IA IA - Johnny Gosch, 12, W Des Moines, 5 Sept 1982 - What happened? - #2

[godzorphan]

Not to be defensive, but there is a world of difference between having sex with a seven year old and a seventeen year old.

that's pretty scary. the law is the law and someone of Foley's age getting turned on by seveteen year olds is close enough to being a pedo freak for me. it's always a concern when someone tries to blur the lines.

 

[godzorphan]

I have always believed that power and money do tend to corrupt people if they don't have a strong moral fibre. None of the Foley stuff surprises me. I joked with friends that the difference between Foley and a lot of other political people is just that he got CAUGHT. This whole thing may or may not lend credibility to the Franklin case. I for one didn't need convincing that there were shenanigans high up. But one can hope it will lead to a greater exposure of this kind of betrayal of public trust at the least - and maybe even lead to some criminal investigations. One can hope!

On another very random note, I from the beginning thought it VERY odd that both the Ramsey case and the Gosch case came back into the spotlight after YEARS of nothing about the same exact time. And now we find out that the authorities "lost" the hard drive with evidence to convict John Michael Karr? Either the Keystone Cops are running all these investigations or there's something we're NOT GETTING. Any ideas? Conspiracy theories temporarily allowed!

Just my random ramblings.

 

[HollywoodBound]

From what I've read online Paul Bonacci is not a kidnapped child. This basically means the whole story he tells about the paperboy and others can not be true. Bonacci got caught doing bad things and since society offers very little sympathy for pedophiles he wanted to some how make himself the victim. That is why this thread is here and people are being sucked in to read this made up story.

 

[mysteriew]

The reason why this thread is here, is because the disappearance of Johnny Gosch is a well documented disappearance, and he has never been found. The Bonacci theory is only one of several theories on his disappearance.

 

[loganone]

From what I've read online Paul Bonacci is not a kidnapped child. This basically means the whole story he tells about the paperboy and others can not be true. Bonacci got caught doing bad things and since society offers very little sympathy for pedophiles he wanted to some how make himself the victim. That is why this thread is here and people are being sucked in to read this made up story.

You touched a subject that I have found interesting about Paul, I don't think he ever claimed that he was kidnapped, rather he ran away. Also, with everything I have ever read, I have never found anything that gave credibility to Paul's story about being involved in the kidnapping of Johnny.
From reading on johnnygosch.com there were witnesses that saw the people that took Johnny. I have never seen it addressed: Does Paul match the details of any one of these people.

There is alot to this case, lots of things unknown, while I will not rule out any possible theory, I just would love to see credible facts about the theories that are out there, as I don't trust the word of a convicted sex offender such as Paul, and the Franklin Cover Up, is an interesting read, but I personally think it was a lot of smoke and mirrors. I just can not believe the government could pay off, kill, threaten every single person invovled with the case to keep it covered up. Now, a government cover up on a smaller scale, I could almost believe.

Don't get me wrong, I have said in the past, I think a little truth can be found in all the theories of this case.

Bottom line for me, is this. In 1982 a boy was taken from his family. Some one somewhere, knows what happen, and one day, they will talk.

Maybe its just time to go back to basics and start from the begining of the case and take a fresh look at the facts from day one.

These are just my thoughts... I know, I could be totally be wrong.


__________________________

I saw no reason that it shouldn't be posted. In the future, if you've got questions about this sort of thing, please just send me a PM. Thanks.

 

[Dr. Doogie]

From what I've read online Paul Bonacci is not a kidnapped child. This basically means the whole story he tells about the paperboy and others can not be true. Bonacci got caught doing bad things and since society offers very little sympathy for pedophiles he wanted to some how make himself the victim. That is why this thread is here and people are being sucked in to read this made up story.

It seems to me that the truthfullness of Bonacci is a big question mark: either he is telling the truth or not. Has anyone tried to verify those things that he said were true that can be verified - age, history, how he ended up with the pedophile ring? Show that he is untruthfull on provable data and that impunes his testimony about the ring. Show that these facts are true and it lends credence to the conspiracy theories. (Yes, he could be truthful about some things and completely fabricate other parts of the story, but if shown that he was a kidnap victim himself, then it makes me put more stock in his tales.)

Also, is he still missing? The last I heard was that he disappeared prior to testifying at the perjury trial of another alledged victim of the ring. Zabasearch turns up a Paul A. Bonacci living in Nebraska born 1968 (which matches the only info I can find concerning his age). Has any researcher such as DeCamp had contact with him recently?

(Sorry, the part about him being kidnapped or not was answered in a cross-post with mine. Still, the questions that can be verified or not seem like they need to be examined.)

 

[Roy Harrold]

I haven't been able to find any objective records about Paul Bonacci's life history, one way or the other. I couldn't say, with certainty, if he had been kidnapped or not kidnapped, was fostered or not fostered, attended school regularly or was chronically truant, etc.

John DeCamp says, in "The Franklin Case":
"Paul has told investigators that the ring which plunged him into Satanism was centered at Offutt U.S. Air Force Base near Omaha; that he was taken to Offutt to be sexually victimized by a babysitter's boyfriend when he was about three years old, around 1970. Offutt is the headquarters for the Strategic Air Command, and has had a cadre of thousands of intelligence personnel. At Offutt, and later at other military installations, Paul says this ring "trained" him by tortures, heavy drugging, and sexual degradation, while instructing him in military arts including assassination."

but without those objective records, it's hard to assess how plausible these contentions might be.

As for people being killed because "they knew too much", or "they said too much" - there is again a problem of incomplete information by which to judge how valid these claims might be.

In the case of Kathleen Sorenson, John DeCamp claims that she was the victim of an assassination when she died in a head-on collision traffic accident, but his source for believing this appears to be Ted Gunderson:

http://www.franklincase.org/1993.htm

"Former FBI abuse specialist Ted Gunderson evaluated the accident in which Kathleen Sorenson was killed as a satanic contract suicide."

We have seen Gunderson's credibility questioned, on this forum, by people on all sides of the discussion. That doesn't necessarily mean he fabricated the "satanic contract suicide" story, but without access to whatever evidence he claims to have based this assessment on - it comes down to whether you personally trust the man or not.

 

[Roy Harrold]

I agree with Dr Doogie, that substantiation of verifiable information should be pursued if possible.

For example, regarding the statements Bonacci is alleged to have made to (unnamed) "investigators", quoted above, there would seem to be many opportunities for supporting or disproving his statements;

-what was the name of the babysitter and/or her boyfriend? It seems unlikely that a three year old would be aware of such info, but equally unlikely that a 3 year old would retain detailed memories of even traumatic events. Did someone else tell Bonacci that he had been taken to Offut base at the age of three? If so, who?

-what kinds of visitor policies were in place at the base? Did Offut base keep records of people coming onto and going off of the base? If there were records, what can they tell us about people accompanied by children coming & going from the base at that time?

 

[Insguru]

I agree that he is perhaps the central character to this whole trajedy (the Gosch case), in terms of someone that is actually alive and breathing.

Supposedly he told Ms. Gosch certain things that she believes nobody but an abductor could know. Hmmm...well, shouldn't the police be pressing him for what happened to the victim? And a whole lot of other questions?

And if he was a "mule" he shouldn't get a free pass from anyone.

 

[Roy Harrold]

Insguru said: "...shouldn't the police be pressing him for what happened to the victim? And a whole lot of other questions?"

I would agree. As the only confessed participant in the abduction, Bonacci should be the focus of investigation into the abduction itself. But there is an complex problem with that - Bonacci will not be considered a credible witness.

From one perspective, the possibility of Bonacci being a credible witness has already been dealt with and decided in the negative. There was a Grand Jury investigation into his allegations, which ruled them false. Then he was convicted of perjuring himself through those allegations. On top of all that, he may be mentally ill and probably would not be allowed to testify in any criminal trials through his "multiple personalities".

So, even if a law enforcement agency was willing to overlook these things and take a chance on Bonacci having credible information to give them, he would be essentially useless as a prosecution witness against any accomplices - because their defence attorneys would definitely use all those things to discredit him.

That's why I say - Bonacci needs to demonstrate his sincerity and repentance by offering to plead guilty to the crimes he claims to have participated in. A demonstration such as that seems the only hope that he could ever be considered a credible witness in any criminal prosecutions of other people involved in those crimes. If he showed a desire to take responsibility for his own involvement and a willingness to pay the price for what he claims to have done, perhaps a police agency, judge & jury would be willing to set aside the past damage to his credibility and have an open mind to whatever he has to say.

 

[William R Thomas]

I agree that he is perhaps the central character to this whole trajedy (the Gosch case), in terms of someone that is actually alive and breathing.

Supposedly he told Ms. Gosch certain things that she believes nobody but an abductor could know. Hmmm...well, shouldn't the police be pressing him for what happened to the victim? And a whole lot of other questions?

And if he was a "mule" he shouldn't get a free pass from anyone.

It's not supposedly. I have spoken with Noreen firsthand, on several occasions about Paul. The fact thatLE does'nt charge him doesn't come as any surprise to anyone who subscribes to the same theory that I do (and that Noreen does). LE can NEVER admit that there is ANY truth to Bonacci's story, i.e. charge him with kidnapping, aiding and abbetting, etc, or this whole "conspiracy" as many you of you like to call it, moves into the realm of fact.

It seems that a lot of people are under the impression that this pedophile ring story is just something Noreen Gosch came up with, but in fact, many, many people, in positions to know...not everything, but certain things, have filled her in, in relatively great details over the year.

Even though Caradori is the most prevalent and most talked about, there are others who have revealed things to her over the years, and there is one deceased person she was close to who told her many of the things of importance before he died, including how Wadman and Orville Cooney were involved.

 

[Franklinfiles]

Paul Bonacci seems to be coming alot so I thought I would take the opportunity to share a few facts that will save everyone alot of speculation.

1. Check out the timeline here for an "in the trenches" glimpse at the whole picture. You will see how Bonacci fits into the overall picture.

http://www.franklincase.org/timeline.htm

2. Check out Decamp's latest interview (10/2/06). In this interview he discusses Bonacci's involvement with the Franklin Case. Bonacci was arrested at the same time the credit union was raided, based on a "trumped" up charge of touching his cousin in his private area on the outside of his pants. DeCamp and those involved believe this was related to the raid, because Bonacci had first-hand information.


http://franklinfiles.org/component/option,com_docman/task,cat_view/gid,16/Itemid,27/


In Jail, Bonacci writes DeCamp a letter stating he had first-hand information related to the breaking Franklin Case which would verify alot of the accusations coming out about King running a pedophile ring. When DeCamp meets with Bonacci in Jail, Bonacci reveals to him the location of several things that he had hidden for his own protection, including his diary which is an account of everything that happened.

There were well over 80 witnesses who came forward with similar claims as that of Bonacci, however Owen, Boner, & Bonacci were the ones who immediately didn't cave into intimidation tactics. What made the case, was that Owen and Boner could corraberate Bonacci. This is is why they strong-armed Boner into recanting, because it dismantled the case.

Roy Harrold

I think that your angle on Bonacci is certainly good objective investigation that should be asked. However, Bonacci was just as much a victom as any one else and he was subjected to severe pyschological and emotional abuse. Is he the perpatrator of the crime? Well, maybe, under coersion not intent. In other words he was forced into it.

Objection Investigation is the key here. Do we want to know the whole truth or just parts of it? If we look at this objectively, then what we see is a man (Larry King) who was the ringleader of a pedophile ring in Nebraska, of which Paul and well over 100 others were victoms. While Paul admits his involvement, he is clearly the victom here, as even Noreen agrees.

BTW, I will say this as well, Noreen is not just some naive little mom who is getting taken advantage of by all this people. She is a mom who lost her son, and on the journey had to become a courageous and informed citizen who is diligently working to expose the corruption. She is very informed and a very smart woman.

I would love to see this whole story investigated again. But it is doubtful that it ever would under the Franklin Case. However, DeCamp says in his latest interview that they all know first hand that Larry King is back in Virgina, is very active in the same pedophile ring and although they are not as flambouyant as they were during the 80's, they are alot more sophisticated.

DeCamp says, "..let's just say..they don't take any prisoners.."

 

[HeartofTexas]

There were well over 80 witnesses who came forward with similar claims as that of Bonacci, however Owen, Boner, & Bonacci were the ones who immediately didn't cave into intimidation tactics.

I didn't know that... thanks for sharing the information. Is that statement documented anywhere?

 

[Franklinfiles]

The IRS raided the credit union, which brought into the spotlight, Larry King. King was notorious as a pimp/gangster in the Omaha area, and a person you didn't mess with.

Before the IRS raid, the DFS had already received complaints and doing their own investigation of Larry King and the accusations of abuse and pedophelia. You will see this aspect of it, in the conspiracy of silence video.

When the raid goes public, they begin to investigate the abuse allegations, and this is how the dots start to get connected. As soon as King gets investigated, many of these witness come forward, believing that they may actually have a chance to get the truth out.

The coverup starts taking place, because at any cost, the pedophile case cannot get connected in spite of all of the evidence showing that this was really going on.

The other witnesses are discussed in the "Conspiracy of Silence Video", DeCamp's Book, "The Franklin Coverup", the DFS report to the Franklin Commitee, The eye-witness account of Kathleen Sorenson (foster parent of some of the kids abused), as well as local articles that appeard in the paper.

What is really benefical to note is how some of the players get involved. DeCamp was brought in to debunk the claims of these witnesses. As he investigates, he becomes convinced of their accuracy and begins to represent Owens, Bonacci, and Boner.

Ted Gunderson is then brought into debunk the now converted DeCamp. Upon his investigation, he too becomes a convert due to the overwhelming proof.

 

[Dr. Doogie]

I received an email from a "lurker" who cannot post due to having a non-paid email address. In it, it states:

"...fromGoogling 'Paul and Denise Bonacci' I found a website;
http://www.dragonflynebraska.com/ that is for a landscaping co. in Nebraska run by a Paul and Denise Bonacci. I don't know if they are the same Paul and
Denise Bonacci named on the Decamp court case document or not.

Also, VA state sex offender listings has the prison address of
convicted *advertiser censored* peddler George Paul Bishop, who Noreen identified as
the same guy that chaperoned her around DC. sometime after her son was
abducted."

I do not know if Bonacci is still considered AWOL, but it appears that he is not making too big of an attempt to hide. Seems like some of these questions that we have can be answered by the source.

BTW, the question of guilt by Bonacci, while important, seems secondary to the question of whether what he says is true. We can argue if he can be trusted, but it seems to me that even a convicted "child-molester" can also be a factual witness to horrible events. If we focus on proving or disproving those "facts" that he has stated, we can come closer to discovering the truth.

In the Conspiracy of Silence video, Bonacci comes across as a common street hustler. What I cannot come to grips with is why would he make this up. If he merely wanted attenetion, why disappear when he did? And why do so many others have similar stories? He may be crazy, but he seems to be sharing his delusions with numerous other people.

 

[Roy Harrold]

Franklinfiles said: "DeCamp says in his latest interview that they all know first hand that Larry King is back in Virgina, is very active in the same pedophile ring and although they are not as flambouyant as they were during the 80's, they are alot more sophisticated."

If you have verifiable evidence that Larry King is currently active in a pedophile ring, I'd be happy to pass that evidence on to Virginian law enforcement myself. I'd even send copies to our RCMP and other Canadian police agencies to ensure it doesn't get "lost", if you wish.

I'm quite serious, I'm not mocking you. I think Godzorphan would confirm that I'm not afraid to investigate and turn-in people who are a danger to children.

But I have to wonder why DeCamp has not already turned him in?

 

[Franklinfiles]

Dr. Doogie

"BTW, the question of guilt by Bonacci, while important, seems secondary to the question of whether what he says is true. We can argue if he can be trusted, but it seems to me that even a convicted "child-molester" can also be a factual witness to horrible events. If we focus on proving or disproving those "facts" that he has stated, we can come closer to discovering the truth."

Doogie, this is a point well made and why I chose to join the conversation here. You all have raised some very good points that are helping me in my own investigation for franklinfiles.org.

Directly or indirectly, the fine patrons of this site are helping me in my cause.

Roy Harrold

"If you have verifiable evidence that Larry King is currently active in a pedophile ring, I'd be happy to pass that evidence on to Virginian law enforcement myself. I'd even send copies to our RCMP and other Canadian police agencies to ensure it doesn't get "lost", if you wish."

I cannot speak for Mr. Decamp, however I have contacted him and am currently awaiting a response. I do know that in order to be effective at exposing any thing of this sort, especially the people that it implicates, the "evidence" would most certainly have to be a "smoking gun" and even then placed in stragetically in the hands of several people so that no coverup could ensue.

However, in my research, should I come across any thing of this nature, be assured that I would not sit on it.

What would you do if the very evidence that you discovered incriminated the very people you would give it to? In the Franklin Case, DeCamp has documented and on the record stated that the Police Chief was involved as well as certain elements of the local Omaha FBI, of which the local director was a close personal friend of the police chief?

 

[Roy Harrold]

Franklinfiles - I would take my evidence to another law enforcement agency.

This has become standard practise, where I live. If police officers are accused of criminal activity and there is any possibility of bias within their own police department, investigation will be conducted by officers from another city, or the feds. If there is objective, physical or documentary evidence of wrongdoing by people in authority, there will always be another way to bring them to justice.

Even Richard Nixon wasn't capable of concealing his misdeeds and escaping consequences for them, in the end.

 

[Insguru]

I guess I kind of look at this two ways so that my mind can get a handle on all of the information.

1) The Gosch case.
2) The Franklin Coverup.

Yes they seem like they might be or could be intertwined.

I'd like to solve at least #1 above, as it seems for a simpleton like me, to be easier for me to get my arms around it. Child abduction, child disappears, never to return. He could be part of Franklin or not, but bottom line, I don't need to solve the entire Franklin case to solve his. Though one could lead to the other certainly.

Bottom line for me, today anyway, is where is Johnny? Can anyone lead us to him or his remains? Does anyone really know?? Someone must. The unibomber went underground, but its difficult to do today. Even if you want to access our medical system or a dentist, you need insurance, cash, or at a minimum, a valid form of I.D. (usually 2 forms and not fake ones post 9/11). If he's out there, where???

 

[Dr. Doogie]

In the Conspiracy of Silence video, Bonacci comes across as a common street hustler. What I cannot come to grips with is why would he make this up. If he merely wanted attenetion, why disappear when he did? And why do so many others have similar stories? He may be crazy, but he seems to be sharing his delusions with numerous other people.

I rewatched the CoS video and I was mistaken - I confused Bonacci and Troy Boner. Boner is the one that comes across as a hustler. Sorry... :slap: