IA IA - Johnny Gosch, 12, West Des Moines, 5 Sept 1982 #4

[Buffalosleuther]

There's no evidence whatsoever that Sam Soda had anything to do with any of the abductions.

Sam Soda was a local PI and activist who glommed onto the Gosch case like so many others, initially getting along great with Noreen. And then when they began to disagree (Soda didn't think Johnny was targeted) suddenly he became a suspect in Noreen's eyes - based on nothing. Then you get Paul Bonacci, a child molester and con artist (and his skeezy lawyer DeCamp) who basically rubber-stamps whatever Noreen believes at the time. The same thing happened when Noreen and John divorced a few years later - Noreen began accusing her husband of having been a part of it all and another of the con artists (Jimmy Gibson) began to fabricate tales.

Hi, I'm an (unofficial) private investigator from Buffalo, and I'd like to clear up a few things, regarding Sam Soda. I first got into this case because Sam Soda stayed here in Buffalo for a spell. I asked some of the locals in his old neighborhood about him. Understandably most who knew him had either moved away and/or died off but a couple remembered him. While none of them gave me a smoking gun, they told me he had an evil about him, and couldn't be trusted which is why I became suspicious of him in the first place.

Your entire premise that Noreen turned on Soda because "Soda didn't think Johnny was targeted" is untrue. That's what he said on faded out (where he lied about countless things) but he was singing a completely different tune in real time. He stated both the kids had likely been taken by child pornographers 12-30-84 yet on Faded out laughably tried to say they weren't even abducted by the same person.

Their are many things I don't believe Noreen about, because they lack corroboration but I've changed my mind regarding Soda warning Noreen in advance. Because it is documented that the family was suspicious of Soda, long before Bonacci came on the scene and implicated him.

This is from 1988 at the latest, long before Bonacci came onto the scene

"In June 1984 we got a call from a local man who claimed he had information about Johnny and wanted to help. We met with him and became suspicious because he knew so much about the case. The police started monitoring him. "

". This incident made us feel all the more that our personal safety was now at stake, so with police consent I held a press conference and said we knew who Johnny’s kidnapper was. The local man police had been watching left town and the threats and harassment stopped, a further indication of his involvement. This man is back in Des Moines now. The police can’t prove anything against him, so it is still a waiting game, and it may be that way for years.
An Anguished Mother Refuses to Give Up Hope for the Son Who Vanished Six Years Ago


Noreen later described meeting with Soda in June 1984
when he warned her about the upcoming abduction of another paperboy http://tedgunderson.info/index_htm_...Court-Transcripts-from-Larry-King-Lawsuit.pdf


Furthermore, in perhaps his only true statement on Faded out, he seemed to corroborate Noreen's claim "The local man police had been watching left town" He said he needed to get out of town a few years into the case, and said he went to a farm in Kansas..... but he doesn't farm.

Another reason I'm suspicious of him is, Soda's campaign manager when he ran for office (and eventually was forced to drop out of the race when it was revealed he'd lied about receiving war medals) was a man by the name of Keith Colwell. According to Colwell's daughter, Soda disclosed to him he was in the car when Johnny was kidnapped.

He was also showing off Child *advertiser censored* unashamedly in conferences........ Article clipped from The Des Moines Register

Something I really want to know, is where the hell was he getting this crap from? It shows at the very least, he knew people involved in this stuff.

Without betraying confidences, I've also spoken to a former in law of his who claimed he was a rapist (though the person he was accused of raping was an adult).

I've also spoken to Marc Allen's brother who said Soda tried to abduct him as well!

So with all due respect, it's simply not true that Noreen only became suspicious of him when he started disagreeing with her. They actually shared the same theory regarding Johnny being taken by child pornographers'.

I personally believe Soda is involved in all of the abductions, as does Marc's brother and the aforementioned in laws. He was implicated in Johnny's abduction by no less than four sources, accused of another abduction attempt.... by the sibling of one of the abducted children, Accused by an in law of being a rapist (According to another person, the mafia wanted him dead because he was a "baby raping piece of *advertiser censored* but I've yet to verify this) had access to child *advertiser censored*, and more importantly used to show it publicly around town with no repercussions.

As the saying goes, No smoke without a fire.

 

[Buffalosleuther]

No sensible person should ever take a polygraph. They are junk science.

I agree. I was born 18 years after the abduction and still wouldn't consent to a polygraph if questioned.

 

[Buffalosleuther]

The kidnapper lived in that zone. Probably he had a hideout a few miles from the city, where he kept the kids and abused them before killing them. Rings do exist, but in this very case we can see the job of a lone wolf.

This is quite simply untrue. We know at least two people were involved in the abduction. Yes the blue car driver was involved despite laughable posts here suggesting otherwise. John Rossi said the guy was acting extremely suspicious, and on drugs, to the point where Rossi looked at this guy's license plate. Johnny also remarked to a fellow paperboy that the guy was "really weird".

Also involved was the extremely tall man coming out from in between houses, and following Johnny.

Witnesses also said two cars were likely involved which ironically is disputed by Bonacci who insists it was the same car that circled around. Tbh I've never quite understood the assertion from Johnny's father as well as the vast majority of critics that Bonacci incurred all his knowledge about the case from newspapers, as his accounts frequently contradict them, and he has info that was never even in the papers (or rarely in the papers like the tall guy coming out of the house to follow Johnny).

 

[Satch]

Is this Sam Soda's obit?:

https://www.hamiltonsfuneralhome.com/obituaries/55046#obituary

Satch

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Hi, I'm an (unofficial) private investigator from Buffalo, and I'd like to clear up a few things, regarding Sam Soda. I first got into this case because Sam Soda stayed here in Buffalo for a spell. I asked some of the locals in his old neighborhood about him. Understandably most who knew him had either moved away and/or died off but a couple remembered him. While none of them gave me a smoking gun, they told me he had an evil about him, and couldn't be trusted which is why I became suspicious of him in the first place.

Sam, like so many others that got involved in the case early on (like Dennis Whelan) were big believers in the idea that Johnny had been taken by CSAM creators or "homosexual groups", i.e. something organized rather than a solitary predator. I don't think Sam was particularly closer to the truth than anyone else - I find the idea ridiculous and very of its time, with the Satanic Panic of the 80s in its early stages. But he was one of many, and obviously said what Noreen wanted to hear, at least at first.

Your entire premise that Noreen turned on Soda because "Soda didn't think Johnny was targeted" is untrue. That's what he said on faded out (where he lied about countless things) but he was singing a completely different tune in real time. He stated both the kids had likely been taken by child pornographers 12-30-84 yet on Faded out laughably tried to say they weren't even abducted by the same person.

There's a difference between Johnny himself being targeted and a paperboy (any paperboy) being targeted. I also don't see the contradiction, but then one gang of CSAM creators or multiple gangs of CSAM creators, I find them equally ridiculous.

Their are many things I don't believe Noreen about, because they lack corroboration but I've changed my mind regarding Soda warning Noreen in advance. Because it is documented that the family was suspicious of Soda, long before Bonacci came on the scene and implicated him.

Yes, I believe that is what I said. Noreen became suspicious of Soda and Bonacci, being a con artist, validated all her suspicions.

This is from 1988 at the latest, long before Bonacci came onto the scene

"In June 1984 we got a call from a local man who claimed he had information about Johnny and wanted to help. We met with him and became suspicious because he knew so much about the case. The police started monitoring him. "

". This incident made us feel all the more that our personal safety was now at stake, so with police consent I held a press conference and said we knew who Johnny’s kidnapper was. The local man police had been watching left town and the threats and harassment stopped, a further indication of his involvement. This man is back in Des Moines now. The police can’t prove anything against him, so it is still a waiting game, and it may be that way for years.
An Anguished Mother Refuses to Give Up Hope for the Son Who Vanished Six Years Ago


Noreen later described meeting with Soda in June 1984
when he warned her about the upcoming abduction of another paperboy http://tedgunderson.info/index_htm_...Court-Transcripts-from-Larry-King-Lawsuit.pdf

Where she claims she recorded the conversation, yet for some reason she has never made that recording public. And the notion that she played the tape to the media and they didn't pounce on that story when Martin was abducted? Beyond ludicrous. If the conversation actually happened, I suspect it has been very misrepresented.

But honestly the whole thing just doesn't make sense. Soda was involved in Johnny's kidnapping, and Martin's kidnapping, but he still calls Noreen a few months before Martin's abduction to tell her about it? Why? Why even insert himself into the case? What purpose could that possibly serve?

Furthermore, in perhaps his only true statement on Faded out, he seemed to corroborate Noreen's claim "The local man police had been watching left town" He said he needed to get out of town a few years into the case, and said he went to a farm in Kansas..... but he doesn't farm.

I honestly don't see anything suspicious about this, though I suspect it is one of the things that fed Noreen's paranoia.

Another reason I'm suspicious of him is, Soda's campaign manager when he ran for office (and eventually was forced to drop out of the race when it was revealed he'd lied about receiving war medals) was a man by the name of Keith Colwell. According to Colwell's daughter, Soda disclosed to him he was in the car when Johnny was kidnapped.

Yet denied by Colwell himself. Apparently his daughter made the claim on reddit forums decades later.

He was also showing off Child *advertiser censored* unashamedly in conferences........ Article clipped from The Des Moines Register

It's strange how people talk about this. If you didn't click the link, one might think Soda was gathering sweaty men in a room to watch CSAM together for pleasure, but his whole thing was being an anti-CSAM crusader, and as part of that he would show material to shock people into awareness. Stupid? Of course, but he wasn't even the only one doing it back then. The whole article is about his crusade and actually getting a child molester identified and charged.

Something I really want to know, is where the hell was he getting this crap from? It shows at the very least, he knew people involved in this stuff.

The whole point he said he was trying to make is that it was easy to get the material - as I recall, he said he got it from a local store. Now, we don't know how explicit the material was, nor if he was fibbing for effect about the local store, but I do believe him when he said it was easy to get.

Without betraying confidences, I've also spoken to a former in law of his who claimed he was a rapist (though the person he was accused of raping was an adult).

Perhaps he was.

I've also spoken to Marc Allen's brother who said Soda tried to abduct him as well!

Sorry, what? When and where did this happen? Did the brother know Soda before?

So with all due respect, it's simply not true that Noreen only became suspicious of him when he started disagreeing with her. They actually shared the same theory regarding Johnny being taken by child pornographers'.

Yes, both believed in the evidence-free notion that Johnny was taken by CSAM creators, but they still disagreed about the nature of how it went down. Noreen has always and continues to claim that Johnny was targeted in particular, whereas Soda leaned towards a gang or gangs just looking to abduct any young boy they could get. And it is a sad fact that those who believe in conspiracy theories often deal with disagreeing former allies by baking them into the conspiracy as well. Noreen did it with Soda and then she did it with her ex-husband.

I personally believe Soda is involved in all of the abductions, as does Marc's brother and the aforementioned in laws. He was implicated in Johnny's abduction by no less than four sources, accused of another abduction attempt.... by the sibling of one of the abducted children, Accused by an in law of being a rapist (According to another person, the mafia wanted him dead because he was a "baby raping piece of *advertiser censored* but I've yet to verify this) had access to child *advertiser censored*, and more importantly used to show it publicly around town with no repercussions.

No repercussions because he was showing it as part of his anti-CSAM crusade. Now, I think it is an incredibly stupid thing to do, but he was not the only one going for shock value.

As the saying goes, No smoke without a fire.

I prefer the saying "all smoke and no fire".

 

[FergusMcDuck]

This is quite simply untrue. We know at least two people were involved in the abduction. Yes the blue car driver was involved despite laughable posts here suggesting otherwise. John Rossi said the guy was acting extremely suspicious, and on drugs, to the point where Rossi looked at this guy's license plate. Johnny also remarked to a fellow paperboy that the guy was "really weird".

John Rossi said the guy was high because he wasn't drunk and was alert.

In a recent interview with The Register, he said, "This guy was high. When you're drunk you're drowsy. He was wide awake and I could see his beady eyes staring into the horizon."

The witness said he stood three feet from the man and could see him plainly.

His face lit by soft light, the man inside the car had dark features and a mustache and was about 40 years old.

"He looked like he was disgusted, a bit miffed," the witness said. The man then slid across the seat, started the car, and turned on the lights. The witness then noticed the car bore a Warren County license plate and remembers "more than one of the figures" on the plate. The car made a U-turn and bolted east on Ashworth.

In the documentary, he even says he looked "caffeinated", so we're not talking hardcore drugs here. Now, consider this. You have an appointed meeting at a certain address sometime around dawn on a Sunday morning. But you take the wrong turn off the highway and the streets have different numbers on that side. Time is slipping away. Does it make sense that you would be 1. stressed, 2. irritated, 3. caffeinated and 4. approaching the only human beings awake to ask for directions?

Also involved was the extremely tall man coming out from in between houses, and following Johnny.

I've never seen him called "extremely" tall before. But he also likely didn't exist, as we have two eye-witnesses - brothers B, the last to see Johnny at the location from where he vanished - pass by him without seeing anyone else nearby. The confusion appears to originate with the very first statements to media, by paperboy Mike S (via his mother):

The description was provided by a 15-year-old friend of Gosch - also a carrier - who told the police the man had driven past the boys three times and twice had asked directions to the same place.

The 15-year-old, whose frightened mother asked that his name not be used, reported that he and Gosch had picked up their Sunday newspapers at Forty-second Street and Ashworth Road and then had parted. Minutes later, he said, he spotted a man wearing a baseball cap near Forty-second and Marcourt Lane, and the man was apparently talking to Gosch.

[...]

The 15-year-old told his parents he could not determine, at that distance, whether it was the man from the car. He knew Gosch had his dog with him, so he listened. The dog wasn't barking.

Sensing no immediate danger, the 15-year-old walked on. He didn't see his friend again.

[...]

Police first checked the 15-year-old carrier's report of the man who had driven past in a dark blue car. Fidler later said of the incidents: "We're not putting any weight on it whatsoever. There's no indication that he came into contact with this boy" after the papers were picked up.

Young Gosch had picked up the Sunday morning papers at Forty-Second Street and Ashworth Road before 6 a.m. Sunday. He met a 15-year-old carrier there, and they parted to deliver the papers.

The 15-year-old told his mother that he saw Gosch talking to a man near Forty-Second and Marcourt Lane. The carrier said the man was bigger than Gosch, who is 5 feet, 7 inches tall and weighs 140 pounds. The boy has not been seen since then.

The 15-year-old has provided the police with a description of the man, and a sketch was drawn. Police Monday again declined to release that drawing. "We're just not confident it's a likeness," the DCI's Meyer said, adding, "Not that it may not be, but rather than confuse people," authorities have decided against making the sketch public for now.

West Des Moines Police Lt. Raymond Fidler said the man in the drawing may have been only a drunk driver asking for directions.

So, the early account provided by the mother has Mike S seeing Johnny at a distance talking to a man, taller than Johnny and wearing a baseball cap, who may be the same guy in the blue car (later dubbed Emilio), and that he provided a description for a sketch. This was supposedly up at 42nd and Marcourt, where Johnny vanished from. A few things:

* Like I said, the brothers B didn't see anyone else up at Marcourt, and they passed by and saw Johnny.
* One of the sketches of "Emilio" has him in a baseball cap.
* The man in question is described as a "driver asking for directions" by police.
* Later accounts have a paperboy (Mike S) claim the blue car approached Johnny first at Ashworth, close to where he had come out from cutting across a neighbor's yard.

So the obvious explanation here is that the original report was garbled (likely through Mike's mother, who gave the actual statements to the press) and the place where Johnny vanished got confused with where the blue car guy (with a baseball cap) first encountered Johnny. That was at some distance from the paperdrop, explaining Mike's uncertainty if it was the same guy. The guy approached Johnny down Ashworth, got directions, drove away, came back to the paperdrop where now Johnny, Mike S and John Rossi were to ask again.

All the subsequent accounts of the tall guy comes from PIs (Whelan, in particular):

A second man who emerged from the shadows and was seen near the parked car by the two witnesses may have been working with the mystery man, Whelan said. He said the second man was seen walking with young Gosch as the boy started out on his paper route. Police had reported the presence of a second man earlier.

The Ashworth Rd encounter even explains the constantly used "from the shadows" of the tall guy accounts. Someone was emerging from the shadows right before that encounter - Johnny, cutting through the backyard. It's easy to see how a PI, without access to police files, could get these details, along with the mislocation, and turn them into a wholly new encounter.

Witnesses also said two cars were likely involved which ironically is disputed by Bonacci who insists it was the same car that circled around.

Because by the mid 80s Noreen had decided that the blue car was the abducting car, and Bonacci's whole thing was to validate all of Noreen's notions, like a good con artist.

Tbh I've never quite understood the assertion from Johnny's father as well as the vast majority of critics that Bonacci incurred all his knowledge about the case from newspapers, as his accounts frequently contradict them, and he has info that was never even in the papers (or rarely in the papers like the tall guy coming out of the house to follow Johnny).

Newspapers and magazines. You linked to one from 1988 yourself, that has Noreen claiming (incorrectly) that PJS saw a "blue" car speed away from the abduction site, not a silver one, so at that point Noreen's new narrative was in the media, for Bonacci to use.

EDIT: Also note Noreen's comment in the article:

One of the boys heard our dog growling, and when he looked up, he saw a second, very tall man following Johnny and attempting to talk to him.

The dog was involved in the earliest accounts from Mike's mother, but there the dog explicitly didn't make a sound.

 

[Buffalosleuther]

John Rossi said the guy was high because he wasn't drunk and was alert.

In the documentary, he even says he looked "caffeinated", so we're not talking hardcore drugs here. Now, consider this.

Yes, he also said the guy was extremely suspicious, which is why he looked at his license plate in the first place.

You have an appointed meeting at a certain address sometime around dawn on a Sunday morning. But you take the wrong turn off the highway and the streets have different numbers on that side. Time is slipping away. Does it make sense that you would be 1. stressed, 2. irritated, 3. caffeinated and 4. approaching the only human beings awake to ask for directions?

If time was slipping away, why did he stay at the same spot for 20+ minutes?

Why was he asking a bunch of children for directions when their is an adult who actually drives, and would likely know far more than some paperboys?

If everything is on the up and up, why did Johnny say "that man is really weird" to his friend? I highly doubt it was because he'd asked for directions.

If this man is so innocent, why did police even make a sketch of this guy in the first place?

Also why didn't he just identify himself if we was merely a passerby and not involved? His picture was plastered all over the local papers. I highly highly doubt, he didn't see any of the sketches

Their was also a suspect in the Eugene Martin case. A guy driver a '72-'73 Green Malibu with primer marks. This wasn't nearly as widely reported as the sketch, but the driver of the car found out they were describing his car and turned himself in.

I've never seen him called "extremely" tall before. But he also likely didn't exist, as we have two eye-witnesses - brothers B, the last to see Johnny at the location from where he vanished - pass by him without seeing anyone else nearby. The confusion appears to originate with the very first statements to media, by paperboy Mike S (via his mother):

You're correct. I misspoke. He was not identified as extremely tall by contemporary witnesses. This was only later. I apologize.

So, the early account provided by the mother has Mike S seeing Johnny at a distance talking to a man, taller than Johnny and wearing a baseball cap, who may be the same guy in the blue car (later dubbed Emilio), and that he provided a description for a sketch. This was supposedly up at 42nd and Marcourt, where Johnny vanished from. A few things:

* Like I said, the brothers B didn't see anyone else up at Marcourt, and they passed by and saw Johnny.
* One of the sketches of "Emilio" has him in a baseball cap.
* The man in question is described as a "driver asking for directions" by police.
* Later accounts have a paperboy (Mike S) claim the blue car approached Johnny first at Ashworth, close to where he had come out from cutting across a neighbor's yard.

So the obvious explanation here is that the original report was garbled (likely through Mike's mother, who gave the actual statements to the press) and the place where Johnny vanished got confused with where the blue car guy (with a baseball cap) first encountered Johnny. That was at some distance from the paperdrop, explaining Mike's uncertainty if it was the same guy. The guy approached Johnny down Ashworth, got directions, drove away, came back to the paperdrop where now Johnny, Mike S and John Rossi were to ask again.

All the subsequent accounts of the tall guy comes from PIs (Whelan, in particular):

The Ashworth Rd encounter even explains the constantly used "from the shadows" of the tall guy accounts. Someone was emerging from the shadows right before that encounter - Johnny, cutting through the backyard. It's easy to see how a PI, without access to police files, could get these details, along with the mislocation, and turn them into a wholly new encounter.

Well the police reported the same thing. They found a witness (most likely Seskis) who told them he saw a man coming out from in between houses, which would be a completely different statement than the one Seskis's mom gave to the media. Source: Article clipped from The Des Moines Register

The (most likely) same witness also sees the car drive off, then sees another man coming out from in between houses so it's highly they were the same person Article clipped from Chicago Tribune

Also with all due respect, I don't know where you're going with this. You seem to be insinuating the guy allegedly seen coming out from in between the houses and the driver were one and the same, yet you don't believe that guy was involved?

Because by the mid 80s Noreen had decided that the blue car was the abducting car,

She'd already decided the the blue car was the "abducting car" within days of the abduction hence the sketch.

and Bonacci's whole thing was to validate all of Noreen's notions, like a good con artist.

I truly don't understand this. What did Bonacci have to gain from this con? What's his incentive to lie? He didn't gain any money from it or anything.

He knew way to much info to be dismissed. Either he was truly involved like he claims, or the Gosches and/or Roy Stephens were feeding him info.

He was almost certainly abused at the very least. I watched his clip in AMW when came upon the house in Colorado, and his reaction was as genuine as I've ever seen. If he faked it, then he's the greatest actor in the world.

Also all of these notes were in his diary as well which he didn't have access to in prison. He also mentioned Johnny having a stutter which was not reported at all by the family, but something Johnny was notorious for, according to his classmates.
Their's a chance, he may have seen this story regarding an alleged sighting of Johnny in Oklahoma where the witness did an interview with the Chicago tribune and mentioned the boy having a stammer. TulsaSightingJohnny1

It was a genuine sighting despite the vast majority of people laughably saying Noreen made it up.

Newspapers and magazines. You linked to one from 1988 yourself, that has Noreen claiming (incorrectly) that PJS saw a "blue" car speed away from the abduction site, not a silver one, so at that point Noreen's new narrative was in the media, for Bonacci to use.

EDIT: Also note Noreen's comment in the article:



The dog was involved in the earliest accounts from Mike's mother, but there the dog explicitly didn't make a sound.

You're correct regarding this claim. It's possible Bonacci could've gotten it from the magazine, but I'd say it's unlikely unless there were other sources that supported Noreen's "new narrative". There very well may have been though.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

Yes, he also said the guy was extremely suspicious, which is why he looked at his license plate in the first place.

But how much of that is hindsight after finding out about Johnny's abduction? After all, Rossi didn't memorize the plate at the time.

If time was slipping away, why did he stay at the same spot for 20+ minutes?

Because he was lost and waited for someone to come get the papers so he could ask them for directions? And I don't believe it was said he was in the same spot, but rather in the same area, which checks out with a guy lost, trying to find the right way.

Why was he asking a bunch of children for directions when their is an adult who actually drives, and would likely know far more than some paperboys?

We don't know when everyone appeared and where everyone was. It could be as simple as Johnny being the closest to the sidewalk (as I recall he pulled up from the east and moved over to sit in the passenger seat so he could talk to the people on the sidewalk, he didn't leave the car then (but he might have back down Ashworth).

If everything is on the up and up, why did Johnny say "that man is really weird" to his friend? I highly doubt it was because he'd asked for directions.

Because he thought he was? I mean, we don't know if Johnny said it in an offhand manner or concerned manner.

If this man is so innocent, why did police even make a sketch of this guy in the first place?

Well, he was all they had, wasn't he? No one saw the driver of the silver car. And the police always said they wanted to talk to him as a witness.

Also why didn't he just identify himself if we was merely a passerby and not involved? His picture was plastered all over the local papers. I highly highly doubt, he didn't see any of the sketches

Well, for one he was unlikely to be a local if he was that lost. It's hardly inconceivable that he would leave the city the same day and go far away, putting the annoying occurrence out of his mind. And while Johnny was on milk cartons, I don't think the sketch was that omnipresent - and we don't know just how accurate it was. But there are more options - he could have been involved in some shady dealings and that's why he was going to Clive that early, he could have seen the hysteria around the case and (probably not without cause) feared being railroaded for it, he could have passed away.

Well the police reported the same thing. They found a witness (most likely Seskis) who told them he saw a man coming out from in between houses, which would be a completely different statement than the one Seskis's mom gave to the media. Source: Article clipped from The Des Moines Register

But they had Seskis from day one. He was the witness whose tale first got to the media - the garbled account that was likely the two meetings Johnny had with the blue car guy. This account matches Whelan's - and at no point did the police ever go out and ask the people for sightings of this man, like they did with both the blue car guy and the silver Ford Fairmont.

Not to mention the two eyewitnesses that walked past Johnny - if tall guy was real, he would have been there.

The (most likely) same witness also sees the car drive off, then sees another man coming out from in between houses so it's highly they were the same person Article clipped from Chicago Tribune

It's both the similarities and the differences between these accounts that leads me to believe they aren't directly from Mike S or the cops. In all three it's emerging "from the shadows", but in some cases the guy talked to Johnny, while in others the guy followed him.

Then there's Faded Out's interview with Mike's brother, where he says his brother never said anything about the tall guy to him. Just the guy in the car.

Also with all due respect, I don't know where you're going with this. You seem to be insinuating the guy allegedly seen coming out from in between the houses and the driver were one and the same, yet you don't believe that guy was involved?

No, I'm insinuating that someone (either Mike's mom or someone who talked to Mike's mom) got the wrong impression from Mike's story. I believe Mike told the police Johnny emerged from the shadows, having crossed the backyard to reach Ashworth and this is where Mike saw the blue car guy talk to Johnny the first time. That account got garbled before reaching the newspapers those first couple of days, and then even further garbled before reaching Whelan. That explains both the early accounts and the absence of the tall guy from the statements of the brothers B.

She'd already decided the the blue car was the "abducting car" within days of the abduction hence the sketch.

She had decided he was involved within months, but I'm unaware of any claim that he was the actual abductor until ca 1985. In Whelan's account from Nov 1982 blue car guy has the role of a "spotter", signalling others with his dome light (of course, there are more prosaic reasons why a lost guy might want some light - looking at a map, or driving instructions, etc).

I truly don't understand this. What did Bonacci have to gain from this con? What's his incentive to lie? He didn't gain any money from it or anything.

It raised his profile and gained him an ally. Noreen testified on his behalf in his civil suit. Let's remember that Bonacci was in prison for molesting three children. Yet during the 90s he got to present himself in the media as a brave victim. There's also the fact that the Franklin hoax (which Bonacci had attached himself to) was unravelling at the time, with Alicia Owen's accomplices coming clean.

I think the main question about Bonacci's con is - how much did his lawyer John DeCamp know? My guess is a lot. I don't think it's a coincidence that it was DeCamp's friend and ally Loren Schmit who backed Owen and the others.

He knew way to much info to be dismissed. Either he was truly involved like he claims, or the Gosches and/or Roy Stephens were feeding him info.

Did he, though? Tongue scar and birthmark? On the missing poster. The scar on his leg? Noreen herself revealed that in 1985. That Noreen taught yoga was also in the papers. Add a bit of cold reading and there's really nothing there that's unexplainable.

He was almost certainly abused at the very least. I watched his clip in AMW when came upon the house in Colorado, and his reaction was as genuine as I've ever seen. If he faked it, then he's the greatest actor in the world.

Honestly, I think he's a terrible actor, mostly the made-for-TV movie quality switches between personalities, but it's his ever-changing, self-serving stories that leaves him without credibility.

Also all of these notes were in his diary as well which he didn't have access to in prison. He also mentioned Johnny having a stutter which was not reported at all by the family, but something Johnny was notorious for, according to his classmates.
Their's a chance, he may have seen this story regarding an alleged sighting of Johnny in Oklahoma where the witness did an interview with the Chicago tribune and mentioned the boy having a stammer. TulsaSightingJohnny1

Noreen has also claimed that the scars hadn't been made public either, so I'm not taking it for granted that the stutter never made it into the papers. As for the diary, it completely contradicts Bonacci's later tales. In that one he meets a boy at a farm, calls him "Johnny", and then describes him using only facts from the missing poster.

This is a PI's account of the diary (from Noreen's book):

The other boy was approximately 5'5" in height, 130 pounds, blue eyes, and brown hair. The boy was wearing black jogging pants and had a dirty shirt on that had the name of Kim's Academy on it. At that time, Mr. Bonacci asked if this was Kim's Karate, which he never did get an answer. The boy was approximately 13 years of age and he found out later that his name was Johnny and he couldn't recall his last name. The boy was from Des Moines, Iowa. The other boy was from some town in Minnesota possibly

Missing poster:

DESCRIPTION: Age: 13 years old. D.O.B. Nov. 12 1969. Ht. 5'7'' Wt. 145 lbs. Hair: light brown. Eyes: blue. Complexion: medium. Teeth: gaps between front teeth. Shoe size: 9½-10. Marks/scars: freckles, large birthmark upper left chest, horseshoe shaped scar on tongue, large lower lip. {...] He was believed to have been kidnapped when starting his paper route at 42nd and Marcourt Lane in West Des Moines, Iowa. John was believed to have been wearing a white sweat shirt with the words KIM'S ACADEMY on the back of it along with black warm up pants and blue rubber thongs.

You know what details are not in the diary? Anything not from the missing poster. So before he decided to invent the kidnapping story, Bonacci engaged in some creative writing. Here he doesn't know Johnny, but he has given the details that will make the reader guess who the mystery kid is.

It was a genuine sighting despite the vast majority of people laughably saying Noreen made it up.

That's impossible to say. Personally I don't see why it would be likely. Johnny was a household name and kids can be notorious little ****s about these things.

You're correct regarding this claim. It's possible Bonacci could've gotten it from the magazine, but I'd say it's unlikely unless there were other sources that supported Noreen's "new narrative". There very well may have been though.

It wouldn't matter. Bonacci's game wasn't to get as close to the actual facts as possible. It was to get as close to Noreen's version as possible.

 

[Buffalosleuther]

Sam, like so many others that got involved in the case early on (like Dennis Whelan) were big believers in the idea that Johnny had been taken by CSAM creators or "homosexual groups", i.e. something organized rather than a solitary predator. I don't think Sam was particularly closer to the truth than anyone else - I find the idea ridiculous and very of its time, with the Satanic Panic of the 80s in its early stages. But he was one of many, and obviously said what Noreen wanted to hear, at least at first.

I'm not going to dismiss Soda's completely 180 as him "simply telling Noreen what she wanted to hear". Simply no basis for him to lie (though granted he sure did plenty of it on faded out.

There's a difference between Johnny himself being targeted and a paperboy (any paperboy) being targeted. I also don't see the contradiction, but then one gang of CSAM creators or multiple gangs of CSAM creators, I find them equally ridiculous.

I don't even know how to address this. You think Noreen became suspicious about Soda because they had a disagreement, yet both seemed to be under the belief Johnny was taken by child pornographers'. Their are many people, literally countless people who criticized Noreen, in the papers, in public etc, yet she didn't intertwine them into the story did she. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Yes, I believe that is what I said. Noreen became suspicious of Soda and Bonacci, being a con artist, validated all her suspicions.

Again, that's not true at all. He didn't at all validate her claims that the register was involved.

Where she claims she recorded the conversation, yet for some reason she has never made that recording public. And the notion that she played the tape to the media and they didn't pounce on that story when Martin was abducted? Beyond ludicrous. If the conversation actually happened, I suspect it has been very misrepresented.

But honestly the whole thing just doesn't make sense. Soda was involved in Johnny's kidnapping, and Martin's kidnapping, but he still calls Noreen a few months before Martin's abduction to tell her about it? Why?

You're correct. I concede the point. The conversation most likely never happened. She claims to have played the tape for Karen Burns and Frank Santiago. Both were newspaper writers/reporters. It definitely would've made the front page and been story of the year. I reached out to Burns to try to verify her account but she never replied.

why even insert himself into the case? What purpose could that possibly serve?

It is admittedly strange. But Soda was a strange man by all accounts. He could've been trying to see what she knows, or something.

But it's certainly not something unheard of. Their are countless cases where the perp inserted themselves into the investgation.

I honestly don't see anything suspicious about this,

You don't see anything suspicious about Soda saying he had to leave town "when the heat was on" and go to a farm in Kansas even though he doesn't farm?

though I suspect it is one of the things that fed Noreen's paranoia.

Actually no, Noreen doesn't even watch faded out from what I hear. I admittedly don't either after hearing all the laughable contradictions made by guys like Soda, Gosch SR.

Observation was made by someone else.

Yet denied by Colwell himself. Apparently his daughter made the claim on reddit forums decades later.

Colwell denied Soda told him this yes, but he also confirmed the reddit poster was his daughter. It's obviously not proof but why would his daughter lie?

Colwell has an incentive to lie because he was Soda's campaign manager and they were still friends, but why would Soda's daughter go out of her way to lie about something like this?

It's strange how people talk about this. If you didn't click the link, one might think Soda was gathering sweaty men in a room to watch CSAM together for pleasure, but his whole thing was being an anti-CSAM crusader, and as part of that he would show material to shock people into awareness. Stupid? Of course, but he wasn't even the only one doing it back then. The whole article is about his crusade and actually getting a child molester identified and charged.

Will address this below

The whole point he said he was trying to make is that it was easy to get the material - as I recall, he said he got it from a local store. Now, we don't know how explicit the material was, nor if he was fibbing for effect about the local store, but I do believe him when he said it was easy to get.

What local store sold child *advertiser censored*? I never heard anyone talk about anything like that. I'm admittedly not from the area but I've talked to multiple people in Des Moines and not one of them, remembers hearing anything of the sort.

Perhaps he was.

No argument

Sorry, what? When and where did this happen? Did the brother know Soda before?

I've spoken to Chris Allen personally. I'm not sure he'd like me to betray confidences so I won't post what he told me publicly. I'd be more than happy to share it in a private message.

Yes, both believed in the evidence-free notion that Johnny was taken by CSAM creators, but they still disagreed about the nature of how it went down. Noreen has always and continues to claim that Johnny was targeted in particular, whereas Soda leaned towards a gang or gangs just looking to abduct any young boy they could get. And it is a sad fact that those who believe in conspiracy theories often deal with disagreeing former allies by baking them into the conspiracy as well. Noreen did it with Soda and then she did it with her ex-husband.

I can see you claim regarding her ex-husband being accurate.
Their is zero independent corroboration supporting Noreen’s claims that LJG was involved.

Noreen made a claim implying Bonacci told her he was involved, but Bonacci never actually says so himself. At least from what I can find.

They met Bonacci in ‘89. I find it very hard to believe, that

1. LJG’s supposed involvement didn’t come out immediately.

Or

2. Noreen learned about LJG’s involvement as soon as she met Bonacci yet took four years to divorce him.

Noreen seems to have a habit of attributing statements to Paul that he actually never made.

I quite frankly, take Noreen's claims with a grain of salt unless they're corroborated by separate sources..... which her claims against Soda are.

Their's also zero evidence, they had any falling out regarding differing theories.

No repercussions because he was showing it as part of his anti-CSAM crusade. Now, I think it is an incredibly stupid thing to do, but he was not the only one going for shock value.

lol it's still very strange and more importantly illegal, regardless of his supposed purposes. Watching, possessing, and displaying child *advertiser censored* are literally felonies. Just because he claims he was doing it to educate the public doesn't make it any less illegal. Even Soda's friend, the DA Ron Wheeler who later became Soda's personal lawyer..... told him that his actions "might" violate the anti-smut laws. Putting aside the fact there's no "might"... he went on to say " "It reads that a person commits a Class D felony when a person knowingly promotes any material visually depicting a live performance of a child engaging in a prohibited sexual act or a simulation of prohibited sexual act."

Article clipped from The Des Moines Register

Clipping found in The Des Moines Register published in Des Moines, Iowa on 8/9/1985.

www.newspapers.com

I prefer the saying "all smoke and no fire".

Fair enough. We both have our own opinions. I've not formed mine from merely Noreen's words. I've talked to people who knew this guy, family members, etc. He was implicated in Johnny's abduction by at least four separate sources (not including the one guy who lied about seeing him driving a car with Martin in the backseat). Literally everyone I talked to barring one person, has something bad to say about the guy.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

I'm not going to dismiss Soda's completely 180 as him "simply telling Noreen what she wanted to hear". Simply no basis for him to lie (though granted he sure did plenty of it on faded out.

I don't even know how to address this. You think Noreen became suspicious about Soda because they had a disagreement, yet both seemed to be under the belief Johnny was taken by child pornographers'. Their are many people, literally countless people who criticized Noreen, in the papers, in public etc, yet she didn't intertwine them into the story did she.

Except the police. Except the newspaper. Except her husband.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I'd regard Soda's participation as an extraordinary claim.

Again, that's not true at all. He didn't at all validate her claims that the register was involved.

Did he tell her anything that contradicted her opinions?

It is admittedly strange. But Soda was a strange man by all accounts. He could've been trying to see what she knows, or something.

But it's certainly not something unheard of. Their are countless cases where the perp inserted themselves into the investgation.

When they're part of an organized kidnapping involving multiple people? And why Noreen? She didn't know anything special. I can see why Noreen believed it as she descended into paranoia during the 80s, but it makes no sense for the actual abductor to be that prominent.

Also there's inserting yourself into the investigation, and there's plastering yourself all over the public as someone who is actively pursuing this.

You don't see anything suspicious about Soda saying he had to leave town "when the heat was on" and go to a farm in Kansas even though he doesn't farm?

No, because I don't have the details here, and the "doesn't farm" bit doesn't even make sense.

Actually no, Noreen doesn't even watch faded out from what I hear. I admittedly don't either after hearing all the laughable contradictions made by guys like Soda, Gosch SR.

Observation was made by someone else.

I mean when he left the city, whenever that was.

Colwell denied Soda told him this yes, but he also confirmed the reddit poster was his daughter. It's obviously not proof but why would his daughter lie?

Why would Soda confess to his campaign manager's daughter?

Colwell has an incentive to lie because he was Soda's campaign manager and they were still friends, but why would Soda's daughter go out of her way to lie about something like this?

Because people do weird things for internet fame? Having a brush with an actual player in the case, who also happens to be a popular suspect with the conspiracy theory minded?

I mean, how likely is it that Soda simply said he had been involved with the Gosch case (as an investigator) and she misinterpreted that with thirty years of hindsight and rabbit-holing?

What local store sold child *advertiser censored*? I never heard anyone talk about anything like that. I'm admittedly not from the area but I've talked to multiple people in Des Moines and not one of them, remembers hearing anything of the sort.

Who knows? Like I said, I don't know how explicit the material actually was, and I don't know if he was fibbing for effect - like with so many CSAM crusaders, the ends very much justified the means.

I've spoken to Chris Allen personally. I'm not sure he'd like me to betray confidences so I won't post what he told me publicly. I'd be more than happy to share it in a private message.

Sure, if you'd like.

lol it's still very strange and more importantly illegal, regardless of his supposed purposes. Watching, possessing, and displaying child *advertiser censored* are literally felonies. Just because he claims he was doing it to educate the public doesn't make it any less illegal. Even Soda's friend, the DA Ron Wheeler who later became Soda's personal lawyer..... told him that his actions "might" violate the anti-smut laws. Putting aside the fact there's no "might"... he went on to say " "It reads that a person commits a Class D felony when a person knowingly promotes any material visually depicting a live performance of a child engaging in a prohibited sexual act or a simulation of prohibited sexual act."

Article clipped from The Des Moines Register

Clipping found in The Des Moines Register published in Des Moines, Iowa on 8/9/1985.

www.newspapers.com

Well, yeah, and everyone is clear on the reason why he did it. Now, if he had shown it as recreational material for the paedo population of Des Moines and wasn't arrested for it? That'd be suspicious.

Again, he wasn't the only one who did this.

Fair enough. We both have our own opinions. I've not formed mine from merely Noreen's words. I've talked to people who knew this guy, family members, etc. He was implicated in Johnny's abduction by at least four separate sources (not including the one guy who lied about seeing him driving a car with Martin in the backseat). Literally everyone I talked to barring one person, has something bad to say about the guy.

Yeah, but implicated by whom? Noreen, who claimed to have a taped conversation yet never revealed it? Some friend's daughter that he'd supposedly confessed to for no apparent reason, who then sat on it for decades? Con artist Bonacci, who has been caught in multiple lies? Don't know who the fourth one is.

It's not just thin, it's practically transparent. Maybe he wasn't likeable, maybe he did the same stupid things that his colleagues in the anti CSAM business did, but there's nothing concrete against him.

 

[Buffalosleuther]

But how much of that is hindsight after finding out about Johnny's abduction? After all, Rossi didn't memorize the plate at the time.

But the fact is, he looked at the license plate in the first place, which he wouldn't have done if he thought the guy was normal.

Because he was lost and waited for someone to come get the papers so he could ask them for directions? And I don't believe it was said he was in the same spot, but rather in the same area, which checks out with a guy lost, trying to find the right way.

I find it very hard to believe he didn't come across anyone before Johnny and the other paperboys arrived. And if he didn't, why wouldn't he leave the area and start driving to other places to ask people for directions?

We don't know when everyone appeared and where everyone was. It could be as simple as Johnny being the closest to the sidewalk (as I recall he pulled up from the east and moved over to sit in the passenger seat so he could talk to the people on the sidewalk, he didn't leave the car then (but he might have back down Ashworth).



Because he thought he was? I mean, we don't know if Johnny said it in an offhand manner or concerned manner.

OK but even so, it's highly highly doubtful, Johnny would've thought the guy was weird if he was simply asking for directions.

You're correct that we don't know if Johnny said it as an offhand remark, or a more uncomfortable manner. Perhaps that paperboy could be interviewed.

Well, he was all they had, wasn't he? No one saw the driver of the silver car. And the police always said they wanted to talk to him as a witness.

Very very surprised you believe this. With all due respect, you seem like a very smart guy despite our opposing views but it seems pretty clear, the police wouldn't waste hours of man power, drawing up a sketch, and everything looking for a POTENTIAL witness.

They may've said that yes, but if they did, it was likely as a false sense of security.

Well, for one he was unlikely to be a local if he was that lost. It's hardly inconceivable that he would leave the city the same day and go far away, putting the annoying occurrence out of his mind. And while Johnny was on milk cartons, I don't think the sketch was that omnipresent - and we don't know just how accurate it was. But there are more options - he could have been involved in some shady dealings and that's why he was going to Clive that early, he could have seen the hysteria around the case and (probably not without cause) feared being railroaded for it, he could have passed away.

It's possible, but I find it highly unlikely the guy was not involved. Multiple people were suspicious of it early even before the kidnapping.

But they had Seskis from day one. He was the witness whose tale first got to the media - the garbled account that was likely the two meetings Johnny had with the blue car guy. This account matches Whelan's - and at no point did the police ever go out and ask the people for sightings of this man, like they did with both the blue car guy and the silver Ford Fairmont.

Not to mention the two eyewitnesses that walked past Johnny - if tall guy was real, he would have been there.

"Tall guy" could've been hiding and likely was, when those eyewitnesses passed Johnny

It's both the similarities and the differences between these accounts that leads me to believe they aren't directly from Mike S or the cops. In all three it's emerging "from the shadows", but in some cases the guy talked to Johnny, while in others the guy followed him.

Then there's Faded Out's interview with Mike's brother, where he says his brother never said anything about the tall guy to him. Just the guy in the car.

I mean I'm pretty sure if it was a misunderstanding, the cops would've cleared it by now

She had decided he was involved within months, but I'm unaware of any claim that he was the actual abductor until ca 1985. In Whelan's account from Nov 1982 blue car guy has the role of a "spotter", signalling others with his dome light (of course, there are more prosaic reasons why a lost guy might want some light - looking at a map, or driving instructions, etc).



It raised his profile and gained him an ally. Noreen testified on his behalf in his civil suit. Let's remember that Bonacci was in prison for molesting three children. Yet during the 90s he got to present himself in the media as a brave victim. There's also the fact that the Franklin hoax (which Bonacci had attached himself to) was unravelling at the time, with Alicia Owen's accomplices coming clean.

I highly doubt the whole thing was a hoax. Seldom mentioned about King's criminal trial (not civil) is that he was found guilty of inappropriate sexual relations with teenagers,

I think the main question about Bonacci's con is - how much did his lawyer John DeCamp know? My guess is a lot. I don't think it's a coincidence that it was DeCamp's friend and ally Loren Schmit who backed Owen and the others.



Did he, though? Tongue scar and birthmark? On the missing poster. The scar on his leg? Noreen herself revealed that in 1985. That Noreen taught yoga was also in the papers. Add a bit of cold reading and there's really nothing there that's unexplainable.



Honestly, I think he's a terrible actor,

I don't know what to tell you. If that reaction of his upon seeing the house in Colorado was fake, he would've made far more money off an actor than supposedly being a con man

mostly the made-for-TV movie quality switches between personalities,

I mead it's clear as day. the guy has serious mental health issues. DID only stems from severe mental trauma, so he almost certainly went through something.

but it's his ever-changing, self-serving stories that leaves him without credibility.

I mean I don't see any contradictions in his stories, then again, I've admittedly not looked into the details to specifically.

Noreen has also claimed that the scars hadn't been made public either, so I'm not taking it for granted that the stutter never made it into the papers. As for the diary, it completely contradicts Bonacci's later tales. In that one he meets a boy at a farm, calls him "Johnny", and then describes him using only facts from the missing poster.

This is a PI's account of the diary (from Noreen's book):



Missing poster:



You know what details are not in the diary? Anything not from the missing poster. So before he decided to invent the kidnapping story, Bonacci engaged in some creative writing. Here he doesn't know Johnny, but he has given the details that will make the reader guess who the mystery kid is.

Well the height was two inches off for one. (Despite Gosch Sr's absurd statement that Bonacci listed Johnny as 5'2".

That's impossible to say. Personally I don't see why it would be likely. Johnny was a household name and kids can be notorious little ****s about these things.

I was referring to Noreen not making up the sighting. Regarding the sighting, a kid didn't make it. It was an adult woman, who was identified and interviewed.

It wouldn't matter. Bonacci's game wasn't to get as close to the actual facts as possible. It was to get as close to Noreen's version as possible.

 

[FergusMcDuck]

I find it very hard to believe he didn't come across anyone before Johnny and the other paperboys arrived. And if he didn't, why wouldn't he leave the area and start driving to other places to ask people for directions?

Why? He was up before dawn on a Sunday, before anyone would be up and out. Who else would he find to talk to but paperboys?

OK but even so, it's highly highly doubtful, Johnny would've thought the guy was weird if he was simply asking for directions.

He may well have been weird, but it could also be an effect of being up at the crack of dawn, in a hurry and irritated.

ry very surprised you believe this. With all due respect, you seem like a very smart guy despite our opposing views but it seems pretty clear, the police wouldn't waste hours of man power, drawing up a sketch, and everything looking for a POTENTIAL witness.

They may've said that yes, but if they did, it was likely as a false sense of security.

As I recall, they took a while to release the sketch. At that point, it would be clear that they didn't have any other witnesses. That guy was the only one awake and in the area they didn't have a statement from. Literally their last hope.

Now, they could have believed he was involved, that's quite possible. Perhaps some of them or even all did so. But that doesn't mean they were right in doing so, and I think on the whole everything points away from him.

It's possible, but I find it highly unlikely the guy was not involved. Multiple people were suspicious of it early even before the kidnapping.

Suspicious of what? Sure, by now Seskis and Rossi believe he was involved, but if no one had been kidnapped that day would they even have remembered the guy a week later? There's a reason red herrings exist - when something bad happens and your memory could be the key to solving it, it's easy for your memory to exaggerate and assign importance to events that may not have been that odd at the time.

"Tall guy" could've been hiding and likely was, when those eyewitnesses passed Johnny

Where would he hide? There were open lawns there and a wide street corner.

I mean I'm pretty sure if it was a misunderstanding, the cops would've cleared it by now

The cops haven't exactly poured out comments on this case. In fact, is it common for police to go out and correct PI theories in the media?

I highly doubt the whole thing was a hoax. Seldom mentioned about King's criminal trial (not civil) is that he was found guilty of inappropriate sexual relations with teenagers,

Do you have a source for that? The articles I've read say this:

King, credit union manager, pleaded guilty to one count each of embezzlement, conspiracy and making a false bookkeeping entry; 37 other charges were dropped

I don't know what to tell you. If that reaction of his upon seeing the house in Colorado was fake, he would've made far more money off an actor than supposedly being a con man

It's subjective, but I thought his acting was rather bad. Of course I could be affected by his ridiculously fake personality switches in other videos.

I mead it's clear as day. the guy has serious mental health issues. DID only stems from severe mental trauma, so he almost certainly went through something.

But what he displayed and claimed to have wasn't DID as is currently understood. It was the nonexistent, popularized by shoddy books and Hollywood MPD, where he would switch between fully separate and named personalities at will. It has long been a discredited diagnosis, bit it was hugely popular among the recovered memory Satanic Panic crowd, to which Bonacci definitely belonged.

I mean I don't see any contradictions in his stories, then again, I've admittedly not looked into the details to specifically.

Here's his account of the kidnapping as told to Roy Stephens ca 1991 (from John DeCamp's book):

Bonacci: "And then I heard them talking to somebody else at the car, but I don't know who it was cause we stopped. He was talking to someone asking for directions; asking where some place was. And it sounded like there was more than one kid. It sounded like there were a couple of them there. And then we went around the block and he let me out of the trunk and told Mike to, he says, if you don't do what I say, I'm gonna shoot you. He has a gun he pulled out and pointed at me and says, you do what I say or I'll shoot you. We drove around..."

RS: "So you're out of the trunk now?"

Bonacci: "Yeah. I was sitting in the back seat with Mike"

RS: "You're both sitting there? Were you hidden in the back seat or were you just sitting up normal?"

Bonacci: "Down low, kind of sitting on the floor. And then Emilio, I guess, I don't know what he did, but he, Mike told me, he says, when the car slows down, he says, when you feel the brakes jerk, he says, I'll grab him and you just hold him down. And so it happened quick. It's like we went up, I felt the brakes jerk, and I saw the door fly open and I saw Mike jump out and the next thing I know, he grabbed the boy and he'd thrown him in and my job, you know we were supposed to do is just hold him down and gag his mouth so he couldn't yell or nothing. And then after we had, just, like two seconds, just spun off, tore off, got out of there.

Here's his account from the civil trial in 1999:

Bonacci: "Then they came back and stuff, and they had myself and Mike out of the car, or Mike was in the car, I was out of the car and stuff. I went up to him, asked him a question. And at that point, he was close enough to the car where Tony had pulled up in a van and they pushed him in the car, and they had a rag with chloroform in the bag that they had us stick over his face. And then put it back in the bag after he was out".

These are not the same story. I've already quoted the third, earlies one where there isn't even a kidnapping and Johnny is just some kid he sees at a farm.

Well the height was two inches off for one. (Despite Gosch Sr's absurd statement that Bonacci listed Johnny as 5'2".

Why is it absurd? All that really means is Bonacci was inconsistent. But two inches is not that big a deal in context, and it did say approximately.

I was referring to Noreen not making up the sighting. Regarding the sighting, a kid didn't make it. It was an adult woman, who was identified and interviewed.

Yeah, I wasn't talking about the witness. I've been a kid. I remember what it was like to think pulling pranks like that was hilarious, with little regard for the seriousness of the situation. He was the milk carton kid, likely a household name among kids. Writing "I'm Johnny Gosch" on a bill or in restrooms, running up to strangers telling them "I'm Johnny Gosch!" All very kid things to do.