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

[Eire]

And which group would these people be a member of? I've not heard any of those things except in fiction. And I've known many Satanist from many different paths including Setians. I'm asuming you mean members of the Temple of Set, correct?

 

[Roy Harrold]

Satanist or Setians that I have known do not bring attention to themselves and when they do, they are punished by the group, especially when they reveal group secrets.
They do kill animals in some rituals for the purpose of inflicting trauma into some of their members, such as young alters that get attached to a cat, dog, or rabbit. The killings are done for the affect on the members to keep them in line or to encourage behavior.
The first Setian I met was at his first day at work. He wasn't very talkative. I asked him how he got a specific (scar)mark which I know now is something that happens to Setians. He never answered. That was his first and last day at work.

No offense intended, but I'm confused about this:
"The first Setian I met was at his first day at work. He wasn't very talkative. I asked him how he got a specific (scar)mark which I know now is something that happens to Setians. He never answered. That was his first and last day at work"

You're saying this person was only your co-worker for one day and wasn't very talkative. He never answered your question about a scar that he had. Yet, you've concluded that the person was a member of a secretive group that kills animals to inflict trauma on other members? On the basis of a scar and nothing more?

 

[Capt.]

And which group would these people be a member of? I've not heard any of those things except in fiction. And I've known many Satanist from many different paths including Setians. I'm asuming you mean members of the Temple of Set, correct?

Yes, followers of the Egytian God of darkness, something they seem to revel in since it predates Christianity and gives some freedom from constraints in Satanism key beliefs. Not that I think the group would follow any.

Not fiction I can say for sure. I'll with hold location and any other telling info for HIIPA/safety sake.

 

[christine2448]

Let's get back on topic here. What Happened to Johnny? TIA.

 

[Capt.]

No offense intended, but I'm confused about this:
"The first Setian I met was at his first day at work. He wasn't very talkative. I asked him how he got a specific (scar)mark which I know now is something that happens to Setians. He never answered. That was his first and last day at work"

You're saying this person was only your co-worker for one day and wasn't very talkative. He never answered your question about a scar that he had. Yet, you've concluded that the person was a member of a secretive group that kills animals to inflict trauma on other members? On the basis of a scar and nothing more?

You only assume "nothing more". I have worked with cult deprogrammers in exit counseling from this specific group so you are making judgements on only what I am willing to legally tell you.

 

[Roy Harrold]

You only assume "nothing more". I have worked with cult deprogrammers in exit counseling from this specific group so you are making judgements on only what I am willing to legally tell you.

No judgements, just asking for clarification. You appeared to be saying -that you concluded a person you knew only one day, who wasn't talkative and diddn't answer your questions, was a member of an animal-sacrificing cult, because he had a particular kind of scar.

That's not what you intended to say?

 

[Roy Harrold]

Yes, it has occurred to me we are wandering far from Johnny, and don't even know if Shadow's reference to a "cult" investigated by Orval Cooney was a reference to Satanism or not...

 

[Capt.]

No judgements, just asking for clarification. You appeared to be saying -that you concluded a person you knew only one day, who wasn't talkative and diddn't answer your questions, was a member of an animal-sacrificing cult, because he had a particular kind of scar.

That's not what you intended to say?

That is exactly what I intended to say. I am very familiar with the specific type of scar, location, different ways it is made, doctors that have treated the wounds, specific areas that groups operate and specialists that work in this field. This person had more indicators which I haven't told you also. It was a professional opinion. You can take my word on it or you can ignore it. I don't generally post here unless some of the posters start bringing the topic up. I am not vested in a persona on this site and really don't have a need for someone to believe what I have to say. I only offer as an input. Take it for what it's worth.

For what it's worth, the subject of cults comes up because it's part of some JG theory. Really difficult to talk about JG theories without talking about cults unless there is a pet theory that supersedes all others, which is what generally divides those on this thread.

 

[shadowraiths]

You are correct in that the initial theories about widespread cults doing awful things did not originate with the tin foil hat brigade. That's a verifiable matter of fact. [...] In fact, and this can be verified as well, Satanists do not kill animals or children as part of their practices.

That is a rather interesting leap from what I stated but no matter.

Imho, there are two primary issues as they pertain to the "so-called" Satanic controversy. The first and most obvious is the first amendment. While the media may love penning lurid headlines, "Satanic paedophile captured!!!" the law must adhere to first amendment rights. What this means is, unless an individual's religion (Satanic or otherwise) plays a significant role wrt helping legal entities identify and/or prosecute an individual who is breaking the law, said individual's religious beliefs are irrelevant.

The second issue is that of labeling. Unfortunately, and imnsho, the idiots who perpetuated the "Satanic Panic" fiasco, which reached its pinnacle in the mid-to-late 1980s, lumped just about everything that was not considered Westernized mainstream religion under the rubric, Satanism. Hence, providing fertile ground for the red herring—Satanic Ritual Abuse—which is regularly trotted forth to dispute the idea that ritual sacrifice of humans and ritualized abuse of children indeed occur in today's so-called civilized society.

The most notable case, for example, is that of Adolfo de Jesús Constanzo, who actually practiced Palo Mayombe. While Palo is the black magick of the Caribbean Voodoun (which has long been known to practice ritual sacrifice of animals) and has some beliefs and practices that are rooted in Western Religion (primarily Catholicism), Palo is not Satanism. And just who is Constanzo, you might ask? He was a drug runner who believed "sex magic" and "human sacrifice" would protect him from local authorities. Although human remains were found throughout his property in Matamoros, news of the ceremonial cauldron (i.e., the Nganga, which Paleros consider to be the most potent magick) was grotesquely ripe for the media picking, so to speak. Constanzo operated undetected for close to a decade and had his group never abducted then 21-year old Texas A&M, Mark Kilroy, in 1987, there is a pretty good chance they would still be in operation today.

As for "Satanic" organizations? Although Anton Szandor LaVey and his Church of Satan is considered by many to be the template for post-modern Satanism, some groups, such as L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology and Michael Aquino's Temple of Set can be traced back to Crowley's Thelemic Ordo Templi Orientis, which most religous studies scholars consider to be the true origin of post-modern Satanism. And each of the aforementioned individuals (Crowley, Hubbard, and Aquino) not only practiced ritualized sex (aka Sex Magick) but at one time or the other, professed to have been selected by a deity to usher in a new Æon. As for allegations of child sexual abuse? Although the SFPD discontinued its investigation into the Aquinos due to statute of lims, one need only review Aquino v Stone (ibid, 1991, 1992, respectively) and consider the following from the court opinion to see why he is considered prominent figure in most "conspiracy theories":

Although the San Francisco police department (SFPD) closed its investigation and filed no charges against the plaintiff or anyone else, the CID investigators drafted an investigative plan for plaintiff's case. After the investigation, the evidence was reviewed by LTC Schwender, staff judge advocate for the Presidio. He determined that there was probable cause to title LTC Aquino with offenses of indecent acts with a child, sodomy, conspiracy, kidnapping, and false swearing.

The final ROI was issued in August 1989. In January 1990, plaintiff appealed the titling determination. Plaintiff's amendment request was reviewed internally. Colonel Gilligan, who reviewed the amendment request, recommended deleting plaintiff from several charges which had been investigated. The commanding general of the CID adopted [**4] those recommendations in September 1990. However, plaintiff remains titled for indecent acts with a child, sodomy, conspiracy, kidnapping, indecent acts and false swearing.

Of course, there are Satanists who were charged and convicted for child sexual abuse. One such individual is Russell John Smith, who founded a (mostly) online Satanic organization and was featured on AMW. He was convicted for sexually abused his (then) 12 year old daughter during Satanic rituals and sentenced to 48 years in prison, in 2004. (click here)

Now, while there are no cases that appear to support the theory that there is a world-wild organization of people sacrificing animals and children to a horned god, there are most certainly organizations that have been documented to have sexually abused children as part of their "religious teachings" and in at least one instance, in preparation for a later "high priest" role. And said documentation is not a result of the victim's "recovered memory" either.

The latter comes in the form of "The Story of Davidito" which was a "how to" manual of child sexual abuse.(click here) and the child featured in the book was Richard Peter Rodriguez, who murdered his Nanny and committed suicide 2005. (click here) The former is, well, taking place in a compound near Eldorado Texas and is presently being discussed in "Crimes in the News" section of this site. While these "cults" are quite obviously not even remotely "Satanic" what these groups share with their "darker" brother, "Satanism" is that they are steeped in ritualism—which is a key component as it pertains to ritualistic abuse of children.

As far as child abduction goes? You might ask yourself, what kind of person would buy a child sex slave at an auction? At which point you may (or not) consider the seeming little thought of, yet quite obvious, proposition regarding the fluid fiction in which these people live, and what it takes to keep the child living in fear. And then consider the distinct thematic and ritualized nature of the children's abuse. While those purchasing children may not be cultist in any true sense of the word, you can bet your bottom dollar that these people get some of their thematic ideas and rituals from various organized religions while the children they are purchasing are considered by them to be nothing more than throw away "props" to be incorporated into their "evil" fantasies.

That being said, as I have previously stated, I personally, take issue with both those who perpetuate the world-wide Satanic conspiracy as well as those who attempt to refute the existence of organized child sexual abuse. Why? Imnsho, neither of these help to truly protect the children. For the former ensures true survivors will not be believed and the latter comes across as grossly discompassionate and mocking to those who have survived extreme childhood abuse.

 

[christine2448]

For what it's worth, the subject of cults comes up because it's part of some JG theory. Really difficult to talk about JG theories without talking about cults unless there is a pet theory that supersedes all others, which is what generally divides those on this thread.

Point noted, and understood.

Thank you for posting, your input is appreciated.


To everyone...Let's just discuss civily, agree to disagree when needed, attack the posts, not posters. Let's not turn this into a discussion all about the cults, only what is relative to Johnny Gosh case. This is a subject that can take this thread way off course in no time if we aren't careful. TIA.

 

[Roy Harrold]

Richard Peter Rodriguez, yes that's David Berg's son from Children of God, right?

Professor Stephen Kent of the University of Alberta, who was working with Integrated Intelligence here during the same period I was, has researched that group extensively:
http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/~skent/

That was a good, objective summary Shadow!

I wouldn't say that I survived extreme childhood abuse, certainly nothing to compare with what Bequette went through, but I was exploited by child pornographers myself. Obviously, thousands of people have been so there's no reason that the victims should feel at all ashamed about it.
I certainly hope that I'm never discompassionate to genuine victims of any kind of abuse.

 

[Eire]

Just to add the voice of a member of the Temple of Set to this discussion, I spoke with a friend of mine tonight and since some information that is not correct was posted earlier, I'd like to correct it. Straight from the Temple of Set, they do not kill animals, scar their members or any such thing. My friend assures me he is in no immediate danger by telling what they do and don't participate in. I'm sorry if I seem contrary, but I feel that a member of any religion that is being discussed here or anywhere should be allowed to correct misinterpretations.

 

[Capt.]

Just to add the voice of a member of the Temple of Set to this discussion, I spoke with a friend of mine tonight and since some information that is not correct was posted earlier, I'd like to correct it. Straight from the Temple of Set, they do not kill animals, scar their members or any such thing. My friend assures me he is in no immediate danger by telling what they do and don't participate in. I'm sorry if I seem contrary, but I feel that a member of any religion that is being discussed here or anywhere should be allowed to correct misinterpretations.

There are those that do, and as with many things, a few do not speak for the whole. We now have members which have said both ways.

 

[shefner]

There are those that do, and as with many things, a few do not speak for the whole. We now have members which have said both ways.

Thanks, Capt. Precisely!

 

[Eire]

Perhaps some clarification would be in order then. I know many former and current members of the Temple of Set and they have all said the same things, scaring and killing animals for any reason is not done. I don't want to turn this in to some sort of argument over the Temple of Set, but when things are said in public that are not true, they should be countered. The Temple of Set, the organization does not do those things. Is it possible that people who claim membership yet affiliated do those things? Yes. What Capt. has put out there as a true representation of what they do is not accurate. People will believe whatever they want to believe, I'm well aware of that. But, I will counter falsehoods with the truth when I can. Of course, nobody listens to what is true because they'd rather not. That's fine. I've never viewed this as a place where people can run down other faiths, it's sad that's the turn this thread is taking.

 

[shefner]

I have to admit that I do not know any satanists personally, so what I "know" just comes from information learned from other sources such as books, tv, and internet. I'm a Christian so the idea of following satan is hard for me to grasp, I admit.
From my understanding, however, the Temple of Set is not the only satanic denomination, correct?

I'd be the first to say that the SRA that is mentioned in relation to the Franklin Coverup is tough to imagine. I, however, am one that believes what Paul Bonacci has reported. I respect that others do not believe him to be credible.

The connection here to Johnny Gosch, I suppose, is through Col. M Aquino, one of the founders of the Temple of Set. Bonacci has testified that Col Aquino is the individual who ordered the kidnapping of Johnny.
In addition to Bonacci, Jimmy Gibson has also reported that Johnny was delivered to "the Col." as Gibson met him there.....of course, Jimmy Gibson was on AMW, telling some interesting information about Johnny and also showing his "brand."

 

[Capt.]

Sorry Eire, I'm not buying your story in its completeness. I have known members that were trying to get away from the group and I have confirmation of the things I have mentioned and worse they have done in emails from one of their leaders. I also know some of these things from other therapists that have treated some of the leaders family members, who now are protected by court restraining orders from contact with some of the leaders due to abuse. These people also have had contact with Aquino. They do not outwardly endorse all that they do. I am having to leave out much of it.

Sounds to me like the perfect application of one the things hammered home to them, "Safety in Silence". I am not surprised.
I am now at the limits of what I can legally say, but I assure you there is much more to tell.

The purpose of much of this diverging from the JG thread is to answer the question, If Johnny is alive, why doesn't he come home, show up or something. Also to add that they(TOS) are a very capable group.

Perhaps some clarification would be in order then. I know many former and current members of the Temple of Set and they have all said the same things, scaring and killing animals for any reason is not done. I don't want to turn this in to some sort of argument over the Temple of Set, but when things are said in public that are not true, they should be countered. The Temple of Set, the organization does not do those things. Is it possible that people who claim membership yet affiliated do those things? Yes. What Capt. has put out there as a true representation of what they do is not accurate. People will believe whatever they want to believe, I'm well aware of that. But, I will counter falsehoods with the truth when I can. Of course, nobody listens to what is true because they'd rather not. That's fine. I've never viewed this as a place where people can run down other faiths, it's sad that's the turn this thread is taking.

 

[Eire]

Well then that makes two of us, because I'm not buying your story either. Sorry, but "deprogramming" was be debunked several times over. I'm not surprised that the same old "no evidence equals a great cover-up" gets trotted out every time somebody who actually knows something about the subject matter speaks up.

 

[christine2448]

I am 100% positive there is not one poster here who knows 'it all'. You all need to agree to disagree and get back on topic. Where is Johnny?

I have already agreed to allow some of this discussion on Satanic cult involvement if it relates to JG specifically........you all are debating the religion, not how it pertains to this case, not gonna have it.

Continue on this path, I will lock the thread and go back and delete all posts with references to the cult....that's a lot of discussion/typing to be deleted, I hate to do it.

Again, I say, Where is Johnny?

 

[Dr. Doogie]

Again, I say, Where is Johnny?

A point that I made several months ago, but has yet to answered be to (at least) my satisfaction: If Johnny is alive and visited Noreen briefly in the 1990's, why is he still in hiding? I know the old "he fears for his life and would be killed if he tried to talk" excuse, but I do not buy it. How about the next time that Noreen is attending some conference somewhere with plenty of audience and plenty of media, Johnny suddenly pops out from behind the curtain? (Heck, they could have a band play the Tonight Show theme and hire Ed McMahon to announce "Here's Johnny.") He could immediately confirm all of the awful things that he was made to do and even name names. Absolutely nothing could be done to him at this point because he had already "spilled the beans" - if he were killed after this, any names given by Johnny would immediately be suspect numero uno.

If the Franklin Conspiracy is true and Noreen was correct in claiming that an adult Johnny visited her in the 1990's, the above scenario would bring the whole conspiracy/coverup crashing down. Johnny, Noreen, DeCamp, Gunderson, et al win. Larry King, Dick Cheney, the Bushies all lose and would be tarred and feathered prior to thier summary executions in town squares across this great land. All of the children held captive by this massive ring could return to their families - even the ones held by the Reptillians under Area 51. Bohemian Grove could be plowed under and reopened as the Johnny Gosch Center for Children Exploited by Republicans and Martians. DeCamp would be the unanimous choice as our next president and Gunderson would be appointed the FBI Director. We would even name Patricia Johnson Holm as our new ambassador to Great Britian - that would really tick off the Queen of England.

All of these wonderful things would occur if only Johnny were to make one public appearance, but he does not. I wonder why? :waitasec: