That's odd. From what she wrote in her book, I assumed that Johnny went alone because he wanted to, or maybe his dad told him that it was, in fact, okay, even though Noreen had said no. Here's what she wrote in the book (it starts on p. 2):
"Johnny jumped up saying 'I am going to bed, I have to do the paper route in the morning before we go to the lake.' Before saying goodnight to everyone he asked 'Can I do my paper route alone in the morning?' His dad said 'I guess it will be okay." I immediately said 'No, your dad will go with you as always. It is so dark at 6 a.m., and I don't want you on the street alone.'"
Then she says Johnny tells her he loves her and goes to bed, and that's the last she saw him.
She also talks about the phone call she says her husband received, that he answered the phone early that morning and said "Yes, alright, yes, alright, okay," then hung up. He told her it was a wrong number. They had been receiving hang up calls at the same time for the past four weeks, but apparently her husband had never spoken to the person on the other line before.
Armchair14, did you ask earlier in this thread about the mystery woman who was Noreen's double? I can't remember, but now that I have the book in front of me, Noreen speaks of this on p. 85. It was during the filming of the 20/20 episode (which I believe was pulled at the last minute per the FBI -- according to Noreen). Noreen went to meet John DeCamp, and he said it was nice to see her again. This confused Noreen, as she'd never met him before. But DeCamp assured her that they had met before when John Gosch Sr. and she (Noreen) went to meet Paul Bonacci in prison. The secretary then points out that the woman who had been known as Mrs. Gosch and Noreen Gosch were not the same woman (although I don't know why DeCamp wouldn't notice this right away, too). They then find out that there were many phone calls from a woman claiming to be Noreen getting information about Bonacci -- but it was the imposter.
On p. 86 Noreen says that says that other people met this imposter. She was able to get a name and investigate the woman, and she was able to obtain a photo, which is printed in the book.
Well, it really makes little difference. In the video interview Mrs. Gosch might simply have not mentioned the discussion with Johnny the previous night concerning his desire to go out alone on his route. In her mind, at least, the matter had been settled; thus, she doesn’t know why Johnny did go out alone that morning. I don’t see any inherent contradiction here.
In regard to her assertion that her husband had passed another woman off as her while apparently delving into Johnny’s case, what I asked was if Mr. Gosch ever made any public comment on the matter. If he does acknowledge this charge, then what was his explanation for doing such a thing?
She certainly does seem to hint that she suspects her ex-husband of complicity as the passage from her book that you quoted suggests and although everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence, no one is above suspicion. If we remove Mrs. G. herself from being a suspect due to her doggedly keeping the case alive—something that would hardly seem in her interest to do if she bears any guilt—then we are left with Mr. Gosch as being the only possible person who could have arranged the apparent “coincidence” of Johnny being abducted on the first and only day he ever went out alone.
Nevertheless, one has to assume that the police thoroughly investigated this matter and could not establish a motive. It would be rare for parents (especially ones in their station) to have a large life insurance policy on a kid and such would have immediately raised red flags for the police, something that he certainly would have been aware of beforehand. (Besides, there was no body. He would have had to wait seven years, I believe, before the boy could be declared legally dead and collect.) This leaves us with Mrs. G.’s conspiracy theory; but again, if Mr. G, had any complicity in the boy’s disappearance, one would think the police would have investigated for incoming money.
So what other motive could the man have had? He obviously wasn’t a “family annihilator.”
The case is very frustrating. Every theory seems to end with a dead end and little makes sense.
Johnny ran away? In the middle of his paper route?
Johnny was stalked by a highly organized sinister pedophilia ring? Of all the kids in the country, they stalk a twelve-year-old kid who is already 5’7” and 140 lbs.?
I read the chapter from Mrs. G.'s book that is available for free on her website. (By the way, she could sorely use the services of a free lance editor.) I think what is needed in this case is a book by a respected and objective investigative journalist. Mrs. G. rambles on in her book, making one seemingly bizarre accusation after another hurled at her local police and the F.B.I.. I would like to hear what if any response these authorities have to her claims. I am not accusing Mrs. G. of fabricating things. I just like to hear both sides of a story. For example, as sorry a figure as she paints him to be, why in the world would the erstwhile police chief of her town go around claiming Johnny had been adopted when he hadn’t been? Where would he have gotten such an idea? If he simply made it up, why would he think he could get away with such a story?
After apparently safely recovering some local rich kid kidnapped for ransom, why would the F.B.I. have gone over to Mrs. G.'s house at all let alone to "gloat" and make the outrageous statement she claims an agent did concerning the F.B.I.'s penchant for investigating more thoroughly and willingly when rich kids are abducted as opposed to working class ones?
It just goes on and on and it is difficult to know what to believe in this case
