing is almost a certainty. I'm sure some pedophiles, then as well as now, told their victims that they were members of some powerful cult that would be watching them. Sort of like the ones who tell kid they'll kill their parents if the kids tell. To me, using that as a control device almost certainly happened. But, I don't believe the sickos were telling the truth. Are there pedo rings out there? You bet. We see the news of them being broken up all the time. No doubt they exist, no dobut some are sophisticated. Is there one so powerful that the government is involved in it? I don't think so. I'm certain that members of our government and others are peodphiles, the news is enough to prove that. But, I don't believe in the mass SRA/MC conspiracy. Like Doogie said, why kidnap kids when pimps have been finding them at the bus station for years? Makes no sense really.

Eire said:

Like Doogie said, why kidnap kids when pimps have been finding them at the bus station for years? Makes no sense really.

Click to expand...

I still agree with that, but I'm wondering if I'm being myopic (happens to me frequently) in my perspective on that.

I think it would be extremely difficult to develop and run a profitable sex slavery ring, in North America, using WASP middle-class or above children, teens or adults as the primary victims. Large enough numbers of victims to make the risk and effort worthwhile would ring alarm bells pretty quickly in communities that are fortunate to have greater demographic stability, adequate school support staff, adequate policing, etc.

We had this discussion once before, when some kindly soul created a time and geographic chart for known missing children with similar profiles to Gosch. There just weren't enough 11-13 (10 to 14?) year old white male missing persons in any given area or time frame to have supported a large, sophisticated, criminal underground marketing such victims.

There are, however, communities that are not so fortunately situated. There may also be communities of people around us where problems like language barrier or differing traditional attitudes toward "people as property" or illegal resident status could make sex slavery rings a bit less risky and a bit more profitable. We've had problems in Canada with asian criminal networks importing "sex slaves" from places like China. (What about those children in Britain, part of an African community I believe, who seem to have been brought there for the purpose of black magic sacrifice. Does anyone know more about that? Where they slaves, purchased somewhere in Africa or where they refuge/immigrant claimants?)

The pimping of runaways seems safer and less trouble for the criminals involved than a kidnapping and slavery ring, to me, but is that because of the culture I've lived in most of my life?

Those are some thoughts I hadn't considered, Roy. I believe it's highly probable that children can be and are bought and sold as sex slaves. There was a guy who adopted a Russian girl to fulfil his sick pedo fantasies a few years ago. I'd wager there are more of those cases out there than we know of. I wouldn't say it's absolutely impossible for kids from other cultures to be bought for that purpose in the West, I'm certain it is possible. In fact, I'm positive it happens. Weren't there some Chinese teenagers brought over here for prostitution? If I recall, their parents were paid and told their daughters would work as nannies, in reality there were pimped out. I'm thinking out loud here, so please bear with me, from a profit standpoint I'd imagine using runaways would be easier, but from a variety standpoint buying kids from other countries may boost business. Please, don't misconstrue that, I do not condone the practice either way. That's about as far as I'll go into trying to understand the motivation behind buying kids for the sex trade.

Also, I think Rolling Stone did an expose a few years back on companies in the US and Canada that cater to rich pedos. They plan "vacations" for these creeps to go to countries where child sex is common. I'll have to see if I can find the piece, it was absolutely heartbreaking.

ETA: I see we both referenced Mike Warnke. I swear, he's like the poster boy for false confessions by now.