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

[shadowraiths]

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.

Glad to see you here, LG!

And I agree. I ran into the same lack of info in the case of Joe Wiley Brown (who was running a trafficking operation on the west coast during the 1970s and early 1980s). Although he was eventually convicted I have no idea what his sentence was, whether he's been paroled, etcetera. Like GPB, JWB fell off the radar.

 

[shadowraiths]

I predicted this response.

To be sure, Roy. So-called skeptics who deride those who believe there may be something to the government cover-up conspiracy theories, while at the same time trotting out what are, for all practical purposes, conspiracy theories of similar proportions, is one of my pet peeves. Otherwise put, I am simply highlighting the fact that you repeatedly deride the Franklin coverup bit and yet you have, on a number of occasions, trotted out your own conspiracy theory. To wit:

What all of this implies, is that Martin's kidnapping could have had more to do with a calculated "demonstration" that children in the area were being victimized by an organized ring, than with providing targeted victims for such a ring.

But why would anyone want to go to such lengths to promote the idea that organized rings of pedophiles, controlling local police, the FBI, the JUdiciary, civic, state and federal government, and the wealthiest of businesspeople, were kidnapping and trafficking children?

Well, this is a central them of the whole Patriot Militia movement. Their ideology of a New World Order secretly controlling our society is exactly what I've described above. In the middle of a radio interview with John DeCamp, right after he has read some of the more explicit and horrifying claims made by Bonacci, the host says: "This is what the New World Order wants to do with your kids".

Yet, afaics, these are two sides of the same coin (i.e., Johnny was kidnapped by a government operated, paedophile ring versus Johnny was kidnapped by an underground anti-government faction). Now, I have not a problem with you proffering the "militia" angle, just as I have not a problem with people discussing the Franklin coverup bit. Even though I personally think both are fraught with a lot of inferrence that is more steeped in people's personal beliefs than fact. Still, "what I personally think" is nothing more than an opinion and I can be just as wrong as the next person. For this very reason, I fully support open and respectful discourse of the various theories put forth, and I challenge your repeated disrespectful comments to those who think the Franklin coverup has merit where this case is concerned.

 

[Roy Harrold]

To be sure, Roy. So-called skeptics who deride those who believe there may be something to the government cover-up conspiracy theories, while at the same time trotting out what are, for all practical purposes, conspiracy theories of similar proportions, is one of my pet peeves. Otherwise put, I am simply highlighting the fact that you repeatedly deride the Franklin coverup bit and yet you have, on a number of occasions, trotted out your own conspiracy theory. To wit:


Yet, afaics, these are two sides of the same coin (i.e., Johnny was kidnapped by a government operated, paedophile ring versus Johnny was kidnapped by an underground anti-government faction). Now, I have not a problem with you proffering the "militia" angle, just as I have not a problem with people discussing the Franklin coverup bit. Even though I personally think both are fraught with a lot of inferrence that is more steeped in people's personal beliefs than fact. Still, "what I personally think" is nothing more than an opinion and I can be just as wrong as the next person. For this very reason, I fully support open and respectful discourse of the various theories put forth, and I challenge your repeated disrespectful comments to those who think the Franklin coverup has merit where this case is concerned.

I don't have a theory or belief, about this case, that I feel any need to defend. I'm simply speculating about possibilities, while doing my best to avoid falsely accusing innocent people of committing criminal acts.

If you feel that any comments I've posted are intentionally disrespectful of other Websleuths members, please flag them to the moderators. If you quote them to me, and I agree that I was being disrespectful I will happily apologize to the person.

However, if someone feels personally offended because I have confronted or debunked ideas that they've presented, that's not my problem. Perhaps they shouldn't take things so personally.

I've certainly gone out of my way to be polite to you, personally.

I also have concerns, that our moderators are aware of, that extend beyond what is being posted on this site. I won't discuss them in the thread because that's a violation of the TOS. You are not inspiring me to share them with you privately, so I won't. But if you believe that you fully understand what's taking place here you are simply wrong about that.

 

[ladygator]

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.

Surely the FBI or LE looked into Bishop after Noreen told them about him. Or maybe they didn't believe her. The guy gave her what she calls a detailed map of the crime scene. Said he knew what happened to Johnny. The FBI should have been on him like white on rice. Todays standards would have called him a person of interest or someone that LE would want to talk to. And the media would be all over it.

Yet, the only information about him, in the public, is what Noreen said transpired between the two of them, and his arrest two decades later, which points out that he had ties to the Franklin coverup and Gosch.

Theres a whole lotta somethin missin in between, IMO.

 

[Roy Harrold]

Shadow - my "better half" has suggested that the phrasings:

"I predicted this response. I even considered adding a disclaimer, just for you, but I hoped that we were over this" and:

"Better?"

in one of my responses to you could be interpreted differently than I intended. It was intended to be apologetic, but I can see that it could be interpreted as mocking or sarcasm. If that was the impression you got, I certainly would apologize to you. If you wish, and the mods don't object, I'd happily edit it so that my intention is more clear.

 

[Roy Harrold]

Surely the FBI or LE looked into Bishop after Noreen told them about him. Or maybe they didn't believe her. The guy gave her what she calls a detailed map of the crime scene. Said he knew what happened to Johnny. The FBI should have been on him like white on rice. Todays standards would have called him a person of interest or someone that LE would want to talk to. And the media would be all over it.

Yet, the only information about him, in the public, is what Noreen said transpired between the two of them, and his arrest two decades later, which points out that he had ties to the Franklin coverup and Gosch.

Theres a whole lotta somethin missin in between, IMO.

Do we know what Noreen told the FBI about him, or when she discussed him with them? The impression I got from her own writings, was that she believed him to be what her told her he was - an investigator from the CIA - right up to the time she discovered he had been arrested for luring and abusing children. Perhaps she saw no reason to bring him to their attention prior to that? If you have more info about that I'd be interested in seeing it.

 

[Dr. Doogie]

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.

You can unroll your eyes, SW. I do not believe that I have shown "unbridled vitiolic contempt" toward Noreen at all. Do I really need to repost my praises for Noreen's work in improving the way LE investigates missing children cases?

What I have shown is a level of discernment that does not take everything that Noreen says as gospel truth. Her history has shown that she has been easily duped by anyone who dangles the carrot of confirmation of the sex ring theory, even when the smallest amount of examination exposes the flaws in that evidence.

Is Noreen a liar? No. Is she telling the truth? No. Is she gullible? Yes, in spades. Is that "unbridled vitriolic contempt"? Hell no!

BTW: Why are the credentials of Gunderson (FBI), DeCamp (military/CIA) and Rothstein (NYPD) offered up to bolster the FC believers' claims when the credentials of the people being accused here (Wadman/Police Chief, Aquino/Army officer, etc.) are completely dismissed as irrelevant or, worse, used to show how high up the conspiracy goes? If Col. Aquino is a whack job (and he is), then why is DeCamp's former military status used to crown him with the cloak of truth and righteousness? A little consistency here would be nice...

 

[Roy Harrold]

We have enough information to conclude that Noreen has been victimized by hoaxes at least three times:

- With the help of information from ladygator, we can be relatively certain that Paul Bishop misled Noreen about himself, his profession and background, and his interest in the case.

- We know that the Gannon=Gosch hoax was perpetrated originally by members of the Democratic Underground forums, although it was subsequently picked up and exploited by members of extreme-right movements for their own purposes.

- The photoshopped-in mark on the arm of a child in a photo sent to Noreen by Tim White (which he claims to have received from a "Jimmy Gibson"), which Shadow assures us is not a genuine brand in any case.

We can only speculate about the motivations for perpetrating each of these deceptions, but it seems unlikely that the perpetrators of any of them would have similar motivations to any of the others.

 

[shefner]

Shadow - my "better half" has suggested that the phrasings:

"I predicted this response. I even considered adding a disclaimer, just for you, but I hoped that we were over this" and:

"Better?"

in one of my responses to you could be interpreted differently than I intended. It was intended to be apologetic, but I can see that it could be interpreted as mocking or sarcasm. If that was the impression you got, I certainly would apologize to you. If you wish, and the mods don't object, I'd happily edit it so that my intention is more clear.

Roy, may we please meet your "better half." If there's a better half, that's the one I want to talk to....LOL (only kidding:crazy: )

Let me say that I have intentionally stayed away from posting my personal feelings about R. Wadman (just for Roy--because he has a point). I don't care to say anything hurtful if I can help it.....
I only ask for a little respect in return. It does hurt my feelings when people that are obviously intelligent start trotting out the name -calling (such as "tin-foil hat crowd" and "true believers" and "alien martian theorists").

Also Roy, it was hurtful what you said about Troy Boner....you don't want to take it back and you obviously believe it but regardless of what you personally believe, he did have a tough life. I have a drug-addicted relative and its very painful to deal with.....
I just happen to think Troy was involved in some of this abuse (even if he started out doing it for drugs or money, it was still abusive--how sad that no one tried to help him. Just take a look at the burns up and down his arms).

And Dr. Doogie, I did not list the conspiracy theorists' positions or credentials to put anyone else down....but to show that there are intelligent people on both sides. There is no need to trash anyone (which is why I have kept my mouth shut--or tried very hard to--when it comes to naming names).

I read this thread daily but feel I will be posting less in the coming days, because my opinions are not very well regarded here and I don't have much else worth saying...

 

[shadowraiths]

I read this thread daily but feel I will be posting less in the coming days, because my opinions are not very well regarded here and I don't have much else worth saying...

I really hope that will not be the case. I read your posts and really appreciate what you bring to this discussion.

That being said, I use the term "tin foil hat crowd" and while I do not consider yourself or others discussing this case to be even remotely in that realm (I can assure you, the people I'm thinking of are licensed professionals who are considered by some experts in MC/SRA), I can see how it would come across as insulting. So, I apologize for offending and will stop using that in future posts.

 

[ladygator]

Do we know what Noreen told the FBI about him, or when she discussed him with them? The impression I got from her own writings, was that she believed him to be what her told her he was - an investigator from the CIA - right up to the time she discovered he had been arrested for luring and abusing children. Perhaps she saw no reason to bring him to their attention prior to that? If you have more info about that I'd be interested in seeing it.

Hi Roy, I got ahead of myself and assumed she had been forthright with investigators back when Paul first showed up. I know as a parent myself, I would have told LE about some guy showing up at my house with the tales that Bishop had. I would have been leaping outta my skin thinking that this man could help find my Son.

Then again, is she's as guilable as I'm thinking she is, someone as smooth as Paul is could have easily manipulated her into thinking that she should only work with him. That if LE found out what he knew, Johnny might be in extreme danger.

If Paul has never been questioned about Johnny's disappearance, I'd say that now would be a great time for someone in LE to pay him a visit. It's easy enough to find him now days, being a registered SO and all.

 

[christine2448]

I really hope that will not be the case. I read your posts and really appreciate what you bring to this discussion.

Ditto.

 

[shefner]

Hi Roy, I got ahead of myself and assumed she had been forthright with investigators back when Paul first showed up. I know as a parent myself, I would have told LE about some guy showing up at my house with the tales that Bishop had. I would have been leaping outta my skin thinking that this man could help find my Son.

Then again, is she's as guilable as I'm thinking she is, someone as smooth as Paul is could have easily manipulated her into thinking that she should only work with him. That if LE found out what he knew, Johnny might be in extreme danger.

If Paul has never been questioned about Johnny's disappearance, I'd say that now would be a great time for someone in LE to pay him a visit. It's easy enough to find him now days, being a registered SO and all.

I think thats the point, ladygator. LE hasn't helped Noreen at all. Since the very beginning, Noreen and the police have been at odds over their handling of this situation. Noreen felt that LE did not respond quickly enough to Johnny's disappearance (they thought he was a run-away, so they waited before investigating). LE felt Noreen was trashing them publicly...
Supposedly, when Johnny called several times in one night, LE refused to trace the calls....things quickly spiralled down after this.

 

[shefner]

Thought this might help give some information regarding Noreen and Paul Bishop.....

http://www.total411.info/2005/02/franklin-cover-up-figure-arrested-on.html

 

[ladygator]

I think thats the point, ladygator. LE hasn't helped Noreen at all. Since the very beginning, Noreen and the police have been at odds over their handling of this situation. Noreen felt that LE did not respond quickly enough to Johnny's disappearance (they thought he was a run-away, so they waited before investigating). LE felt Noreen was trashing them publicly...
Supposedly, when Johnny called several times in one night, LE refused to trace the calls....things quickly spiralled down after this.

Yeah, I read an article that made me realize how different missing children cases were handled back then. There was still a long wait period, it was assumed that a child ran away and wasn't in danger. Noreen thought that all resources would be used to help search for Johnny but found out that she would have to come up with the cash to rent a helicopter and pilot for arial viewings.

I'm so glad that things have changed.

To be honest, this is a very confusing case. I tried about a month ago to sift through some articles and I was :waitasec: . With all the conspiracies this case has spawned and all its players, well....I don't know what to think of any of it, lol

 

[Roy Harrold]

I think thats the point, ladygator. LE hasn't helped Noreen at all. Since the very beginning, Noreen and the police have been at odds over their handling of this situation. Noreen felt that LE did not respond quickly enough to Johnny's disappearance (they thought he was a run-away, so they waited before investigating). LE felt Noreen was trashing them publicly...
Supposedly, when Johnny called several times in one night, LE refused to trace the calls....things quickly spiralled down after this.

Here's an example of the confusingly contradictory information apparently emanating from the Gosch's themselves.

What you've said here - "Supposedly, when Johnny called several times in one night, LE refused to trace the calls..."

seems supported by the article Shadow posted in #201, but is contradicted by information in the article posted in #203.

For the sake of clarity, this inconsistency is obviously not your fault - so my pointing it out is not a criticism of you.

I'm sorry that you find my attitude toward some people, who are not members of this forum, disrespectful or uncaring - but again, that's not really my problem. I can take responsibility for allegedly hurtful things I might say to or about other forum members, I can't take responsibility for members having hurt feelings over my opinions of people outside of this forum.

You are welcome to conclude that I'm hard-hearted or something, but frankly what you might think about me as a person is irrelevant. This isn't about me, or you - it's about discussion of issues related to the disappearance of Johnny Gosch.

 

[shadowraiths]

Here's an example of the confusingly contradictory information apparently emanating from the Gosch's themselves.

What you've said here - "Supposedly, when Johnny called several times in one night, LE refused to trace the calls..."

seems supported by the article Shadow posted in #201, but is contradicted by information in the article posted in #203.

I too, noticed these inconsistencies. Which is one reason I chose to post the scans as opposed to quoting from them (something about a picture & a thousand words...). Both Noreen & John Gosch figure in both articles, which imho, was important as well. While I am generally skeptical about pretty much everything the media prints, imho, this case has been so convoluted from the start, that I've been revisiting old news paper archives. To see if any sort of cohesive pattern emerges.

 

[Roy Harrold]

I too, noticed these inconsistencies. Which is one reason I chose to post the scans as opposed to quoting from them (something about a picture & a thousand words...). Both Noreen & John Gosch figure in both articles, which imho, was important as well. While I am generally skeptical about pretty much everything the media prints, imho, this case has been so convoluted from the start, that I've been revisiting old news paper archives. To see if any sort of cohesive pattern emerges.

I don't have access to those archives, so please do post more if you can. It is irrelevant to me if such material appears to support any particular view of the case at all, I'd just like to see what was said by whom 'back in the day'. And thanks again for what you have already provided in that vein.

 

[dorca the just]

It seems to me that I don’t think this was ever brought up in prior threads, so I’ll post it for consideration.
In interviews with Ted Gundersen, NG claimed to have had a tape of a conversation between herself and a guy warning of the impending abduction of another paperboy. She shopped it around to LE and the media, but no one paid her heed at the time. Then EM was abducted.
I wonder where the tape is now. As far as I know, a digital rendition was never released on her website for all and sundry to hear. I wonder why. I imagine, however, that if it ever existed at all, and I’m not saying whether it did or didn’t, it’s probably deteriorated with time over the past 24 years or so. It would boost NG’s credibility, however, if this tape could somehow be found. Or maybe it wouldn’t.

 

[Roy Harrold]

It seems to me that I don’t think this was ever brought up in prior threads, so I’ll post it for consideration.
In interviews with Ted Gundersen, NG claimed to have had a tape of a conversation between herself and a guy warning of the impending abduction of another paperboy. She shopped it around to LE and the media, but no one paid her heed at the time. Then EM was abducted.
I wonder where the tape is now. As far as I know, a digital rendition was never released on her website for all and sundry to hear. I wonder why. I imagine, however, that if it ever existed at all, and I’m not saying whether it did or didn’t, it’s probably deteriorated with time over the past 24 years or so. It would boost NG’s credibility, however, if this tape could somehow be found. Or maybe it wouldn’t.

Whether it affected NG's credibility or not, it would be very important evidence - either about the Martin kidnapping or about hoaxes being perpetrated against the families of victims.

I have tapes I made from the late 1970s that are fine. LBJ's whitehouse recordings are in great shape...