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

[shadowraiths]

Except that Noreen points to that "brand" on the arm as confirmation that this is Johnny and Bonnaci was telling the truth.

What she "thinks" she is seeing, is irrelevant. As someone who has been in the body art scene since the late 1960s, I can assure you, the "so-called" brand (regardless of whether or not the pic is altered) is not anything of the sort.

Once again, the mother of JG, who would "be able to identify her own son", got it wrong.

And once again, you are citing a myth that a "mother should be able to identify her own son." Case in point: William Cantwell Walters.

 

[Roy Harrold]

Ummm...the William Cantwell Walters thread...post #7.

That could be eerily relevant to a certain aspect of this case, too, eh?

 

[shadowraiths]

Ummm...the William Cantwell Walters thread...post #7.

That could be eerily relevant to a certain aspect of this case, too, eh?

Post #7 is similar to a case that occurred years ago (the name escapes me atm) wherein a woman in Oregon claimed to be the missing daughter of another couple. As it turned out, she wasn't, and iirc, she was later charged with a crime.

What sets this case apart from those types of cases however, is that they involved a reunion as opposed to, in this case, the short visit in '97, the pix last year... If these activities are indeed some sort of hoax, the big question becomes, why? What purpose is served?

 

[Roy Harrold]

Post #7 is similar to a case that occurred years ago (the name escapes me atm) wherein a woman in Oregon claimed to be the missing daughter of another couple. As it turned out, she wasn't, and iirc, she was later charged with a crime.

What sets this case apart from those types of cases however, is that they involved a reunion as opposed to, in this case, the short visit in '97, the pix last year... If these activities are indeed some sort of hoax, the big question becomes, why? What purpose is served?

There are several groups who would stand to gain, from encouraging an outspoken mother of a missing boy and missing children's advocate to believe in and publicly promote the idea that her son was kidnapped by a pedophile ring that represents total corruption of government & law enforcement in the US. It would be an enormous propaganda victory, for extreme-right elements such as the Aryan underground, the Patriot Militias, the Larouchites and the Moonies. John DeCamp has connections to three of those elements. Gunderson, Rothstein and Tim White all have connections to the militia movement.

 

[Roy Harrold]

I'll go beyond what I said, above, that it would be an enormous propaganda victory for those groups.

It has been an enormous propaganda victory for all of them.

 

[Dr. Doogie]

What she "thinks" she is seeing, is irrelevant. As someone who has been in the body art scene since the late 1960s, I can assure you, the "so-called" brand (regardless of whether or not the pic is altered) is not anything of the sort.

For me, whether the "brand" is in fact a brand or something else is irrelevant. My point is that Noreen, when presented with evidence that fits her preconception of a pedo ring holding her son, offered the photo as evidence when even the smallest amount of discernment would have lead to a different conclusion.

This same tendency has played out over and over again with her. A series of pictures depicting the same boy in bondage over a period of time? She decides that the pictures of the boy at an age that fits Johnny are of Johnny. Pics of the same boy that are too young to be Johnny? She says those are a different boy. A woman comes forward to identify one of the boys in the "3 boy pic" as her son? Noreen trumpets the discovery as further proof of the validity of the pics, even after the other mother is quickly exposed as also claiming that her ex-husband is the Green River Killer, that she is the reincarnation of an extra-terrestial alien killed in the Roswell crash and that the World Trade Center attack was a coded message to her specifically. As Roy has pointed out, someone is feeding Noreen whacky information for some reason and, more importantly, Noreen does not have the ability to recognize crap when she sees it.

And once again, you are citing a myth that a "mother should be able to identify her own son." Case in point: William Cantwell Walters.

I am citing that myth specifically because it is a myth, especially in the case of Noreen. Because of the examples cited above and others, Noreen has lost any "benefit of doubt" that would be normally be extended to a mother of a missing child. She has proven herself and her judgement too unreliable to be accepted at face value.

 

[shadowraiths]

I am citing that myth specifically because it is a myth, especially in the case of Noreen. Because of the examples cited above and others, Noreen has lost any "benefit of doubt" that would be normally be extended to a mother of a missing child. She has proven herself and her judgement too unreliable to be accepted at face value.

OIC, so bc this woman whom, after being utterly and completely ignored by LE when her son went missing, who galvanized states to pass laws to treat missing children cases with urgency, who is not surprisingly so desperate to find her son that she seems to have bought into a number of outlandish conspiracy theories (we'll ignore the fact that those who have perpetuated said theories do so under an auspice of legitimacy—Decamp & Gunderson, come to mind), she therefore deserves your unbridled vitriolic contempt? Erm.... alllllrighty then.

 

[shadowraiths]

There are several groups who would stand to gain, from encouraging an outspoken mother of a missing boy and missing children's advocate to believe in and publicly promote the idea that her son was kidnapped by a pedophile ring that represents total corruption of government & law enforcement in the US. It would be an enormous propaganda victory, for extreme-right elements such as the Aryan underground, the Patriot Militias, the Larouchites and the Moonies. John DeCamp has connections to three of those elements. Gunderson, Rothstein and Tim White all have connections to the militia movement.

So, let me see if I understand you correctly. You are proposing that everything from the 1984 calls, to the appearance of GPB on the scene, to the Franklin Coverup, to the 1997 appearance of the man whom Noreen believes was Johnny, to the 2006 pix, are all part of some sort of elaborate scheme to promote the political agenda of some vast organized underground group? If so, based upon your theory, then our Government could be just as involved in using this to promote their political agenda. You know, like Nathan proclaims? And that's not to mention that ISTR you claim to be adamantly against making allegations against people who have never been charged and convicted of a crime. Then again, I suppose it's okay as long as you're the one whose doing it. No matter. I prefer Occam's razor myself.

 

[Roy Harrold]

So, let me see if I understand you correctly. You are proposing that everything from the 1984 calls, to the appearance of GPB on the scene, to the Franklin Coverup, to the 1997 appearance of the man whom Noreen believes was Johnny, to the 2006 pix, are all part of some sort of elaborate scheme to promote the political agenda of some vast organized underground group? If so, based upon your theory, then our Government could be just as involved in using this to promote their political agenda. You know, like Nathan proclaims? And that's not to mention that ISTR you claim to be adamantly against making allegations against people who have never been charged and convicted of a crime. Then again, I suppose it's okay as long as you're the one whose doing it. No matter. I prefer Occam's razor myself.

I predicted this response. I even considered adding a disclaimer, just for you, but I hoped that we were over this. So, here it is:

Just because some groups have a nefarious interest in promoting theories about pedophile rings that secretly control all government & law enforcement, that does not mean that everyone who is concerned about pedophile rings necessarily shares those motivations or is associated with those groups.

Better?

No, you did not understand me correctly. I am not proposing what you have attempted to put in my mouth.

The article by Debbie Nathan was very interesting, though. Thanks for the link!

 

[Roy Harrold]

A quick clarification about the associations of persons I mentioned in post #244. I'm not going to bother reposting all the links I've posted elsewhere in these threads, though.

John DeCamp:
- Larouche: among many other highly public references to DeCamp's associations with Larouchites, the June 25, 1999 issue of their publication "Executive Intelligence Review" carries a piece titled: "Nebraska's DeCamp endorses Larouche"
- Militias: In the wake of the Oklahoma bombing, several militia leaaders were summoned to appear before a senate committee. Their lawyer was John DeCamp, who described them as a "new & exciting political movement"
- Posse Commitatus/Aryan underground: DeCamp has functioned as both an apologist & lawyer for Gordon Kahl and his son

Ted Gunderson: Among many, many, many public references to Gunderson's associations to the militias, he's even on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of "false Patriots".

Rothstein: Appears in the credits of a militia writer - "Thanks to James "Jimmy" Rothstein"

Tim White: Posts all his stuff on APFN - American Patriot Friends Network.

 

[ladygator]

What are your own thoughts & opinions about this George Paul Bishop?

Do you think he is the same Paul Bishop that dropped into Noreen Gosch's life six months after Johnny vanished?

It took me a long time to track down the Senate hearing that Noreen said they had attended in august of 1984. All of the references to it were incorrect, typically something like: "an organized crime hearing regarding missing children" or "organized crime senate hearings". It was actually
"Committee on the Judiciary: Subcommittee on Juvenile Justice hearings to review the effects of *advertiser censored* on women and children" on August 8, 2004.

But I can't find any trace at all of the Federal Grand Jury hearing that Paul Bishop supposedly came back to Des Moines to testify at. If anyone else can, please post a reference I can check.

Shadow invited me over to post on this subject after I told her I had been reading here.

This Paul Bishop, who was recently released from prison for making child *advertiser censored*, is the same guy who briefly injected himself into Noreen's life after Johnny disappeared.

Sometime around 1984-1985, he resided in Fairfax, Virginia, holding a meaningless job at a popular teen hangout. Far cry from someone who claimed to be a CIA op, or whatever else he was claiming to be, to Noreen.

His recent arrest that led to him being on the SO site leads me to believe that he never stopped doing the things that he had been doing back in the 80's. He just got away with it for two decades.

IMO

 

[shefner]

So if someone thanks you on their website, you become linked to their movement? Come on....

These people you have mentioned are not criminals and have not been charged with any crimes. Yet you demean them all the time. You've asked everyone here not to mention Robert Wadman or some of these others who are linked to the Franklin Case, simply because they've not been charged with anything....then you proceed to do that to others who sincerely believe there was a "conspiracy" involved to keep the abuses under wraps. This is what upsets me most....

I don't think that ALL the government or ALL Law Enforcement are bad guys. But lets face it, there are some that abuse their power....just look at the Texas Youth Commission Scandal. There are other similar cases all over the world. Any time anyone has complete authority, there is the chance that they may abuse it.

That being said, if Johnny was taken by a single kidnapper and no conspiracy was involved, it does not mean that other conspiracies have not happened in the past. People in authoritative positions "conspire" to hide abuses all the time.....such as in the Catholic Priests pedophile scandal (where the church "conspired" to cover it up), etc.

 

[christine2448]

So if someone thanks you on their website, you become linked to their movement? Come on....

These people you have mentioned are not criminals and have not been charged with any crimes. Yet you demean them all the time. You've asked everyone here not to mention Robert Wadman or some of these others who are linked to the Franklin Case, simply because they've not been charged with anything....then you proceed to do that to others who sincerely believe there was a "conspiracy" involved to keep the abuses under wraps. This is what upsets me most....

I don't think that ALL the government or ALL Law Enforcement are bad guys. But lets face it, there are some that abuse their power....just look at the Texas Youth Commission Scandal. There are other similar cases all over the world. Any time anyone has complete authority, there is the chance that they may abuse it.

That being said, if Johnny was taken by a single kidnapper and no conspiracy was involved, it does not mean that other conspiracies have not happened in the past. People in authoritative positions "conspire" to hide abuses all the time.....such as in the Catholic Priests pedophile scandal (where the church "conspired" to cover it up), etc.

#1, Who is this post directed at?

#2 Please name the people that IYO we should not be discussing and why IYO they are off limits for being discussed (either praised or demeaned by participating posters)

 

[shefner]

I was directing my post primarily to Roy, who has chastized several of us who mentioned Robert Wadman by name as someone who was linked to the Franklin Coverup Scandal. He has said it is wrong to mention those who have not been convicted of any crimes....speaking mostly about Law Enforcement officials and Government officials or politicians.

I don't want to unjustly accuse anyone, but I think its only natural to discuss the information, especially if the person's name came up in the investigation.

Roy discredits all the figures who are prominent believers of the conspiracy theory....Gunderson (former FBI senior agent), DeCamp (a decorated Vietnam veteran and former state senator), Rothstein (retired NYC detective and private investigator), etc. I was simply saying if we are going to be slammed for mentioning the accused (and perhaps innocent, after all), why does he want to trash the other side?

 

[Roy Harrold]

**SIGH**

Here's what I've actually said:

I said that it would be socially irresponsible to repeat, here or elsewhere, statements accusing someone of criminal acts made in the course of a trial or hearing if those statements had been ruled to be perjury - and that I personally would discourage the repeating of such statements here.

I also said, that I would be disappointed if this thread was to degenerate into re-posting of slanderous/libellous accusations of participation in child sexual abuse, trafficking, slavery and murder - made against persons in law enforcement, government, business or entertainment celebrity who have never been convicted of such crimes - that are already plastered all over forums elsewhere on the internet.

I have not accused Gunderson, DeCamp or Rothstein of any criminal acts.

 

[Roy Harrold]

Shadow invited me over to post on this subject after I told her I had been reading here.

This Paul Bishop, who was recently released from prison for making child *advertiser censored*, is the same guy who briefly injected himself into Noreen's life after Johnny disappeared.

Sometime around 1984-1985, he resided in Fairfax, Virginia, holding a meaningless job at a popular teen hangout. Far cry from someone who claimed to be a CIA op, or whatever else he was claiming to be, to Noreen.

His recent arrest that led to him being on the SO site leads me to believe that he never stopped doing the things that he had been doing back in the 80's. He just got away with it for two decades.

IMO

Hello Ladygator, thanks for joining us here.

So, then, would it be your opinion that "Paul Bishop" was just telling tales when he allegedly told Noreen Gosch that he had testified at a Grand Jury hearing and was questioned about his activities in Iowa and what he might know about Eugene Martin?

Because I haven't been able to find any corroboration that such a Grand Jury was ever convened.

 

[ladygator]

Hello Ladygator, thanks for joining us here.

So, then, would it be your opinion that "Paul Bishop" was just telling tales when he allegedly told Noreen Gosch that he had testified at a Grand Jury hearing and was questioned about his activities in Iowa and what he might know about Eugene Martin?

Because I haven't been able to find any corroboration that such a Grand Jury was ever convened.

Thanks for the welcome, Roy. I've been a member here for years but rarely post, mostly lurk.

I instinctively called him "Paul' because he prefers that over George. He did back in the 80's, anyway. And yes, IMO, unless this guy is some type of multi purpose, deeply undercover player for politics and other fields, he was spinning tales when he spoke with Nooren.

As Shadow already mentioned, this was not the only time where he showed up at a victims house and lied to the parents. Making himself out to be someone that he was not. Lying about being in a position of power.

While I can't back anything up that I say, I do know for fact one job that he held back in the mid 80's.

JMO - and I have no real opinions on the Gosch case. I only recently started reading it about because Bishops name was tied to it.

 

[Roy Harrold]

Thanks for the welcome, Roy. I've been a member here for years but rarely post, mostly lurk.

I instinctively called him "Paul' because he prefers that over George. He did back in the 80's, anyway. And yes, IMO, unless this guy is some type of multi purpose, deeply undercover player for politics and other fields, he was spinning tales when he spoke with Nooren.

As Shadow already mentioned, this was not the only time where he showed up at a victims house and lied to the parents. Making himself out to be someone that he was not. Lying about being in a position of power.

While I can't back anything up that I say, I do know for fact one job that he held back in the mid 80's.

JMO - and I have no real opinions on the Gosch case. I only recently started reading it about because Bishops name was tied to it.

Well, he's certainly looking like a strong suspect to have been involved in the disappearance of Johnny Gosch, and possibly Eugene Martin also - isn't he?

[Disclaimer - when someone has been convicted of a criminal offense, they lose any "public reputation" they might have had with respect to that criminal activity. Therefore, it is a valid legal, and moral, principle that they become "fair game" for accusations that they may be guilty of similar or related crimes.]

You said:
"As Shadow already mentioned, this was not the only time where he showed up at a victims house and lied to the parents. Making himself out to be someone that he was not. Lying about being in a position of power."

I very much appreciate that information. That provides a lot of insight into his interactions with Noreen Gosch.

 

[ladygator]

Well, he's certainly looking like a strong suspect to have been involved in the disappearance of Johnny Gosch, and possibly Eugene Martin also - isn't he?

[Disclaimer - when someone has been convicted of a criminal offense, they lose any "public reputation" they might have had with respect to that criminal activity. Therefore, it is a valid legal, and moral, principle that they become "fair game" for accusations that they may be guilty of similar or related crimes.]

You said:
"As Shadow already mentioned, this was not the only time where he showed up at a victims house and lied to the parents. Making himself out to be someone that he was not. Lying about being in a position of power."

I very much appreciate that information. That provides a lot of insight into his interactions with Noreen Gosch.

Yes, I agree that he is a viable suspect.

I only wish there was more information about him on the web. Huge time span where he just fell off radar.

 

[Roy Harrold]

Yes, I agree that he is a viable suspect.

I only wish there was more information about him on the web. Huge time span where he just fell off radar.

That's partly why I had hoped there really was a Grand Jury that he testified in front of...that would have the potential to be a real goldmine of info about him. Sadly, there is no trace of such a thing.

Noreen has stated that he was asked questions during the senate hearing she says they both attended. They might be quite trivial, but I'm dying to see the transcript for myself and what he really said about himself in it.