Johnny Gosch update

by **Project Willow** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 5:31 pm

During the height of the backlash against sa survivors I willingly engaged in long debates with "witchhunters" and fmsf types. Inavariably they fell within two groups, and this was according to their own admissions. The first group was of course accused of pedophilia or child abuse. The second was abuse survivors who could not accept their own memories, and so were seeking to have them "disproved" by the denialist campaign. They were the most vitriolic in their attacks on other survivors. Although when it comes to ra/mc, the arena gets more crowded. Certainly those engaged in tax-funded mc programs will have more tricks and resources available to shut down credible adversaries. I think that Roy is much like those I encountered in the second group. As I said before, he protests too much. His emotional attacks on ra/mc survivors are very reminiscent of those put forth by survivor/fmsf advocates. I will not engage with him at length, just as I would not engage with anyone coming here to excuse pedophilia or to support the false memory lie.

by **FourthBase** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:06 pm

Fair enough, PW. I had a feeling Roy would shit and run, anyway.

by **biaothanatoi** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:37 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>As a matter of fact, I think it is highly probable that many really were victims of sexual abuse, physical abuse, neglect...as children. I think it is also likely that some of them were re-victimized and exploited by poorly trained, incompetent therapists in various ways <hr></blockquote> This "profile" is not supported by research. What you are presenting us with is the stock-standard media construction of the SRA victim, which has never accorded with the evidence. When ritual abuse survivors are sampled in research (see Sinason, Scott, Bentovim) the majority of them do not present with "recovered memories" - not only is their memory continuous, but many disclose ritual abuse while it is still occuring to them. Psychotherapy is not associated with memory recovery for those who do have traumatic amnesia, and for the very few who make contact with evangelical organisations, they do so after piecing their accounts together. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I'm very skeptical of the satanic cult and supernatural "spin" some SRA/MU claimants put on their experiences, but they may not be 'responsible' for that spin (they may have absorbed it, or been put in situations where caring was withdraw by therapists or church support people if they didn't go along with it).<hr></blockquote> In her groundbreaking book Trauma and Recovery, Judith Herman says "People who have survived atrocities often tell their stories in a highly emotional, contradictory, and fragmented manner which undermines their credibility and thereby gains serves the twin imperatives of truth-telling and secrecy." In short, Roy, of course the stories of ritual abuse survivors are difficult to believe. And of course they have absorbed strategies to explain their histories from the people around them. I think we have good grounds to challenge the "satanic cult" spin on RA because, for the most part, I think it misconstrues why perpetrators do what they do. However, that doesn't speak to the truth or falsity of their accounts. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>But, people are entitled to their beliefs and I won't call anyone a fraud or a liar unless I have evidence that they personally have engaged in deceptions. <hr></blockquote> That's a lie. We've seen you do exactly that elsewhere. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I prefer to focus on indisputable facts and concrete approaches to problems. Bonacci's allegations have not produced arrests, let alone convictions, in the disappearance of Johnny Gosch - for whatever reasons, they remain allegations and not facts. It is a fact however, that Bonacci confessed to participating in the abduction and to sexually assaulting the boy - so I can focus on the need for him to prove his repentance and take responsibility for that. <hr></blockquote> So, because this situation is ambiguous, you are deliberately narrowing your train of thought? Not only is this illogical, but you are being deceptive (to yourself, or to us, or to both). If you can only focus on the things you "know", then why are you not applying what you can "know" about Iran-Contra and the White House prostitution scandal that is linked to this case? Why is it that you have excised all the aspects of this case that might make you uncomfortable? The Franklin case is ambiguous and murky. Everyone here can accept that. Why can't you?

by **Dreams End** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:41 pm

godzorphan, There was a weird little side note to McMartin. Some months ago a story appeared in which one of the McMartin victims (but not one who testified) called up a writer and confessed that he'd made everything up. I searched the name as best I could..and there was someone by the same name who had died at age 21 from a Heroin overdose..timing was about right. So it's not clear if this person really even WAS who he said he was. The writer, a debunker of another such case, made any effort to verify that this person was who he said he was. The strangest part was that, online at least, it was in the LA Times TRAVEL section. It was picked up like a virus very very fast, however. It's not on the LA Times site anymore, but here is a link: <a href="http://www.freejesse.net/LATimes/Introduction.htm">www.freejesse.net/LATimes/Introduction.htm</a> This is just the first site that had a copy.....no idea what the site is. I also don't remember whether I searched under the guy's original name or the new name...the article just says "now known as" but doesn't explain the name change.

by **chiggerbit** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:46 pm

This "profile" is not supported by research. What you are presenting us with is the stock-standard media construction of the SRA victim, which has never accorded with the evidence. I agree, biao, but one exception does jump to mind: Dr. Felix Polk, who was killed by his wife Susan. I think her trial is still going on. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 9/11/06 4:47 pm

by **Roy Harrold** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 7:15 pm

I said I wouldn't engage in long debates, I didn't say I wouldn't talk to you. Dutroux? Well, you said it - bodies, rescued victims, evidence, convictions. Outreau, France - evidence, convictions. Russia - the successfully prosecuted Blue Orchid kidnapping, commercial pornography and child trafficking ring, among others. Evidence, (good old US Customs played a role in that), and convictions. The evidence leading to convictions in these cases was the standard hard physical evidence, credible victim testimony supported by physical evidence, and confessions. There was no "Barbara Hartwell" mind control evidence or "Lauren Stratford" satanic Illuminati world government evidence involved in convicting the perpetrators. If there is credible evidence that more people were involved in the crimes, by all means that should be investigated and followed up on. If members of the public have relevant information to contribute and discuss, that's great. But the kind of nakedly partisan, bigoted and/or frivolous speculations and slanders that have surrounded the Gosch-conspiracy theorizing are deeply offensive to me and I know many others share my feelings.

by **godzorphan** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:13 pm

Dreamsend, Things keep getting "curiouser" and "curiouser." Thanks for the article link. The reporter this person "confessed" to, Debbie Nathan, is someone I am VERY familiar with, someone who I spoke with at a ritual abuse trial I attended where I lived, someone who took what I told her and twisted nearly every word, and someone who "outed" me in a statewide paper when I had taken a different identity on a television show in order to protect my family from retaliation or harm. Amazing how people like her ALWAYS get the press, isn't it? I am the farthest thing from a conspiracy thinker you can imagine; but at some point, you just go, "Where did these people REALLY come from?" Thanks again.

by **godzorphan** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:17 pm

There was no "Barbara Hartwell" mind control evidence or "Lauren Stratford" satanic Illuminati world government evidence involved in convicting the perpetrators. Yeah, I've been waiting for you to drag Lauren into this. At least get your facts straight on her if you're going to defame the dead, pal. She didn't talk about "illumaniti world government evidence." Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=godzorphan@rigorousintuition>godzorphan</A> at: 9/11/06 6:19 pm

by **Dreams End** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:54 pm

But also in Dutroux were attempts to quash the investigation and disbelief of victims. The trial got further than it would have here, but it did not go cleanly or nearly untainted. Many of the high level perpetrators walk free and meanwhile we are asked to believe that a man on welfare could have four houses but NOT be selling children to the highest bidder. I'm sure the two have nothing to do with each other. As a side note, what seems to be going on in Belgium is that the nominally socialist government was pretty corrupted...implicated in a lot of this and the right is using it as an argument for...well really for the dissolution of Belgium itself. And yet, if I don't miss my guess, it is the right who is also running the pedo rings. I think this is the model that is followed elsewhere. I think maybe the reason the Washington Times was the place that outed the callboy stuff was that somebody was getting out of line. godzorphan, if I were rich I'd have flown to California the next day and found the guy and also done a little more work on the young man who died to see if someone assumed his identity. (I was wrong on one count...the version of the story I linked to has a pic of the recanting McMartin victim, so at least the photographer saw this person directly. I was pretty sure the interview was all by phone, though).

by **Roy Harrold** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:11 pm

Well, good luck! I hope you got whatever satisfaction you were looking for, and I wish you peace.

by **FranklinCase Admin** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:34 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> I prefer to focus on indisputable facts and concrete approaches to problems. Bonacci's allegations have not produced arrests, let alone convictions, in the disappearance of Johnny Gosch - for whatever reasons, they remain allegations and not facts. It is a fact however, that Bonacci confessed to participating in the abduction and to sexually assaulting the boy - so I can focus on the need for him to prove his repentance and take responsibility for that. So, because this situation is ambiguous, you are deliberately narrowing your train of thought? Not only is this illogical, but you are being deceptive (to yourself, or to us, or to both). If you can only focus on the things you "know", then why are you not applying what you can "know" about Iran-Contra and the White House prostitution scandal that is linked to this case? Why is it that you have excised all the aspects of this case that might make you uncomfortable? The Franklin case is ambiguous and murky. Everyone here can accept that. Why can't you?<hr></blockquote> Biaothanatoi, I agree certain aspects of the Franklin case are ambiguous and murky, however, certain elements are very concrete- <a href="http://www.franklincase.org/2-11-91.htm">Such as: the fact the Larry King the credit union's manager embezzled $39 Million.</a> <a href="http://www.franklincase.org/2-11-91.htm">Such as: Peter Citron (one of the child abusers) was sentenced to 3-8 years for sexually abusing children.</a> <a href="http://www.franklincase.org/7-24-90b.htm">Such as: Alan Baer (another one of the child abusers) fined for pandering (which were reduced charges after probably making a deal behind closed doors).</a> <a href="http://www.franklincase.org/7-12-90.htm">Such as: Gary Caradori, one of the Franklin investigators, dying in a suspicious plane crash, where various pieces of the plane came up missing.</a> I could go on, but I think the case speaks enough for itself. I would like to hear what you think about <a href="http://www.franklincase.org/silence.htm">Conspiracy of Silence</a>, especially the part where Troy Boner attempts to get Alisha Owen to recant her testimony. Granted the case is filled with distortions and disinformation, LaRouche has touched the thing, which can never be good, but to make such a broad comment, that the entire case is ambiguous and murky is just not true. I think you are the minority in this belief.

by **FourthBase** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:38 am

I think she meant the upper and outer reaches of the case?

by **Dreams End** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:50 am

I share bio's concern. You've got Larouche. And deCamp's "writing parter" is Anton Chaitkin...a Larouchite. You've got Ted Gunderson, who I just read was the one who first received/brought forward the Conspiracy of Silence video. I think, FCA, that researching the history of that particular video would be of great interest. I did a prelimary bit...contacted the BBC company that allegedly had made the thing or at least employees of had made it (sorry, I've forgotten details) and they said they'd never heard of it. Meanwhile, Colby is in the thing. While I'd say he'd never do that because they'd assassinate him, the fact that he was likely assassinated kinda makes that point a little weak, I admit. Still the bones of this story are real enough, and maybe Trine Day is finding more that can be corroborated. But there surely are a lot of games being played here. As for that particular scene...I remember it. I will tell you honestly that it was the thing that bothered me the most. It seemed staged. What was also interesting is how LITTLE content their was to the conversation. "What are you doing?" "What are YOU doing?" "Why are you lying" "I'm NOT lying" etc. The fact that Owens has served such a long sentence rather than plead to whatever they surely must have offered (admit you lied, we cut your sentence in half...they had to have offered something like that)..I don't know...she's the very first person I'd interview if I were involved in an investigation. I don't know if she can or will talk about it anymore... It's the most bizarre and frustrating thing. So many pieces are true but still the finished puzzle we think we understand is not, I think, a very good approximation of what's really going on.

by **biaothanatoi** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:04 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Granted the case is filled with distortions and disinformation, LaRouche has touched the thing, which can never be good, but to make such a broad comment, that the entire case is ambiguous and murky is just not true.<hr></blockquote> I'm not denying the overall chronology and framework of the case, FC. There are certain things one can "know" about Franklin, and things that one can reasonably deduce, but how we relate these plot points to one another is heavily contested - with many discordant voices and vested interests. To say that the case is "filled with distortions and disinformation", and then take me to task for describing it as "ambiguous and murky", seems like semantics to me!

by **FranklinCase Admin** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:08 am

Thanks for your clarification Fourthbase regarding Bio. Bio, sorry, if I misunderstood your assertions. Dreams End, as usual, you're always right on. CS does have a lot of misnomers, and it would be interesting to dig into things a bit further regarding it's actual production. If I get some free time I will defiantly see what I can find out and post a thread. Thanks again for your comments, I always enjoy your viewpoints on the FC.

Johnny Gosch update

Re: debunkers

Re: debunkers

Re: Johnny Gosch update

Re: Johnny Gosch update

Re: Johnny Gosch update

Re: debunkers

Re: Johnny Gosch update

Re: debunkers

Re: debunkers

Re: Johnny Gosch update

Re: Johnny Gosch update

Re: Johnny Gosch update

Re: Johnny Gosch update

Re: Johnny Gosch update

Re: Johnny Gosch update

Who is online